Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

I found something EVERY atheist should see.


LeiaBryant

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, florduh said:

 

Just for clarification, your particular flavor of theism is not exempt from criticism from anti theists, and that was how you framed it. The negative aspects of ALL theism has previously been noted and is not limited to what any individual may deem to be those other "harmful sects." They all do harm to some degree and the world would be better off without magical beliefs.

why are you limping me and is harmful with things that are actually dangerous. I'm not part of the problem I'm actually trying to make the world a better place why can't you just admit the antitheism is a step too far and settle for mere atheism? I'm not saying my kids are beyond criticism but I'm saying you have no reason to proselytize me like some fundamentalist and that's what antitheism is there no different than the fundamentalist Christians trying to shove their views down other people's throats as well. Mere atheism however only states that they don't believe there is a God. Not that all religions are harmful or  siding with me as an ally in the anti harm movement. Why does anyone want to take the position anti-theist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Two relevant points already mentioned, Leia.

 

"She's perfectly entitled to believe whatever she wants and I wholeheartedly respect her right and freedom to make her own path."

 

 

"All I will say is that this is not the Ex-Christian Spirituality section.  Having posted here, in the Rants and Replies section, she's opened herself up to the possibility of queries, questions and challenges from other members.  Clearly she's a highly intelligent and articulate person and can hold her own in this kind of discussion.  For the record, I'm not hostile to her or her beliefs.  Nor am I an anti-theist taking issue with her." 

 

You are safe and insulated from searching questions and difficult challenges in the Ex-Christian Spirituality section.

 

But you left that safe zone behind and initiated this thread in the Rants and Replies section, opening yourself up to these lines of inquiry.

 

If you weren't aware that you'd encounter these trials, then I'm sorry.  

 

The asking of difficult questions or the spotting of certain patterns of behaviour do not constitute a specific attack on you or your particular religion.

 

The same methods are also used in the Lion's Den, the Colosseum, General Christian Theological Issues and the Science vs Religion sections.

 

I repeat, I'm not hostile to you or your beliefs, but I do expect you to stand your ground when challenged.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

do you agree with me to antitheism is harmful just as much as fundamentalist Christians are? I support people's right to have atheism but antitheism takes a step further and proselytizes unbelief the way Christians proselytize their belief so anti-theist are no better than the fundamentalist Christians

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, LeiaBryant said:

Why does anyone want to take the position anti-theist?

How many times must I spell it out? You don't have to agree but you sure as hell should at least understand the position by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
2 hours ago, LeiaBryant said:

do you agree with me to antitheism is harmful just as much as fundamentalist Christians are?

 

No, it's not even close. When you can show anti-theists millennia of abuse, burnings and the stake, wars, people willing to kill each other over slight differences in interpretation of their holy texts, telling their fellow humans that they will burn for eternity for simply not accepting their position THEN we might be bale to have a conversation about whether anti theism is harmful. Until then trying to construe anti-theism as just as harmful as fundamentalist Christianity is either ignorant or dishonest. Take your pick.

 

Quote

I support people's right to have atheism but antitheism takes a step further and proselytizes unbelief the way Christians proselytize their belief so anti-theist are no better than the fundamentalist Christians

 

Really? I've had people come to my door trying to spread the 'good word', I've seen street preachers screaming about me going to hell, I've heard polytheists chant prayers in council meetings. Not once have I had an anti theist come to my door screaming at me to stop my religion, I haven't seen them in council meetings berating all the religious councilors. I've seen them protest, and try and draw attention to the harm that religion does, and that's quite within their rights.

 

Again, trying to construe anti-theism as just as harmful as fundamentalist Christianity is either ignorant or dishonest. Take your pick.

 

How many anti-theists do you know that want to legislate religion out of existence? Not many I'd warrant. Wanting to convince you that religion is harmful is different from wanting to force you to stop your religious practices.

 

2 hours ago, LeiaBryant said:

Why does anyone want to take the position anti-theist?

 

I think others have laid this out quite clearly - the anti theist holds the position that theistic belief is ultimately harmful. That's why they take that position.

 

The second point, which I think sdelsolray was hinting at, is that on this forum you've talked about putting curses on certain church buildings ( https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/83233-giving-yall-a-sneak-preview-of-the-binding-spell-i-am-working-on/ ). How is that not anti theist? You are just a selective anti-theist, like most theists are selective theists. Have you considered the harm to the people of that particular theistic religion, which you despise, if your spell actually works? If they cannot utilize their buildings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
3 hours ago, LeiaBryant said:

do you agree with me to antitheism is harmful just as much as fundamentalist Christians are? I support people's right to have atheism but antitheism takes a step further and proselytizes unbelief the way Christians proselytize their belief so anti-theist are no better than the fundamentalist Christians

 

Anti-theism is shared by some, but not all atheists. Because not all atheists are necessarily against god belief. Atheism is a lack of positive belief in the existence of gods. A personal lack of belief in the literal existence of such things as objectively true, and concrete facts. 

 

Anti-theism is being against something, going further than a passive lack of personal belief in gods. It can proselytize unbelief. And it is by definition the opposite to pro-god belief. These are both calls to action. 

 

But as far as rights go, don't you think that everyone has the right to either take passive or aggressive positions? I wouldn't argue that they don't have the right. Either the fundie christians or anti-theists opposing them. 

 

Whether or not it's smart is a different issue. I had a different experience than you. I was just as mad as you are at my fundie church. But unlike you, my first reaction was to go full left to anti-theism: 

 

anti-theism --- atheism --- pantheisms * panentheism --- polytheisms --- monotheism

 

I went from the far right, directly to the far left. I was dead against theism. Because I identified it as wrong, dishonest, and brainwash material. I skipped over all of the passive perspectives. Some 10 years later I began to back through the more passive perspectives. Like a lot of these atheistic kids out rioting for political reasons now, I felt like religion and theism ought to be torn down and burned. And that my church needed to be cut off at the foundation and toppled over. Because it's a lie, because it's dishonest. I was enraged and aggressive about tearing down the religious system. Politics, I didn't care about. My anger was focused at religion and theistic belief. 

 

Over time I layered in a lot more perspective with basic atheism and modern pantheistic philosophy. Fooled around with mind stuff. Looked at pansychism and found other things like conscious realism. And lost a lot of the anti-theistic edge that I had as a teen. But never took up god belief again. So I settled in as anti-theistic about some things still, atheist and more passive about others, and pantheistic about philosophical issues and metaphysics and things like that. I've found something of a balance between them all. A balance of all things to the left of the religious spectrum. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I've found something of a balance between them all. A balance of all things to the left of the religious spectrum. 

 

 

 

A balanced approach is good. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
1 hour ago, midniterider said:

A balanced approach is good. 

 

Is it though? I hear this terminology touched around a bit these days in all sorts of circles.

 

There is no "balance" between many of the things we discuss. We are either right or wrong, we just don't have enough information to absolutely conclude who is right and who is wrong.

 

Either gods exist or they don't

 

Either magic exists or it doesn't

 

You are either objectively right or wrong when you answer these questions, we just don't have absolute knowledge. It's not like saying "blue is a nice color" There is no objectivity here - whether blue is a nice color is merely a matter of opinion. However whether magic/gods are real is not a matter of opinion. It either is, or is not. (Law of non contradiction, and law of excluded middle)

 

However, you are probably meaning balanced approach as in, sure we might not agree, but we don't have to go rabid and either force someone to sit in a magic ritual and mutter spells, or conversely attack ritual goers with a shovel like a rabid dog. Right?

 

Ok Rabid Hard Atheist post over. :D :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

No, it's not even close. When you can show anti-theists millennia of abuse, burnings and the stake, wars, people willing to kill each other over slight differences in interpretation of their holy texts, telling their fellow humans that they will burn for eternity for simply not accepting their position THEN we might be bale to have a conversation about whether anti theism is harmful. Until then trying to construe anti-theism as just as harmful as fundamentalist Christianity is either ignorant or dishonest. Take your pick.

 

 

Really? I've had people come to my door trying to spread the 'good word', I've seen street preachers screaming about me going to hell, I've heard polytheists chant prayers in council meetings. Not once have I had an anti theist come to my door screaming at me to stop my religion, I haven't seen them in council meetings berating all the religious councilors. I've seen them protest, and try and draw attention to the harm that religion does, and that's quite within their rights.

 

Again, trying to construe anti-theism as just as harmful as fundamentalist Christianity is either ignorant or dishonest. Take your pick.

 

How many anti-theists do you know that want to legislate religion out of existence? Not many I'd warrant. Wanting to convince you that religion is harmful is different from wanting to force you to stop your religious practices.

 

 

I think others have laid this out quite clearly - the anti theist holds the position that theistic belief is ultimately harmful. That's why they take that position.

 

The second point, which I think sdelsolray was hinting at, is that on this forum you've talked about putting curses on certain church buildings ( https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/83233-giving-yall-a-sneak-preview-of-the-binding-spell-i-am-working-on/ ). How is that not anti theist? You are just a selective anti-theist, like most theists are selective theists. Have you considered the harm to the people of that particular theistic religion, which you despise, if your spell actually works? If they cannot utilize their buildings?

I'm not a selective anti-theist I'm anti harm there is a big difference. Also anti-theist like Stalin murdered how many people? My only interactions with anti-theist so far has be occasional online harassment. Also when my spell works it won't harm people just destroy property.  Are you seriously so dense that you think antiharm is the same as selective anti-theism? I really hope you understand or learn the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
44 minutes ago, LeiaBryant said:

I'm not a selective anti-theist I'm anti harm there is a big difference.

 

You are confusing your terms I think. The Anti-theist position is primarily about harm. You need to educate yourself. Let me google that for you: https://www.learnreligions.com/atheism-and-anti-theism-248322

 

I'll go so far as to quote the relevant section in case reading that link is too difficult for you:

Quote

Anti-theism requires more than either merely disbelieving in gods or even denying the existence of gods. Anti-theism requires a couple of specific and additional beliefs: first, that theism is harmful to the believer, harmful to society, harmful to politics, harmful, to culture, etc.; second, that theism can and should be countered in order to reduce the harm it causes. 

 

If you are going to make posts about a subject I suggest you actually learn what the position is that you wish to counter. 

 

I'm making the case that in regards to NIFB you are anti-theist. Now I'm not entirely sure what the problem would be as the position appears to be the same: You think their theistic beliefs cause harm, and you want to counter that harm by taking action against them.

 

44 minutes ago, LeiaBryant said:

Also anti-theist like Stalin murdered how many people?

 

Oh, you went there. It's like a Christian warbling on about Hitler being an atheist (News flash, he wasn't, read his book!). Most people killed by Stalin were not killed because he was an atheist, or because of any anti-theistic view he may have held, but because he was trying to force his communist ideology onto society at gun point. Theists have done horrible things through history BECAUSE they believed they had God on their side. Stalin on the other hand ended up murdering people because he was an authoritarian dictator with horrible ideology, NOT because he didn't believe in any Gods. Stalin believed that religion was hampering his efforts to build the perfect communist society. Thus his anti-theist position was based in relation to his communist ideology, not out of considering for the harm that religion does to society. If he had based it on the harm principle, he would have realized that killing millions of people to prevent harm was more harmful than the harm that killing them was trying to prevent. 

 

So even bringing up this attempt to conflate one bad actor with anti-theism, you've still failed to demonstrate that an anti-theism is just as harmful as fundamentalist Christianity.

 

44 minutes ago, LeiaBryant said:

My only interactions with anti-theist so far has be occasional online harassment.

 

Then I'd suggest you are seeking out the wrong people. Remembering that disagreement is not harassment. If you don't like people disagreeing with you, and you call that harassment then you shouldn't be engaging in conversation online (Or in RL). And that advice goes for anyone. If a person is being an abusive prick, then that's what they are - that says nothing about the position of anti-theism. (Just like being the sweetest person in the world doesn't make your god belief true.)

 

44 minutes ago, LeiaBryant said:

Also when my spell works it won't harm people just destroy property.

 

To quote you:   "Are you seriously so dense"... that you cannot conceive that destroying peoples churches that they cherish, and think of as holy consecrated ground will not cause them emotional, and possibly financial harm? You think harm only comes in the form of physical violence? Note I'm not disagreeing that NIFB is harmful, but pointing out how your beef with anti-theists maybe not be well thought out.

 

44 minutes ago, LeiaBryant said:

  Are you seriously so dense that you think antiharm is the same as selective anti-theism?

 

No, and I never said it was the same. I'm pointing out that anti-theists are also concerned about harm, and that you appear to be a selective anti-theist. 

 

Answer this question: Are you, or are you not against the NIFB because of the harm it causes?

 

If you answer you are against them (Which I presume from all your posts against them... and that spell) then since the NIFB believe in a particular theistic God who has revealed to them certain beliefs you don't agree with are you not therefore anti-theistic towards this harmful God?

 

If yes, doesn't that make you a selective anti-theist? 

 

Some things to think about.

 

Note, that anti-theism is not the same as atheism. You can be a theist and still be an anti-theist.

 

44 minutes ago, LeiaBryant said:

I really hope you understand or learn the difference.

 

SMH

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LeiaBryant said:

do you agree with me to antitheism is harmful just as much as fundamentalist Christians are? I support people's right to have atheism but antitheism takes a step further and proselytizes unbelief the way Christians proselytize their belief so anti-theist are no better than the fundamentalist Christians

 

Leia,

 

I can't comment with much authority on the harm that antitheism (allegedly) perpetrates because I'm not an antitheist.

 

For the record, I'm what's known as a 'soft' Atheist.  I take the null position of being sceptical of the claims made by theists, awaiting the time when they meet the burden of proof and present objective evidence for their beliefs.  Evidence that can be independently tested, checked and examined.

 

A 'hard' atheist goes further.  They actively deny the existence of the supernatural.  This puts them in direct conflict with theists.  As such, hard atheists can be thought of as antitheists.  They are anti.  But I am not anti.  Mine is the neutral position, midway between pro (theism) and anti (antitheism).

 

I hope that clarifies where I stand.

 

Because I am a sceptic in a forum that encourages and promotes scepticism and critical thinking, I am well within my rights to be sceptical towards you and your theistic beliefs.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
16 minutes ago, WalterP said:

As such, hard atheists can be thought of as antitheists. 

 

Disclaimer and point of order.

 

Disclaimer: Just in case anyone reading gets the wrong idea: I know I said "Hard Atheist Post Over" in my reply to Midnite, but that is not the hard atheist that Walter mentions above. It's an internal joke between those of us here who tend to look for empirical evidence to back up claims, and those who take a more open approach to claims. Someone made a post about it once referring to some of us as "hard atheists" so now any time I come on strong with the "show me the evidence" line I bring out the hard atheist bit. :D

 

Point of order: Even assuming a person is a "hard" atheist (Proper term here being strong vs weak atheist - you and I Walter are both weak atheists.) that does not mean they are anti-theists. A strong atheist is one that not only does not believe God exists, but that they believe that Gods do not exist. I, a weak atheist, will say "I don't believe your god exists", a strong atheist will say "your god does not exist". Saying "No Gods exist" is a claim that I think cannot meet it's burden of proof. In same cases you can make a strong case for a particular God not existing - say Yahweh, because the god as described is logically contradictory therefore cannot possibly exist. But making the case for no god existing is I think beyond our capacity to conclude convincingly. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I consider myself anti-theist to the extent I think god-beliefs are always potentially harmful, at least.  Whenever somebody says “God wants...” or “God told me...”, trouble is usually not far behind.  Certainly untold suffering has been caused through the past couple of millennia because of what God supposedly wants.  While I favor a non-theistic approach to life, I also have no illusions that a rise in atheism automatically makes for a better world.  In fact it could well be worse.  Human beings are both rational and irrational creatures, and the irrational side comes out even in the absence of any belief in deities.  We don’t have to look very far to see crazy beliefs flourishing, not just among the religious right but also among the irreligious left: from a rejection of medical science by religious conservatives to the fashionable denial of biological sex among the “progressive” left.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think antitheist is a term that is particularly well-defined. Christopher Hitchens used to use the term to refer to an atheist who is glad that there is no reason to think that gods exist. In this thread it seems to be being used to refer to people who are against theism. Even there, though, there is a lot of ambiguity. You can be against theism actively or passively. You can be against it in principle but for it in practice (or vice versa). For that matter, you can be against it in principle but just not care about it in practice. You can be against only certain forms of theism. Given all of this, I think it's a fairly useless term. Thankfully it isn't one which is in very wide use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Most of the witches burned in Salem were probably anti-theist by the end of the ordeal, I'd think.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "horse" has been beat to death, and is now being beat to a pulp!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Weezer said:

This "horse" has been beat to death, and is now being beat to a pulp!  

 

So, any further posts would put the horse pulp into the blender and puree it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Is it though? I hear this terminology touched around a bit these days in all sorts of circles.

 

There is no "balance" between many of the things we discuss. We are either right or wrong, we just don't have enough information to absolutely conclude who is right and who is wrong.

 

Either gods exist or they don't

 

Either magic exists or it doesn't

 

You are either objectively right or wrong when you answer these questions, we just don't have absolute knowledge. It's not like saying "blue is a nice color" There is no objectivity here - whether blue is a nice color is merely a matter of opinion. However whether magic/gods are real is not a matter of opinion. It either is, or is not. (Law of non contradiction, and law of excluded middle)

 

However, you are probably meaning balanced approach as in, sure we might not agree, but we don't have to go rabid and either force someone to sit in a magic ritual and mutter spells, or conversely attack ritual goers with a shovel like a rabid dog. Right?

 

Ok Rabid Hard Atheist post over. :D :P 

 

You're right, they either exist or they dont. But I dont have to choose one or the other. I can waffle back and forth or not make a decision about it....ever. But I do understand facts are facts regardless of whether I agree with them or not. 

 

Yes, you are correct, I meant whatever your religious perspective is , we can still be balanced as far as not being a dick when some stranger asks, "Do you know Jesus?" There's a wide variety of religious / non-religious people we are going to HAVE to deal with in life. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as magick is concerned, I must admit that some of my sigil / chaos magick workings certainly at least "seemed" to produce the desired results, but that apparent success does not make me "believe" in anything in particular. It is good to retain a skeptical mindset. Also, I do realize that science remains the best possible way to apprehend the world around us.

 

And don't get me started on the Abrahamic religions!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of anti-theists, I'm a long confirmed atheist but not an anti-theist. I do like it when people see the light concerning the non-validity of religions in general, but I believe in the principle of live and let live in that I think that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want as long as no one could ever be harmed by that belief, not even the persons themselves.

 

I have seen much good as well as harm caused by religious beliefs but I am not confrontational concerning assertions of belief, only when people are being directly hurt by such beliefs and I am present. But after explaining to them the error of their ways they want to fight, I will usually flee with haste (run :)).

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, pantheory said:

Speaking of anti-theists, I'm a long confirmed atheist but not an anti-theist. I do like it when people see the light concerning the non-validity of religions in general, but I believe in the principle of live and let live in that I think that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want as long as no one could ever be harmed by that belief, not even the persons themselves.

 

I have seen much good as well as harm caused by religious beliefs but I am not confrontational concerning assertions of belief, only when people are being directly hurt by such beliefs and I am present. But after explaining to them the error of their ways they want to fight, I will usually flee with haste (run :)).

 

Yes, "Live and let live" is a very good thing!

 

Plus, any "anti-theist" would do well to remember that, in most societies, they are outnumbered by a huge margin, and that many theists have volatile tempers. It is not the way I want it to be, but it is reality, for the moment.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

So, any further posts would put the horse pulp into the blender and puree it?

 

 

That's how I think I might eat my horse meat, cooked and purreed in liquor,  if I were not a  vegetarian :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Well this atheist came, he saw... and now we are talking about horse meat.

 

Does anybody have anything else they'd like to get off their chest regarding anti-theism or anti anti-theism?... or horse meat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...I do not recommend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

There's a deeper problem to consider with "anti" anything.

 

It's ultimately more constructive to be "pro" whatever it is you were trying to achieve by being "anti."

 

Some examples being, pro-skepticism, pro-evidence, or pro-freethinking. Rather than anti god belief. I had been thinking about that with all of this push lately getting in people's faces about joining the crowd and being "anti-racist." I keep seeing memes about how it's not good enough to be passively non-racist, you must be actively "anti-racist." Which frames the entire thing in a negative light from the get go. 

 

It seems that being "pro-all inclusive" is really where this should be headed. How about actively pro "all-inclusive" about everyone, regardless of race. The "anti" angle brings a type of militant angle to the table and a call to aggression. In some cases that may be what is needed. In some cases it probably isn't a lot of the time. 

 

Around here, for the most part, we are a "pro" calling people out on their bullshit type of community. "Pro" challenging every claim that's ever made, about just about anything. It's just a flipped around way of looking at things that I picked up on from eastern mysticism. If in your own mind you are "pro" something rather than "anti," it has a mental effect. Pro peace instead of anti-war. I don't know if I pulled that from Allan Watts or someone else, but it's been on my mind lately with all of this rioting and "anti" whatever the fuck that I see going on in the news all the time now. There's bullshit all over the place, mainly in the name of "anti" whatever the fuck. 

 

And that alone makes me want to step away from "anti-theism," too. I'd probably prefer to stick to "pro" atheism and leave it at that.......

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 

Around here, for the most part, we are a "pro" calling people out on their bullshit type of community. "Pro" challenging every claim that's ever made, about just about anything. It's just a flipped around way of looking at things that I picked up on from eastern mysticism. If in your own mind you are "pro" something rather than "anti," it has a mental effect. Pro peace instead of anti-war. I don't know if I pulled that from Allan Watts or someone else, but it's been on my mind lately with all of this rioting and "anti" whatever the fuck that I see going on in the news all the time now. There's bullshit all over the place, mainly in the name of "anti" whatever the fuck. 

 

And that alone makes me want to step away from "anti-theism," too. I'd probably prefer to stick to "pro" atheism and leave it at that.......

 

Anti is what you want to get rid of, has a limited purpose and narrow scope, while 'pro-something' is open ended and available for growth and new direction. 

 

"Anti-whatever-the-fuck" might make a cool t-shirt though. :)

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.