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!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 9:13 am

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A question for Anti-Theists
#21
RE: A question for Anti-Theists
(June 30, 2014 at 9:42 am)blackout94 Wrote:
(June 30, 2014 at 9:37 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: How exactly can someone be a theist without religious beliefs?

Well you can believe that a god exists and not follow any religion, a lot of young people have quit the superstition of religion but still have some kind of belief. As far as I know, there is nothing stopping you, you can believe in a higher force and not follow any specific religion, no dogmas, it sounds better than religion anyway.

How is that different from a deist?
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#22
RE: A question for Anti-Theists
(June 30, 2014 at 9:36 am)blackout94 Wrote: Sin taxes? What do you mean by sin taxes? Taxes on tobacco, alcohol and pollutant products? At least in Fiscal/Tax Law we use the 'Sin taxes' terminology for these kind of taxes, but they have several justifications behind them. Do you have more relevant examples behind taxes?
And gambling...and pornography......and any other thing our devoutly religious forebears managed to root into our pysches so deeply as wrong. It's easy for us to justify these taxes - in part because we have already accepted that they carry a negative ethical weight. A negative ethical weight that I don't think is so easily demonstrated. We might say things like "let the smokers complain..they're poisoning our air! Well, Mr Smug..so are the tomato eaters....and the perfume sprayers....and the flatulents. If we thought that tomatoes where a moral or ethical evil (and we actually did once...google it) then we would find that we had all sorts of reasons to subsidize our country off the backs of those poor tomato eating schmucks. I'm not sure why you don't think this is relevant, help me to explain?

Quote:I too think deism is still wishful thinking, the same goes for agnostic theism (without religious beliefs), but these people are still not hurting anyone else
Just because a gun is sitting on the table not being used to shoot someone - does not mean that it cannot be used to shoot someone. That's an extreme analogy, granted, but it makes my position on the issue of "they're not hurting anyone, geesh man" crystal clear. People who do hurt people go through vast stretches of time where they are not actively hurting people. We're talking about terrible people here - they still manage not to be the worst possible permutation of themselves -all of the time-. The same, I think, is true of belief in god or gods.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#23
RE: A question for Anti-Theists
(June 30, 2014 at 9:43 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:
(June 30, 2014 at 9:42 am)blackout94 Wrote: Well you can believe that a god exists and not follow any religion, a lot of young people have quit the superstition of religion but still have some kind of belief. As far as I know, there is nothing stopping you, you can believe in a higher force and not follow any specific religion, no dogmas, it sounds better than religion anyway.

How is that different from a deist?

They may believe a god takes a more active role in the world, but doesn't see it as worthy of worship?
Poe's Law: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

10 Christ-like figures that predate Jesus. Link shortened to Chris ate Jesus for some reason...
http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-chris...ate-jesus/

Good video to watch, if you want to know how common the Jesus story really is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88GTUXvp-50

A list of biblical contradictions from the infallible word of Yahweh.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_m...tions.html

Reply
#24
RE: A question for Anti-Theists
(June 30, 2014 at 9:55 am)Chad32 Wrote:
(June 30, 2014 at 9:43 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: How is that different from a deist?

They may believe a god takes a more active role in the world, but doesn't see it as worthy of worship?

I guess...but then they'd have to characterize his role in the world..which would imply some sort of 'personality' of God wouldn't it? Unless they're saying something like "God is there, he takes a role in the world but we have no idea what it is or how to tell or how to prove it"...which is about useful as a God that doesn't exist.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#25
RE: A question for Anti-Theists
(June 30, 2014 at 9:43 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:
(June 30, 2014 at 9:42 am)blackout94 Wrote: Well you can believe that a god exists and not follow any religion, a lot of young people have quit the superstition of religion but still have some kind of belief. As far as I know, there is nothing stopping you, you can believe in a higher force and not follow any specific religion, no dogmas, it sounds better than religion anyway.

How is that different from a deist?

If I'm not mistaken, a theist believes in a god that is in constant touch with the universe, a being that has omnipresence, omnipotence, all of those characteristics... A deist believes in a creator that abstains from controlling the world. In a sense, a theist believes god created the universe and is constantly shaping it (eg natural phenomenons) while a deist merely believes a god created the events (eg big bang) to make our universe come into existence but abstained from intervening further more. The theist god is shaping the universe as we speak, the deist god is just looking, for some deists god even caused the big bag explosion and ceased to exist, for others god caused the universe and then mixed, fused himself with it and became the universe himself. I hope this helped
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you

Reply
#26
RE: A question for Anti-Theists
(June 30, 2014 at 10:02 am)blackout94 Wrote:
(June 30, 2014 at 9:43 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: How is that different from a deist?

If I'm not mistaken, a theist believes in a god that is in constant touch with the universe, a being that has omnipresence, omnipotence, all of those characteristics... A deist believes in a creator that abstains from controlling the world. In a sense, a theist believes god created the universe and is constantly shaping it (eg natural phenomenons) while a deist merely believes a god created the events (eg big bang) to make our universe come into existence but abstained from intervening further more. The theist god is shaping the universe as we speak, the deist god is just looking, for some deists god even caused the big bag explosion and ceased to exist, for others god caused the universe and then mixed, fused himself with it and became the universe himself. I hope this helped

I get the difference in definition, but if one is a theist in that sense, what's the practical difference? If a God is pulling the strings on the universe (physics, natural phenomena, weather, etc), but we can't communicate with, entreat, quesiton, see, measure, or hear from it, what's the difference between that and a God that ceased to exist when the big bang happened?
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#27
RE: A question for Anti-Theists
(June 30, 2014 at 9:44 am)Rhythm Wrote: And gambling...and pornography......and any other thing our devoutly religious forebears managed to root into our pysches so deeply as wrong. It's easy for us to justify these taxes - in part because we have already accepted that they carry a negative ethical weight. A negative ethical weight that I don't think is so easily demonstrated. We might say things like "let the smokers complain..they're poisoning our air! Well, Mr Smug..so are the tomato eaters....and the perfume sprayers....and the flatulents. If we thought that tomatoes where a moral or ethical evil (and we actually did once...google it) then we would find that we had all sorts of reasons to subsidize our country off the backs of those poor tomato eating schmucks. I'm not sure why you don't think this is relevant, help me to explain?
You cannot possibly be serious. The reason why gambling pays taxes is to prevent people from getting addicted and destroying their lives, smoking pays taxes because it's hazardous, the same goes for alcohol in excess and pollutant fuels (heck I smoke and I agree with paying more taxes). The taxes on pornography exist because a lot of people go for it not for love of profession but for money, I don't ethically support pornography (but I enjoy it), because I believe physical intimacy is something that should not be used to make profit, but I respect that people chose different paths. Pornography is taxed because the sex industry has already caused abuse of several participants, STD's, addiction to drugs, and addiction from porn viewers (it can develop into something serious), this is the reason pornography gets taxed, not because we think the body is sacred and holy, if that was true pornography would be banned altogether. It seems to me you are pushing it to far and almost mixing morals with religion. Most people morally support physical intimacy not being used for profit, it doesn't mean all these people are religious. If you ask me, I wouldn't want my girlfriend or any of my female friends working in the sex industry, I wouldn't trust it, but that's just my call. I really cannot criticize because I love watching pornography (and I cannot lie).

(June 30, 2014 at 10:04 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:
(June 30, 2014 at 10:02 am)blackout94 Wrote: If I'm not mistaken, a theist believes in a god that is in constant touch with the universe, a being that has omnipresence, omnipotence, all of those characteristics... A deist believes in a creator that abstains from controlling the world. In a sense, a theist believes god created the universe and is constantly shaping it (eg natural phenomenons) while a deist merely believes a god created the events (eg big bang) to make our universe come into existence but abstained from intervening further more. The theist god is shaping the universe as we speak, the deist god is just looking, for some deists god even caused the big bag explosion and ceased to exist, for others god caused the universe and then mixed, fused himself with it and became the universe himself. I hope this helped

I get the difference in definition, but if one is a theist in that sense, what's the practical difference? If a God is pulling the strings on the universe (physics, natural phenomena, weather, etc), but we can't communicate with, entreat, quesiton, see, measure, or hear from it, what's the difference between that and a God that ceased to exist when the big bang happened?

Well there are several differences. Firstly the argument of 'god is unbelievably cruel because of all the misery in the world' will only work for theists, same for other similar arguments. A theist might believe in destiny and that god is designing his/her life), while a deist will more likely trust free will. I also think a deist will have more trouble believing in superstition than a theist. These are examples of differences, but a god that shapes everything and one that simply watches immediately has repercussions because in the first we are conditioned and maybe even determined to live our lives a certain way, in the later we have free will and are dependent on ourselves only.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you

Reply
#28
RE: A question for Anti-Theists
(June 30, 2014 at 10:09 am)blackout94 Wrote: You cannot possibly be serious. The reason why gambling pays taxes is to prevent people from getting addicted and destroying their lives, smoking pays taxes because it's hazardous, the same goes for alcohol in excess and pollutant fuels (heck I smoke and I agree with paying more taxes).
I am serious. Sure, all those things are good reasons not to do any of those things - but they are not justifications for singling out industries -over and over again...everywhere in the nation - You know what those taxes you just mentioned amount to in the US? A campaign of wealth redistribution -away from minorities and the poor. All under the smug superiority of a position that was not rationally arrived at, but rationalized over after having already arrived. Curiously, we don't sin tax pollutant fuels (that wouldn't fly, our cars are "good")..people get up in arms about a pennies rise in a gallon...but the streets are empty when the price of a pack of smokes goes up 300% in a decade - on sin tax alone..while the cost of production actually decreases. We don't have universal healthcare here, so people are left floating in the wind when they smoke themselves to death. That one - a good counterpoint - doesn't even work in our system..........

- and the differences in the way we handle things which ought to be proscribed by the very same arguments is a wonderful example of why they are sin taxes - and not environmental counterbalance.

Quote:
The taxes on pornography exist because a lot of people go for it not for love of profession but for money,
And?

Quote: I don't ethically support pornography (but I enjoy it), because I believe physical intimacy is something that should not be used to make profit, but I respect that people chose different paths. Pornography is taxed because the sex industry has already caused abuse of several participants, STD's, addiction to drugs, and addiction from porn viewers (it can develop into something serious), this is the reason pornography gets taxed, not because we think the body is sacred and holy, if that was true pornography would be banned altogether.
Again, pornography isn't breaking our bank in non existent social healthcare costs - and I seriously doubt the veracity of a claim that puts such an immense monetary toll on porn......

Quote:It seems to me you are pushing it to far and almost mixing morals with religion. Most people morally support physical intimacy not being used for profit, it doesn't mean all these people are religious.
Do they? Guess what, people who don't share our cultural heritage don't actually seem to think that at all. I'd call that curious, if it wasn't so obvious.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#29
RE: A question for Anti-Theists
(June 30, 2014 at 10:09 am)blackout94 Wrote:
(June 30, 2014 at 9:44 am)Rhythm Wrote: And gambling...and pornography......and any other thing our devoutly religious forebears managed to root into our pysches so deeply as wrong. It's easy for us to justify these taxes - in part because we have already accepted that they carry a negative ethical weight. A negative ethical weight that I don't think is so easily demonstrated. We might say things like "let the smokers complain..they're poisoning our air! Well, Mr Smug..so are the tomato eaters....and the perfume sprayers....and the flatulents. If we thought that tomatoes where a moral or ethical evil (and we actually did once...google it) then we would find that we had all sorts of reasons to subsidize our country off the backs of those poor tomato eating schmucks. I'm not sure why you don't think this is relevant, help me to explain?
You cannot possibly be serious. The reason why gambling pays taxes is to prevent people from getting addicted and destroying their lives, smoking pays taxes because it's hazardous, the same goes for alcohol in excess and pollutant fuels (heck I smoke and I agree with paying more taxes). The taxes on pornography exist because a lot of people go for it not for love of profession but for money, I don't ethically support pornography (but I enjoy it), because I believe physical intimacy is something that should not be used to make profit, but I respect that people chose different paths. Pornography is taxed because the sex industry has already caused abuse of several participants, STD's, addiction to drugs, and addiction from porn viewers (it can develop into something serious), this is the reason pornography gets taxed, not because we think the body is sacred and holy, if that was true pornography would be banned altogether. It seems to me you are pushing it to far and almost mixing morals with religion. Most people morally support physical intimacy not being used for profit, it doesn't mean all these people are religious. If you ask me, I wouldn't want my girlfriend or any of my female friends working in the sex industry, I wouldn't trust it, but that's just my call. I really cannot criticize because I love watching pornography (and I cannot lie).

(June 30, 2014 at 10:04 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I get the difference in definition, but if one is a theist in that sense, what's the practical difference? If a God is pulling the strings on the universe (physics, natural phenomena, weather, etc), but we can't communicate with, entreat, quesiton, see, measure, or hear from it, what's the difference between that and a God that ceased to exist when the big bang happened?

Well there are several differences. Firstly the argument of 'god is unbelievably cruel because of all the misery in the world' will only work for theists, same for other similar arguments. A theist might believe in destiny and that god is designing his/her life), while a deist will more likely trust free will. I also think a deist will have more trouble believing in superstition than a theist. These are examples of differences, but a god that shapes everything and one that simply watches immediately has repercussions because in the first we are conditioned and maybe even determined to live our lives a certain way, in the later we have free will and are dependent on ourselves only.

i don't think I've ever met someone that believes in a God that controls the universe that isn't religious. Trying to follow what that God wants, trying to please/worship him, trying to avoid his judgment or punishment almost necessarily follows unless someone really does make the statement "God controls everything, everything is his whim, I can't change any of it or have any impact on my fate".

(June 30, 2014 at 10:47 am)Rhythm Wrote:
(June 30, 2014 at 10:09 am)blackout94 Wrote: You cannot possibly be serious. The reason why gambling pays taxes is to prevent people from getting addicted and destroying their lives, smoking pays taxes because it's hazardous, the same goes for alcohol in excess and pollutant fuels (heck I smoke and I agree with paying more taxes).
I am serious. Sure, all those things are good reasons not to do any of those things - but they are not justifications for singling out industries -over and over again...everywhere in the nation - You know what those taxes you just mentioned amount to in the US? A campaign of wealth redistribution -away from minorities and the poor. All under the smug superiority of a position that was not rationally arrived at, but rationalized over after having already arrived. Curiously, we don't sin tax pollutant fuels (that wouldn't fly, our cars are "good")..people get up in arms about a pennies rise in a gallon...but the streets are empty when the price of a pack of smokes goes up 300% in a decade - on sin tax alone..while the cost of production actually decreases. We don't have universal healthcare here, so people are left floating in the wind when they smoke themselves to death. That one - a good counterpoint - doesn't even work in our system..........

- and the differences in the way we handle things which ought to be proscribed by the very same arguments is a wonderful example of why they are sin taxes - and not environmental counterbalance.

Quote:
The taxes on pornography exist because a lot of people go for it not for love of profession but for money,
And?

Quote: I don't ethically support pornography (but I enjoy it), because I believe physical intimacy is something that should not be used to make profit, but I respect that people chose different paths. Pornography is taxed because the sex industry has already caused abuse of several participants, STD's, addiction to drugs, and addiction from porn viewers (it can develop into something serious), this is the reason pornography gets taxed, not because we think the body is sacred and holy, if that was true pornography would be banned altogether.
Again, pornography isn't breaking our bank in non existent social healthcare costs - and I seriously doubt the veracity of a claim that puts such an immense monetary toll on porn......

Quote:It seems to me you are pushing it to far and almost mixing morals with religion. Most people morally support physical intimacy not being used for profit, it doesn't mean all these people are religious.
Do they? Guess what, people who don't share our cultural heritage don't actually seem to think that at all. I'd call that curious, if it wasn't so obvious.

Also..just to reinforce your point on pornography, there are places where pronography is banned altogether with extreme penalties.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#30
RE: A question for Anti-Theists
(June 30, 2014 at 10:04 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I get the difference in definition, but if one is a theist in that sense, what's the practical difference? If a God is pulling the strings on the universe (physics, natural phenomena, weather, etc), but we can't communicate with, entreat, quesiton, see, measure, or hear from it, what's the difference between that and a God that ceased to exist when the big bang happened?
-And as before. If we can't communicate with this god - and it is ultimately responsible for the contents of this world as it's creator, how do we seek redress for grievances? What does this have to say about our concept of justice, or of human rights? What does that tell us about the god in question? Even if it were true, would we be "right" to accept it?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  History: The Iniquitous Anti-Christian French Revolution. Nishant Xavier 27 2111 August 6, 2023 at 9:08 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Question for Theists Bucky Ball 26 1610 July 18, 2023 at 10:20 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  I'm no longer an anti-theist Duty 27 1942 September 16, 2022 at 1:08 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Angry Atheists and Anti-Theists Agnostico 186 18093 December 31, 2018 at 12:22 pm
Last Post: T0 Th3 M4X
  Isn't Atheism anti Christian than anti religious? Western part atleast Kibbi 14 3445 October 5, 2018 at 9:09 pm
Last Post: Dr H
  Question to ex-theists purplepurpose 13 1592 October 4, 2018 at 9:43 pm
Last Post: Natachan
  Why America is anti-theist. Goosebump 3 1096 March 1, 2018 at 9:06 am
Last Post: mlmooney89
  Anti-Theism Haipule 134 24294 December 20, 2017 at 1:39 pm
Last Post: Haipule
Tongue Let's see some Atheist or Anti Religion Memes Spooky 317 157565 July 10, 2017 at 5:00 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  My anti-theistic perspective Foxaèr 122 15169 February 4, 2016 at 1:03 am
Last Post: God of Mr. Hanky



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)