Antitheism

[Excited Penguin]

---

I think that if you disagree with religion on any issue at all or if you find it to be simply wrong, you are by necessity opposing it. The degree to which you might in fact be opposing it is irrelevant to whether or not you are against it.

oppose
[uh-pohz]

verb (used with object), opposed, opposing.
1.
to act against or provide resistance to; combat.
2.
to stand in the way of; hinder; obstruct.
3.
to set as an opponent or adversary.
4.
to be hostile or adverse to, as in opinion:
to oppose a resolution in a debate.
5.
to set as an obstacle or hindrance.
6.
to set against in some relation, especially as to demonstrate a comparison or contrast:
to oppose advantages to disadvantages.
7.
to use or take as being opposite or contrary.
8.
to set (something) over against something else in place, or to set (two things) so as to face or be opposite to one another.
verb (used without object), opposed, opposing.
9.
to be or act in opposition.

Do you even English?!?

---

Are you saying you don't oppose religion in any way, form or shape? So let me get this straight. Do you not care about the subject at all or do you in fact think religion is good and do you support it?

The fourth definition fits perfectly with what I said, by the way.

[MTL]

I am opposed to any and all religious dogma.

I dont mind people believing a god exists, but I object to a belief structure around that god,
that is passed off as fact when its really just a theory.

If all religion was meticulous about stating that its belief structure was merely theory,
and they did NOT pass it off as factual, then I might not be anti-theism.

I acknowledge some dogmas are more noxious than others,
but I think it is generally unacceptable to tout as fact that which only theory.

[MTL]

Atheist = "I don't believe in God."

Anti Theist  = "I don't believe in God and I hate the thought of anyone else believing it."

....Is this accurate?

That is not how I personally approach Anti-Theism, myself.

I have no objection to Deism.  I do not mind people believing in God.

What I object to is people telling other people WHAT to believe ABOUT God.

[MTL]

Not anti theist or even anti-theism. I'm anti-shove-your-theism-in-my-damn-face-when-I'm-trying-to-make-some-damn-turtley-mayo-here...ism.

I'm anti-religion in the sense of being against what a lot of religious beliefs stand for, but I am not anti-religion in the sense of wanting to wipe it all off the face of the planet by force or indoctrination--that's not the irreligious way.

Bravo.

I might WISH it would all vanish from the planet, and I might despise everything religion is and stands for,

but I would not want to be LIKE many religious people,
insofar as wanting to destroy or oppress those who do not agree with me,
or force those who disagree with me into living as if they agree with me.

I am hostile to religion; unapologetically so;

...but I wait until a theist tries to use their religion as justification for limiting or removing the rights of others,
or otherwise tries to ram their religion down my throat,
before I even begin to argue with them.

[Excited Penguin]

---

Not anti theist or even anti-theism. I'm anti-shove-your-theism-in-my-damn-face-when-I'm-trying-to-make-some-damn-turtley-mayo-here...ism.

I'm anti-religion in the sense of being against what a lot of religious beliefs stand for, but I am not anti-religion in the sense of wanting to wipe it all off the face of the planet by force or indoctrination--that's not the irreligious way.

Bravo.

I might WISH it would all vanish from the planet, and I might despise everything religion is and stands for,

but I would not want to be LIKE many religious people,
insofar as wanting to destroy or oppress those who do not agree with me,
or force those who disagree with me into living as if they agree with me.

I am hostile to religion; unapologetically so;

...but I wait until a theist tries to use their religion as justification for limiting or removing the rights of others,
or otherwise tries to ram their religion down my throat,
before I even begin to argue with them.

---

[MTL]

---

Bravo.

I might WISH it would all vanish from the planet, and I might despise everything religion is and stands for,

but I would not want to be LIKE many religious people,
insofar as wanting to destroy or oppress those who do not agree with me,
or force those who disagree with me into living as if they agree with me.

I am hostile to religion; unapologetically so;

...but I wait until a theist tries to use their religion as justification for limiting or removing the rights of others,
or otherwise tries to ram their religion down my throat,
before I even begin to argue with them.  

---

Evie doesn't identify as an antitheist, though. You do. In which way do you think you differ from him on this matter so that this description doesn't apply to the both of you?

I have not read all the posts yet, so I may have to qualify this reply, later;

but to reply to your question, off the top of my head,
if there is a difference between my choosing to refer to myself as Anti-Theism,

and Evie declining to term himself as such,

despite that it is the ramming of views down our throats that he and I both really take issue with,

then I think that that difference lays in the fact that Evie may not virulently object to religion,
(he may merely passively disagree with it or think it a bad thing)

....UNTIL it is rammed down his throat;

whereas I struggle to contain my anger at all religion,
and will not shrink from airing my disgust at the existence of religion,
if provided with an appropriate opportunity.

Consider racism:

Two people might both think racism a bad thing,
and both would certainly object to racist practices or views being shoved down their throats,

but only one might actively oppose racism,
whereas the other may simply passively think it a bad thing, without doing anything about it
....until it is specifically rammed down their throat.


I do not wish to speak for Evie,
but since you asked,
that is where i suspect the subtle difference may lay between him and I:

Both Evie and I might share a common disapproval of religion,
but I will actively oppose it where I can,
whereas Evie will only raise a fuss if it is shoved down his throat.

I will certainly object to it being shoved down my throat, too,
but if I can find any avenue by which to appropriately and legally oppose religion,
politically, verbally, financially, socially, etc,

I will make the effort.

[Ravenshire]

Because you're trying to paint me as something I'm not in a public forum. It's being an asshole at best, straight up slanderous at worst.

I view you as an antitheist.

Stop. That view is wrong, as has been pointed out.

We clearly disagree about what the word even means,

Actually, you disagree with the dictionary definition, or you don't understand it, or you're trying to twist it to fit your agenda.

but I'm just pointing out that I still consider you one(and rightly so).

Even though it's been pointed out how and why you're wrong. "Rightly so" my rosy red ass.

How exactly am I slandering you? I am recognizing the fact that you reject that label, but I still think you fit it.

I fit your twisted, incorrect label.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with you on a personal level, it's merely about what the word means, what you said in this thread and the fact that these two things fit perfectly together.

No, EP, you're not just labeling me. You're labeling me with an incorrect definition based on your mistaken pre-conception that all atheists must be antitheists. It's been pointed out to you over and over that your definition of antitheism is flawed but you refuse to back down. It seems to be a point of pride to you to never admit defeat or even being wrong but I digress. It has absolutely everything to do with me personally because you are misapplying a label even after being corrected about it. That is knowingly representing a falsehood about someone. Doing it in a public forum is slanderous. What the word means and my stance on others beliefs do not "fit perfectly together" unless you're twisting either my words or the meaning of antitheism.

---

oppose
[uh-pohz]

verb (used with object), opposed, opposing.
1.
to act against or provide resistance to; combat.
2.
to stand in the way of; hinder; obstruct.
3.
to set as an opponent or adversary.
4.
to be hostile or adverse to, as in opinion:
to oppose a resolution in a debate.
5.
to set as an obstacle or hindrance.
6.
to set against in some relation, especially as to demonstrate a comparison or contrast:
to oppose advantages to disadvantages.
7.
to use or take as being opposite or contrary.
8.
to set (something) over against something else in place, or to set (two things) so as to face or be opposite to one another.
verb (used without object), opposed, opposing.
9.
to be or act in opposition.

Do you even English?!?

---

Are you saying you don't oppose religion in any way, form or shape? So let me get this straight. Do you not care about the subject at all or do you in fact think religious is good and do you support it?

The fourth definition fits perfectly with what I said, by the way.

And now you're conflating two different points in an apparent attempt to muddy the waters. Here is what you said, verbatum: "I think that if you disagree with religion on any issue at all or if you find it to be simply wrong, you are by necessity opposing it." Again, you're dead wrong. Conflating disagreement and opposition is disingenuous at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. That fourth definition that you claim perfectly fits your argument, how do you figure anyone is being hostile or adverse to anything simply by disagreeing. Remember, you're the one here trying to conflate disagreement with opposition. I can disagree with the right of people to chew bubble-gum, but unless I take action, I am not in opposition to it. Get it yet? Probably not... Again, do you even English?!? Words have meanings and you don't get to change them to fit your agenda.

I know reading comprehension is tough for you so I'll try to keep the conclusion very simple. Don't try to label people. Especially when your lable is wrong. People will push back and you probably won't like it.

To answer your other ridiculous questions, no I do not oppose religion. I don't agree with it, but I do not oppose it. What I oppose is some of the actions taken by the religious and how you can't see that difference is astounding.

I only care about the subject as it affects others. I don't throw a hissy when someone says bless you after I sneeze, nor do I campaign every solstice to get the Christ out of Saturnalia. If people start pushing their beliefs (religious or secular) on others, I have and will oppose that. That does not meet the definition of antitheist (except by your definition). Antidogmatist? Maybe. No, I don't think religion in general is good (though there are some things about religion that I do consider to be good things) nor do I support it. Lack of support does not translate into opposition either.

Let me try it this way:
Believe what you (generic you, not you specifically) want. Tell other what you believe. Try to convince others to believe. Tell others they must believe it too? Fuck off. Does that demonstrate that I am not against the beliefs but merely the forcing of others? Probably not... Though it certainly should.

Being against forcing beliefs on others isn't antitheism, it's antiasshole.

[Ravenshire]

Evie doesn't identify as an antitheist, though. You do. In which way do you think you differ from him on this matter so that this description doesn't apply to the both of you?

I have not read all the posts yet, so I may have to qualify this reply, later;

but to reply to your question, off the top of my head,
if there is a difference between my choosing to refer to myself as Anti-Theism,

and Evie declining to term himself as such,

despite that it is the ramming of views down our throats that he and I both really take issue with,

then I think that that difference lays in the fact that Evie may not virulently object to religion,
(he may merely passively disagree with it or think it a bad thing)

....UNTIL it is rammed down his throat;

whereas I struggle to contain my anger at all religion,
and will not shrink from airing my disgust at the existence of religion,
if provided with an appropriate opportunity.

Consider racism:

Two people might both think racism a bad thing,
and both would certainly object to racist practices or views being shoved down their throats,

but only one might actively oppose racism,
whereas the other may simply passively think it a bad thing, without doing anything about it
....until it is specifically rammed down their throat.


I do not wish to speak for Evie,
but since you asked,
that is where i suspect the subtle difference may lay between him and I:

Both Evie and I might share a common disapproval of religion,
but I will actively oppose it where I can,
whereas Evie will only raise a fuss if it is shoved down his throat.

I will certainly object to it being shoved down my throat, too,
but if I can find any avenue by which to appropriately and legally oppose religion,
politically, verbally, financially, socially, etc,

I will make the effort.

(emphasis is mine)

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding... We have a winner!

Thanks for summarizing in a few short lines what I've been trying to get across with walls of text.

Get it yet EP

[Heat]

EP's just practicing his classic shtick of thinking everyone must agree with him, to the point in which where he is clearly disproven he will not concede the point, but simply ignore it or pretend he's still correct. He possesses every one of the attributes of a psychopathic troll, only difference being that the gimmick of purposely annoying someone by touting a position you don't believe, he actually believes.

[MTL]

I have not read all the posts yet, so I may have to qualify this reply, later;

but to reply to your question, off the top of my head,
if there is a difference between my choosing to refer to myself as Anti-Theism,

and Evie declining to term himself as such,

despite that it is the ramming of views down our throats that he and I both really take issue with,

then I think that that difference lays in the fact that Evie may not virulently object to religion,
(he may merely passively disagree with it or think it a bad thing)

....UNTIL it is rammed down his throat;

whereas I struggle to contain my anger at all religion,
and will not shrink from airing my disgust at the existence of religion,
if provided with an appropriate opportunity.

Consider racism:

Two people might both think racism a bad thing,
and both would certainly object to racist practices or views being shoved down their throats,

but only one might actively oppose racism,
whereas the other may simply passively think it a bad thing, without doing anything about it
....until it is specifically rammed down their throat.


I do not wish to speak for Evie,
but since you asked,
that is where i suspect the subtle difference may lay between him and I:

Both Evie and I might share a common disapproval of religion,
but I will actively oppose it where I can,
whereas Evie will only raise a fuss if it is shoved down his throat.

I will certainly object to it being shoved down my throat, too,
but if I can find any avenue by which to appropriately and legally oppose religion,
politically, verbally, financially, socially, etc,

I will make the effort.

(emphasis is mine)

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding... We have a winner!

Thanks for summarizing in a few short lines what I've been trying to get across with walls of text.

Get it yet EP

However,

it could be argued that simply by choosing to participate in Atheist Forums,
Evie is actively opposing religion to the same degree that I am,

and conversely,

since what I mean by actively opposing religion in an appropriate fashion,
outside of these forums,
for all intents and purposes,
may mean only objecting once someone engages me on the subject;

it could be argued that when it comes to practical application,
Evie and I are not that different.

Perhaps the real difference is the degree of outrage I feel.

EDIT:

Or, if you like,

Perhaps it could be viewed as follows:

While Evie and I may, when it comes to practical application,
be very similar insofar as neither of us really say anything until someone insists on engaging us,

it might also be that Evie does not share my personal view
that all participants in religion are responsible for the perpetration of the existence of religion.