Antitheism

Thanks for this thread.

Seems valuable for its look "behind the curtain" as it were.

Originally posted by wittywonka
I hope this answers your question even though I did not, and do not, accept the questions premise.

I figured you wouldn't, but I wanted to be sure before I went any deeper into this discussion. I appreciate your answer and your willingness to engage the general topic.

When a more moderate Christian, for example, says that they 'believe in en from the perspective of a morally secular framework) on some people, too?

I hope this answers your question even though I did not, and do not, accept the questions premise.

I figured you wouldn't, but I wanted to be sure before I went any deeper into this discussion. I appreciate your answer and your willingness
to engage the general topic.

I don't mind discussing and dealing with complex or difficult issues and engaging in debate so long as the person I am talking to is prepared
to engage as well.

When a more moderate Christian, for example, says that they 'believe in the bible' and that it is their moral guide and inspiration
(but in reality haven't really read it and don't take it literally), that acts as a shield and a legitimisation for the more fundamentalist believers
who do read the bible and do take it literally. [...] The present day attitudes to homosexuality and (in America) the war on women's rights is in
large part driven by this minority of fundamentalists who are given cover by all the moderates who just wont admit and don't realise that their
morality comes from human empathy and reason and not from some old book.

This hasn't been my experience, personally. Some "moderate" Christians I know have been the most vocal critics of fundamentalists who take
literal interpretations of certain doctrines and beliefs in the Bible. I'm also not sure I agree with your insight that "moderate" Christians are only
driven by secular sources of morality; in fact, I think most Christians who argue with fundamentalists "fight Bible with Bible," so to speak.

Oh I am not saying that moderate Christians approve of fundamentalists, Although they often don't do a good enough job of condemning some
of the stupid stuff they do.
The problem is that they don't realise that most of their moral values that they attribute to Christianity are secular and not Christian.
If you read what the bible actually says, take it literally like the fundies do, then you not only find no basis or support for many moral
values that people claim as Christian but it flatly contradicts many of them.
And even those moral values that they do agree with that are in the bible are trivially basic values that any idiot aught to be able to
work out without any divine inspiration or guidance.... We need a god to tell us that killing people is bad? seriously? And frankly the
god of the bible can't even live up to that with the number of people it's killed directly as well as the number of people it allegedly instructed
it's followers to kill and the number of death penalties in the bible.

The issue is that when the moderates try to go 'bible to bible' with the fundies they lose because the fundies are actually believing what the bible
actually says. (or are going closer to what it says than the moderates do) so when the moderates say that the bible is their moral guide the
fundies go and read the bible and take inspiration from it which is not what the moderates are doing because you can't find the moderates moral
values in the bible if you read it literally.

And believing things that are wrong can and often does cause harm.

Continuing my thoughts from responding to your last point: I agree with you here, but I don't extrapolate this idea to the point of saying that
religiosity necessarily must lead to "wrong" and "harmful" beliefs and actions. Do you not think that religion has been a morally positive
influence (even from the perspective of a morally secular framework) on some people, too?

I will not and have not denied that there are 'no' positive benefits to following some religions or that they have not done 'some' good.

However that good comes at a price that massively outweighs that good and is not worth paying.

And you can get that same good without paying that price via secular/rational means.

There are no NET positive benefits to having faith based beliefs.



However even if there were...

I value truth, even if or when truth hurts.



There are all kinds of positive values that atheists can have, but it is undeniable that sometimes, truth hurts.

There is no afterlife, there is no heaven, you wont see those who you loved who have died again, they are just gone.

The universe is big, cold and uncaring, and could wipe us out in an instant.


These are not comfortable truths.

But I still prefer knowing these uncomfortable truths and dealing with them to wallowing in a comforting sea of lies.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Thanks for this thread.

Seems valuable for its look "behind the curtain" as it were.

Really?

I don't know that I or any other poster hear has said anything we haven't said already elsewhere.


You for example already know my arguments for why faith based beliefs are immoral.


It is a logical conclusion that you yourself realised that I should and do oppose such beliefs because it
would be immoral not to.



And I am going to poke you again as you asked 😉 and ask if you have any response to my argument here...

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=146358&page=6

Originally posted by chappy1
Would you please explain how theism is immoral.

Just don't encourage this thinking. You don't want to venture down this path to the dark side, trust me.

I try not to encourage it. I just assume people like Dawkins are agents of Satan (perhaps even unknowingly), refuse to listen to anything they say and let it go at that. I made the mistake of reading The God Delusion. It was deeply offensive to me as a Christian, and I'm now hesitant to "go there" with other like-minded atheists. I'm not worried of them "turning" me to the dark side, I am stronger than that in my faith, but it makes my skin crawl to read the deceptions of Satan that they apparently have bought into hook, line and sinker.

When I first came to this forum, I, too, was all fired up about defending my faith. The fact is that these people don't want to hear it. They are convinced that what sounds like truth to them actually IS truth, and nothing will sway them. The faithful Christian certainly has to develop a "let it roll off your back" attitude about the absurd things put forth as truth here to avoid a feeling that you're just making your bed with sandpaper sheets. They will try to wear you down if you let them. Just keep your own counsel, do not relinquish your faith, and just realize that unfortunately God's truth is not always Man's truth. Stay true, to yourself and to God.

/flameretardantundies ON

🙂

Originally posted by googlefudge
Really?

I don't know that I or any other poster hear has said anything we haven't said already elsewhere.


You for example already know my arguments for why faith based beliefs are immoral.


It is a logical conclusion that you yourself realised that I should and do oppose such beliefs because it
would be immoral not to.



And I am going ...[text shortened]... o my argument here...

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=146358&page=6

Actually, I am referring to what posters like twhitehead and wittywonka have said in this thread, we haven't heard a lot of this from them before now.

Yes, GF, I understand your position, and your belief in your own veracity. I get it, I do. I just do not agree with perhaps 90+% of the things you've said many times in this forum. But you knew that.

EDIT: Oh, and btw,

It is a logical conclusion that you yourself realised that I should and do oppose such beliefs because it would be immoral not to.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I have never "realized" that you "should and do oppose such beliefs because it would be immoral not to". I do not believe that, and I have never said that I believe that. What I have said is that you are free to believe whatever you want. Yes, I do realize that you DO believe that, but I do not, and will never have belief that you SHOULD. I've maintained from the beginning that believing that it would be immoral of you to NOT oppose MY faith-based beliefs is immoral of itself. Actually, I think I used the word "prevent", instead of "oppose", but only because you used the word first. You can believe whatever you want. But do not misrepresent MY beliefs. That's where I drew the line between us recently, and I still stand firm in that. As far as I know, my post is still in that thread if you need to go read what I did say again.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Just don't encourage this thinking. You don't want to venture down this path to the dark side, trust me.

I try not to encourage it. I just assume people like Dawkins are agents of Satan (perhaps even unknowingly), refuse to listen to anything they say and let it go at that. I made the mistake of reading The God Delusion. It was deeply offensiv ...[text shortened]... Man's truth. Stay true, to yourself and to God.

/flameretardantundies ON

🙂

Truth can withstand any questioning.

Anything that can't withstand questioning can't be truth.



My beliefs can be and are questioned and I engage in debates with people specifically to
see if they can disprove or refute my views or beliefs.


That you feel the need to hold on to your beliefs and defend them and ignore them suggests
that really you know that they can't withstand questioning. And that they are not true.


I do care deeply about truth.

Most atheists I know do.

That is WHY we are atheists.

Originally posted by Suzianne
EDIT: Oh, and btw,

It is a logical conclusion that you yourself realised that I should and do oppose such beliefs because it would be immoral not to.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I have never "realized" that you "should and do oppose such beliefs because it would be immoral not to". I do not believe that, and I have never said s I know, my post is still in that thread if you need to go read what I did say again.

... Your next line:
[quote]Intentionally doing so or not taking reasonable precautions to prevent you doing so is thus immoral.

indicates that you think that not preventing me from believing what I believe is immoral. ... [/quote]


EDIT: It is a logical conclusion that if you conclude that it is immoral to hold faith based beliefs that it is immoral not
to try to convince others of this.
You spotted that my position should include considering that it is moral to try to convince others not to believe based on
faith... Although you mistakenly went to far and said that my position would be to try to prevent or force people not
to believe based on faith which was wrong and which I corrected.

I was not clear that this is what I meant and I apologise.

However you did spot that my position should logically include a 'prosthelytizing' element. This is what I was referring to.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Actually, I am referring to what posters like twhitehead and wittywonka have said in this thread, we haven't heard a lot of this from them before now.

Yes, GF, I understand your position, and your belief in your own veracity. I get it, I do. I just do not agree with perhaps 90+% of the things you've said many times in this forum. But you knew that.

Yes, GF, I understand your position, and your belief in your own veracity. I get it, I do.

I am really not sure that you do.

For starters I DON'T have a "belief in my own veracity".

I readily accept that I might be wrong and that is why my beliefs and values are always and constantly open to
evaluation and questioning and it is why I engage in debates and discussions on sites such as this and actively
seek out people who disagree with me to see if their arguments and/or evidence is better than mine.

As you have just stated you actively try to avoid people with views such as mine and try to ignore our arguments
so I really don't think you do understand our position and I think that that is intentional on your part.

And of the two of us if either has a "belief in their own veracity" and isn't open to changing their views it is you not me.

I can and do change my views if shown a convincing enough argument and evidence.


You cover your ears and hum tiptoe through the roses until the people who disagree with you go away.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Just don't encourage this thinking. You don't want to venture down this path to the dark side, trust me.

I try not to encourage it. I just assume people like Dawkins are agents of Satan (perhaps even unknowingly), refuse to listen to anything they say and let it go at that. I made the mistake of reading The God Delusion. It was deeply offensiv Man's truth. Stay true, to yourself and to God.

/flameretardantundies ON

🙂

Isn't there some value in trying to understand where the other side is coming from, even if no one expects to win any 'converts'?

Not all atheists embrace the arguments of Richard Dawkins. In fact, I have heard some atheist philosophers join their christian counterparts in agreement that some of Dawkins' arguments are weak.

But this might bring up the uncomfortable idea that the issue of theist vs. atheist is a little more nuanced than one side being mere blinded zombies under Satanic control. 🙂

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Isn't there some value in trying to understand where the other side is coming from, even if no one expects to win any 'converts'?

Not all atheists embrace the arguments of Richard Dawkins. In fact, I have heard some atheist philosophers join their christian counterparts in agreement that some of Dawkins' arguments are weak.

But this might bring up ...[text shortened]... is a little more nuanced than one side being mere blinded zombies under Satanic control. 🙂

I haven't actually read Dawkins book "the god delusion" so I don't even know what his arguments are.

I have never felt the need as I have a perfectly good reason for not believing in anything that is not
supported by evidence.

Given the total absence of evidence for god I need no further rational or reasons for non-belief.


I don't worship at some alter of Darwinism as some theists seem to believe atheists do.

And I know of some issues where Dawkins has got it totally wrong.


I value the idea, not the source.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Just don't encourage this thinking. You don't want to venture down this path to the dark side, trust me.

I try not to encourage it. I just assume people like Dawkins are agents of Satan (perhaps even unknowingly), refuse to listen to anything they say and let it go at that. I made the mistake of reading The God Delusion. It was deeply offensiv ...[text shortened]... Man's truth. Stay true, to yourself and to God.

/flameretardantundies ON

🙂

Wow thank you for that. Sincerely, I appreciate it! I will never relinquish my faith. Thank you.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Yes, GF, I understand your position, and your belief in your own veracity. I get it, I do.

I am really not sure that you do.

For starters I DON'T have a "belief in my own veracity".

I readily accept that I might be wrong and that is why my beliefs and values are always and constantly open to
evaluation and questioning and it is our ears and hum tiptoe through the roses until the people who disagree with you go away.

But for me, no mere human could EVER convince me there is some kind of god out there that is directing organized religion. They are all, 100% of them too human centric, too opposed to each other, fighting religious based wars, killing in the name of some god or other to be believable there is some god overloarding all this.

This will ALWAYS be to me a direct indication of the level of BS inherent in ALL organized religions.

Which is not to say some people become better people for getting trapped in such religions, they obviously needed some kind of direction in their lives and I suppose a lot of addicts and so forth have been 'saved' of their addiction but thousands of years of pithy sayings only prove humans are very smart and creative at what they do. All the pithy sayings and all the allegory and tales of creation will never convince me of divine origins of any these religions.

You wouldn't believe the literal tales of Aborigines and how they view creation so why would you buy into the BS tales of the Abrahamic religions or Hinduism or any of the others?

Humans are quite capable of coming up with better life paths and millions of books have been written about that and they are all written and conceived by humans, no help from a god is needed.

Doesn't anyone notice how the upper leaders of such religions are almost to a person living in a great house, have servants by the dozen take care of their every need, never have to worry about the next meal, paying for a house payment, getting baby sitters, fighting off house burglers, paying taxes, worrying about who is going to pay their medical bills. Gee, how CONVENIENT. I'm SURE that's how a god would set it up......

Originally posted by sonhouse
But for me, no mere human could EVER convince me there is some kind of god out there that is directing organized religion. They are all, 100% of them too human centric, too opposed to each other, fighting religious based wars, killing in the name of some god or other to be believable there is some god overloarding all this.

This will ALWAYS be to me a d ...[text shortened]... their medical bills. Gee, how CONVENIENT. I'm SURE that's how a god would set it up......

I don't think any human could ever convince me of the existence of a god or gods either.

I think the only being that would be capable of that would be a god.

However as unlikely as it is I could still be wrong.

So I keep testing.


However the Abrahamic religions are utterly unattractive to me aesthetically.

Stephen Fry puts it quite nicely here...

YouTube&feature=related

With a shortcut to the part in the video I am talking about here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CqibqD4fJZs#t=300s

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have been atheist since I was about 13. I used to have a largely 'live and let live' policy towards theism. However, due to suggestions on this forum, I bought and read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins and I think he made a good argument that religions in general are harmful overall and delusion in general are harmful overall and as a result I have ...[text shortened]... at is not the case, almost everyone I know is a theist (of various degrees and religions).

The delusion is that there is no God.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I would not personally be comfortable with either, but I find Anti Homosexuality less abhorrent than Anti Homosexual.

I have a son who is homosexual and I am not against him. But I am against some of the acts of homosexuality, which can be done by non-homosexuals as well. I believe God loves the person, homosexual or not. But He hates sin and I believe that includes certain acts of homosexuality.