That is indeed a very real and urgent consideration.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is antitheism?
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
That is indeed a very real and urgent consideration.
Is it so difficult to understand and accept, Rati Ji, that people can and should oppose that what they see as wrong?
Some do, others unfortunately do not and end up commiting serious mistakes as a consequence.
Leaving that aside for a moment, what is the problem in asking to think about it? It seems to me to be a legitimate request. It reminds me of polical clashes in a way: they can be nasty and bothersome, but they are not inherently wrong.
Pretty much everyone opposes everyone else's belief to some degree. It does not have to be a problem, and it is certainly not entirely avoidable. We all need to learn to do so in respectful ways, not to avoid it entirely.
As for opposing the right to believe... I asked it to Ratikala, and now I am asking you: how would that even be possible? Someone in the anti-theism club must be cheating me out of my mind control powers kit.
Hatred is not anti-theism either, pal.
I very much doubt it.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
"Think about your atheism! You only believe it because you were raised that way!" Is a pretty patronising position to hold, no? Especially when it's a very broad brush.
Bullying, ridicule, forcing people to hide their beliefs, and so on.
On the contrary, antitheism is rarely little more than hatred, and frequently, bullying.
When it is shoved like that over the face of an undeserving subject, certainly.
That is quite the far cry from having the anti-theistic stance, though. And it sure looks to me like a lousy form of expression as opposed to a flaw with the stance itself.
Broad brushes should of course be avoided, but again, that is not a problem with anti-theism as such.
That is of course wrong. And far as I can tell, it is also far more typical of theism than it is likely to ever be of anti-theism.
I guess I just will not accept that claim. Not without very good evidence, anyway.
SkepticX
Member
Ah ... because I'm thinking anti-theism rather than anti-theist. I like a lot of theists, including my wife, my sister and my mom and the rest of my extended family.
No, I wouldn't agree with that.
Which would be why I've suggested no such thing. I haven't even suggested all theism is bad, though when it's properly isolated from all the dressings that go with it I do think that's the case, so I'm now making that claim under the conditions mentioned.
Last edited:
One question to those of you, such as @ratikala and @Breathe , that seem to believe that antitheism is by definition some sort of aggressive attempt at restricting other people's rights:
What would you call someone who thinks that it is overall a bad thing for society to use concepts of deity and attempts to convince others to give up on them? With words alone, I mean?
What would you call someone who thinks that it is overall a bad thing for society to use concepts of deity and attempts to convince others to give up on them? With words alone, I mean?
SkepticX
Member
This was directed to LuisDantes, but I'm responding in the general context, which I think more than likely applies here (i.e. the question is only directed to LuisDantes because he's the nearest atheist in Interweb terms).
Not at all, but it does tend to be perceived as an ideological threat, which makes sense as well when you recognize what's behind these things--socialization (i.e. the real offense isn't that the person has been "accused" of having been socialized, but rather the fact that the beliefs have been "accused" of being subject to the same vagaries and flaws as any other human beliefs or ideas). We're all rather socialized and think and believe certain things in certain ways as a result. Think of how much the language we're raised to use shapes our conceptualizations, for example. This is also frankly why many religious beliefs aren't considered clinically significant in psychology or psychiatry. The first dude to believe a lot of very standard religious doctrine in isolation would be considered in need of treatment, but when you're raised to believe such things and pretty much your entire world affirms it, that's just what humans do as part of a community. So on the contrary, it's not patronizing at all to recognize that someone has been socialized (the contrary would be an absurd claim), it's a notable accomplishment, or maybe just neurologically unusual, to actually step outside of that bubble for a look, whether or not one chooses to stay there as a result.
Most people don't seem to really care enough about making sure their beliefs are founded to make the effort, and that's not a disparaging comment either. Why should they? They're involved in more or less healthy communities of people they care about and who care about them. That's what's really going on--that's what it's really about. That's good schtuff! The religious window dressing is just an unfortunate but also usually minor or marginal distraction--a uniform to wear that IDs you as part of the home team. Some home teams aren't so healthy, and that's usually due to allowing religion too much influence in the community, but it's not like religion is some Thing Unto Itself that exists outside of the mind/psyche (that's reification). It's just a category of human nature--thought and behavior. It's allowing those aspects of our nature too much influence on our overall thinking and behavior, and frankly our religious nature's not so great, to put it mildly. When people defend it as the high virtue we're socialized to presume it is, they pretty much always defend the related aspects, mainly community and what humans do in them and with them. But communities aren't religions. Religion is just a definitive element in religious communities. It's what makes a community religious that we're really talking about when we consider religion. The fact is that has to be conflated with the good stuff in order to come off well.
But the real issue I have here is that these kinds of attitudes aren't so unusual in an embattled culture. It's like when homophobes use the fact that there's a relatively high suicide rate amongst homosexuals as an anti-gay apologetic. What do they expect from a demographic that's hated and reviled openly by the society around it? Those apologists are obviously part of the cause. It's a horrible vicious circle. Same for atheists who don't stay in the closet to avoid this abuse, only it's a hell of a lot easier for atheists to hide.
In short I strongly suspect your take here could use some scrutiny.
Not at all, but it does tend to be perceived as an ideological threat, which makes sense as well when you recognize what's behind these things--socialization (i.e. the real offense isn't that the person has been "accused" of having been socialized, but rather the fact that the beliefs have been "accused" of being subject to the same vagaries and flaws as any other human beliefs or ideas). We're all rather socialized and think and believe certain things in certain ways as a result. Think of how much the language we're raised to use shapes our conceptualizations, for example. This is also frankly why many religious beliefs aren't considered clinically significant in psychology or psychiatry. The first dude to believe a lot of very standard religious doctrine in isolation would be considered in need of treatment, but when you're raised to believe such things and pretty much your entire world affirms it, that's just what humans do as part of a community. So on the contrary, it's not patronizing at all to recognize that someone has been socialized (the contrary would be an absurd claim), it's a notable accomplishment, or maybe just neurologically unusual, to actually step outside of that bubble for a look, whether or not one chooses to stay there as a result.
Most people don't seem to really care enough about making sure their beliefs are founded to make the effort, and that's not a disparaging comment either. Why should they? They're involved in more or less healthy communities of people they care about and who care about them. That's what's really going on--that's what it's really about. That's good schtuff! The religious window dressing is just an unfortunate but also usually minor or marginal distraction--a uniform to wear that IDs you as part of the home team. Some home teams aren't so healthy, and that's usually due to allowing religion too much influence in the community, but it's not like religion is some Thing Unto Itself that exists outside of the mind/psyche (that's reification). It's just a category of human nature--thought and behavior. It's allowing those aspects of our nature too much influence on our overall thinking and behavior, and frankly our religious nature's not so great, to put it mildly. When people defend it as the high virtue we're socialized to presume it is, they pretty much always defend the related aspects, mainly community and what humans do in them and with them. But communities aren't religions. Religion is just a definitive element in religious communities. It's what makes a community religious that we're really talking about when we consider religion. The fact is that has to be conflated with the good stuff in order to come off well.
Most often the problem I see is that it's very rare for theists to separate themselves from their theism--they take criticism of theism, even if it's largely on their behalf (concern for the harm it does, largely or mostly to believers), as personal attacks--doesn't matter in the cases in which it's precisely the opposite. I strongly suspect you're thinking only of more overt expressions of antitheism, and I also strongly suspect your perception of those expressions is highly defensive and that you're projecting your own emotions onto the messenger (i.e. I suspect that what you're "seeing" is as much or more in your mind's eye than coming from what you're actually observing). I suspect those things because I see them a lot, because you seem to be coming from the same perspective with the same perceptions as those errors tend to come from (the perception of socialization as patronizing for example, as well as the idea that atheists have either the social power or the degree of inclination as a group to oppress believers, which is quite frankly absurd), and because truly militant atheists are a relatively small minority in my experience (maybe 10% as kind of a high WAG, though on the other hand they can be very loud), though outspokenness from the view of atheism is almost always seen as you describe to a significant extent, regardless of how false that perception may be, even when it's quite obviously so, and when it's obvious to many believers. Most "militant" atheism is really about atheists who are so brazen as to explain why they're not fond of being imposed upon and to make the case that it shouldn't continue.
But the real issue I have here is that these kinds of attitudes aren't so unusual in an embattled culture. It's like when homophobes use the fact that there's a relatively high suicide rate amongst homosexuals as an anti-gay apologetic. What do they expect from a demographic that's hated and reviled openly by the society around it? Those apologists are obviously part of the cause. It's a horrible vicious circle. Same for atheists who don't stay in the closet to avoid this abuse, only it's a hell of a lot easier for atheists to hide.
In short I strongly suspect your take here could use some scrutiny.
Last edited:
One doesn't have to be restricting "rights" to do harm to others. Any time another person proselytizes and tries to convert another individual (because their way of life is wrong, apparently), I have a problem with it. It is fundamentally disrespectful, frequently unwanted, frustratingly intrusive. The preacher self-righteously thinks their way is the best way (or sometimes the only way), and proceeds to pass judgement on these poor myopic, misguided morons, irrational idiots, and hell-bound heathens, in a way that is positively patronizing. On the whole, it's jerk behavior, and I see atheists and theists doing it (who, when they do, I would describe as anti-).
I mean, don't get me wrong. We're going to exhibit jerk behavior about some thing or another in our lives. There are two important things to keep in mind with that, I feel. One, don't be surprised when someone calls us out for what we are: jerks. Being anti-whatever means we're self-righteously passing judgement on others in a way that disrespects them or their ideas. That's being a jerk. Two, we need to make sure that we're okay with being a jerk about that particular thing. If we're not, then it's not in keeping with our own sense of honor and will. A good sign that we're not okay with it is when we deny that we're being jerks in the first place. If we are uncomfortable being a jerk about that thing, it's time to reassess and revisit our values and behavior.
SkepticX
Member
You've just described a religious/anti-religious behavior that's worthy of criticism. Would you consider offering that criticism proselytizing? What about other aspects of religion/bad religion that are worthy of criticism, and what of other aspects of religion/bad religion that others find worthy of criticism? Is criticism the same thing as proselytizing when it's directed at religious targets? I think you're kind of arguing there's a line here, and my sense of it is that the line would likely be hard to draw, but that doesn't invalidate the notion. On the other hand it does make room for reasonable doubt.
Another thing I'd like to see cleared up or properly isolated (focus) is what religion really is. It seems it's almost always conflated with the good stuff that's usually associated with it, namely community--the good things people do when we form communities. That's about what humans do in communities though, not so much about religion. So what is it that makes a given community religious rather than something else ... that's what religion really is, not the community or the other things associated with religion that aren't definitive aspects. That conflation leads to a lot of confusion in discussions about religion.
gsa
Well-Known Member
That's a pillar of Abrahamic monotheism, is it not? Yet they're rarely labeled as bigots.
I think that the problem for the monotheists is pretty simple: They made a decision to make certain false claims about the way that the universe operates, and now they can only defend those positions through the use of elaborate and dishonest apologetics or the suppression of alternative views. Alternatively, they can just cede the debate, which is by and large what liberals in these traditions have done and are in the process of doing.
The belief in an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient deity that rewards and punishes individuals (in this life and the next) on the basis of their present lives clearly poses a significant risk of social harm (as does the religious hypothesis of karma for different reasons). Now maybe you feel that risk is outweighed by the (I think limited) benefits of religion, but surely pointing out that harm is not bigotry? Wanting to persuade other people to abandon false beliefs and become more reasonable is not bigotry.
Is it respectful? Well I don’t know, but I don’t see any particular reason to be respectful of sexism, homophobia and religious intolerance simply because it is wrapped up in theistic packaging. The anti-vaccine movement has deeply held and apparently sincere beliefs, but they’re a public health threat and are called out as such. If they were motivated by religious sincerity would that be any better? No. And so it is with the monotheists. That their beliefs are sincerely held does not entitle them to respect.
Moreover, the beliefs of the anti-theists are also sincerely held, and often motivated by a very strong desire to help religious believers overcome the belief in the superstitious, while persuading the fence sitters to get off the fence. Free thought was secured only after a protracted struggle with religious authorities, and it is always under attack from religious fundamentalists, and devalued by religious moderates who insist on "respecting" religious opinion. Given this conflict, and the continuing resurgence of religious fundamentalism, it makes sense to ignore the differences of the branches of the religious tree and go for the root.
I'm an anti-theist.
(I'm also an atheist and an agnostic, so the way you used your terms seems a bit contradictory to me).
Exactly how have I denied anyone any belief?
Interesting how you complain about prejudice while exercising it yourself.
The vast majority of the time, when someone decides not to wear their seatbelt while driving, everyone comes out just fine. Nevertheless, I see failing to wear a seatbelt as something negative, and I don't have a problem suggesting to people that they ought to wear theirs.
Is there something wrong with my approach to seatbelts? After all, most of the time - almost all of the time, in fact - failing to wear a seatbelt doesn't hurt anyone at all.
At its most basic level, antitheism is nothing more than the positive belief that theists are incorrect (as opposed to merely not believing that theists are correct). With this in mind, when I read you and other posters railing against antitheism, it comes across - to me, at least - as freaking out at the idea that some people might disagree with you. It communicates insecurity about your beliefs and paranoia about persecution. If this isn't how you want to come across, you might want to keep this in mind.
Politesse
Amor Vincit Omnia
Well, I think what I'm trying to do is help us distinguish between what kind of talk is dangerous, and what isn't. I don't object to intellectual critique, I said that in my first response to this thread and I know you read it because you "liked" it. However, defining oneself as disliking certain people on the basis of their religious belief is perilous. Not all hypothetical anti-theists have this goal, but on the whole, I'm not sure having the label running around is necessarily a positive thing, since it encourages that kind of behavior. You can oppose theistic philosophy without defining yourself primarily as someone who hates it. I'm perfectly game for a critique of many traditional theisms. Some have been quite harmful, and I don't know anyone who would disagree with that. But calling myself an anti-theist would be communicating something socially that I do not think would help others or speak well of me. I'll introduce myself as an anti-theist the same day I start introducing myself as an anti-atheist, or anti-Muslim, or anti-Platonist, or anti-Utilitarian, or anti-Canadian. In short, I don't see that happening. "I am" is just a different kind of statement than "I believe". I try to be careful about what, in speech, I'm willing to posit as equivalent to my name. I try to avoid putting any negatives in there unless I really mean it, and none at all that mean defining myself as the opposite of an exaggerated "other".
Uninterested in the implied tu quoque, which is considered a logical fallacy for a good reason. You are responsible for your own conduct, not that of your supposed opponent; Theists could all sacrifice babies every Wednesday, and start wars with Eritrea every Thursday, and it wouldn't change my argument.
Let me clarify that I was talking about what anti- behavior is in general. It happens with religion, but it is not limited to it. As for the question, it depends on context. Where it is unwanted and unwelcome, quite possibly. In the context of something like academia, quite unlikely. There are many other possibilities and contexts; I cannot hope to address all of them.
I'm not really intending to argue for a line. There are only the personal judgements that each of us make. Those who are more inclined to black-and-white thinking may think in a more line-like fashion, but I wouldn't consider myself one of those people. I see things as being highly contextual and fluid. More of amorphous gray mass than a line.
Is that necessary for this thread? We're discussing theism and atheism (and in particular anti-theism), not religion and irreligion. They are not the same thing.
SkepticX
Member
It probably is necessary, but that would be Gambit's call as to what the intent of the thread is. It's really what anti-theism is generally about though. If people just believed there are gods and never acted on that belief then there wouldn't be anything but a kind of academic, generally impersonal kind of issue on the table here.
SkepticX
Member
Here's an excellent, informative essay by Greta Christina about what may be behind a lot of anti-theism (specifically, when atheists get angry about theistic behaviors). It's not family friendly, as the kids say, and I think it's notable that family in the context of media is pretty much synonymous with religious.
I think Luis ha a point. For starters, most atheists have not being raised to be atheists.
But more importantly: if your beliefs depend strongly on the culture you happened, by a sheer accident of birth, to be grown into, then that is a strong indication that they are not the product of rational analysis.
I think it is possible to become atheist without ever having heard of the possible absence of God, while I cannot imagine anyone coming to Christ without having heard any of those Gospel tales before.
Why don't I feel the hurge to hide my disbeliefs when I am ridiculed for thinking that something can come from nothing, that the universe is not the product of chance, that I will go to Hell or other nonsensical arguments?
You can insult Darwin, Hitchens, Dawkins, Russel, whomever, and that would not touch me in the slightest. For sure, I will not run for cover.
We, or at least I, do not seem to be so compelled to hide our disbelief. Why is that?
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I really wish it was the case, Luis.
I wish I could disagree more. It's quite the opposite.
Antitheists are that evidence.
Strong, active atheism?
I'd consider that strong atheism.
"You disagree? You're clearly paranoid nutters."
This kind of ignorant stance and attempt to put it all as paranoia and bigotry shows the true colours of antitheism, and why I have nothing to say about it. Thanks.