[MD] a-theism and atheism

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 5:33 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi John and Ham,
>>
>
>
>> John:
>>  As dmb pointed out, the literal meaning of a-theist, is non-theist.  So
>> while being a literally correct term, it's  fraught with anti-theistic
>> connotation in my view, that are inappropriate for a truly profound
>> metaphysical stance.
>>
>> [Mark]
>>
> In order to be anti or a- anything one has to experience it first (I read
> realization in this post, but deleted it for nefarious purposes).  I am
> anti-Snoop Dog, for example.  If one has experienced Theism or God, for
> example, then he/she can be anti-theist.  Otherwise one is just against the
> symbology, which has no substance.  Atheists are against people and what
> they believe, not the concept, unless it is against their own concept. If
> that is true, then it is a case of phantasmagoria as Ham would say.  Some in
> the MOQ can think that Christians are just plain stupid but that would not
> be my stand in the MOQ.  I don't have time for other peoples ghosts, they
> can be anti-dragons for all I care.
>

Dan:

Anti-theism requires more than a disbelief in God or gods (atheism).
It requires first, a belief that theism is harmful to society and
culture and second, that theism should be controverted in order to
eliminate the harm it does. It seems clear (to me) that that is what
Robert Pirsig is on about in the Copleston annotations, as well as
Verne Dusenberry in his doctoral thesis The Montana Cree: A Study in
Religious Persistence. So, it is possible for a religious person to be
anti-theistic in the sense that they realize the harm done by the
superimposition of one religion over another.

Dan