Anti-monotheism as a religion

[LuisDantas]

I think the two things are different, Quintessence. Scientism is generally taken as blind faith in science.

That is one variety (or perhaps one definition) of it.

Another one refers not to science, but to pseudo-science. I find that one the most natural and most useful between the two.

 

[Vinayaka]

I wonder how many people who are just plain indifferent or don't really care, or are actually neutral get labeled 'anti- _______'. If you start with the mindset of 'us versus them', or as George Bush #2 said "You're either for us or you're against us," then anything but your own view is labelled as 'anti'. So, in this particular case do monotheists label any non-monotheist, as 'anti' simply because of their own conditioning?

 

[Quintessence]

I wonder how many people who are just plain indifferent or don't really care, or are actually neutral get labeled 'anti- _______'. If you start with the mindset of 'us versus them', or as George Bush #2 said "You're either for us or you're against us," then anything but your own view is labelled as 'anti'. So, in this particular case do monotheists label any non-monotheist, as 'anti' simply because of their own conditioning?

There's certainly something to be said for this. On the other hand, I also think about how this applies to, say, minority groups. Without countermeasures, minority groups tend to get ridden over unless they are actively minded and supported. In a sense, not being "for" these groups allows perpetuation of microaggressions and cultural norms that subvert their existence (aka, "against"). It's not intentional, often times, but it's a thing that happens. Human behavior is full of biases like that.

 

[Vinayaka]

There's certainly something to be said for this. On the other hand, I also think about how this applies to, say, minority groups. Without countermeasures, minority groups tend to get ridden over unless they are actively minded and supported. In a sense, not being "for" these groups allows perpetuation of microaggressions and cultural norms that subvert their existence (aka, "against"). It's not intentional, often times, but it's a thing that happens. Human behavior is full of biases like that.

Thanks. Well, 'anti' has a range to it as well. Whether or not you turn your thoughts into action would mean a lot, in that constantly shifting mindset. I agree that microaggression (love that word) is often not intentional, just a matter of conditioning. People in the majority will say, 'that's just part of life' and slough it off, whereas the victim might really notice it.

 

[Milton Platt]

I have a new view of anti-monotheistic identity factions, including identity atheism, as denominations of a religion that substitutes the word “science” in the place of “God,” factional versions of history in the place of religious lore, reports of academic research in the place of scriptures, and academic and professional institutions in the place of religious ones. It has all the worst features that are associated with other religions. For example, some of its believers have blind faith in whatever their trusted sources call “science,” without any independent research or critical examination; and contempt for anyone who doesn’t.

Now I’ll be considering, if Antimonotheism has all the worst features that are associated with other religions, does it also have all the best?

I don't understand how belief in the scientific methodologies for understanding the natural world can be considered blind faith. It is in fact based upon rigorous experimentation verified by additional experimentation by other scientists. One does not have to recreate every scientific experiment done in the history of mankind to know the information is sound.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I have a new view of anti-monotheistic identity factions, including identity atheism, as denominations of a religion that substitutes the word “science” in the place of “God,” factional versions of history in the place of religious lore, reports of academic research in the place of scriptures, and academic and professional institutions in the place of religious ones. It has all the worst features that are associated with other religions. For example, some of its believers have blind faith in whatever their trusted sources call “science,” without any independent research or critical examination; and contempt for anyone who doesn’t.

Now I’ll be considering, if Antimonotheism has all the worst features that are associated with other religions, does it also have all the best?

So you're saying adopting things that are known to be true/factual/actual over fiction is decidedly a bad thing, right? That's sure what it sounds like.

I am anti-monotheistic. I am also anti-theistic. I pretty much eschew all belief in the supernatural and god-concepts equally. All of it. Doesn't matter if you believe in one god, many gods, or that real-life objects are gods - its all garbage in my opinion. I also don't adhere strictly to science in any sense. Those findings of science that are of obvious import and so well describe or shed light on the workings of life/the-universe/everything are awesome... but I do not put full trust in "science" or anything of a scientific nature necessarily - except perhaps the scientific method itself. All personages, groups, experimentation of variable result - all of that is up in the air, as far as I am concerned. I don't trust it, I don't necessarily distrust it. "Needs further review" is basically my stance.

I don't accept the idea that others try to foist on positions like mine. Calling them "a religion" - as if this is supposed to make me stop in my tracks and do a 180. Ridiculous. I don't like religion - so you call what I do "religion" to try and get under my skin. Well guess what? It being pretty much known that people like you don't like me or my behavior with respect to theism... to put what I do on par with your precious "religion" should actually be an insult to yourself. So here you are... self-deprecating by calling atheists' behaviors "religion." If we're so terrible, and our "religion" is so terrible then it is ONLY ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF "RELIGION," isn't it? Another point to be damned upon? Way to go out on a limb defending your precious beliefs.

 

[Desert Snake]

...definition of monotheism?

If your definition, is that there is only one god,
Or, is it
Worship of one god, other gods may, or do, exist

 

[Desert Snake]

No point in getting more complicated than that, but it also is more complicated than that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I might have a lot of work to do, to clarify it even for myself. The idea came to me when I was thinking about some of the psychological and social dynamics of identity atheism. That’s my name for a kind of identity that’s formally defined as not having any belief in any god or gods, which flies banners of science, skepticism and free thinking, but which only uses them as excuses and camouflage for continually maligning monotheistic religions and their followers, and raking up muck about them.

Who's doing the muckraking on this thread? It's not the atheists. You came here with both guns drawn, ready to berate and insult atheists. You're an atheophobe complaining about anti-monotheists.

Incidentally, perhaps you should learn more about atheists before pontificating about what motivates us. You seem to have no idea.what that is. It's not what your theist friends tell you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't understand how belief in the scientific methodologies for understanding the natural world can be considered blind faith. It is in fact based upon rigorous experimentation verified by additional experimentation by other scientists. One does not have to recreate every scientific experiment done in the history of mankind to know the information is sound.

I don't understand how belief in God and the Spititual cause for understanding the natural world can be considered blind faith. It is in fact based upon rigorous personal search, verified by observation and by most importantly by Gods Manifestations. One does not have to recreate every Message of God in the history of mankind to know the information is sound.

Regards Tony

 

[Jim]

What you're talking about already has a word for it - scientism. Can we use that word?

Go ahead if you want to, but if you do you might misunderstand everything I say about it. I’ll be studying up on scientism. It might correspond roughly to what is called “fundamentalism” in other religions.

 

[Jim]

Opposition to monotheism has many reasons and forms. It is reckless to group them together, and odds are that it will lead you into mistaken conclusions.

The exact same thing is true of Christianity, Islam, or any other religion.

I don't think it will serve you well to take as a premise that "religion" works as a general descriptor, personally. There are very worthwhile doctrines out there, and there is ritualized, destructive insanity, even entering clearly criminal territory. It serves no one particularly well to treat them all as proper examples of an abstract "religion" category.

All of that applies equally to Christianity, Islam, or any other religion. What beneficial purpose does it serve, for example, to treat everything that anyone calls “Christianity” or “Islam” as proper examples of an abstract “religion” category?

I would like to find a better name though, for the religion I’m thinking of. I considered “Materialism” because that’s what some of its leaders and followers have called it themselves, but I’m not sure that would be a better name for it than Antimonotheism. Maybe if you ever see what I’m getting at, you can help me find a better name for it. In order to be what people call a “religion,” it would have to encompass everything that anyone says and does under banners of “science,” “reason,” “skepticism,” “free thinking,” “evidence,” “research” or “logic,” for example, whether or not they actually practice them or even believe in them.

You may be mixing uninformed, deluded scientism (which is quite common) with misunderstood or poorly understood science proper (which is also very common, but quite a different beast).

If you think of people as “Christians” or “Muslims,” you may be mixing uninformed, deluded attitudes and behavior under those banners (which is quite common) with misunderstood or poorly understood religion proper (which is also very common, but quite a different beast).

ETA:

“Scientism” might have been a good name for it, if that name had not already been applied to a subset of it.

 

[Cacotopia]

I grow tired of answering this time and again. So I will let this guy do it for me.

 

[Jim]

I have the old view that if you reject a god or gods, you don't have a religion.

That would exclude most of Buddhism. I’m using “religion” in the same way it’s used to lump together everything that anyone calls “Christian” as one religion.

I might try calling it “scientianity.”

 

[Cacotopia]

point that of contention that often leads to the thought that atheism is a religion lies in the very definition of the word.

Not believing in god or gods,

or

the direct translation, without god. Lack of god. IE the lack of belief in god or gods.

Not believing in gods has a burden of proof attached to it, yet one cannot prove something to not exist with anything in existence. That's a logically fallacy and a scientific impossibility. So through deduction, the latter definition is the one I would define under. But then that is just me and not all atheists.

 

[LuisDantas]

The exact same thing is true of Christianity, Islam, or any other religion.

I don't think so.

A very roughly comparable thing, perhaps. But hardly the exact same thing.

I think you may be failing to appreciate the stark asymetry that exists betweeh atheism and monotheism.

All of that applies equally to Christianity, Islam, or any other religion. What beneficial purpose does it serve, for example, to treat everything that anyone calls “Christianity” or “Islam” as proper examples of an abstract “religion” category?

None, if you ask me. But I am the guy that concluded that Christianity is only barely a religion, and that Islaam is not a religion at all - mainly because both heighten their monothestic traits so out of proportion, incidentally.

Neither Christianity nor Islaam is actually a good example of religion proper.

That is however a very distinct matter from that of variety of stances within a religion. which is a far more interesting and useful subject matter.

I would like to find a better name though, for the religion I’m thinking of. I considered “Materialism” because that’s what some of its leaders and followers have called it themselves, but I’m not sure that would be a better name for it than Antimonotheism. Maybe if you ever see what I’m getting at, you can help me find a better name for it. In order to be what people call a “religion,” it would have to encompass everything that anyone says and does under banners of “science,” “reason,” “skepticism,” “free thinking,” “evidence,” “research” or “logic,” for example, whether or not they actually practice them or even believe in them.

Sorry, I don't think I can help you there. I do not want to contribute to the devaluation of the word "religion".

If you think of people as “Christians” or “Muslims,” you may be mixing uninformed, deluded attitudes and behavior under those banners (which is quite common) with misunderstood or poorly understood religion proper (which is also very common, but quite a different beast).

Those are rather strained comparisons, Jim. I fear that they will cloud your understanding of the matters far more than they may help.

Specifically, you are glossing over the proselitism of the two doctrines and the many consequences that arise from that. There is really nothing comparable, even hypothetically, in any form of non-monotheism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a new view of anti-monotheistic identity factions, including identity atheism, as denominations of a religion that substitutes the word “science” in the place of “God,” factional versions of history in the place of religious lore, reports of academic research in the place of scriptures, and academic and professional institutions in the place of religious ones. It has all the worst features that are associated with other religions. For example, some of its believers have blind faith in whatever their trusted sources call “science,” without any independent research or critical examination; and contempt for anyone who doesn’t.

Now I’ll be considering, if Antimonotheism has all the worst features that are associated with other religions, does it also have all the best?

Anti-monotheism is a religion in the way that hating stamp collecting is a hobby.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not believing in gods has a burden of proof attached to it, yet one cannot prove something to not exist with anything in existence. That's a logically fallacy and a scientific impossibility. So through deduction, the latter definition is the one I would define under. But then that is just me and not all atheists.

There could only be a burder of proof in a lack of belief if you somehow suspected the disbelievers of being liars, you know.

 

[Cacotopia]

That would exclude most of Buddhism. I’m using “religion” in the same way it’s used to lump together everything that anyone calls “Christian” as one religion.

I might try calling it “scientianity.”

I think you are creating your own lexicon for words that already exist, which is fine, but will result in confusion since no one will know what you are talking about.

 

[Cacotopia]

There could only be a burder of proof in a lack of belief if you somehow suspected the disbelievers of being liars, you know.

But I would need to think they were liars in the first place wouldn't I?