anti-theism

[awitch]

*Shrugs* I don't consider someone not talking exhaustively about something a mark against them. Notwithstanding that I'd be more worried that PEOPLE are being killed, regardless of religion or lack there if, than specific groups. And I share Maher's "whining" on the creationism. Psuedo sad and non science wrapped in a thinly veiled religious veneer deserve absolutely NO place in any academic institution that values intellectual integrity. Creationism is just plain NOT science in any shape or form.

Agreed. The American religious right's attempt to undermine law and multiculture is MUCH more of a threat to this country than Islamic terrorists.

 

[Secundulus]

Are you not secure enough in your faith that a little criticism and alternate point of view bother you that much? Does the truth hurt?

It's not about me and frankly I don't care what any atheist thinks about me or Christianity. This is about Maher taking cheap shots at the religion he knows will not kill him while avoiding talking about the religion that will.

Is Maher anti-theistic, or is he simply anti-Christian? Or is he a coward like I suspect?

 

[awitch]

It's not about me and frankly I don't care what any atheist thinks about me or Christianity. This is about Maher taking cheap shots at the religion he knows will not kill him while avoiding talking about the religion that will.

His cheap shots were more directed to some particular followers, and you can tell the heavy editing was intended to do so.

Again, Christians are the vast majority of the US population - but it's really only the minority of those Christians (the loud, proud, hypocrites) that are being mocked. They are the most influential on the culture, so of course they would be the primary focus.

From the point of view of many people who do not subscribe to Abrahamic faiths, they are all close enough anyway.

 

[Secundulus]

OK, then the subject of this thread is not really ant-theism, it is anti-Christianity.

 

[Druweid]

OK, then the subject of this thread is not really ant-theism, it is anti-Christianity.

More to the point, I believe it's 'anti-fundamentalism.'

And just as a point of reference (whether or not it means anything significant), Maher doesn't present himself as an Atheist, but as an Agnostic. He has said himself, "I belong to the great church (religion?) of 'I don't know.'"

Just my thoughts,
-- Druweid

 

[Secundulus]

What does fundamentalist mean in America today?

Is it simply someone who actually believes in and practices their religion without comprimise?

 

[awitch]

What does fundamentalist mean in America today?

Is it simply someone who actually believes in and practices their religion without comprimise?

That part is fine...it's the wanting/forcing everyone else to adhere to those beliefs and practices regardless of their faith.

 

[Rasta]

What does fundamentalist mean in America today?

Is it simply someone who actually believes in and practices their religion without comprimise?

Fundimentalism means intellectual dishonesty. They typicaly reverse engineer everything to fit in predetermined patters according to THEIR OPINION OF WHAT THEIR RELIGION IS ALL ABOUT WITHOUT COMPRIMISE.

Fundimentalists are proponents of YEC and literal interpretations of the Bible.

I doubt they would claim this, but fundimentalists seem to trust their interpretation of the Bible over what they see from their own eyes.

They deny the facts of evolution, and construe their denial to be analogous to skepticism.

Though we have a word that describes denial of established fact. This is known as delusion.

 

[Rasta]

OK, then the subject of this thread is not really ant-theism, it is anti-Christianity.

Nope. It's anti-theism, which includes Christianity.

 

[Bombila]

Have not seen the movie or had a chance to read Dawkins' books, but I have seen his talks and read some of his online material.

But I'm taking a larger view of the phenomenon of atheists speaking out against religion. Thirty years ago atheism was hardly spoken of, by anyone, and societies like that in the US went merrily along imposing more and more religious overtones upon the populace as a whole. Especially in recent years, with the overt coming out of gay people demanding to have their rights protected, there has been a rise in American fundamentalism that certainly appeared to have as an end goal the Christianization of most secular institutions and activities, including government, education, arts, sexuality, and so on. If you read the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document, you see an outline for theocracy, and given their serious attempts to insert their propaganda into schools, something had to be done to shine a light.

Since atheists make up a small part of the population, it is IMO necessary that spokespeople for atheism have no choice but to be as loud and in-your-face as possible, else risk not being heard at all. If theists find their words insulting, at least they have heard them. Christians of all people, looking to their roots, ought to know that at the beginning of a religion or a movement, someone is going to have their feelings hurt.

The vast majority of atheists and agnostics are not anti-theists, that is, we don't have any desire to make people give up religion, or God. What is desireable, and should be desireable for theists as well, is that secular life not be controlled by religious considerations. Theists should desire this because, although you may be a religious majority in your society today, tomorrow another religion might become the majority, and it would be a theocracy not in the interests of the minority.

Many religious still treat atheists as a suspected class of people - look how much time some of your politicians put into making sure you think they are fervent Christians.

Watch this video, and note this woman's point about Barack Obama's atheist mother:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4wQfQtpDAc

 

[Speculative]

I once saw an episode of Maher's "Politically Incorrect" program in which a panel had a discussion on "What is the Gideon Bible anyway?" None of the panel, including Maher, had any clue.

That was the last time I took anything he said seriously. I could never consider anyone so ignorant of such a well-know Christian ministry to be a legitimate critic of the religion.

By contrast, Hitchens' book demonstrates a vast knowledge of the history, practices and beliefs of Christianity. I found it an engaging challenge to my faith. I think I'd have a good chance of doubling my money if I were to wager my next paycheck on the contention that Christopher Hitchens knows more about Gideons International than most members of that fine organization.

And I really don't get all this talk about how Dawkins is so strident. Although admittedly, I haven't read "God Delusion" all the way through, I have read a lot of it and have read some of his other writings and seen him interviewed several times and he certainly isn't wishy-washy, but he comes across as a sincere, charitable guy.

I mean, if we Christians have offered Jonathan Edwards to the world, we can take a little of Richard Dawkins. Can't we?

 

[Secundulus]

Fundimentalism means intellectual dishonesty. They typicaly reverse engineer everything to fit in predetermined patters according to THEIR OPINION OF WHAT THEIR RELIGION IS ALL ABOUT WITHOUT COMPRIMISE.

Fundimentalists are proponents of YEC and literal interpretations of the Bible.

I doubt they would claim this, but fundimentalists seem to trust their interpretation of the Bible over what they see from their own eyes.

They deny the facts of evolution, and construe their denial to be analogous to skepticism.

Though we have a word that describes denial of established fact. This is known as delusion.

So, fundamentalist is any religious person who disagrees with an athiest.

 

[Rasta]

So, fundamentalist is any religious person who disagrees with an athiest.

No. A fundimentalist is one who denies facts in order to maintain their opinions. They operate with double standards on a regular basis. One standard for their own beliefs, another standard for everyone else's. This dynamic is also known as hypocricy.

There are many religious people who disagree with atheists, yet acknowledge the limits of human knowledge in regards to the divine, and have no problem accepting reality.

 

[Secundulus]

No. A fundimentalist is one who denies facts in order to maintain their opinions. They operate with double standards on a regular basis. One standard for their own beliefs, another standard for everyone else's. This dynamic is also known as hypocricy.

There are many religious people who disagree with atheists, yet acknowledge the limits of human knowledge in regards to the divine, and have no problem accepting reality.

Your words prove my point. The drip with disdain and contempt for the religious.

 

[Rasta]

Your words prove my point. The drip with disdain and contempt for the religious.

Sorry if I'm the dude who has to break it to you, but evolution is a fact. I have no contempt for religions or religious people. It's the mentality that would deny facts of reality who are a danger to society.

Fundimental beliefs are crazy like that.

 

[Secundulus]

So, an athiest thinks that Christians are stupid.

Not much point at all in talking to each other, is there.

 

[Isambard]

So, an athiest thinks that Christians are stupid.

Not much point at all in talking to each other, is there.

http://www.atheist-community.org/images/cartoon/2N121218JHy191215Q9eQ.jpg

A fundamentalist is someone who practises their religion, while trampling the rights of others. So those who want creationism taught in school, jihadists, religious opposition to gay marriage etc. fall into this category as the the little strip above shows us.

As for Maher, he is neither an anti-theist, nor a anti-christian. Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennet are anti-theists by virtue of the fact that they do wish to see religion as a blight on mankind.

 

[Rasta]

So, an athiest thinks that Christians are stupid.

Do think intelligence and belief are connected? You must since you made that connection. No. I do not. I think people who deny facts of reality are delusional and potentially dangerous.

Do you think non-believers are going to burn in hell, for ever and ever and ever because we don't accept your opinion at face value?

Not much point at all in talking to each other, is there.

I think that delusional beliefs need to be challenged.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

What do you make of the anti-theistic movement that seems to be more prevalent these days?

I am eminently unimpressed by it, and most secure and satisfied with my beliefs!

And further, I don't let extremists set my interests or agenda.

Regards,

Bruce

 

[SiderealExalt]

Your words prove my point. The drip with disdain and contempt for the religious.

Someone showing you disdain has nothing to do with you being wrong about something. I find many religious fundamentalists(and I don't know if you are one) have this problem.