why I have problems with anti-theism... to put it simply

Post Reply New Topic

You are making generalization I could say the same thing about atheists that are parents and that they might force their atheism on their children.

BS. By its loosest definition, atheism is lack of belief in god. We all start out atheist.

Do you really believe you would have ended up believing in the same god you currently believe in if your parents hadn't?

Did you look at the evidence or investigate it and then come to the logical conclusion that your god exists (and just so happens to be the same one your mother believes in?

Anti-theist here.

If they wanna be psychotic, they can go right ahead of believe in their fairy tales. But, when they try to force their bull on me, on children, on anyone on the ruddy planet they possibly can, I'm going to react to their idiocy. Simple as.

Um no my friend what we have here is a doulbe standard no one starts out as religious or atheist you start out as a child that can not speak fend for himself ect. My mother never tried to convert me against my will I choose to become a christian on my own because I believe in something that is bigger then myself.

My mother believes in God her father doesn't her mother does. Just because you have religious family memmebers doesn't mean you will choose to follow that religion because following a religion is by choice you can't force anyone to believe in anything. People always have a choice.

Please explain how a 3 days old baby can believe in god. If said baby doesn't believe in god, he is by definition an atheist. Maybe agnostic would be a better term.

I agree the term agnostic would be a better term. Also I can't explain it both if you think about it a baby at three years old doesn't know if God is real or not I can't say they would be thinking about those types of things at 3 years old

I agree the term agnostic would be a better term. Also I can't explain it both if you think about it a baby at three years old doesn't know if God is real or not I can't say they would be thinking about those types of things at 3 years old

I agree the term agnostic would be a better term. Also I can't explain it both if you think about it a baby at three years old doesn't know if God is real or not I can't say they would be thinking about those types of things at 3 years old

I agree the term agnostic would be a better term. Also I can't explain it both if you think about it a baby at three years old doesn't know if God is real or not I can't say they would be thinking about those types of things at 3 years old

Children will be "brainwashed" into the beliefs and values of their family/community/culture regardless for better or for worse. Religion isn't the only example and it's in and of itself harmless.
The violence, hypocrisy etc. caused by religion would still exist and manifest itself under a different banner in religion's absence.
My opinion anyways.

Last edited by Subotai on 21 Apr 2012, 8:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I agree with you their.

There is no such thing as the lack of belief in a concept that is heard of because you do form a perspective once you heard of a concept. You got 4 choices once you heard of a concept which is acceptance;neutral;rejection;apathetic responses. Since atheism is too broad of a word in itself and god itself is also too broad of a word in itself, your claim isn't always valid especially if the claim is dismissed by an argument using a perspective which goes against your definition even though their definition is still valid. There is no scientific evidence to make a logical conclusion on god's existance meaning that god do not exist is equally as valid as god do exist because there is no data to back up these two claims. You cannot make any proper conclusion if you do not have data to back up your claim. Regarding the broadness of god, there is the natural pantheistic version of god and it still go by the definition of god in the macmillian dictionary. You should look into Spinoza and other people before him who have the belief that nature=god. The second question sorts of defeats your purpose of stating the 1st statement because you are supporting the very belief that atheism=antitheism even though you don't realize it during the writing.

I'm an apatheist which means I don't really deny that I have a belief on god though I do not make any conclusion on god's existance.

As for babies, they fit more into apatheists as that word isn't broad as atheists.

As for religion causing problems, here's the problem with this claim, you have to prove religion has the external forces to do cause damages. As far as atheists pointed out, there is no evidence of external forces given by religion and detailed analysis shows the root of religion is men who uses their influential powers to cause this mess. One can say atheism is the cause of Vladimir and Stalin regime under the logic of religion caused violence. In reality is how they interpret their own world with their own ideals is what caused the major problems.

Of course all those things would still exist, but is that reason to not care about one of the biggest causes of bigotry, intolerance and violence in the world? Yes, they would still exist, but you can't deny that there are a lot of people who would be far less biogotted if they were not religious in the first place.

Also, one of my main points was that religious bigotry is accepted by society in a way which any other form of bigotry isn't. It's as if the excuse of "religious" or "faith" justifies that bigotry (most often seen with Christian homophobia for example). This makes it more dangerous than other forms, in some ways

This is ridiculous. Just becuase something cannot be disproven (and by the nature of it, God is obviously one of those things) doesn't mean it's equally valid to claim it does exist. You can't prove fairies don't fly out of my arse, as you've never investigated my arse. Does that mean I'm just as valid as you are in claiming that they do?

Not being able to prove God does not exist does not mean we should give equal credit to the possibility that it DOES. The likelihood of it is low enough for me to be able to say that the chances are he DOESN'T exist.

And I know of Spinoza, thanks

Judging from homophobic atheists that do exists and Stalin era, I say those two examples is all I need to point out to say that the bigotry level isn't going to change in a drastic level. Also, keep in mind that religion can be a cover-up excuse for war when there are better reason to start a war such as the desire to resources and domination.....

All forms of bigotry are evil also I am a christian attracted to men and women their are a lot on WP who are to. It is mainly the Vatican and Catholics that are the ones that use their religion to justify their hatred of homosexuals when everyone is born a sexual being. Plus they fail to realise that being gay was only put into the bible as a sin because the pharisees ruled it so. Proestants are the only ones in the Christian family so to speak that has changed their views on a lot of things. If a atheist is going to be a friend with a christian then that christian will most likely be a proestant.

Also proestants are hated by catholics and are treated the same as non theists thats why we had to escape countries under catholic rule in the world it is catholics that cause a lot of problems for christians who follow their faith with out using it as a excuse to commit violent acts. Also Muslims are much more crule to homosexuals I think you are just singleing out those who are christian their are a lot of religions you could bring up as a example.