A question for Anti-Theists

[The Steel Magnolia]

Honestly, anti-theists are a pain in the arse. I mean, nowadays you can't say that you're religious on the internet without some smart guy offering their own little criticism.

I mean it's almost like we didn't ask them.

[The Grey Wolf]

Honestly, anti-theists are a pain in the arse. I mean, nowadays you can't say that you're religious on the internet without some smart guy offering their own little criticism.

^^^ This.

[Crystal Spires]

Emotions exist and can be quantified, unlike god. Also, an Antitheist doesn't necessarily proselytise, it's merely an opposition to the concept of theism, no there is no "control", so-to-speak.

Emotions can not actually be quantified, and qualia is an incredibly subjective thing, it is why phobias differ from person to person, and neurotransmitters are not at fault for all emotional feelings etc. A feeling of spiritual meaning or the numinous can easily be explained as similar to an emotion (given that it likely has origins in psychology anyway) so it is actually probably nearest to the same thing as proving the feeling of an 'experience of God'. I think they've done a study of prayer in psychology, and there were specific references to brain sections being activated, but it's quite possible it could have been yet another pseudoscientific article that often wriggles its way into psychology today, poor Psychology and its bad rep.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Ah, that seems like a more fair assessment, but... why? What does it matter that other people believe in a fairy tale? I mean... kids believe in Santa up until prepubescence with astounding prevalence. Santa.... doesn't exist.... sorry guys.

Because beliefs have consequences on personal behavior, and that can have social consequences. An example is the Taliban.

thoughtpolice.jpg


People have the right to believe. People don't have the right to harm others because of that belief. Belief, in and of itself, is not harmful, and is in fact quite the reverse.

[Seitonjin]

Honestly, anti-theists are a pain in the arse. I mean, nowadays you can't say that you're religious on the internet without some smart guy offering their own little criticism.

It's snark. But yes, annoying. But no, they may be toying. Then again it is the internet.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Except that religion is a choice, and antitheism acts to criticise religion not just mindlessly attack it like a misogynist would slander women.

Except that religion is just as if not more important to people than sexuality is,

Source?

and "hurr durr stupid xtians" bullshit is nothing more than facetious and egotistical posturing.

Except that, as I've stated in the post you quoted, it's a criticism of one's informed choice not an attack on how one was born. They're really not similar, and characterising Antitheism like that shows how you really don't understand what Antitheism is.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Well not really, emotional mindsets are not particularly rational and they don't need evidence to be felt or had, they just happen as a result of chemical states in the brain, and I don't feel the need to be hostile to someone if they say, are afraid of something that I am not, or feel particularly moved about a movie or TV show. It's not rational, but it's personal, so why should I feel the need to control how a person believes something (with or without evidence)?

Emotions exist and can be quantified, unlike god. Also, an Antitheist doesn't necessarily proselytise, it's merely an opposition to the concept of theism, no there is no "control", so-to-speak.

teach me this human thing called love

[Anachronous Rex]

You're right, criticizing a doctrine, and criticizing people for the way they were born are exactly the same. I guess you win this one.

Uh, yeah. Actually, it is incredibly similar.

You can criticize institutions without criticizing people's personal beliefs.

Without realizing it, you're arguing for special treatment for religion. If I say, "Marxist-Leninism is a misguided concept, and I oppose it," I am criticizing people's personal beliefs insofar as their are Marxist-Leninists. This is no different from my treatment of religion.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Except that religion is just as if not more important to people than sexuality is,

Source?

Myself, for one? I'm queer. I'm gay. I'm fucking transgender.

And yeah, I'm religious. And guess what? I'd rather suck cis cock than give up my beliefs.

Except that, as I've stated in the post you quoted, it's a criticism of one's informed choice not an attack on how one was born. They're really not similar, and characterising Antitheism like that shows how you really don't understand what Antitheism is.

Except that my question for you is what gives you the right to declare what people should and should not believe?

[The Steel Magnolia]

Uh, yeah. Actually, it is incredibly similar.

You can criticize institutions without criticizing people's personal beliefs.

Without realizing it, you're arguing for special treatment for religion. If I say, "Marxist-Leninism is a misguided concept, and I oppose it," I am criticizing people's personal beliefs insofar as their are Marxist-Leninists. This is no different from my treatment of religion.

Without realizing it, you're arguing for special treatment for queers. If I say, "Being gay is a misguided concept, and I oppose it," I am criticizing people's personal sexuality insofar as their are gay. This is no different from my treatment of religion.

Why do you criticize belief and not action?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Emotions exist and can be quantified, unlike god. Also, an Antitheist doesn't necessarily proselytise, it's merely an opposition to the concept of theism, no there is no "control", so-to-speak.

Emotions can not actually be quantified, and qualia is an incredibly subjective thing, it is why phobias differ from person to person, and neurotransmitters are not at fault for all emotional feelings etc. A feeling of spiritual meaning or the numinous can easily be explained as similar to an emotion (given that it likely has origins in psychology anyway) so it is actually probably nearest to the same thing as proving the feeling of an 'experience of God'. I think they've done a study of prayer in psychology, and there were specific references to brain sections being activated, but it's quite possible it could have been yet another pseudoscientific article that often wriggles its way into psychology today, poor Psychology and its bad rep.

All emotions are produced as a result of neurotransmitters and hormones. If you can show me some sort of evidence for an emotion that is produced non-neurologically, I'm all ears.

[Anachronous Rex]

You can't oppose something without hating it? That's kind of disturbing.

Seek help.

Not all the time.

I'm in opposition to socialism. Does that mean I hate socialists or socialism?

Is context something that is hard for you to understand?

Oh, you didn't understand the context? Well let me help you: I am an anti-theist. I oppose religion on the same terms that I oppose many other doctrines. I believe that as a doctrine theism is both incorrect and unhealthy.

If you mean anything else by anti-theism, you're are arguing a strawman.

Moreover, your obvious venom for anti-theists drips with hypocrisy.

[Tiltjuice]

Except that my question for you is what gives you the right to declare what people should and should not believe?

What gives religious people that right?

[Seitonjin]

SM und others, do you understand that anti-theism is just an opposition of a supreme being(s)?

It's not against religion. That would be Anti-Religion.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Source?

Myself, for one? I'm queer. I'm gay. I'm fucking transgender.

And yeah, I'm religious. And guess what? I'd rather suck cis cock than give up my beliefs.

That's anecdotal.

Except that, as I've stated in the post you quoted, it's a criticism of one's informed choice not an attack on how one was born. They're really not similar, and characterising Antitheism like that shows how you really don't understand what Antitheism is.

Except that my question for you is what gives you the right to declare what people should and should not believe?

You have no right to do so, unless those beliefs are going to be/being used to harm other people. Again, that's not what Antitheism is. Opposition =/= proselytising.

[Seitonjin]

You can't oppose something without hating it? That's kind of disturbing.

Seek help.

Not all the time.

I'm in opposition to socialism. Does that mean I hate socialists or socialism?

Is context something that is hard for you to understand?

Burn strawman, burn moar.

Anyways. So you're saying that I can't be against the existence of supreme beings? Well then, please reconsider that you are mistaking my anti-theism for anti-religion.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Except that my question for you is what gives you the right to declare what people should and should not believe?

What gives religious people that right?

i wasn't aware I was telling anyone what to and what not to believe?

[Meridiani Planum]

People have the right to believe. People don't have the right to harm others because of that belief. Belief, in and of itself, is not harmful, and is in fact quite the reverse.

I'm not an anti-theist myself. I'm just trying to correct misperceptions of anti-theists.

But let me just say that anti-theists completely agree that people have a right to believe. That doesn't mean that anti-theists aren't going to try to persuade people to drop what they see as false and potentially dangerous beliefs.

[Crystal Spires]

All emotions are produced as a result of neurotransmitters and hormones. If you can show me some sort of evidence for an emotion that is produced non-neurologically, I'm all ears.

And yet every person's emotional states and mindsets are all varied despite the uncanny similarity and structure of the brain and different/similar hormone levels. If it was as you said, then humanity would be rather samey, and yet we are not. We have general similarities, but not entirely universal sentiments. As for the question of emotions being hormones and neurotransmitters.


The Amygdala's signaling (it is not a neuron) and pheremones!

[The Steel Magnolia]

Is context something that is hard for you to understand?

Oh, you didn't understand the context? Well let me help you: I am an anti-theist. I oppose religion on the same terms that I oppose many other doctrines. I believe that as a doctrine theism is both incorrect and unhealthy.

If you mean anything else by anti-theism, you're are arguing a strawman.

Moreover, your obvious venom for anti-theists drips with hypocrisy.

Hardly, I used to be one of you.

Then I realized, that hey!

Religion does some good in the world.

there's a post from something awful I'm gonna quote, because it sums up my feelings quite nicely. It's about feminism, but functions well enough anyway.

We can debate endlessly the many facets of gender in the Bible. But if we step back from our academic armchairs: in a practical way, religion has been extremely fucking empowering to women. It has clearly been a tool for mass (heh) oppression. But in a world that can stomp your face in, religion has been the first and often only message to many women that they are loved or special. The women who faced death and worse in the slow march of civil progress weren't steeled by their faith in Reason. How many women, alone in the dark with their pain, had nothing but Jesus for comfort? In a world built to insulate the powerful, the most powerful religion is dedicated to the underdog. Patriarchy happened to grab onto Christianity as a means to an end, and there's some heavy-handed winks towards feminism in the Bible. It sure as hell could be worse...

I think that we'd arrive at a stalemate, at best, when debating the Bible's feminist qualities. But if we could magically interview women across history that pioneered civil rights, I strongly suspect that, for most, faith was critical to their activism. And that should give us pause before dismissing religion. It's easy to sneer at the perversion of Christianity's message of humble generosity compared with it's historical reality. But how many little girls learned the words to "Jesus Loves Me" today?

[Anachronous Rex]

Without realizing it, you're arguing for special treatment for religion. If I say, "Marxist-Leninism is a misguided concept, and I oppose it," I am criticizing people's personal beliefs insofar as their are Marxist-Leninists. This is no different from my treatment of religion.

Without realizing it, you're arguing for special treatment for queers. If I say, "Being gay is a misguided concept, and I oppose it," I am criticizing people's personal sexuality insofar as their are gay. This is no different from my treatment of religion.

Why do you criticize belief and not action?

The hell? Being gay isn't a concept, nor a doctrine, nor anything with any content or basis in belief. The two are nothing alike.

Why do I criticize belief and not action? I don't.

[The Steel Magnolia]

People have the right to believe. People don't have the right to harm others because of that belief. Belief, in and of itself, is not harmful, and is in fact quite the reverse.

I'm not an anti-theist myself. I'm just trying to correct misperceptions of anti-theists.

But let me just say that anti-theists completely agree that people have a right to believe. That doesn't mean that anti-theists aren't going to try to persuade people to drop what they see as false and potentially dangerous beliefs.

And that's fine.

But they're literally the mormons who keep bugging you door to door.

[Meridiani Planum]

SM und others, do you understand that anti-theism is just an opposition of a supreme being(s)?

It's not against religion. That would be Anti-Religion.

Anti-theism == Anti-religion.

It's not a synonym for atheism. It means being opposed to religious belief in the world.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Without realizing it, you're arguing for special treatment for queers. If I say, "Being gay is a misguided concept, and I oppose it," I am criticizing people's personal sexuality insofar as their are gay. This is no different from my treatment of religion.

Why do you criticize belief and not action?

The hell? Being gay isn't a concept, nor a doctrine, nor anything with any content or basis in belief. The two are nothing alike.

Why do I criticize belief and not action? I don't.

If you criticize religious belief and not the hate that can (but does not necessarily!) spring from it, you are criticizing belief, not action. And thus you criticize an aspect of someone that is just as important and integral as their sexuality.

[Anachronous Rex]

Oh, you didn't understand the context? Well let me help you: I am an anti-theist. I oppose religion on the same terms that I oppose many other doctrines. I believe that as a doctrine theism is both incorrect and unhealthy.

If you mean anything else by anti-theism, you're are arguing a strawman.

Moreover, your obvious venom for anti-theists drips with hypocrisy.

Hardly, I used to be one of you.

I'm never impressed by the, "I used to think like you do" anecdotes. I promise you, you didn't.

Then I realized, that hey!

Religion does some good in the world.

I don't recall ever saying otherwise.

there's a post from something awful I'm gonna quote, because it sums up my feelings quite nicely. It's about feminism, but functions well enough anyway.

We can debate endlessly the many facets of gender in the Bible. But if we step back from our academic armchairs: in a practical way, religion has been extremely fucking empowering to women. It has clearly been a tool for mass (heh) oppression. But in a world that can stomp your face in, religion has been the first and often only message to many women that they are loved or special. The women who faced death and worse in the slow march of civil progress weren't steeled by their faith in Reason. How many women, alone in the dark with their pain, had nothing but Jesus for comfort? In a world built to insulate the powerful, the most powerful religion is dedicated to the underdog. Patriarchy happened to grab onto Christianity as a means to an end, and there's some heavy-handed winks towards feminism in the Bible. It sure as hell could be worse...

I think that we'd arrive at a stalemate, at best, when debating the Bible's feminist qualities. But if we could magically interview women across history that pioneered civil rights, I strongly suspect that, for most, faith was critical to their activism. And that should give us pause before dismissing religion. It's easy to sneer at the perversion of Christianity's message of humble generosity compared with it's historical reality. But how many little girls learned the words to "Jesus Loves Me" today?

Okay?