Antitheism?

[Curious George]

Don't know what thread you're reading but


Some of the antitheists here have said all of these things about theists. The very foundation of most of their argument is 'theism is irrational/theists are irrational'/their belief is harmful because of dogma and they are wrong and their religion should be gone. All the while unable to differentiate between the problematic behaviors of some theists and theism as a whole. Literally saying 'antitheism is justified because some Christians and Muslims do bad things.'

I am well aware of the thread I am reading as I have now read it several times....and what you are implying in this post is dishonest.

Humans aren't rational. The fact that the majority of our species believe in a variety of invisible, magical beings for which no evidence exists in any form is undeniable evidence that our species is not rational.

Secondly, politicians don't elect themselves. The only reason a politician would try to pass anti-LGBT legislature is if they know a majority of their constituents want it, because they want to be re-elected. So I have the rational stance in this argument, nice try though.

Yes that can be true, but it also can work the other way around, after all there are many arrogant theist, as there are also atheist.

First off, see my previous post.
Second, I don't think it's appropriate for you to conflate deism with theism.
Third, to criticize something is not the same as to want to commit "cultural genocide".
Fourth, if theists would leave the world alone, I'd be less critical. But far too often theists do "burn my Star Wars DVDs" or worse. They invoke their gods to justify misogyny, pedophila, homophobia, anti-semitism and so on. They invoke their gods so that they can plunder the ecosystem. Some of them are constantly attacking secularism - the very hand that feeds them.

I don't think it's often counterproductive, I think it's ALWAYS counterproductive. I think that believing in things for which there is no objective evidence is, by its very nature, harmful. It doesn't matter what the theist gets out of it, it is a faulty way of looking at the world. It doesn't matter how the theist acts, they are operating out of a delusion. All religion is bad. All irrationality is harmful.

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. The first says that all people are irrational (this would include antitheists) the second says there are many "arrogant" theists (really only a counterpoint and not an attack on theists). The third blames theists for bothering him. And the last despite focusing on the belief does accuse theist of operating out of delusion.

 

[icehorse]

These are the posts that we can find a person attacking the theist instead of theism or religion.

Whatever you do, don't confuse yourself with context.

 

[Curious George]

Whatever you do, don't confuse yourself with context.

LOL. I was being lenient. And to be fair you did single out theists not theism. The same criteria by which I judged the attacks on antitheists which by far and away take the cake.

 

[psychoslice]

There re so many off shots in so called Christianity, who really knows what theism really means, and who's is correct lol.

 

[Willamena]

There re so many off shots in so called Christianity, who really knows what theism really means, and who's is correct lol.

I once attended a Roman Catholic wedding in Chicago. Before the ceremony, the priest explained much about what we were to encounter, because many of his audience were atheists. He described the meaningfulness of wedding, the myth of its relation to god, and the sacredness of ceremony. It was helpful.

There's off-shots, but there's a few good ones too.

 

[psychoslice]

I once attended a Roman Catholic wedding in Chicago. Before the ceremony, the priest explained much about what we were to encounter, because many of his audience were atheists. He described the meaningfulness of wedding, the myth of its relation to god, and the sacredness of ceremony. It was helpful.

There's off-shots, but there's a few good ones too.

Yes I agree there are a few good ones, mainly, Buddhism, my opinion.

 

[Augustus]

All of the anti-theists I know or know if are anti-dogma. Fascists are usually pro-dogma, their own flavor of dogma.

So? Call yourself an anti-dogmatist if you don't want to be associated with the likes of Jacques Hebert, Yemelyan Yaroslavsky or Vladimir Lenin...

Antitheism can form part of many ideological systems, from humanists ones to violent extremist ones.

When theism is basically seen as a cancer eating away at society then the debate shifts to what is the best way to cure the cancer. Some have seen cleansing violence as the best method, others write books or post things on the internet. They are still all antitheists though, even if some people find it inconvenient.

Over the last 1400 years or so Christianity and Islam EACH have about 200-300 million murders committed in their names by their adherents.

This is total unadulterated BS.

Antitheists often have this 'dogma' that religion has been the primary cause of warfare and violence throughout history. It is remarkably pervasive and resistant to any logic or reason.

7% of history's wars have been religious and none of the 10 most violent. An estimated 2% of deaths in warfare happened in religious wars (Encyclopedia of Wars - Philips and Axelrod).

600 million would not be that far from every person killed in every war ever.

You still have the problem of 400-600 million murders to deal with.

Not if they are an ideologically motivated figment of your imagination.

 

[icehorse]

When theism is basically seen as a cancer eating away at society then the debate shifts to what is the best way to cure the cancer.

Yes, you are unreasonable, and a master of the strawman.

 

[Augustus]

Yes, you are unreasonable, and a master of the strawman.

Can you explain how that is a 'strawman'?

From experience here, those repeating the name of a generic fallacy with no explanation have usually misunderstood the point.

Let me rephrase "antitheists think theism has a negative effect on society and antitheists would thus like to reduce its effect on society".

How is that 'unreasonable'?

(The unreasonable on my profile is a joke after someone called me unreasonable for making a very mild, inoffensive, moderate, middle of the road, 'both sides have their problems' type post. While not quite at the same level, this one is pretty much up there. I basically said 'antitheist beliefs are incorporated in a wide range of ideologies from benign to violent' which is pretty factually correct.)

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I am one, and you haven't defined what I believe in this regard, so mitts off the word

Your sig say: "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name. - Confucius", with which I absolutely agree. But if you don't know what a certain name (word) is proper for, it's the height of folly, or even treachery, to use it. So, if you are one, what are you?

 

[psychoslice]

What is the big deal about being antithesim, don't they hate anyone who doesn't believe in their theism, and believe they are going to hell, yes, there is many reasons to dislike theism.

 

[icehorse]

Your sig say: "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name. - Confucius", with which I absolutely agree. But if you don't know what a certain name (word) is proper for, it's the height of folly, or even treachery, to use it. So, if you are one, what are you?

I believe I've said it several times in this thread, but I'll say it again:

==
The anti-theists that I know, and the (famous) ones that I know of, believe that in these modern times theism is often-enough destructive to the world that the very idea and practice of theism is suspect.
==

Much of this thread has been about apologists claiming that not all theism is destructive, and of course I agree.

 

[icehorse]

This is total unadulterated BS.

Antitheists often have this 'dogma' that religion has been the primary cause of warfare and violence throughout history. It is remarkably pervasive and resistant to any logic or reason.

7% of history's wars have been religious and none of the 10 most violent. An estimated 2% of deaths in warfare happened in religious wars (Encyclopedia of Wars - Philips and Axelrod).

600 million would not be that far from every person killed in every war ever.

If I recall correctly, we've been down this path before, and not surprisingly we often disagree about the degree to which a given conflict could said to be "in the name of religion X". So my numbers will tend to be higher than yours.

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

So in the end, we'd probably end up having a series of debates on war after war.

But regardless, for you to say that anti-theists are "dogmatic" on this point is to misuse the term. Augustus, I don't think of you as dogmatic, but I think the people you defend often are.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I believe I've said it several times in this thread, but I'll say it again:

==
The anti-theists that I know, and the (famous) ones that I know of, believe that in these modern times theism is often-enough destructive to the world that the very idea and practice of theism is suspect.
==

Much of this thread has been about apologists claiming that not all theism is destructive, and of course I agree.

The problem doesn't come from a belief in God per se, it comes from the Church or other entity attempting to force its beliefs on others. My definition for religious freedom is the same as generic freedom: Freedom is the right to be as dumb as you want....on your own dime.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I believe I've said it several times in this thread, but I'll say it again:

==
The anti-theists that I know, and the (famous) ones that I know of, believe that in these modern times theism is often-enough destructive to the world that the very idea and practice of theism is suspect.
==

Much of this thread has been about apologists claiming that not all theism is destructive, and of course I agree.

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.

It is 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.

 

[icehorse]

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.

It is 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.

If our historical human nature doesn't evolve, we will not survive, and theism is a vestige of old style thinking.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

What is the big deal about being antithesim, don't they hate anyone who doesn't believe in their theism, and believe they are going to hell, yes, there is many reasons to dislike theism.

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.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

If our historical human nature doesn't evolve, we will not survive, and theism is a vestige of old style thinking.

The roots for the scientific method goes back thousands of years. Claiming something is old does not prove that it is evil.

 

[icehorse]

The roots for the scientific method goes back thousands of years old. Claiming something is old does not prove that it is evil.

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.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

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.

"But religions are nothing more than ideas, and you CAN change your mind."

Maybe, but just because someone thinks differently that does not justify prejudice.

"I'm not saying that just because something is old "

That was exactly your argument. Maybe you worded it poorly but that is what came across.