Some people feel that religious observance or institution is harmful in ways that belief in a god is not.  That's all.  There are religions that are not theistic.  A buddhist told me once that karma was the thing that raped people for smoking too many reds.  Sounds to me like religion fucks buddhists up, can't be theism screwing them up, because they don't believe in a god.

Quote:Some people feel that religious observance or institution is harmful in ways that belief in a god is not. 

Yes, and that is a particularly strange thing to "feel", since belief in god, is effectively religious belief. Why would anyone want to give it a pass is beyond me.

Nope belief in a god is not effectively religious belief.

Some religious people aren't even theists and some theists aren't even religious or are even deists.

So you can't even get my point that anti-theism is different to anti-religion because theism is different to religion

So.... you're smart?

(February 2, 2016 at 10:21 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 2, 2016 at 10:19 pm)Heat Wrote: The idea that one can be an anti-theist, or actively opposing theism, simply by lacking an active belief in god, is silly at best.

I think that if you disagree with religion on any issue at all or if you find it to be simply wrong, you are by necessity opposing it. The degree to which you might in fact be opposing it is irrelevant to whether or not you are against it.

You're confusing religion with theism. Theism is a personal view. Religion is an organizational structure.

I am anti-religion. I am not anti-theist until said theist gets in my face with it -- and then I am anti-that-theist.

Nuance isn't your strong point, we all know that already. There's no need to start another thread in order to display that obnoxious quality of yours.

EP, early in your last reply to me, you said,

Quote:I wouldn't qualify as an antitheist by their definitions either.
While we're at it, I wouldn't consider myself an atheist, if I went by some people's definitions of the word.

and then near the end of the reply, you said this to me:

Quote:you are contradicting yourself. You cannot both be an antitheist and not be one. You either are or you aren't. Make up your mind about it.

It is YOU who contradicts yourself.

First, you acknowledge that by others' definitions, you are not an atheist,
....implying that you indeed consider yourself as an Atheist....just not by someone else's definitions;

but then when I say that I consider myself an Anti-Theist,
you chastise me simply because I simultaneously acknowledge that I don't fit some people's definition of such.



Moving on:

You said, in response to my quote:

Quote:

Quote: Wrote:But if someone simply believes in God, without any dogmatic gobbledegoop attached to that belief,

then I don't give a shit.

Belief in God of that sort would be devoid of any meaning - inconceivable.

It is hardly inconceivable.  It's called Deism.  If you find it inconceivable then you are extremely limited.

I can easily conceive of it:

God might well exist...

...but that doesn't necessarily mean that ANY of the Religions of the world actually have ANYTHING to do with Him.

I'd actually be tickled pink to discover that was the case.

Quote:Excited Penguin said,

Quote: Wrote:To me, it is possible to have Faith in God, without Religion, at all;

It is not, in fact, possible to have faith in God without religion, since the two mean exactly the same
(with religion holding some further linguistic meaning, of course).

Quote: Wrote:and the two terms should certainly never be used interchangeably,

although they constantly are.

They certainly should(see above).

Are you trolling me???


I don't have any idea why you would say that God and Religion are the same thing,
as if it is an inflexible fact that you, personally, amongst all of humanity,
have proof of.

That's the entire problem with Religion, EP:

EACH Religion believes it IS synonymous with God,
and believes all the other religions of the world are wrong

...yet none of them can prove it.

I don't see why in the world you think it is "inconceivable" that there could be a God,
and have that God have absolutely zero do to with mankind's idiotic religions.

That's precisely what Deists DO believe.

And if I woke up tomorrow, to a world where every Religious nutjob had spontaneously converted his thinking over to Deism....I would be a happy camper.  I would never try to convince a Deist that God doesn't exist.

Deism essentially makes Religion into a defanged snake.

It's Faith without Dogma:

Simply believing that God exists...

...but rejecting all Holy Writs, all concept of Sin, Heaven or Hell, Afterlife, Saviours, Prophets, Commandments, Worship and Rituals, etc....as very likely being nothing more than arrogant, presumptuous, useless, manmade lies...

essentially making NO assumptions about God,
and assuming that most religions are man-made nonsense;

....but NOT automatically assuming that just because religion is nonsense,
that that necessarily means that God doesn't exist, and we simply don't know any of His actual parameters.


I'll finish responding a remaining point, and then I'm off to bed.

Quote:Excited Penguin said,

Quote: Wrote:For instance, the Oxford English Dictionary currently defines "faith" as follows (in part):

Quote: Wrote:1  Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof

2  A particular religion: [i]the Christian faith[/i]

....and I completely disagree with that definition; I find it dangerously inaccurate.

They also define religion thusly:

Quote: Wrote:1The belief in and worship of a superhumancontrolling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Therefore, their definitions of faith seem just fine to me, I can't see why you take issue with them.

I was going to cite their definition of Religion as being inadequate, too, actually.

Religion, by its very nature, is almost always an unproven belief STRUCTURE
specifically about God (or about some mooted Spiritual realm)
which is shared and in one way or another perpetuated by a group of people.

The problem with the dictionary's definition is:

- Mere "belief" does not always necessarily shared, nor is it always necessarily perpetuated;

- nor does every religious belief include a requirement of "worship".

It is a very bad definition, IMO.

(February 3, 2016 at 4:46 am)Rhythm Wrote: Some people feel that religious observance or institution is harmful in ways that belief in a god is not.  

Let me tackle this one more time. By religious observance or institution, surely, you mean religious observance and institution that doesn't involve a belief in God(s)? Because otherwise your statement doesn't make any sense.

(February 2, 2016 at 11:51 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 2, 2016 at 10:24 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Because you're trying to paint me as something I'm not in a public forum. It's being an asshole at best, straight up slanderous at worst.

I view you as an antitheist.

Opinions, assholes, etc etc.

(February 2, 2016 at 11:51 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: We clearly disagree about what the word even means, but I'm just pointing out that I still consider you one (and rightly so).

The emphasized passage hasn't been demonstrated.

(February 3, 2016 at 4:49 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You're confusing religion with theism.  Theism is a personal view.  Religion is an organizational structure.

I am anti-religion. I am not anti-theist until said theist gets in my face with it -- and then I am anti-that-theist.

Exactly right and exactly my point Thumpy. Permission to quote this repeatedly when I respond to EP about this seen as he seems to need to be told it a million times (and still doesn't get it)?

You have permission to quote me on anything too, BTW, but I doubt you'd need to you put it so much more concisely than I did!--That's why I wanna quote you.

Thumpy in response to EP Wrote:Nuance isn't your strong point, we all know that already.  There's no need to start another thread in order to display that obnoxious quality of yours.

But if he can't start threads to display his obnoxious qualities..... then he might as well just give up creating threa--oh wait that would be excellent. Good idea.

(February 3, 2016 at 4:49 am)Evie Wrote: Nope belief in a god is not effectively religious belief.

Some religious people aren't even theists and some theists aren't even religious or are even deists.

So you can't even get my point that anti-theism is different to anti-religion because theism is different to religion

So.... you're smart?

Theism is essentially religion.
Religion- the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Theism -belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

That doesn't mean religion describes only theism. Merely that theism is included in the meaning of the word religion.

(February 2, 2016 at 11:51 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: We clearly disagree about what the word even means, but I'm just pointing out that I still consider you one (and rightly so).

In other words you're self-righteous. But, of course, we already knew that