What are your opinions on Anti-Theism?

[Sha'irullah]

Unless someone has absolute, objective proof that there is no God, it is by definition fundamentalism to say, "I don't believe in God, no one else should either, and believing in God is exclusively bad."

This is not anti-theism. I can easily say I have proof that there is no god purely because of its semantics and etymology.

I can say there is definitely no such thing as "Cogtid-Alasaster Goompdom". It cannot exist because it is entirely undefined, random and has no proposed nature of existence.
If a god is monotheistic, omnipotent(a paradox), omniscient, omnipresent, is either many or one along with have multiple religions then quite frankly no such thing exist. I can easily prove that god does not exists because it is entirely incoherent the same way a "Cogtid-Alasaster Goompdom" is.

There is nothing well defined, stable or conceivable about a god. It changes and is placed into any gap of knowledge in mankind's history. Try chasing the etymology of god in as many languages as possible and you will end up blank because it is one of thew couple hundred words in many languages that has no definition.

 

[Sunstone]

Anti-theism does not seek the end of religion.

Please don't pretend to speak for all anti-theists. It comes across as megomania. I know plenty of anti-theists who seek the end of religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Honestly mate, Subtly is not your strong suit. Just say what you mean and mean what you say and we'll get along great.

I can be subtle, but subtlety is just like any other approach: useful for some situations, useless or even harmful for others.

In this case, I aim to speak with you at the level you feel most confortable at, lest we both waste our time. I am willing to adjust as you see fit, of course.

I have attained excellent conversations with respectful theists here in these forums, and I look forward to the opportunity to include you among that list of most valued forum members.

Lead me, if you will.

Ah yes, The overactive imagination/delusions/dramatics of the Theist. I'm not surprised you would stoop to this in defence of Anti-Theism.

Sure, you are not expected to be surprised by my inclination to call exagerations and bluffs for what they are.

Be surprised if I start to show fear of words such as "stoop", though. I'm quite old enough to know better.

"Anti-Theism.... is active opposition to theism." Meaning they don't just oppose it, They actually try and do something about it. That's why I said it wasn't simply opposition.

How different "opposing" and "doing something about it" are in this context, please?

I know people do. And I know they believe in their own self-righteousness.

Sometimes people believe in what they do because the facts support them. It has been known to happen. Even for people one may want to disagree with, disregard, belittle or insult outright.

I have no doubt that you perceive self-righteousness. I have a whole lot of doubt that such perception is warranted.

And as someone who is defending Anti-Theism, I didn't expect anything other than exactly what you've said. So I'm sure you can easily live with it.

Are you implying that I should have felt ashamed? If so, why?

Your comment suggest you're answering a question but I never asked you one.

There is that...

I asked you to enlighten me, You've yet to do so. I imagine you'd rather just be vague and comment on how I just don't know what I'm talking about.

Well, I am not about to ask whether you read what I posted, and I choose not to mind your attempts at bothering me by being bigoted, so let's go on...

My bad, I honestly forget the fanaticism of Anti-Theists.

Maybe that is because it is a fantasy of yours? Just asking.

If it weren't so sad it would be amusing how they believe that they're doing the world a favour. All the while, On the other side of the world, The religious fantatics think the same thing.

Once more, do you have an actual example of those evil disrespectful anti-theists to offer, or are they indeed part of some fiction?

No, I expect me comparing Anti-Theists to Theists to trouble you,

Eh, reallly?

I thought you knew me better than that already. Maybe you are reading way too much into "anti-theism". It is not like being a predatorial monster or anything. And I can hardly be expected to feel troubled by comparisons with Theists. Do you have any idea of how highly I hold some Theists?

Or at the very least, Make you think about the disturbing similarities.

Go ahead, I am waiting for them to be offered so that I may be disturbed by them.

 

[Sha'irullah]

So should I assume that you are taking exception to the Dharmic religions again, Philotech?

Yes I am .

I am making exceptions for the compatibility of Buddhism, Daoism(not dharmic I know), Saivitism/Hinduism and Jainism. If you removed 100% of theistic beliefs in these religions they would still exist and remain strong, not only that these religions have flourished while having many atheists within them.

You should feel proud, seriously

 

[Alceste]

Really? I am not like this in the slightest bit. Favorite story is The Songs of Ilion. The human need for things like ritual are very important. It is just the need for the supernatural that I oppose.

Have you ever seen Islamic architecture or the Hassan II Masjid? Beautiful works of art

I don't think anyone "needs the supernatural". It just makes for a really good story, and stories are the stuff we are made of. All of us. Theists or not.

What is your issue with pantheism? For me, this is one of the areas where arguments against theism tend to break down.

 

[Brinne]

Yes I am .

I am making exceptions for the compatibility of Buddhism, Daoism(not dharmic I know), Saivitism/Hinduism and Jainism. If you removed 100% of theistic beliefs in these religions they would still exist and remain strong, not only that these religions have flourished while having many atheists within them.

You should feel proud, seriously

Not attempting to bash any of these faiths but I don't see why you make an exception for them. All of them are vulnerable to fanaticism. Take the Buddhists of Japan; during the 19th century they harassed the new religious movements of Japan and even went as far to draw a sword in the first Tenrikyo worship hall and stab the carpet. I feel if you're going to be against religion for the reasons you've stated prior than you should at least be consistent.

I feel like maybe you had a bad experience with Christianity and Islam? However that's just a guess. All religions have their fanaticism and if you're going to judge Christianity and Islam by their fanatics/those who misinterpret it you might as well for every religion.

Just my thoughts however. As I stated before, take them with a grain of salt. I'm no great thinker just somebody with access to a keyboard.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes I am .

I am making exceptions for the compatibility of Buddhism, Daoism(not dharmic I know), Saivitism/Hinduism and Jainism. If you removed 100% of theistic beliefs in these religions they would still exist and remain strong, not only that these religions have flourished while having many atheists within them.

You should feel proud, seriously

This is interesting, but really deserves a lot of discussion and maybe some adjustments. For instance, it is at least arguable that Daoism is Dharmic. And I don't think 100% removal is a goal worth having, personally.

 

[Levite]

It may fulfill some technical requirement to qualify as fundamentalism, but how destructive exactly do you see it as being, and why?

Not very, but mostly due to lack of numbers. Still, anti-theists sometimes end up supporting legislation that discriminates against members of religious cultures, usually non-Christian and/or non-Western ones. Usually it's less that anti-theists are directly destructive so much as that they sometimes end up promoting intolerance or bigotry. Again, their negative effects are often mitigated by their lack of numbers or organized cohesion.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I don't think anyone "needs the supernatural". It just makes for a really good story, and stories are the stuff we are made of. All of us. Theists or not.

See this is a major quirk of mine. I admit many of us anti-theists think that supernaturalism has no further purpose but it does.
I LOVE sword and sorcery films and highly enjoy elements like magic, mythology, gods and monsters in movies. I despise these rom-coms, stupid cop films and horrible spy flicks. I can watch a Hellenic mythological film all day long because of the mythical elements.
Fascinates me to no end.

What is your issue with pantheism? For me, this is one of the areas where arguments against theism tend to break down.

Pantheism is easily the most weakest, useless and most fallacious form of theism. It can refute it by saying "The cosmos is not god".

We already have a name for nature and what is around us and pantheism is nothing but a semantical game that seeks to make the universe more than what it can possibly be. When you make reference to the ordered, structured and almost esoteric manner of the universe you call it the Cosmos not god.

There is a difference between Cosmos and universe and I wish more people got it. Words games do not impress me int he slightest bit. Considering that you are a Daoist I would assume you have some level of understanding with this.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not very, but mostly due to lack of numbers.

I guess I will have to agree on disagreeing here. From the available evidence I am truly convinced that anti-theism is inherently far less dangerous (next to no dangerous at all, actually) than theism.

Still, anti-theists sometimes end up supporting legislation that discriminates against members of religious cultures, usually non-Christian and/or non-Western ones.

That is an interesting claim, and at face value I have to wonder if you are not criticizing xenophoby or religious intolerance as opposed to anti-theism.

Usually it's less that anti-theists are directly destructive so much as that they sometimes end up promoting intolerance or bigotry.

Most of us, it turns out, are human beings, so I must agree that it does sometimes happen. Hopefully it will never grow into harmful proportions, but that is always a possibility to guard against.

Again, their negative effects are often mitigated by their lack of numbers or organized cohesion.

Or, perhaps, their positive impact is?

 

[Levite]

This is not anti-theism. I can easily say I have proof that there is no god purely because of its semantics and etymology.

I can say there is definitely no such thing as "Cogtid-Alasaster Goompdom". It cannot exist because it is entirely undefined, random and has no proposed nature of existence.
If a god is monotheistic, omnipotent(a paradox), omniscient, omnipresent, is either many or one along with have multiple religions then quite frankly no such thing exist. I can easily prove that god does not exists because it is entirely incoherent the same way a "Cogtid-Alasaster Goompdom" is.

There is nothing well defined, stable or conceivable about a god. It changes and is placed into any gap of knowledge in mankind's history. Try chasing the etymology of god in as many languages as possible and you will end up blank because it is one of thew couple hundred words in many languages that has no definition.

So, in other words, because there are many concepts of God, anti-theists do not need to disprove any or all of them? Because an idea evolves, none of its evolutions needs addressing?!

That seems ridiculous to me. How is it reasonable to oppose dozens if not hundreds of different religions because of a general rejection of their most central concepts, but then evade having to actually address any or all of what you categorically say cannot be by saying that because there are many ideas that have evolved about God, none need be addressed.

 

[metis]

I don't think one should be an "anti-theist" any more than one should be an "anti-atheist". Let the opinions speak for themselves, and then let people believe in what they decide they believe in without harassment and being overly judgmental.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Not attempting to bash any of these faiths but I don't see why you make an exception for them. All of them are vulnerable to fanaticism. Take the Buddhists of Japan; during the 19th century they harassed the new religious movements of Japan and even went as far to draw a sword in the first Tenrikyo worship hall and stab the carpet. I feel if you're going to be against religion for the reasons you've stated prior than you should at least be consistent.

I am being very consistent while I doubt your ability to rationalize matters of religions and gods. Buddhists also have the incident of the Myanmar attack on Muslims as well.
What about it?

You seem to be profoundly unwise on everything you are saying up to this point because an atheists is capable of being violent like anybody else. You are not only making no point you seem unable to grasp what I am even saying because none of it has any relevancy to do with religious people and violence.

If you removed theism from religion they would only be as violent as atheists. One less thing to fight over but it does not get rid of violence.

What I am still astonished by is why you brought it up when I not only did not mention it, my topic was about something else entirely.

I feel like maybe you had a bad experience with Christianity and Islam? However that's just a guess. All religions have their fanaticism and if you're going to judge Christianity and Islam by their fanatics/those who misinterpret it you might as well for every religion.

Just my thoughts however. As I stated before, take them with a grain of salt. I'm no great thinker just somebody with access to a keyboard.

I should not be hearing this again from anybody at this point of life. It is very annoying

 

[Willamena]

Pantheism is easily the most weakest, useless and most fallacious form of theism. It can refute it by saying "The cosmos is not god".

We already have a name for nature and what is around us and pantheism is nothing but a semantical game that seeks to make the universe more than what it can possibly be. When you make reference to the ordered, structured and almost esoteric manner of the universe you call it the Cosmos not god.

Does it matter whether you call it god or cosmos, if it's still pantheism?

 

[Levite]

I guess I will have to agree on disagreeing here. From the available evidence I am truly convinced that anti-theism is inherently far less dangerous (next to no dangerous at all, actually) than theism.

I agree that religious extremism is, at present, much more dangerous than anti-theistic extremism, because there are large numbers of relatively cohesive and organized religious extremists.

That is an interesting claim, and at face value I have to wonder if you are not criticizing xenophoby or religious intolerance as opposed to anti-theism.

I think anti-theism if often a cloak worn by xenophobes and bigots, but I think sometimes it can be anti-theism that leads to or exacerbates certain kinds of bigotry.

Or, perhaps, their positive impact is?

I am unaware of any positive impact of anti-theism.

 

[Alceste]

I would easily state that theism is an anti-human and anti-rational ideal. I would also tell anybody with this belief as being very harmful but I will not treat them negatively.

Where did you get the idea that humans are rational? Have you ever met one?

Seriously, the idealization of rationality is a problem with anti-theism. I think that is just as harmful as the idealization of irrationality is for theists.

It is embarrassing for me to watch theists and anti-theists gloating and sneering at one another, filled with a false sense of superiority. I think Richard Dawkins and Pat Robertson are cut from the same cloth. Just a pair of bloated egos making irritating noises.

Reason is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Sha'irullah]

So, in other words, because there are many concepts of God, anti-theists do not need to disprove any or all of them? Because an idea evolves, none of its evolutions needs addressing?!

Nope, you did not pay attention. Read again because you seem to be twisting what I say.

That seems ridiculous to me. How is it reasonable to oppose dozens if not hundreds of different religions because of a general rejection of their most central concepts, but then evade having to actually address any or all of what you categorically say cannot be by saying that because there are many ideas that have evolved about God, none need be addressed.

Again, you are either lying and trying to twist what I say or you just don't get it. Considering the moral depravity of Abrahamics I will take the first guess(only my personal opinion).
Go back read my post and notice where I make a clear distinction between refuting theism or not having the need to refute it.

...meow

 

[Estro Felino]

Anti-theism may appear a bit too intolerant. It's more understandable to embrace anti-theocentrism, which is my attitude too

 

[Sha'irullah]

Does it matter whether you call it god or cosmos, if it's still pantheism?

Cosmos is well defined and refers to the order of nature. The opposite of cosmos is chaos I may add. Sort of cool if you ask me .

God on the other hand means ______ <--insert ignorance here.

 

[Levite]

Nope, you did not pay attention. Read again because you seem to be twisting what I say.



Again, you are either lying and trying to twist what I say or you just don't get it. Considering the moral depravity of Abrahamics I will take the first guess(only my personal opinion).
Go back read my post and notice where I make a clear distinction between refuting theism or not having the need to refute it.

Forget it. I feel no need to refute your ludicrous position, especially if you're going to resort to ignorant name-calling.