Antitheism

[Edwardo Piet]

Close enough for me to agree. I'm sure I'll be told I'm incorrect.

Lol. I think what Evie said makes sense. Since atheism is merely the absence of theism, "preaching" it would just consist of attacking theism. (and I use preaching for lack of a better term). And it's not that you, MH, don't agree with what they are saying, it's just that you don't agree with it being preached.

For the record, I don't either: I'm not an antitheist.

[Catholic_Lady]

Lol. I think what Evie said makes sense. Since atheism is merely the absence of theism, "preaching" it would just consist of attacking theism. (and I use preaching for lack of a better term). And it's not that you, MH, don't agree with what they are saying, it's just that you don't agree with it being preached.

For the record, I don't either: I'm not an antitheist.

Yes, I know. 

[Foxaèr]

For the record:

I am an an antitheist.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes, I know.

#plagarisingCL

[Catholic_Lady]

Lolzz

[Thumpalumpacus]

Seriously? Mister Agenda, one of the most polite atheists around? Dude needs meds.

Thanks. I try, but sometimes I fall short due to my temper or passion or a variety of other, less flattering reasons. I may have said something that pushed EP's buttons before he pushed the block button.

You did. You dared to disagree with him.

[MTL]

I was actually starting to give you some credibility,
and then you started with all this crap about how Deism is a non-starter and God and Religion are the same thing.

I can easily conceive of the idea of a God, a creator of all things, who never spoke to mankind, never left stone tablets on a mountaintop, never impregnated any virgins, never whispered in any prophet's ear.

I can conceive of the possibility that such a being might truly exist....however unlikely that might be.

I can also conceive of the possibility that no such being exists, of course, as well.

That's why I'm Agnostic.

But REGARDLESS of whether a God exists or not,

I think EVERYTHING mankind has come up with, ABOUT God, is likely nonsense.

You think you can conceive of it. But I don't think you can.

Try and describe such a God to me.

I'm starting to see what everyone is referring to,
when they allude to you not acknowledging where you've been caught out,
or where someone makes a good point.

That means this thread isn't worth my time,
but just so it doesn't look like I'm copping out,
I'll reply to your last couple of points, and no more.

You say I simply don't understand the words,
and that my challenge of the definitions are baseless.

Bullshit.

My challenge was clear, articulate, valid, and concise.

And you know it.

I pointed out exactly what it was about Religion that I found unconscionable,
and where and why the dictionary definition was lacking.

And you tried to glass over that,
and dismiss my objection with a really lame out-of-hand dismissal that didn't acknowledge my entirely rational points.

So, okay.  You're a troll and not worth arguing with.

And you're other objection:

You think you can conceive of it. But I don't think you can.

...is equally unsophisticated.

You're not even a good troll, you're a lazy troll.

I'm done.  This started as a good discussion but it's now just a waste of my time.

[MTL]

All I said was that they "wield" it.  I didn't specify what they did with it.

I've already given my reasons for holding Believers accountable for their decision to belong to a Religion,
in other posts, but I'll repeat myself here:

A religion could be completely NON-VIOLENT and I would still object to it,
and still hold its members responsible for perpetuating, tolerating, and promoting its dangers.

Why?

1.  It is always unsubstantiated theories passed off as undisputed facts

(...and about GOD, at that!
This makes it not only unassailable from a logical perspective,
but also arguably makes it a "blasphemy" to CRITICIZE it...even if it deserves RIDICULE or CONDEMNATION.
It is why Charlie Hebdo got shot to shit;
it is why Apostasy is punishable by death in Islamic countries).

2.  It is not merely a belief that they keep to themselves.  They PROSELYTIZE; they ask others to adopt that belief,
whether they seek to recruit followers, or simply indoctrinate their own helpless children.

3.  It is open to interpretation, translation, misunderstanding.  Human nature will always corrupt and pervert it.

It's incredibly naive to think a person should be held responsible for not action, but simply thought that you disagree with, because they believe it to be true.

WAKEY-WAKEY!!!!

I don't think you read my reasons for objecting to religion.

Even if the religion has a completely non-violent history,
the reason I find it unconscionable

IS NOT BECAUSE THEY MERELY "DISAGREE WITH ME",

AND NOT BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY "BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY FROM ME"...

BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE HOLDING UP THEIR BELIEF STRUCTURE AS UNASSAILABLE TRUTH,
...WITH NO PROOF WHATSOEVER...AND ASKING OTHERS TO BELIEVE THE SAME.

Should I repeat it a third time???

Merely having a belief and keeping it to themselves wouldn't offend me,
(as long as their private beliefs didn't require violence of them).

But once you share your belief with others,
nay, even pass it off as unassailable TRUTH,

THEN I have a valid beef with you...especially since you can do NOTHING to prove that your belief is correct.

Believe in Unicorns and Santa Claus and Nessie and Bigfoot all you want.

But once you begin telling other people that they're sinners who will burn in hell unless they worship the Unicorn,
and take their money, and indoctrinate innocent children, and try to ban gay marriage,
using your Unicorn as justification

...all the while being unable to prove said Unicorn exists...

...then I have every right to object to it.

It has ceased to merely be a belief, and is now a dangerous loose cannon of a Religion.

See the difference???

[MTL]

I'm literally face-palming right now.

Not hard enough.  Keep trying...only do it a bit harder.

[Heat]

It's incredibly naive to think a person should be held responsible for not action, but simply thought that you disagree with, because they believe it to be true. 

IS NOT BECAUSE THEY MERELY "DISAGREE WITH ME",

AND NOT BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY "BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY FROM ME"...

BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE HOLDING UP THEIR BELIEF STRUCTURE AS UNASSAILABLE TRUTH,
...WITH NO PROOF WHATSOEVER...AND ASKING OTHERS TO BELIEVE THE SAME.

Exact same thing.

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. 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. 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. Actions are entirely different from words, thoughts. That's why we have free speech. What you suggest is that we try to control minds, which is despicable.