• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

It's Phaedrus~

Phaedrus

Active Member
I just realized that I never made an introduction thread.

Labels are good, I like labels. They help me define myself as well as differentiate one individual from another.

As far as labels are concerned, I think agnostic and atheist are weak in describing my character. I am essentially a militant anti-theist.

I know, I know. No one really wants to know that, why don't I just hide behind the safe atheist label to appease everyone? Simply, because it is not my responsibility to cater to the irrational sensitivities of others. Of course, I am still a nice, kind, respectable individual. I am simply not going to indulge irrational ways of religious thinking, which is reasonable.

Everyone also wants to say "Oh, I'm here to learn." Well, I can state with certainty that I have learned enough about religion in my lifetime to understand that none of it is worth accepting as based on objective reality.

Why am I here? To debate, of course, from the anti-theistic perspective.

Now, who wants to hug a heathen?
 

Workman

UNIQUE
I just realized that I never made an introduction thread.

Labels are good, I like labels. They help me define myself as well as differentiate one individual from another.

As far as labels are concerned, I think agnostic and atheist are weak in describing my character. I am essentially a militant anti-theist.

I know, I know. No one really wants to know that, why don't I just hide behind the safe atheist label to appease everyone? Simply, because it is not my responsibility to cater to the irrational sensitivities of others. Of course, I am still a nice, kind, respectable individual. I am simply not going to indulge irrational ways of religious thinking, which is reasonable.

Everyone also wants to say "Oh, I'm here to learn." Well, I can state with certainty that I have learned enough about religion in my lifetime to understand that none of it is worth accepting as based on objective reality.

Why am I here? To debate, of course, from the anti-theistic perspective.

Now, who wants to hug a heathen?
I Do....
Let me Answer you the question..
You say: no one can describe your character.
And I Say: even you..Do Not Know..But!
Rather Did know How to make up,
Of (A)n character(S)!, Are (A;S) You..Are!
 
Last edited:

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I just realized that I never made an introduction thread.

Labels are good, I like labels. They help me define myself as well as differentiate one individual from another.

As far as labels are concerned, I think agnostic and atheist are weak in describing my character. I am essentially a militant anti-theist.

I know, I know. No one really wants to know that, why don't I just hide behind the safe atheist label to appease everyone? Simply, because it is not my responsibility to cater to the irrational sensitivities of others. Of course, I am still a nice, kind, respectable individual. I am simply not going to indulge irrational ways of religious thinking, which is reasonable.

Everyone also wants to say "Oh, I'm here to learn." Well, I can state with certainty that I have learned enough about religion in my lifetime to understand that none of it is worth accepting as based on objective reality.

Why am I here? To debate, of course, from the anti-theistic perspective.

Now, who wants to hug a heathen?

I really like your post and introduction. Not all may, but I, for one, am not going to fault you for not beating around the bush, and getting to the real point, some 1000x more than in another thread.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
Why am I here? To debate, of course, from the anti-theistic perspective.

Now, who wants to hug a heathen?

Big Hug. Arguing the "anti-theistic" perspective is just too easy. If you really want to challenge yourself try arguing the pro-theistic position. It's way more challenging!
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Implying that you "outgrew it?" Nice. Now... let the back-tracking commence!
No back-tracking. I did grow out of it. I realized I was projecting an ire I had for a small number of people on an incredibly huge demographic of varied people and varied beliefs and adopting a more-intelligent-than-thou demeaning attitude which was both a disservice to the myriad of religious people I was foisting my baggage on and myself. So I lost the attitude and instead focused on putting my curious nature to work actually, honestly trying to understand beliefs different than my own, without feeling pressured to adopt them.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
I just realized that I never made an introduction thread.

Labels are good, I like labels. They help me define myself as well as differentiate one individual from another.

As far as labels are concerned, I think agnostic and atheist are weak in describing my character. I am essentially a militant anti-theist.

I know, I know. No one really wants to know that, why don't I just hide behind the safe atheist label to appease everyone? Simply, because it is not my responsibility to cater to the irrational sensitivities of others. Of course, I am still a nice, kind, respectable individual. I am simply not going to indulge irrational ways of religious thinking, which is reasonable.

Everyone also wants to say "Oh, I'm here to learn." Well, I can state with certainty that I have learned enough about religion in my lifetime to understand that none of it is worth accepting as based on objective reality.

Why am I here? To debate, of course, from the anti-theistic perspective.

Now, who wants to hug a heathen?

May the Lord bestow unto you many blessings. In the name of the Father... The Son... And the Hoooooly Spirit..!

giphy-9.gif
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
No back-tracking. I did grow out of it. I realized I was projecting an ire I had for a small number of people on an incredibly huge demographic of varied people and varied beliefs and adopting a more-intelligent-than-thou demeaning attitude which was both a disservice to the myriad of religious people I was foisting my baggage on and myself. So I lost the attitude and instead focused on putting my curious nature to work actually, honestly trying to understand beliefs different than my own, without feeling pressured to adopt them.
Sounds... good... I guess? For you. I mean for you. You specifically.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
The thing most "atheist" folk around here object to as "theism", isn't theism. At most it's a sub-category of theism based on fantasy, emotion, and social dynamics more then on any actual theology, while posing as some sort of absolutist ideology. It's something more akin to fantasy-driven superstition, really, than to actual theology. It's cult religionists proclaiming myth-based fantasies they hold about God as actual events and knowledge of God, when it's not. It isn't really even faith-based so much as it's pretense-based.

I mention this as you claimed (in the OP) that you like 'labels', but I think the one you've chosen for yourself is not reflecting what you're actually objecting to.
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Good for me and everyone else around me, too.
Sounds good. Not even quite sure how you were affecting everyone around you with your opinions of religion, but you and I are obviously different people, and from the sounds of it, you probably let your real-world dealings include a lot of your opinions about religion. I don't. I don't even talk about it unless someone else starts the conversation. I'm not some "activist" - don't go around poking holes in people's ships. I reserve that for anonymous dealings unless someone in my real-world dealings shows that they can go toe-to-toe, and aren't going to get lastingly emotional about it.

Maintaining the ego and hatred necessary to keep up 'lol, theists are delusional!' was good for no one.
Is that really how you acted? As in, is "lol, theists are delusional!" an accurate representation of your behavior? If so, then you're right... that doesn't sound healthy. Doesn't even sound intelligent, if I am being honest.

Or was that sarcasm, or hyperbole, meant to make me "rethink" the way that I might be because you intended to make that a caricature of me, or anti-theists in-general perhaps? That seems likely the more that I think about it, and read back over your reply. Interesting. I wonder how that fits into your "I outgrew it" mode of thinking?
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Sounds good. Not even quite sure how you were affecting everyone around you with your opinions of religion, but you and I are obviously different people, and from the sounds of it, you probably let your real-world dealings include a lot of your opinions about religion. I don't. I don't even talk about it unless someone else starts the conversation. I'm not some "activist" - don't go around poking holes in people's ships. I reserve that for anonymous dealings unless someone in my real-world dealings shows that they can go toe-to-toe, and aren't going to get lastingly emotional about it.
It wasn't about activism, per say, but how my opinion on the mental framework of theists effected my treatment of them. Of course I would *say* I didn't treat them any different but that wasn't actually true. Since I didn't bother actually learning their beliefs I had a pre-judgement of their character ready to go, usually based on stereotyping their beliefs.
Suffice to say the pre-judgement I had of anyone religious or theistic effected relationships and made me a terrible mediator when religious issues did arise.

Is that really how you acted? As in, is "lol, theists are delusional!" an accurate representation of your behavior? If so, then you're right... that doesn't sound healthy. Doesn't even sound intelligent, if I am being honest.
It wasn't, I'm not ashamed to admit it.

Or was that sarcasm, or hyperbole, meant to make me "rethink" the way that I am because you intended to make that a caricature of me, or of anti-theists in-general perhaps? That seems likely the more that I think about it, and read back over your reply. Interesting. I wonder how that fits into your "I outgrew it" mode of thinking?
I don't know what you believe, but I do have a pretty dim view of the 'militant anti-theism' I believe the OP is describing based on my experiences both internally and externally.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
It wasn't about activism, per say, but how my opinion on the mental framework of theists effected my treatment of them. Of course I would *say* I didn't treat them any different but that wasn't actually true. Since I didn't bother actually learning their beliefs I had a pre-judgement of their character ready to go, usually based on stereotyping their beliefs.
Suffice to say the pre-judgement I had of anyone religious or theistic effected relationships and made me a terrible mediator when religious issues did arise.
It's interesting, because I tend to simply discard people's religious views as not really being a "part" of them. I know them as the person, and their religious views (as much as they would claim otherwise) don't really play into it. Now, obviously if they are specifically talking religion, then that's an entirely different thing. But in just dealing with "the person" I am intent on literally dealing with "the person." I am not interested in dealing with their religion unless they are. And otherwise, as stated, I don't see "religion" as being intrinsic to a person. They are a person, and they have thoughts, feelings, attitudes, etc. I'm not so naive that I don't think those things can be informed by their religious outlook - but for the most part, I find that religion doesn't much play into how a person really is, or what their motivations, feelings and emotions are.

It wasn't, I'm not ashamed to admit it.
Strange how even self-denigration can still seem like a slight jab at others you think are perpetrating the same things you "used to." Isn't it?

I don't know what you believe, but I do have a pretty dim view of the 'militant anti-theism' I believe the OP is describing based on my experiences both internally and externally.
I think people should deal more with one another as "people." I don't think religion should even play a part. You can obviously have as dim a view of that sentiment (or any other) as you wish.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
The thing most "atheist" folk around here object to as "theism", isn't theism. At most it's a sub-category of theism based on fantasy, emotion, and social dynamics more then on any actual theology, while posing as some sort of absolutist ideology. It's something more akin to fantasy-driven superstition, really, than to actual theology. It's cult religionists proclaiming myth-based fantasies they hold about God as actual events and knowledge of God, when it's not. It isn't really even faith-based so much as it's pretense-based.

I mention this as you claimed (in the OP) that you like 'labels', but I think the one you've chosen for yourself is not reflecting what you're actually objecting to.

I concur, and as a member of a theistic faith that doesn't subscribe to any of the above (like a lot of other folks) occasionally that over-generalisation can get annoying. But mostly it's due to only being exposed to one version, simply not getting around much.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It's interesting, because I tend to simply discard people's religious views as not really being a "part" of them. I know them as the person, and their religious views (as much as they would claim otherwise) don't really play into it. Now, obviously if they are specifically talking religion, then that's an entirely different thing. But in just dealing with "the person" I am intent on literally dealing with "the person." I am not interested in dealing with their religion unless they are. And otherwise, as stated, I don't see "religion" as being intrinsic to a person. They are a person, and they have thoughts, feelings, attitudes, etc. I'm not so naive that I don't think those things can be informed by their religious outlook - but for the most part, I find that religion doesn't much play into how a person really is, or what their motivations, feelings and emotions are.
I think some people have religious beliefs which are descriptive and some which are prescriptive, and probably a lot of crossover depending on the subject or mood. And how much their worldview is impacted by their religion or Visa versa is so varied I couldn't make a definitive statement on how much a person's religion is a part of them.
I agree that it shouldn't matter in 99% of cases but those anti-theists I knew, self included, 100% made "if religious then x character statement (eg morality or intelligence.)" And it's a prejudicial and unnuanced view to have, imo. And can, as it was in my case, just be the projected resentment based on my bad experience with a minority evangelical group. Which wasn't healthy.
Strange how even self-denigration can still seem like a slight jab at others you think are perpetrating the same things you "used to." Isn't it?
:shrug: What should I say? I don't think the attitude and behavior was bad? These are really my experiences with things a actually did used to believe, and why I changed.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
What should I say? I don't think the attitude and behavior was bad? These are really my experiences with things a actually did used to believe, and why I changed.
Obviously you are able to think it was bad and relay as much to others, but whether or not this thing truly is "bad" is entirely subjective. Your experience with it may or may not resonate with another, and whether or not they feel they need to change is entirely up to them.I'm quite sure you understand this, however let's recap your original post in this thread:
Welcome. I had an angry atheist phase, too.
And that was in response to someone proclaiming the position they currently relate to. It is safe to assume that you feel an "angry atheist" phase to be a "bad" thing (let's face it, you said as much). And you are here, with this quote, applying the label "angry atheist" (a bad thing) to the OP. You can say you weren't, but going "back to the tape" there is the word "too" in there. As in "me also"... as in - "like you."

Now, had the OP used the term "angry atheist" to describe themselves, then your post would take on an entirely different light! But that's not what we're looking at here. You are ascribing what you feel is a "bad" characteristic to the OP. And then on top of that, to imply that you "outgrew it" (and then directly state as much when pressed) also ascribes to the OP the idea that they too could use some "growing up", does it not? Basically you stated that the OP's current mode of thinking was "just a phase" for you.

I am quite sure you are aware of all of the above. There was intent, I feel, in that first reply. Possibly an attempt to dissuade people from thinking being "anti-theist" is a valid position, lest they find themselves in some immature mode of thinking that you feel you have grown out of. Again - your experience is not everyone's experience. For all we know, you may have just been a pretty lousy angry/militant-atheist.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Obviously you are able to think it was bad and relay as much to others, but whether or not this thing truly is "bad" is entirely subjective. Your experience with it may or may not resonate with another, and whether or not they feel they need to change is entirely up to them.I'm quite sure you understand this, however let's recap your original post in this thread:

And that was in response to someone proclaiming the position they currently relate to. It is safe to assume that you feel an "angry atheist" phase to be a "bad" thing (let's face it, you said as much). And you are here, with this quote, applying the label "angry atheist" (a bad thing) to the OP. You can say you weren't, but going "back to the tape" there is the word "too" in there. As in "me also"... as in - "like you."

Now, had the OP used the term "angry atheist" to describe themselves, then your post would take on an entirely different light! But that's not what we're looking at here. You are ascribing what you feel is a "bad" characteristic to the OP. And then on top of that, to imply that you "outgrew it" (and then directly state as much when pressed) also ascribes to the OP the idea that they too could use some "growing up", does it not? Basically you stated that the OP's current mode of thinking was "just a phase" for you.

I am quite sure you are aware of all of the above. There was intent, I feel, in that first reply. Possibly an attempt to dissuade people from thinking being "anti-theist" is a valid position, lest they find themselves in some immature mode of thinking that you feel you have grown out of. Again - your experience is not everyone's experience. For all we know, you may have just been a pretty lousy angry/militant-atheist.
This is a lot of text to question if I think the op's version of 'militant antitheism' is as unnuanced, immature and prejudicial as mine was. If that's the question then the answer is 'it seems that way based on their activity I've read. I could be wrong but I don't believe so'.
Does that satisfy you or make you more upset?
 
Top