Atheism vs Anti-theism

[thalassa]

Re: Atheism vs Anti-theism

Ok, I'm kind of upset that in our small corner of this site where atheists can discuss their thoughts, we're being told not to.

That, in fact, makes me very angry and hurt. We don't comment on theist threads because it's not helpful but if this is the type of treatment I can expect when I'm trying to talk to fellow atheists on our own spot, I am left with the conclusion that we are simply not welcome here.

And if such is the case, I will adjust my bookmarks accordingly.

Its not a matter of not commenting on theist threads or not commenting on atheist threads...its a matter of not commenting in a way that attacks someone or a group of someones wholesale, or can be (has been) easily construed as attacking someone or a group of someones, regardless of what section someone is in.

The Atheist section is a section for people (including non-atheists) to talk about Atheism, not just a board for Atheists....just as the Heathen board is a board about Heathen traditions, not just a board for Heathens. Although, I'm fairly sure a number of people skip sections for that reason, and most of the use by this board may be by Athiests, the individual boards aren't here to segregate people into their own little clubs, they are here as placeholders for subjects of conversation. In part boards are also a place for people of like mind to find one another, but it certainly isn't a place to find one another to point fingers at each other and giggle behind closed doors over their beliefs or lack of belief. And even sections were here soley for use of *enter group here* it still wouldn't be an Atheist playground to knock theists, anymore than the theistic sections (not that everyone using those sections are thiests anyhow) are every going to be theist playgrounds for knocking Atheism.

This forum is multi-faith (and that includes NO faith), period...every single section of the board, from the Heathen board to the Abrahamic boards to the Rant section. I have no problem with being critical. Be critical. But be constructive about it. Like I said before--criticism is generally useful when its constructive, rather than destructive. Pick a religion (and make a specific religion, not "Christians" or "Muslims" or "Baptists" or "Buddhists" or "theists"...or "atheists"...unless its actually a belief or action that actually exists among nearly all of their respective groups) and say "this teaching sucks because of X, Y, and Z" or "this action damages X, Y, and Z". At best, a blanket statement is almost never helpful, and even even less often factual...at worst, it comes off as prejudice and bigotry, whether its meant that way or not. Honestly...I expect better of us...because I know that most of us are capable of it.

I might add that this goes for every single part of this forum, period. This just happens to be the first place its shown up in a while. All of us, ALL OF US (and that includes myself, and staff), can stand to improve in the manner in which we express ourselves, so that we are perfectly clear when we mean to be insulting or not...and can stand to improve in how we react when we are questioned or criticized.

[Denarius]

Re: Atheism vs Anti-theism

THIS felt like "don't step on any toes and make sure to be 100% PC so that no one gets offended.

There are conduct rules here, simple as that. Facts or no, you still have to behave within the community guidelines. Things like respect and tolerance is a part of that, and that's great. That focus on community is very likely the reason why this part of the forums exist in the first place.

Edit: Thal got to it first.

[Bjorn]

Re: Atheism vs Anti-theism

Someone explain to me how a list of facts is an attack.

[Roknrol]

Re: Atheism vs Anti-theism

My last $0.02 in this thread.

I take offense to someone telling me that my beliefs are 100% offensive (because a handful of members that have held those beliefs have been so) and that it's my responsibility to justify their behavior.

I did not do so - instead I responded to the post with an attempt at kindness and understanding - which went ignored, I think, because I'm an Atheist.

BDC rattled off a list of why he felt that religion was at fault.

Nobody addressed his points - he was attacked for pointing out the obvious.

My post wasn't even read, yet was responded to in kind.

And the Mods are defending the illiterate that crossed into "here there be dragons" - I mean seriously, if you hate alligators you should probably stay out of Louisiana swamps.

I'm all for discussion, but this isn't that. Reality is not subjective.

/done

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Atheism vs Anti-theism

Before I ask my question, this little intro is necessary: I don't want to hurt anybody here in this section, but I want to understand something.

Ok, so an atheist is a person that doesn't believe in any god or deity - ok, no problem. But what is exactly is the purpose of anti-theists?

I had to look up the term "anti-theist" to make sure it really means what the two parts mean - against the belief in gods.

It does.

Specifically, it indicates that a belief in gods is harmful to people and/or society.

To be clear -

It doesn't mean a belief that it is completely harmful, with no possibility of any good.

It does not mean a belief that people who practice a religion are retarded

It does not mean a belief that all believers in god(s) are creating equal harm, or any harm at all.

It does not mean a belief that anti-theists have a blanket license for theist hunting.

It does not mean a belief that nasty or impolite behavior is acceptable.



In short, people who are anti-theist are subject to the same kind of broad spectrum prejudicial condemnation that the religiosi accuse anti-theists of leveling at them.

That needs to be out in the open before the conversation continues.

Respect works both ways, or I cancel my subscription to Good Manners Weekly.

[Roknrol]

Re: Atheism vs Anti-theism

Someone explain to me how a list of facts is an attack.

It's considered to be an attack because the reader assumes they are expected to defend it.

There is no defense for that list - it was a horrible list of human beings doing what human beings do in the name of religion.

But because we don't have a religion to claim "foul!" under we get singled out. Remember - you can attack "non religion" all you want, after all, nobody that matters will care.

While this is NOT the standard that I've seen at this forum, that certainly seems to be the case here.

/doneforrealsies

[Bjorn]

Re: Atheism vs Anti-theism

My last $0.02 in this thread.

I take offense to someone telling me that my beliefs are 100% offensive (because a handful of members that have held those beliefs have been so) and that it's my responsibility to justify their behavior.

I did not do so - instead I responded to the post with an attempt at kindness and understanding - which went ignored, I think, because I'm an Atheist.

BDC rattled off a list of why he felt that religion was at fault.

Nobody addressed his points - he was attacked for pointing out the obvious.

My post wasn't even read, yet was responded to in kind.

And the Mods are defending the illiterate that crossed into "here there be dragons" - I mean seriously, if you hate alligators you should probably stay out of Louisiana swamps.

I'm all for discussion, but this isn't that. Reality is not subjective.

/done

SO MUCH THIS.

I'm disgusted.

[thalassa]

Re: Atheism vs Anti-theism

This isn't about scrutiny, I'm fine with that. THIS felt like "don't step on any toes and make sure to be 100% PC so that no one gets offended."

Facts are facts, and the thread getting shut down and scolded for a list of facts is unacceptable in my eyes.

If I'm the only one who feels this way, like I said, I'll politely escort myself out.

AFAIC, its not getting shut down for this conversation.

I don't want to put this in green or red, but this is sort of half-Thal and half-Thal as mod/admin speaking:

I think this right here is something that should be discussed, and its been a long time coming---not specifically from this conversation, or from a theist vs nontheist standpoint, just in general. MO closed this thread temporairly because of other things going on beind the scenes...this thread was not shut down for the content of the conversation but because of the tone--as I mentioned to Corbin, we as individuals often have a tendency to assume that everyone has the linguistic skill, maturity, comprehension level, and life experience to meet these sorts of heated conversations of equal footing...we as staff, often know more about when this is not the case than general users do, and when we aren't sure, we act preemptively.

The simple fact of this forum is that we have a lot of disparate belief systems. We are a unique place where people of disparate belief systems come together to talk about them. Invariably due to these disparate belief systems, someone is going to get their feelings hurt, panties in a wad, toes stepped on, etc--whether it be fairly or unfairly. We (staff wise) try to minimize that...and yeah, minimizing that probably does feel like the PC police.

I get that you feel sort of like this is your safe zone. I completely understand that, and I sympathize...but the simple fact of things is that this entire forum should be safe for mostly everyone. Not safe from challenging thinking, not safe from criticism, but safe emotional ground without fear of being ridiculed for their beliefs, whatever they may be.

[Bjorn]

Re: Atheism vs Anti-theism

Then there shouldn't be a section for us at all. Facts are facts and I'm not going to censor myself for people who can't be bothered to read the disclaimer.

[Gleb]

Re: Atheism vs Anti-theism

I had to look up the term "anti-theist" to make sure it really means what the two parts mean - against the belief in gods.

It does.

Specifically, it indicates that a belief in gods is harmful to people and/or society.

To be clear -

It doesn't mean a belief that it is completely harmful, with no possibility of any good.

It does not mean a belief that people who practice a religion are retarded

It does not mean a belief that all believers in god(s) are creating equal harm, or any harm at all.

It does not mean a belief that anti-theists have a blanket license for theist hunting.

It does not mean a belief that nasty or impolite behavior is acceptable.



In short, people who are anti-theist are subject to the same kind of broad spectrum prejudicial condemnation that the religiosi accuse anti-theists of leveling at them.

That needs to be out in the open before the conversation continues.

Respect works both ways, or I cancel my subscription to Good Manners Weekly.

Thanks very much, Corbin . It really tells a lot.

- - - Updated - - -

Then there shouldn't be a section for us at all. Facts are facts and I'm not going to censor myself for people who can't be bothered to read the disclaimer.

Bjorn, it's ok not to agree with someone and to have an argument, of course as long as it is a polite one. Plus, wanting facts is also fine. But, remember that religion and science are not separated. They complete each other.
I understand your point of view, but let me ask you something. - Is there a proof that there is no god at all (any god)? Why and for what purpose were all of the ancient temples built then?

[Bjorn]

Re: Atheism vs Anti-theism

Furthermore, how is it belittling to state FACTS?

I'm effing flabbergasted. No one called anyone stupid, though Chain was quick to step in with remarkable condescension.
No one attacked anyone.

If reading these threads makes someone feel guilty or attacked then that's on them. We can't be fairly asked to tiptoe around historical accuracy to avoid someone's potential future hurt.

It's foul. It's unfair. I'm not letting this one go.

[Medusa]

Re: Atheism vs Anti-theism

The "I'm offended" level in this thread is too damn high.
Ya'll need Cthulhu.

[ChainLightning]

Re: Atheism vs Anti-theism

Wow. I step away to grab a nap and people suddenly get all sorts of butt hurt.

I jumped in, so as to take up an already catastrophic debate. One in which I am particularly keen. If you folks think I'm being condescending, because I am stating an opposing viewpoint, with no less care for the nerves it tweaks, fine. I'm in the wrong business. But if you all can handle throwing firewater at others' belief, why can't you handle people throwing firewater at your NON-belief?

Master Corbin and I said virtually the exact same thing, at one point, just on opposing sides of this debate. He's not wrong. Nor am I.

As Thal has explained, and MO attempted to, the tone in this thread was off the charts. You all know me. That's an invitation to PLAY. I LOVE heated debates! I love the passion that people put into their BEING, in such debates. I don't actually care which side of the debate I get to argue on, or for, I just want IN.

Now, as to facts. Bjorn, my dear, you're wielding this demand for facts around like some sort of shield. Corbin produced a number of things he felt strongly about, that prove that the belief in gods is harmful. That is not a fact. I'm sorry to say. The facts, he listed, are certainly worthy of supporting his theory. That much is true. But to prove that the belief (in gods) is harmful? That, it does not do. It simply suggests. In my special way, I attempted to *prove* the opposite. Which is where it gets interesting, for me.

Rok hasn't had a debate with me for quite the long time, now. Under normal circumstances, I think he would have recognized my take on the subject. But then, his own comments, in here, seem to fluctuate between ambiguous and accusative. It is a step to defend one person's opposing view. And look at how fast that view gets squashed. I don't want her in here, facing you guys. You all have been around the debating block hundreds of times. You *are* the big dogs on this block. Nobody is telling you what to believe or what not to believe. But somebody *is* raising some very pointed issues with the method of calling a belief or religion harmful.

This is what happened recently, when I named both TS and Rok, in a continuing atmosphere that was not conducive to religious tolerance. In the atheist boards, you get a bit more leeway, for the sheer meaning of Atheism - which to some probably *could* find somehow offensive. But these are the Atheist boards. They paid their admission.

As to the forum, might I just copy our Mission Statement, one more time, for all those that may have missed reading it?

Pagan Forum is a multi-faith discussion board. We welcome members of all faiths and paths to share their experiences and broaden their knowledge of many different types of religious traditions. We seek to provide a comfortable environment where our members can feel safe and may openly share any information without fear of religious intolerance.

People can't really feel safe when they keep seeing people talk about how harmful and atrocious their religion is. If we were to make it quite comfortable for all our non-believers, we would have no believer on-site. And vice versa. We have to walk a narrow balance, there. It is that context, that Thal and myself have tried to tweak in this thread. A la, scrutiny works two ways. We can't shield non-belief from scrutiny if we can't shield belief from scrutiny. And why the heck would anyone be shielding anything anyway? Oh yeah. Those pesky words like, "welcome", "comfort", and "safe".


Am I to understand that the members of PF won't allow opposing viewpoints, anymore? That those pesky words only apply to SOME people, namely you Atheists? I already know that *that* is bullshit. You guys aren't like that. None of you. I'm sorry you all got so worked up about your right to condemn religion not being up to par with your freedom from offense when someone condemns yours.


I'm done. This debate has lost all intrigue, now.

[Roknrol]

Re: Atheism vs Anti-theism

Bjorn, it's ok not to agree with someone and to have an argument, of course as long as it is a polite one. Plus, wanting facts is also fine. But, remember that religion and science are not separated. They complete each other.

Sorry Gleb, this is an opinion. I believe that as a survival trait religion has been necessary for our species, but I also think that that time is passed and that religion isn't necessary from an evolutionary standpoint. That's a far cry from thinking that religion is offering any discernible benefit to mankind right now, which does not seem to be the case. I do not think that religion and science must compete with each other, but when religion trods on scientific territory, science has every right to defend it's ground.

I understand your point of view, but let me ask you something. - Is there a proof that there is no god at all (any god)? Why and for what purpose were all of the ancient temples built then?

I think that you don't understand our point of view

Science requires that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claimant is always the one that must defend his or her stance (using science). That's the way that science works.

When you talk about things that require "belief", you are definitively in the realm of "claimant" as well as "extraordinary proof". You don't believe me? Let me ask you something:

Do you believe in gravity?

Of course you don't. You don't need to build a temple to it or beg it for forgiveness - it works on all matter, regardless of opinion or belief. Proof is easy, evidence is abundant.

God? No evidence. No proof. Some temples? Are you seriously going to tell me that that constitutes "proof" to you?

http://disturbinghorror.com/Serial-Killers/Serial-Killers-Bio/Jeffery-Dahmer.html

Jeffrey Dhamer was building an altar of human skulls - does that mean the God he believed in is real? Or is it just possible that the m'fer was insane? And 200 years ago? An intelligent but insane person could go a long long way toward mass oppression. Humans are easy to control, after all.

So no, I don't believe that any man made device or man-written book is, in and of itself, evidence of God.

Do magickal things only happen in such places? Or after reading certain syllables? Cool - let's prove it! Let me ride along on your ghost hunts and on your psychic journeys - that would be an excellent way to prove to me that any of it works.

But keep in mind that I've done my research. I know an awful lot about the science behind why these things appear to work (oftentimes)...so if it's one of those reasons that makes it seem to work? That doesn't constitute proof.

But you wanted to know why temples were built? Because human beings desire answers, and we haven't always (hell, for the majority of our own history) had the ability to answer those questions. And when we don't have answers, we panic. And large numbers of panicky people are called a "mob", and are notoriously difficult to control. But if those people have answers, they stop being panicky and they start getting to work doing the things that need to be done (that they also don't understand) like growing food for the populace and making sure there's clean water. But we aren't living in times where those questions can't be answered anymore. Most of the people today are literate for starters, so they don't have to rely on just what some other person wants them to know. Now they have the ability to self-educate, and with the Internet that has completely removed ANY excuse for not knowing something. The only real question is whether or not you're able to ask the right question.

The question isn't, "Does God exist?" The question is, "Why do you think that He does?" In short, until I make an extraordinary claim, it's not my responsibility to prove a damned thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Chain: none of my comments have been directed at you, specifically. Not a one.

My issue is this - and I've pointed this out: We were blindly attacked, flat out, in our own section. When we responded - BDC with his list, Bjorn with confusion and genuine concern for understanding, and myself under the assumption that the complainant had just had bad experiences, we were once again attacked and told - essentially, that if we didn't have "religion" our value bottomed out.

Not everyone has put forth or supported that view. But I believe that some people are unwittingly supporting the persons behind it without realizing exactly how offensive it actually is.

Like you, I would rather work it out...but I came by my Atheism fairly - you of all people should know that. You also know that I of all people grant everyone the opportunity to explain themselves - which I also did. I cannot answer for the others in this thread, but this is my view. As far as my response to Gleb goes, it also supports the idea that the believers here really don't understand...and this is absolutely fine! But then come in and learn to understand.

As you said, we *are* the big dogs - you know damned well we can't back down when challenged

[WinterTraditions]

Re: Atheism vs Anti-theism

I wish people would read before they respond. I didn't say anything about war. I said "success", which is something you implied that other atheists based on religion. While I know Atheists that hold this view, it is demonstrably false. Note: Nothing about war or crusades, simply a response to your...response.

Not only that, but selectively picking and choosing what you decide you want to respond to is kind of a crappy thing to do. You made a long post which many of us addressed point by point. Hell, you apparently didn't even bother to read my post - why quote me at all?

Why are you offended that I only responded to a small portion of your response? I only respond to specific text for one or two reasons:

1) I am avoiding attacking another person
2) I wish to stop the specific conversation
or
3) I understand your point and I don't feel the need to add anything to it

Are you wanting me to respond to every sentence you make with 'yes you're right' or 'no you're wrong'?

I know you didn't say anything about war. Perhaps I should have worded that differently... I don't know of Buddhism or Shintoism doing any harm, or not causing success. You can certainly correct me. Science has had it's moments of being unsuccessful, as has several religious movements. But to say that religion has never been successful? That's way to broad of a hole you're digging.