Antitheism

[Excited Penguin]

I fucking love being a turtle.

The turtle thing doesn't make me cringe, at all.

It's quite cute, in fact.


(The mayo thing, now, that occasionally gives me pause).

I think its tasteless. Should people only be allowed to say flattering things when addressing one another's perceived character flaws/strengths or image? I don't get what the big deal is.

[Excited Penguin]

When he says mean stuff about me and puts it in a very insulting way, mind you, no one bats an eyelid. If I say his whole turtle thing makes me cringe everyone gets on my case. Is this fair in any way?

[robvalue]

When assessing unfalisiable claims, all we have to go on is the amount of assumptions that have to be made in order to accommodate the claim.

Deism assumes some sort of creator.

Other forms of theism also assume some sort of creator. But then they go on to assume specific traits about that creator, and that it has interacted (or even continues to interact) with our reality while leaving no evidence behind.

Deism wins, due to less assumptions needed. Deism is still irrational, in my opinion, but less irrational than all other forms of theism.

[MTL]

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.

Completely arrogant, completely unnecessary, completely dangerous.

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.

Thank you for being civil. It is appreciated.

How on earth can you argue that ANYTHING that effectively defangs religion, is "meaningless"?

I have short-circuited many extensive arguments on religion,
and gotten many Theists thinking,
simply by asking them if they've ever heard of "Deism",
because many of them have never considered the idea that it is possible to allow for the existence of a God
without piling dogmatic rubbish on TOP of that belief;
to simply say,

" I think there's a God, but I don't think all the religions of the world have anything to do with Him;
I think man made all that stuff up, and God may well exist, but has yet to actually show His hand to mankind,
and until He does, I'm not going to be so arrogant as to presume to know what He wants or doesn't want;
what He loves or what He hates. "

THAT is what I mean by holding Theists RESPONSIBLE for their choice to support a RELIGION!!

I'm saying that they need to recognize that it is actually IRRESPONSIBLE TO THEIR OWN GOD
to presume that all the dogma that their entirely-fallible fellow many has told them ABOUT God
may well be untrue, especially since it is so full of flaws.

You say God is meaningless without Religion, and I can't think of a more untrue statement.

What is absolutely vital, and absolutely great about Deism,
is that it allows Theists to have an "out":

They can retain their belief in God,
but realize that they are free to let go of Religion:
BECAUSE THEY OWE IT TO GOD TO DO SO, ASSUMING THAT GOD DOES, IN FACT, EXIST.

Just because Religion exists, doesn't mean that there is actually a God.

But on the other hand,

just because Religion sucks,
doesn't mean that there is NOT a God out there, either...

...a God who never spoke to a single prophet, anywhere,
and had NOTHING to do with any of the world religions,
and is NOTHING like what they say He is like...

...except that He is the creator of all things,
and therefore, yes...is the "truth" behind everything.

[MTL]

When assessing unfalisiable claims, all we have to go on is the amount of assumptions that have to be made in order to accommodate the claim.

Deism assumes some sort of creator.

Other forms of theism also assume some sort of creator. But then they go on to assume specific traits about that creator, and that it has interacted (or even continues to interact) with our reality while leaving no evidence behind.

Deism wins, due to less assumptions needed. Deism is still irrational, in my opinion, but less irrational than all other forms of theism.

I absolutely agree it is irrational.  But it is not meaningless, as EP asserts it is.

It is wonderfully useful....it allows the Theist to have their belief in God,
and shed Religion at the same time.

Like Divinity...who has posted in this thread.

She is both Deist, and Anti-Theist (or anti-religion, if you want to quibble over the exact definitions of terms).

[Excited Penguin]

It is meaningless because it doesn't describe anything. You keep repeating that deists believe in God. But "God" doesn't hold any meaning at all if you don't attribute meaning to it yourself. And that's where theism comes in. At least their God can be described, the deistic God is nothing but a half-baked unprovable and unfalsifiable concept that is by its very definition unknowable, thus meaningless.

If science does discover what precipited the birth of our universe, if such a thing is even possible, we will never call that process God. It will be what it is. God is an inherently meaningless concept - that's what humans did to it by making it describe imaginary realms of existence or simply something that is just not part of our world. But that is a ridiculous concept. Everything is part of our world, as far as we're concerned. These thoughts and ideas themselves are part of our world. They could never describe anything "outside" of it. We can talk of an "outside"(aka God), but that's a mere trickery of language. What theism did with this meaningless concept is add real meaning to it and then disguise it as something else. What deism did with it is strip it of that meaning altogether. And what remains is a belief devoid of any content. That voidness is what makes it neutral, granted, as far as belief derived actions and intentions go, but it's also what makes it an empty idea that doesn't even try to describe anything real.

[LastPoet]

Deism has no dogmas associated by default EP.

Being that the case, its none of my business.

[Excited Penguin]

Deism has no dogmas associated by default EP.

Being that the case, its none of my business.

I'm more concerned with spreading reason than with eliminating dogma.

[The Grand Nudger]

EP, some of the things you say about god and meaning and theism are very clearly the effect of cultural hegemony by a specific religion.  When you consider god it's clear that you're thinking of the judeo-christian conception, when you think theism you clearly think of judeo-christian theism, and when you think meaning you clearly think judeo-christian meaning.  

The reason that none of your statements have been representative in the manner that you've formed them..is that while many of them are true with reference to judeo-christian theology specifically, meaning and god (and religion) is a much larger tent with many more occupants than that tradition alone.

If you demand some sort of meaning for god, ala judeo-christian theology, ofc a deistic god will not satisfy....but that tells us nothing...other than that you are expressing bias towards judeo-christian interpretations when you consider these terms, likely by simple virtue of your place of birth and in-time.

(I agree with you, btw, deistic gods aren't really gods at all, it's just a way to keep using a term one has grown fond of when one can no longer believe in proper gods, lol. Thing is, that's just a simple disagreement of opinion as to what constitutes a god. There's really no way to discuss or debate a point of fact, in this regard, if you see what I mean........?)

[Edwardo Piet]

When he says mean stuff about me and puts it in a very insulting way, mind you, no one bats an eyelid. If I say his whole turtle thing makes me cringe everyone gets on my case. Is this fair in any way?

I think people would rather defend the turtle than the penguin because the penguin is an asshole.