definition of atheist (comment on 'definition' sticky)

and to be fair...
from OP definitions:

but again, not all atheist are anti-theists,

and not all atheist are out to 'cure' the theist..
(no that wasn't in the quote)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If that's what you think I said, then your intelligence is as non-existant as the unicorn you seem think has just as much chance of existing as God.

I'll make it plain, since you've given me plenty of reason to believe you don't take much care when reading my posts: You aren't important enough for me to be offended by your words.

Yet you can't understand that atheism doesn't adress these possibilities? What are we supposed to make of that? Why should we take you seriously?

I sincerely doubt you're capable of speaking about QM in-depth.

Because there's plenty of reason to believe the former, and not only no reason to believe the latter, but plenty of reason to believe the latter isn't true. Because you're too busy proclaiming what you believe to actually learn anything about these subjects, you erroneously believe it's a 50/50 proposition. Get an education to rectify this.

Comparing atheists to Hitler and the KKK suggests it is. Not to mention the ridiculously stupid reasons you seem to think these are fitting comparisons. (Hint: "Closed-minded" isn't the first thing anyone would say about Hitler...or the KKK, for that matter)

You have a skewed image of both sides, so your worldview is skewed. Which would be none of my concern, if you weren't so loud about how everyone else is to blame for your misery.

This isn't the belief of the vast majoriy of athiests, so I'd say get your broom and sweep up all the straw...

To the contrary, this is precisely what you're doing. By disguising your theism in your misunderstood idea of agnosticism, and pretending that atheism is akin to Nazi Germany, you get to act superior and criticize everyone, thereby reconciling your own ignorance without having to do anything about it.

It's the coward's way. I'm sure your parents are proud.

Both, obviously. Of course, your error is in assuming that this means I believe there is no possibility that I'm wrong. You should know better than that, but assuming moderate integrity or intelligence gets me nowhere in this forum, so...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What if they were? What's wrong, exactly, with being an anti-theist?

The only thing atheists are out to cure is ignorance. Since knowledge tends to snuff out religious belief, irreligion is more a welcome side-effect than a goal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

really Balerion?
why you trying so hard to start a fight?

Labels: leave him alone, he is trying to goad us.

 

Case in point. Rather than address anything I've said, you're going to try to dismiss me. Why are you even here? If you can't support any of your claims, why make them?

I asked you a question. Answer it, or retract your statement. Don't take the coward's way out.

 

I was not aware of levels of Atheism. However all religious persons are atheists in that they reject all gods except their own, both mentally and militarily.

I have posted this before but it bears repeating.

Typical example of religious piety: http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia.htm

and even scarier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

Cite me one atheist book which advocates the eradication of religious people. I can cite dozens of religious books advocating violence against "unbelievers".

 

your questions are not designed for understanding, they are designed to create a fight, you will not listen nor respect others opinions, so are not worth listening to or answering your questions.
you have been reported for harassment, rudeness, insults and trying to start a fight.
(you have just confirmed my statements of atheist causing the problems, well done.)

 

all this is history, I know you could find more relevant and modern examples.. but, this thread isn't about which is better or worse, the only point you make(for this thread) is that the term 'Militant' does not apply to the terms being discussed. acknowledged.

how would you describe Balerion?
(in this context)

 

That's not why you're ducking the question. You're ducking the question because you don't have an answer. Your disapproval of whatever you think an anti-theist is is irrational, and now that you've been put to the question, you are well aware that you can't support your hatred, so you try to divert the attention away from yourself. Shift blame, run, hide.

Another blatant attempt to avoid answering questions you can't handle.

Do you feel lighter, now that you've forgone any semblance of integrity?

Really, Squirrel? Who made this personal? Who started with the rudeness? For the answer, look in a mirror.

 

I refer you back to the red underlined portion of post 46. You ask me about "militant" in the face of such "EVIL" concept.

I have no clue as to Balerions religion or lack thereof, as it should be. I respect and value his considered thoughts on any subject and I have never heard him say "punishment (for atheism, witchcraft, devil worship, possession) does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit."[8]

OTOH, I can pick up a bible and learn how to become EVIL on almost every page....http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Read it and learn what religion teaches your subconscious mind.

I am from Europe and have seen the instruments of torture employed by the very people charged with preserving "morality". Have you already forgottent he Catholic scandals, or did the offenders just got cured? Perhaps a day on the rack might be more effective than a transfer to a small town where the people bow to the ground when the pastor passes by. Disgusting in its deviancy.

NMSquirrel, yes. all this IS history and NOTHING has changed. Theists scare me and for good reason. Being beaten by a gang of thugs for proposing that living things are made from atoms, does not give me comfort in the "arms of the lord".

As to the Middle East, I say send everybody everybody a weapon and let them fight it out to the death so we can get rid of this ridiculous notion that you can hurt another person on the grounds that God is on your side? Let's put it to the test, I say. Does that make me militant? You bet I shall always be militant against EVIL DOERS regardless if they act on Divine Command.

 

yet he attempts to publicly humiliate and goad us into some sort of fight, if I were to succumb to such bait then that would give him permission to publicly verbally 'punish' me to set an example to the public that it is ok to terrorize,condemn, humiliate, ridicule or otherwise ignore any rules of civil discourse, just because someone says 'I believe in God'. regardless of whether those beliefs line up with mainstream or not, his (or for that matter all anti-theist and theists) opinions of my beliefs are wrong from the start, since he has never asked me what I believe. he assumes.

you get out of the bible what you get..
it has been agree'd that the bible can be misinterpreted many different ways, even by Christians, to take a verse out of the bible and blindly follow it is irresponsible of the reader.
there has been many traditions in the bible that has been lost to history and thereby lost interpretations (context lost to history)
to utilize the bible as an unerring, infallible text, IMO is wrong, the bible taught me to think for myself, to test all things, to not rely on just one persons take of what it means. I read it as gods attempt to show us how to think for ourselves.. unfortunately there are way too many ppl in this world who do not want to think for themselves, they would rather have someone to tell them what to do, that way they do not have to take responsibility for their actions (IE 'because the bible says so', is not a conclusion) ( aren't these types described as 'fundamental?)

and I also think this applies to the atheists who tends to rehash the same arguments over and over again then resort to ridicule when they don't have the intelligence to complete their argument(which usually tells me they are just repeating what they have heard) without insulting.(a big clue as to the intelligent level of the speaker)

both these paragraphs apply to both theist and atheist, cept there is no 'fundamental' description for the atheist,

see thats how my take differs, I would vilify a pastor that accepted that kind of treatment, they are supposed to be teachers, not leaders. somewhere in the bible it warns to not put the pastor on a pedestal.

and this is why I have an attitude against religion and the religious, the bible teaches different, I hate that religion has given God a bad reputation.

the 1040 window (look it up) some Christian guy noticed that most of the world conflicts occur within this long/lat box.. while I was learning about it, I thought the same thing, put everyone who wants to fight within this area, let god sort it out..

Divine Command, the excuse of millions to force the opinions of their leaders, not Gods. (how does this differ from legislation?)

but I digress.. back to topic
for it to hold true then it must apply to believers as well..
anti-theist
anti-atheist

so what would an anti-atheist be?
I would think it would be any believer that seeks to 'convert' the atheist to be a believer.
anyone vocally against anyone who communicates a lack of belief.



granted I have been using the term anti-theist as one that also includes hostility, but im not sure if that applies to believers, (note that I didn't say 'to the religious')(believers follow God, the religious follow their religion and do not seek Gods approval, they seek approval by their pastor/elders), but guess I am also trying to include 'hate' into the description of anti-theist, and for the most part the christens I have met do not try to include hate and hostility towards the atheist, yes history is replete with these types, but not in my experience..
so I guess for the term to work properly it has to line up with history also, so maybe anti-atheist would work to mean the hostile/hate filled Christian (usually non violent, but very verbal)

 

Without taking credit for any special mental powers, I for one read you posts with great interest and reflection, and i find myself "gaining valuable knowledge"

 

That isn't a common atheist position, except to the extent that some might say the idea of God is nonsensical or self contradictory in the first place, or simply undefined. You will find, especially among popular atheist authors, that they recognize the place of proper scientific doubt, and that even if a God is possible, the atheist label is about belief, not what is possible. In other words, your complaints about particular atheists are legitimate, but in the context of movement atheism, it's generally a straw man.

 

Thus we are in agreement that the term "militant atheist" is incorrect? If so, then we agree. on that point. But it certainly applies to many "millitant theists". The proof in that is self evident and well documented in history.

I would not presume to label Balerion, nor should you. But as i indicated elsewhere Balerion has more knowledge than I do and if he takes the time to write lengthy explanations, I read and consider his posts seriously.

 

yes the term 'militant' does not apply.

If he spoke with intelligence(no insults or demeaning comments) and something that hasn't been rehashed over and over and over again here on sciforums, as you have, I may listen to him, but either way, it doesn't belong in this thread.

this thread is about a definition,
not a theist/atheist debate.

in order for any definition to work it has to apply to each respectively, would you agree?
what would you define the terms anti-theist, anti-atheist to mean?


an·ti
a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc.

Anti-theist
anyone against theists,
Anti-atheist
anyone against atheists.

 

Before you can debate anything it is usually a good thing if the terms are well defined. Which, in this case, inevitably leads us to theism and atheism.

Not if the definition is not applicable or even coherent. IMO

 

the term is anti-theist not anti-theism, a theist is a person who has a belief in God, the term by definition is against the person who believes, (non violent, violent would be militant, so concern for a persons life would be militant)

and we have decided it wasn't a militant association, murder is definatly militant.
so this statement confuses the militant theist (one who would physically harm an atheist) with anti-atheist (one who is against the atheist not with violence but just with words)

thought we agree'd it was not a militant term.

 

One can speak intelligently and insultingly. And do I need to quote all of the posts in which you're insulting and demeaning, you hypocrit? Because if you press this matter, I absolutely can do that.

I don't know what "theist/atheist debate" is supposed to mean, but the disagreements within this thread have all centered around (at least for the most part) the definitions of terms. Why do you feel the need to complain about this?

What? Please, if you're going to post, take the time to write clearly. This clunky nonsense won't do.

Incorrect. One is not anti-theist, they are an anti-theist. Instead of twisting the term to suggest something nefarious, use it as it is intended--as a substitute for atheist.

"John is an atheist."

"John is an anti-theist."

The word means to be against theism, not against theists. Again, this is simple if you'd simply pay attention instead of running off at the mouth.

 

show me where it is a clear insult and not just something you twisted into an insult.

which is why you are clueless (see I can play that way too)

practice what you preach, IE:

and at no point have you commented on the definition of the words, you have only twisted what was said into an insult.
and my complaints have been to the distractions and the attempts to corrupt this thread.

this just shows you can't read. nor understand simple English (see how this type of comments affects what you are trying to communicate?)
really there should be no discussion as the words used are perfectly acceptable English.

Anti-theist is not the same as anti-theism
same with anti-atheist is not the same as anti-atheism.

john is an atheist
john is an anti-theist
both can be true, the difference being, one just doesn't believe in any God or Gods, the other is against theists
(not to be confused with anti-deity, anyone against God)

John is Anti-theism , means he is against the religion and not the individual. (think this is where you are seeing the difference with "An")

john is an Anti-theist
john is Anti-theist
both can be true but with different meanings...
one is a person, the other a philosopy

so using that logic, it would be less insulting to say 'john is anti-theist' rather than as you say 'John is an anti-theist', but both can still be true.

----
so I want to dissect your comment:

 

There is no such things as a militant anti-theist. Nothing to be militant about.

Right, the term only applies to militant anti-atheists and there is (or should be) a term anti-atheism (as represented by the Inquisition). All religions are anti-atheists. Some are more militant than others.

The problem is that "militant anti-atheists" who will misunderstand anything if it does not agree with their belief and take action to "cleanse" the world from the inherently evil Atheists.
History!