NationStates

What definitions of God make you uncomfortable and why do you think you feel most uncomfortable with this definition?

I am an Agnostic Atheist, and I have not really understood what makes people so uncomfortable and angry with regards to a the idea of God. I imagined it was with the idea that God was described as Omnipotent by Abrahamic God believers, but most existing Gods (Even the Abrahamic one) in mythology seem to possess limited power. None that I am aware of are omnipotent, as they are either subject and powerless to the will of human beings, or subject and powerless to the other factors in the existence of the universe like other powerful demigods in mythical stories. While I can understand finding specific gods like for example the Greek God Ares, the Mayan God Tlaloc, and the Canaanite God Sabaoth to be distasteful and crude with their promotion of violence, genocide, murder I would not go so far as to be hostile to the idea of a God existing. Not to mention there are other deities like Krishna and Atum-Ra which aren't exactly bloodthirsty Gods which aren't really contemptible and don't generally get viewed as an all powerful etc. So I couldn't really be hostile toward such conceptions of a god. However in order to be anti theist one has to hold these conceptions of God also in contempt to be something despised. While the idea of a malevolent god is not nice and is worthy of contempt in my opinion, the idea of an impotent God doesn't fill me with rage. Nor does the problem of evil weigh down so hard if we consider the possibility of an impotent god.

So, if we remove the problem of the existence of evil and declare God to be impotent in the face of evil like we are, why would one be hostile to the idea of a limited theistic God?

Agnostic here.

I'd guess that, in case of an impotent God, an anti-theist would just deem worship useless and a waste of time, since it wouldn't really have any effect on himself and the world.

Crystal Spires wrote:So, if we remove the problem of the existence of evil and declare God to be impotent in the face of evil like we are, why would one be hostile to the idea of a limited theistic God?

Because belief without evidence should be seen with a due amount of skepticism, irregardless of how many philosophical problems one waves away or how impotent and nebulous it is?

Monotheistic gods are undoubtedly the worst.

Well I kind of like some of the Polytheistic Gods because they have character and are funny. They're kind of hilarious and this is not about "evidence" or proofs for or against the existence of a god. This is not about Atheism, which doesn't believe in any gods, but Anti-theists who are hostile to the idea of a God. It's not the existence that is in question, it is about the specific quality of hostility toward the concept of Gods. Since I accept them as fictional characters meant to tell stories I don't have such hostile feelings, so I wonder why specifically anti-theists would given the limited power of Gods in the canonical texts and the portrayal of the gods in their texts. They are most always limited and personified as such.

I don't object to theism. I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge its existence.

I object to theists attempting to convert me. No matter how subtly it's done. It's not their affair what I choose to believe.

Avenio wrote:Because belief without evidence should be seen with a due amount of skepticism, irregardless of how many philosophical problems one waves away or how impotent and nebulous it is?

The topic is about Anti-theism, not Atheism. I am an Atheist and thus don't think there is evidence at all, but this doesn't merit hostility toward the concept of a God.

Atheist who indulges in Buddhist, Tao, and Confucian philosophy.

People can become anti-theistic due to the inherent foolishness of having a higher being in the cases I've encountered. As well as the fact that evolution and by extension, the Big Bang nullifies the idea of higher beings completely.

I personally don't like monotheism because it seems silly to think one deity can create the universe, kill thousands, and repeat said killings during the doomsday.

Polytheism is a bit... Logical but then again, what's logical about deities controling humans as chess pieces when it seems clear as day that we plan our own lives?

Probably people who spend too much time on the internet and feel the need to assert dominance on every point that isn't any of their fucking business.

Tiltjuice wrote:I don't object to theism. I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge its existence.

I object to theists attempting to convert me. No matter how subtly it's done. It's not their affair what I choose to believe.

Well no, but again, the concept of a theistic god is nothing I feel is necessary to be hostile about. As an atheist it is akin to getting mad at a character in a fairy tale. It's pointless to get so riled up and angry about it.

Crystal Spires wrote:

Avenio wrote:Because belief without evidence should be seen with a due amount of skepticism, irregardless of how many philosophical problems one waves away or how impotent and nebulous it is?

The topic is about Anti-theism, not Atheism. I am an Atheist and thus don't think there is evidence at all, but this doesn't merit hostility toward the concept of a God.

It may. One could argue that it's rational to be hostile towards something that can be believed without evidence.

Probably because Anti-Theists are intolerant assholes in the same vein as homophobes and misogynists.

You can criticize religious organizations without being a colossal cunt to people who believe for whatever reason.


E: General you, not calling out people on this site in particular.

The Steel Magnolia wrote:Probably because Anti-Theists are assholes.

Nice "All X are Y". I'm not an Antitheist myself, but care to provide some evidence that all "Anti-Theists are assholes"?

You make gods sound like a prostate exam.

My objection to theism relates mostly to it being an infantilizing belief.

Crystal Spires wrote:

Tiltjuice wrote:I don't object to theism. I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge its existence.

I object to theists attempting to convert me. No matter how subtly it's done. It's not their affair what I choose to believe.

Well no, but again, the concept of a theistic god is nothing I feel is necessary to be hostile about. As an atheist it is akin to getting mad at a character in a fairy tale. It's pointless to get so riled up and angry about it.

True. It's less strictly pertaining to being hostile about the concept itself, as the people presenting it.

To answer your question more completely, I am like you, unless I perceive religious people trying to convert me. Then I go anti-theistic. If they don't respect my freedom of choice of (non)belief, I see no reason to respect theirs. Silver Rule.

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:It may. One could argue that it's rational to be hostile towards something that can be believed without evidence.

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)?

Crystal Spires wrote:

Tiltjuice wrote:I don't object to theism. I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge its existence.

I object to theists attempting to convert me. No matter how subtly it's done. It's not their affair what I choose to believe.

Well no, but again, the concept of a theistic god is nothing I feel is necessary to be hostile about. As an atheist it is akin to getting mad at a character in a fairy tale. It's pointless to get so riled up and angry about it.

Dominance via evidence.

It's just that. Anti-theists show with fervor that there is no god(s) because they have the evidence to do so.

Basically trying to prove a relatively valid point.

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:

The Steel Magnolia wrote:Probably because Anti-Theists are assholes.

Nice "All X are Y". I'm not an Antitheist myself, but care to provide some evidence that all "Anti-Theists are assholes"?

Because it's exactly the same thing as homophobia or misogyny, except biased against religion?

Seitonjin wrote:

Crystal Spires wrote:
Well no, but again, the concept of a theistic god is nothing I feel is necessary to be hostile about. As an atheist it is akin to getting mad at a character in a fairy tale. It's pointless to get so riled up and angry about it.

Dominance via evidence.

It's just that. Anti-theists show with fervor that there is no god(s) because they have the evidence to do so.

Basically trying to prove a relatively valid point.

There's no evidence, there's a lack of evidence either which way, and no, that's not the same thing. Burden of proof is still a thing, yes, but it doesn't mean what all y'all think it means.

The Steel Magnolia wrote:

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:Nice "All X are Y". I'm not an Antitheist myself, but care to provide some evidence that all "Anti-Theists are assholes"?

Because it's exactly the same thing as homophobia or misogyny, except biased against religion?

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.

Crystal Spires wrote:

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:It may. One could argue that it's rational to be hostile towards something that can be believed without evidence.

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.

I thought this was clear but I was mistaken. No, not all Anti-Theist people are assholes. Some can be, but not all are.

Crystal Spires wrote:What definitions of God make you uncomfortable and why do you think you feel most uncomfortable with this definition?

I am an Agnostic Atheist, and I have not really understood what makes people so uncomfortable and angry with regards to a the idea of God. I imagined it was with the idea that God was described as Omnipotent by Abrahamic God believers, but most existing Gods (Even the Abrahamic one) in mythology seem to possess limited power. None that I am aware of are omnipotent, as they are either subject and powerless to the will of human beings, or subject and powerless to the other factors in the existence of the universe like other powerful demigods in mythical stories. While I can understand finding specific gods like for example the Greek God Ares, the Mayan God Tlaloc, and the Canaanite God Sabaoth to be distasteful and crude with their promotion of violence, genocide, murder I would not go so far as to be hostile to the idea of a God existing. Not to mention there are other deities like Krishna and Atum-Ra which aren't exactly bloodthirsty Gods which aren't really contemptible and don't generally get viewed as an all powerful etc. So I couldn't really be hostile toward such conceptions of a god. However in order to be anti theist one has to hold these conceptions of God also in contempt to be something despised. While the idea of a malevolent god is not nice and is worthy of contempt in my opinion, the idea of an impotent God doesn't fill me with rage. Nor does the problem of evil weigh down so hard if we consider the possibility of an impotent god.

So, if we remove the problem of the existence of evil and declare God to be impotent in the face of evil like we are, why would one be hostile to the idea of a limited theistic God?

Krishna wasn't bloodthirsty? Spires, you've obviously never read the Mahabharata or Bhagavad Vita.

The Steel Magnolia wrote:

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:Nice "All X are Y". I'm not an Antitheist myself, but care to provide some evidence that all "Anti-Theists are assholes"?

Because it's exactly the same thing as homophobia or misogyny, except biased against religion?

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

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:I thought this was clear but I was mistaken. No, not all Anti-Theist people are assholes. Some can be, but not all are.

And some only become assholes when people declare them to be assholes as an opening move.

As an aside: your current flag terrifies me. I am a sad, frightened, little dinosaur.