Atheism or Antitheism

Weristgott
Posts: 26
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheism or Antitheism

Ok let me first state that I am not Atheist, I am Agnostic. Now if that falls under the category for "theist" in the boards rules, then I apologize.

 That being said, I have a slight problem with the execution of the Blasphemy Challenge. And that is, when did Atheism become Antitheism?  Let me explain (and please correct me if I'm mistaken). Atheism is by definition a disbelief in a God, god, or gods. But why is it that the whole premise of the Blasphemy challenge is based off the Bible and committing the unforgivable sin? What's the point? Atheism doesn't believe in the Bible. So it makes no sense. Atheism shouldn't be about proving the christians wrong. Yes, to an atheist, christianity is "wrong", but it shouldn't be a mission to prove it wrong. Because, isn't that just preaching and converting? One major thing that Atheism supposedly hates?

 My point to this is not to bash, flame, or what have you, on the Blasphemy Challenge. I like the thought and idea that went into it. I agree that Christianity shouldn't preach to kids, etc, etc. In my opinion the Blasphemy Challenge only serves to give the Atheist community a bad name. In closing, stop being Antitheistic, and start showing people what Atheism is really about. 


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
It, just like the Flying

It, just like the Flying Spaghetti monster, serves a purpose. The first is to put examples up of other people doing it so those who follow the mob mentality can easily get out of their religion.

Secondly, it pokes fun at the whole thing. What omnibenevalent omnipotent being would not forgive someone who isn't omnibenevalent or omnipotent and was created to make mistakes?


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Weristgott wrote: Ok let

Weristgott wrote:

Ok let me first state that I am not Atheist, I am Agnostic.

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

 

Do you have a belief in a god? If not then you are not a theist and therefore by default you are atheist.

Quote:

Now if that falls under the category for "theist" in the boards rules, then I apologize.

It does if you have a belief in god, otherwise you're an agnostic atheist like most of us.

 

Quote:
That being said, I have a slight problem with the execution of the Blasphemy Challenge. And that is, when did Atheism become Antitcheism?

When did Christianity become Priests sucking 13 year old dicks? This is a ludicrous question all antitheists are atheists, not all atheists are antitheist. I would think most people in the Blasphemy challenge were of the antitheist ilk.

 

Quote:
Let me explain (and please correct me if I'm mistaken). Atheism is by definition a disbelief in a God, god, or gods. But why is it that the whole premise of the Blasphemy challenge is based off the Bible and committing the unforgivable sin? What's the point? Atheism doesn't believe in the Bible.

But Christians believe in the bible, and they are the foremost religion in our country. Additionally many atheists grew up Christian, this act is liberating to them.

 

Quote:
So it makes no sense. Atheism shouldn't be about proving the christians wrong.

And theism shouldn't be about child molestation. Give me a f'ing break here.... these are your points? Seriously weak.

 

Quote:
Yes, to an atheist, christianity is "wrong", but it shouldn't be a mission to prove it wrong. Because, isn't that just preaching and converting? One major thing that Atheism supposedly hates?

Which dictionary defines atheism by explaining that atheists hate preaching? Which dictionary defines atheism by stating that it should not be about proving Christians wrong? What ass are you pulling these uber lame Christian arguments from?

My take... The one aspect of a Christian I have a lot of respect for and actually appreciate is the fact that they often try to teach others what they believe. If humans never taught each other what we've learned, we'd be nowhere. I just happen to believe that the things the Christians are teaching are innacurate. Additionally, many people here agree with me.

 

 

Quote:
My point to this is not to bash, flame, or what have you, on the Blasphemy Challenge. I like the thought and idea that went into it. I agree that Christianity shouldn't preach to kids, etc, etc. In my opinion the Blasphemy Challenge only serves to give the Atheist community a bad name. In closing, stop being Antitheistic, and start showing people what Atheism is really about.

We're antitheist too. Thanks for taking the effort, you seem very unfamilar with our arguments and what we're about. If you seriously offered this as constructive criticism let me say I appreciate it.

We won't be adopting your new philosophy of just "showing people what atheism is really about." Oh by the way, that's not an upper case "a" in atheism. I wont have more time to address the scope of how sophomoric your arguments were, maybe some of the people of the forum can return fire if need be.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Since it seems every word

Since it seems every word leveled in your argument could come down to poor definitions, I thought I'd note the definition of antitheism.

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

An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. Furthermore, an antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.

[MOD EDIT - fixed link] 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Klarky
Klarky's picture
Posts: 70
Joined: 2006-04-10
User is offlineOffline
Weristgott wrote:

Weristgott wrote:

...when did Atheism become Antitheism?

It didn't. Although if your objections to religious claims and its institutions also include a Moral objection, then it’s likely you will also be an Anti-theist.

You could potentially be a theist anti-theist. Which is to say that you hold a belief in the existence of god, it's just that you do not approve of god, religious dogma or the notion of god and it's implications to humanity.

You could also be an Atheist that wishes the god story to be true. (I think you would either need to cherry pick carefully or be a masochist to hold this view)

Weristgott wrote:
Atheism shouldn't be about proving the Christians wrong. Yes, to an atheist, Christianity is "wrong", but it shouldn't be a mission to prove it wrong. Because, isn't that just preaching and converting? One major thing that Atheism supposedly hates?

It’s hard to generalise. Simply put; atheism is a lack of belief in god/s. Since people hold religious beliefs and are willing to act on them, it seems prudent that the atheist attempt to argue, dismiss, ridicule and otherwise temper the theistic mindset.

Weristgott wrote:
My point to this is not to bash, flame, or what have you, on the Blasphemy Challenge. I like the thought and idea that went into it. I agree that Christianity shouldn't preach to kids, etc, etc. In my opinion the Blasphemy Challenge only serves to give the Atheist community a bad name. In closing, stop being Antitheistic, and start showing people what Atheism is really about.

That's a fair opinion, I don't share it though. Atheism is a philosophical position, it says nothing about the nuances of religious activity per-se.

I am an anti-theist, I believe religion is harmful. I do accept and would even defend anyone’s right to hold a personal belief. This also means the right to voice ones opposition against the views and actions of others.

If the God question was simply a philosophical musing then I suspect there would be no need for the RRS and the Blasphemy Challenge. As I mentioned it's because people are willing to act and orgainise themselves around their beliefs that I think RRS and BC is necessary.


Weristgott
Posts: 26
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
First of all, I apologize

First of all, I apologize for any offense this thread instilled. It was not intended to be an arguement or insult, merely a suggestion.

Quote:
Do you have a belief in a god? If not then you are not a theist and therefore by default you are atheist.

Quote:
It does if you have a belief in god, otherwise you're an agnostic atheist like most of us.

Ok, I don't want to get into a debate about atheism vs agnosticism, vs agnostic atheism. I call myself an agnostic. If that means by your standard that I am an agnostic atheist, then whatever. It wasn't the point of what I said. I was just introducing that I wasn't entirely sure what the board defined as theism.

Quote:
When did Christianity become Priests sucking 13 year old dicks? This is a ludicrous question all antitheists are atheists, not all atheists are antitheist. I would think most people in the Blasphemy challenge were of the antitheist ilk.

Funny question. Other than that, I agree.

Quote:
And theism shouldn't be about child molestation. Give me a f'ing break here.... these are your points? Seriously weak.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. But whatever.

Quote:

Which dictionary defines atheism by explaining that atheists hate preaching? Which dictionary defines atheism by stating that it should not be about proving Christians wrong? What ass are you pulling these uber lame Christian arguments from?

My take... The one aspect of a Christian I have a lot of respect for and actually appreciate is the fact that they often try to teach others what they believe. If humans never taught each other what we've learned, we'd be nowhere. I just happen to believe that the things the Christians are teaching are innacurate. Additionally, many people here agree with me.

It wasn't a dictionary. In my personal experience, most atheists I have spoken with, and myself included, tell me they hate when christians preach to them. And why must atheism always be "prove the christians wrong"? Why not be content with the knowledge or belief that they are wrong? And these aren't christian arguements. If I was argueing for christianity A) I'd be kicked out of here B) I wouldn't be agnostic (or whatever you want to call me) and C) I probably wouldn't be on this forum in the first place.

And yes, preaching and evangilizing (sorry spelling is not my strong suit) is a perfectly ingenius method of perpetuating its existance. And I also agree that without furthering knowledge, we would end up in the dark ages again.

Quote:

We're antitheist too. Thanks for taking the effort, you seem very unfamilar with our arguments and what we're about. If you seriously offered this as constructive criticism let me say I appreciate it.

We won't be adopting your new philosophy of just "showing people what atheism is really about." Oh by the way, that's not an upper case "a" in atheism. I wont have more time to address the scope of how sophomoric your arguments were, maybe some of the people of the forum can return fire if need be.

I can easily see that you're antitheist. And yes, I'll admit, I happened to stumble across the youtube video this morning, and have been watching and reading about it since. But no, I don't know all you're arguements. This was ment to be offered as constructive critisism, but I in no way intended to change the whole mission of the site/movement. Just a couple thoughts on it. Pardon my capitalization of atheism. I have a bad habit of capitalizing things. Sorry.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I would consider myself both

I would consider myself both an atheist and anti-theist.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Weristgott wrote: It

Weristgott wrote:

It wasn't a dictionary. In my personal experience, most atheists I have spoken with, and myself included, tell me they hate when christians preach to them.

I suspect many don't mind the conversation as much as they feel uncomfortable of the ludicrous subject matter being presented as fact. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people that don't "hate" christians preaching.

 

Quote:
And why must atheism always be "prove the christians wrong"?

That's not atheism, that's respect for humanity.

There are plenty of atheists who are too clueless to realize they need to speak up. *cough*

 

Quote:
Why not be content with the knowledge or belief that they are wrong?

Because I'm not willing to take it up the ass when all it takes is saying "no." If I knew they were wrong, as I watched them base important decisions in life on their wrong beliefs and I didn't speak up, I would want to be considered immoral, disrespectful, and/or hateful.

 

Quote:
And these aren't christian arguements.

This post is a smidgeon better, trust me, your arguments have been submitted by Christians right here on this site.

 

Quote:
If I was argueing for christianity A) I'd be kicked out of here B)

Nope look around there are plenty of Christians on this site.

 

Quote:
I wouldn't be agnostic (or whatever you want to call me) and

Nope, there are plenty of agnostic Christians. In fact I'd wager the majority of them are.

 

Quote:
C) I probably wouldn't be on this forum in the first place.

Like I said, there are plenty of theists here.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Weristgott
Posts: 26
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Ok, this isn't really going

Ok, this isn't really going anywhere. I kind of feel like we are both argueing the same point, just different means. Like I said in my original post, I agree with the ideas behind this site and movement. I agree that children shouldn't be preached to until they are old enough, mature enough, or intelligent enough to think for themselves.

 Again, I didn't mean this post to be a pro-christian, pro-theist arguement. Just a constructive criticism on the means at which the Blasphemy Project was enacted. 

 To steer the discussion in a slightly different direction (if I might). I'm in the process of watching the ABC special. And honestly you guys do an amazing job arguing the points. Sadly, the other side didn't have the greatest minds for the debate. Going back to my original post. I admire this way of getting the point across. I was trying to say this originally and I fear it came out as an accusation. I personally do not like atheists who are like "Boo god, I hate him, christians suck, etc" That kind of atheism is just a mindless rant against christianity. The way you guys act in the debate is what, in my opinion, atheism should be. Intelligent people using rational thinking getting the ideal out in the public. (which to my knowledge, is the purpose of this site). I was just saying that I, again in my own opinion, that the Blasphemy Project wasn't the best way of doing it. Then again, it did get you the news coverage to be on the debate...


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
   By the way, Welcome to

 

 By the way, Welcome to the forums, Weristgott!

 We're glad you're here.

 


Weristgott
Posts: 26
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: By the way,

Susan wrote:

By the way, Welcome to the forums, Weristgott!

We're glad you're here.

 

 Hey thanks! Kind of got tired of just watching videos and hearing ppl's opinions, decided to voice my own. 

But back to the above post, no comments? nothing? 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
    Some i suspect take

    Some i suspect take the blasphemy challege because they are able to show that they are against religion and it's ideas of how life must be lived, religion does in many parts of the world  dominate society, States, Finland, various latin american countries, various countries in Africa and the middle east. As such atheists or thoses without religious beliefs should and do have the right (human rights) to speak up and voice their opinions, they shouldn't be forced to live under conditions based on superstition and religous authority which does nothing more than control the population based on a book.

    I myself have no problem with people believing in god, i do however have a problem when religion starts to tell the rest of society how to live, what laws should be passed and what legistation should pass or not pass. As we have seen recently in history (umm last 5 years) religion is the reasoning and the logic used by many, even the president of the USA invoked god as his reason for war in Iraq and basically dismissed all evidence contrary to his reasoning (UN stated there were no weapons of mass destruction.....and there WERE no WMD.) Why should we as a society live under religious and superstitious beliefs? Do we as Atheists do not have a right to be heard? Those of a religous beliefs have a voice so should those without it. 


Weristgott
Posts: 26
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I myself have no

Quote:
I myself have no problem with people believing in god, i do however have a problem when religion starts to tell the rest of society how to live, what laws should be passed and what legistation should pass or not pass. As we have seen recently in history (umm last 5 years) religion is the reasoning and the logic used by many, even the president of the USA invoked god as his reason for war in Iraq and basically dismissed all evidence contrary to his reasoning (UN stated there were no weapons of mass destruction.....and there WERE no WMD.) Why should we as a society live under religious and superstitious beliefs? Do we as Atheists do not have a right to be heard? Those of a religous beliefs have a voice so should those without it.

Agreed!

Then again thats wasn't completely the point though...  What I was trying to get at was that the Blasphemy Challenge might not have been the best method of going about getting out thoughts heard. Mostly what it did was piss off a lot of christians. But on the plus side, we did get the news coverage of the debate, and maybe got some people thinking. Hell its the youtube video that brought me to this site, although I had the beliefs beforehand. Basicly I'm just argueing that the news coverage we need is more news coverage like the ABC debate, that puts out a clear message. Rather than the "let's piss of christians by denouncing their god" approach. We all know that we're not immoral people, but to many theists, we're just immoral ignorant devil worshipers. Something that we need to amend, and I don't think pissing them off would help.  


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Weristgott wrote: What I

Weristgott wrote:

What I was trying to get at was that the Blasphemy Challenge might not have been the best method of going about getting out thoughts heard. 

Maybe this will help you.  These were the early/raw notes for the concept of The Blasphemy Challenge.

 

 

The Blasphemy Contest

Goals: Provoke conversation about the religious indoctrination of children. Erode the credibility of Christian talking heads by forcing them to defend some of their their weakest ground -- the "rules" of salvation and the idea of Hell. Make Christian belief an object of ridicule. Cause Christian parents to reexamine what they teach their children and why.

Method: A stunt that appears to be dooming children to Hell. The Rational Response Squad will launch a contest in which people are invited to submit videos of themselves courageously denying Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit on church property -- thus dooming themselves to Hell forever. The contest will offer special rewards to young people and will be framed largely as a promotion for people under 18.

ANTICIPATED REACTION...

The WorldNet Daily treatment...

(this is an example of what a story about the stunt might look like in a conservative publication)

Atheists bribing children to deny God

A national atheist organization is offering rewards to schoolchildren who videotape themselves on church property denying the existence of God.

Every child who creates a video receives a free DVD of the atheist-propaganda movie "The God Who Wasn't There," and the winner of "Best Blasphemous Video" will receive $1000. Adults are also allowed to participate but receive fewer rewards.

On the contest's official website, children are instructed to make a video that includes a shot of the child in a church saying, "I deny that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are real. It's all just pretend."

The Rational Response Squad, a grassroots atheist organization that claims over X,000 operatives, asserts that the child bribes amount to "de-indoctrination."

"Religion hurts a lot of people, but children are victimized the most by it," says Brian Sapient, the leader of the Rational Response Squad. "We're just giving children the opportunity to state the obvious -- that these mythological tales are no more real than Santa Claus. This could be a liberating moment for a lot of young people who are currently oppressed by bizarre religious ideas that have been forced on them."

"These children are playing with their eternal souls," says [Christian theological expert]. "If they are young enough they may be forgiven, but older teens are certainly at risk. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. This is a sick, despicable contest with deep theological implications."

Etc....

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


thano13
thano13's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
I agree with latincanuck.

I agree with latincanuck. If Xtians want to peacefully and privately pay homage to the sky wizard, I wouldn't care. But when major decisions are made by the government based on religion, I have to take a stand.

And my take on the blasphemy challenge is:

I'm so sure there's no god or messiah that I'm betting eternal damnation against it. And, according to your scripture, there's nothing you can do to save me. So don't even try.

By the way, I renounce the holy spirit. So stop knocking on my door when I'm trying to sleep.


Weristgott
Posts: 26
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
yea, these are good ideas,

yea, these are good ideas, from what I gather in the "goals" section. But I still hold that the Blasphemy Challenge, will do nothing but sour most christians against us. Yes it got us publicity, yes there are probably a couple more kids thinking about it (thats awesome), and maybe theres a couple christians who started thinking about it. But it's still a shock factor. Just because Punks have mohawks and have publicity because of it, doesn't mean its good publicity. Let's face it, we're not a well loved group of society. There are those among us, that are simply the "Boo god, fck the xians" angry types. But thats all they see. If you ask Jon Doe on the street what he knows about atheism, he will likely point you towards the angry atheist stereotype. But we're not all ignorant angry people. Most of us know more scripture than xians, most of us have actually thought about religion, most of us apply logic rather than faith to things. Finding a way of making that side public would be amazing. And I sincerely hope something like that is possible. I just don't think this "blasphemy challenge" piss off the xians, is the right way to do it.


Weristgott
Posts: 26
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
thano13 wrote: I agree

thano13 wrote:

I agree with latincanuck. If Xtians want to peacefully and privately pay homage to the sky wizard, I wouldn't care. But when major decisions are made by the government based on religion, I have to take a stand.

And my take on the blasphemy challenge is:

I'm so sure there's no god or messiah that I'm betting eternal damnation against it. And, according to your scripture, there's nothing you can do to save me. So don't even try.

By the way, I renounce the holy spirit. So stop knocking on my door when I'm trying to sleep.

No, no, I fear you have me wrong. I completely agree with seperation of church and state. And I do have a problem with christian politics. My arguement is about the way our arguement was introduced. (as per above post)


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Weristgott wrote: yea,

Weristgott wrote:
yea, these are good ideas, from what I gather in the "goals" section. But I still hold that the Blasphemy Challenge, will do nothing but sour most christians against us. Yes it got us publicity, yes there are probably a couple more kids thinking about it (thats awesome), and maybe theres a couple christians who started thinking about it. But it's still a shock factor. Just because Punks have mohawks and have publicity because of it, doesn't mean its good publicity. Let's face it, we're not a well loved group of society. There are those among us, that are simply the "Boo god, fck the xians" angry types. But thats all they see. If you ask Jon Doe on the street what he knows about atheism, he will likely point you towards the angry atheist stereotype. But we're not all ignorant angry people. Most of us know more scripture than xians, most of us have actually thought about religion, most of us apply logic rather than faith to things. Finding a way of making that side public would be amazing. And I sincerely hope something like that is possible. I just don't think this "blasphemy challenge" piss off the xians, is the right way to do it.

Sorry, but atheists tried "live and let live" and respect and keeping politely quiet for the last thirty years or more and our reward has been anti-abortion killings, restriction of stem cell research, pedophile priests, 9/11, restriction of condom use in Africa and South America, Terry Schiavo, kids not getting medical care, the Ten Commandments in public buildings and attempts to force intelligent design into public schools. We are pissed, and for good reason, and if Christians don't like us that way they can take their fairy tales back into the church where they belong.

The Blasphemy Challenge is about saying "here we are, this is what we don't believe in and that's OK." When you cower in the face of Christian indignation, all you do is buy into their paradigm that denying the Holy Spirit actually means something. It doesn't, and we shouldn't care that they think it does because it is what WE believe that dictates our actions, not what THEY believe.

I'll repeat that: it is what WE believe that dictates our actions, not what THEY believe. This is the undeserved political victory that Christians have won in the last decades. They have this entire nation, founded on secular principles, acting in response to Christian beliefs and principles. It's gone on long enough and sitting home, staying quiet and being respectful is not going to change it. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Weristgott
Posts: 26
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm not advocating the

I'm not advocating the shove your head in the sand approach. I understand theres a need to get heard. I understand the need to stop the christian government. I understand the need to stop the lies. And no blasphemy doesn't mean anything. Your entire comment misses my point completely. I agree with everything in it.

What I'm saying is plain and clear (or so I thought when I wrote this post). Getting the atheist view heard is good. The goals and ideals are great. The means in which it was initiated is where my problem lies.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: Sorry,

Tilberian wrote:

Sorry, but atheists tried "live and let live" and respect and keeping politely quiet for the last thirty years or more and our reward has been anti-abortion killings, restriction of stem cell research, pedophile priests, 9/11, restriction of condom use in Africa and South America, Terry Schiavo, kids not getting medical care, the Ten Commandments in public buildings and attempts to force intelligent design into public schools. We are pissed, and for good reason, and if Christians don't like us that way they can take their fairy tales back into the church where they belong.

DITTO. 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Weristgott wrote: The

Weristgott wrote:

The means in which it was initiated is where my problem lies.

You can't get that media coverage without conflict and controversy.   Start coming up with ideas that will get media attention that don't have controversy... I'm all ears.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.