Antitheism?

[Cephus]

It could be that some antitheists are more zealous than others and possibly have agendas, like trying to rid the world of religion or something. I don't particularly get the demonizing based on how someone thinks the universe came into existence.

The world should be rid of religion. That's not an agenda, it's a worthwhile goal.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

So the anti-theists I know and know of think "theism is often counter-productive".

Often counter-productive... to what? Don't you see that stating theism is counter-productive in such a manner is just as black-and-white disingenuous as what you're claiming is assumed of antitheism?

I don't think it's often counterproductive, I think it's ALWAYS counterproductive.

So, why do you think that?

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.

That just makes it non-scientific. Something being "harmful" means that, well plainly, harm is being done. Would you say that poets, artists, and authors live harmful lifestyles for the way they look at the world?

All irrationality is harmful.

Might as well stop being human, then.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That's because the job of the Supreme Court is to weigh the case in question on constitutional grounds, not on the basis of their religious beliefs. It is their job to leave their faith at the door. Far too often they don't do so, unfortunately.

Since the desire for and application of a secular government that we enjoy was by in large set up by Christians (and Christian deists) then they made it their job, and apply it. And, hell, nations with much less separation clause in their governments (various UK and Scandinavian countries) got to most civil rights battles earlier than we did, and totalitarian communist countries which were decidedly anti-religious had horrible civil rights track records. The problem in regards to civil rights isn't theism, which was my point.

 

[idav]

The world should be rid of religion. That's not an agenda, it's a worthwhile goal.

I am sure there are people who feel that way, I've heard Harris and Dawkins, and the like, and read their stuff. Curious though, should anti-religion necessarily equate to anti-theism? I mean does it make a difference that someone thinks something did or didn't start the universe?

 

[1137]

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?

Anti theism doesn't just find no gods more likely, they are actively opposed to religion. Central to the position is the belief that all religious belief is negative and should your hand. It is not rational at all, because we have scientifically proven the numerous possible benefits of theism, and the question of gods is very much inside.

 

[icehorse]

Anti theism doesn't just find no gods more likely, they are actively opposed to religion. Central to the position is the belief that all religious belief is negative and should your hand. It is not rational at all, because we have scientifically proven the numerous possible benefits of theism, and the question of gods is very much inside.

No, read the thread. Central to the position is that religious belief *tends" to be negative, or *is often enough negative* to be dubious.

 

[icehorse]

Often counter-productive... to what? Don't you see that stating theism is counter-productive in such a manner is just as black-and-white disingenuous as what you're claiming is assumed of antitheism?

Counter productive to the well being of conscious creatures.

Again, in general when one criticizes a group, linguistic shorthand is the norm. We learn that words like *tend to* are implied:

- The GOP (tends to), promote small government
- The Amish (tend to), avoid modern technology
- Christians (tend to), admire Jesus

And so on.

 

[1137]

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

Despite then being the foundation of it, the main cause of our social evolution? Despite the scientifically proven benefits of beliefs and religious practices? Your position violates both known history and science, I'd be far more worried about that.

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.

First of all, tons of evidence and arguments have been presented over the decades, many quite valid and plausible. Just because you disagree with the evidence doesn't mean you can say it does not exist. Once again we see Antitheism as an irrational, dogmatic position.

I agree. That's why I led with the main problem. Human beings are not rational creatures. We don't learn from our mistakes and repeat them, over and over again.

Speak for yourself!

That's true.

Also true, I require some form of physical evidence before believing some kind of entity/being exists. If fossils of dinosaurs didn't exist I would deny the existence of dinosaurs.

Why is it our fault as theists that you start with the assumption that physical naturalism is true?

Anti-Theism is the position of those that oppose Theism.
Atheism applies to those who hold no god belief.

I would say that the position itself does seem rational.
The idea of god(s) is irrational, so is it rational to oppose something irrational?
It really just depends on the way you go about it, imo.

What makes the idea of gods irrational?

Wow! Learn something everyday. I'm not an atheist!

How come you feel that way?

As an antitheist, this thread is showing me a lot of misunderstanding of the stance. Are there some famous antitheists you guys are using to make these determinations?

I want you to rule out fascists and totalitarians. The antitheists I know and know of are against dogma, which means we are against fascism and totalitarianism.

Haha so theism is irrational but you're the one who needs famous people to support a position before you argue it.

 

[icehorse]

Haha so theism is irrational but you're the one who needs famous people to support a position before you argue it.

Sorry, that's a MASSIVE strawman! I'm quite fine to support my own beliefs.

My question was concerning how the people on this thread who are misinterpreting anti-theism are getting their info. In other words, you might say something like: "What I know about anti-theists I mostly know from reading Hitchens." That would be a fair way to come to know about a line of thinking.

So once again, what were the sources you used to come to understand the anti-theist position?

 

[icehorse]

Despite then being the foundation of it, the main cause of our social evolution? Despite the scientifically proven benefits of beliefs and religious practices? Your position violates both known history and science, I'd be far more worried about that.

Anti-theists don't claim that religion was never useful. Simply that it is now frequently suspect.

 

[1137]

Sorry, that's a MASSIVE strawman! I'm quite fine to support my own beliefs.

My question was concerning how the people on this thread who are misinterpreting anti-theism are getting their info. In other words, you might say something like: "What I know about anti-theists I mostly know from reading Hitchens." That would be a fair way to come to know about a line of thinking.

So once again, what were the sources you used to come to understand the anti-theist position?

Interaction with self described anti theists...

 

[idav]

No, read the thread. Central to the position is that religious belief *tends" to be negative, or *is often enough negative* to be dubious.

Saying anti-theism means religion tends to be negative would imply that Hindus are dangerous and Buddhists are dangerous when the happen to be theist. Is it really the belief in God that is the problem, your saying it is something more, ie. a particular religion or dogmatism. Theists also can be anti-dogma.

 

[1137]

Anti-theists don't claim that religion was never useful. Simply that it is now frequently suspect.

And thanks to science we know that's incorrect and that you guys are putting faith over fact.

 

[icehorse]

And thanks to science we know that's incorrect and that you guys are putting faith over fact.

say more about this science?...

 

[icehorse]

Saying anti-theism means religion tends to be negative would imply that Hindus are dangerous and Buddhists are dangerous when the happen to be theist. Is it really the belief in God that is the problem, your saying it is something more, ie. a particular religion or dogmatism. Theists also can be anti-dogma.

Okay, once again, of course theists can be anti-dogma. Do I have to put the phrase "tend to" into every sentence??

On the implications for Hindus and Buddhists: I am far less critical of these religions than I am of Christianity and Islam.

Let me ask you this, if 15% of people who contract cancer X die from it, is it fair to say that cancer X is dangerous?

Are you making some statistical line in the sand here? Do over 50% of the world's religious have to be members of "negative religions" before I can claim "religion tends to be negative"?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Just remember in the the midst of a heated debate take a deep breath and stop by The Cute Thread. to release the tension.

 

[idav]

Okay, once again, of course theists can be anti-dogma. Do I have to put the phrase "tend to" into every sentence??

On the implications for Hindus and Buddhists: I am far less critical of these religions than I am of Christianity and Islam.

Let me ask you this, if 15% of people who contract cancer X die from it, is it fair to say that cancer X is dangerous?

Are you making some statistical line in the sand here? Do over 50% of the world's religious have to be members of "negative religions" before I can claim "religion tends to be negative"?

Oh I totally saw the tends to. Statistic, if I were to give it a number, I would say religion only "tends to" be negative about 20% of the time and thats being generous. Is that number to high for people.

This may or may not be off topic but I had this idea last night that instead of dropping bombs in some places we should just be dropping leaflets of pro-science, pro-evolution, pro big-bang etc.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Okay, once again, of course theists can be anti-dogma. Do I have to put the phrase "tend to" into every sentence??

On the implications for Hindus and Buddhists: I am far less critical of these religions than I am of Christianity and Islam.

Let me ask you this, if 15% of people who contract cancer X die from it, is it fair to say that cancer X is dangerous?

Are you making some statistical line in the sand here? Do over 50% of the world's religious have to be members of "negative religions" before I can claim "religion tends to be negative"?

Oh I totally saw the tends to. Statistic, if I were to give it a number, I would say religion only "tends to" be negative about 20% of the time and thats being generous. Is that number to high for people.

This may or may not be off topic but I had this idea last night that instead of dropping bombs in some places we should just be dropping leaflets of pro-science, pro-evolution, pro big-bang etc.

Sorry guys, this may be a pet peeve but a statistic is a quantity calculated from observed data. What you two have is a guess at proportions. No data collection and no math was involved.

 

[idav]

Sorry guys, this may be a pet peeve but a statistic is a quantity calculated from observed data. What you two have is a guess at proportions. No data collection and no math was involved.

Yeah its a guess but it isn't impossible to figure out the percentage of relgious sects that choose to go around slaughtering people, and it aint very high, would pretty much be equal to the number humans that tend to do such a thing. Negative is more arbitrary.

 

[Deathbydefault]

What makes the idea of gods irrational?

The lack of a single piece of hard evidence in the favor of any god or set of gods.