Also, I'm really not all that extreme. I've seen far worse examples than me here on this forum. In fact I don't really care what people believe. I don't think religion is really all that dangerous or anything. If it weren't religion another tool would be used to control the masses. Like say patriotism/nationalism or the hatred against a certain race. All you really need is an enemy. Whether it's real or not doesn't matter much.
Religion Becomes Extinct in Several Countires
- Thread starter Arkonos
- Start date
if you are also talking about it being an absence of ideological frameworks to contextualize the claims of theists, you are talking about something else other than contemporary society and its recorded history of the past few thousand years.
far from it, they are derivative.
Its certainly not individual. Its societal, unless you have a good argument for an atheist being totally confounded by the question "are you religious?"
You can imagine an atheist being totally unable to rationalize what might lead a person to dis/believe there is a god?
What are you talking about?
antitheistic is simply a political term.. Whatever credibility one is willing to lend to Cline and his writings, its in political circles.
How would believing that they weren't entitled to such things help or hinder the ability to contextualize the claims of a theist?
As mentioned before, talking about political agendas is one thing and talking about world views that frame them is something else
There's your atheistic ideology for you
If you can talk about the "real" nature of theists while simultaneously professing indignation about theists talking about the "real" nature of atheists, you have an ideology - plain and simple.
:shrug:
Last edited:
No. That's antitheism. You really have a hard time understanding it. I guess it is kinda difficult as the words have a somewhat similar spelling.
Atheism is absence of religion. Whether or not an atheist can contextualise religion doesn't matter. You can deny this fact as long as you want. It won't change for that reason.
The people posting on these forums that you debate with are probably antitheists most of them (myself included as a sort of moderate antitheist. I am married to a christian so i can't be that bad right? ).
Atheism is absence of religion. Whether or not an atheist can contextualise religion doesn't matter. You can deny this fact as long as you want. It won't change for that reason.
The people posting on these forums that you debate with are probably antitheists most of them (myself included as a sort of moderate antitheist. I am married to a christian so i can't be that bad right?
).There's your atheistic ideology for you
If you can talk about the "real" nature of theists while simultaneously professing indignation about theists talking about the "real" nature of atheists, you have an ideology - plain and simple.
:shrug:
Unlike you i don't generalise. Atheists aren't a homogenous group. Just like the religious aren't.
the division Cline draws up between the two terms is simply a political gesture.
Once more, if you can cite where he refers to an atheist as being unable to contextualize the claims of a theist, and explain how this applies to all who one categories as "atheist", perhaps you would have a point.
so the atheists have a hard time working out who the "real" guys are?
any person who identifies as an atheist is buying into an ontological claim - never mind if there is a variety of views on how to politically (or even apolitically) establish it . Its as simple as that.The people posting on these forums that you debate with are probably antitheists most of them (myself included as a sort of moderate antitheist. I am married to a christian so i can't be that bad right?
Can you think of a single ideology that is monolithic?
No.
This where you are consistently going wrong.
Are you saying that you, as an atheist, do not have an ontological basis for your convictions (whatever they are)?
and this attempts to take the word "antitheist" outside of political frameworks in what way?
just enough to contextualize the claims of persons who don't have a lack of belief I guess ....
So you think an atheist, by definition, is confused about which camp is making the "real" claim?
Assumption again. Please try to stay on track. What does contextualising others' claims have to do with a lack of belief in oneself?
Nope. Where's does "confusion" come into it?So you think an atheist, by definition, is confused about which camp is making the "real" claim?
You don't think having a personal lack of belief in god renders one automatically capable of contextualizing the claims others make to the effect that god is real?
(assuming of course we are not talking about some orphaned child raised by wild buffalo in remote Africa or some other absurd example you might call upon to define "atheist" in manner totally divorced from its common application)
Where you have a person with an asserted disbelief in something encountering a person with an asserted belief in it.
Are you trying to say that the default position of an atheist encountering a theist is "I am wrong"?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I may be missing the point here, but what's wrong with the position "I think you are wrong but I can't be certain."? There is no confusion in that position.
sure, no confusion ...... thanks to having recourse to a framework to contextualize the claims of others (aka ideology)
Nope, I'm saying that, in some cases, the response is "Oh okay that's what you believe. But I don't". End of story.