Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While animus does have a predominately negative primary meaning, its secondary meaning is simply "motivation to do something." It is in that context that I use it. You see there is animus behind a religious person to point out their religion or a God believer's efforts to point out they believe in God. What I questioned is the motivation to point out one does NOT believe in God. What is the goal or animus behind it? It is for that reason that I suspect it is a carryover of animus from an anti-religion bias.
I think that this kind of 'animus' is important, because if enough people (especially well known celebrities and intellectuals) are willing to come forward to confess that they perceive absolutely no good reason for believing in God, this may eventually bring some societies towards a tipping point.
Owing to the fact that the beliefs of a Christian (for example) lack any evidential support, it relies heavily upon having strength in numbers. If I were to believe that the entire universe and everyone and everything inside it existed only inside the dream of a sea cucumber named Keith, I would be the only person to hold such a belief. Not having anyone else to lend credence towards my convictions would make such a belief system difficult to sustain, despite the fact that, on the face of it, what I've set forth in regards to Keith is in no way less reasonable than what you purport to be true with regards to Jesus and the Christian God.
The fact that you are part of a large majority of the world's population who believes in a deity, has the effect of insulating you against the rational arguments against such a belief. The aim of people who are 'openly atheist' is to make you question why you believe as you do. I may not be able to win you over with reasoned arguments, but what I can do is cease my own enabling behaviour by speaking in favour of reason. With my own small voice of dissent, I am withdrawing my tacit support for a mass delusion which negatively impinges upon my rights.
I think that it was commendable and brave for Arian Foster to speak out as an atheist, given the fact that his team are based in Texas and the sport itself is heavily steeped in religious ceremony. Perhaps some child who idolises that athlete will become interested in looking into the reasons why some people do not believe in God.
I think that this kind of 'animus' is important ... Owing to the fact that the beliefs of a Christian (for example) lack any evidential support, it relies heavily upon having strength in numbers...
I think that it was commendable and brave for Arian Foster to speak out as an atheist, given the fact that his team are based in Texas and the sport itself is heavily steeped in religious ceremony. Perhaps some child who idolizes that athlete will become interested in looking into the reasons why some people do not believe in God.
While animus does have a predominately negative primary meaning, its secondary meaning is simply "motivation to do something." It is in that context that I use it. You see there is animus behind a religious person to point out their religion or a God believer's efforts to point out they believe in God. What I questioned is the motivation to point out one does NOT believe in God. What is the goal or animus behind it? It is for that reason that I suspect it is a carryover of animus from an anti-religion bias.
The football player's motivations are clearly stated in the article, in multiple ways. There's no need to speculate about it. The very interview is designed to get at his motives.
My motivation has been repeatedly stated. It is no more suspect than yours. I am debating philosophical and metaphysical points I find interesting in a venue specifically designed for that purpose.
In the real world I am not some sort of militant activist picketing churches and in fact don't remember the last time it came up apart from a brief inquiry of my belief position instigated by my own brother last year.
I don't understand why you need to question atheist's motives for articulating their opinions. It hasn't even occurred to me to question theist's motives. At bottom both types of people are simply arguing a belief position they think is true / correct. Nothing mysterious about it.
While animus does have a predominately negative primary meaning, its secondary meaning is simply "motivation to do something." It is in that context that I use it. You see there is animus behind a religious person to point out their religion or a God believer's efforts to point out they believe in God. What I questioned is the motivation to point out one does NOT believe in God. What is the goal or animus behind it? It is for that reason that I suspect it is a carryover of animus from an anti-religion bias.
If you did not mean to suggest negativity, we are left wondering why you selected a word which you admit has a "predominately negative primary meaning" rather than a word which does not.
Good for him. We need more people, both prominent "celebrities" and ordinary people, stepping forward. I'm looking forward to when (in the U.S.) being an atheist is no big deal and is the norm!
If you did not mean to suggest negativity, we are left wondering why you selected a word which you admit has a "predominately negative primary meaning" rather than a word which does not.
I was tempted to think the same thing and that's exactly why I would not use it in this sense without qualifying it; but psychological texts do use the term "animus" rather heavily in this secondary sense and he is an academic, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
The remaining critique is that he seems to be casting about for cloaked, hidden, unconscious motivations where none exist. The person who is the subject of the interview is being quite open and frank about his motivations and thoughts and feelings, as have most of us here all along, but theists favor other narratives that disavow our actual experience of reality. If it's a fundamentalist it is that we are angry, obstinate or hateful or rebellious; if it's a more liberal theist like Mystic then we have a mysterious and therefore suspect "animus".
If you did not mean to suggest negativity, we are left wondering why you selected a word which you admit has a "predominately negative primary meaning" rather than a word which does not.
Especially given that his first post used it in the context of its primary (negative) meaning.
While animus does have a predominately negative primary meaning, its secondary meaning is simply "motivation to do something." It is in that context that I use it. You see there is animus behind a religious person to point out their religion or a God believer's efforts to point out they believe in God. What I questioned is the motivation to point out one does NOT believe in God. What is the goal or animus behind it? It is for that reason that I suspect it is a carryover of animus from an anti-religion bias.
Initial post: "I can understand an animus toward religion among atheists, There are so many egregious examples of its deleterious impact on society. But i have never quite wrapped my mind around why it is necessary to extend that animus to belief in the existence of God."
The primary definition of 'animus' is 'hostility or ill will'. What reasonable person is not going to assume that that is the specific meaning you had in mind, judging only based on your initial post? You didn't just use the word neutrally, where one might then defer to the primary definition only because of the ambiguity of the case; no, you specifically tailored the context of your post to strongly suggest that you were referring to 'hostility or ill will'. I mean, in the first sentence of the original post, you clearly did mean 'hostility or ill will', given the 'there are so many egregious examples of its deleterious impact on society'. So then, without warning, in the second sentence, you suddenly wish to mean it differently? How is the reader to know, or ever reasonably assume?
Feel like I'm parsing biblical text under the watchful eye of a two-faced theologian here.
in my neck of the words admitting I am atheist is the least of our troubles. Everything else is so bad people really think that is not so important.
I'm curious as to where, now
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
