What do you understand by "religion" exactly?Well I sure don't hate it.
My question was about the reason why you consider yourself anti-theism but not anti-theism. Or maybe you don't? It is entirely possible that I misunderstood you.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What do you understand by "religion" exactly?Well I sure don't hate it.
I just go by the dictionary definition.What do you understand by "religion" exactly?
I am neither.My question was about the reason why you consider yourself anti-theism but not anti-theism. Or maybe you don't? It is entirely possible that I misunderstood you.
Not sure what you mean. Definitions of religion tend to specify a belief in a higher authority and a system of practice/dogma.That, unfortunately, works against you to the best of my understanding, Bunyip.
The lack of specificity makes those who ought to listen to your criticisms oblivious, among other troubles.
What is "theism"? Is that anything that isn't atheism? Seems to me that both of them, the theism and the atheism, are conditions of a philosophical nature which have no real absolute meanings yet are presented as a binary. Such a study of religion(s) may be counterintuitive, that people know by experiences.
For example, I see these words "new atheist", "militant atheist", "anti-theist", and appears to be some manner of differentiation. Are there sects or denominations of non-belief? Secularism, humanism, universalism?
Are there any atheists who are directly positive about who and what they are, or do all atheists define themselves by having their sense identities constructed by some remote or apostate form of other religions? Would it be fair to say that many are simply anti-Christian, for example? That being the case, is it still not the Christians with the power to define them from afar off?
That would explain a lot why there seems to be so many atheists, or anti-theists, hellbent on annoying the rest of us, I suppose. Attempting to do society a favor by mocking us and insulting us over the wires, as if somehow we are owners and operators of their world, but are they really truly oppressed? No. As far as I know it's been a long, long time since we've bound any to the iron maiden or given them to the rack, if we ever truly did, they just can't handle criticism very well when we're as skeptical of their beliefs as they are of ours. At least, that is from the perspective of this Christian, I don't necessarily speak for all Christians.
Not sure what you mean. Definitions of religion tend to specify a belief in a higher authority and a system of practice/dogma.
I was challenging the claim that some religions do not have a higher authority or dogma by simply pointing out that those are qualities that define religion.
Sure, but I guess then all of the terms here need to be defined. What then does anti-theism mean?'Religion' is not a neutral word describing supernatural belief systems, it is a word that grew out of the Christian tradition and society. Utilising it is problematic when discussing non-Christian belief systems
Sure, but I guess then all of the terms here need to be defined. What then does anti-theism mean?
THEISMS were the context. An example of a theistic religion please. A specific one.
Would that this were true that it was in fact recognized as a personal belief. Anytime I've suggested that atheism is a belief it is met with everything but an acknowledgement of this, saying it's simply a lack of belief in God, etc. I don't think it's an offense to recognize that atheism is a belief. I think it's helpful towards understanding the importance of multiple perspectives. And within that belief, you have just as much a spectrum of dogmatic to non-dogmatic approaches as you do in religion proper. It really is individuals and how they think, and the the voices they are attracted to that reflect that thinking.Most atheists today accept atheism as a personal belief and as scepticism of plausability religious cliams and continue to support secularism rather than think of atheism as a scientific fact with a moral imperative to shape society on the basis of atheism- possibility to the extent of compelling believers to give up their religious beliefs as false or illusionary.
It makes more sense to consider how much of an impact those categories make than just whether they exist in practice, IMO.
Not sure what you mean. Definitions of religion tend to specify a belief in a higher authority and a system of practice/dogma.
I was challenging the claim that some religions do not have a higher authority or dogma by simply pointing out that those are qualities that define religion.
Sure, but I guess then all of the terms here need to be defined. What then does anti-theism mean?
Possibly. I'm not sure how one would measure "impact" objectively, though, and given the complexity of what we're dealing with, I'm skeptical that it is possible to do so at all in a fashion that allows us to do anything other than make mere correlations of things. But I take it that it isn't so much that you deny the existence of non-dogmatic theisms or religions, but that you don't regard them as significant?
To clarify, non-dogmatic irreligion and dogmatic irreligion simply means something that isn't religion, but is either dogmatic or non-dogmatic respectively. Simple examples include dogmatic (or non-dogmatic) thinking about things like economics, politics, relationships, etc.
Well I would have thought the meaning of religion was equally simple and common. Sadly I think that reducing any discussion to pointless semantics is all too common here. It is common alternative to meaningful discourse.Anti-theism seems a fairly clear concept to me, but I must admit that it is far too often mistaken (intentionally or otherwise) for something quite unlike it.
It is simple disapproval of the use of and belief in concepts of deities.
You are mistaken, consult your dictionary."Tend to" as in politics tends to lead to corruption, on that much I would agree.
You are treating the disease as if it were the point.
Which is simply not at all the truth.
Well I asked for just one specific example, clearly you are not going to give one.Paganisms by the way are not necessarily theistic, you are mistaken. Given that you have not identified any of the 'Eastern religions', NRMs or LHP's you refer to I imagine you would have given an example if you had one.Several of the things on that list were theistic religions. Paganisms are theistic. Christianity is theistic. Unitarian Universalism is often (but not always) theistic. Several (but not all) Eastern religions are theistic. Many NRMs, including some LHPs, are theistic.