Why anti-theism is a joke.

[Storm]

puts it into perspective.

sometimes I see my self as anti theist after a day of debating with YEC in another forum. Even with a "gloves off" forum I still dont hate.

Hope they see it like that

Yeah, I wouldn't call you an anti-theist, but I can see how you'd sympathize with them after playing chess with pigeons.

 

[outhouse]

Yeah, I wouldn't call you an anti-theist, but I can see how you'd sympathize with them after playing chess with pigeons.

thanks for the insight

Im thankfull for the religious education ive recieved here in a very short time.

More then I learned in my 48 years, in what less then 6 months.

 

[gnomon]

The only way I can define anti-theism is an effort to force theists into changing beliefs or denigrating theists merely for believing.

A concept I cannot support.

It'd be like being anti-Bacon.

 

[Storm]

The only way I can define anti-theism is an effort to force theists into changing beliefs or denigrating theists merely for believing.

A concept I cannot support.

It'd be like being anti-bacon.

Exactly.

 

[Willamena]

It'd be like being anti-Bacon.

Kevin, Francis, or pork?

 

[Copernicus]

Thanks to outhouse for getting Storm to explain here rather terse comment that my paragraph was "stereotyping again".

Here. I for one don't consider all criticism of religion/ spirituality to be anti-theistic. Far from it.

Well, I think that that is the entire problem with this label "anti-theism". It can be construed as just opposition to religion in principle. In fact, Quagmire defined it that broadly to me, at first, but he later narrowed the meaning to refer to someone who aggressively or unfairly provokes religious people. My objection is to the label, because the label itself is used to cast aspersions on a group of people whose definition so easily shifts around. You call anti-theists "bigots"--sort of equivalent to "anti-semites"--but not all people generally opposed to theism are bigots.

Anti-theism is not rejection. Anti-theism is not criticism, even when harsh. Anti-theism is hatred.

That is a facile definition that suits your purposes. You seem to need to lump a certain group of people into this category. They are "haters" who just happen to be anti-religion, not just anybody. However, there are "haters" who just happen to be anti-atheism. One could similarly create a label for just those people who oppose atheism and are bigots. What should we call them? Anti-atheists? How about just "theists"? These labels can be very dangerous, because they are themselves targets for hatred.

Let's be clear. I object to the label, especially as used in this thread, because it seems designed solely to set up a group of people as targets for anger and hatred. Let's all "hate the haters". In the end, though, not everyone defines "anti-theists" as just bigots. That doesn't mean that they won't share your feelings against "anti-theists", however. Why don't we just have a clean label for anyone who spreads hatred regardless of whether they are theists or non-theists? Why do we have to have special labels for bigots of one stripe or another?

I don't consider ANY evangelism to be acceptable. Normal, sadly, but incredibly arrogant and intolerant.

Personally, I don't mind people proselytizing faith. It is natural for people to try to persuade others to adopt their own attitudes and beliefs. One can do that, however, and still maintain an attitude of tolerance towards other beliefs. It is a matter of what rules of engagement one adopts, not whether one decides to actually engage others. After all, you are also engaged in trying to persuade others of your opinion in these debate forums. Is that not also a type of evangelism?

Sadly, this is true. Bigoted believers are taken for granted. Bigoted non-believers are new and shocking. It's a double standard, but not everyone applies it. For me, a bigot is a bigot is a bigot.

But why is it necessary to single out bigots who just happen to oppose theism and give them a special label? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

In short, the fact that I label atheistic religious bigotry "anti-theism" does not mean I accept, much less condone bigotry from the other side. To assume that all, or even most believers do is the primary stereotype of the post in question.

I get your intentions here. I just don't think it reasonable to expect others to get them. Special labels for haters are dangerous things.

 

[Storm]

That is a facile definition that suits your purposes. You seem to need to lump a certain group of people into this category. They are "haters" who just happen to be anti-religion, not just anybody. However, there are "haters" who just happen to be anti-atheism. One could similarly create a label for just those people who oppose atheism and are bigots. What should we call them? Anti-atheists? How about just "theists"? These labels can be very dangerous, because they are themselves targets for hatred.

Let's be clear. I object to the label, especially as used in this thread, because it seems designed solely to set up a group of people as targets for anger and hatred. Let's all "hate the haters". In the end, though, not everyone defines "anti-theists" as just bigots. That doesn't mean that they won't share your feelings against "anti-theists", however. Why don't we just have a clean label for anyone who spreads hatred regardless of whether they are theists or non-theists? Why do we have to have special labels for bigots of one stripe or another?

Because that's how language works. We name things.

Do you have the same objection to the word "racist?"

Personally, I don't mind people proselytizing faith. It is natural for people to try to persuade others to adopt their own attitudes and beliefs. One can do that, however, and still maintain an attitude of tolerance towards other beliefs. It is a matter of what rules of engagement one adopts, not whether one decides to actually engage others. After all, you are also engaged in trying to persuade others of your opinion in these debate forums. Is that not also a type of evangelism?

You're right, I misspoke.

But why is it necessary to single out bigots who just happen to oppose theism and give them a special label? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

How in the world is it hypocritical? Again, is it hypocritical to designate racists?

I get your intentions here. I just don't think it reasonable to expect others to get them. Special labels for haters are dangerous things.

Why?

 

[Sunstone]

Religion, like sports, appeals to many sundry and various people who are most often united only by their common lack of good taste in religiosities.

Spirituality or mysticism is a much more tasteful religiosity than religion. It's like a difference between the Mona Lisa and a painting of Elvis Presley on a black velvet background. Or the difference between a decent microbrewed ale and a mass produced, watery American pilsner. Or like the difference between a mountain lion and a book about mountain lions. But in the end, no matter how you phrase it, the difference between mysticism and religion appears to be much a matter of taste.

Yet, we should not confuse the typical poor taste of merely religious people with poor morals, nor confuse the necessary reliance of religious folk on authority with authoritarianism. Despite their appalling taste in religiosity, religious folk are often very decent people, not the least immoral or authoritarian in their attitude.

 

[waitasec]

Anti-theism is hatred.

as theism is hatred

Um, no. Not really.

why would you say that...? theism uses hatred just as anti theism...
wouldn't you say?

 

[Storm]

why would you say that...? theism uses hatred just as anti theism...
wouldn't you say?

Sometimes, but not always. It's not a definitive trait.

 

[darkendless]

Its all to easy to claim anti-theism. As Mr. Kilgore Trout alluded to earlier its not so much anti-theism because its theism, its anti-faith as a result of what appears to be a lack of logic and locigal reasoning.

I don't think its easy not to offend people who clearly ignore easily demonstratable facts and instead maintain that God did it.

 

[Storm]

Its all to easy to claim anti-theism. As Mr. Kilgore Trout alluded to earlier its not so much anti-theism because its theism, its anti-faith as a result of what appears to be a lack of logic and locigal reasoning.

Huh?

I don't think its easy not to offend people who clearly ignore easily demonstratable facts and instead maintain that God did it.

And here we have yet another stereotype.

 

[darkendless]

Huh?

I'm not anti-theism but rather anti-"faith makes me ignore common sense." Many examples of it throughout this forum over the years and it takes a long time and a heck of a lot of circular reasoning for the type I refer to to conceed that they have nothing but faith to go by. Faith is ok as long as it doesn't get in the way of ones ability to learn. In a lot of cases I feel it does get in the way.

And here we have yet another stereotype.

Yeh whatever, I stand by this one. From experience people don't like being told that certain things within their sacred books are impossible without "goddidit" reasoning. Noah's Ark seems to be such a topic that backs up my stereotype. If you think its untrue back it up. Its easy to call stereotypes but I wouldn't say it unless i'd experienced it a lot. Just look through the religious debates section.

 

[Storm]

I'm not anti-theism but rather anti-"faith makes me ignore common sense." Many examples of it throughout this forum over the years and it takes a long time and a heck of a lot of circular reasoning for the type I refer to to conceed that they have nothing but faith to go by. Faith is ok as long as it doesn't get in the way of ones ability to learn. In a lot of cases I feel it does get in the way.

OK, that's fair and I agree.

Yeh whatever, I stand by this one. From experience people don't like being told that certain things within their sacred books are impossible without "goddidit" reasoning. Noah's Ark seems to be such a topic that backs up my stereotype. If you think its untrue back it up. Its easy to call stereotypes but I wouldn't say it unless i'd experienced it a lot. Just look through the religious debates section.

SOME people, yeah. Taking the worst examples and applying them to everyone within a category, especially such a wildly diverse category as theism, is the pinnacle of stereotyping.

 

[Rasheed Saeed]

Big bang:

 

[Storm]

Big bang:

Was there supposed to be a picture or something?

 

[darkendless]

SOME people, yeah. Taking the worst examples and applying them to everyone within a category, especially such a wildly diverse category as theism, is the pinnacle of stereotyping.

I find it rather picky that the difference between being "educated" and being "the new wave of offensive posters" is the difference between using the word some (or one of its synonyms.

Example:
- Theists can be ignorant.
- Some Theists can be ignorant.

The stereotype police would have a big whinge over the first sentence but would probably ignore the second.

Stereotypes are always going to be used, its often a difference of one word. It annoys me how people jump on the poster who "stereotypes" instead of letting them explain themsevles. Its really picky and unnecessary. The original post in itself makes a few stereotypes and signles out a single type of poster when other groups are the same if not worse.

 

[Storm]

I find it rather picky that the difference between being "educated" and being "the new wave of offensive posters" is the difference between using the word some (or one of its synonyms.

Example:
- Theists can be ignorant.
- Some Theists can be ignorant.

The stereotype police would have a big whinge over the first sentence but would probably ignore the second.

Stereotypes are always going to be used, its often a difference of one word. It annoys me how people jump on the poster who "stereotypes" instead of letting them explain themsevles. Its really picky and unnecessary. The original post in itself makes a few stereotypes and signles out a single type of poster when other groups are the same if not worse.

You didn't say "can be" or anything of the sort. You made a blanket statement.

And no, stereotypes are NOT "always going to be used." Anyone can avoid them with the barest hint of rationality.

Let's compare experiences. You said (paraphrasing) that you've encountered a lot of theists who rely on "Goddidit"s and ignore reason. Fair enough, I don't doubt that you have. I live in the ghetto, and I've encountered a lot of black people who are ignorant, lazy thugs. Would it or would it not be fair and reasonable for me to say "black people are ignorant, lazy thugs" with no qualifiers?

 

[darkendless]

You didn't say "can be" or anything of the sort. You made a blanket statement.

And no, stereotypes are NOT "always going to be used." Anyone can avoid them with the barest hint of rationality.

I did, silly me I should know better.

Stereotypes are usually used here for convenience. Not everyone has all day to think out their responses. Usually the stereotype police jump on a poster straight away without giving them a chance to justify themselves. Completely ruins most debates.

Let's compare experiences. You said (paraphrasing) that you've encountered a lot of theists who rely on "Goddidit"s and ignore reason. Fair enough, I don't doubt that you have. I live in the ghetto, and I've encountered a lot of black people who are ignorant, lazy thugs. Would it or would it not be fair and reasonable for me to say "black people are ignorant, lazy thugs" with no qualifiers?

Your example of black people is a clear stereotype, yes.

To make a different statement. I tend to tire of debating on this forum (in other threads) because people tend to be over-technical (especially with stereotypes and racism) and render a debate useless. Either that or as soon as you attack anything to do with faith you're stereotpying and being unreasonable because its an assumed position that faith is to be respected (even when making general comments). Its all to easy to point out that there is always a variance rather than actually having a debate. Claiming a stereotype is such a painful diversionary tactic as is claiming racism.

 

[Storm]

I did, silly me I should know better.

Yeah, you should.

Stereotypes are usually used here for convenience. Not everyone has all day to think out their responses. Usually the stereotype police jump on a poster straight away without giving them a chance to justify themselves. Completely ruins most debates.

It doesn't take all day. What a lame ******* excuse.

Your example of black people is a clear stereotype, yes.

And what's the difference between my hypothetical example and your actual statement?

To make a different statement. I tend to tire of debating on this forum (in other threads) because people tend to be over-technical (especially with stereotypes and racism) and render a debate useless. Either that or as soon as you attack anything to do with faith you're stereotpying and being unreasonable because its an assumed position that faith is to be respected (even when making general comments). Its all to easy to point out that there is always a variance rather than actually having a debate. Claiming a stereotype is such a painful diversionary tactic as is claiming racism.

There's a very simple, easy solution to your problem: stop doing it. Seriously, put 2 seconds of thought into what you just said BEFORE you hit the post button.

:slap: