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.
I've told this story before, but it seems appropriate here. One day I was on the "river taxi" in Bangkok and a monk struck up a conversation with me, and ultimately invited me to visit his temple in Thonburi. It was a poor temple, certainly not one on the tourist trail, so it was a very nice visit. Three of the monks asked me to help with their studies of English, they also showed me their kutis (the 'huts' in which they lived). And then they took me into the ubosot, which is the most holy building at a Thai Buddhist temple -- the building where the monks conduct almost all formal ceremonies, including chanting, meditating, and ordinations. We were just having a general conversation about Buddhism, and one asked me to tell them the basic story of Jesus. So I did. I didn't embellish it or comment on it. Just explained the story of Jesus. When I got to the part about crucifixion and resurrection, they giggled. Clearly they were skeptical.
When I told this story once before, someone posted how rude they thought the monks were. And yet, when I have explained to a very few christians about Buddha becoming enlightened and eventually passing into nibanna, I got exactly the same reaction. Skepticism.
But in this forum we always seem to have christians who think that skepticism is blasphemy (although they don't use that term) ... without thinking about the same skepticism (and blasphemy) about how they see Buddhism, Hindusim, and in some cases, even Mormonism.
That happened to me, but it was just one monk and he didn't ask about Jesus but about romantic (so to speak) life in the West, and he tried to interest me in his sister.
What is the problem with what you call 'anti atheism? That we speak out about it? That we pushback against Christian evangelical apologetics?
You mean antitheism. You drag on about religion, ‘winning arguments’, or ‘apologetics’ (lol) when my point, per the thread, is you miraculously ‘return’ in the middle of it to (once again) claim I’m some sort of theist in disguise because I speak to the ‘human spirit’ as our qualities and capabilities, as a whole, in an appropriate thread for atheists to discuss such, no?
I happen to find the subject of brain function (and our consciousness) remarkably fascinating whilst you want to self-righteously peddle your emotional (and monotonously repetitive) anti-theistic narrative. It’s no different, from my perspective, than those who think they can impose their religious beliefs on us. That, to answer your question, is the problem with antitheism; it’s ultimately about control and your belief you have the right to stifle others’ opinions, even fellow atheists. You unequivocally do not.
You mean antitheism. You drag on about religion, ‘winning arguments’, or ‘apologetics’ (lol) when my point, per the thread, is you miraculously ‘return’ in the middle of it to (once again) claim I’m some sort of theist in disguise because I speak to the ‘human spirit’ as our qualities and capabilities, as a whole, in an appropriate thread for atheists to discuss such, no?
I happen to find the subject of brain function (and our consciousness) remarkably fascinating whilst you want to self-righteously peddle your emotional (and monotonously repetitive) anti-theistic narrative. It’s no different, from my perspective, than those who think they can impose their religious beliefs on us. That, to answer your question, is the problem with antitheism; it’s ultimately about control and your belief you have the right to stifle others’ opinions, even fellow atheists. You unequivocally do not.
Bingo.
I posted this on anothetr thread. It's a serious study of nonbelief by an atheist researcher. He identifies six typologies of nonbelief, the "Anti-Theist" being described as follows:[INDENT]Anti-Theist
The fourth typology, and one of the more assertive in their view, we termed the Anti-Theist. While the Anti-Theists may be considered atheist or in some cases labeled as “new atheists,” the Anti-Theist is diametrically opposed to religious ideology. As such, the assertive Anti-Theist both proactively and aggressively asserts their views towards others when appropriate, seeking to educate the theists in the passé nature of belief and theology. In other words, antitheists view religion as ignorance and see any individual or institution associated with it as backward and socially detrimental. The Anti-Theist has a clear and – in their view, superior – understanding of the limitations and danger of religions. They view the logical fallacies of religion as an outdated worldview that is not only detrimental to social cohesion and peace, but also to technological advancement and civilized evolution as a whole. They are compelled to share their view and want to educate others into their ideological position and attempt to do so when and where the opportunity arises. Some Anti-Theist individuals feel compelled to work against the institution of religion in its various forms including social, political, and ideological, while others may assert their view with religious persons on an individual basis. The Anti-Theist believes that the obvious fallacies in religion and belief should be aggressively addressed in some form or another. Based on personalities, some Anti-Theists may be more assertive than others; but outsiders and friends know very clearly where they stand in relation to an Anti-theist. Their worldview is typically not a mystery. The Anti-Theist’s reaction to a religious devotee is often based on social and psychological maturity.[/INDENT]He adds:[INDENT]Fortunately, one of the many questions our empirical research was able to address was, “are all atheists angry, argumentative and dogmatic”? Our results lead us to answer that question with a resounding “absolutely not”! If any subset of our non-belief sample fit the “angry, argumentative, dogmatic” stereotype, it is the Anti-Theists. This group scored the highest amongst our other typologies on empirical psychometric measures of anger, autonomy, [lack of] agreeableness, narcissism, and dogmatism while scoring lowest on measures of positive relations with others.[/INDENT]Source: [url]https://www.atheismresearch.com/[/url]
As a believer, I have often made the point that atheists have their own proselytizers and fundies.
As a believer, I have often made the point that atheists have their own proselytizers and fundies.
I actually bothered to read the study and I think you overlooked some qualifications that were made, specifically in response to the concerns of an atheist who self identified as anti-theist who felt the things said about anti-theists were not accurate or fair representations (emphasis in the quote are mine).
Quote:
The differences here in typology relate to the mode and value each participant places on how they engage issues of ontology. In other words, what is their preference for debating and considering the place religion and secularity play in our society? For many participants they question such social structures and are critical (antitheist) but their mode of behavior and belief may be different from the group we label antitheist. These labels were chosen by the research team to be reflective of the emotional, personality, and cognitive structures of value these people place on their worldviews (types).
There follows a begging of indulgence and plea for continued participation of atheists subjects despite apparently enough of them feel misrepresented in the study to elicit such a plea.
I note from the study also that anti-theists are MUCH more prevalent as a percentage of atheists in the US South, which makes sense as they would be abreacting to the more strident and even rabid religiosity in that region. Which points out that theists give atheists good reason to counter them, to whatever extend they have social hegemony and wield it unkindly or unfairly.
In addition, I would be unsurprised to find that most anti-theists here are purely anti-theists online and probably only in places like this. I know that I am, as in real life I just have no reason to engage on the topic, or even think much about it. To the extent I express any anti-theistic sentiment in real life it is with my immediate family. It would take some red-faced bible-thumper next door to us who was badgering me or mine, or an abusive boss perhaps, to elicit any sort of real life response from me, and it probably wouldn't be substantively different from how anyone would respond to someone being a posterior orifice, for any reason, religious or not.
This forum is a place for debate where people come willingly. No one is forced to read my posts. Just as I do with select posters, they can skim, ignore, or even put me ON ignore. So it is a special case. To me, these debates are philosophical and cultural and social as much as they are (anti)religious in nature.
You mean antitheism. You drag on about religion, ‘winning arguments’, or ‘apologetics’ (lol) when my point, per the thread, is you miraculously ‘return’ in the middle of it to (once again) claim I’m some sort of theist in disguise because I speak to the ‘human spirit’ as our qualities and capabilities, as a whole, in an appropriate thread for atheists to discuss such, no?
I happen to find the subject of brain function (and our consciousness) remarkably fascinating whilst you want to self-righteously peddle your emotional (and monotonously repetitive) anti-theistic narrative. It’s no different, from my perspective, than those who think they can impose their religious beliefs on us. That, to answer your question, is the problem with antitheism; it’s ultimately about control and your belief you have the right to stifle others’ opinions, even fellow atheists. You unequivocally do not.
I posted this on anothetr thread. It's a serious study of nonbelief by an atheist researcher. He identifies six typologies of nonbelief, the "Anti-Theist" being described as follows:
Anti-Theist
The fourth typology, and one of the more assertive in their view, we termed the Anti-Theist. While the Anti-Theists may be considered atheist or in some cases labeled as “new atheists,” the Anti-Theist is diametrically opposed to religious ideology. As such, the assertive Anti-Theist both proactively and aggressively asserts their views towards others when appropriate, seeking to educate the theists in the passé nature of belief and theology. In other words, antitheists view religion as ignorance and see any individual or institution associated with it as backward and socially detrimental. The Anti-Theist has a clear and – in their view, superior – understanding of the limitations and danger of religions. They view the logical fallacies of religion as an outdated worldview that is not only detrimental to social cohesion and peace, but also to technological advancement and civilized evolution as a whole. They are compelled to share their view and want to educate others into their ideological position and attempt to do so when and where the opportunity arises. Some Anti-Theist individuals feel compelled to work against the institution of religion in its various forms including social, political, and ideological, while others may assert their view with religious persons on an individual basis. The Anti-Theist believes that the obvious fallacies in religion and belief should be aggressively addressed in some form or another. Based on personalities, some Anti-Theists may be more assertive than others; but outsiders and friends know very clearly where they stand in relation to an Anti-theist. Their worldview is typically not a mystery. The Anti-Theist’s reaction to a religious devotee is often based on social and psychological maturity.
He adds:
Fortunately, one of the many questions our empirical research was able to address was, “are all atheists angry, argumentative and dogmatic”? Our results lead us to answer that question with a resounding “absolutely not”! If any subset of our non-belief sample fit the “angry, argumentative, dogmatic” stereotype, it is the Anti-Theists. This group scored the highest amongst our other typologies on empirical psychometric measures of anger, autonomy, [lack of] agreeableness, narcissism, and dogmatism while scoring lowest on measures of positive relations with others.
As a believer, I have often made the point that atheists have their own proselytizers and fundies.
This is all debatable because atheists themselves debate about factors within atheism. There is a hint that some theists may be anti -religious, and there's a thing as this researcher (rather his own opinions on it) calls anti religion anti theism. Because the anti - religionist may not care about some possible cosmic mind or deist -god, but about the influence of religion. And some irreligious theists (call them anti - religion just as atheists can be labelled 'anti - theists') can be critical of some religious activities too.
That 'research' article shows some arguable approaches, and you add you own layers of bash and hostility to this. Various types of atheists or what they do about it or how they act can be made into some kinds of sects within atheism, which isn't what it's about.
Nor do your hopeful accusations of proselytization and fundies say much about atheism but a lot about your hostility. I have seen this several times before with detestation of atheism or atheist activism for political reasons. That is fear of all the 'Liberal' stuff going on. Which may be adjunct to your 'belief' or not.
I posted a Tracie Harriss video on religion and family values. Here or the Other Forum, and despite her thoughtful and reasonable tone, she could be accused of prosetylization and even fundamentalism (I'm almost tempted to ask you what you think an atheist Fundie is,..no I'll bite the bullet. When atheism has no dogmas or doctrines, just what is an atheist Fundie?) and score badly on that list the researcher has created.
Being on evidence and logic right and having to consistently rebut repeated faithbased claims by the Theist side can be seen or represented as dogmatic, assertive, and the term narcissist was used, implying elements of manipulation, controlling, not listening and using others as weapons. I already see a few problems with this Researcher's attitudes, let alone the parameters.
At most, even if all that Researcher's arguments were correct, why not? If Religion does this and produces the same types, why not atheism? If religion does it, why is it something to bash atheism with when they do it?
Why in fact, am I seeing good old religious double standards here? I know why, but do you? (hint, it is faithbased)
You mean antitheism. You drag on about religion, ‘winning arguments’, or ‘apologetics’ (lol) when my point, per the thread, is you miraculously ‘return’ in the middle of it to (once again) claim I’m some sort of theist in disguise because I speak to the ‘human spirit’ as our qualities and capabilities, as a whole, in an appropriate thread for atheists to discuss such, no?
I happen to find the subject of brain function (and our consciousness) remarkably fascinating whilst you want to self-righteously peddle your emotional (and monotonously repetitive) anti-theistic narrative. It’s no different, from my perspective, than those who think they can impose their religious beliefs on us. That, to answer your question, is the problem with antitheism; it’s ultimately about control and your belief you have the right to stifle others’ opinions, even fellow atheists. You unequivocally do not.
Sorry anti -theism What? You are still bashing me with that old 'theist in disguise' thing when I recall ages ago I checked your posts and found (as I said and you consistently ignore) that you professed 'agnostic' but had to admit non belief = atheism, but you carried on bashing atheism when we tried to engage with you. We were the wrong kind of atheist. The kind that speaks up.
And you clearly have a problem by making Dark Hints about my disappearance which you know nothing about and I (partly) explained anyway. It is nothing to do with you (as it was nothing whatever to do with Arach, as some seem to have thought) You don't see a problem with your problem?
Well I see some of it in the rage and fury about 'human spirit' and consciousness, as I and others might well take the reasonable materialist view because the materialist default is valid. That you characterise as emotional and a string of accusations, says more about your need to shut us up than about our need to speak out.
I find the stuff about the 'human spirit' fascinating too, mainly what it says about some residual theism. You have gone non religious but 'human spirit' implies a consciousness that is additional to the human body. Can I be blamed if I suspect we have the Cosmic Mind floating in the wings? And that you might be a hidden residual Theist more than you realise yourself?
P.s no warning lights that you get an enthusiastic approval from our atheist -bashing guest above? I have to refer back to the Tracie Harriss video and the example about the Sikh lad who might say he didn't believe in the religionb but if he cut his hair he was out of the family. Also a repeated factor of being ok to disbelieve, so long as they pretended they still did. I think it's more about tribe, us and them and 'whose side are you on?' Often characterised, as I say, by political adherence than by religious.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-02-2023 at 04:38 AM..
I posted this on anothetr thread. It's a serious study of nonbelief by an atheist researcher. He identifies six typologies of nonbelief, the "Anti-Theist" being described as follows:
Anti-Theist
The fourth typology, and one of the more assertive in their view, we termed the Anti-Theist. While the Anti-Theists may be considered atheist or in some cases labeled as “new atheists,” the Anti-Theist is diametrically opposed to religious ideology. As such, the assertive Anti-Theist both proactively and aggressively asserts their views towards others when appropriate, seeking to educate the theists in the passé nature of belief and theology. In other words, antitheists view religion as ignorance and see any individual or institution associated with it as backward and socially detrimental. The Anti-Theist has a clear and – in their view, superior – understanding of the limitations and danger of religions. They view the logical fallacies of religion as an outdated worldview that is not only detrimental to social cohesion and peace, but also to technological advancement and civilized evolution as a whole. They are compelled to share their view and want to educate others into their ideological position and attempt to do so when and where the opportunity arises. Some Anti-Theist individuals feel compelled to work against the institution of religion in its various forms including social, political, and ideological, while others may assert their view with religious persons on an individual basis. The Anti-Theist believes that the obvious fallacies in religion and belief should be aggressively addressed in some form or another. Based on personalities, some Anti-Theists may be more assertive than others; but outsiders and friends know very clearly where they stand in relation to an Anti-theist. Their worldview is typically not a mystery. The Anti-Theist’s reaction to a religious devotee is often based on social and psychological maturity.
He adds:
Fortunately, one of the many questions our empirical research was able to address was, “are all atheists angry, argumentative and dogmatic”? Our results lead us to answer that question with a resounding “absolutely not”! If any subset of our non-belief sample fit the “angry, argumentative, dogmatic” stereotype, it is the Anti-Theists. This group scored the highest amongst our other typologies on empirical psychometric measures of anger, autonomy, [lack of] agreeableness, narcissism, and dogmatism while scoring lowest on measures of positive relations with others.
As a believer, I have often made the point that atheists have their own proselytizers and fundies.
I have seen a joke on Facebook where one gives Brussels sprouts covered in chocolate to children on Halloween. Your posts from the very beginning were like these, veiled attacks disguised as an attempt to be reasonable. And you ask why atheists kick back? Dr Frankenstein should not complain about the rampaging monster he created.
Did you not ask yourself why anti-theists exist? And I mean real anti-theists, not vocal atheists, atheists who actually oppose theism, and think religion should just disappear.
Because many atheists that are labelled anti-theist simply oppose things many religious people do, such as creationism, or religious fundamentalism.
And from your link "The Anti-Theist believes that the obvious fallacies in religion and belief should be aggressively addressed in some form or another." Why is religion being given a get out of jail free card, should not all fallacies and bad arguments be "aggressively" addressed in some form or another? We do this in science, we do this in philosophy, and the religious do this to others who have different religious beliefs, but when an atheist does this, they get labelled an anti-theist, even when they have no overall problem with religion.
So any atheists who feel some kind of spirituality that might give me a direction to look?
Amongst atheists, it’s most often defined as an affinity for connection i.e. an expanded sociobiology of belonging sans any supernatural component. Keep in mind humans are the most social and collaborative species on the planet; and, when we are disconnected from our mind/body (and distanced from our experiences/emotions), physical symptoms are common i.e. fatigue, sleeplessness, anxiety and other signs of stress.
It’s a matter of humanity; the only difference being theists refer to our consciousness (or brain function) as being a ‘spirit’ separate from the body (and able to survive independently). As such, believing in (or worshipping) an all-knowing god as having power over us actually stifles this connectedness/our humanity (as well as a search for the meaning of life since they believe it’s already determined).
Science relative to the CNS/brain (and our consciousness) is remarkably fascinating, and I’m in awe of it. ;-) It’s certainly more relevant/interesting/worthy of a discussion than a god, antitheism or others’ long-winded bias.
This is all debatable because atheists themselves debate about factors within atheism. There is a hint that some theists may be anti -religious, and there's a thing as this researcher (rather his own opinions on it) calls anti religion anti theism. Because the anti - religionist may not care about some possible cosmic mind or deist -god, but about the influence of religion. And some irreligious theists (call them anti - religion just as atheists can be labelled 'anti - theists') can be critical of some religious activities too.
That 'research' article shows some arguable approaches, and you add you own layers of bash and hostility to this. Various types of atheists or what they do about it or how they act can be made into some kinds of sects within atheism, which isn't what it's about.
Nor do your hopeful accusations of proselytization and fundies say much about atheism but a lot about your hostility. I have seen this several times before with detestation of atheism or atheist activism for political reasons. That is fear of all the 'Liberal' stuff going on. Which may be adjunct to your 'belief' or not.
I posted a Tracie Harriss video on religion and family values. Here or the Other Forum, and despite her thoughtful and reasonable tone, she could be accused of prosetylization and even fundamentalism (I'm almost tempted to ask you what you think an atheist Fundie is,..no I'll bite the bullet. When atheism has no dogmas or doctrines, just what is an atheist Fundie?) and score badly on that list the researcher has created.
Being on evidence and logic right and having to consistently rebut repeated faithbased claims by the Theist side can be seen or represented as dogmatic, assertive, and the term narcissist was used, implying elements of manipulation, controlling, not listening and using others as weapons. I already see a few problems with this Researcher's attitudes, let alone the parameters.
At most, even if all that Researcher's arguments were correct, why not? If Religion does this and produces the same types, why not atheism? If religion does it, why is it something to bash atheism with when they do it?
Why in fact, am I seeing good old religious double standards here? I know why, but do you? (hint, it is faithbased)
I'm not sure you grasp that the researcher is a committed atheist, as well as a highly credentialed scholar, that the research was sponsored by the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Departments of Psychology and Education, and that the project was the basis of the researcher's doctoral dissertation that was highly sympathetic to atheism and had as its very purpose dispelling popular myths about atheists.
Oops?
FWIW, the individual you describe as a "researcher," so as to imply "not really" a researcher, has a Bachelors of Science in Psychology, a Bachelors of Arts in Religious Studies, a Masters of Science in Research Psychology, a Masters of Arts in Religion and Culture, a Doctorate of Education, and Doctorate of Philosophy in Social Psychology. [url]https://www.christophersilver.com/[/url].
Double oops?
Why not just admit: Damn right, I'm a one-dimensional Anti-Theist! Nothing wrong with that, any more than there is something wrong with being a Bible-thumping Christian fundie proselytizer. Why pretend to be something more?
It does seem to me that Anti-Theists are overrepresented on most sites where atheists participate. This may explain why this is the popular misperception of atheists that the researcher was attempting to dispel.
I can at least understand a Bible-thumping Christian proselytizer because spreading the Gospel in fulfillment of the Great Commission is at least a major theme of Christianity. Less clear to me is the motivation of a proselytizing Anti-Theist (typically meaning Anti-Christian) fundie. I supppose it's some notion that religion is so delusional and has such a negative influence that attacking it is an Atheist Great Commission.
"There is a hint that some theists may be anti-religious" - oh, really, ya think?
"That 'research' article shows some arguable approaches, and you add you own layers of bash and hostility to this" - please, cite me to the portion of my post where I added my own layers of bash and hostility,
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.
What? You are still bashing me with that old 'theist in disguise' thing when I recall ages ago I checked your posts and found (as I said and you consistently ignore) that you professed 'agnostic' but had to admit non belief = atheism, but you carried on bashing atheism when we tried to engage with you. We were the wrong kind of atheist. The kind that speaks up.
about my disappearance which you know nothing about and I (partly) explained anyway. It is nothing to do with you (as it was nothing whatever to do with Arach, as some seem to have thought) You don't see a problem with your problem? 
