(February 4, 2016 at 9:28 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I'm done responding to these kinds of posts, because it always backfires. If you guys can talk about the topic without insulting me or getting personal in any way at all, I'll reply. Otherwise, let's see how far this can go before someone does something about it. Because it's getting simply ridiculous.

And same holds true for other threads. No matter who it is, if you're going to get personal with me because you don't like what I have to say on the topic, don't expect me ever to engage you.

Oh, sure, and making a rude, personal comment to Evie for the sole purpose of being irritating is an example of you staying on topic? Hypocrite.

Catholic_Lady Wrote:what does it mean to actively oppose though? maybe just "dislike" rather than "hate?"

Active opposition to something means getting off your ass and doing something about it. I'm a somewhat active secularist, but when it comes to getting the motto on our money changed back to E Pluribus Unum (or the motto on the first official US coin, which I like even better, 'Mind Your Business'), I'm just a web warrior. I don't send money, I don't show up to protests, I just joined the original motto project on FB and argue about it in comment sections. So I wouldn't say I actively oppose the current currency motto.

What I'm saying is that I think it means how much effort you put into opposing the thing you oppose. I merely oppose having In God we Trust as the currency motto. I wouldn't say I actively oppose it.

So an atheist doesn't believe in God, and may think you shouldn't believe in God either. Someone who thinks you shouldn't believe in God and goes out of their way to hasten the day when you don't is an antitheist. Hitchens wrote books and spoke out publicly, he is the quintessential example of an antitheist. Not that you have to be famous, or that your internet activities can't rise to the level of antitheism, but a purposeful investment of time and effort would seem to be necessary before you can claim to actively oppose something.

In our society, just opening your mouth is opposition.  It erodes the already weathered foundations of religious affrontery.

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

Catholic_Lady Wrote:Lol. I think what Evie said makes sense. Since atheism is merely the absence of theism, "preaching" it would just consist of attacking theism. (and I use preaching for lack of a better term). And it's not that you, MH, don't agree with what they are saying, it's just that you don't agree with it being preached.

I detest evangelism of any stripe, including antitheist evangelism.

Teach critical thinking and let people reach their own conclusions. I think it tends to lead to atheism, but I prefer theists with good critical thinking skills to atheists who lack them.

(February 4, 2016 at 10:44 am)Rhythm Wrote: In our society, just opening your mouth is opposition.  It erodes the already weathered foundations of religious affrontery.

Yup. And it also demonstrates that "God" ain't gonna come down and do shit about it either.

Believers already knew that...they've committed innumerable sins and blasphemies throughout their lives and yet they remian.  You're really just letting them know that you know...that they know...lol. Shattering the illusion of credibility.

Excited Penguin Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:ac·tive
ˈaktiv/
adjective
adjective: active
1.
(of a person) engaging or ready to engage in physically energetic pursuits.
"I needed to change my lifestyle and become more active"

2.
doing things for an organization, cause, or campaign, rather than simply giving it one's support.
"she was an active member of the church"

Definition 2 would be the one that applies to antitheism.

Every single person on these forums who identifies as an atheist and ever talked shit about theism or religion, whether they realized they were talking about the former or not, were effectively being antitheists. This is a public forum. You talk shit about God or any theistic religion, you're an antitheist. If you don't want to be one, stop talking shit about God. You can be secular without criticizing a theistic religion. Christianity is theistic. Countless times I've seen people who now identify as non-antitheists criticize Christianity. What more is there to say? This is childish and ludicrous.

I've even been told I'm slandering people for calling them antitheists. Would I be slandering him if I called him a human being and he didn't agree with it? No, because that's what he is. It's the same with antitheism, I'll bet, even though I don't remember ever seeing him criticizing God or Christianity in any way, I'll bet anything he did do it.

I appreciate you choosing to unblock me, EP.

If you don't think being antitheist requires active opposition to theism; you shouldn't hang your hat on that definition. Merely disagreeing with something or disliking something, or even talking smack about something does not rise to the level of 'active opposition'.

I don't care about wanting or not wanting to be an antitheist. I care about the labels I choose to attach to my identity being accurate. If criticizing even one version of God or one religion, ever, makes you an antitheist, then there are definitely hundreds of millions of theists who are antitheists. I've heard Muslims criticize Christianity and Christians criticize Islam. By the standards you're using, that would make them antitheists. Remember, the definition to which you linked doesn't say anything about the person who actively opposes theism being an atheist. The definition of antitheism makes more sense if antitheism means active opposition to theism in any form. And that would mean that atheists can actively oppose some forms of theistic religion without being antitheists if there are forms of theistic religion they are not against. For instance, I can't think of a single problem I have with liberal Quakers. The WBC is a different matter. I think Ahmadiyya Muslims are kind of great, but I think Daesh sucks, especially their clerics. I've got no beef with deists, though I'm happy to argue with them for the sport of it. Are you sure I'm an antitheist?

If someone doesn't want to be called a human being and you kept arguing with them about it, at some point, you're the dick. It's no skin off your nose if someone doesn't want to be called a human being. People are allowed to be wrong without being hounded until they admit it. And some days, I can see why someone might take 'human being' as insulting.

(February 4, 2016 at 7:58 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I stay on topic and discuss the issue. You talk about me. You complain about me. You insult me. You mock me. You provoke me.

And I'm not even allowed to respond in kind anymore.

If any of this were remotely true, you'd have a point. It isnt. You don't.

Excited Penguin Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:Is there a word for a person who tells people what their position really is?

There are words - an intelligent person who is fluent in English.

I apprehend that you are an Isis supporter because you love Allah and Mohammed so much and think the caliphate must be established by any means necessary. Apparently I can now say that I am an intelligent person who is fluent in English.

Excited Penguin Wrote:

Catholic_Lady Wrote:The thing is though that a lot of people say they hate it when others try to shove their beliefs down their throats. It would be inconsistent to say that, and then to turn around and do the same thing with your own ideals.

That I agree with. I would never say I hate such a thing though. That's the price we have to pay for free speech, and it's a fair one.

Being for free speech doesn't mean you can't hate the way some people use it.