So much wrong with this one. Where to start?

(1) Likely a troll, though the rare antitheist can be this bad in exceptional cases. It's worryingly literate for a troll.

(2) Killing people bad. What part of that do you need explained?

(3) Thought police bad. What part of enforced belief seems in any way wholesome? Atheism itself isn't a belief, but you've taken it well beyond not believing in a god to a full-fledged, frothing-at-the-mouth political ideology, so what you're talking about clearly is a belief.

(4) Suggesting that Your Way is The Right Way is pure hubris. We typically only see this amongst the devout. This guy's a True Believer whatever he is. May all that's unholy preserve us from a devout antitheist.

(5) The church is busy dying of apathy without anybody devolving into Hitleresque monstrosity. Let them expire quietly, because turning into an abomination might just give religion the sort of common enemy that they need to survive.

(June 25, 2025 at 9:36 pm)NegievProsnasol Wrote: Atheism is not a belief. But a lack of belief. Calling people "real" atheists makes it no better than the religious. Look how many people say that certain people are not "real" Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu's, and other beliefs.

I understand that we define atheism as a lack of belief. 

But people can lie about this. Suppose some religious person wanted to stir up trouble on the Internet, he could pretend to lack belief, when in fact he does believe in God. That person would not be a real atheist. Such a liar would not make atheism "no better than the religious." It just means he's lying. 

Quote:There is no direct, observable, or testable evidence that proves the existence of a god or creator.

Despite centuries of searching, we have not found verifiable signs of divine intervention or supernatural activity that cannot be explained by natural phenomena.

Naturalistic explanations have been successful in explaining the origins and workings of the universe, life, and consciousness.

Evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life without invoking a designer. Cosmology offers models of universe formation without requiring a creator.

God of the Gaps. Invoking God to explain the unknown has historically been replaced by natural explanations as knowledge progresses.

Some theists calling the universe "God" is unnecessary and risks mystification. We should embrace the clarity that the universe is awe-inspiring enough without inventing a divine label for it. 

I'm pretty sure that all the regular posters on this forum would agree with you on almost all of this. So this part of your argument is uncontroversial, at least here. 

(Many people would disagree with you that naturalistic explanations have been successful in explaining the origins and workings of consciousness. I think we haven't managed that yet. But you are correct that this is no reason for  a God of the gaps argument.)

Quote:Reason and evidence, not philosophy alone, guide us to truth.

I'm not quite sure why you bring up philosophy here. That seems unrelated to your anti-religion argument. After all, religion and philosophy are not identical, and there are plenty of philosophers who have no religious belief. 

Moreover, no philosopher I'm aware of would claim that philosophy alone guides us to truth. Science does what science does, and philosophy does other things. For example, philosophy covers ethics and aesthetics, because science doesn't deal with these. 

In fact the argument you are making on this forum, that religious belief has no place in a good society, is a philosophical argument. There is no scientific (empirical, repeatable, objective) test you can do to demonstrate that it's bad to believe false things if those false things make you happy. But you certainly can make an ethical argument that it's always bad to believe false things. So that's philosophy.

I understand that you've been banned for now, but I thought you deserved a reasonable reply to your post. I'll look out for your response, if you make it back after the banishment period.

(June 25, 2025 at 9:36 pm)NegievProsnasol Wrote: Religion and Spiritualism must be forgotten and not allowed to flourish in place of objective reality.

Such beliefs seem to be rooted in human nature, and you can't ban human nature. So it's an educational problem rather than a political problem.

People learn at their own rates, and resist being forced into anything. Plenty of information is available if people are interested.

Personally I am more concerned that people learn about climate change in the short run, but that is also a problem based on human nature.

I advocate for a magic spell that would make new arrivals to the forum read, understand, and follow the Rules.

Boru

^I'll take two.

Boru

(June 26, 2025 at 1:02 am)Paleophyte Wrote: though the rare antitheist can be this bad in exceptional cases.

May all that's unholy preserve us from a devout antitheist.

snipped for brevity

Antitheism doesn't do that.  I think that theism is a moral evil.  You'd wear out your trigger finger eradicating everyone who does or affirms moral evil, though, and you would at the end have to off yourself as well.

(June 26, 2025 at 7:43 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(June 26, 2025 at 1:02 am)Paleophyte Wrote: though the rare antitheist can be this bad in exceptional cases.

May all that's unholy preserve us from a devout antitheist.

snipped for brevity

Antitheism doesn't do that.  I think that theism is a moral evil.  You'd wear out your trigger finger eradicating everyone who does or affirms moral evil, though, and you would at the end have to off yourself as well.

No, certainly not by itself. That said, I've met a very few people who were antitheists who did go down the militant shrieking path. Not pretty. Most antitheists are pretty chill though.

(June 26, 2025 at 8:00 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: I've met a very few people who were antitheists who did go down the militant shrieking path. Not pretty. Most antitheists are pretty chill though.

Far too many people live in their imaginations rather than in the real world, especially those who think that they themselves can change the world for the better.

So why single out theists for special abuse?

(June 26, 2025 at 8:00 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(June 26, 2025 at 7:43 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: snipped for brevity

Antitheism doesn't do that.  I think that theism is a moral evil.  You'd wear out your trigger finger eradicating everyone who does or affirms moral evil, though, and you would at the end have to off yourself as well.

No, certainly not by itself. That said, I've met a very few people who were antitheists who did go down the militant shrieking path. Not pretty. Most antitheists are pretty chill though.

I suspect that they would be equally militant if they were theists.  IMO, people who call for blood are interested in the blood, not whatever pretext they offer.