Anti-theist

Ya know, I saw a good article by a man named David W.Smith over at The Secular Web. Percy defanged my ability to post any sort of links, which I find insulting, so I will simply tell you the title of the article to look up.
Why I Am Not a Christian (and Am an Atheist… and Antitheist)I was going to post this response in Percys new atheism thread but thought it more appropriate here.Some excerpts:

quote:

---

For modern humans’ 200,000-year-existence, religion has obviously played a major role. In the early days it was our first, best, and only explanation of the unknown. In merely the last 400 years, our knowledge has advanced to explain many of those unknowns; and though many questions remain, it’s time to let go of our initial best efforts. One may claim that religion has had beneficial side effects, but sprinkle in all its heinous, violent history, and one could reasonably ask whether the scales are tipped significantly in the positive direction.

​

So if asked whether the world would be better or worse without religion, I would say let’s give a world without religion a try—religion hasn’t set a very high bar to surpass. Yes, many (most?) adherents are peace-loving and nonthreatening, so why complain? Why remove religion from the world? Generally speaking, I’m not in favor of teaching children an untruth and then expecting them to believe it’s actually true. We teach all sorts of these things (that there’s a Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and so on), but then are quick to clear it up when the child can understand the real truth. I would ask the same for gods of any name. We’ve successfully put the Greek and Roman mythological gods into the history books, hopefully the current crop will follow.

​

It is in this vein that I claim to be an antitheist. Thus the second extended title.
Conclusion

​

So here it is, the modified “Apostle’s Creed”—which I name “Apostate’s Creed.”

​

I believe in: (Y=Yes)

​

Y -Reality,
Y -the creator of the universe;
Y -and humans, members of one species
Y -Which was conceived by evolution,
Y -through the power of natural selection,
Y -and who suffer the same harsh cycle as all living things:
Y -One birth, one life, and one death;
Y -Who will not descend into Hell,
Y -nor will ever rise from the dead,
Y -nor will ever return again to Earth,
Y -and who remain unequivocally committed to reality and reason,
Y -and who will be self-judged by their own morality.

​

I believe in:

​

Y -Evidence, reason, learning, vetting,
Y -the physical laws of the universe and the three immutable laws of logic,
Y -rational discourse among sentient beings,
Y -emergent, or naturally evolved morality,
Y -the singular existence of one living organism,
Y -and the eternity of time.
Period.

---

​
​In conclusion, I reject the evidence-based materialistic approach to reality.I don't think that modern belief is that harmful to future generations. At worst, it is better than the secular-based wokeness pervading modern thought.Granted, George Carlin (R.I.P.) exposed the humor of vacuous belief. Humans are often so funny. I won't even attempt to defend the fact that I am a pick-and-choose believer.My defense? Its all on God.

Judging from the exceptional harm already inflicted on this species by the mind-bending influences of religion I will vehemently disagree. You are what you do and religion, especially yours, have done, and continue to do, the most insidious bloody evil in this world.I can see no reason in any of your creeds to warrant a decrease in vigilance. Your religions were bloody evil then. They are bloody evil now. They will be bloody evil until we are rid of them ... excised from the collective consciousness of humanity. Says a voice from a fascist internet echo chamber.What wokeness is pervading modern thought? You heard this proclaimed on a conservative "we hate everything" video, right? They had to describe what this wokeness was didn't they? But they didn't, did they?Oh they may have dragged out some "secular-based liberal college girls" views on toxic masculinity and drag queens followed by some toothy preacher spouting the christian-right's holy response with a righteous anger and the sharp gesticulations of a revival preacher from pre-war Berlin ... complete with the mustache.So, Phat, where is this wokeness? How do you or your sources define this lurking boogyman? See the rainbow, hate the rainbow?

I just *knew* that the peanut gallery would challenge and call out the definition of wokeness! I figured that Theodoric would beat you to it and demand evidence!Now see what you have done. I need to produce a working definition of wokeness beyond my chosen reaction to it...which is to vilify it as being too liberal. (Therefore godless!) You have anticipated my chess move well.

Instead of defining a term you use without a definition, as requested, you resort to a personal attack. Typical.
Time to crawl back under your rock until you have something rational and pertinent to say.

This was because of your "See YouTube video, post YouTube video" behavior.About your long quote, this is from the Forum Guidelines:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
   ​
6. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

I know you haven't been able to post links, but please don't post long quotes. Put things in your own words. Your quote exceeded your own words in length.I've restored your link privileges. Please don't abuse them because I'll just take them away again.--Percy

Couldn't resist.

I see you have your pumpkin avatar back again! It wouldn't be October without it! It reminds me of my party days.Or perhaps it has a hidden message. If Trump gets back in, we ALL will be throwing up Orange!

I think that I saved that pumpkin avatar and shared it with my adult son.I think I saw it in my phone's "news feed" (which is mainly just click-bait) that a restaurant or club offering unlimited mimosas also charges a $50 "vomit fee".In re: "the new journalism", in jr. high journalism class (c. 1965) we were taught that that first paragraph of a newspaper article must summarize the story, answering the six questions of "who, what, where, when, how, and why?" (which I can still rattle off from memory). That way, the reader can know whether he wants to continue reading the articles for the details of the story.Now it's reversed where the headline tricks you in promising information that's buried at the bottom so you have to wade through the whole thing and still not always find that info.For that matter, in a recent class on assessing medical news we learned that headlines are written by editors who use sensational headlines as clickbait that often makes claims contrary to what the article actually says.

I've noticed that too. Even in mainstream news I am often asking myself what each media outlet is trying to get me to believe.

I don't think that they're actually trying to get you to believe something. There's no real agenda (in general), but rather they are just capitalists trying to make money.Those "articles" are filled with ads. For every view (AKA "click") they get money from their sponsors. It's like the Neilsen TV ratings, which tracked how big an audience a particular show has which was then used to sell time for commercials during that show. The higher a show's ratings, the more they could charge advertisers.In that business model, the more eyes/clicks you can get the more money you make. Therefore, they will pander to as large an audience as they can. When QAnon or MAGAt or large fan base gets large enough and more likely to click on certain types of headlines (actual content doesn't matter, since it's the headline that gets the clicks), then you will see more stories pandering to those groups. The same goes for any large enough special interest group to get you the ratings.Cherchez l'argent! Follow the money!  ABE:It used to be that TV networks' news departments were able to operate independently as a "loss leader". They were expected to lose money, so no effort was made to pander to any special interest group, to whore themselves for money. We also saw that with all kinds of special content cable channels carrying arts and entertainment (A&E), history, science, educational content, travel, etc. But then they all became ratings whores which subverted their good programming with "reality" shows, contrived competitions, paranormal stuff, etc. Basically, lowering the standards of their programming in search of a larger, frankly cruder and less sophisticated audience. How it's surprising to find actual history programs on History or actual educational content on Discovery or The Learning Channel.And, of course, we have also seen the growth of "news" channels (though FOX News officially describes itself as "not news but rather entertainment") that cater to specific audiences, such as the elderly planted in front of a TV all day waiting to be frightened and enraged by the "news" presented.Capitalism at work!