I find your lack of faith disturbing.

[Tcg]

Do theists (some that is perhaps not all) have any reason beyond this to mistrust atheists?




Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #106]

But the Theists never let it go at that.

That is why I - a theist - continue to point out to those-theists, that the best way to understand it is simply to not go down that particular rabbit hole.

Rather, simply acknowledge that atheism is a position that lacks belief in gods and don't confuse it with arguments from non-theists which have to do with subjects that are not specific to lacking belief in gods...

I think you are confusing non -theists with anti -theists - which is just the problem I pointed to. Mind you, atheists also use arguments against Theism that are peripheral, such as faith -healing scams, support for the political Right a sight too much and too often and too much tendency to fight against Change, shall we say. But often that is in response to Theist claims about how beneficial Religion is. So they bring it on themselves.

I may say...said he, getting out his pipe and slippers and having the doors locked....that a non -theist anti -atheist opponent on my former board kept trumpeting about all the Good Christianity has done, and I pointed to the wrongs it has done, too and he then complained 'Why do atheists keep digging up dirt about Christianity? Why can't they just argue about the beliefs?' Or words along those lines.

Like I say, they bring it on themselves and then complain (in a very hypocritical way) when they get it.

Which leads to another discussion - the Christian apologetic tendency towards Projection, which is characteristic of Christian -driven politics, too.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #115]

Non theism can argue morals - atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, which is not a position of morality.

What atheist would take issue with being referred to as a non-theist?

I doubt that any would object to the term. But in the past I have had the sense that some theist apologists pressed theo term as a way of invalidating the name 'atheist' (not that you appear to be trying that). So I prefer to call myself an atheist, which I am as well as being non -theist.

It's like trying to distinguish the difference between the terms "Believer in God" and "One who believes in God." How did Jesus state it, straining gnats? At least with gnats there is something to strain.


Tcg

Yes, but as I hinted above there is an opportunity for equating it with 'anti -theist', which is rather a different thing. One might call it 'creeping polemics' or 'incremental smearing'. Of course atheists do tend to be 'anti' because (if we are honest) we want to see less religious preaching. Less social, political and educational influence; and arguing that it is false is the reason we do it and how we do it. Society, politics and education (forget about Science) should not nod to Religion. Society would be better to be non -theist.

Even if they are not actually atheist. And maybe that's the difference. Atheism generally does not want to prevent people practising their religion (any religion - subject to law), but we do want to see a society that isn't led around by it. In other words, secular humanism as a society, even if many of the people are believers.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #121]

Yes - anti-theists are also non-theists.

See how easy that was?

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Too damn' easy. But not all non - theists are anti -theist. That was pretty easy, too.

[William]

Yes. Too damn' easy. But not all non - theists are anti -theist. That was pretty easy, too.

Doesn't matter. To think that it does matter is the trap.

All anti-theists are non-theists.

[TRANSPONDER]

To strain the analogy (and if I follow your train of thought) it is a trap set by apologists for theism (for whatever reason) to trap atheists (non -theist =anti theist...therefore atheists are haters and persecutors of Theists See how easy that was?) but atheists (forewarned) can spring that trap while the theist apologist are setting it. "Equivocation fallacy designed to smear the opposition, and shows the apologist to be dishonest, hate -filled and bitter. In fact, everything that they habitually project onto atheists. That's using the trap to snap shut on their but.

[otseng]

Too damn' easy.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid profanity, even if you consider it mild.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.