Antitheism?

[Jeremiahcp]

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.





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.



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

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

I am not really that invested in convincing you of anything. If you want to know the difference between the two pick up a dictionary, but I don't care if you go though life misusing the words. If you write in any formal context at some point you are going to realize I am right, but that really is the only place it would actually matter.

"I doubt that you can define "scientific" in this context."

I would be looking for a statistical comparison of two similar populations on various parameters. One population of theistic influence and one with no theistic influence. Which is why I said it could not be done, as even secular communities have either current or a history of theistic influence.

I know exactly what I am looking for and I am not looking for your collection of cherry picked events.

"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. "

This is not scientific evidence; surely you must know that. There are plenty of good stories out there that you are ignoring and I don't care about your personal experience. That is not objective evidence and clearly far to susceptible to observational bias.

This is why I don't care about refuting every little thing you say: you don't know the difference between your opinion and fact.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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

Yes, I don't, personally. But I can understand others would, even if I don't agree or really understand why. Same with people who like Dean Koontz writing. I don't translate my disagreement or dispute into an objective criteria for value.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, I don't, personally. But I can understand others would, even if I don't agree or really understand why. Same with people who like Dean Koontz writing. I don't translate my disagreement or dispute into an objective criteria for value.

Ok, phew. So all I'm saying here is that we'll never know if it was the poor quality of the stories that caused you to be an atheist. perhaps if your first exposure to theistic stories was with really credible, realistic, morally consistent stories, your young brain would have felt differently?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Ok, phew. So all I'm saying here is that we'll never know if it was the poor quality of the stories that caused you to be an atheist. perhaps if your first exposure to theistic stories was with really credible, realistic, morally consistent stories, your young brain would have felt differently?

I know this seems like quibbling over semantics but my response to scripture isn't why I'm an atheist, just not part of those religions with scripture. There are irreligious theists and religious atheists (even religious antitheists in the LaVey crowd.) There are also non-revealed religions which don't have scripture at all, but are still theistic.

I'm an atheist because when I look at the natural world I see nothing that requires the supernatural to function. No indication of a supernatural force, presence, intellect, etc. I'm also a substance moist so I feel the same way about souls, spirits, ghosts, etc.

Is it possible that, we're I raised in another environment, I might have a different outlook? Totally.

 

[icehorse]

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.

What Luis said.

 

[icehorse]

I know this seems like quibbling over semantics but my response to scripture isn't why I'm an atheist, just not part of those religions with scripture. There are irreligious theists and religious atheists (even religious antitheists in the LaVey crowd.) There are also non-revealed religions which don't have scripture at all, but are still theistic.

It seems as though we have similar experiences that lead us to atheism.

I guess that where we differ is on the problems with theism. I think that it's frequently enough problematical enough that the whole idea of theism has become suspect.

But i will emphasize this point: Every religion is a set of ideas. It is at least that and it's usually more than that, but it's at least a set of ideas. Scripture is a common way for a set of religious ideas to be conveyed from generation to generation, but I'm happy to acknowledge that scripture is not the only way to convey these ideas from generation to generation.

But we must acknowledge that these ideas DO get conveyed from generation to generation.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It seems as though we have similar experiences that lead us to atheism.

I guess that where we differ is on the problems with theism. I think that it's frequently enough problematical enough that the whole idea of theism has become suspect.

But i will emphasize this point: Every religion is a set of ideas. It is at least that and it's usually more than that, but it's at least a set of ideas. Scripture is a common way for a set of religious ideas to be conveyed from generation to generation, but I'm happy to acknowledge that scripture is not the only way to convey these ideas from generation to generation.

But we must acknowledge that these ideas DO get conveyed from generation to generation.

Sounds like, to me, your problem is more with traditionalism than theism, which is my view. No traditional ideals should be held on a pedestal just because they're tradition. But I don't believe that has anything to do with theism, since theists don't always have tradition. esp. Deists and and personal religions where observance changes from generation to generation--many pagan and animist beliefs, or those who take extremely liberal views of their scripture, which is about as inoffensive to me as passing those Chicken Soup for three Soul books down from generation to generation.
Also aforementioned atheist, antitheist and hard agnostic views which still have tradition. Plus the unavoidable cultural stigmas and impressions that should be criticized (ie traditional farming techniques, gender roles, traditional views on mental illness, nationalism and nativism and tribalism, all of which secular countries struggle with as much as religious ines.)

 

[icehorse]

Deists and and personal religions where observance changes from generation to generation--many pagan and animist beliefs, or those who take extremely liberal views of their scripture, which is about as inoffensive to me as passing those Chicken Soup for three Soul books down from generation to generation.

I agree with your "it's diverse" orientation - to a point. Often the "it's diverse" defense is used to block any criticism whatsoever. So in my discussions I suppose you could mentally insert words like "frequently" or "typically" into my arguments, e.g. "theism is (frequently) conveyed via scripture" or "theism (frequently) promotes tribal mentalities".

But that works only up to a point. I think we often need to be able to talk in generalizations. Not always, but frequently. We should be able to say: "veggies are good for you", "love is a positive force", "secularism is better than theocracy" and so on.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I agree with your "it's diverse" orientation - to a point. Often the "it's diverse" defense is used to block any criticism whatsoever. So in my discussions I suppose you could mentally insert words like "frequently" or "typically" into my arguments, e.g. "theism is (frequently) conveyed via scripture" or "theism (frequently) promotes tribal mentalities".

But that works only up to a point. I think we often need to be able to talk in generalizations. Not always, but frequently. We should be able to say: "veggies are good for you", "love is a positive force", "secularism is better than theocracy" and so on.

I disagree, starting an argument, especially about something as emotionally charged as religious beliefs, with a generalization only stagnates the discussion calling for qualifiers. This isn't a useful generalization, it's a detrimental one. Saying theism when you really mean a fraction of theism and using it to be against (literally anti) theism isn't just a generalization, it's a strawman.

 

[icehorse]

Saying theism when you really mean a fraction of theism and using it to be against (literally anti) theism isn't a generalization, it's a strawman.

Hmmm... not sure I agree. If that was true then we could never discuss liberals, conservatives, Jews, Muslims, athletes, chess players... and so on.

I think that if "most" people of a category have a characteristic, it's fair game to generalize on that characteristic. I agree with you that a few theists are exceptions to the general rules of theism. But I think it's more than fair to assume the common characteristics of a group when discussing them.

And of course, people who identify as anti-theists are trying to be provocative. Personally I'm trying to be provocative to get people to reconsider long standing - and perhaps damaging - assumptions.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

I am not really that invested in convincing you of anything. If you want to know the difference between the two pick up a dictionary, but I don't care if you go though life misusing the words. If you write in any formal context at some point you are going to realize I am right, but that really is the only place it would actually matter.

"I doubt that you can define "scientific" in this context."

I would be looking for a statistical comparison of two similar populations on various parameters. One population of theistic influence and one with no theistic influence. Which is why I said it could not be done, as even secular communities have either current or a history of theistic influence.

I know exactly what I am looking for and I am not looking for your collection of cherry picked events.

"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. "

This is not scientific evidence; surely you must know that. There are plenty of good stories out there that you are ignoring and I don't care about your personal experience. That is not objective evidence and clearly far to susceptible to observational bias.

This is why I don't care about refuting every little thing you say: you don't know the difference between your opinion and fact.

"Truth has no meaning divorced from any eventual decision making process. The whole point of belief itself is to inform decisions and drive actions. Actions then influence events in the external world, and those effects lead to objective consequences. Take away any of these elements and truth immediately loses all relevance.

"We should expect similar decisions made under similar circumstances to lead to similar outcomes. Pragmatism says that the ultimate measure of a true or false proposition lies in its capacity to produce expected results. If an idea is true, it can be used in the real world to generate predictable consequences, and different ones if that idea turned out to be false. In other words, the ultimate measure of a true proposition is the capacity to inform decisions under the expectation of desirable consequences.

"All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is true, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false. Either you agree that truth should be measured by its capacity to inform decisions and produce results or you don't. If you agree, then we can have a conversation. And if we disagree about some belief, we have a means to decide the issue.

"If this is not how your epistemology works - how you define truth - then we can't have a discussion, and I literally don't care what you think, since it has no effect on anything."

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

I am not really that invested in convincing you of anything. If you want to know the difference between the two pick up a dictionary, but I don't care if you go though life misusing the words. If you write in any formal context at some point you are going to realize I am right, but that really is the only place it would actually matter.

"I doubt that you can define "scientific" in this context."

I would be looking for a statistical comparison of two similar populations on various parameters. One population of theistic influence and one with no theistic influence. Which is why I said it could not be done, as even secular communities have either current or a history of theistic influence.

I know exactly what I am looking for and I am not looking for your collection of cherry picked events.

"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. "

This is not scientific evidence; surely you must know that. There are plenty of good stories out there that you are ignoring and I don't care about your personal experience. That is not objective evidence and clearly far to susceptible to observational bias.

This is why I don't care about refuting every little thing you say: you don't know the difference between your opinion and fact.

jeremiah wrote: "This is why I don't care about refuting every little thing you say: you don't know the difference between your opinion and fact."

Every little thing I say? You haven't refuted or even tried to refute a single thing presented. You just object.

I understand what that means. Do you? It means that you don't have an argument, just an opinion and an emotional reaction to my argument.

I'm content with that.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

liberals, conservatives, Jews, Muslims, athletes, chess players... and so on

Assuming a liberal or conservative has the same individual issue POV that only coincides with their party line does them a disservice too, one where the conversation will get mired down in 'stop putting words in my mouth/making an overgeneralized use of the label'. Hence why I qualify 'some liberals' or 'some conservatives,' as an example.

I think that if "most" people of a category have a characteristic, it's fair game to generalize on that characteristic

I don't. Profiling is something I try to avoid. I'd rather take the few extra moments to say what I mean, and have a higher amount of accuracy.

I agree with you that a few theists are exceptions to the general rules of theism

The only rule of theism is belief in a deity or deities. That is literally it.

 

[LuisDantas]

One of the consequences of theism being a belief is that people can't really "forbid" it. Antitheism must be understood by that light.

Of course many people are theists and will continue to be, regardless of how widespread, influential and even repressive any antitheistic movement might turn out to be.

At most, they can do as some communist systems did and repress the open expression of that belief - which, btw, was a silly and destructive choice to begin with.

The fact of the matter is that I don't see antitheism as having the goal of repressing theism - which would be a bad thing, almost by definition - nearly so much as it is about exposing and warning against its dangers.

The message is not "theism should not exist", but rather "it is dangerous and unproper to mistake theism for a necessary thing or even for a necessary part of any religious practice".

I guess I should consider a better, more descriptive name for that stance, if I can find any. I am open to suggestions.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

jeremiah wrote: "This is why I don't care about refuting every little thing you say: you don't know the difference between your opinion and fact."

Every little thing I say? You haven't refuted or even tried to refute a single thing presented. You just object.

I understand what that means. Do you? It means that you don't have an argument, just an opinion and an emotional reaction to my argument.

I'm content with that.

"Do you? "

It means you think your arguments are worth my time and effort.

 

[Cephus]

They were also a way to codify what little was known of science at the time. For example, in many scriptures there are rules about how to slaughter animals. This most probably had to do with conveying practices to reduce disease. So, for it's time, I'd say that aspect of religion was useful.

If there was anything actually demonstrably useful in it, sure. Lots of it was just ceremonial though and that's not useful.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Do you? "

It means you think your arguments are worth my time and effort.

Who do you think you're fooling with that? I didn't address you. You addressed me, so you obviously thought my argument was worth your time and effort.

Unfortunately for you, all you could muster was an emotional ad hominem response.

You read an argument that offended you, but that you couldn't and still haven't addressed.

Instead, you thought you'd take a shot at me, but came unarmed, got another response you didn't like, and now you're trying to save face.

Next time, think a little first before you make an emotional response..

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Who do you think you're fooling with that? I didn't address you. You addressed me, so you obviously thought my argument was worth your time and effort.

Unfortunately for you, all you could muster was an emotional ad hominem response.

You read an argument that offended you, but that you couldn't and still haven't addressed.

Instead, you thought you'd take a shot at me, but came unarmed, got another response you didn't like, and now you're trying to save face.

Next time, think a little first before you make an emotional response..

"You addressed me"

Post #209, you engaged me.

"Unfortunately for you, all you could muster was an emotional ad hominem response.

You read an argument that offended you, but that you couldn't and still haven't addressed.

Instead, you thought you'd take a shot at me, but came unarmed, got another response you didn't like, and now you're trying to save face.

Next time, think a little first before you make an emotional response"

Making stuff up, how very theistic of you.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Those who set out to attack theism end up acting just like them, making far too many assumptions, with a lack of evidence, using a non-scientific approach, full of opinion and convinced they are right. They like to pretend they are different, that they are better, but they are not.

As far as I am concerned, their behavior is enough to question if it is really theism that is the problem or if it is just people that is the problem. And I think that is a question worthy of serious inquiry; not this haggling over news clippings and armchair philosophy.

 

[icehorse]

Those who set out to attack theism end up acting just like them, making far too many assumptions, with a lack of evidence, using a non-scientific approach, full of opinion and convinced they are right. They like to pretend they are different, that they are better, but they are not.

As far as I am concerned, their behavior is enough to question if it is really theism that is the problem or if it is just people that is the problem. And I think that is a question worthy of serious inquiry; not this haggling over news clippings and armchair philosophy.

Got any specific examples of anti-theists acting like theists?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Got any specific examples of anti-theists acting like theists?

Read the thread: Antitheism?

I believe I already called out a few incidents of what I considered similar behavior.

In fact just a few posts up, I did just that.