Why anti-theism is a joke.

[TheKnight]

True, but people are conditioned by various factors, especially religion. So looking at people would necessarily mean looking at the religion which conditioned them - and shaped their behavior, ideas, and choices.

I would agree that looking at people requires looking at religion. However, to blame religion itself for problems that people cause is taking that look a bit too far.

your surely cannot deny there are negitive aspects of religion that have caused to many deaths, even in modern times no matter how indirectly religion could be attributed to.

You most certainly can deny it. Ignorance and a lack of mental capacity to comprehend, consider, think, and make smart decisions cause deaths, both now and in the past.

Religion itself, does not cause death. In fact, it cannot. Only a lack of reason on the part of the person who listens to a religious idea and misunderstands it can cause such problems.

I disagree, I think it may be difficult to separate the two, but not impossible. And more than that I think it is required to separate the two.

In reality the two can only be separated theoretically. Practically speaking an ideology is harmless without a violent and willing human being to do evil in its name.

A true separation of the two should result in seeing religions for what they are, collections of ideas.

Instead, we "separate" the two by not talking about the people specifically, yet criticizing the religion in the light of what the people have done.



All the above being said, I personally see a growing trend of anti-religion (I won't call it anti-Theism for the sake of accuracy) on this forum. Not that such a trend is necessarily bad, but it can be rather disturbing considering that there was once a time when it wasn't present or so widely uncontested. There was once a time on this forum where the majority of threads on the first page of "Today's Posts" had valuable discussion and interesting presentations of both sides of a matter in an intellectual and beneficial manner. People discussed certain topics with a hope of understanding the various views on the topic and even debating (intellectually and civilly) the merits of said views.


However, as I click "Today's Posts" now the first page consists of topics that start out with good potential, but end up being full of posts that aren't so concerned with the intellectual value of discussing the topic, but rather within a few posts the actual topic is disregarded and other less savory posts ensue.


Now, personally I don't think that the quality of the forum in that regard has gone down, but it certainly feels that way to those of us who've been here for a while. In fact, what I've noticed is that most of the substantive discussion (like that of earlier times on RF) has gone to DIRs where people of various faiths choose to discuss topics on a place wherein uninterested and unintellectual interlopers are restricted from thread derailing.

Just my .02. Good topic.

 

[Looncall]

I would agree that looking at people requires looking at religion. However, to blame religion itself for problems that people cause is taking that look a bit too far.

You most certainly can deny it. Ignorance and a lack of mental capacity to comprehend, consider, think, and make smart decisions cause deaths, both now and in the past.

Religion itself, does not cause death. In fact, it cannot. Only a lack of reason on the part of the person who listens to a religious idea and misunderstands it can cause such problems.

This argument is a bit odd. On the one hand, we have lots of religions that claim to instill good morals. On the other hand, we have religious people doing bad things. You claim that the religious people doing bad things is not a failure of the religions. I disagree.

Further, one does read of religious people doing bad things in the name of their religion (eg Taliban suicide bombings). If the texts and teachings of their religions were beneficent, clear and effective, that would be unthinkable.

I don't think you can absolve religions of the evils they condone or promote or are powerless to oppose.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This argument is a bit odd. On the one hand, we have lots of religions that claim to instill good morals. On the other hand, we have religious people doing bad things. You claim that the religious people doing bad things is not a failure of the religions. I disagree.

Further, one does read of religious people doing bad things in the name of their religion (eg Taliban suicide bombings). If the texts and teachings of their religions were beneficent, clear and effective, that would be unthinkable.

I don't think you can absolve religions of the evils they condone or promote or are powerless to oppose.

Agreed....

 

[TheKnight]

This argument is a bit odd. On the one hand, we have lots of religions that claim to instill good morals. On the other hand, we have religious people doing bad things. You claim that the religious people doing bad things is not a failure of the religions. I disagree.

Further, one does read of religious people doing bad things in the name of their religion (eg Taliban suicide bombings). If the texts and teachings of their religions were beneficent, clear and effective, that would be unthinkable.

I don't think you can absolve religions of the evils they condone or promote or are powerless to oppose.

What you're suggesting is that we blame religions for not being clear enough. I disagree with that assertion. Many things are unclear, not by choice, but by the simple nature of their existence. That being said, to blame religions themselves for the inadequate capacity for understanding on the part of their believers is ridiculous.


Do religions condone or promote evils? That's a matter of question, there is no simple answer because it requires study of the individual religion in question and it requires an agreed upon definition of evil. I, personally, don't believe in "good and evil". So to argue the point with me would be even more confusing for those who accept the ideas of good and evil.

Are religions powerless to oppose evil? Of course, an idea cannot oppose an evil. An evil, by its very definition, or at least in the context of how you're using the word, is an act done by a person. People oppose people, ideas do not. Ideas motivate, and how they are understood dictates the type of motivation they will produce.

If an idea can motivate one to evil and another to good, then is the idea either? Is it both? Is it neither? I would argue that these are all good questions for discussing, of course, I wouldn't discuss them because I don't see a need to classify ideas in such a manner. I prefer to classify ideas as either smart, intelligent, logical, and worthwhile, or a waste of time.

You say that one reads of religious people doing bad things. I would disagree with this. If you read a Taliban suicide-bomber as "a religious person doing a bad thing" then I consider you to be of the same category as someone who sees a Taliban suicide-bomber as "an Arab person doing a bad thing" or "a male doing a bad thing". You're not wrong, per se, you're just being extremely limited. It really only serves to reflect your own prejudice against a certain group doing bad things. Surely if a "religious" person doing a bad thing draws a justified criticism of religion then it also draws a justified criticism of Arabs, and males in the same vein.

Why not see it simply as a person doing something you don't necessarily agree with? Can you call it bad right away? A man walks into a crowded plaza and detonates himself. You look at that and see "a religious person doing a bad thing"? I do not, I look at it and see a peculiar situation. I think to myself of what it takes to drive one to suicide (having worked in suicide prevention) and ask what motivated him to such a death? I then go on to read about him, about his cause, about why he died. I learn he is of a group known as the Taliban. They are a group of men who believe that Islam should dominate the world. Is that why he blew himself up? Is that the reason they give when they put out videos of why they take violent action against innocent human beings?

Maybe his disagreement is with U.S. and Western occupation of Arab lands? Perhaps his disgruntled action is a politically motivated ploy because he does not agree with Western interference in Arab countries, interference that almost always proves damaging.

How can we know? We can't ask him, he's dead, but what do he and men like him say?

Either way, I digress. Hopefully you understand why one should not criticize religion for what people do in its name. If we criticize religion, it should be on the basis and with the intent of finding out the truth-value of its claims and its utility as a motivator.

To classify it as either good or evil is superfluous.

 

[Looncall]

Either way, I digress. Hopefully you understand why one should not criticize religion for what people do in its name. If we criticize religion, it should be on the basis and with the intent of finding out the truth-value of its claims and its utility as a motivator.

To classify it as either good or evil is superfluous.

I certainly can and do criticize religions for things done in their name. Especially since religions make a loud claim to instill moral behaviour. If they promote evil, they should be criticized, if they wink at evil they should be criticized then too. If they cannot prevent evil, they should stop claiming that they can.

One reason religious people do bad things is that religious texts and teachings are purposely so vague and contradictory that anything at all can be justified using those texts and teachings. On these grounds, too, religions should stop claiming moral superiority.

 

[TheKnight]

I certainly can and do criticize religions for things done in their name. Especially since religions make a loud claim to instill moral behaviour. If they promote evil, they should be criticized, if they wink at evil they should be criticized then too. If they cannot prevent evil, they should stop claiming that they can.

Do they make a loud claim that they can instill moral behavior? Or do people who adhere to them make such a claim? I would argue that an idea itself cannot instill any sort of behavior. It can only motivate one towards certain behavior, and how it motivates a person is all dependent upon the person and that person's experiences in the world.

One reason religious people do bad things is that religious texts and teachings are purposely so vague and contradictory that anything at all can be justified using those texts and teachings.

So what you're saying is that religious people justify their bad actions by using vague and contradictory teachings within a religion? And that fact means the religion is responsible for those bad actions? Does that sound reasonable to you?

 

[Looncall]

So what you're saying is that religious people justify their bad actions by using vague and contradictory teachings within a religion? And that fact means the religion is responsible for those bad actions? Does that sound reasonable to you?

Sure it does. If the teachings were clear, it would be much harder to abuse them.

 

[TheKnight]

Sure it does. If the teachings were clear, it would be much harder to abuse them.

Oh, OK. So you live in a world where you blame the clarity of an idea for the problems that the unlearned cause when they misunderstand it, as opposed to one where you blame the unlearned for not better thinking through their decisions before acting? Just f*** personal responsibility right? Blame that damn religion for being so unclear. It could have made itself more understandable for us, but no, it decided to be unclear and vague so that I could misunderstand it and misbehave. I'm not to blame, the idea is.

What a shame.

 

[Quagmire]

Well, that makes me an "anti-theist", so the OP must refer to me. Calling that position a "joke" strikes me as an aggressive, prejudicial statement. Not all people who are opposed to religion/theism in principle take an aggressive or abusive posture towards religious people and theists.

I clarified that I was talking about people who are "aggressively anti-religion/theism" in the next part of my post.

I can see this is going to be one of those debates where you have to word everything perfectly or a bunch of people are going to take things personally (although I'm sure a lot of people would even if the wording were perfect).

That kind of generalization is out of line, but I can see where a theist might see it as a perfectly reasonable generalization to make.

You seem to have developed an entire psychological schematic that applies to each and every theist. What do you do when someone doesn't fall in line with that schematic? The usual response is to pretend they do anyway.

Labeling someone is usually just a handy excuse for disregarding what they're saying without having to consider it.

It is possible to engage in debate with theists and other people of faith without disrespecting them as individuals, but not everyone will agree with me on that point.

It's possible, but not popular.

Sometimes strong disagreement is taken personally, despite the disclaimer made in the policy sticky to the forum that people should be prepared for controversy and try not to take comments personally. I expect people to be somewhat aggressive and opinionated.

"Somewhat" is unavoidable" and excusable. When people are going out of their way to take every opportunity to slam the other side, just for the sake of slamming the other side, that's another matter.

Exp: Thread title, "What's you favorite pizza topping?"

1st poster: "I like anchovies"

2nd poster: "I like garlic and peperoni"

3rd poster "The Bible is a load of horse ****!!!!"

OK, that's a slight exaggeration, but do you see the distinction I'm making between debating and trolling?

After all, we are all human beings. So far, I think that this forum has been one of the best run forums on religion that I've seen, and that is why I like to post here. People come here to debate, and sometimes we get some good ones with thoughtful, provocative comments.

Well thanks. My goal is to get to a point where the theists in here feel the same way.

 

[Quagmire]

I suppose I am one of those you are thinking of. To start with, my opinion is that religion is actually pernicious and that that needs to be pointed out. Further, I like to post here because I enjoy the lively discussions and because I hope my contribution might make this forum a bit more interesting. Forums inhabited by theists busy patting each other on the back are a bit tedious.

You're not one of the people that came to mind, but if you thought you were...

 

[Quagmire]

but with 1/3 of the human population this behavior is encouraged

So the logical reaction is for people on the other side of the issue to adopt the same behavior?

(not to say that everyone who calls them self a christian does, but a great deal of people do...proselytizing is a commandment...)
it is a problem.

And proselytizing against Christianity, and religion in general, while it may not be a commandment is definitely one of the more popular fads.

of course there are other religions that do not do this...and i would be the first to admit that when i say "religious people", when it comes to infringing on the rights of others, i don't clarify it enough to single out the evangelical right wing christians who are, in my opinion, the culprits here...

Why not?

 

[Quagmire]

I think we need to more clearly define what we mean by anti(fill in the blank)ims. Is an “anti-theist” someone who is opposed to theists, or someone who is opposed to theism?

Lets say an anti-theist is someone who's opposed to theism and takes it out on theists.

Those are two very different things. I interpret the term anti-theist to mean someone who is opposed to theism, but it seems that others in this thread are interpreting it to mean opposed to theists.

What we call the people in question doesn't matter. We're talking about people who are basically trolling theists/theism.

But I would like to say that it is not bigoted to be opposed to an “ism”. It is not bigoted to hate an “ism”. In fact it is highly ethical and moral to oppose and hate certain “isms”.

Not unless you've taken the time and effort to try and understand them. And more to the point, not until you've taken the time and effort to learn how to distinguish between the isms and the applications thereof.

 

[Quagmire]

I think that calling a debate forum "information sharing" is a bit idealistic.

Nothing wrong with ideals.

We are engaged in persuasive dialogs here, and you have always been an active participant in the partisan exchanges.


With respect, Quagmire, I think that you are going to see more religion-bashing partly because you identify with those who have a theistic belief.

You would be surprised to learn just how few people with a theistic belief I identify with.

Were you an atheist, you might see more atheism-bashing than you do. However, I do concede that atheists tend to be more active in the religious debate forums, so you are probably going to see more theist-bashing than atheist-bashing. I just don't see theists as being inherently more fair than atheists.

I still don't see the point in the comparison. It isn't a matter of who's being more unfair, unfairness is unfairness,

You seem to have formed a different generalization about atheists.

Really? Want to expand on that a bit? I'm talking about a specific kind of person with a particular kind of mindset. Whether they're theist or atheist is a moot point. We're discussing personality types, and the characteristics of the type I have in mind, to name a few:

immaturity
chronic hostility
self-righteousness
closed-mindedness
a complete and utter disregard for any collateral damage in their personal war against mostly imaginary enemies.

Some of these people are theists, some are atheists. A lot of them are whatever's convenient at the moment.

We're discussing the atheist version right now because that's what this thread is about (if you want to start another thread talking about the theist version, feel free).

That is your prerogative. We just disagree in our perceptions.


I have not actually noticed that, but I'll try to keep a sharper eye out for it.

I hope you do, I think you'll be surprised by what you find.

Again, I hadn't seen quite the same pattern, but I will concede that you get more posts here from non-theists and critics of Christianity than defenders of the Christian point of view. I have seem some Christian trolls giving out "cyber high-5's" to each other, but you might not have been as sensitive to them as I when that happened.

No, I see that too. What you'll notice about those people, if you take a serious look, is that they're usually banned pretty quick.

One of the reasons things have gotten lop-sided in here over the last year or two is because, for some reason, aggressive theists/religious people tend to be more overtly aggressive and thus break more rules, post more serious violations, and do it all at a faster pace than their anti-religious counter-parts.

Like I said, these people don't last long.

On the other hand, the anti-religious tend to be more subtle about it, which means they're less likely to be reported, and those reports taken individually are going to be less clear-cut violations. What all that ammounts to is that we have people in here that have basically been trolling in slow motion for months and years.

Usually, I try to avoid getting caught up in that kind of thing. If I like something someone says, I'll give out fruballs and let it go at that. Quite often I will explicitly endorse opinions that I agree with.


I see quite a bit of religious proselytizing and angry caricatures of atheists going on from some folks in the debate forums,

Like I said: go back and look at some of the people you're talking about. I would pretty much guarantee that most of them have been banned by now.

but I try not to let it get to me. Sometimes I slip up. We all do.


I'll accept the criticsm. I should have said "theistic doctrines" or "theistic belief systems".


I didn't say that traditions developed in a vacuum. I think that the demographics ought to change, and public debates over religion are part of the process for bringing about change.

Debates, maybe. On the other hand pointless hostility just perpetuates the whole cycle.

 

[Quagmire]

Just to be clear, I agree with your generalization, but I might not always agree with your characterization of what goes on. You can be very partisan in these debates at times, and that may color your perception.

"Partisan". That's a bit vague too. No offense, but I I'm guessing your perception of bias on my part is mostly just a function of your own biases.

I'm not claiming pure objectivity for myself either. I do often protest against sweeping generalizations made by atheists against theists. That is not to say that atheists should never make generalizations. Making claims of that sort and getting responses back from others that the generalizations are unfair is part of the education process. So we need to try to be tolerant when we perceive others being unfair.


I have always wondered if any bystander were truly innocent. If someone is monitoring a religious debate, it is highly probable that that person comes to the forum with a point of view on the subject.

How does having an opinion negate innocence? More to the point, if having a position negates innocence, that more or less implies some sort of guilt by extension. Problem with that is that this seems to be the exact formula a lot of religion bashers are using, exp: Fred Phelps is a jerk. Fed Phelps is a Christian. Fred Phelps deserves to be maligned. Therefore, all Christians deserve to be harassed. Or at least, if any christians get offended while I'm maligning Fred Phelps---regardless of what their personal beliefs or activities might be---, it's their own fault for being a Christian.

I've seen a lot of people object to the fact that we even carry on debates here,

LOL! Yeah, I get a kick out of those people too. again, how long does someone like that last here?

and some even question why atheists would want to come to a "religious forum".

Everybody seems to ignore the "Education" in the middle of the name, even when you point it out to them.

I could be wrong, but I don't see the purpose of the debate forums as necessarily promoting religion.

Promoting religion is actually one of the quickest ways to get yourself banned here.

Calling for a little courtesy and consideration for religious people doesn't equate to promoting religion.

 

[Yerda]

We're discussing personality types, and the characteristics of the type I have in mind, to name a few:

immaturity
chronic hostility
self-righteousness
closed-mindedness
a complete and utter disregard for any collateral damage in their personal war against mostly imaginary enemies.

So you were talking about me!

 

[fantome profane]

Lets say an anti-theist is someone who's opposed to theism and takes it out on theists.

What we call the people in question doesn't matter. We're talking about people who are basically trolling theists/theism.

You can say that if you wish, I can’t stop you. But I am not going to say that because I think accuracy of terms matter. It is possible to be an anti-theist without taking it out on theists. That seems obvious to me.

What you call people does matter, especially if you want to be understood. If we are talking about people who are trolling theists then let’s talk about people who are trolling theists. Why are we talking about anti-theists? Humpty Dumpty logic is not going to help.

 

[outhouse]

One of the reasons things have gotten lop-sided in here over the last year or two is because, for some reason, aggressive theists/religious people tend to be more overtly aggressive and thus break more rules, post more serious violations, and do it all at a faster pace than their anti-religious counter-parts.

you see the pattern there dont you???

On the other hand, the anti-religious tend to be more subtle about it, which means they're less likely to be reported, and those reports taken individually are going to be less clear-cut violations. What all that ammounts to is that we have people in here that have basically been trolling in slow motion for months and years.

I find that offensive to a point.

So when people point out that believing and questioning something that is FLAT not there! or point out how religion has held back humanity in one form or another.

its slow trolling???

I call that fighting to keep reality real.

its not a verbal war but, you yourself see that religion needs to evolve foward. There is a need that isnt imaginary. Should we all sing "coooom by ya" until things get better.?


I dont see it as trolling if done respectably

you have two sides and one is fighting as you call it "more overtly aggressive" and one is trying to be as politically correct as possible to advance humanity beyond superstition.


with that said you made a great point

for me, I dont look at myself as fighting theism as much as I do wanting to see it evolve and dont mind helping it on its way

 

[Copernicus]

I'm vacationing in Prague/Krakow/Warsaw for the next couple of weeks, so not much time to keep up with debates. I'll only say that I think that label "anti-theist" is a way of trying to stigmatize those atheists here who are most vocal about their rejection of religion and theism. Theists, particularly Christians, tend to be more evangelical by nature, since spreading doctrine to others is something of a divine imperative. So-called "new atheists" (Dawkins, Barker, Hitchens, etc.) are more evangelical, and that can be seen as "aggressive" by people who are used to seeing open religious evangelism as normal and acceptable. The fact is that we see religious advertising all around us, and those of faith do not find it offensive, even when the advertisement is for a different faith. It is only when the advertisement is an encouragement to drop faith in God altogether that people really take offense and think of it as aggressive posturing. Being openly "anti-atheist" is culturally far more acceptable than being openly "anti-theist".

 

[Storm]

I'm vacationing in Prague/Krakow/Warsaw for the next couple of weeks, so not much time to keep up with debates. I'll only say that I think that label "anti-theist" is a way of trying to stigmatize those atheists here who are most vocal about their rejection of religion and theism. Theists, particularly Christians, tend to be more evangelical by nature, since spreading doctrine to others is something of a divine imperative. So-called "new atheists" (Dawkins, Barker, Hitchens, etc.) are more evangelical, and that can be seen as "aggressive" by people who are used to seeing open religious evangelism as normal and acceptable. The fact is that we see religious advertising all around us, and those of faith do not find it offensive, even when the advertisement is for a different faith. It is only when the advertisement is an encouragement to drop faith in God altogether that people really take offense and think of it as aggressive posturing. Being openly "anti-atheist" is culturally far more acceptable than being openly "anti-theist".

You're stereotyping again.

 

[outhouse]

You're stereotyping again.

I think that goes for both sides.

with that said

could you help me to understand what your talking about because I could not see it [his stereotyping]