Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism need not be Anti-theism

neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 3:40:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com...

"He thought he had found the perfect test case with Quaker Peace and Social Witness, part of the British branch of the Society of Friends. Here was a nondogmatic denomination with a longstanding commitment to pacifism, racial equality and economic fairness. What, even for atheists, agnostics and freethinkers, was there not to like?"

"Well, Mr. McGowan soon enough found out. "No way am I going to give my money to groups that will use it to hit my kids over the head with a Bible," wrote one member in an email as he cut off his financial support. A blogger on the site No Forbidden Q uestions put the objections somewhat more elegantly: "While I"m happy to hear when people move away from fundamentalism toward a more liberal understanding of religion, I think it would be best if people became (or stayed) atheist, and that"s the goal I want to support."

The gap to which Mr. McGowan referred was more perceived than actual, and perhaps even more pernicious for that reason. To his consternation, issues including same-sex marriage, climate change and school prayer were commonly portrayed as secular versus religious. In fact, religious denominations and advocacy groups were themselves divided on all those matters.

"One thing that"s always bothered me about group memberships is that they tend to be polarizing," Mr. McGowan said recently by phone from his home in suburban Atlanta. "When we"re in like-minded groups, there"s a tendency to pull toward the extremes in our group and minimize common ground across the line. Though it"s moderating, that"s something that"s exasperated me in the atheist and humanist community."

"Our receiving the money does not form a lasting partnership," Mr. Walker said by phone from his office in Washington. "But it is a way we can cooperate for ends we both believe in. It shows there are people who believe in religious liberty even though they don"t participate in religion. We think religious liberty comes from the hand of God. They come at it philosophically, from ideas of personal autonomy, freedom of conscience."

Simply put, you gain absolutely nothing by getting in a knife fight with religion and being so acerbic that you cannot find common ground. When polarized, the situation becomes zero sum and your fellow humans the enemy.

There is resistance to taking a softer line of disagreement with religion, but I am happy to say that there is signs of change that the radical elements of atheism are finally starting to be countered with sensible, rational, and actual humanist oriented thinking.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 10:12:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"As the weeks passed in the summer of 2010, however, few other critics turned up. Many foundation members, who contribute from $5 to $500 a month, praised the new direction and earmarked their money for the Quaker group."

Anti-theistic tendencies are present in a fringe minority of atheists.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 10:25:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't see the problem...

Putting aside the fact that the vast majority of atheists are not anti-theists, I don't see a problem with the anti-theistic position, as it is just an activist one.

Given that many of the main religions are inherently anti-atheistic, or anti-other religionistic, if we are happy to tolerate these then it follows that anti-theistic positions should also be tolerated.

I don't see why being opposed to people believing in bad ideas is a bad position to take.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 1:03:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anti-theists aren't anti-theists merely because they're atheists. No one, not a single person, decided, "Oh, I'm an atheists, I guess I have to be an anti-theist now."

No, anti-theists are anti-theists because they disagree with religion and think it should be abolished. They want to be anti-theist (above and beyond being an atheist, which is not related to desire). They see value in attacking and criticizing religion and want to see it brought down.

Did you think otherwise?
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 1:10:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 1:03:27 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Anti-theists aren't anti-theists merely because they're atheists. No one, not a single person, decided, "Oh, I'm an atheists, I guess I have to be an anti-theist now."

No, anti-theists are anti-theists because they disagree with religion and think it should be abolished. They want to be anti-theist (above and beyond being an atheist, which is not related to desire). They see value in attacking and criticizing religion and want to see it brought down.

Did you think otherwise?

No, I completely agree. I can lean toward anti-theist at times, but only when people don't have any logical basis for their belief, but for the most part, as long as your religion isn't effecting other people, more power to you.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 1:19:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 10:12:02 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
"As the weeks passed in the summer of 2010, however, few other critics turned up. Many foundation members, who contribute from $5 to $500 a month, praised the new direction and earmarked their money for the Quaker group."

Anti-theistic tendencies are present in a fringe minority of atheists.

Proof?

Hitchens and Dawkins are not best sellers based on a fringe minority brother.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 1:22:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 1:19:13 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:12:02 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
"As the weeks passed in the summer of 2010, however, few other critics turned up. Many foundation members, who contribute from $5 to $500 a month, praised the new direction and earmarked their money for the Quaker group."

Anti-theistic tendencies are present in a fringe minority of atheists.

Proof?

Hitchens and Dawkins are not best sellers based on a fringe minority brother.

They are against particular ways of thinking and behaving, not against people having a personal belief in god.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 1:25:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 1:22:38 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:19:13 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:12:02 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
"As the weeks passed in the summer of 2010, however, few other critics turned up. Many foundation members, who contribute from $5 to $500 a month, praised the new direction and earmarked their money for the Quaker group."

Anti-theistic tendencies are present in a fringe minority of atheists.

Proof?

Hitchens and Dawkins are not best sellers based on a fringe minority brother.

They are against particular ways of thinking and behaving, not against people having a personal belief in god.

http://www.goodreads.com...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 1:26:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 10:25:34 AM, Envisage wrote:
I don't see the problem...

Putting aside the fact that the vast majority of atheists are not anti-theists, I don't see a problem with the anti-theistic position, as it is just an activist one.

Given that many of the main religions are inherently anti-atheistic, or anti-other religionistic, if we are happy to tolerate these then it follows that anti-theistic positions should also be tolerated.

I don't see why being opposed to people believing in bad ideas is a bad position to take.

I keep seeing this claim that the vast majority of atheists are not anti-theists.

I think the accurate claim here is that most atheists don't VIEW THEMSELVES as anti-theists.

Yet the guy interviewed is under assault for merely attempting to cross bridges to the most ideological compatible religious groups out there. He's raised ... thousands of dollars? A drop in the bucket.

Its a beginning.

But so long as calls of religion being 'poison' dominate the discussion, when rejection of religion matters more than freedom of conscience, we will continue to have issues.

Take a look at the threads started by atheists on this forum, and tell me there is no issue in atheism with anti-theism?

http://www.debate.org...

Please, tell me that is rationalism and not a blatant smear of ignorant nihilism? If you say not? Then you will have defined the problem.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 1:28:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 1:03:27 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Anti-theists aren't anti-theists merely because they're atheists. No one, not a single person, decided, "Oh, I'm an atheists, I guess I have to be an anti-theist now."

No, anti-theists are anti-theists because they disagree with religion and think it should be abolished. They want to be anti-theist (above and beyond being an atheist, which is not related to desire). They see value in attacking and criticizing religion and want to see it brought down.

Did you think otherwise?

The one must precipitate the other. All atheists may not be anti-theists, but all anti-theists are atheists.

Atheists do a very poor job of separating the two.

All choices on the religious spectrum are choices brother, you write nothing shocking above. Nor indeed have we engaged in the discussion about WHY anti-thesitic principles are so common in atheism these days.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 1:31:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 1:10:45 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:03:27 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Anti-theists aren't anti-theists merely because they're atheists. No one, not a single person, decided, "Oh, I'm an atheists, I guess I have to be an anti-theist now."

No, anti-theists are anti-theists because they disagree with religion and think it should be abolished. They want to be anti-theist (above and beyond being an atheist, which is not related to desire). They see value in attacking and criticizing religion and want to see it brought down.

Did you think otherwise?

No, I completely agree. I can lean toward anti-theist at times, but only when people don't have any logical basis for their belief, but for the most part, as long as your religion isn't effecting other people, more power to you.

And what is the logical basis of your belief?

That you 'merely' reject the claims of theists? Which posits that, at 21, you have examined the claims of the major religions, at least, in depth and in great and penetrating insight found them all to be wanting?

And you can explain these how?

Or is your position evidenced based? At which point we would handily, with all the lectures of science, be able to test conclusively for God one way or another.

It is precisely this irrational claim of rationalism in atheism that drives people toward anti-theism - which MUST be irrational ... despite incredible smart people being very religious, eh?

How do you explain smart religious people?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 1:43:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 1:25:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:22:38 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:19:13 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:12:02 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
"As the weeks passed in the summer of 2010, however, few other critics turned up. Many foundation members, who contribute from $5 to $500 a month, praised the new direction and earmarked their money for the Quaker group."

Anti-theistic tendencies are present in a fringe minority of atheists.

Proof?

Hitchens and Dawkins are not best sellers based on a fringe minority brother.

They are against particular ways of thinking and behaving, not against people having a personal belief in god.

http://www.goodreads.com...

Granted, I forget how hardline Hitchens could be. Although in fairness, I've never read anything by him. My point is more that it's perfectly valid to be opposed to religion but not opposed to belief in god(s). Dawkins is more of that kind.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 1:45:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 1:26:37 PM, neutral wrote:
Yet the guy interviewed is under assault for merely attempting to cross bridges to the most ideological compatible religious groups out there. He's raised ... thousands of dollars? A drop in the bucket.

This is where you go wrong; hyperbole alley. He's not 'under assault', he just had a couple of people say they disagreed and stopped funding his charity. The article even states - in the quote I highlighted - that it was only a few. Yet you're turning that into "under assault" and representative of the majority of atheists.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 1:53:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 1:25:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:22:38 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:19:13 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:12:02 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
"As the weeks passed in the summer of 2010, however, few other critics turned up. Many foundation members, who contribute from $5 to $500 a month, praised the new direction and earmarked their money for the Quaker group."

Anti-theistic tendencies are present in a fringe minority of atheists.

Proof?

Hitchens and Dawkins are not best sellers based on a fringe minority brother.

They are against particular ways of thinking and behaving, not against people having a personal belief in god.

http://www.goodreads.com...

How is that anything other than a man justifying a horrific smear of religion? We poison everything do we? And its common in atheism, to quote that in response to the claims, as if Hitchens is a Prophet to be taken as his word, rather than his claims examined critically, where they universally fail is EXACTLY the point grain.

We'll just use this forum as a point about the problem.

Are there more uneducated atheists out there? Which we see reflected in their views on religion:

http://www.debate.org...

Yes. And by all means take a look at the dissenting opinions, which begin with the claim that our education is merely 'Biblical' (the ignorance of it being a superlative in contrast). Are we NOT educated in the same schools?

That is anti-theism.

Religion is a SOURCE of imperfection:

http://www.debate.org...

Again, read the comments.

Religious people should be OPENLY mocked:

http://www.debate.org...

1 in 3 atheists on this forum believes it.

http://www.debate.org...

Half the atheists on this forum think we are unable to use our mind individually. Simply because we are religious.

http://www.debate.org...

1 in 4 atheists on this forum think religion is so repugnant that parents should be banned from teaching it to their own children.

http://www.debate.org...

Over half appear to think that we are SOLELY motivated by fear of punishment, which displays a profound ignorance of religious teachings.

And here is the kicker:

All the results of those polls are offset by religious participation in them.

The incidence of anti-theism is massive in atheism these days.

And the very people making these anti-thesitic statements are the ones denying there is an anti-theis problem in atheism.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 2:02:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 1:26:37 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:25:34 AM, Envisage wrote:
I don't see the problem...

Putting aside the fact that the vast majority of atheists are not anti-theists, I don't see a problem with the anti-theistic position, as it is just an activist one.

Given that many of the main religions are inherently anti-atheistic, or anti-other religionistic, if we are happy to tolerate these then it follows that anti-theistic positions should also be tolerated.

I don't see why being opposed to people believing in bad ideas is a bad position to take.

I keep seeing this claim that the vast majority of atheists are not anti-theists.

I think the accurate claim here is that most atheists don't VIEW THEMSELVES as anti-theists.

Please provide evidence for this. And the evidence needs to reflect the assertion regarding 'most atheists'.

Yet the guy interviewed is under assault for merely attempting to cross bridges to the most ideological compatible religious groups out there. He's raised ... thousands of dollars? A drop in the bucket.

Its a beginning.

?

But so long as calls of religion being 'poison' dominate the discussion, when rejection of religion matters more than freedom of conscience, we will continue to have issues.

Yes, if religion inherently and generally inhibits and 'poisons' people's conciousness, which I find somewhat agreeable, then it stands that the anti-theistic position is good for society.

Take a look at the threads started by atheists on this forum, and tell me there is no issue in atheism with anti-theism?

http://www.debate.org...

Why should I care what he or anyone else posts? Singling our individual atheists doesn't prove anything. You need to determine the opinions, orientation and tendencies of the atheist community as a whole. Indeed surveys and studies generally show a strong inverse correlation between degrees of religiosity and quality of life, wealth and human rights.

Many of said studies are performed by religious organisations, the data doesn't lie neutral.

Please, tell me that is rationalism and not a blatant smear of ignorant nihilism? If you say not? Then you will have defined the problem.

You need to establish why nihilism is an inherently bad position too. You don't seem to have a leg to stand on.
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 2:04:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 1:31:09 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:10:45 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:03:27 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Anti-theists aren't anti-theists merely because they're atheists. No one, not a single person, decided, "Oh, I'm an atheists, I guess I have to be an anti-theist now."

No, anti-theists are anti-theists because they disagree with religion and think it should be abolished. They want to be anti-theist (above and beyond being an atheist, which is not related to desire). They see value in attacking and criticizing religion and want to see it brought down.

Did you think otherwise?

No, I completely agree. I can lean toward anti-theist at times, but only when people don't have any logical basis for their belief, but for the most part, as long as your religion isn't effecting other people, more power to you.

And what is the logical basis of your belief?

That you 'merely' reject the claims of theists? Which posits that, at 21, you have examined the claims of the major religions, at least, in depth and in great and penetrating insight found them all to be wanting?

And you can explain these how?

Or is your position evidenced based? At which point we would handily, with all the lectures of science, be able to test conclusively for God one way or another.

It is precisely this irrational claim of rationalism in atheism that drives people toward anti-theism - which MUST be irrational ... despite incredible smart people being very religious, eh?

How do you explain smart religious people?

I am a realist and an agnostic, so I'll refute religions that have contradictions/ inherently can't be true, and Christianity is included. It is evidence based as well as deductive thinking. Example of an inherent problem with Christianity (outside Calvinism) is the problem of free with an all knowing all powerful god.
Just because you believe in God doesn't make you stupid. It just means that either you are so firmly attached to your belief that you can't let go no matter the evidence or contradiction (illogical but yet human nature) or they had some kind of life changing experience/vision that they misinterpreted as divine intervention. For example, during near death experiences, people often describe going down a tunnel into a light, but this is actually a side effect of DMT, which is naturally released in your brain during dire circumstances. People can also train their brain to release DMT during a state of meditation, which religions often mis-identify as some kind of mystic or spiritual response.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 2:08:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 1:53:25 PM, neutral wrote:
How is that anything other than a man justifying a horrific smear of religion?

It was apparently his opinion. If you have issues with his claims regarding the problems of religion, you should address them rather than react in outrage.

where they universally fail is EXACTLY the point grain.

Then show them to. Idiots will never listen, but the intelligent ones will see your refutations of his arguments and take them on board.

We'll just use this forum as a point about the problem.

It's a highly unrepresentative sample.

Are there more uneducated atheists out there? Which we see reflected in their views on religion:

http://www.debate.org...

Excuse me if I entirely disregard a poll on this website with a small sample size. Not least because there's a disproportionately high number of very, very anti-atheistic posters here. Are you really going to try and make a point using an opinion poll from a relatively quiet website and then extrapolate it into being 'proof' or even 'evidence'?

Are we NOT educated in the same schools?

Many are not, no.

Again, read the comments.

Again, non-representative, small-scale sampling of opinions does not a case make.

1 in 3 atheists on this forum believes it.

So the minority of a minority? That's not the most convincing case for concern I've ever heard.

Half the atheists on this forum think we are unable to use our mind individually. Simply because we are religious.

Of the small number of members of a relatively quiet internet site that voted in that poll, half of them thought that. The sample becomes smaller and less representative the more you think about it.

1 in 4 atheists on this forum think religion is so repugnant that parents should be banned from teaching it to their own children.

I think "forcing it upon" rather than "sharing information about". Again, try and stick to slightly less dramatic wording.

Over half appear to think that we are SOLELY motivated by fear of punishment, which displays a profound ignorance of religious teachings.

Sample size, non-representative... you get the gist.

The incidence of anti-theism is massive in atheism these days.

How do you think the figures against atheists would stack up if I ran a poll at, for instance, Westboro Baptist Church?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 2:17:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 2:02:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:26:37 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:25:34 AM, Envisage wrote:
I don't see the problem...

Putting aside the fact that the vast majority of atheists are not anti-theists, I don't see a problem with the anti-theistic position, as it is just an activist one.

Given that many of the main religions are inherently anti-atheistic, or anti-other religionistic, if we are happy to tolerate these then it follows that anti-theistic positions should also be tolerated.

I don't see why being opposed to people believing in bad ideas is a bad position to take.

I keep seeing this claim that the vast majority of atheists are not anti-theists.

I think the accurate claim here is that most atheists don't VIEW THEMSELVES as anti-theists.

Please provide evidence for this. And the evidence needs to reflect the assertion regarding 'most atheists'.

Yet the guy interviewed is under assault for merely attempting to cross bridges to the most ideological compatible religious groups out there. He's raised ... thousands of dollars? A drop in the bucket.

Its a beginning.

?

But so long as calls of religion being 'poison' dominate the discussion, when rejection of religion matters more than freedom of conscience, we will continue to have issues.

Yes, if religion inherently and generally inhibits and 'poisons' people's conciousness, which I find somewhat agreeable, then it stands that the anti-theistic position is good for society.

Take a look at the threads started by atheists on this forum, and tell me there is no issue in atheism with anti-theism?

http://www.debate.org...

Why should I care what he or anyone else posts? Singling our individual atheists doesn't prove anything. You need to determine the opinions, orientation and tendencies of the atheist community as a whole. Indeed surveys and studies generally show a strong inverse correlation between degrees of religiosity and quality of life, wealth and human rights.

Many of said studies are performed by religious organisations, the data doesn't lie neutral.

Please, tell me that is rationalism and not a blatant smear of ignorant nihilism? If you say not? Then you will have defined the problem.

You need to establish why nihilism is an inherently bad position too. You don't seem to have a leg to stand on.

Evidence provided in response to grain.

Evidence for you side that anti-theism is rare in atheism, please.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 2:19:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 1:22:38 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:19:13 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:12:02 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
"As the weeks passed in the summer of 2010, however, few other critics turned up. Many foundation members, who contribute from $5 to $500 a month, praised the new direction and earmarked their money for the Quaker group."

Anti-theistic tendencies are present in a fringe minority of atheists.

Proof?

Hitchens and Dawkins are not best sellers based on a fringe minority brother.

They are against particular ways of thinking and behaving, not against people having a personal belief in god.

So if a Christian or Muslim were to abandon Sharia Law or say gays are good people who will go to heaven, then they wouldn't have a problem with that?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 2:20:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 2:17:08 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/23/2014 2:02:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:26:37 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:25:34 AM, Envisage wrote:
I don't see the problem...

Putting aside the fact that the vast majority of atheists are not anti-theists, I don't see a problem with the anti-theistic position, as it is just an activist one.

Given that many of the main religions are inherently anti-atheistic, or anti-other religionistic, if we are happy to tolerate these then it follows that anti-theistic positions should also be tolerated.

I don't see why being opposed to people believing in bad ideas is a bad position to take.

I keep seeing this claim that the vast majority of atheists are not anti-theists.

I think the accurate claim here is that most atheists don't VIEW THEMSELVES as anti-theists.

Please provide evidence for this. And the evidence needs to reflect the assertion regarding 'most atheists'.

Yet the guy interviewed is under assault for merely attempting to cross bridges to the most ideological compatible religious groups out there. He's raised ... thousands of dollars? A drop in the bucket.

Its a beginning.

?

But so long as calls of religion being 'poison' dominate the discussion, when rejection of religion matters more than freedom of conscience, we will continue to have issues.

Yes, if religion inherently and generally inhibits and 'poisons' people's conciousness, which I find somewhat agreeable, then it stands that the anti-theistic position is good for society.

Take a look at the threads started by atheists on this forum, and tell me there is no issue in atheism with anti-theism?

http://www.debate.org...

Why should I care what he or anyone else posts? Singling our individual atheists doesn't prove anything. You need to determine the opinions, orientation and tendencies of the atheist community as a whole. Indeed surveys and studies generally show a strong inverse correlation between degrees of religiosity and quality of life, wealth and human rights.

Many of said studies are performed by religious organisations, the data doesn't lie neutral.

Please, tell me that is rationalism and not a blatant smear of ignorant nihilism? If you say not? Then you will have defined the problem.

You need to establish why nihilism is an inherently bad position too. You don't seem to have a leg to stand on.

Evidence provided in response to grain.

Evidence for you side that anti-theism is rare in atheism, please.

You made the claim in the OP that atheism is essentially synonymous with anti-theist, if not then it's at minimum a presupposition.

Therefore the BoP is on you neutral.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 2:31:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 2:19:54 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:22:38 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:19:13 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:12:02 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
"As the weeks passed in the summer of 2010, however, few other critics turned up. Many foundation members, who contribute from $5 to $500 a month, praised the new direction and earmarked their money for the Quaker group."

Anti-theistic tendencies are present in a fringe minority of atheists.

Proof?

Hitchens and Dawkins are not best sellers based on a fringe minority brother.

They are against particular ways of thinking and behaving, not against people having a personal belief in god.

So if a Christian or Muslim were to abandon Sharia Law or say gays are good people who will go to heaven, then they wouldn't have a problem with that?

Unfortunately those aren't the only problems with religion, but those would be HUGE steps in the right direction. If religious people stopped trying to screw with the education system and stopped trying to legislate for everyone else based on their own beliefs, 90% or more of atheists who currently have issues with religion would cease to care about it at all.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 2:31:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 2:08:48 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:53:25 PM, neutral wrote:
How is that anything other than a man justifying a horrific smear of religion?

It was apparently his opinion. If you have issues with his claims regarding the problems of religion, you should address them rather than react in outrage.

I have, and I have done so with you personally haven't I grainy. THAT was a low blow brother.


Then show them to. Idiots will never listen, but the intelligent ones will see your refutations of his arguments and take them on board.

Once again, you and I have discussed Hitchens, his claims of a threat when a Catholic service in Belfast lets out? Bombs everywhere, eh? His connection of all Muslims to the Taliban? Ignores the reality of CIA and SO forces using vaccination programs to gather intelligence and killing Taliban.

http://www.nytimes.com...

That was known WHEN Hitchens published his claims about the Taliban to smear all Muslims.

A point I have made to YOU several times. And what is the point of reasoning with that kind of irrational bigotry brother? If you prove Hitchens claim false time and time again, and he's still the Prophet Hitchens ... and the same people asks you to prove it over and over again?

THAT is the reality of anti-theism and its irrationality. YOU have it grainy. And YOU are not terrible stupid or horrible as a person are you?


It's a highly unrepresentative sample.

It stands in sharp contrast to the complete lack of polling on your position, pointedly fails to address the frequency with which the views ARE encountered despite:

a. Being supported by you (while denying it).

b. Being easily seen all over the place.

Yet its uncommon because ...

Excuse me if I entirely disregard a poll on this website with a small sample size. Not least because there's a disproportionately high number of very, very anti-atheistic posters here.

*blink*

Then WHY are the anti-thesistic posits so popular if atheists are under assault?

And you provide what as a poll basis for your position?

There are, quantifiably, more atheists in this section that religious people. Period. And the atheists in this section that would count as free of anti-theism number at ... zero.

Ye none of them see themselves as anti-theists?

Indeed, have excuses to deny what is happening right here ... and counter it with ... nothing.


Many are not, no.

Really? 'Many' - so the majority of religious kids are no sitting in school right beside you are they?

THAT is anti-theism.

Again, non-representative, small-scale sampling of opinions does not a case make.

An excuse to deny what is being said. And is countered by a large sample sized poll? Nope.

So the minority of a minority? That's not the most convincing case for concern I've ever heard.

No a majority of atheists in a poll modified and religious participation. That result indicates a majority of atheists believe it.


Of the small number of members of a relatively quiet internet site that voted in that poll, half of them thought that. The sample becomes smaller and less representative the more you think about it.

Once again, no need to address what is said or counter with an actual poll of your own.


I think "forcing it upon" rather than "sharing information about". Again, try and stick to slightly less dramatic wording.

Over half appear to think that we are SOLELY motivated by fear of punishment, which displays a profound ignorance of religious teachings.

Sample size, non-representative... you get the gist.

Ignoring what atheists are saying, no polls of your own. Get the gist?


How do you think the figures against atheists would stack up if I ran a poll at, for instance, Westboro Baptist Church?

Yeah there are well over a billion Christians - most Christians, the CLEAR majority, myself, included reject them OPENLY.

Now, If I turned around and sighted the founder of the Westboro Baptist Churh and praised it anyway ... like you did Hitchens ... what would THAT tell you about my view of Christianity? Right, that I was rationalizing my bigotry, correct?

Therein lies the rub grainy.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 2:42:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 2:31:31 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 2:19:54 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:22:38 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:19:13 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:12:02 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
"As the weeks passed in the summer of 2010, however, few other critics turned up. Many foundation members, who contribute from $5 to $500 a month, praised the new direction and earmarked their money for the Quaker group."

Anti-theistic tendencies are present in a fringe minority of atheists.

Proof?

Hitchens and Dawkins are not best sellers based on a fringe minority brother.

They are against particular ways of thinking and behaving, not against people having a personal belief in god.

So if a Christian or Muslim were to abandon Sharia Law or say gays are good people who will go to heaven, then they wouldn't have a problem with that?

Unfortunately those aren't the only problems with religion, but those would be HUGE steps in the right direction. If religious people stopped trying to screw with the education system and stopped trying to legislate for everyone else based on their own beliefs, 90% or more of atheists who currently have issues with religion would cease to care about it at all.

I see. Do you believe that this could be possible in the future that religious people will be more tolerant and caring towards the idea of equality?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 2:49:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 2:31:39 PM, neutral wrote:
I have, and I have done so with you personally haven't I grainy. THAT was a low blow brother.

I don't believe I've ever discussed Hitchens' arguments with you or anyone else. A big part of that is because I've never read any Hitchens so don't actually know what the bulk of his arguments are.

Once again, you and I have discussed Hitchens,

I beg to differ; we have not. I rarely, if ever, mention him at all.

A point I have made to YOU several times.

I repeat; I know next to nothing about Hitchens and have never had a substantial discussion about him or his views with anyone, you included.

THAT is the reality of anti-theism and its irrationality. YOU have it grainy. And YOU are not terrible stupid or horrible as a person are you?

I don't think you can draw any conclusions about my position on the matter based off the back of some conversations that we've not actually ever had. For the record, the Society of Friends was probably the single most influential factor in the development of my socio-ethical outlook.

It stands in sharp contrast to the complete lack of polling on your position, pointedly fails to address the frequency with which the views ARE encountered despite:

A non-representative and small sample is useless for telling anything.

Then WHY are the anti-thesistic posits so popular if atheists are under assault?

Uh... why are anti-theistic positions popular if atheists are under assault from theists? You don't need me to answer that one for you.

And you provide what as a poll basis for your position?

I don't need to; you made the claim, so you need to support it. If it's so clear-cut as you suggest then it shouldn't be too hard to find credible, substantive data to back it up.

There are, quantifiably, more atheists in this section that religious people. Period. And the atheists in this section that would count as free of anti-theism number at ... zero.

So quantify it. Then show that literally none of them aren't anti-theists. These are bold claims and either need to be substantiated or scaled back to something more credible.

Really? 'Many' - so the majority of religious kids are no sitting in school right beside you are they?

Many =/= 'the majority'. That's dishonest and you know it. There are many children who go to religious schools. There are many who do not. Ergo, not everyone gets the same education.

An excuse to deny what is being said. And is countered by a large sample sized poll? Nope.

I don't need to bring evidence to show your lack of evidence.

No a majority of atheists in a poll modified and religious participation. That result indicates a majority of atheists believe it.

You need to take a course in statistical analysis: this forum has a self-selecting userbase, so it is not representative of general demographics. That poll represents the views of an undefined percentage of that self-selecting sample.

Once again, no need to address what is said or counter with an actual poll of your own.

I do not use the polls part of the site because it is full of absolute idiots.

Ignoring what atheists are saying, no polls of your own. Get the gist?

Yes, you think you can make claims and it is then up to other people to present evidence showing why your claims are false, without you having presented any valid evidence of your own.

Yeah there are well over a billion Christians - most Christians, the CLEAR majority, myself, included reject them OPENLY.

Indeed. So perhaps you should stop doing what you accuse others of doing and accept that small, self-selecting samples representing fringe views are in any way indicative of social norms.

Now, If I turned around and sighted the founder of the Westboro Baptist Churh and praised it anyway ... like you did Hitchens ... what would THAT tell you about my view of Christianity? Right, that I was rationalizing my bigotry, correct?

Could you quote me, ever, praising Hitchens? I haven't. If you'd like me to, I shall now: he was an entertaining speaker and an articulate polemicist. Beyond this, I know practically nothing about him and have never read any of his books, have barely even heard him giving speeches (I can think of one example that I saw, where he was part of a panel and contributed relatively little) and do not even know, let alone endorse, his views.

If all you're going to provide are links to meaningless polls and references to imagined exchanges, I don't really know what I'm expected to do here.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 2:51:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 2:42:37 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
I see. Do you believe that this could be possible in the future that religious people will be more tolerant and caring towards the idea of equality?

Of course, yes. Much of history has shown a trend towards greater tolerance and liberalism, so it seems likely that will one day be the situation.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 3:46:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 1:43:22 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:25:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:22:38 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:19:13 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:12:02 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
"As the weeks passed in the summer of 2010, however, few other critics turned up. Many foundation members, who contribute from $5 to $500 a month, praised the new direction and earmarked their money for the Quaker group."

Anti-theistic tendencies are present in a fringe minority of atheists.

Proof?

Hitchens and Dawkins are not best sellers based on a fringe minority brother.

They are against particular ways of thinking and behaving, not against people having a personal belief in god.

http://www.goodreads.com...

Granted, I forget how hardline Hitchens could be. Although in fairness, I've never read anything by him. My point is more that it's perfectly valid to be opposed to religion but not opposed to belief in god(s). Dawkins is more of that kind.

I think the term "anti-theist" is more general than you've made it out to be. Whereas atheism deals with the factual issue of whether or not God exists, anti-theism deals with its ramifications. Namely, that God's existence would not be positive and/or that believing in God is not positive.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 3:52:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 3:46:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:43:22 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:25:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:22:38 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 1:19:13 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:12:02 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
"As the weeks passed in the summer of 2010, however, few other critics turned up. Many foundation members, who contribute from $5 to $500 a month, praised the new direction and earmarked their money for the Quaker group."

Anti-theistic tendencies are present in a fringe minority of atheists.

Proof?

Hitchens and Dawkins are not best sellers based on a fringe minority brother.

They are against particular ways of thinking and behaving, not against people having a personal belief in god.

http://www.goodreads.com...

Granted, I forget how hardline Hitchens could be. Although in fairness, I've never read anything by him. My point is more that it's perfectly valid to be opposed to religion but not opposed to belief in god(s). Dawkins is more of that kind.

I think the term "anti-theist" is more general than you've made it out to be. Whereas atheism deals with the factual issue of whether or not God exists, anti-theism deals with its ramifications. Namely, that God's existence would not be positive and/or that believing in God is not positive.

In practical terms, I have only ever seen it espoused in the sense of being anti-religious. I don't think I've ever met anyone who is against the idea of god, a priori, in all cases. It would be a bloody odd position to take, frankly.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 4:07:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Every atheist I've met in person has been respectful towards my beliefs and I've been to theirs. Wish I could say the same about religion on the internet.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 4:51:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 2:49:49 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 2:31:39 PM, neutral wrote:
I have, and I have done so with you personally haven't I grainy. THAT was a low blow brother.

I don't believe I've ever discussed Hitchens' arguments with you or anyone else. A big part of that is because I've never read any Hitchens so don't actually know what the bulk of his arguments are.

Once again, you and I have discussed Hitchens,

I beg to differ; we have not. I rarely, if ever, mention him at all.

A point I have made to YOU several times.

I repeat; I know next to nothing about Hitchens and have never had a substantial discussion about him or his views with anyone, you included.

THAT is the reality of anti-theism and its irrationality. YOU have it grainy. And YOU are not terrible stupid or horrible as a person are you?

I don't think you can draw any conclusions about my position on the matter based off the back of some conversations that we've not actually ever had. For the record, the Society of Friends was probably the single most influential factor in the development of my socio-ethical outlook.

It stands in sharp contrast to the complete lack of polling on your position, pointedly fails to address the frequency with which the views ARE encountered despite:

A non-representative and small sample is useless for telling anything.


Then WHY are the anti-thesistic posits so popular if atheists are under assault?

Uh... why are anti-theistic positions popular if atheists are under assault from theists? You don't need me to answer that one for you.

And you provide what as a poll basis for your position?

I don't need to; you made the claim, so you need to support it. If it's so clear-cut as you suggest then it shouldn't be too hard to find credible, substantive data to back it up.

There are, quantifiably, more atheists in this section that religious people. Period. And the atheists in this section that would count as free of anti-theism number at ... zero.

So quantify it. Then show that literally none of them aren't anti-theists. These are bold claims and either need to be substantiated or scaled back to something more credible.

Really? 'Many' - so the majority of religious kids are no sitting in school right beside you are they?

Many =/= 'the majority'. That's dishonest and you know it. There are many children who go to religious schools. There are many who do not. Ergo, not everyone gets the same education.

An excuse to deny what is being said. And is countered by a large sample sized poll? Nope.

I don't need to bring evidence to show your lack of evidence.

No a majority of atheists in a poll modified and religious participation. That result indicates a majority of atheists believe it.

You need to take a course in statistical analysis: this forum has a self-selecting userbase, so it is not representative of general demographics. That poll represents the views of an undefined percentage of that self-selecting sample.

Once again, no need to address what is said or counter with an actual poll of your own.

I do not use the polls part of the site because it is full of absolute idiots.

Ignoring what atheists are saying, no polls of your own. Get the gist?

Yes, you think you can make claims and it is then up to other people to present evidence showing why your claims are false, without you having presented any valid evidence of your own.

Yeah there are well over a billion Christians - most Christians, the CLEAR majority, myself, included reject them OPENLY.

Indeed. So perhaps you should stop doing what you accuse others of doing and accept that small, self-selecting samples representing fringe views are in any way indicative of social norms.

Now, If I turned around and sighted the founder of the Westboro Baptist Churh and praised it anyway ... like you did Hitchens ... what would THAT tell you about my view of Christianity? Right, that I was rationalizing my bigotry, correct?

Could you quote me, ever, praising Hitchens? I haven't. If you'd like me to, I shall now: he was an entertaining speaker and an articulate polemicist. Beyond this, I know practically nothing about him and have never read any of his books, have barely even heard him giving speeches (I can think of one example that I saw, where he was part of a panel and contributed relatively little) and do not even know, let alone endorse, his views.

If all you're going to provide are links to meaningless polls and references to imagined exchanges, I don't really know what I'm expected to do here.

#1 - Brother, you quoted Hitchens explaining why he was an anti-theist - as if him merely explaining his delusions made his travesty of a novel, its not actually history, acceptable.

#2 - You have skipped the two points I routinely make about his oversights, even as you tell me I should examine and explain them critically. I have.

#3 - You are still not providing any evidence in support of your position that anti-theism is NOT common in atheism these days ... despite the ready evidence of its pervasiveness right here on the forum.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 5:03:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 4:51:06 PM, neutral wrote:
#1 - Brother, you quoted Hitchens explaining why he was an anti-theist - as if him merely explaining his delusions made his travesty of a novel, its not actually history, acceptable.

No, I didn't. That was Dylan.

#2 - You have skipped the two points I routinely make about his oversights, even as you tell me I should examine and explain them critically. I have.

It's you that keeps bringing him up. As I said, I've no idea what is specific arguments are.

#3 - You are still not providing any evidence in support of your position that anti-theism is NOT common in atheism these days ... despite the ready evidence of its pervasiveness right here on the forum.

That's because that isn't how burden of proof works. You made the claim, you provide credible evidence for it.