Antitheism?

[Jeremiahcp]

Personally, in my opinion, I think finding all these reasons to hate each other is the real problem.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

On your comparison with homosexuality: This is an absolutely HORRIBLE comparison. You cannot change your sexual orientation, or your skin color or your ethnicity. But religions are nothing more than ideas, and you CAN change your mind.

On the "old" comment, of course I'm not saying that just because something is old it's bad - of course not.

This is no different than people saying you can change your sexual behavior, if not your sexuality.

I didn't choose to not be convinced there are gods. Theists didn't choose to be convinced of certain religions.

 

[Augustus]

But we could start with the multi-century genocide of the Hindus which get us our first 80 million.

Nowhere near this figure. Almost all pre-modern death tolls are massively overstated.

Part of these wars though shows how arbitrary the concept of 'religious' wars is. Timur saw himself as the heir of Ghengis Khan and conquered, killed and enslaved like he did. Yet people will point to Timur as an example of how religion causes wars.

Regardless of his religion or lack thereof he would have been a warlord, it's not like the Mongols suddenly became violent when some of them converted to Islam.

Next we could talk about Hitler. As I under it, there is still quite a debate about the degree to which Hitler was inspired by religion. I believe he was.

I'm not aware of such a debate among academic historians. National Socialism was not inspired by Christianity.

When people start including things like WW2 and the Atlantic Slave trade (from an earlier thread) as being 'religious' you really have to start thinking that people are shaping reality to fit their ideology.

But regardless, for you to say that anti-theists are "dogmatic" on this point is to misuse the term.

It was in 'quotes' to show it wasn't to be taken purely literally.

Many of them display a large degree of ideological conformity though. Any tenuous link for religion to be involved in violence is seized upon, an no effort will be spared to disassociate the Enlightenment from the violence that resulted from its dark side.

When I was an antitheist, I'd make the same arguments and they really are very weak.

Augustus, I don't think of you as dogmatic, but I think the people you defend often are.

I'm not really defending anyone.

I just don't think there is any logical reason to believe that without religions there would have been significantly less historical violence.

I also don't subscribe to the 'salvation' narrative where humanity can transcend its nature through the power of Reason. Many people want to believe that religion caused all this violence as it allows them to believe we can be 'saved', I just find this incredibly fanciful.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

National Socialism was not inspired by Christianity.

To be fair, it was. It was also inspired by Hinduism and pre-modern Germanic Paganism. To blame any of those three religions, though, is erroneous; Hitler deified himself in the Nazi beliefs, essentially making Nazism a religion all of it's own. Whether the argument can be made that "religion made him do it" is tougher to determine, as he was the one making the religion as well.

 

[Augustus]

To be fair, it was. It was also inspired by Hinduism and pre-modern Germanic Paganism. To blame any of those three religions, though, is erroneous; Hitler deified himself in the Nazi beliefs, essentially making Nazism a religion all of it's own. Whether the argument can be made that "religion made him do it" is tougher to determine, as he was the one making the religion as well.

Then it was also inspired by the Enlightenment, and the counter Enlightenment too...

All societies are based on transcendent ideology, and in the context of this thread, there is no reason to believe that theistic ideologies are more violent than non theistic ones.

Religions are violent because humans are violent, rather than humans being violent because religions are.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I do believe that theism and religion are harmful to society.

That's what antitheism means to me as well: the belief that religion is a net negative, and less of it in the world is better for it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As others have stated - now that anti-theism is established as being opposed to theism - I think it's a ridiculous stance. It's as problematic and nosey as zealots who preach against non-believers. Only here it's zealous preaching against believers.

One needn't be a zealot or actively opposing religion to consider it a net harm.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

There is no way to accurately measure the ill effect of theism, because we have no suitable non-theistic model in which to make a scientific comparison.{/quote]

Yeah we do, socialism. A secular blind faith system vs a clerical blind faith system. And you look for the same negative effects in both--immorality, where morality is defined as: Honoring the EQUAL rights of ALL to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud. That's it. Nothing about victimless "crimes" or 'thought crimes". And the root of ALL evil/immorality is a moral/legal double standard. E.G. I can kill you because I judge my life to be worth more than yours. Of course you forfeit your rights if you violate the rights of another, as determined by a justice system that is necessarily a combination of subjective leniency and objective restraints. Otherwise whatareyougonnado, hang a guy for stealing an apple?

It's not likely that theism is the cause of the undesirable behavior, but rather it exacerbates it. We don't really know if removing theism would lessen this behavior or if people would simply substitute something else in its place. Because the root cause is not theism at all, it is human nature, and if you remove one tool there is no reason to assume they won't just pick up another tool and use that instead.

QUOTE]

How do you remove theism from those in whom it has been indoctrinated from birth, particularly if it's an indoctrination into violence? If they have no desire to change, much less repent, humane oblivion would be indicated. Why should the rest of the world be fined in order to incarcerate the unrepentant for the rest of their lives? Bury the sword with the sword bearer. The goal should be justice and good order, not retribution or revenge.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

@ThePainefulTruth fix your post if you want me to read it.

 

[icehorse]

This is no different than people saying you can change your sexual behavior, if not your sexuality.

I didn't choose to not be convinced there are gods. Theists didn't choose to be convinced of certain religions.

Theism survives from generation to generation through recurring indoctrination and by maintaining the importance of the scripture. I heard a great idea / thought experiment a few days ago:

If our collective memories were wiped out and we had to rebuild society, we would arrive at the same science, but we would not arrive at the same religions. Religions are ideas. If you're an atheist or agnostic or some such, be thankful for the quality of education you received and perhaps for the lack of indoctrination you received.

 

[icehorse]

I also don't subscribe to the 'salvation' narrative where humanity can transcend its nature through the power of Reason. Many people want to believe that religion caused all this violence as it allows them to believe we can be 'saved', I just find this incredibly fanciful.

I agree that religion has often been used by aggressors to sanction their actions.

Of course it might be correct that if religion were to disappear, aggressors would simply find other ways to sanction their actions. But we won't survive unless we change how we've always done business, so it seems to me that we ought to do what we can to make it harder for aggressors to find excuses, and religion has always been a really handy wellspring of excuses for the aggressive.

 

[psychoslice]

It is absolutely ridiculous to think that you can be opposed to theism and not be opposed to the theist as well. Theism is too much a part of the actual person themselves to separate them like that.

It is like those people that claim to be opposed to homosexual behavior but not against homosexuals themselves.

You might as well say, "Oh I have no problem with you, just with who you are as a person."

It is a splitting of hairs to justify an obvious bias and an attempt to rationalize away one's prejudice.

Homosexualism isn't a scripture, they don't become homosexual through a belief system, if you are a homosexual theist as there are many, its not your homosexual life that I am against, its you belief system I don't like.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is always best to ask what someone means by the term when they use it, but when I see someone identifying as "anti-theist" it reads to me as a position of bigotry akin to being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. And while bigotry always has its rationale (humans are good at rationalizing anything, after all), to call it a "rational position" does a disservice to the term.

I define bigotry as an irrational, hurtful attitude toward every member of a law abiding group merely for belonging to it. Antitheism does not meet that standard. For starters, it's not irrational. One can give many reasons to support the position that religion, especially organized, politicized religion, is harmful. Others may not agree with the ledger and see net benefit, but it is a legitimate, rational concern and discussion.

For another, it's not directed at people, It's directed at an ideology.

We have so many people unable to think clearly because they have been convinced that faith is a virtue and reason its enemy. They simply never acquire critical thinking skills, or the ability to evaluate evidence, and too many are woefully inadequate in the sciences and consider secular schooling harmful.

This is disheartening:

[1] "You know, what makes women stupid is college. Because college makes everybody stupid. Because fools say in their heart that there is no God. And it's an atheistic fool system - it's not a school system, it's a fool system - that teaches Humanism and atheism and Agnosticism and godlessness and blasphemy against the Lord Jesus Christ." www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/02/16/christian-hate-pastor-steven-anderson-the-bible-makes-you-smart-college-makes-you-dumb/

[2] "God almighty hates book lerners (sic)" http://i.imgur.com/zjV1rgy.png

[3] "The Jehovah's Witnesses Told Them Not to Get a College Degree; Now, They’re Struggling" The Jehovah’s Witnesses Told Them Not to Get a College Degree; Now, They’re Struggling

[4] "While the public school system continues to degenerate into a drug-stupid, sex-oriented, illiterate morass of misfit, Marxist clones, the homeschool movement is producing intelligent, clear-thinking, confident citizens ready to stand in the middle of cascading corruption and declare their allegiance to God and family." Quoting Quiverfull: A Child's Questions Are Always Rebellion? l-part-1-failure-to-launch-homeschoolers/

Now they're aiming at evolution in the public schools and getting creationism in them, diverting public dollars to promoting the church's interests, unfunding Planned Parenthood, and recriminalizing abortion.

Or how about the people that say that life has no meaning from an atheistic worldview? What are they telling us about their spiritual development? They're telling us that they define meaning in terms of the opportunity to praise a god for eternity, without which, why live? How much less meaningful can existence get than that?

Or how about those that tell us that there is no reason not to steal and kill without a god belief. What are they telling us about their moral development? They're telling us that they never developed an internal moral compass. They have no concept of being good for goodness sake. They apparently don't know the pleasure of living a life well lived.

How about the concept of love in Western religion? It's tied to blood sacrifice. It's ascribed to a deity willing to keep the dead conscious just to torture them for not submitting to a book and the will of a priesthood. A mature concept of love is nothing like that.

Is this what we want people learning love is? How about that "hate the sin, love the sinner stuff." There's no loving the sinner there. Look at the church's treatment of homosexuals.

Or justice. Where is the justice in deciding the fate of a soul based on whether it submitted to these ideas when alive? Where's the accountability for crimes gotten away with? Where's the reward for a lifetime of loving service to mankind and the beasts lived outside of religion. There is none. None of that has any value in that system.

I think the religiosity of America had an untoward affect on the last presidential election just as it did in 2000 and 2004.

I don't expect others to agree with these opinions, especially the faithful. To them, religion is going to church on Sunday, greeting everybody with a smile and a "Love you, brother," singing some pretty hymns, hearing a hortatory sermon, and they just can't understand how anybody can object to that.

And of course, I agree. That's not objectionable. It's all the rest just outlined, and more. How about teaching people that man is rotten and the world to be shunned? Or that one should feel guilt for having sex while unmarried.

Anyway, a case can be made made against this ideology. It would be rational, it would not be hateful, and it is not aimed at anybody, so it's nothing like bigotry. It's a well considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered opinion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A couple of reasons, I think.

First is the simple fact that "theism" is not some single thing. It's a simplistic and superficial label that tells you next to something about someone, much like the color of someone's skin or the genitals they happened to have been born with. Theism is simply acceptance of at least one deity and "deity" can literally be anything. To some people, deity is transcendent and watches over us. To some, deity is the land you walk on and the air you breathe. To others, deity is love, or awe, or creative inspiration. Or it might be all of these things and more if you're a polytheist.

Second is that the implication of being opposed to something is that you want to get rid of it. This means we're talking about ripping out what is a key component of some people's way of life and destroying it. To be blunt, it means we're talking about form of cultural genocide. And considering celebrating the gods - the practice of theism that becomes religion - creates beautiful works of art, strengthens communities, and brings meaning to people's lives, I really can't understand why anyone would want to eliminate that. Yeah, okay, so you get those things without theism? Good for you. But other people like it. Leave them alone to their favorite things. I don't burn your Star Wars DVDs, and you don't burn my Star Trek DVDs, yeah?

If you want to talk about specific abuses of theology or religion, that's fine. But the broad brush is not okay with me.

You're correct that the word taken at face value is a misnomer. The objection is to specific ideologies, not theism in general.

And the method antitheists propose doesn't want to rip out any key component of any believer's life.It denies nobody their religious freedom or attempts to persecute them. The argument is taken to the younger generation in the hope that they will choose to avoid church identification or affiliation, and in so doing, we will see an eventual decline in the numbers and cultural hegemony of the church.

But each individual believer is more than welcome in the eyes of the antitheist to live his life in peace, believe as he likes, study the Bible to his heart's content, pray as needed, and fellowship as desired until they eventually pass on in the comfort of their own beds surrounded by loved ones at a ripe old age.

 

[LuisDantas]

Personally, in my opinion, I think finding all these reasons to hate each other is the real problem.

Excuse me, but how did we go from antitheism to hate? Or even prejudice, let alone bigotry?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Theism survives from generation to generation through recurring indoctrination and by maintaining the importance of the scripture.

This is, once again, a staggering level of overgeneralization of theism, as not even half of theistic beliefs involve scripture. And its also not relevant. There are a billion philosophies, normative ethics, literature, government, et all might be different if we restarted the world. That doesn't make them less valuable than science (which in of itself developed from a philosophical system that might not have come about without that foundation). And if you were born in a different society, from different parents and different environmental circumstances you would probably have a very different set of values and beliefs. That doesn't make your beliefs not worthwhile for their impermanence. Nor does it mean you could just change your beliefs.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's what antitheism means to me as well: the belief that religion is a net negative, and less of it in the world is better for it.

Religion is a powerful and quite possibly unavoidable tool.

But to actually surrender its responsibility to a deity-figure which is all too suitable to emotional abuse and undue entitlement of those who claim to speak or act on its behalf is at the very least something that other people have an undeniable right to be wary of.

Antitheism is not opposition to religion. In my case, not even remotely so.

 

[icehorse]

This is, once again, a staggering level of overgeneralization of theism, as not even half of theistic beliefs involve scripture. And its also not relevant. There are a billion philosophies, normative ethics, literature, government, et all might be different if we restarted the world. That doesn't make them less valuable than science (which in of itself developed from a philosophical system that might not have come about without that foundation). And if you were born in a different society, from different parents and different environmental circumstances you would probably have a very different set of values and beliefs. That doesn't make your beliefs not worthwhile for their impermanence. Nor does it mean you could just change your beliefs.

You're answering a different question. Once again, you said:

This is no different than people saying you can change your sexual behavior, if not your sexuality.

I didn't choose to not be convinced there are gods. Theists didn't choose to be convinced of certain religions.

The point here is that religions are ideas. They are ideas that are passed from generation to generation. Each new generation learns of Jesus or Allah, or Shiva or whomever from previous generations. You do not spontaneously recreate Jesus with each new generation.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You're answering a different question. Once again, you said:



The point here is that religions are ideas. They are ideas that are passed from generation to generation. Each new generation learns of Jesus or Allah, or Shiva or whomever from previous generations. You do not spontaneously recreate Jesus with each new generation.

You wouldn't spontaneously the same great works of art or literature either. What does that matter? This seems like shifting the goal posts. An analogy doesn't have to be completely 1 to 1 to be relevant. In the case of homosexuality as compared to religion, both involve a component of choice in behavior, a component of variability in culture and a component of non-choice, either due to nature, nurture or both (and I highly doubt both don't have nature AND nurture involved.)

 

[icehorse]

In the case of homosexuality as compared to religion, both involve a component of choice in behavior, a component of variability in culture and a component of non-choice, either due to nature, nurture or both (and I highly doubt both don't have nature AND nurture involved.)

We're simply going to have to agree to disagree on this point, and probably somewhat violently.