What is Anti-Theism?

[Polaris]

From what I have observed, anit-theism has become an aversion towards logic and reason. It's people who let their emotions dictate their actions instead of letting secular values guide their behavior.

[Chad32]

It's more an aversion to what has been historically done in the name of religion, and what is currently being done as well. When there is corruption in an institution, a decision must be made whether to repair it, or destroy it. Everyone knows a police force can be corrupt, but we need a police force to keep justice. We don't need religion.

[Polaris]

It's more an aversion to what has been historically done in the name of religion, and what is currently being done as well. When there is corruption in an institution, a decision must be made whether to repair it, or destroy it. Everyone knows a police force can be corrupt, but we need a police force to keep justice. We don't need religion.

If they were honest and clear of thought, then the aversion would be towards state-sponsored secularism much more than religion.

[feeling]

Anti-theism is anti theism. I think name says it all.

[EgoRaptor]

It's more an aversion to what has been historically done in the name of religion, and what is currently being done as well. When there is corruption in an institution, a decision must be made whether to repair it, or destroy it. Everyone knows a police force can be corrupt, but we need a police force to keep justice. We don't need religion.

If they were honest and clear of thought, then the aversion would be towards state-sponsored secularism much more than religion.

You claim to be a socialist, but you sound like Bill O'Reilly right now. What is wrong with state-sponsored secularism?

[Polaris]

If they were honest and clear of thought, then the aversion would be towards state-sponsored secularism much more than religion.

You claim to be a socialist, but you sound like Bill O'Reilly right now. What is wrong with state-sponsored secularism?

State-sponsored secularism ends up being the same as state-sponsored religion. You sound like an American...

[Chad32]

It's more an aversion to what has been historically done in the name of religion, and what is currently being done as well. When there is corruption in an institution, a decision must be made whether to repair it, or destroy it. Everyone knows a police force can be corrupt, but we need a police force to keep justice. We don't need religion.

If they were honest and clear of thought, then the aversion would be towards state-sponsored secularism much more than religion.

How else are you going to have freedom of religion? It's kind of needed to, among other things, keep different groups from killing each other over how they worship the same person. It either needs to be separate, or encompass all religions.

[Polaris]

If they were honest and clear of thought, then the aversion would be towards state-sponsored secularism much more than religion.

How else are you going to have freedom of religion? It's kind of needed to, among other things, keep different groups from killing each other over how they worship the same person. It either needs to be separate, or encompass all religions.

I mean state-sponsored secularism as opposed to secularism. AKA a state that promotes secularism with the same veracity as a state-sponsored religion, aka what you saw in several nations in the 20th century except, unlike religion, they lacked an air of legitimacy. That lack of legitimacy that is more easily generated by religious doctrine was replaced by fear, fear garnered by mass executions never seen prior. Seems a fear of eternal damnation keeps people in check.

[Creed of Heresy]

You know that feeling you get when you read one of Sleepy's posts on rape? The one where you'd like to ass rape him with a sharpened stick lubed with ghost pepper hot sauce? It's something like that.

Who is Sleepy, and can you please point me in his general direction so that I can reduce him to his atomic components individually?

Also an anti-theist is the atheist community's response to evangelicals.

Sometimes you just gotta scream louder than the other guy to win the argument.

But it also really helps when you're screaming facts and he's screaming bullshit.

---

I mean state-sponsored secularism as opposed to secularism. AKA a state that promotes secularism with the same veracity as a state-sponsored religion, aka what you saw in several nations in the 20th century except, unlike religion, they lacked an air of legitimacy. That lack of legitimacy that is more easily generated by religious doctrine was replaced by fear, fear garnered by mass executions never seen prior. Seems a fear of eternal damnation keeps people in check.

Oh good you're still around.

State sponsored secularism and secularism are the same fucking thing. You've been vomiting up this runny diarrhea you call an argument for months now, and no matter how many times the silly shit gets slapped out of it, you just puke it up again another month later like you think nobody's noticing you trying to trawl for a moment of vindication from some hapless noobie who gets suckered into thinking you might be onto something by nothing more than your attempt to make words say things that they do not. Secularism is the principle of separation of government institutions, and the persons mandated to represent the State, from religious institutions and religious dignitaries (to quote wikipedia on the matter). Yes, both exist, as one and the same thing; secularism is secularism. I get it, though; you're trying to argue that secularism can go to an extreme like that of religions. Except it cannot. There's secularism, which goes that there is no religion or religions that may have an active say in national matters...

And then there's what happened in Russia and China. See, I might be more willing to give you some wiggle room on this argument if both Mao and Stalin had NOT been near-worshiped, if not actively worshiped in the public eye. Thing is, they were. And, really, they lacked legitimacy? Funny thing, Russia's still around, and so is China, and in fact China's still under the control of Mao's party. Plus Russia was the only other global superpower besides the US for quite a while until cultural stagnation, an over-extended economy, and a protracted guerrilla war [and not, as you claim, illegitimacy] finally broke up the Soviet Union, and yet Russia is STILL one of the biggest players on the global stage, even if greatly diminished from their former power.

If they were really "lacking legitimacy," then why do those nations still exist with such power to this day, hm? China, for its part, is pretty much just the continuation of what it was when Mao lived and died. 1.35 billion people live in its borders, and it's pretty much the biggest player in the world. It's got its own military force that specifically serves its interests, an economy that revolves around its own operations, an established government that affects all within its borders and even many outside of it as well. Sounds pretty legitimate to me.

What's Christianity got for its legitimacy? A hundred, hundred disparate groups that can't agree on what the sign over their messiah's head said when he was nailed to a bunch of wood, much less anything of substance. They've lost much of their sway in England. They're losing almost all influence in Europe. They have almost none in Asia. Their influence in the US is starting to falter. They sure as fuck have no military or economy to serve their own ends.

Now, how about you tell me what legitimacy you were referring to? I mean, going off of what I consider legit [you know, more showing, less telling], Christianity sure as fuck isn't legit. Judaism is, sure; it's got Israel. Islam sure is; it's got a bunch of countries, in fact. Christianity, though?

Well, actually, now I see why Christians say, with tears in their eyes and choked-back sobs of despair and loss of self-esteem, that America is a "Christian nation." They want so desperately to believe it, because if America isn't the nation of those who believe a schizophrenic jew was nailed to some wood, killed until dead, came back to life, floated away into the sky, and is supposedly going to return to blow us all to pieces...well, then, what nation is? I mean, there's always the Vatican, but those guys are Catholics. And Catholics are not True Christians. Except they say the same of Christians; they are not True to His Name.

Seriously, Polaris, I may have paraphrased just now but the sad fact of it is, that is what you believe, you know. I just wonder if you've ever stopped and mused over just how absurd what you believe really is. Probably not, though; that'd require you to actually think for yourself, and I've yet to see a single example of that from you yet.

But hey. Everyone's got the capacity to change. Maybe you'll surprise me at some point.

[Chas]

How else are you going to have freedom of religion? It's kind of needed to, among other things, keep different groups from killing each other over how they worship the same person. It either needs to be separate, or encompass all religions.

I mean state-sponsored secularism as opposed to secularism. AKA a state that promotes secularism with the same veracity as a state-sponsored religion, aka what you saw in several nations in the 20th century except, unlike religion, they lacked an air of legitimacy. That lack of legitimacy that is more easily generated by religious doctrine was replaced by fear, fear garnered by mass executions never seen prior. Seems a fear of eternal damnation keeps people in check.

You are talking nonsense. A state is either secular or not; there is nothing to 'sponsor'.

You seem to be confusing secularism with atheism. They are not the same - they are hardly even related.