Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(February 4, 2016 at 4:50 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I'd have a one on one debate and logical discussion on you on Deism vs religion. I think Deism is illogical. I was a Deist for five years.
I remember when you classified yourself as a deist, and you were no deist.
While you classified yourself as a deist, you constantly talked about your belief in a god that intervenes in the physical universe. Which is not deism. I called you out on it many times, and finally you admitted you were not a deist.
Deism is more logically supportable than theism. Especially the Abrahamic brands, yours included.
(February 4, 2016 at 5:03 pm)Divinity Wrote: Deism is less illogical than Religion. Religion requires the belief that the people who wrote the religious texts were:
#1. Inspired by god
#2. Completely honest about being inspired by god
#3. Did not add or change anything to what they wrote
Deism is merely the belief that there is a god, and that this god does not intervene. You're free to point out the lack of logic of Deism, but be warned that you'll turn me Atheist, rather than religious if you manage to change my mind.
Do you want to have one on one debate about it? Not in the mood of facing everyone.
February 5, 2016 at 12:40 am (This post was last modified: February 5, 2016 at 12:40 am by Heat.)
(February 4, 2016 at 11:22 pm)MTL Wrote:
(February 3, 2016 at 10:03 pm)Heat Wrote: Asserting that their beliefs, no matter how extreme, are unassailable truth, and unbacked,
is an opposition to someone who disagrees with you, and believes differently.
Yes. And rightly so.
Quote:It is naive to say that anyone who has no backing for their belief, should be responsible for what their doctrine teaches, because they undoubtedly do not see it in the same light.
Naive, it is not.
It is a jarring, unsympathetic, but an absolutely deserved and necessary wake-up call.
Everyone is responsible for themselves. Period.
Especially if you're hurting others with your stupid doctrine.
To tell the victims that suffer as a result of the evils of that doctrine,
that they should be sympathetic to the idiot perpetuators of that doctrine,
is appalling.
That's like telling the LGBT that they should not hold Right-Wing Christians responsible
for opposing the LGBT right to marry in a country that is not a Theocracy.
That's like telling young girls in the Middle East that they are wrong to hold Muslim men responsible
for mutilating the genitals of said young girls, because their religion says it's okay.
And you call MY point of view "despicable".
Your pandering to those in the grip of religion is the very attitude that encourages religious groups to make more and more demands for accommodation.
Quote:To say an unknowing ignorant believer should be responsible for not changing their violent beliefs, when they do not see them or are ignorant to the fact that they are unjustly violent in the first place, is a failure to understand what the other person actually believes.
you're absolutely right.
We should just always accommodate people with violent beliefs
and never point out their hypocrisy to them
or hold them accountable in any way,
because it's only rational, decent, intelligent, peaceful people who should be held rigidly responsible for their actions.
Or maybe nobody should be held responsible.
What's wrong with you????
Quote:Actions are entirely different from words, thoughts. That's why we have free speech.
Which side of this argument are you on????
Charlie Hebdo exercised their freedom of speech and religious maniacs shot them to bits,
and now you're telling me I shouldn't hold those religious maniacs accountable for their religious mania.
Quote:What you suggest is that we try to control minds, which is despicable.
Um, no.
It is the religious who control minds. And I agree that it is despicable.
What I am trying to do, is free them.
Don't misrepresent my position as being sympathetic to people with violent beliefs, and maybe i'l give you the time of day to respond. You're claiming we should hold those with violent beliefs responsible for actions they did not yet commit, and I am saying that is a fundamental breach of free thought and free speech. Yet this has been reversed around as if I am claiming we should be accepting of those with the intolerant and violent beliefs, no, we should speak out which is the EXACT reason I gave in the first place, that we should chalk their violent thinking up to ignorance which needs correction.
Which is better:
To die with ignorance, or to live with intelligence?
(February 3, 2016 at 5:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: ...Is it?
Sorry if someone already answered lol. I know no one was for a while, and now I don't want to read through all these pages to see if anyone ever did.
Not sure if anyone else answered, but here's my take.
Atheism is the disbelief in gods (not just the one out of 1000's that you happen to believe exists).
Anti-theism, as I use it, is being against organized religion. I don't hate the fact that you believe in a god. I hate the fact that along with your belief in a god, comes all the horrible baggage of the Catholic Church.
I have nothing against someone having private belief in a god or gods. My anti-theism is purely related to the real world, negative outcomes that organized religions are responsible for.
The Catholic Church's opposition to same sex marriage and condom use, for example.
February 5, 2016 at 1:31 am (This post was last modified: February 5, 2016 at 1:32 am by MTL.)
(February 3, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:
(February 3, 2016 at 7:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So basically, anti theists believe in "preaching" atheism, and atheists do not.
Not really.
A person may be opposed to religion (anti-theist) and not "preach" atheism. Not everyone is motivated enough, or outspoken enough to be an activist. But that doesn't mean they are not against religion.
Before I considered myself an anti-theist, I still posted just as much on forums, still discussed religious beliefs with theists just as much as I do now.
It was only more recently that I came to the conclusion that religion itself is harmful to society and the planet, that I became an anti-theist.
It is a jarring, unsympathetic, but an absolutely deserved and necessary wake-up call.
Everyone is responsible for themselves. Period.
Especially if you're hurting others with your stupid doctrine.
To tell the victims that suffer as a result of the evils of that doctrine,
that they should be sympathetic to the idiot perpetuators of that doctrine,
is appalling.
That's like telling the LGBT that they should not hold Right-Wing Christians responsible
for opposing the LGBT right to marry in a country that is not a Theocracy.
That's like telling young girls in the Middle East that they are wrong to hold Muslim men responsible
for mutilating the genitals of said young girls, because their religion says it's okay.
And you call MY point of view "despicable".
Your pandering to those in the grip of religion is the very attitude that encourages religious groups to make more and more demands for accommodation.
you're absolutely right.
We should just always accommodate people with violent beliefs
and never point out their hypocrisy to them
or hold them accountable in any way,
because it's only rational, decent, intelligent, peaceful people who should be held rigidly responsible for their actions.
Or maybe nobody should be held responsible.
What's wrong with you????
Which side of this argument are you on????
Charlie Hebdo exercised their freedom of speech and religious maniacs shot them to bits,
and now you're telling me I shouldn't hold those religious maniacs accountable for their religious mania.
Um, no.
It is the religious who control minds. And I agree that it is despicable.
What I am trying to do, is free them.
You're claiming we should hold those with violent beliefs responsible for actions they did not yet commit
NO. Remember a few posts back when I said I would object to religion even if that religion was completely non-violent in its entire history?
I am promoting personal accountability
...NOT trying to make some innocent people accountable for the actions of others.
That would defeat my entire purpose.
And as I said,
if all religion honestly acknowledged that what they offered was merely a THEORY
instead of touting it as TRUTH,
I wouldn't have the problem with it that I do.
(February 4, 2016 at 12:33 pm)Divinity Wrote: I'm a Deist, but also an anti-theist. I think religion is pure bullshit. It teaches people to hate. So fuck religion.
Aaaaaannnnd THAT, ^^^ EP, is why Deism is NOT meaningless.
That, right there, is the attitude I wish every Theist on Earth would wake up with, tomorrow morning.
I'm not against people believing in God.
I'm against Religion...the Dogma and crap people heap ONTO their Faith in God.
The fact that it's more or less harmless doesn't speak as to whether it's meaningless or not. I wish theists were deists as well, but furthermore I would wish they were all rational. And rationality doesn't allow for a meaningless belief like Deism.
