Does Atheism Need to be Rebranded?

[Shell B]

Oh, I didn't say not to call bullshit at religions, nor did I say not to tell the religious evil out there that they are making excuses for their behavior. I'm simply saying that painting all religious people with the same brush is not better than being religious to begin with. To be anti-religious is to be anti-freedom. To be non-religious is a much more honorable position to take. However, this is just my opinion. I tend to be anti when it comes to specific things, not broad groups of people.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are plenty of decent Klansmen in the world too. I'm anti KKK, guess that also makes me anti-freedom (and less honorable than the non-KKK guy). I can handle that.

[Shell B]

The KKK is a specific group. Surely you can see the difference between a specific group and a word that encompasses nearly all beliefs in the world, some of which include atheists?

[The Grand Nudger]

Religion is a specific thing. The group is large, and? The KKK was huge once as well. We're talking about being anti-religion here, not about being anti-people who have a religion..right?

[Shell B]

Religion is not a specific group. Religion encompasses many groups, some of which are decidedly pacifist.

So what if the KKK was big? A deciding factor of being in the KKK was being prejudiced. Every one of them was racist or willing to pretend they were. Now, as for religion, even some Christians do not believe the Bible is the word of god, so the hate spewed there does not apply to all. What can you apply to all Christians? That they believe Jesus was the son of god. That is it. You're willing to be anti-theist, the definition of which connotes a militant stance against theism and thus a hope of putting a stop to theism? Why?

For the record, I wouldn't be anti-KKK if they would stop with the criminal activity and spreading of hatred. If they want to sit on their porches and complain about Obama, I'm fine with it. The second they spread their vitriol, it becomes a problem.

[Tempus]

The KKK and 'religion' seem like poor comparisons. A more accurate comparison would be racial supremacy and religion which each have their differing groups and methods. The KKK, as Shell said, is a specific group.

[The Grand Nudger]

Only when you want to compare "the best" of religion with "the worst" of the KKK. I made mention of the KKK more towards my being anti-freedom and less honorable for having an "anti" stance towards any given thing. Religion isn't a specific thing, is that the line at present? Strange, because it seems to have it's own word, and we seem to be able to distinguish it from other things....

I think I've touched on this before Shell, speaking specifically towards christianity (since you invoked that terrible little ghoul), and letting go of the literal bits, if one merely believes that Jesus was the son of god and we are somehow redeemed through him, that's enough to be "anti" for me. Vicarious salvation, without any religious wars or rape etc, is enough to provoke my militant side. Again, I'm not in a club, and I'm not drafting you into any army. I don't think I've ever even attempted to criticize someone for not being militant about it either...

If someone thinks that jesus was the son of god -full stop right there-. I chalk it up to "normal silliness of the sort we all engage in in one way or another". No battle drums. Do you know any christians like that, that can do the full stop bit?

[genkaus]

That stuff would exist without religion. Religion is just an excuse. People will find another excuse.

An excuse as good as religion? I'm not sure where I heard it, but there was a very convincing argument as to why religion is so suited to foster hate, violence and all that other stuff - its because religion has no reality-check. Any other philosophy, political ideology or belief system can be used to foster hate and violence, but eventually, it'd fail as an excuse in face of simply not working. The reason why religion is such a good excuse is because what it promises (heaven or better next-life) is by nature unverifiable.

[Shell B]

Only when you want to compare "the best" of religion with "the worst" of the KKK.

I did no such thing. I made no comparisons whatsoever. I am simply saying that being anti-religion is a pretty huge blanket statement that covers many who do not deserve your ire. Now, with that being said, is there are best of the KKK? I mean, really?

I made mention of the KKK more towards my being anti-freedom and less honorable for having an "anti" stance towards any given thing.

Rhythm, honey, you are drinking and arguing with me again. I didn't say being anti-anything was not honorable.

Religion isn't a specific thing, is that the line at present?

It's your line, at present, yes. My line was "religion is not a specific group," which is demonstrably true. The Girl Scouts is a specific group. "Campers" is not specific.

Strange, because it seems to have it's own word, and we seem to be able to distinguish it from other things....

I can see how you would think it is strange, what with you reading it wrong and all.

I think I've touched on this before Shell, speaking specifically towards christianity (since you invoked that terrible little ghoul), and letting go of the literal bits, if one merely believes that Jesus was the son of god and we are somehow redeemed through him, that's enough to be "anti" for me.

The god of the Bible was presumably a god before the Bible. Therefore, believing Jesus was the son of god is not necessarily contemptible. I will not argue that there are many who do not go for the whole spiel, but there are some. These good people find comfort in their faith. Why propose we take that from them.

Just to be clear, I am more often than not infuriated by religious people, but I try to take them person by person and not paint them all with the same brush. As a result, I know a few worth keeping.

---

Again, I'm not in a club, and I'm not drafting you into any army. I don't think I've ever even attempted to criticize someone for not being militant about it either...

I didn't try to attribute these things to you. I don't think you're being critical. I don't think you're running a draft here.

I'm trying not to be critical, either. I'm trying to understand how antitheists understand their positions or really justify their positions.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm married to one worth keeping, still doesn't change my stance on religion, or my opinion of those who profess any nasty bit of it that I simply cannot stand. It is just my stance after all.

Anti-religion is anti- "a thing", anti-people with a religion would be anti-"a group of people". I didn't read wrong, you're being a bit loose with your words. "To be non-religious is a much more honorable position to take. " would imply that mine was less or more honorable Shell?

You already made a decent summary of where I get my anti-theism from. Religious wars, prejudice, ethnocentricity written into the fabric of the cosmos, abject ignorance and retardation of knowledge (I could go on and on and on). They aren't enough for you, ergo you aren't an anti-theist. They are enough for me, ergo I am.