Antitheism

[MTL]

(bold, mine)

That's what I'm calling "Religion".

Sure, you can make up your own definitions of words. You can do that.

Or, you can use the definitions we already have. The word you're looking for here is proselytization. Don't let illiteracy and laziness make you think you're a linguist. You're not.

Proselytization is part of it.

And people challenge dictionary definitions all the time.

That's what makes a living language, like English, alive.  It's still evolving.

As opposed to a dead language, like Latin, which has ceased to evolve.

I gotta sleep.

Night, all.

[robvalue]

Goodnight MTL

Hey, but it's morning! Oh yeah, time differences and all that

[Excited Penguin]

I'm not so much against people being theist as I am people brainwashing others into being theist. People aren't born that way.

That doesn't make any sense. Do you take issue with the brainwashing, or with the ideology being forced upon other people?

If you take issue with the brainwashing, then you might want to have a problem with everything society makes you do by way of law as well, for starters. Because that's textbook brainwashing as well.

If you take issue with the ideology being forced, you're an antitheist.

[Excited Penguin]

Sure, you can make up your own definitions of words. You can do that.

Or, you can use the definitions we already have. The word you're looking for here is proselytization. Don't let illiteracy and laziness make you think you're a linguist. You're not.

Proselytization is part of it.

And people challenge dictionary definitions all the time.

That's what makes a living language, like English, alive.  It's still evolving.

As opposed to a dead language, like Latin, which has ceased to evolve.

I gotta sleep.

Night, all.

That's not how language works(or evolves for that matter). You don't simply get definitions of words to change to suit your meaning. 

People should challenge dictionary definitions, but they should do so for a good reason. You don't have one. You're simply ignorant of existent definitions of words.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You are objecting to the fact that I'm circumventing the alert, as far as I can tell. Without an objection, your post wouldn't serve its purpose, given how it is structured - as an attack.

It's not an objection. It's pointing out one possibility, one which I personally think you're availing yourself of -- but it's not an objection.

I think we've added another word to the list of those which you need to look up before you use.

I'm not objecting to your drunken change of quoting patterns -- I'm merely pointing the change out so that others can review your posting history and judge for themselves.

If you think that is an "objection", I'd argue that you're probably too sensitive to be online. Get your helmet on, strap it tight, and quit your whining.

Goddamned crybaby. Grow a pair of balls and shut up.

ETA: That last line was an attack. Get over it.

Because I'm not bright enough to understand how the software works? Seriously?

How is one supposed to simply understand how the software works in this instance, without being told about it?

If you're too stupid to figure it out, as I did without a tutorial, you're making my case for me.

[Heat]

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.

It's incredibly naive to think a person should be held responsible for not action, but simply thought that you disagree with, because they believe it to be true. Middle finger to the reformed racists of the world, of whom deliberately preached hatred of another race, they are to be held responsible for actions they have not committed, only empty chants, because evidently we must control and hold not only actions accountable, but ideas, and can by no means chalk them up to ignorance.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Oh -- by the way, lol.

[Excited Penguin]

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

If you bothered to check the source for that wikipedia bit about theism it's Webster Dictionary. Yet no such source is to be found for the corresponding first sentence of the wikipedia article for religion. 

I'll stop here to help you make the distinction between an encyclopedia and a dictionary.

Encyclopedia - a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically.

Dictionary - a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage.

As it happens, that first sentence about religion in that wikipedia article seems to be hilariously wrong. What the fuck does a order of existence mean?

That you, of all people, would use that incredibly flawed, biased and unprofessional source of information to correct me is simply ridiculous.

Nevertheless, even by these definitions, my point stands. Belief in God(s) is a form of religion. That is what I mean when I say theism is essentially religion.

[Excited Penguin]

You are objecting to the fact that I'm circumventing the alert, as far as I can tell. Without an objection, your post wouldn't serve its purpose, given how it is structured - as an attack.

It's not an objection.  It's pointing out one possibility, one which I personally think you're availing yourself of -- but it's not an objection.

I think we've added another word to the list of those which you need to look up before you use.

I'm not objecting to your drunken change of quoting patterns -- I'm merely pointing the change out so that others can review your posting history and judge for themselves.

If you think that is an "objection", I'd argue that you're probably too sensitive to be online. Get your helmet on, strap it tight, and quit your whining.

Goddamned crybaby.  Grow a pair of balls and shut up.

ETA: That last line was an attack.  Get over it.

You're retroactively obfuscating your own statements now. This is where you killed the conversation.

Because I'm not bright enough to understand how the software works? Seriously?

How is one supposed to simply understand how the software works in this instance, without being told about it?

If you're too stupid to figure it out, as I did without a tutorial, you're making my case for me.

You presumably figured it out when noticing you didn't get any alerts when I responded to you in this manner(or, at some earlier date, in similar circumstances, observing the quoting patterns of others). That has very little to do with one's brightness and much to do with certain happenings that would prompt you to make that observation.

[Excited Penguin]

Without the belief in the gods, the religious institutions and observances wouldn't exist(when talking about theistic religions).
Without the religious institutions and observances, the belief in the gods wouldn't make any sense.

You think that everyone filling the pews believes?  Been to mass recently?  The institutions and observances have a life all their own, apart from belief, as the swarms of "cultural catholics" such as myself ought to make clear.

The majority believes. If they didn't, the non-believing minority wouldn't feel the pressure to lie about it, or put up with it for that matter. You're distorting the facts to fit to your views, just so you can continue to argue with me. You're being irrational. I can't possibly win an argument with you guys if you're going to be like that. I have better things to do.

There's a guy out there in the world, let's call him "Steve", who believes in a god named Bob, and he thinks that Bobgod loves him.  He's pretty sure that Bobgod has a single command.  Don't be a dick.  Now, does Steve really need an institution or list of observances to make sense of his belief in Bobgod?  I don't think so.  He's just a guy who believes in Bobgod, Bobgod loves him, and he's trying his best to avoid being a dick.

(Emphasis mine.)
Yes, he does. The concept of god doesn't make any sense on its own.