J Ciresoli
Member
I have yet to change it. You have my sincerest apologies for not keeping my profile updated.
-
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
J Ciresoli
Member
Again, I have not been on here in some time. I had yet to update my information. I dropped theism by personal conscious decision using logic to decide whether or not there was an adequate case. I dropped theism a week ago.
I'm an antitheist. Do you think the description you're giving applies to me? If so, why?
I don't understand your question.
I'm not sure what you mean. "Antitheist" is just the term for a person who holds to the position of antitheism. It doesn't mean that an antitheist somehow has a personal problem with each and every theist.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
And now you're an antitheist?
J Ciresoli
Member
Yes, I was flirting with Islam at best. In the end, logic won over
I practice a limited form of antitheism. It is limited in the sense that I am not opposed to theism per se (although I have no personal use or liking for it), but instead am only opposed to it in certain general circumstances. For instance:
(1) When religious folk attempt to seek special treatment, advantages, and benefits for religious folk that disadvantage other people, I find myself in opposition to them. An example would be allowing religious organizations to forgo paying taxes. In effect, that shifts their tax burden onto the backs of other taxpayers.
(2) When religious folk attempt to justify harmful behavior on religious grounds. An example would be the Catholic Church's lying to Africans about the usefulness of condoms in preventing AIDS on the grounds that contraceptives are against its teachings.
Generally speaking I don't think theism is something that can be wiped out. Human nature is such that many of us will always be superstitious so long as we are Homo sapiens. However, I think religions can be made more benign than most of them currently are. And I believe that the future of our species -- its long term survival -- depends to some significant degree on doing just that.
(1) When religious folk attempt to seek special treatment, advantages, and benefits for religious folk that disadvantage other people, I find myself in opposition to them. An example would be allowing religious organizations to forgo paying taxes. In effect, that shifts their tax burden onto the backs of other taxpayers.
(2) When religious folk attempt to justify harmful behavior on religious grounds. An example would be the Catholic Church's lying to Africans about the usefulness of condoms in preventing AIDS on the grounds that contraceptives are against its teachings.
Generally speaking I don't think theism is something that can be wiped out. Human nature is such that many of us will always be superstitious so long as we are Homo sapiens. However, I think religions can be made more benign than most of them currently are. And I believe that the future of our species -- its long term survival -- depends to some significant degree on doing just that.
Last edited:
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskaram
I beleive that it is our human duty to appose all wrong doing , but I also consider it wrong to make the sweeping generalisation that theism is to blame for the wrong doing of a small majority of its adepts , if and when you can be certain that every theist is a detremental force within society then by all means oppose it but when you canot you should not oppose theism because of the missbehavior of some , ..afterall there is an equal ammount of bad behavior in this world that is comitted due to the greed and avarice of non theists .
Why focus on the badness of some and leave out the badness of others ?
to attribute the wrongs of society to theism alone is a form of Bigotry how ever politely you put your argument , ....
your deer freind wickipedia defines Bigotry as '' a state of mind where a person obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc'' .......
what I am saying to you is that I beleive that it is 'Irational' to suggest that theism is in it self inherently wicked therefore responcible for wrong doing , when in truth only a portion of theists are guilty of wrong doing , It would appear to me that this is just a form of 'intolerance' that hides behind the excuse of wanting to right the wrong doings of the world , ...
Please Luis be honest and admit that theism is also a force for much Good in the world .
and please admit that there is also wrongdoing that is committed by non theists .
if you feel it your moral duty to oppose wrong then oppose all wrong doing , not just wrong committed by theists , oppose bigotry and intolerance .
I beleive that it is our human duty to appose all wrong doing , but I also consider it wrong to make the sweeping generalisation that theism is to blame for the wrong doing of a small majority of its adepts , if and when you can be certain that every theist is a detremental force within society then by all means oppose it but when you canot you should not oppose theism because of the missbehavior of some , ..afterall there is an equal ammount of bad behavior in this world that is comitted due to the greed and avarice of non theists .
Why focus on the badness of some and leave out the badness of others ?
to attribute the wrongs of society to theism alone is a form of Bigotry how ever politely you put your argument , ....
your deer freind wickipedia defines Bigotry as '' a state of mind where a person obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc'' .......
what I am saying to you is that I beleive that it is 'Irational' to suggest that theism is in it self inherently wicked therefore responcible for wrong doing , when in truth only a portion of theists are guilty of wrong doing , It would appear to me that this is just a form of 'intolerance' that hides behind the excuse of wanting to right the wrong doings of the world , ...
Please Luis be honest and admit that theism is also a force for much Good in the world .
and please admit that there is also wrongdoing that is committed by non theists .
if you feel it your moral duty to oppose wrong then oppose all wrong doing , not just wrong committed by theists , oppose bigotry and intolerance .
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskaram
for the same reason as given above to Luis , .......irationality !
it is irrational to conscider all theists to be wrong dooers , ....surely ?
bit according to Luis we should be dissueded ! do you agree with this ?
for the same reason as given above to Luis , .......irationality !
it is irrational to conscider all theists to be wrong dooers , ....surely ?
bit according to Luis we should be dissueded ! do you agree with this ?
Go back to the analogy I gave earlier of smoking: I think the world would be a better place without it, but I'm not going to rip the cigarette out of anyone's mouth.
I don't consider all theists to be "wrong-doers" any more than I consider all smokers to be "wrong-doers". I think that theism, like smoking, is irrational, but nobody is fully, perfectly rational. Just because someone has come to an irrational position on this one issue doesn't even necessarily mean that they're less rational than average.
SkepticX
Member
ratikala,
What you're doing is the same as when atheists presume a fundamentalist mindset represents all Christians, only the way you're doing this is actually far more overt and extreme, because some atheists actually do make the former mistake, but I don't think any make the error you're fixated on here (beyond perhaps a few with mental disorders of some sort). The mistake you're trying to impose upon anti-theists is too irrational for there to be much if any real world manifestation. You're arguing within your own mind, not in terms that reflect much of anything outside of it. Also, this topic is about anti-theism rather than anti-theist(ism). That's a pretty important distinction (an idea/construct/ideology as opposed to an entire demographic of people).
What you're doing is the same as when atheists presume a fundamentalist mindset represents all Christians, only the way you're doing this is actually far more overt and extreme, because some atheists actually do make the former mistake, but I don't think any make the error you're fixated on here (beyond perhaps a few with mental disorders of some sort). The mistake you're trying to impose upon anti-theists is too irrational for there to be much if any real world manifestation. You're arguing within your own mind, not in terms that reflect much of anything outside of it. Also, this topic is about anti-theism rather than anti-theist(ism). That's a pretty important distinction (an idea/construct/ideology as opposed to an entire demographic of people).
It seems a poor analogy.
A better analogy would be like saying we think the world would be a better place without food products containing corn. Corn products, like theisms (or atheisms for that matter), take many different forms and are found in many types of food. Whether or not we like a particular food is subject to personal idiosyncrasies and preferences. Nutritionally, certain corn products are better for us and others are worse for us; a can of soda containing high fructose corn syrup is definitely worse for us than a package of frozen corn from the freezer aisle. The nutrition of products containing corn depends very much on what else is in the corn product. Add to that the fact that individuals can have particular food sensitivities. Maybe we fell ill eating that corn product because it contained peanuts, and we have a peanut allergy?
But instead of paying attention to all this, we'll be content to just say all corn products are bad and we should get rid of them. Never mind that there are many different kinds of corn products, and that some of them are good and some of them are bad. We have to ignore the diversity and complexity of corn products and pretend only certain types of corn products exist. Never mind that there are other ingredients in that corn product that are having an effect on your like and dislike of it. We have to paint with a broad brush and ignore most of the canvass. Never mind that the peanuts that are what actually made us sick, we're going to blame the corn.
This, as @ratikala rightly pointed out, is pretty much poster child bigot-thinking. I've noticed that both anti-theists and anti-atheists do this.
Alas, such is the way of things. It will never change. We may keep to our anti- this and anti- that if such be our will. We all have our bigotries and intolerances. Make sure it is worth it.
There is nothing that could convince me that it is worth it to be anti-theist or anti-atheist.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
It seems to me, @ratikala and @Quintessence -- that maybe antitheists do not take what they consider as antitheism to be the same thing as antitheism theists take it to be. Well, I did say that earlier, but I just got insulted. :/
That is certainly true in at least some cases. It's going to be inevitable, considering that theism and atheism themselves are pretty ambiguous terms with respect to what they actually mean beneath the surface. It's a major reason why I can't be convinced that anti-theism or anti-atheism make sense. The categories are too heterogenous, too poorly-defined. They mean too many different things. I'm the same way with the idea of being anti-religious or anti-irreligious. The very idea of that makes no sense to me given the heterogeneity of the things being referenced. Ironically, I can sympathize more with someone being anti-polytheist, anti-pantheist, or anti-animist. *laughs*
SkepticX
Member
I can appreciate where you're coming from here, and actually going more general makes sense, but because theism is so popular and frequently so problematic it also makes sense to focus on it. The underlying problem is the idea of choosing to believe something by act of will. That's inherently problematic and self-deceptive--intellectual unhealthy--a bad habit. Add believing things of consequence and using such beliefs to judge others and arranging one's life around such beliefs, and hopefully you're starting to get the picture here (where antitheism is coming from), whether or not you agree with it.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
An issue with this: theists are theists because they believe that there is at least one deity. We don't just go "oh yeah i'm gonna choose to believe in god because i can turn my belief switch on or off like a light".
Do you choose to be an atheist by just an act of will, so you can just suddenly become a theist? No? Why do you think it is the case that theists 'choose' to be theists, and are not theists because the concept of deity makes sense to them (even many who grow up in a specific religion do not 'choose' to believe it), or due to personal experiences?
Beliefs, generally, are a trying-to-make-a-best-fit of the person's experiences and knowledge, IMO.
I think there's a lot of truth in this. However, it also behooves all of us to challenge whether our own beliefs and actions effect others, and whether they are consistent with humanism (in it's broadest sense)...hard to extrapolate too much over morning coffee on my phone, but hope that makes some generic sense.
It is also important we educate ourselves on issues we hold opinions on, and don't maintain positions despite our own ignorance.
I'm a little confused.
Presuming you believe in free will (I don't, by the way, but let's try to not drag that into the conversation), don't we all choose to believe and do things by acts of will in pretty much all areas of life? What on earth would make choosing to accept a deity or deities necessarily any different from the countless other things we choose to accept or reject? Isn't it just easier to recognize that "self-deception" (poor term, IMHO, but I'll run with it) is universal to each of us?
I'm also a little confused about how you're connecting (conflating, in my mind) theisms with the practices that emerge from it, such as religions (theisms =/= religions). Internally-held ideas and beliefs certainly have consequences, but the expression of internally-held beliefs does not have a straightforward correspondence. There are lots and lots of other mediating factors. It just seems really odd to me to fault theism when there are so many other factors in play. It feels so non-sequitor to me. Kind of like "since guns sometimes kill people, and since guns have steel in them, let's ban steel production." Huh wut?
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Yes and no. Yes, beliefs aren't subject to the will, you can't just choose to believe something, you have to be convinced that it is actually true. However, people often believe things for very bad reasons, because their beliefs are emotionally comforting, even if they are factually false. People need to be willing to re-examine the things that they believe and to re-evaluate them in light of evidence, not just because they get a squirt of feel-good chemicals in their brains when they think about it. By and large, we find that people are not tailoring their beliefs to their experiences, they are tailoring how they see and interpret their experiences to their emotional desire for a comforting belief.
Thats imply isn't rational.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I completely agree.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
But that's the thing, none of those things matter when it comes to determining objective truth. I ran into this once again when talking to a holocaust denier recently. His reason for denying the holocaust was because he refused to accept that human beings could act that way toward other human beings. The truth of it didn't matter, he couldn't get it through his emotional filters that man could display such inhumanity to his fellow man, therefore no matter what the evidence, it simply didn't happen as far as he was concerned. The only thing that actually matters is truth. The most uncomfortable truth is still the truth. The most comforting lie is still a lie. Comfort has nothing to do with fact.