Antitheism

[Excited Penguin]

Religion is an organizational structure.

No, it is not. It is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Theism is a personal view.

So is religion.

---

For a writer, I'm pretty embarassed for you right now.

Oh, wait, the fuck I just gave flew away.

[Thumpalumpacus]

EP's just practicing his classic shtick of thinking everyone must agree with him, to the point in which where he is clearly disproven he will not concede the point, but simply ignore it or pretend he's still correct. He possesses every one of the attributes of a psychopathic troll, only difference being that the gimmick of purposely annoying someone by touting a position you don't believe, he actually believes.

He's just being a cunt.

#businessasusual

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

No, I don't mean that at all, I mean exactly what I said.

Some people think that the religious institutions or observances are the operative part in any harm done, not the belief in the gods.  They can be concurrent or separate.  For you and I, the belief is operative, for you, the belief and the religion is operative, and for Evie the religion is operative.

[MTL]

Anti-religious.  Or, if you prefer, an anti-religionist, lol.  MTL

Antireligion is distinct from atheism (the absence of a belief in deities) and antitheism (an opposition to belief in deities), although antireligionists may be atheists or antitheists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion

Doesn't fit the bill for me.  I think religion is a hell of a tool.  I don;t blame the hammer for striking the nail, as it were....and I personally think that a better religion would yield better results.  Sagans "religion of nature" comes to mind.

I've considered that:  Anti-Religion, sure why not.

I am still opposed to belief STRUCTURE, about a spiritual realm, which is UNPROVEN, but touts itself as factual and unassailable.  It is open to interpretation and can go rancid quickly.  It becomes corrupted.

However it's interesting you would say this;

just the other day I was thinking wistfully of how happy my family was when my siblings and I were young children,
even though it was rigidly religious.

I concluded that structure, discipline, standards and values are good,
but religion causes them to become judgmental, repressive, and controlling,
and that is not good.

I concluded that "church" was good for community, music, meditation, discussion,
but bad for elitism, sanctimoniousness, competition, judgment and pretense.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

This is why your posts are so fucking dumb and you misunderstand everyone. You generalize everything to shit.

It says especially belief in God. And you even say yourself essentially. It isn't the same fucking thing. Thanks for ignoring those two qualifiers "especially" and "essentially" (ignoring your own fucking qualifer) and generalizing everything to butt-fuck. For cock-dick's sake man, this is ridiculous. To you "similar"="same" and you misunderstanding people to suit your own egotistical desire to prove others wrong. I mean, you're someone who expects me to apologize or feel bad if I'm wrong about something, when being wrong isn't anything to be ashamed of, but you clearly think it is which is also why you won't admit your own faults, I bet, and you need to make yourself feel better about what an obnoxious cock-end you are by bringing others down.

Yes, I dislike your posts, they annoy me. No I don't hate you. Yes I would like you to leave the forums. No I'm not doing anything about it unless you break the rules. But yes this post demonstrates what I think of you. Yes I'm honest. No you are not honest, you've admitted your own theatrics yourself, you can neither be trusted enough to be honest consistently nor avoid your brutal honesty at the worst possible moments. You fail at both trustworthiness and decency. I don't claim that you're a narcissist but IMO you are one and no it's not a good thing and no superiority complex is not a strength. It's a sign of insecurity and in your case obnoxious inferiority. And your need to claim your own superior intelligence merely betrays an insecurity about your own lack of intelligence and disappointment in yourself too. Maybe one day you shall be a humbled penguin.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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)?

PM me for details about the royalty arrangements.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Theism is essentially religion.

You're wrong, but lack the guts to admit it:

Theism, in the field of comparative religion, is the belief in the existence of deities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, ethics, and social organisation that relate humanity to an order of existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

[MTL]

Substitute "gun" or "bomb" for ice cream cone.

Religion is more like a gun or a bomb, than an ice cream cone.

I may not judge them, but I will hold them responsible for what they wield.

You're talking about something entirely different. If someone uses their belief to commit a violent action,  sure I will judge them by it. However if someone is simply holding a weapon? Sure I might make some inferences, but I won't say "they are going to commit a crime with it" because I simply don't know. You are implying that those substituted words are representative of actions, which is different from withholding judgements based on an attribute.

All I said was that they "wield" it.  I didn't specify what they did with it.

I've already given my reasons for holding Believers accountable for their decision to belong to a Religion,
in other posts, but I'll repeat myself here:

A religion could be completely NON-VIOLENT and I would still object to it,
and still hold its members responsible for perpetuating, tolerating, and promoting its dangers.

Why?

1.  It is always unsubstantiated theories passed off as undisputed facts

(...and about GOD, at that!
This makes it not only unassailable from a logical perspective,
but also arguably makes it a "blasphemy" to CRITICIZE it...even if it deserves RIDICULE or CONDEMNATION.
It is why Charlie Hebdo got shot to shit;
it is why Apostasy is punishable by death in Islamic countries).

2.  It is not merely a belief that they keep to themselves.  They PROSELYTIZE; they ask others to adopt that belief,
whether they seek to recruit followers, or simply indoctrinate their own helpless children.

3.  It is open to interpretation, translation, misunderstanding.  Human nature will always corrupt and pervert it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Religion is an organizational structure.

No, it is not. It is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Theism is a personal view.

So is religion.

---

For a writer, I'm pretty embarassed for you right now.

Oh, wait, the fuck I just gave flew away.

I'd suggest you actually engage in reading and learning ... but such a suggestion would certainly being casting pearls in front of swine. I've linked to the definitions in Wiki in my last post, but I doubt you have the strength of character to admit error.

Words have meanings. Misuse them at risk of being misunderstood, and STFU with your complaints when you do so, dumbfuck. Your education is your own responsibility. Own it.

[Edwardo Piet]

Wait EP is wrong and lacks the guts to admit it?

I think the universe is going to implode because the most unusual thing ever just happened.

And by "the most unusual thing ever just happened." I mean, of course, "Cunt-bastarding tit-splatter! EP?! Lacking the guts to admit something?! What is this?! The Opposite of Opposite Day Day?!"

#turtleisweird #turtleoverdoeseverything #turtletriestoohardtobefunnyandfailsmassively

#turtlemadealotofmayotoday

#truestory

#Okaythatwaswaytoomanyandwaytoolonghastagsespeciallythisonethishashtagiswayyyyyyyytoofuckinglongholyshitmakethemadnessstopstophashtagstop.that'sbetter.phew.ohshitithasn'tendedohshi-