Antitheism?

[JustWondering]

These are the posts that we can find a person attacking the theist instead of theism or religion. This is not the same for the posts attacking anti theists. They are not even in the same ball park.

Really?! Our primary arguments center around the FACT that believing in things (that directly effect important decisions you make for yourself and others) that have ZERO evidence and in many cases ZERO sound arguments supporting them is IRRATIONAL and HARMFUL. As you mentioned, I didn't single out theists, I said all human beings are prone to this. Our position/stance is less arrogant, judgmental, and personal than telling people they're going to hell for not believing in this or that sky daddy. Before you all get started I am not implying all theists or religions are like that.

If someone cannot handle their beliefs/views being scrutinized, questioned, or *gasp* disputed, they probably should stay away from debate forums. Just saying.

 

[icehorse]

Hence why I qualify 'some liberals' or 'some conservatives,' as an example.

So this is a sincere request. You've had several discussions with me now. If you could label my stance towards theism, how would you - ideally - label it.

 

[icehorse]

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.

It seems that those incidents were in the context of some rather long conversations. I'm wondering if you can step back from this thread and describe a few specific examples of anti-theists acting like theists.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So this is a sincere request. You've had several discussions with me now. If you could label my stance towards theism, how would you - ideally - label it.

To be honest I haven't really seen you speak on theism much outside the contexts of Islam and Christianity, but I might not be moving in the same circles where you have.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

It seems that those incidents were in the context of some rather long conversations. I'm wondering if you can step back from this thread and describe a few specific examples of anti-theists acting like theists.

How about the fact you want to reduce it down to just a few specific examples.

I have made it more than clear that I believe a more robust study is needed to draw a valid conclusion. I am not going to play this game where we cherry pick a few events and then pretend it actually proves something. If you have a scientific study that shows theism is harmful, that I'll look at. But to think that theist and antitheses are actually all that different is not reasonable, they are both humans, they are both gonna act the same. This is why I have my doubts theism is the root cause of the undesirable behavior and that it is more likely just normal human behavior.

 

[Curious George]

Really?! Our primary arguments center around the FACT that believing in things (that directly effect important decisions you make for yourself and others) that have ZERO evidence and in many cases ZERO sound arguments supporting them is IRRATIONAL and HARMFUL. As you mentioned, I didn't single out theists, I said all human beings are prone to this. Our position/stance is less arrogant, judgmental, and personal than telling people they're going to hell for not believing in this or that sky daddy. Before you all get started I am not implying all theists or religions are like that.

If someone cannot handle their beliefs/views being scrutinized, questioned, or *gasp* disputed, they probably should stay away from debate forums. Just saying.

Yes really. I had said that antitheists were attacked in this thread. The person had suggested that antitheists were attacking equally. I posted all of the posts where an antitheist was attacking the person instead of the ideaology. I clearly spoke to the context of your comment and pointed out that there is a stark difference between the types of comments made by the antitheists and the people attacking the antitheists. In fairness, I wouldn't typically construe your comment as an attack but as it related to people and not the ideaology itself it was included.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

But that's exactly what you are doing - assuming that organized, politicized religion is a good thing, refusing to rebut or even address the evidence and argument made for antitheism with a wave of the hand and a pronouncement that it wasn't scientific enough for you, and offering no counterevidence or counterargument of your own. At this point, your position is entirely faith based. You just have a hunch that religion has had a net positive effect (and yes, it's still "effect").
h
Of course I think I'm right. Why wouldn't I? You've offered not one idea or piece of evidence to move me from that well supported position. It's a ledger: the benefits of organized, politicized religion against their costs compared with the costs. The cost just keep piling up, and I am not seeing the benefit. Others - but not you, who hasn't gotten around to mustering any argument at all - say that it brings conform, forges people of good character, or does significant charitable work. These are all claims that can be addressed.

But that isn't necessary with you. You have offered nothing but your hunch. You have had no interest in addressing the subject in a probative way. All you've done is project your evidence-free, faith-based orientation outward.

You must know that you have no hope of persuading anybody of anything with an approach like that, so why take it? You didn't persuade me to start using "affect" instead of "effect," either. You just made a claim - a wrong one - and didn't bother to get information first or try to defend your claim. That's faith based thinking - unjustified belief. You believe it because you want to.

affect vs. effect on Vocabulary.com

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Really?! Our primary arguments center around the FACT that believing in things (that directly effect important decisions you make for yourself and others) that have ZERO evidence and in many cases ZERO sound arguments supporting them is IRRATIONAL and HARMFUL. As you mentioned, I didn't single out theists, I said all human beings are prone to this. Our position/stance is less arrogant, judgmental, and personal than telling people they're going to hell for not believing in this or that sky daddy. Before you all get started I am not implying all theists or religions are like that.

Agreed.

If someone cannot handle their beliefs/views being scrutinized, questioned, or *gasp* disputed, they probably should stay away from debate forums. Just saying.

The one I'm currently in dispute with started this thread with the following:

"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?"

Feel free to give any input one likes? Obviously not.

 

[Augustus]

Our primary arguments center around the FACT that believing in things (that directly effect important decisions you make for yourself and others) that have ZERO evidence and in many cases ZERO sound arguments supporting them is IRRATIONAL and HARMFUL.

I'm not sure it is a fact that believing things that are unsupported by any evidence is necessarily harmful. Why would believing something false that encouraged you to be altruistic be harmful for example? Seems irrational to me.

Any evidence to support this?

 

[Augustus]

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.

Of course plenty of ideological abuse is religious in nature, I'm under no illusions.

I'm just not an advocate of meliorism and view it as a myth people accept to make themselves feel good.

We are a violent species who are doomed to make the same mistakes as our ancestors because despite all our wonderful technology, we are still wired the same way. The only way to mitigate this going forward is to accept it, anything else is hubris.

The solution does not lie in changing our nature, but in creating a society where our nature causes us as little harm as possible.

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.

Non-theistic ideologies of nationalism, fascism, Marxist communism have far more blood on their hands than theistic ones. Usually for some reason though these "don't count" though.

Is it? I don't think so.

As I said, I'm not a meliorist and don't see how replacing ideologies A + B with ideologies CDEFGHIJKLMNOP is bound to produce a net positive in a social sense overall, or even in a much narrow sense of violence.

Have a read of 'The Bullet's Song by Williams Pfaff' if you are interested in a range of violent secular utopian movements from the 20th C and their appeal to educated, and often highly moral people.

As a species we easily believe in 'redemptive' violence, secular neoconservative 'nationbuilding' is an obvious recent example from this century.

Discernment.

Or perhaps confirmation bias, it's difficult to separate the two at times.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How about the fact you want to reduce it down to just a few specific examples.

I have made it more than clear that I believe a more robust study is needed to draw a valid conclusion. I am not going to play this game where we cherry pick a few events and then pretend it actually proves something. If you have a scientific study that shows theism is harmful, that I'll look at. But to think that theist and antitheses are actually all that different is not reasonable, they are both humans, they are both gonna act the same. This is why I have my doubts theism is the root cause of the undesirable behavior and that it is more likely just normal human behavior.

You didn't make that clear in this thread. You solicited the opinions of people posting on this site: "I noticed there seems to be a small number of Antitheists here, and I just wanted know what others thought about this theological position." If you had wanted the opinions of social scientists, you should have asked for that.

Now, you're moving the goalpost. Now you want a robust study. Why didn't you go pursue the data from the social sciences if that is what you wanted, or at the least, ask for it explicitly, which is required to be "more than clear"? There's plenty of what you are now asking for out there. Have you never seen any of that data? I have, and it's consistent with an antitheistic attitude. Let me go fetch you a bit of it for you:

From http://pitweb.pitzer.edu/academics/...8/2014/12/FAC-Zuckerman-Sociology-Compass.pdf by Phil Zuckerman :

"If religion, prayer, or God - belief hindered criminal behavior, and secularity or atheism fostered lawlessness, we would expect to find the most religious nations having the lowest murder rates and the least religious nations having the highest.

"But we find just the opposite. Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is deep and widespread (Jensen, 2006; Paul, 2005; Fajnzylber et al., 2002; Fox and Levin, 2000) .

"And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the low est murder rates tend to be among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon (Ellison et al., 2003 ; Death Penalty Information Center, 2008) . Furthermore, although there are some not able exceptions , rates of most violent crimes tend to be low er in the less religious states and higher in the most religious states (United States Census Bureau, 2006) .

"Finally, of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non - religious countries, and of the 8 cities within the United States that make the safest - city list, nearly all are located in the least religious regions of the country (Mercer Survey, 2008 )."

Or this, more from Zuckerman via a blog at Society without God :

" Society without God (2008) is sociologist Phil Zuckerman‘s analysis of the societal and moral health of these two atheistic societies [Denmark and Sweden]. So, what do the data show about the health, happiness and morality of these non-religious societies? The data could hardly be clearer. Denmark and Sweden rank among the most well-developed, wealthiest, most democratic, most free, most entrepreneurial, least corrupt, least violent, most peaceful, healthiest, happiest, most egalitarian, best educated, most charitable, and most environmentally compassionate societies in the entire world."

This is from the abstract of another large, heavily referenced survey by Gregory Paul entitled "Cross - National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" at http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf :

"Cross - national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro - religious and anti - evolution America performs poorly."

Sorry to dump so much more information, but apparently, this is what you wanted to see after all, not the opinions of RF posters. I thought that you knew this.

Sorry, but the evidence for the net harm that justifies an antitheistic opinion is all around you. One doesn't need to go to the social sciences to see that. I cited multiple instances of societal harm from religiosity in the news and the kind that is apparent in these threads, where although many of the religious people are as educated and of good character as the typical secular humanist posting beside them, far too many are not. Far too many are simply unable to think critically, and far too many are drawn into a divisive and indifferent worldview.

That is the effect of their religious upbringing on them, and in my opinion, a clear net negative to them and their neighbors that depend on them to be smart and kind. If the dominant religion affects too many of them in that way, it can transform a nation into a mentally sluggish and morally defective state. I don't want to go political here, but I think you can infer where I'm going with this.

This is a big problem - a huge negative. Where are the offsetting benefits to make religion a net positive?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

But that's exactly what you are doing - assuming that organized, politicized religion is a good thing, refusing to rebut or even address the evidence and argument made for antitheism...

Theism =/= Organized, Politicized Religion.

You're making the mistake that others have been. By clinging to the term "anti-theism" you're ascribing yourself one view, but trying to use it to support a similar, but ultimately different view.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Theism =/= Organized, Politicized Religion.

You're making the mistake that others have been. By clinging to the term "anti-theism" you're ascribing yourself one view, but trying to use it to support a similar, but ultimately different view.

I don't disagree with that other than calling the use of the word "antitheism" a mistake. The word is being used increasingly often in the way I use it.

I've articulated my position, and acknowledged that the word "antitheism" is suboptimal to describe it. I am not literally opposed to theism. As I have already acknowledged, I find a few sects to be anywhere from neutral to beneficial, especially some of the far Eastern ones such as Zen Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Jainism and the Quakers seem OK after a cursory inspection as well.

What I object to is the effect (yes, Jeremiah, effect) that Christianity has especially in America, but also in some European states and parts of Africa, and the effect that Islam on multiple nations. My most direct interest is the American problem.

What word would you propose for that?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I've articulated my position, and acknowledged that the word "antitheism" is suboptimal to describe it. I am not literally opposed to theism.

Then why continue to use a word that literally means to oppose theism? That's like if I were to be personally against veganism, understanding of situational vegetarianism, and tolerant of vegans, but because of the few militant vegans that have to let you know all about the beef sitting in your colon, call myself an anti-herbivore. I'm not anti-herbivore, I'm anti-a**hole.

So if you're against organized - likely mainstream - religion, why not just say that you're against them? Why not use a different word, than one that misrepresents your stance? You say that you're objected to the effect that Christianity and Islam has on America and the world at large, so why not just say that you're Anti-Abrahamic? Or, that you're more directed to America, why not just "Anti-Christian"?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

But that's exactly what you are doing - assuming that organized, politicized religion is a good thing, refusing to rebut or even address the evidence and argument made for antitheism with a wave of the hand and a pronouncement that it wasn't scientific enough for you, and offering no counterevidence or counterargument of your own. At this point, your position is entirely faith based. You just have a hunch that religion has had a net positive effect (and yes, it's still "effect").
h
Of course I think I'm right. Why wouldn't I? You've offered not one idea or piece of evidence to move me from that well supported position. It's a ledger: the benefits of organized, politicized religion against their costs compared with the costs. The cost just keep piling up, and I am not seeing the benefit. Others - but not you, who hasn't gotten around to mustering any argument at all - say that it brings conform, forges people of good character, or does significant charitable work. These are all claims that can be addressed.

But that isn't necessary with you. You have offered nothing but your hunch. You have had no interest in addressing the subject in a probative way. All you've done is project your evidence-free, faith-based orientation outward.

You must know that you have no hope of persuading anybody of anything with an approach like that, so why take it? You didn't persuade me to start using "affect" instead of "effect," either. You just made a claim - a wrong one - and didn't bother to get information first or try to defend your claim. That's faith based thinking - unjustified belief. You believe it because you want to.

affect vs. effect on Vocabulary.com

You didn't make that clear in this thread. You solicited the opinions of people posting on this site: "I noticed there seems to be a small number of Antitheists here, and I just wanted know what others thought about this theological position." If you had wanted the opinions of social scientists, you should have asked for that.

Now, you're moving the goalpost. Now you want a robust study. Why didn't you go pursue the data from the social sciences if that is what you wanted, or at the least, ask for it explicitly, which is required to be "more than clear"? There's plenty of what you are now asking for out there. Have you never seen any of that data? I have, and it's consistent with an antitheistic attitude. Let me go fetch you a bit of it for you:

From http://pitweb.pitzer.edu/academics/...8/2014/12/FAC-Zuckerman-Sociology-Compass.pdf by Phil Zuckerman :

"If religion, prayer, or God - belief hindered criminal behavior, and secularity or atheism fostered lawlessness, we would expect to find the most religious nations having the lowest murder rates and the least religious nations having the highest.

"But we find just the opposite. Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is deep and widespread (Jensen, 2006; Paul, 2005; Fajnzylber et al., 2002; Fox and Levin, 2000) .

"And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the low est murder rates tend to be among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon (Ellison et al., 2003 ; Death Penalty Information Center, 2008) . Furthermore, although there are some not able exceptions , rates of most violent crimes tend to be low er in the less religious states and higher in the most religious states (United States Census Bureau, 2006) .

"Finally, of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non - religious countries, and of the 8 cities within the United States that make the safest - city list, nearly all are located in the least religious regions of the country (Mercer Survey, 2008 )."

Or this, more from Zuckerman via a blog at Society without God :

" Society without God (2008) is sociologist Phil Zuckerman‘s analysis of the societal and moral health of these two atheistic societies [Denmark and Sweden]. So, what do the data show about the health, happiness and morality of these non-religious societies? The data could hardly be clearer. Denmark and Sweden rank among the most well-developed, wealthiest, most democratic, most free, most entrepreneurial, least corrupt, least violent, most peaceful, healthiest, happiest, most egalitarian, best educated, most charitable, and most environmentally compassionate societies in the entire world."

This is from the abstract of another large, heavily referenced survey by Gregory Paul entitled "Cross - National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" at http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf :

"Cross - national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro - religious and anti - evolution America performs poorly."

Sorry to dump so much more information, but apparently, this is what you wanted to see after all, not the opinions of RF posters. I thought that you knew this.

Sorry, but the evidence for the net harm that justifies an antitheistic opinion is all around you. One doesn't need to go to the social sciences to see that. I cited multiple instances of societal harm from religiosity in the news and the kind that is apparent in these threads, where although many of the religious people are as educated and of good character as the typical secular humanist posting beside them, far too many are not. Far too many are simply unable to think critically, and far too many are drawn into a divisive and indifferent worldview.

That is the effect of their religious upbringing on them, and in my opinion, a clear net negative to them and their neighbors that depend on them to be smart and kind. If the dominant religion affects too many of them in that way, it can transform a nation into a mentally sluggish and morally defective state. I don't want to go political here, but I think you can infer where I'm going with this.

This is a big problem - a huge negative. Where are the offsetting benefits to make religion a net positive?

Not worth my time to actually read.

 

[LuisDantas]

Theism =/= Organized, Politicized Religion.

You're making the mistake that others have been. By clinging to the term "anti-theism" you're ascribing yourself one view, but trying to use it to support a similar, but ultimately different view.

While that is true, it seems to me that it is premature to conclude that organized religion is necessarily worse than the alternative.

A major part of religion as I understand it are the exchanges among actual people, which do a lot to improve its contents and correct its course when the need comes.

Of course that is no warranty that said religions will not eventually run off the rails. But it helps a whole lot.

I have seen people rejecting religion supposedly in favor of some form of pratice that focuses on theistic belief and scripture instead. I can't help but liken that to throwing out the baby and the bathtub in order to keep the dirty water.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Then why continue to use a word that literally means to oppose theism? That's like if I were to be personally against veganism, understanding of situational vegetarianism, and tolerant of vegans, but because of the few militant vegans that have to let you know all about the beef sitting in your colon, call myself an anti-herbivore. I'm not anti-herbivore, I'm anti-a**hole.

So if you're against organized - likely mainstream - religion, why not just say that you're against them? Why not use a different word, than one that misrepresents your stance? You say that you're objected to the effect that Christianity and Islam has on America and the world at large, so why not just say that you're Anti-Abrahamic? Or, that you're more directed to America, why not just "Anti-Christian"?

Anti-Abrahamic is not bad, but Judaism is not enough of a problem for me to take a position against it. I have issues with Israel and Zionism, which I consider a nationalist problem rather than a religiously motivated one - most Jews I know are atheists and irreligious, so I tend to view it more as a culture than a religion - and I hope to not be seeing too much like NYC Mayor Failed to Stop Rabbis from Sucking on Newborns’ Penises and Giving Them Herpes , but you have a point, so I'll consider making the change. I don't approve of the effect that that religion has on its few adherents either, especially the orthodox and conservative variations.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Not worth my time to actually read.

Of course it's not. It's evidence.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Of course it's not. It's evidence.

Your tack record in that area has been lacking, so I am sorry if I don't take you seriously anymore. But lighten up and have a cat in a box as it is only an online debate.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

While that is true, it seems to me that it is premature to conclude that organized religion is necessarily worse than the alternative.

Oh, of course! I don't know every religion that exists out there, so I can't rightfully say that all religion is bad either. And even though I'm moderately anti-Christian, I wouldn't say out-right that all of them are bad systems or people.

I mean, heck. I belong to a religion. We're not as organized, and certainly not as doctrinal, but we're an organized religion. I don't think we're a bad thing, and I'd even be comfortable enough to welcome scrutiny of that.