Antitheism

[Excited Penguin]

---

EP, early in your last reply to me, you said,

I wouldn't qualify as an antitheist by their definitions either.
While we're at it, I wouldn't consider myself an atheist, if I went by some people's definitions of the word.

and then near the end of the reply, you said this to me:

you are contradicting yourself. You cannot both be an antitheist and not be one. You either are or you aren't. Make up your mind about it.

It is YOU who contradicts yourself.

First, you acknowledge that by others' definitions, you are not an atheist,
....implying that you indeed consider yourself as an Atheist....just not by someone else's definitions;

but then when I say  that I consider myself an Anti-Theist,
you chastise me simply because I simultaneously acknowledge that I don't fit some people's definition of such.

---

Fair point. I'm sorry for that.

---

Moving on:

You said, in response to my quote:

Belief in God of that sort would be devoid of any meaning - inconceivable.

It is hardly inconceivable.  It's called Deism.  If you find it inconceivable then you are extremely limited.

I can easily conceive of it:

God might well exist...

...but that doesn't necessarily mean that ANY of the Religions of the world actually have ANYTHING to do with Him.

I'd actually be tickled pink to discover that was the case.

---

God without religion is a meaningless concept. It is the religion that defines God, not the other way around. Deism is simply the P.C. version of atheism.

---

Excited Penguin said,


It is not, in fact, possible to have faith in God without religion, since the two mean exactly the same
(with religion holding some further linguistic meaning, of course).
They certainly should(see above).

Are you trolling me???


I don't have any idea why you would say that God and Religion are the same thing,
as if it is an inflexible fact that you, personally, amongst all of humanity,
have proof of.

---

I meant belief in God and religion are the same thing. That doesn't mean religion can't mean something else, it only means belief in god can't mean something else - it is wholly included in the definition of the word religion.

That is to say, theism is not different from religion. It is of it. When you say religion, you also say theism, but also some other things as well.

Deism isn't of religion because it doesn't describe anything. It doesn't make any sense and it's simply a curious reaction to theism, as is pastafarianism.

---

That's the entire problem with Religion, EP:

EACH Religion believes it IS synonymous with God,
and believes all the other religions of the world are wrong

...yet none of them can prove it.

I don't see why in the world you think it is "inconceivable" that there could be a God,
and have that God have absolutely zero do to with mankind's idiotic religions.

That's precisely what Deists DO believe.

And if I woke up tomorrow, to a world where every Religious nutjob had spontaneously converted his thinking over to Deism....I would be a happy camper.  I would never try to convince a Deist that God doesn't exist.

Deism essentially makes Religion into a defanged snake.

It's Faith without Dogma:

Simply believing that God exists...

...but rejecting all Holy Writs, all concept of Sin, Heaven or Hell, Afterlife, Saviours, Prophets, Commandments, Worship and Rituals, etc....as very likely being nothing more than arrogant, presumptuous, useless, manmade lies...

essentially making NO assumptions about God,
and assuming that most religions are man-made nonsense;

....but NOT automatically assuming that just because religion is nonsense,
that that necessarily means that God doesn't exist, and we simply don't know any of His actual parameters.

---

For this block of text to make any sense you'd have to define God for me. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

---

I'll finish responding a remaining point, and then I'm off to bed.

Excited Penguin said,

They also define religion thusly:


Therefore, their definitions of faith seem just fine to me, I can't see why you take issue with them.

I was going to cite their definition of Religion as being inadequate, too, actually.

Religion, by its very nature, is almost always an unproven belief STRUCTURE
specifically about God (or about some mooted Spiritual realm)
which is shared and in one way or another perpetuated by a group of people.

The problem with the dictionary's definition is:

- Mere "belief" does not always necessarily shared, nor is it always necessarily perpetuated;

- nor does every religious belief include a requirement of "worship".

It is a very bad definition, IMO.

---

That is organized religion you're thinking about, not religion.

You're using the word religious belief to explain what religion means. That alone should show you how confused you are right now about language.

I'm literally face-palming right now.