Unicorns might be nifty.

Or maybe not:

(August 11, 2014 at 11:16 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The burden of proof has been satisfied long ago in pagan philosophy with Plotinus and later in Christendom when Aquinas developed these into an overall satisfying natural theology. Since you apparently do not accept these proofs, I can only conclude that you are either ignorant of them or are swayed by modern mis-characterizations of these arguments,

Or it is because the value of baseless assertions doesn't magically grow with the passing of centuries, or because the originators of such nonsense carry philosophical pretensions. If this is all you've got in terms of proof, it isn't any wonder that you most often encounter "philosophers" fucking up your order at Burger King.

Quote:Hmm. What about Unitarian Universalism? They don't even require a tithe, they pretty much just hope you'll give enough to keep the building open and pay the pastor less than $40K.

Hear about the Unitarian Universalist terror groups? They go about burning question marks on peoples' lawns....

Boru

(August 11, 2014 at 4:36 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I suppose that puts anti-theism into the basic "I'm against anything related to theistic belief" catagory, for any number of reasons, even though the existence of a god or gods cannot be formally disproven.

Not -anything related to-, no. People could point to something like "the golden rule" as being related to their theistic belief system, and while I might rib them for it here and there, I don't have an issue with "the golden rule". It's not an issue of -even though-, more like -regardless of whether or not-. Anti-theism simply has nothing to do with whether god -is-, or -is not-. It can be leveraged in either case (and for many things...it would actually make the case for anti-theism stronger if god -did- exist). For example......

There's nothing sick or malicious about a botfly, unless it was intentionally created as such. Why would anyone worship a being that -created- a botfly? Further, who would wish for there to be such a being?

That, my friend, is anti-theism.

(August 12, 2014 at 5:48 am)Rhythm Wrote: That, my friend, is anti-theism.

I have to refer you to Blackout's definitions here. Anti-theism has multiple definitions stemming from the literal 'opposition to theism'. Although not very well worded, Chad's challenge does point at those who fall under the definition 'actively claim the non-existence of theistic propositions'. I know that's not the definition which applies to you but for those who make the positive claim that god doesn't exist (one of the christian gods, in this case, I assume?), they do have a burden of proof to satisfy (like Brakeman's statement).

To the OP, for the Abrahamic gods, I fall in to this category. They cannot exist as many logical attribute definitions are mutually exclusive (e.g. the 'omni' qualities). They are an impossible proposition.

I've tended to think of anti-theists as a subset of atheists who judge theism to be pathological or at least detrimental and something that should be eradicated so far as possible.

But Rhythm shows that it is possible to maintain the stance even if you lost your disbelief in gods.

I guess I'm just the permissive sort. Even if I thought all expressions of theism were apt to cause nonbelievers in the community some aggravation, I'd still prefer to hold the excesses in check with regulation.

My biggest concern is for the children brought up in god-fearin' homes. Sentiment in this country seems to run toward leaving all but physical care up to the parents. I would be in favor of legislation to undermine this a bit. Haven't worked out all the details but just as kids should see a pediatrician regularly as they mature, there could be questionnaires and interviews both for the kids and the parents to take separately. Not sure what sort of teeth I'd want in such regulation but just shining some light in would do some good and perhaps alert authorities where there are real concerns.

Anti-theism is active opposition to theism.

I suppose the claims being made would be theism is harmful, but would not necessarily make knowledge claims about the existence of any sky monsters/ghosts/sons or pissed off ancient supernatural critters.

Mostly because it doesn't matter. The claims themselves have power - even if what's supposed to be "behind the curtain" doesn't, or simply isn't there. For example, the sorts of shit that some people do as part and parcel of their faith (stoning, for instance) aren't shitty -because god doesn't exist- and wouldn't be any less shitty -even if god did exist-. It happens because people lend the claims authority, and it happens because people tiptoe around the basis for that authority, and it happens because people don't stop and say "just wtf am I doing?" for both of those reasons mentioned(and many others, I'm sure...go ask some douche holding a rock). If I wanted people to stop stoning people I wouldn't go about it by trying to convince them that their god didn't exist - I would simply suggest that it's a shitty thing to do, regardless. That they shouldn't do it just because god says so, and they shouldn't worship a god that says so, and that they should not love or wish for a god that says so. In short, stoning bad, mmmkay.

I get the sense that North American atheism is more often than not a reaction to Evangelicals. If you look at some of the anti-Christian posts, you will nearly always see a fundamentalist literal interpretation presented as the only option. All the talk about religion being intrinsically bad appear to follow from some negative personal experience with religion....really just rationalizations.

There are simply some people who do not believe, and that's what atheism is "all about". You seem to think that evangelicals are doing it wrong, you imply that a better sort of claim could be made - I'd say that's a hard row to hoe.

Scapegoating, good or bad Chad? Care to propose some non-negative experience involving scapegoating? What else would a person base their opinions upon..if not their experience, anyway?