Atheism and Anti-Theism same thing?

[Silver]

Because I believe it's a source of confusion of a linguistic nature.

It's not. Grow up.

[Excited Penguin]

Because I believe it's a source of confusion of a linguistic nature.

It's not.  Grow up.

Um, how did we go from having a reasonable conversation to "Grow up"?

[Heat]

If you don't partake in sex at any moment in time in which sense are you for it?

Oh yes, because if you're not in favor of something, you're against it.

Especially when talking about the two entirely different questions of active belief, and active opinion.

How so?

You tell me? Lol..

You remind me of this:

[Silver]

Um, how did we go from having a reasonable conversation to "Grow up"?

Due to the fact that you have no tenacity for relevance.

[Excited Penguin]

Oh yes, because if you're not in favor of something, you're against it.

Especially when talking about the two entirely different questions of active belief, and active opinion.

I can't keep up if you're going to keep shifting the goalposts. Why don't you stay on track with what we are talking about when we're talking about it, instead?

You tell me? Lol..

What exactly confused you about my question?

---

I object to your dishonest tactic of conversing(sarcasm, satire).

---

Due to the fact that you have no tenacity for relevance.

How so?

[Heat]

Oh yes, because if you're not in favor of something, you're against it.

Especially when talking about the two entirely different questions of active belief, and active opinion.

I can't keep up if you're going to keep shifting the goalposts. Why don't you stay on track with what we are talking about when we're talking about it, instead?

What did I "Shift"? How did I not stay on track?
What in the literal fuck are you even talking about?

What exactly confused you about my question?

Hmm.. I don't know, maybe the question?
Lol.

I object to your dishonest tactic of conversing(sarcasm, parody).

Never was sarcastic, never was satirical.


Honestly, I don't even understand what you're saying anymore. You've devolved this conversation in to a constant game of "Why?" and have yet to prove any of your claims, or make a valid rebuttal.

[Excited Penguin]

Never was sarcastic, never was satirical.

This is where you were being sarcastic prior to my pointing it out:

Oh yes, because if you're not in favor of something, you're against it.

This is where you were being sarcastic right before claiming otherwise:

Hmm.. I don't know, maybe the question?

Lol.

This is where you were employing satire:

You remind me of this:

What did I "Shift"? How did I not stay on track?

Here, instead of answering my question you employed sarcasm(see above) and then ignored it entirely, focusing on another dimension of the topics involved instead.

Especially when talking about the two entirely different questions of active belief, and active opinion.

Honestly, I don't even understand what you're saying anymore. You've devolved this conversation in to a constant game of "Why?" and have yet to prove any of your claims, or make a valid rebuttal.

Imagine I said the same thing about you, with some minor changes:

Honestly, I don't even understand what you're saying anymore. You've devolved this conversation in to a series of attacks and have yet to honestly answer any of my questions, or make a valid rebuttal.

 How would you react to that?

---

The problem with conversing the way you are right now is we're not likely to move forward in any way. All you're apparently seeking is to ridicule me and dismiss anything I say simply because you don't like where the conversation is going. Is this an accurate description of what is happening right now?

Repeatedly letting me know that you are "laughing out loud" isn't helping your case either.

---

Hmm.. I don't know, maybe the question?

Lol.

So the whole question confused you? Did you not understand the words involved?

[Ivan Denisovich]

What about hating religion makes someone a good person?

Opposing isn't equal with hating.

Anyway, I'm an atheist but I'm not an anti-theist. I am not against religion unless it leads to very harmful practices (ex: Sharia law.) People saying grace before they eat and attending church every Sunday aren't harming anybody and I have no reason to oppose what makes them happy.

If being determines consciousness then your reason for not being anti-theist are probably as valid as mine for being this. I'm against religion even if it leads to vaguely harmful practices and promoting of homophobia, anti-Semitism and nationalism or enforcing nonsensical taboos with help of gov could hardly be called other than very harmful.

I'm not at all concerned with happiness of people who try to force their age old beliefs at others.

[surreptitious57]

I am an atheist but am not an anti atheist as I think freedom of thought is a universal human right
But that does not mean that religion cannot be subject to scrutiny just like any other philosophy or
ideology. It must be examined just the same so cannot invoke privilege in order to deflect criticism

[robvalue]

I supposed there many different levels of being anti-theist, ranging from "I think it's stupid" (1) to "people should be killed for it" (10).

I'd put myself as a 2 on that scale. As usual, I think education is the weapon of choice, rather than trying to force people to do anything. However any active forms of harm or privilege should be opposed on principle.