Comment

Comment by Jack Ryan on August 18, 2010 at 1:13pm

In a fascistic controlled society it is not sufficient just not to be a fascist, but rather it is compellingly necessary to be an anti-fascist. Just as in a racist society it is insufficient not to be a racist, but being an anti-racist is ethically required.

Similarly to the necessity for anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-speciesism etc. (which is in view of the parallels hard to deny) it is in our theistic dominated world absolutely insufficient just being atheistic.
Of course it's better being an atheist, instead of sharing the religious delusion. But atheism is not enough. Moreover it is necessary to act against theism. In contrast to the actual existing theism, antitheism is for ethically thinking and acting humans a must, an ethical imperative.

The consequences of theism still are and always were devastating, regional as well as global. Whether religious wars, the crusades, indoctrination of children, genocide, tendency protection, omnipresent religious torture scenes, witch hunts, racism, slavery, or simply the Christmas television program. It is inevitable to fight for the separation of church and state, against the excrescences of religion, and the right not to be bothered by the scheming of the theists.

Of course antitheism does not mean a “persecution” of god believers (it is amazing that those people already associate this with simple atheism, the absence of believe in deities). Antitheism means rather to enlighten about reality, both scientifically and politically/historically. As much as it is necessary to tell children and teenagers (who believe in the baby-delivering stork) about the actual procedures in order to avoid or at least minimize unwanted pregnancies or that there is no Santa Claus, people must also be informed that it is not a God, who hurl lightnings or give them their daily bread wondrously.

Comment by Zarta on April 2, 2010 at 6:12pm

Why is that, Adia? Why do you think the majority of humans are so "weak"?
Some thoughts of mine...
I think it's in the genes, as it was necessary long ago when small tribes and villages were forming. Not everyone could be a leader. In fact, there had to be more "weak" people than strong ones -- more followers than leaders. ... I think it could also be said that the same is true today. So, the leaders today just need to teach a different message. The leaders need to be other than those who want to keep religion going. Now, why do you think those people want to keep religion going?
More of my thoughts later. I'm curious what others in this group think.

Comment by Adia Lynette on April 2, 2010 at 6:03pm

My personal theory is that religion cannot merely be wiped away. It has lasted for so long for a reason. We must work to strengthen the human psyche so that there is simply no need for it. As long as humans continue to be weak, we will fall back on religion.

Comment by Jeffrey Doherty Sr. on March 26, 2010 at 4:27pm

religion is a mental disease that must be wiped away by the intellectual hand of secular humanism. Now, I must burn this fundie country to the ground.

Comment by Sigmund on February 7, 2010 at 5:42am

Weeeell - I'd have to say that I'd much rather blow myself up and be rewarded with a bunch of hot virgins (not sure how long they'd stay virgins tho) than to go around being miserable, feeling weak and sinful and then die and go to purgatory for a while, before sitting on a cloud being pious for the rest of eternity. BOOORING! So maybe we shouldn't be so hard on the Islamic fundamentalists - at least they think they're getting a sweet deal... ;)

Comment by Eagle Ashcroft on November 21, 2009 at 5:02pm

Toman Empire was meant to read "Roman Empire."

Comment by Eagle Ashcroft on November 21, 2009 at 5:00pm

Oh I am very much against all religions inasmuch as they have slaughter more people in the name of their religions than all of the wars (many wars however are the cause of religion) since the dawn of time. Millions were killed by the Catholic Nazi's during WW2 and the Toman Empire (another religious nation) wiped out thousands in the name of their gods. Religions are evil and all wrong and I consider myself a very militant non-believer.

Comment by Zarta on November 21, 2009 at 12:51pm

From Wikipedia, regarding anti-theism (bold and underscores added)...

An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. An antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular. The concept allows a distinction to be drawn between the simple indifference or apathy towards theism, atheism or agnosticism (cf. apatheism), and a position of antipathy or opposition towards such beliefs. Hence, Stefan Baumrin defines an "antitheist" as "one who actually espouses atheism and would try to convince theists of the error of their ways. A mere atheist might think, or even write, as in a diary or a wellworked manuscript to be left in a locked desk drawer these words but would never broadcast them."

Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who take the view that theism is dangerous or destructive. One example of this view is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which Christopher Hitchens writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."

Comment by Eagle Ashcroft on November 21, 2009 at 1:20am

[quote]: Comment by Objection 20 hours ago
If only 'Strong Atheism' re-named themselves 'Anti-Theists'. Anti-theist just sounds cooler. I don't see much difference between the groups.

I quite agree, but everyone of course wants their own group with their own name, but since I write comedy anyway I thought it would be fun to write comedy about theist calling my group Atheist Comedy Stage Group and the few that have joined are having a blast with it. We all dislike pushy theist, so why not have fun with them at their expense.

Comment by Objection on November 20, 2009 at 4:33am

If only 'Strong Atheism' re-named themselves 'Anti-Theists'. Anti-theist just sounds cooler. I don't see much difference between the groups.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page