H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
Why not? Smells like a false dichotomy.
There’s often more than two sides. The history of human conflicts bear that out.
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
Then how about the following statements?
“unable to grasp” is a misrepresentation of Christian beliefs. We know perfectly well that atheists value life but they mock the Christian belief that life is valuable because it is created by God:
We wouldn’t be terrified because we would accept and be resigneed to life as it is on this earth but we believe it is nonsense that values exist only in human minds. They’re not subjective fantasies but objective facts.
Another distortion of Christianity. We don’t embrace: we accept the fact that people who commit atrocities and don’t regret what they have done deserve to suffer until they’re willing to make amends - as far as they can - for their crimes. If they don’t they fully deserve to be frustrated and isolated from those who love one another. We get what we deserve: nothing horrible about that.
Nor do we “recoil in horror at the thought of an uncaring universe.” We’re well aware the physical universe is uncaring but we also know nature is beautiful and precious because it sustains life and gives us many opportunities for development, enjoyment and fulfilment - and even at the physical level cures and heals many injuries and diseases in ways scientists still find inexplicable. No man-made machine can compete with the harmony, plasticity and virtuosity of a simple living organism, let alone a human body.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
His comments are so obviously anti-God and anti- Christian. And yet he says he is not!
T
tonyrey
Guest
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
There is often more than two sides, true, but in this matter there are only two sides.
Give me a third side.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
How interesting that the Soviet communists adopted the same slogan… at least at the beginning, and then when they realized how “unproductive” it is, they quickly changed it to “If you are NOT against us, then you are with us”. In just a few decades they made a turnaround.
As for the concept of “anti-theist” is concerned (and I am labeled as one of them) my response is simple: “it is useless and stupid to declare sweeping condemnation of ANY belief system”. Life is much more complicated than that.
As for “theism” it has beneficial and detrimental facets. On the positive side it promotes goodwill and helpfulness among us, it creates cohesion within the group of believers. Nothing to shrug it off. Of course, both goodwill and helpfulness, not to mention cohesion exists within non-believers.
And there are the detrimental aspects, easily visible in the Moral Theology forum, where the poor over-scrupulous people suffer because of performing some totally natural acts with their sexual organs.
So I reject the label of “anti-theist”. There is no way to make a correct prediction based upon one facet of someone’s world-view. Both theists and atheists can be good, loving and helpful, and can also be mean, vicious and wicked.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
I disagree but if it makes you happy…There is often more than two sides, true, but in this matter there are only two sides.
Give me a third side.
In other words, live and let live. There are choices besides pro theism and routing/working towards for the destruction of religions (anti-theism).
I
inocente
Guest
On the other hand:
*whoever is not against us is for us - Mark 9:40
whoever is not against you is for you - Luke 9:50*
Anything and everything can be “proved” by mining quotes
.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
No question about that.
But the issue is not whether both can be good or both can be bad.
The question is whether one or both offer a moral mandate for being good, loving, and helpful.
Atheism per se offers no such moral mandate. The atheist is free to flaunt all moral mandates at will on the presumption that what he can get away with is worth the risk.
Think Stalin and Mao, both atheists.
Then think Hitler, who claimed to be a theist but who was really a raging lunatic with no use for religion in his personal life and who regarded that other atheist Nietzsche, as the prophet of his own brand of Superman.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
You’re one of the rare Protestants I’ve known who objects to citing Scripture for authority.On the other hand:
*whoever is not against us is for us - Mark 9:40
whoever is not against you is for you - Luke 9:50*
Anything and everything can be “proved” by mining quotes
Gospel of Mark:
39Jesus replied, “Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me.
40
For whoever is not against us is for us.
Exactly. There are only two choices: to be for him or against him.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
One does not have to be working toward the destruction of religion to be anti-theist.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Would it in your view be “useless and stupid” to declare a sweeping condemnation of the Nazi belief system?
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I thought the issue was on whether the people named in that short list were anti-theist or not.
P
pete_29
Guest
What I’ve always found absurd about atheism is that they don’t believe in a universe created by a supreme being, but they can believe that a bunch of inanimate matter formed itself into a living universe.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
That was the previous issue. Seems we have moved on to either/or.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
Can you describe what you mean by anti theist. Perhaps I misunderstood by assuming you meant something similar to “New Atheism”, which is definitely not my cup of tea.One does not have to be working toward the destruction of religion to be anti-theist.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
What good is a moral “mandate” if it can be disregarded with impunity? Because HERE and NOW there is no punishment for disobeying the “mandate”. And the alleged punishment in the afterlife is not something that acts as a prohibiting factor for many believers.
Think about the Inquisition. Do you have any evidence that Stalin and Mao committed those atrocities BECAUSE they were atheists? On the other hand the members of the Inquisition committed their acts because they were certain that they carry out God’s will…
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Actually, we do.
Look at the persecution of the churches. Many were closed or destroyed. Others were converted to government use. Pastors were particularly harassed, imprisoned and killed (strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter).
These states were explicitly anti-theistic, and they went about the task of rooting out all vestiges of Christianity within their borders ruthlessly.
Millions were and still are persecuted because of state policy. Atheist governments continue abusing the civil rights of citizens who have religious beliefs because that is the logical response of atheism in power to theism.
The Inquisition didn’t even come close to this level of systematic terror. Not only has the Inquisition not continued to the present day but it was never geographically widespread. Hence the name “Spanish” Inquisition. The errors of a few local clerics in a relatively short window of time do not support the idea that persecution of non-believers is a core belief of Christianity.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
Persecuting the Christians was only part of all the purges, especially the purges of their own comrades. They were afraid of all the possible oppositions. The point is still the same:
Atheism does not lead to persecution of others. Some atheists do, most others do not. If your only information is about someone that he is a theist / atheist, you CANNOT draw any conclusion about his overall decency or goodwill.
Anti-theism is expressed hostility toward all religions. Just because one is an atheist, it does not imply hostility. That is all I say.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
An atheist is one who does not believe in god.
An anti-theist is one who is actively opposed to theism.
Examples:
*]The atheist says: I don’t believe in the 10 Commandments, but it doesn’t bother me that a copy is posted in the county courthouse.
The anti-theist says: All vestiges of religion must be removed from the public square.
*]The atheist says: It’s not my thing, but if you want to believe in God, that’s cool.
The anti-theist says: You’re an idiot for believing fairy tales, and teaching that **** to your children is a form of child abuse that should be investigated by the state.
Make sense?
- Status