Antitheism

[Dystopia]

I classify myself as an anti-theist because I see the submission to belief in gods as inherently bad to people and mankind... I got nothing else to add, that's just my position.

And how would you feel about the submission of theists to godlessness?  Just wondering.  Is that something you'd take any way you could get it?

I don't understand the question. Explain better please.

[Cyberman]

Do you want to have one on one debate about it? Not in the mood of facing everyone.

Not up to mass debating just now?

[Cephus]

Am I against theists?  No.  Am I against theism?  Absolutely.  Religion is a poison that kills rational minds.

[Excited Penguin]

Deism is about believing in a word. Namely God.

There. Showed you how illogical it is.

[Ravenshire]

Deism is about believing in a word. Namely God.

There. Showed you how illogical it is.

"deism

noun
1.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2.
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it."
Source


What's that? You showed us how illogical you are?

Fuck you, EP.

[Simon Moon]

I'm a Deist, but also an anti-theist.  I think religion is pure bullshit.  It teaches people to hate.  So fuck religion.

I'd have a one on one debate and logical discussion on you on Deism vs religion. I think Deism is illogical. I was a Deist for five years.

I remember when you classified yourself as a deist, and you were no deist.

While you classified yourself as a deist, you constantly talked about your belief in a god that intervenes in the physical universe. Which is not deism. I called you out on it many times, and finally you admitted you were not a deist.

Deism is more logically supportable than theism. Especially the Abrahamic brands, yours included.

[MTL]

Asserting that their beliefs, no matter how extreme, are unassailable truth, and unbacked,
is an opposition to someone who disagrees with you, and believes differently.

Yes.  And rightly so.

It is naive to say that anyone who has no backing for their belief, should be responsible for what their doctrine teaches, because they undoubtedly do not see it in the same light.

Naive, it is not.

It is a jarring, unsympathetic, but an absolutely deserved and necessary wake-up call.

Everyone is responsible for themselves.  Period.

Especially if you're hurting others with your stupid doctrine.

To tell the victims that suffer as a result of the evils of that doctrine,
that they should be sympathetic to the idiot perpetuators of that doctrine,
is appalling.

That's like telling the LGBT that they should not hold Right-Wing Christians responsible
for opposing the LGBT right to marry in a country that is not a Theocracy.

That's like telling young girls in the Middle East that they are wrong to hold Muslim men responsible
for mutilating the genitals of said young girls, because their religion says it's okay.

And you call MY point of view "despicable".

Your pandering to those in the grip of religion is the very attitude that encourages religious groups to make more and more demands for accommodation.

To say an unknowing ignorant believer should be responsible for not changing their violent beliefs, when they do not see them or are ignorant to the fact that they are unjustly violent in the first place, is a failure to understand what the other person actually believes.

you're absolutely right.

We should just always accommodate people with violent beliefs
and never point out their hypocrisy to them
or hold them accountable in any way,

because it's only rational, decent, intelligent, peaceful people who should be held rigidly responsible for their actions.

Or maybe nobody should be held responsible.

What's wrong with you????

Actions are entirely different from words, thoughts. That's why we have free speech.

Which side of this argument are you on????

Charlie Hebdo exercised their freedom of speech and religious maniacs shot them to bits,
and now you're telling me I shouldn't hold those religious maniacs accountable for their religious mania.

What you suggest is that we try to control minds, which is despicable.

Um, no.

It is the religious who control minds.  And I agree that it is despicable.

What I am trying to do, is free them.

[MTL]

@ EP

I don't think you're even trying to understand what I'm trying to say.
I think you're here to just argue for the sake of it.

[MTL]

I'm a Deist, but also an anti-theist.  I think religion is pure bullshit.  It teaches people to hate.  So fuck religion.

Aaaaaannnnd THAT, ^^^  EP, is why Deism is NOT meaningless.

That, right there, is the attitude I wish every Theist on Earth would wake up with, tomorrow morning.

I'm not against people believing in God.

I'm against Religion...the Dogma and crap people heap ONTO their Faith in God.

Completely arrogant, completely unnecessary, completely dangerous.

[Mystic]

I'd have a one on one debate and logical discussion on you on Deism vs religion. I think Deism is illogical. I was a Deist for five years.

I remember when you classified yourself as a deist, and you were no deist.

While you classified yourself as a deist, you constantly talked about your belief in a god that intervenes in the physical universe. Which is not deism. I called you out on it many times, and finally you admitted you were not a deist.

Deism is more logically supportable than theism. Especially the Abrahamic brands, yours included.

I did some research and tuns out classical Deists did believe one should pray to God for example. I remembering telling you that as well later.