Antitheism?

[ADigitalArtist]

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

*shrug* I have a close friend who is a lesbian Christian (and would probably disagree, somewhat violently, that anyone else has the authority to tell her how she should interpret the bible) and she has personally told me she didn't choose to be Christian. It's just what happened. Make of that what you will.

 

[icehorse]

*shrug* I have a close friend who is a lesbian Christian (and would probably disagree, somewhat violently, that anyone else has the authority to tell her how she should interpret the bible) and she has personally told me she didn't choose to be Christian. It's just what happened. Make of that what you will.

It was not in reference to religion. I can agree that people might have the feeling about a religion that your friend had. It was in reference to your take on homosexuality where we will have to leave it at disagreeing.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It was not in reference to religion. I can agree that people might have the feeling about a religion that your friend had. It was in reference to your take on homosexuality where we will have to leave it at disagreeing.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, especially since it's not on topic for this thread. But if you're referring to nature vs nurture, I think nature vs nurture is as oversimplified and not resembling reality as a stark division between physiological and psychological. Nor do I think nurture always means having more choice than nature.

But lastly, I want to reiterate that I did not choose to be an atheist. I can't change that I am not convinced of the existence of god(s) and pretending otherwise would be an unhealthy state of denial. And I imagine the same is true of many if not most theists.

 

[icehorse]

But lastly, I want to reiterate that I did not choose to be an atheist. I can't change that I am not convinced of the existence of god(s) and pretending otherwise would be an unhealthy state of denial. And I imagine the same is true of many if not most theists.

We're going down the rabbit hole with this one but, okay, why not?

I would contend that of the various theistic stories I've heard, few of them score high - simply as good stories. To be honest, some sci-fi that I've read or seen crafts more believable stories than the ones that the world's religious have cooked up. So "Contact" the book has a few real mind-benders in it. The ending of the first Men In Black movie is also more plausible than the stories that religions cook up. Perhaps if any of those had been the stories you were first told, you might have given them more credence? BTW, I was also made to be skeptical, so we've something in common there.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

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

Was the Enlightenment religious, though? That was really only my focus with that; the religious nature of Nazism. It's odd in that it was both a political and religious movement.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

We're going down the rabbit hole with this one but, okay, why not?

I would contend that of the various theistic stories I've heard, few of them score high - simply as good stories. To be honest, some sci-fi that I've read or seen crafts more believable stories than the ones that the world's religious have cooked up. So "Contact" the book has a few real mind-benders in it. The ending of the first Men In Black movie is also more plausible than the stories that religions cook up. Perhaps if any of those had been the stories you were first told, you might have given them more credence? BTW, I was also made to be skeptical, so we've something in common there.

That is a bit of a rabbit hole, because lots of sci-fi and fantasy has a pretty extreme variability of suspension of disbelief, and personal identification and value. Star trek vs star wars. Lord of the Rings vs Game of Thrones, Starship Troopers vs Dune. What's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. What you might find convincing I might find unbelievable, what you might find enlightening I might find trite and visa versa.

 

[icehorse]

That is a bit of a rabbit hole, because lots of sci-fi and fantasy has a pretty extreme variability of suspension of disbelief, and personal identification and value. Star trek vs star wars. Lord of the Rings vs Game of Thrones, Starship Troopers vs Dune. What's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. What you might find convincing I might find unbelievable, what you might find enlightening I might find trite and visa versa.

wait, wasn't your assertion that didn't find the stories of theists compelling?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is absolutely ridiculous to think that you can be opposed to theism and not be opposed to the theist as well.

I think that organized, politicized Christianity and Islam are very bad ideologies, and I call myself an antitheist on that basis alone. These systems of thought hurt their adherents in the ways I outlined earlier, and they hurt those around them both by promoting division, ignorance, and bigotry, and by trying to impose unwanted religious doctrine on unbelievers using the might of government.

All one needs to do to understand the effect this teaching has on a culture is to compare those embracing it to those embracing secular philosophies. Besides being an atheist, an agnostic, a rational skeptic, and an antitheist, I also call myself a secular humanist. I see it as an ideology that promotes intellectual and moral excellence, and extols virtues like autonomy, tolerance, self-actualization, education, compassion, reason, and human and civil rights. You just don't find those values coming from the pulpits. Instead we hear about what is abominable in the eyes of an angry and unseen god, submission, judgment day, and the kinds of ideas that I outlined in a lengthy left here post several hours ago.

No, not every theist is made bad by his religion. But the best of them are basically on par with the typical secular humanist, who tends to be rational and compassionate. The more you let one of those two ideologies influence your politics or the way you view the world and your fellow man, the worse of you become, and the worse it is for others.

I don't think that the word "antitheism" captures that attitude if taken to mean what its roots suggest. If anybody would like to propose a different name for it, I am all ears. I actually have no opinions about theism. I like some of the religions. I like the Jains, Quakers, and Zen Buddhists.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I think that organized, politicized Christianity and Islam are very bad ideologies, and I call myself an antitheist on that basis alone. These systems of thought hurt their adherents in the ways I outlined earlier, and they hurt those around them both by promoting division, ignorance, and bigotry, and by trying to impose unwanted religious doctrine on unbelievers using the might of government.

All one needs to do to understand the effect this teaching has on a culture is to compare those embracing it to those embracing secular philosophies. Besides being an atheist, an agnostic, a rational skeptic, and an antitheist, I also call myself a secular humanist. I see it as an ideology that promotes intellectual and moral excellence, and extols virtues like autonomy, tolerance, self-actualization, education, compassion, reason, and human and civil rights. You just don't find those values coming from the pulpits. Instead we hear about what is abominable in the eyes of an angry and unseen god, submission, judgment day, and the kinds of ideas that I outlined in a lengthy left here post several hours ago.

No, not every theist is made bad by his religion. But the best of them are basically on par with the typical secular humanist, who tends to be rational and compassionate. The more you let one of those two ideologies influence your politics or the way you view the world and your fellow man, the worse of you become, and the worse it is for others.

I don't think that the word "antitheism" captures that attitude if taken to mean what its roots suggest. If anybody would like to propose a different name for it, I am all ears. I actually have no opinions about theism. I like some of the religions. I like the Jains, Quakers, and Zen Buddhists.

"All one needs to do to understand the effect"

I am sure you must mean affect.

Unlike you I need data to draw such a conclusion. I listen to people like you all the time; people who think such things can be determined with rhetoric while sitting on their butts. You have no greater demand for evidence than your typical theist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

How can you beat attaching the imprimatur of what is considered to be a good and holy god to your proposed atrocity? Divine Command Theory says that whatever God wills is good for that reason and that reason alone. That's the entire moral calculus.

Convince a body of people that God is a just and mighty god who avenges sin, and that the Christs killers are in violation of that good god's will, and you have just manufactured support for a genocide that you would be hard pressed to get any other way.

How can a demagogue hope to do better than to have a nation of such people?

What would a nation of secular humanists' response to such a message have been? Go ahead and try to convince such people to support a genocide, or the systematic discrimination against groups of people like women, Jews, or homosexuals.

But violence is the lesser issue. These days, you've only got the odd jihadist or abortion clinic bomber to contend with. It's more about systematic, institutionalized ignorance and bigotry that makes people as small of mind and spirit as they will let it. Think Kim Davis, Duck Dynasty guy Phil Robertson, the Oregon wedding cake bakers, Pat Robertson, Ken Ham, et al. It's a different kind of problem today:

Iowa Legislator Who Backed Anti-Science Bill Is Blocking Critics Online (But We Have Screenshots)

Christian School Bus Driver Lovingly Teaches Seven-Year-Old To Hate His Two Moms

Rep. Louie Gohmert: If Hillary Clinton Were President, Christians Like Me Would Be in Jail

Texas Lawmakers Think Doctors Should Be Able to Lie to Women if the Truth Could Lead to an Abortion

Evangelist Franklin Graham Compares Planned Parenthood Fundraiser to Building “Nazi Death Camp”

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"All one needs to do to understand the effect"

I am sure you must mean affect.

"Affect" and "effect" each have distinct meanings as nouns and verbs. "Affect" when used as a noun is a term from psychology. I am not referring to an affect.

Unlike you I need data to draw such a conclusion. I listen to people like you all the time; people who think such things can be determined with rhetoric while sitting on their butts. You have no greater demand for evidence than your typical theist.

I presented what I thought was a sound and compelling argument studded with evidence over a series of posts, including citing four examples of anti-intellectualism and most recently multiple specific events from the news. Did you care to try to rebut any of it?

And I could go on and on with evidence of the pernicious effect (yes, effect) that this institution is having on the culture: the Catholic church's pedophilia cover-up, countless televangelist sexual and financial scandals, bigots like Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, Christian cults like those of Jim Jones and David Koresh, Westboro Baptist Church, Chick-fil-A, Hobby Lobby, the war on anything-not-Christmas, the Target boycott snit over their tolerance for gender and public bathroom issues, the Duggar and Palin families and their public hypocrisies, years of abortion clinic terrorism including physician assassinations, arsons, bombings, the Center for Medical Progress' Planned Parenthood smears culminating in Christian zealot Robert Lewis Dear shooting up a clinic ...

How much more evidence do you need before you begin to suspect that this institution might be a net negative influence on the culture? Where's your evidence to counter that argument? Do you have any?

 

[icehorse]

How can you beat attaching the imprimatur of what is considered to be a good and holy god to your proposed atrocity? Divine Command Theory says that whatever God wills is good for that reason and that reason alone. That's the entire moral calculus.

Convince a body of people that God is a just and mighty god who avenges sin, and that the Christs killers are in violation of that good god's will, and you have just manufactured support for a genocide that you would be hard pressed to get any other way.

How can a demagogue hope to do better than to have a nation of such people?

excellent questions!

 

[Jeremiahcp]

"Affect" and "effect" each have distinct meanings as nouns and verbs. "Affect" when used as a noun is a term from psychology. I am not referring to an affect.



I presented what I thought was a sound and compelling argument studded with evidence over a series of posts, including citing four examples of anti-intellectualism and most recently multiple specific events from the news. Did you care to try to rebut any of it?

And I could go on and on with evidence of the pernicious effect (yes, effect) that this institution is having on the culture: the Catholic church's pedophilia cover-up, countless televangelist sexual and financial scandals, bigots like Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, Christian cults like those of Jim Jones and David Koresh, Westboro Baptist Church, Chick-fil-A, Hobby Lobby, the war on anything-not-Christmas, the Target boycott snit over their tolerance for gender and public bathroom issues, the Duggar and Palin families and their public hypocrisies, years of abortion clinic terrorism including physician assassinations, arsons, bombings, the Center for Medical Progress' Planned Parenthood smears culminating in Christian zealot Robert Lewis Dear shooting up a clinic ...

How much more evidence do you need before you begin to suspect that this institution might be a net negative influence on the culture? Where's your evidence to counter that argument? Do you have any?

"'Affect' and "effect" each have distinct meanings as nouns and verbs. "Affect" when used as a noun is a term from psychology. I am not referring to an affect."

That is completely wrong.

"How much more evidence do you need before"

I am looking for something more scientific.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Affect" and "effect" each have distinct meanings as nouns and verbs. "Affect" when used as a noun is a term from psychology. I am not referring to an affect.

That is completely wrong.

Seriously? That's your answer?

What you believe may be of interest to you, but it's what you can demonstrate and effectively argue that matter to others.

Weren't you the one that just told me, "Unlike you I need data to draw such a conclusion. I listen to people like you all the time; people who think such things can be determined with rhetoric while sitting on their butts. You have no greater demand for evidence than your typical theist."

Simply stating that you're an evidence guy doesn't make it so. An answer like that one belies your claim about your relationship with evidence. You have provided none, and addressed none of that provided to you.

I presented what I thought was a sound and compelling argument studded with evidence over a series of posts, including citing four examples of anti-intellectualism and most recently multiple specific events from the news. Did you care to try to rebut any of it?

< sound of a mouse gnawing on a crumb of bread in the far corner of the room >

And I could go on and on with evidence of the pernicious effect (yes, effect) that this institution is having on the culture: the Catholic church's pedophilia cover-up, countless televangelist sexual and financial scandals, bigots like Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, Christian cults like those of Jim Jones and David Koresh, Westboro Baptist Church, Chick-fil-A, Hobby Lobby, the war on anything-not-Christmas, the Target boycott snit over their tolerance for gender and public bathroom issues, the Duggar and Palin families and their public hypocrisies, years of abortion clinic terrorism including physician assassinations, arsons, bombings, the Center for Medical Progress' Planned Parenthood smears culminating in Christian zealot Robert Lewis Dear shooting up a clinic ...

How much more evidence do you need before you begin to suspect that this institution might be a net negative influence on the culture?

I am looking for something more scientific.

You are, are you? I don't think so. You're trying to dismiss evidence with the wave of a hand.

I doubt that you can define "scientific" in this context. What I have given you a substantial amount of factual evidence of a pernicious effect of a particular ideology on a particular culture. It's evidence that comes from the news and from my experience in forums like this one interacting with hundreds of people, both believers and unbelievers, where I see evidence of the effect of this ideology on people directly. Comments like, "Life has no meaning without God," "There is no reason no to murder without a god belief," and "Science is rife with fraud and shouldn't be trusted" are significant to me for reasons already given.

I get that you didn't like my argument for antitheism, but you didn't even try to address its points. You just objected. As I've already said, that's not an argument, and it isn't persuasive.

The argument stands unrebutted.

Where's your evidence to counter that argument? Do you have any?

< sound of a distant, barely audible ship's whistle through the fog and a buoy clanging >

 

[Augustus]

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.

It's a bit like saying "let's save the world by eliminating the 6th biggest cause of violence!"

Anyway, it doesn't actually get rid of a source of violence, it simply substitutes secular ideologies in place of a religious ideologies. The assumption that the various, diverse ideologies that filled the vacuum would have a net positive effect is pretty dubious given the track record of ideological violence.

Most Humanist antitheists, from my experience, pretty much believe that the majority of people would become Humanists like them were they to lose their faith. They tend to have real difficulty imagining that an sane, educated person freed from the 'delusions' of religion could see things radically differently to themselves. This is an issue with most 'rational' ideologies - "I'm rational so how could a rational person disagree with me"?

Seeing one's own views as universal is a flaw they borrowed from the monotheists though.

What gives you a high degree of confidence that the replacement ideologies would be more benign in the long term?

 

[icehorse]

What gives you a high degree of confidence that the replacement ideologies would be more benign in the long term?

Zooming way out, I believe that beliefs help inform behaviors.

 

[Augustus]

Was the Enlightenment religious, though? That was really only my focus with that; the religious nature of Nazism.

My point was really that to claim it was inspired by Christianity is so tenuous that you may as well add every other potential source of influence to it.

Ideologically or ritualistically it didn't borrow from Christianity, the only influence was really the fact that it emerged in a Christian society and had to relate to this environment.

It's odd in that it was both a political and religious movement.

Not sure it's really that odd. Religions are simply ideologies with a ritualistic component. Politics is based around values, ideology and often ritual too. It's only really Christianity that draws the clear religious/secular divide anyway, it didn't exist in Roman Paganism for example.

If you think about many American's reverence for the national anthem and flag and what this stands for, you have something smaller scale but fundamentally similar to what the Nazis did (symbolically, I mean). The difference between the two is really the degree of fanaticism and the nature of the ideology.

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I don't see much difference between secular ideologies and religious ones. The both fulfill the same role, may or may not be political and may or may not contain ritualistic elements.

 

[Augustus]

Zooming way out, I believe that beliefs help inform behaviors.

Why are non-religious beliefs likely to be more benign though?

It wasn't so long ago that a lot of the highly educated and 'rational' European intellectual classes were supporters of Soviet Communism.

 

[Nakosis]

I noticed there seems to be a small number of Antitheists here, and I just wanted know what others thought about this theological position.

I am gonna ask two general questions, but feel free to give any input you like.

What are the difference between Antitheism and Atheism?

Is Antitheism a rational position?

I imagine everyone feels their own position to be rational.

Difference is I think that anti-theism sees theism as immoral. An Atheist just doesn't believe in God.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's a bit like saying "let's save the world by eliminating the 6th biggest cause of violence!"

I take it that you are not a believer in the responsibility of belief, then?

Because I see no other way to interpret this statement of yours.

Religion is not to be removed... but it sure owes it to itself and all people to own up to its misuse. Much ideological abuse is or claims to be religious in nature.

I honestly wonder why you seem not to have noticed that.

Anyway, it doesn't actually get rid of a source of violence, it simply substitutes secular ideologies in place of a religious ideologies.

The risk exists, and I suppose it happened a few times. But there is a point to challenging the presumption of god-given entitlement that so often corrupts theistic religion. People should learn better than to justify excesses and abuse as being the "will of God".

Why you think secular ideologies are equally dangerous, I have no idea. History seems to disprove that something fierce.

The assumption that the various, diverse ideologies that filled the vacuum would have a net positive effect is pretty dubious given the track record of ideological violence.

Is it? I don't think so.

Most Humanist antitheists, from my experience, pretty much believe that the majority of people would become Humanists like them were they to lose their faith. They tend to have real difficulty imagining that an sane, educated person freed from the 'delusions' of religion could see things radically differently to themselves. This is an issue with most 'rational' ideologies - "I'm rational so how could a rational person disagree with me"?

There is something to that, but you seem to be inflating the issue to an unreasonable extent. There is certainly a lot of room for challenging theistic assumptions and doing good by those means even among the people who will never become secular humanists or even come close to it.

Seeing one's own views as universal is a flaw they borrowed from the monotheists though.

Learned from them, mostly. And that alone is already a good reason to give voice to antitheism.

What gives you a high degree of confidence that the replacement ideologies would be more benign in the long term?

Discernment.