Antitheism

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i haven't seen anything from you that counters my argument, ergo it stands.

Some name calling and charges of "snake oil salesman" are not worth considering as arguments at all.

You have nothing. That's why you're loud and proud about the Void Spirit. That's where you're stuck, in an empty futile Void of atheistic vanity.

Might as well embrace what you cannot escape.

Originally posted by jaywill
Some name calling and charges of "snake oil salesman" are not worth considering as arguments at all.

You have nothing. That's why you're loud and proud about the Void Spirit. That's where you're stuck, in an empty futile Void of atheistic vanity.

Might as well embrace what you cannot escape.

It's only futile in the land of the religious. In the land of reality, it is a way of life.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It's only futile in the land of the religious. In the land of reality, it is a way of life.

A way of death.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Does anyone here consider himself an "antitheist," as opposed to an "atheist"? Would you explain how you came to embrace that philosophy? I have a hard time understanding how it doesn't perpetuate the same overgeneralized "us vs. them" mentality that many theists adopt.

I'm not a believer in many gods, I believe in 1, but I don't believe I'd call myself
either anti-many gods or anti-zero gods. It is one thing to have a stand on a
point about one's own beliefs, it is quite another to be active in being against
someone else's. To be anti someone else's belief sets people apart creating
a massive us against them, so I'm not at all surprised at the answers here, to be
anti can be very dangerous depending on how far your willing to go against
another. I'd also say you could kiss being objective goodbye too when looking at
things if your AGAINST the thought of there even being a chance your wrong.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not a believer in many gods, I believe in 1, but I don't believe I'd call myself
either anti-many gods or anti-zero gods. It is one thing to have a stand on a
point about one's own beliefs, it is quite another to be active in being against
someone else's. To be anti someone else's belief sets people apart creating
a massive us against them, so I'm n ...[text shortened]... g at
things if your AGAINST the thought of there even being a chance your wrong.
Kelly

So, lets say there is a religion that includes some clearly undesirable elements (say extreme racism, or genocidal teachings). Would you be anti- that belief? Or would you just say 'live and let live'?
Being anti a belief does not mean you have to start a war, or have to wipe out the belief whatever the cost.

I, for example, would describe myself as anti-astrology. I think that those who believe in astrology are affected negatively by the belief and are affecting others negatively. I would definitely try to discourage any believers I met from believing it, and I might even go so far as to vote for a by-law banning the publishing of astrology in newspapers. But I would not wish harm upon believers.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, lets say there is a religion that includes some clearly undesirable elements (say extreme racism, or genocidal teachings). Would you be anti- that belief? Or would you just say 'live and let live'?
Being anti a belief does not mean you have to start a war, or have to wipe out the belief whatever the cost.

I, for example, would describe myself as a ...[text shortened]... w banning the publishing of astrology in newspapers. But I would not wish harm upon believers.

Being anti means you are against, so if you want to say that you've an open
minded on this topic or any other that touches it you can kiss that one
goodbye since you've admitted you are not.

With the elements are you suggesting that I have to agree with them or
disagree, or that there are people actually doing those things NOW that I need
to stop? Actions that I call bad that are going on now I'd try to stop, yes. If
your talking about historical events, context would be needed.
Kelly

Originally posted by jaywill
A way of death.

And death is a part of life. There is no immortality or soul, that is a human desperate pipe dream. If people really understood that point, life would be a lot more meaningful. You get one shot, make it count.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And death is a part of life. There is no immortality or soul, that is a human desperate pipe dream. If people really understood that point, life would be a lot more meaningful. You get one shot, make it count.

How does being an Atheist make life meaningful? If we were not created by God for the purpose of love, then what is the purpose and meaning of life? What is the purpose and meaning of death? Why should there even be a purpose and meaning for anything? As you said, "You get one shot, make it count." But if you are an Atheist, why should you need to make anything count? You want care about anything after death if that's all there is.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How does being an Atheist make life meaningful? If we were not created by God for the purpose of love, then what is the purpose and meaning of life? What is the purpose and meaning of death? Why should there even be a purpose and meaning for anything? As you said, "You get one shot, make it count." But if you are an Atheist, why should you need to make anything count? You want care about anything after death if that's all there is.

They make it meaningful as they do all things, what ever they think is good
enough, they are the lone measure for all things in their eyes. To suggest
they are not goes against their core.
Kelly

Originally posted by jaywill
Some name calling and charges of "snake oil salesman" are not worth considering as arguments at all.

You have nothing. That's why you're loud and proud about the Void Spirit. That's where you're stuck, in an empty futile Void of atheistic vanity.

Might as well embrace what you cannot escape.

i still haven't seen anything from you that counters my argument, ergo it still stands.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i still haven't seen anything from you that counters my argument, ergo it still stands.

He said you had nothing to counter. That means your argument does not mount to a hill of beans. It is nothing. Can't you understand plain English?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Being anti means you are against, so if you want to say that you've an open
minded on this topic or any other that touches it you can kiss that one
goodbye since you've admitted you are not.

I am not sure what you are saying here, can you explain it better? Are you saying I am not 'open minded' about genocide? If so, then yes, I am not. Are you open minded about genocide?

With the elements are you suggesting that I have to agree with them or
disagree, or that there are people actually doing those things NOW that I need
to stop? Actions that I call bad that are going on now I'd try to stop, yes. If
your talking about historical events, context would be needed.
Kelly
Yes, there are people doing those things now. Are you anti- or not?
What about astrology? Are you anti-astrology, or are you 'open minded' about it? Do you think it is harmful for people to believe in astrology?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not sure what you are saying here, can you explain it better? Are you saying I am not 'open minded' about genocide? If so, then yes, I am not. Are you open minded about genocide?

[b]With the elements are you suggesting that I have to agree with them or
disagree, or that there are people actually doing those things NOW that I need
to stop? Action you 'open minded' about it? Do you think it is harmful for people to believe in astrology?

[/b]You are against Theism, which is a different topic than genocide so if it was
happening today I'm sure we would both be against no matter our stance on
God.

Anything that may lead to there being God, god, or gods you are going to be
against automatically. You have a side when the topics are about Christ so that
you are going to have more in common with the Anti-Christ than with Christ
as far as sides go. If the topic had anything to do with a creator you'll
automatically have a side on the topic no matter what is being discussed, so like
some others here NOTHING will ever be even thought of as even possible if it
meant you'd have acknowledge something other than natural causes had to be
the cause, so you have built in blinders. Even accepting in evolution that there
needed to have something than natural causes at work puts you at odds with
your core beliefs. So the very thing you accuse me of doing from time
to time and other people of faith here you do too, reject due to personal bias.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not sure what you are saying here, can you explain it better? Are you saying I am not 'open minded' about genocide? If so, then yes, I am not. Are you open minded about genocide?

[b]With the elements are you suggesting that I have to agree with them or
disagree, or that there are people actually doing those things NOW that I need
to stop? Action you 'open minded' about it? Do you think it is harmful for people to believe in astrology?

[/b]Being anti is not the same as being open about it or even rejecting some of the
beliefs about certain things....being anti is being against which is different than
rejecting.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are against Theism, which is a different topic than genocide so if it was
happening today I'm sure we would both be against no matter our stance on
God.

It does happen today, and I am sure we are both against it.

Anything that may lead to there being God, god, or gods you are going to be
against automatically.
That makes no sense. How can something 'lead to there being God, god or gods?' To God(s) get created by something leading up to them?

You have a side when the topics are about Christ so that
you are going to have more in common with the Anti-Christ than with Christ
as far as sides go.
That depends on what the Anti-Christs opinion is on the subject, surely?

If the topic had anything to do with a creator you'll
automatically have a side on the topic no matter what is being discussed, so like
some others here NOTHING will ever be even thought of as even possible if it
meant you'd have acknowledge something other than natural causes had to be
the cause, so you have built in blinders.
That is largely because I don't recognise a separation between 'natural causes' and 'supernatural causes'. But this has nothing to do with 'blinders'. It has to do with reality.

Even accepting in evolution that there needed to have something than natural causes at work puts you at odds with
your core beliefs.
No, not really.

So the very thing you accuse me of doing from time to time and other people of faith here you do too, reject due to personal bias.
Kelly
Thats true, but how is it relevant to what you said earlier, or the discussion in general? Also, there is a key difference between my bias and your bias. I can back up my bias with fact/reasoning/argument and I am willing to. You can't.