• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The dreaded "A" word

VanillaCone said:
That may be true, but it seems like their defining, common characteristic is that they think religion is bad for people. That's a step beyond mere non-belief.
Click to expand...

That kinda the point: many of the most prominent "atheists" are actually anti-theists who are attempting to repackage the anti-theism as "atheism", while insisting that their anti-theism follows strictly from the lack of belief in the supernatural.
 
mijopaalmc said:
That kinda the point: many of the most prominent "atheists" are actually anti-theists who are attempting to repackage the anti-theism as "atheism", while insisting that their anti-theism follows strictly from the lack of belief in the supernatural.
Click to expand...
I guess they are both atheists and anti-theists. But it's the anti-theism part that seems to motivate them to write books and give lectures and such. Otherwise, they'd probably just keep their opinions to themselves.
 
VanillaCone said:
I guess they are both atheists and anti-theists. But it's the anti-theism part that seems to motivate them to write books and give lectures and such. Otherwise, they'd probably just keep their opinions to themselves.
Click to expand...
It's hard to be an anti-theist and at the same time not to be an atheists. Even though "certain folks" can accomplish "certain things." :D
 
epix said:
It's hard to be an anti-theist and at the same time not to be an atheists. Even though "certain folks" can accomplish "certain things." :D
Click to expand...
It's certainly possible to believe in God and yet be against organized religion. There are lots of people like that. Dawkins et al are not that type, obviously.
 
VanillaCone said:
It's certainly possible to believe in God and yet be against organized religion. There are lots of people like that. Dawkins et al are not that type, obviously.
Click to expand...
That's truly right and wrong. Dawkins doesn't believe in God, but if he has issues with religion, one must conclude that the issue concerns organized religion as well.

I think mijopaalmc was pretty clear on the subject of atheism and anti-atheism. Even though the latter is a subset of atheism, the distinction is has to be realized whenever atheism is propagated. That's the legacy of Richard Dawkins.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Anti-clericalism/anti-religion is not the same thing as anti-theism.
Click to expand...


And I think you'll find that Hitchens, Dawkins, et al. are much more vocally anti-religion than anti-theism.

And I happen to agree with them as well.

"Civilization will not attain perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest."
 
Last edited:
AdMan said:
And I think you'll find that Hitchens, Dawkins, et al. are much more vocally anti-religion than anti-theism.

And I happen to agree with them as well.

"Civilization will not attain perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest."
Click to expand...

It's sort of like saying theism is the drug, and organized religion is the drug pusher. It makes sense to focus your efforts against the drug pusher. It's not going to stop everyone from getting high, but it's where you can do the most good.
 
AdMan said:
And I think you'll find that Hitchens, Dawkins, et al. are much more vocally anti-religion than anti-theism.

And I happen to agree with them as well.

"Civilization will not attain perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest."
Click to expand...

Hitler was dreaming of a perfect race that would make a perfect nation out of the Third Reich. That wouldn't be possible until the last drop of Cyclon B falls on the last Jew.

Aah, those perfection seekers. They never learn. :rolleyes:
 
epix said:
Hitler was dreaming of a perfect race that would make a perfect nation out of the Third Reich. That wouldn't be possible until the last drop of Cyclon B falls on the last Jew.

Aah, those perfection seekers. They never learn. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


You win the Godwin for this one. Congrats. :rolleyes:
 
mijopaalmc said:
That kinda the point: many of the most prominent "atheists" are actually anti-theists who are attempting to repackage the anti-theism as "atheism", while insisting that their anti-theism follows strictly from the lack of belief in the supernatural.
Click to expand...

Anti-theism springs from the obnoxious behavior of some theists.
 
epix said:
Hitler was dreaming of a perfect race that would make a perfect nation out of the Third Reich. That wouldn't be possible until the last drop of Cyclon B falls on the last Jew.

Aah, those perfection seekers. They never learn. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


It's well that a man's reach exceeds his grasp, else what's a heaven for.
 
tsig said:
Anti-theism springs from the obnoxious behavior of some theists.
Click to expand...

Just like anti-Semitism springs from the obnoxious behaviour of some Jews?

You do realize that you are hiding several premises here in order to justify opposition to all religion by the behavior of some theists?
 
I am boggled, continuously, by people who think that telling other people that them not belonging to the same club as them is a character flaw. They then go on to say that everyone who isn't in their club is automatically in another club, defined entirely by the members of the first club.

It's a bit like every member of a football club saying that everyone who isn't in a football club is automatically in a fishing club, and that they, the members of the football club, have the right to determine the characteristics of the "fishing" club simply on the evidence of the writings of leading writers about angling.

My overall reaction to the furrowed-browed theists, fretting endlessly about non-theists, is mind your own damned business. You've got enough to worry about without worrying about us.
 
MikeG said:
I am boggled, continuously, by people who think that telling other people that them not belonging to the same club as them is a character flaw. They then go on to say that everyone who isn't in their club is automatically in another club, defined entirely by the members of the first club.

It's a bit like every member of a football club saying that everyone who isn't in a football club is automatically in a fishing club, and that they, the members of the football club, have the right to determine the characteristics of the "fishing" club simply on the evidence of the writings of leading writers about angling.

My overall reaction to the furrowed-browed theists, fretting endlessly about non-theists, is mind your own damned business. You've got enough to worry about without worrying about us.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should look up the origin of the term faitheist. The use of label to denigrate others who share one's lack of belief (and are therefore atheists by the definition of atheist one has chosen to promote) and imply that they are not Twoo Atheists™ because they have a "belief in belief" and are therefore somehow "betraying" the ideals of atheism demonstrates that the "atheists" who are inventing these label are literally redefining their "atheism" to include positive beliefs.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Haven't I seen you defending the assertion that religious belief, is by definition, delusional?

This seems to be one of the pot-kettle/mote-beam moments on your part.
Click to expand...
No.

My position is that religious beliefs - as well as many other things - are complex and can not be described or labelled in black-and-white terms (what you seem to be trying to do with my actual opinion). Religious beliefs are a blend of cultural heritage with diverse types of experiences the individual has across hers/his life. This may or may not include delusions, with several levels of importance and intensity. As a result, some theists will be extremely nice individuals while some others will become monsters. Most will be the average human beings we all are.

This put, another position I hold is that many religious persons(*) have a very low grade of tolerance when it comes down to the questioning -be it direct or not- of their beliefs. These persons also tend to believe they have the right to impose their views over the rest of society.

Its also my personal experience (yes, its just an anecdote, so it must be treated just like that) that many religious individuals consider those with different beliefs (or no belief at all) as lesser humans somehow. Again, this comes in different shades. Some consider the unbelivers as just ignorant of some deep sophisticated theologic argument, others as evil people whose souls are the properties of the devil, others as people who need to be converted (willingly or not), some others as people who hate god for whatever reason and many, many, many and many other views.

Personally I think I have the right to question and discuss whatever topic I want - politics, movies, religion, sports, etc. Religion, being part of my cultural environment, being something imposed over myself and my kid, something which affects my freedom and well-being, is thus an important topic.

To sum, it is my opinion that questioning religion and its influence within society is valid and necessary. The best way to do this is to focus the discussion at religion's core -god. If god is not real, then, why should I follow your commands, Mr. Priest/Pastor/Mullah?Rabbi? Many atheists (OK, also agnostics, ignostics, whatever) are doing this here and elsewhere, using several different approaches, some milder, some more antagonistic. If religious leaders were not constantly trying to shove their god-inspired rules down everyone else's throats, these discussions, as well as human society would be different. Its a reaction to religious leaders' retrograde and authoritary ways. Since questioning god's existence hits the core of theism -god- it may hurt theists.

(*) I must say, however, I believe (note the word "believe") one too many religious leader actually don't give a rat's ass to god. They just use religion as a tool to gain and/or mantain power.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Perhaps you should look up the origin of the term faitheist. The use of label to denigrate others who share one's lack of belief (and are therefore atheists by the definition of atheist one has chosen to promote) and imply that they are not Twoo Atheists™ because they have a "belief in belief" and are therefore somehow "betraying" the ideals of atheism demonstrates that the "atheists" who are inventing these label are literally redefining their "atheism" to include positive beliefs.
Click to expand...

I notice that some theists spend a lot of time talking about atheists it's almost as if they somehow believe in atheism but haven't found the right coat to wear yet.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Still there is not shortage of posters who routinely state that religious believers are delusional and then turn around and complain that religious believers insist that there is something wrong with those who don't believe in God.
Click to expand...
Same can be said for people that believe in the religion of Atheism.

I'm my experience, Atheists are far more vocal and protective of their religion.

For the record, I'm a "couldn't give a **** less", Funny people respect me for this and don't care when I say "thank God" with no implied meaning. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom