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!
February 3, 2016 at 1:52 am (This post was last modified: February 3, 2016 at 1:53 am by Excited Penguin.)
(February 3, 2016 at 1:04 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:
(February 2, 2016 at 11:51 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: I view you as an antitheist.
Stop. That view is wrong, as has been pointed out.
(February 2, 2016 at 11:51 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: 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.
(February 2, 2016 at 11:51 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: 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.
(February 2, 2016 at 11:51 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: 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.
(February 2, 2016 at 11:51 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: 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.
(February 2, 2016 at 11:54 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: 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.
How do you imagine one can be opposed to religion more than disagreeing with it or reacting to it wherever it is being imposed on others?
February 3, 2016 at 1:56 am (This post was last modified: February 3, 2016 at 1:57 am by Excited Penguin.)
(February 3, 2016 at 1:18 am)MTL Wrote:
(February 3, 2016 at 1:07 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: (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.
(Emphasis mine.)
How do you define responsible, in this case?
It seems to me like you're saying you do think you're both antitheists, but the degree to which you are such differs. Would that be a correct assessment of what you are saying?
February 3, 2016 at 2:00 am (This post was last modified: February 3, 2016 at 2:07 am by Edwardo Piet.)
I've never been an anti-theist but I used to be a lot more vocal about my being anti-religion.
The first few years on AF I was mostly here to debate. Now I consider it a waste of turtley energy.
I also used to try and deconvert people from their religion for the first few years I was here on AF (through logic though not via force or indoctrination, I never wanted to impose, I wanted to reason)... but I've only ever been against the beliefs of theists regarding their religion and theism rather than the theists themselves as people. I've never been against theists or religious people.
Also I still now believe religion does a lot of harm in the world, and I'm against those harmful beliefs... but I am no longer against harmless beliefs that are untrue because I no longer believe that all untrue beliefs are harmful.
I also make no effort to even deconvert beliefs I think are harmful and dangerous anymore, not even by logic and reason. I consider it futile and I have a life to live. I also think it's ineffective to actually try and deconvert, I think people make up their own minds. A theist won't become an atheist before they are ready.
February 3, 2016 at 2:18 am (This post was last modified: February 3, 2016 at 2:19 am by Excited Penguin.)
(February 3, 2016 at 2:00 am)Evie Wrote: I've never been an anti-theist but I used to be a lot more vocal about my being anti-religion.
The first few years on AF I was mostly here to debate. Now I consider it a waste of turtley energy.
I also used to try and deconvert people from their religion for the first few years I was here on AF (through logic though not via force or indoctrination, I never wanted to impose, I wanted to reason)... but I've only ever been against the beliefs of theists regarding their religion and theism rather than the theists themselves as people. I've never been against theists or religious people.
Also I still now believe religion does a lot of harm in the world, and I'm against those harmful beliefs... but I am no longer against harmless beliefs that are untrue because I no longer believe that all untrue beliefs are harmful.
I also make no effort to even deconvert beliefs I think are harmful and dangerous anymore, not even by logic and reason. I consider it futile and I have a life to live. I also think it's ineffective to actually try and deconvert, I think people make up their own minds. A theist won't become an atheist before they are ready.
(Emphasis mine.)
How do you think the two differ? -- Antitheism and anti-religion, that is.
That was really quick and easy to catch up on. I enjoyed reading the posts I didn't have on ignore and thank you to everyone who posted without quoting the dumb fuck.
(February 3, 2016 at 2:21 am)Evie Wrote: Anti-theism=Anti belief in God(s).
Anti-religion=Anti belief in religion(s).
Anti-theist=anti people who believe in God(s).
Anti-religious person(s)=anti people who believe in religion(s).
That's incorrect. Antitheist describes a person who subscribes to antitheism, not someone who is anti people who believe in God. It's a misconception on your part, and it's understandable, but please admit it.
(February 3, 2016 at 2:54 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:
(February 3, 2016 at 2:21 am)Evie Wrote: Anti-theism=Anti belief in God(s).
Anti-religion=Anti belief in religion(s).
Anti-theist=anti people who believe in God(s).
Anti-religious person(s)=anti people who believe in religion(s).
That's incorrect. Antitheist describes a person who subscribes to antitheism, not someone who is anti people who believe in God. It's a misconception on your part, and it's understandable, but please admit it.
What is the belief of god held by? People. So how then are you not Anti-people who believe in God(s), while being anti-belief in God(s)? It makes perfect sense.
And you would say;
"Yes, but just because I am against the belief does not mean that I am against the people who believe it".
Well, isn't that in direct parallel to what others have pointed out isn't the same thing, being Atheism, and Anti-Theism?
You see, when we apply your own logic to the situation you claim as accurate, we get an overwhelming sense of hypocrisy.
Tell me, would it not be the same logic as the response I assume you would provide, that "Just because a person is against the validity of a belief, does not mean that person is against the belief"?
Which is better:
To die with ignorance, or to live with intelligence?
February 3, 2016 at 3:11 am (This post was last modified: February 3, 2016 at 3:11 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Forget the simple labels. I'll explain in more detail where I stand.
I think religions do a lot of harm. I am anti that harm but I do nothing about it nor do I think I can.
I don't think theism in itself does harm, but I used to believe it did: I consider all forms of theism to be false and I used to consider all false beliefs harmful, I no longer do believe that.
I have never been against religious people or theists themselves. I have never been a bigot.
Anti-religion does not equate to anti-religious-folks and anti belief in God(s) does not equate to anti believers in God(s).
