[Taxtro]

1. Organisms survive or don't survive due to their ability to fit within an environmental niche.
2. Social organs survive or don't survive due to their ability to offer a society tangible benefits.

And we must take your word for this? The oppression of women was therefore very beneficial I guess and also the murder of homosexuals...
Those are very successful ideas indeed.

All I see is you talking out of your ass about my beliefs.

You JUST said that you are happily ridiculing the beliefs of others. How can you be so void of self reflection?!

How many people thing mermaids and leprechauns exist?

So truth is about popularity for you?
If everyone believed mermaids exist, you would have the same respect for them as for theists today, but as it stands you have NO respect for them.

Then you have no reasonable cause for antitheism. Without a clear rejection of the Authority of God you completely fail to make a case for why religion should be abandoned.

Even if a god would be shown to exist, even if he would show himself, you could still reject his unjust commands. You could still criticize him and his followers.
I can reject the authority of Kim Jong Un, and he certainly exists.
Authority is not an argument for anything. Following authority is to be immoral, to deny ones own moral responsibility.

but that doesn't make me an asupermanist, or an amermaidist, or whathaveyou. You however have a series of belief that include Rejection of Deities.

How can you not see your double standard?! When there is no evidence, the default position is to reject the claim.

My criticism of the Abrahamic religions has few to to with my anti-theism or my atheism.
Atheism is simply not to believe. You cannot tell me to belief and even if you roasted me on a grill, I'd still just pretend to believe.
The rejection of Abrahamic religions comes from the misanthropic, harmful ideas at their core.
The anti-theism comes with the realization that dogma can lead to great suffering. That when you hold things to be true, without evidence, or even against evidence, you are bound to make false decisions, no matter how good your intentions are.

[Dagoth Ur]

And we must take your word for this?

What?

The oppression of women was therefore very beneficial I guess and also the murder of homosexuals...

Those are very successful ideas indeed.
Because these are the only things religions do.

You JUST said that you are happily ridiculing the beliefs of others.

No. I said everyone ridicules ideas only held by a handful. It takes social power, ie enough people to be counted on as support, to be taken seriously.

How can you be so void of self reflection?!

From you, this makes me laugh.

So truth is about popularity for you?

Truth is what we agree it is. Always has been always will because truth is defined by us, not some fixed point external to human society.

If everyone believed mermaids exist, you would have the same respect for them as for theists today, but as it stands you have NO respect for them

No. I would respect them if they helped people in some way, as a social organization. But if they just believed in mermaids and that was it I wouldn't care because their belief would have zero effect on me (other than making me more ready to believe in the discovery of mermaids I suppose).

Even if a god would be shown to exist, even if he would show himself, you could still reject his unjust commands. You could still criticize him and his followers.

If God exists, as he is conceived by Abrahamists, then he cannot be unjust. You would simply be wrong.

This does not however make agnostisic antitheism make sense. Religion cannot be totally wrong if God may exist.

I can reject the authority of Kim Jong Un, and he certainly exists

.
You are not in North Korea. Kim does not have dominion over you. God has dominion over all should he exist.

Authority is not an argument for anything. Following authority is to be immoral, to deny ones own moral responsibility.

Following authority is immoral? What a load. According to you the vast majority of humans are/were immoral.

How can you not see your double standard?! When there is no evidence, the default position is to reject the claim.

When you have no evidence of a claim but everyone in the room is telling you it is true the default position is to accept the claim. Why? Because humans build their image of reality by adding their particular set of observed data with the sets of observed data from those around us (as our ability to intake data in inherently limited).

And rejecting mermaids or whatever fairy-tale object you choose costs a person nothing. In fact belief in such things would cost a person in terms of social prestige (ie hey look at that freak who believes in mermaids). Rejecting God(s) costs quite a lot. You lose access to their charitable works, their fellowship (which can range from drifting away from friends to being exterminated), and threaten the trust of your community.

My criticism of the Abrahamic religions has few to to with my anti-theism or my atheism.
Atheism is simply not to believe. You cannot tell me to belief and even if you roasted me on a grill, I'd still just pretend to believe

Yeah the Quran says I can't tell you to believe. Only Allah can.

The rejection of Abrahamic religions comes from the misanthropic, harmful ideas at their core

Yeah those hateful misanthropic ideas like humanity being the greatest part of Creation.

The anti-theism comes with the realization that dogma can lead to great suffering.

Which is not religion's fault. Dogmatism exists far beyond its [religion's] borders.

That when you hold things to be true, without evidence, or even against evidence, you are bound to make false decisions, no matter how good your intentions are.

Faith is in no sense whatsoever "against evidence".

[distinct]

When you have no evidence of a claim but everyone in the room is telling you it is true the default position is to accept the claim. Why? Because humans build their image of reality by adding their particular set of observed data with the sets of observed data from those around us (as our ability to intake data in inherently limited).

And rejecting mermaids or whatever fairy-tale object you choose costs a person nothing. In fact belief in such things would cost a person in terms of social prestige (ie hey look at that freak who believes in mermaids). Rejecting God(s) costs quite a lot. You lose access to their charitable works, their fellowship (which can range from drifting away from friends to being exterminated), and threaten the trust of your community.

It's a valid point, but I wouldn't hold to this hard and fast. You can consider scientific reasoning more fundamental and apply it to trust and distrust. If somebody makes a claim, you can hypothesize why they made that claim, with one hypothesis being that his claim is actually true and he's seen evidence for it. However if there's more support for the hypothesis that he's biased or delusional, then this undercuts the value of his testimony. Suffice it to say that the value of testimony as evidence is complex and imperfect.

[Iron Ant]

You want to know what a sad Irony to religion and their whining about how all atheists are evil people?

All religions are just one step away from being atheists themselves.

Because they all claim to be the one true religion that every single person on the face of the earth must obey, and seek to eradicate all other religions because there can be only one.

[fuser]

Because they all claim to be the one true religion that every single person on the face of the earth must obey, and seek to eradicate all other religions because there can be only one.

Not true. only Abrahmic religions do that. I am an atheist btw and am not trying to win any brownie points for any particular religion but this statement is simply not true for "all" religions.