What is antitheism?

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

I at once agree with some of your points and reject the overall premise, but its just too hard to write the sort of response you deserve (as in, put enough thought and explanation in).

Heading to work, I'll access a laptop at some point and try to provide a meaningful response.

 

[Cephus]

I at once agree with some of your points and reject the overall premise, but its just too hard to write the sort of response you deserve (as in, put enough thought and explanation in).

Heading to work, I'll access a laptop at some point and try to provide a meaningful response.

I await your full response then. I just have a problem with people trying to shape reality to their philosophies instead of trying to shape their philosophies to reality. Reality is a constant. It exists no matter what you think of it, no matter if it makes you happy or sad, etc. Reality doesn't care one whit about us and unfortunately, I've seen people try to force the real world to conform to humanist ideals, rather than accept that sometimes, the real world just isn't fair and there's nothing we can do about it. That's actually how religion got its start. People didn't understand the natural world and when something bad happened, they prayed and sacrificed to imaginary gods so that reality would go their way. Sorry, a drought is a drought. It's not nature's judgement on man, it just happens.

Now as far as finding a good way for man to treat his fellow man, I'm all on board with that, so long as it doesn't expect the real world to bow to the philosophies of man. It has to be the other way around.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram ,

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.

I concur with Quintessence on the points raised I also feel that theism is too broad a category to male any generalisations about , how can one be 'Anti' something which is so diverse ? .....I can understand being Anti fundamentalist as one could say that fundamentalist thought is proving to be problematic at the moment , ...however I do not see how a person can be against another person because they beleive something that the other dosent , .....that is fundamentalism .

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.

there is something missing in this assumption , ....you are assuming that the beleiver chooses to beleive you say ''By act of Will'' ......this is wrong , there may be a few who do this , a few who think that belonging to a religion is like putting on an atractive Hat , ...but even still one has to question if this is beleif , or is this wanting to belong ? ...many people want to belong , ....then there are radicals who just want to be radical about something , they too just want to belong to the look at me I am so radical club , .....how many Anti theists are just radicals wanting to find a problem to attack ?

but returning to the beleivers the large majority do so only after long and carfull consideration , so if we are talking about theists or theism you have to look carefully at who you are attacking , who you are accusing of being ''so problematic''
the ones who have true faith or those that would like to have faith but who are actualy still quite confused about what they actualy beleive ?

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.

the picture I am getting is one of prejudice , ....you want to speak about ''inherently problematic'' then please look also at the secular world , ...what about politics , science and capitalism ? ...you realy want to see some corrupt and unjust behavior , ..you realy want to object , ...then object to the willfull and wanton distruction of this planet , ..... look at the politicians who protect their capitalist chums , and for what , ... financial gain ??? ....you want to object about deception , ...self deception then look at the scientific world and its wherewithall to help mankind , yet due to our own self deception we accept their advice without a second thought and continue to let then produce the chemicals that cure us from the ailments that they cause us by poluting the food chain with the chemicals they invented but that they know to be highly toxic , ...why , ..because they are paid quite nicely to do so ! ...and there are other forms of self deception ...atacking theists makes one feel that one is liberating the world , ....the self deception comes from beleiving that the problem is someone elses , instead of admitting that it is human nature , and a human failing to be selfish and unjust , ....it is not just a theistic problem it is a failing common to all of mankind ,
...we are all in our own ways trying to become better people but this is not something that will be accheived by focusing on the faults of others , first one has to focus on oneself , ......rid one self of ones own problems , then when one has honestly faced onself then one is fit to criticise others , ...

and then if you wish to discuss what is ''interlectualy unhealthy'' , .....then prehaps we should begin with this tendancy to make assumptions as to what the faith of others is based upon , ...what never ceases to amaze me is that people who have no faith automaticaly assume that the faith of others is baseless , .....this is as child like as saying because I have no experience of a thing then it does not exist , ....

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Fair enough. But there is a whole spectrum of theistic belief, and there is a place (actually, a need) to question which regions of it are healthy and which are not, if for no other reason so that people have some advance warning of the likely advantages and dangers of their own varieties.

 

[SkepticX]

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".

I didn't suggest any such thing.

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?

Faith is an act of will, so beliefs that require faith to work are beliefs by act of will. It's fair to say that faith is part of the package people are raised to believe though, so to a large extent the act of will is that of others and it's kind of imposed on the subject by others over time and by circumstance (socialization).

Beliefs, generally, are a trying-to-make-a-best-fit of the person's experiences and knowledge, IMO.

The intellectual contortions and acrobatics religious apologists manage in order to force-fit reality to the beliefs they defend is a pretty clear demonstration of the reverse. People tend to choose their beliefs and then solve the puzzle of how they can make reality (seem to) fit them. Faith-based beliefs are the same--they're an an imposition of ideology upon reality. They're not derived from it. If they were they wouldn't require faith.

 

[Quintessence]

I'd like to point out again that theism =/= religion, and that neither religions nor theisms are necessarily faith-based. I'd also like to point out that it is unfair to presume one is "imposing" upon "reality" given nobody can agree on what that is. What is fair is to presume people have different maps of the territory that are a reflection of their experiences of the territory.

That is all. *bows*

 

[SkepticX]

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?

It's passive observation vs. taking a proactive role in modifying/creating them. A sound method of observation would be entirely passive, or as passive as humanly possible. To believe in the supernatural is necessarily proactive--you can't derive it from evidence or sensory input. We can only perceive nature in any remotely reliable way. Those observations can be verified externally. Alleged perceptions of the supernatural cannot, and there are always obvious likely alternative explanations, so if we accept that information we have a pretty clear probability. In fact I'd argue most probabilities that clear are considered knowns. It's only by closing our minds to the obvious that we even create any sense of real potential in which to place these beliefs (and tuck them safely away from scrutiny). If you don't take the proactive tack, you don't get there.

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?

I didn't specify religion though, and I'm not sure where you're getting this notion of faulting theism for ... something. I spoke of faith-based belief, which is required for theism. This is also what I was getting at when I said "actually going more general makes sense". That probably wasn't a good choice of words though--it's cutting to the case--getting at the heart of the matter or antitheism. That's the fundamental problem--the enabler and justifier that allows believers to create the god to which they attach their own sentiments and imbue them with false and ultimate validation and justification from an ultimate authority that the real problems depend upon.

The practices and certainly the communities that develop around religion/religious faith aren't generally the issue, but the belief that there's a god requires the real issue--the real problem at hand here--to be in place. Theism depends upon religious faith (traditional/biblical--Hebrews 11). You can't reasonably derive theism from passive observation--you have to be proactive to get it in there. It has to come from the mind, not the senses, from inside the head, not from the external cosmos. That's imagination, not observation. It's imposed upon reality rather than derived from it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I await your full response then. I just have a problem with people trying to shape reality to their philosophies instead of trying to shape their philosophies to reality. Reality is a constant. It exists no matter what you think of it, no matter if it makes you happy or sad, etc. Reality doesn't care one whit about us and unfortunately, I've seen people try to force the real world to conform to humanist ideals, rather than accept that sometimes, the real world just isn't fair and there's nothing we can do about it. That's actually how religion got its start. People didn't understand the natural world and when something bad happened, they prayed and sacrificed to imaginary gods so that reality would go their way. Sorry, a drought is a drought. It's not nature's judgement on man, it just happens.

Now as far as finding a good way for man to treat his fellow man, I'm all on board with that, so long as it doesn't expect the real world to bow to the philosophies of man. It has to be the other way around.

Okay, so turned out this had to wait until I was in the airport lounge waiting to head home. I'm a couple of beers in, but this still should make more sense than me labouring away on my phone, and taking shortcuts. There's a bit to cover, actually, so I daresay this may raise as many questions as it answers, but just pick at whichever bits are of interest or seem off to you.

First off, I completely agree that reality is reality, regardless of what humans believe. I'm about as irreligious and un-superstitious as one can be, I suspect, and over my formative years I actively sought to destroy any minor superstitions that crept into what I think of as the primitive parts of my brain (which were mostly habits when playing sports...'lucky socks' kinda thinking. Not that I literally thought it, but habits of picking the same socks, etc).

However, couple of points beyond that;

1) Between reality and every human there is an element of perception/interpretation. We can be completely honest with ourselves, relentlessly so, and this remains true. There are dozens of simple optical illusions that serve to prove this point, although obviously I am talking mostly on a larger scale. Our backgrounds serve to inform our views and beliefs. We change our views and beliefs (in my opinion) not by direct change, but through indirect change. If you like, you can think of this as education/learning, though it is my no means always positive (eg. learned phobias/stereotypes). No matter how completely honest and rational we are with ourselves, we won't all come to the same answer on many issues/questions/perceptions.

2) Rationality is a measure of a complete person. There are plenty of theists I know who are very logical and very rational when looked at as an overall picture, no matter what MY external judgement might be of their theistic choice. Even assuming my viewpoint on that is accurate, it seems a leap to judge a person based on any single point of reference.

3) Assuming that all theists have an element of irrationality about them for the sake of argument, I would submit the following;
a) ALL humans have an ELEMENT of irrationality about themselves. Obviously the level of variance is massive. But the measure is both subjective, and ever present.
b) Rationality, to me, is actually well DOWN the list of measures I would use to subjectively judge someone.

I suspect, end of the day, that we have some similarities in how our brains work. If you're familiar with de Bono, I tend to be strong in Black Hat thinking. I work in an industry and a job where this is both an advantage, and (probably) reinforced. I think, honestly, that I get your viewpoint. But I find it more rational to judge people by demonstrated action that logical extrapolation of their beliefs.

Hmm...that's a bit of a skim, so just let me know what makes some sense and what doesn't.

 

[Quintessence]

It's passive observation vs. taking a proactive role in modifying/creating them.

I think you're making some assumptions here about theisms that are not true of some, but not all theisms, which is probably why I was so confused there. The narratives that involve the idea of gods - which would be where the proactive secretion comes into play - is the mythology, not theism in of itself. Further, whenever we weave stories, they are grounded in human observations, which includes but is not limited to what you're describing as "passive" observations.

A sound method of observation would be entirely passive, or as passive as humanly possible. To believe in the supernatural is necessarily proactive--you can't derive it from evidence or sensory input.

Let's remember that all theism posits is a belief in or acceptance of god(s), or sacred/valued things worthy of worship. Let's not jump the gun here and make it more than what it is. Theism, in of itself, says nothing about the characteristics, attributes, or nature of god(s), including whether or not they are supernatural. Being a theist does not require one accept a supernaturalistic god-concept. It is very easy to deify and worship things that aren't supernatural, and is kind of the norm once we get outside the classical monotheism box. Various LHP engage in autotheism, or deifying the self, but that doesn't mean they think they're some sort of supernatural entity. Ancestor worship was, and still is, quite prevalent, and our deceased human relatives aren't exactly supernatural beings either. Nor is the planet and its various aspects; these things are basically deified and worshiped by animists, polytheists, and pantheists. And, I'm sorry, but I just have to do this....

*cough* Aaaaanyway....

I'd also disagree that the idea of the supernatural can't be derived from sensory input or evidence. All of our thoughts and ideas are derived from our experiences: from sensory input and interpretation of that sensory input. Do not mistake this as me saying that the idea of the supernatural is the territory, could be studied by the sciences, or is some sort of matter-of-fact; I'm saying that the map is inevitably derived from experiences of the territory. Is it proactive? Sure, but probably not any more than any other mapping of the territory; no more than any other storytelling. Though as mentioned earlier, the process of that storytelling is distinct from what theisms are in of themselves.

I didn't specify religion though, and I'm not sure where you're getting this notion of faulting theism for ... something. I spoke of faith-based belief, which is required for theism

Faith-based belief is no more required for theisms than supernaturalism is. These assumptions you're bringing to the table are beginning to help me understand why your responses were so confusing to me.

Oh hey, should I do that thing with the star again?

This is also what I was getting at when I said "actually going more general makes sense". That probably wasn't a good choice of words though--it's cutting to the case--getting at the heart of the matter or antitheism. That's the fundamental problem--the enabler and justifier that allows believers to create the god to which they attach their own sentiments and imbue them with false and ultimate validation and justification from an ultimate authority that the real problems depend upon.

Okay. But what I'm suggesting is that theisms in of themselves don't do this, the systems built around them do. The layers of theology that start describing the god(s) do, and the religions built around the theologies do. Nothing about belief in or acceptance of the god(s) means you view them as an ultimate authority or some sort of validation. It just means you believe in or accept the god(s). That's it. Do certain types of theism do what you bring up here? Oh, absolutely. Theisms on the whole? Not so much.

 

[Cephus]

1) Between reality and every human there is an element of perception/interpretation. We can be completely honest with ourselves, relentlessly so, and this remains true. There are dozens of simple optical illusions that serve to prove this point, although obviously I am talking mostly on a larger scale. Our backgrounds serve to inform our views and beliefs. We change our views and beliefs (in my opinion) not by direct change, but through indirect change. If you like, you can think of this as education/learning, though it is my no means always positive (eg. learned phobias/stereotypes). No matter how completely honest and rational we are with ourselves, we won't all come to the same answer on many issues/questions/perceptions.

But it is important to realize that and to devise methods around it. There are optical illusions, but we understand how they operate and we know how to get around them through logic, reason, experimentation, etc. Even though we have to operate through the clear inaccuracies of human perception, we can still find methods, often through scientific endeavor, to eliminate those inaccuracies. We build machines to allow us to see things that we cannot normally see, hear things we cannot normally hear and make things we have issues perceiving much easier to experience. It won't ever be a perfectly precise picture but we can continue to strive for additional clarity. What is most important is that we actually work to understand our personal limitations and to compensate for our shortcomings.

2) Rationality is a measure of a complete person. There are plenty of theists I know who are very logical and very rational when looked at as an overall picture, no matter what MY external judgement might be of their theistic choice. Even assuming my viewpoint on that is accurate, it seems a leap to judge a person based on any single point of reference.

Oh no it isn't. A person can be perfectly rational in some things and entirely irrational in others. I agree that rationality is something to which we ought to all strive, most people never reach that because they are philosophically blinded in some areas of their lives. Theists can be entirely rational in a lot of things, but when it comes to their theism, they cannot be, simply because they have a belief system which cannot, pretty much by definition, be approached rationally. If you listen to them, even here on the forums, you'll hear them making claims they cannot justify, based on evidence they freely admit they don't have. Reason isn't a characteristic that can be universally applied to an individual, they have to earn it by actually being rational.

3) Assuming that all theists have an element of irrationality about them for the sake of argument, I would submit the following;
a) ALL humans have an ELEMENT of irrationality about themselves. Obviously the level of variance is massive. But the measure is both subjective, and ever present.
b) Rationality, to me, is actually well DOWN the list of measures I would use to subjectively judge someone.

Which really isn't an excuse. I've come to term this as the "stupid people are stupid" fallacy. Just because there are stupid people out there, that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and say that trying to cure stupidity is a waste of time because... stupid people are stupid. That's the whole point of education and inquiry, to try to fix stupidity and ignorance and replace them with intelligence and critical thinking skills. Personally, I think rationality is probably the #1 most important thing. If a person cannot be rational, if they cannot judge the world around them based on evidence and critically evaluate propositions, then they're largely a lost cause. Humanity has more pressing matters on its hands than trying to head off crazy people walking off cliffs because they can't figure out that it's dangerous. Otherwise, we're just putting out fires and never getting ahead of the blaze.

 

[Breathe]

Fair enough. But there is a whole spectrum of theistic belief, and there is a place (actually, a need) to question which regions of it are healthy and which are not, if for no other reason so that people have some advance warning of the likely advantages and dangers of their own varieties.

I don't disagree. We should evaluate and revaluate our beliefs as a whole and see which are helpful and harmful.

 

[Breathe]

I didn't suggest any such thing.

I didn't say you did?

Faith is an act of will, so beliefs that require faith to work are beliefs by act of will.

No, it's the opposite. Faith is not an act of will, it is a reflection of one's experiences in life: growing up often plays a part of it, but not always. I wasn't raised with any spiritual or religious beliefs at all.

It's fair to say that faith is part of the package people are raised to believe though, so to a large extent the act of will is that of others and it's kind of imposed on the subject by others over time and by circumstance (socialization).

Not really, I feel this is a huge oversimplification.

The intellectual contortions and acrobatics religious apologists manage in order to force-fit reality to the beliefs they defend is a pretty clear demonstration of the reverse. People tend to choose their beliefs and then solve the puzzle of how they can make reality (seem to) fit them.

This is an unfair generalisation and simplification and can easily be extended to people of all spiritual and religious beliefs and also those who have none.

Again, though, people don't 'choose' their beliefs. You're parroting something wrong which has been explained to you. It's not that simple.

Faith-based beliefs are the same--they're an an imposition of ideology upon reality. They're not derived from it. If they were they wouldn't require faith.

I disagree for the reasons I have given. Your view is grossly simplistic.

 

[Baladas]

If we were to survey people and ask them if they would vote for someone identifies as a Druid and Witch for president, what do you think those numbers would look like?

For what it's worth, I totally would! So long as I believed your political stances more beneficial than those of the other candidates.

What is anitheism?

I would define anti-theism as the belief or conviction that theism is detrimental to society.
Consequently, I would imagine that if someone calls themselves an anti-theist, they most likely espouse this view in all (or at least most) cases.

I would be more interested in listening to what the person in question says FIRST and declaring them to be a bigot only after I had done so.

Ultimately, this is my position. I attempt to listen to everyone in good faith, and determine whether someone is holding bigoted views on an individual basis.

I personally think that a lot of confusion arises from the formation of biases that we (as humans) tend to form based on our personal experiences.
We meet a person who is rude and hateful, and happens to hold a belief that they display prominently. We then (for better or worse) often tend to associate this experience with the view or belief itself (even if this is unjustified).
I tend to see labels as inherently restricting, though they are often necessary.
In my view, human beings are simply to dynamic to be accurately affixed with a static label (though we must try on some level, for practical reasons).

For example, I call myself a Daoist. This may create any array of assumptions in the minds of others (many are almost completely unfamiliar with Daoism here in the West) .
I also tend to identify as a Panentheist, but it could be argued that I am a Pantheist, depending on your perspective. Some might even consider me an Atheist, but I don't consider myself as such...

The example could just as well be political. I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist with Anarchist leanings. What imagery comes to mind here?

I have met anti-theists who were hateful, angry and hypocritical. I have met anti-theists who were kind, respectful and courteous.
Likewise, I have met theists, atheists, pantheists, panentheists, polytheists, auto-theists and agnostics who have been one or the other.

Even these examples are somewhat deceptive though, because none of us are always one way or the other.

We are human. We are dynamic creatures, and generalization is a risky business.

I find that it is usually best to assume good faith, regardless of the label someone has given themselves, until I am given a reason not to.

Peace

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems a poor analogy.

The analogy's fine; you just missed the point of it.

The reason I brought up smoking was to help the theists here understand that being opposed to something that people do doesn't automatically imply that you want to brainwash or exterminate the people who do it, or even that you want to force them to stop.

My hope was that some of the theists here are anti-smoking themselves, so when they realize that their anti-smoking stance doesn't imply that they hate smokers, or that they think all smokers are idiots, or that they want to make cigarettes illegal, they'll realize that they shouldn't assume these things for someone who has a similar attitude toward theists that they have to smokers.

The analogy wasn't meant to imply that all aspects of smoking have an analog in all forms of theism; it's just meant to point out that "opposition" doesn't have to mean any sort of attack or attempt to deny personal freedom to the person you're opposing.

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.

Funny you use that as your analogy.

I was allergic to corn as a kid (or maybe not... when I got retested as a teenager, the allergist though my first diagnosis may have been a false positive. Regardless, I didn't have corn for most of my childhood and teenage years). I know full well how much stuff it's in.

Even though it felt at the time like I was missing out, in retrospect, I didn't actually miss anything important because of my lack of corn, and I probably benefitted from not getting a lot of the junk that gets marketed to kids.

... but we're getting off-topic.

 

[SkepticX]

I think you're making some assumptions here about theisms that are not true of some, but not all theisms, which is probably why I was so confused there. The narratives that involve the idea of gods - which would be where the proactive secretion comes into play - is the mythology, not theism in of itself. Further, whenever we weave stories, they are grounded in human observations, which includes but is not limited to what you're describing as "passive" observations.

I'm not making presumptions about non-theistic theism, I'm not accepting it as theism because those beliefs are really just attaching supernatural labels to natural things for whatever reason (perhaps to get along in a world in which we're expected to have gods, perhaps because those who do this want to infuse more neato in their experience of the world and they don't want to study for a decade or so in order to get there by virtue of genuine understanding of the Cosmos ... dunno). I have no problem with those forms of "theism" except for the fact they muddy the waters a great deal and provide cover for those wanting to try and lump them in with actual theism, generally in order to give actual theism an out, as if there weren't a clear distinction between the two forms of the popular concept.

So I'll simply say pantheism and such are off the hook (so long as they don't slip in mystical/supernatural thinking while their audience is distracted by the appearance of pure reason). They're also, quite obviously I'd argue, not what the OP is about--i.e. they're off the hook, obviously (see the Wikipedia link), and there's no good reason to attach them to theism that's on the hook except perhaps to try and refuse any criticism of the actual offender by sleight of verbiage--innocence purely by technical association.

So if we need to we can attach supernatural/mystical to theism in order to avoid this confusion. The only form of theism you're going to actually see as an issue to antitheists is the supernatural/mystical version, not the version that's just attaching the label "god" to natural things for whatever reason.

I'd also disagree that the idea of the supernatural can't be derived from sensory input or evidence. All of our thoughts and ideas are derived from our experiences: from sensory input and interpretation of that sensory input. Do not mistake this as me saying that the idea of the supernatural is the territory, could be studied by the sciences, or is some sort of matter-of-fact; I'm saying that the map is inevitably derived from experiences of the territory. Is it proactive? Sure, but probably not any more than any other mapping of the territory; no more than any other storytelling. Though as mentioned earlier, the process of that storytelling is distinct from what theisms are in of themselves.

This also seems as if you're trying to get theism off the hook on a technicality. Unless you want to argue that the Boogey Man is every bit as evident as the beasts (including human beasts) then you're going to have to accept the distinctions that are obviously in play here. We can proactively create fictions, and they do really exist in a sense, but only ad stuff of the mind. They may be derived from our experiences, but we also clearly know the difference between fictions we create and the real world that exists independently of the mind.

Again, clearly no one is going to argue (well ... no one is going to rationally argue anyway) that fictional gods actually don't exist even as fictional gods, or that other fictional supernatural beasties don't exist as fiction. In any case Batman and Odin and the Great Gazoo aren't what antitheism is about (notably Odin isn't only by an accident of timing).

Faith-based belief is no more required for theisms than supernaturalism is. These assumptions you're bringing to the table are beginning to help me understand why your responses were so confusing to me.

I find it rather odd that you're implying you actually thought those forms of "theism" were at issue with ahtitheism. Have you ever heard any objections to what you're suggesting are non-faith-based forms of theism? Hopefully that explains the cross talking though (and hopefully we can move past it).

Okay. But what I'm suggesting is that theisms in of themselves don't do this, the systems built around them do. The layers of theology that start describing the god(s) do, and the religions built around the theologies do. Nothing about belief in or acceptance of the god(s) means you view them as an ultimate authority or some sort of validation. It just means you believe in or accept the god(s). That's it. Do certain types of theism do what you bring up here? Oh, absolutely. Theisms on the whole? Not so much.

I'm glad to see this last comment.

That's entirely fair. I would say I take purely academic issue with theism (supernatural/mystical--I'd like to call it S&M Theism, but not if it's taken for spiteful mockery rather than for simple goofy fun--I don't want that to be an obstacle) ... I would say I take purely academic issue with theism (supernatural/mystical). I'm still antitheismic (eh?) about them, but they're not issue of any real bearing on the world unless they're used to provide cover for the problem children of theism. Unfortunately they also represent a tiny minority of theists. If we could invert those demographic numbers antitheism would be on the level of those who are anti-philatelism in that they would rather flay open an artery. Unfortunately we have the numbers we have, and the issue isn't so innocuous, to put it rather mildly.

So bottom line, no ... theism that's not part of the issue for antitheism isn't what I'm talking about in this topic (and I'm pretty sure it's not intended to be, but of course Gambit would have to make that call).

 

[SkepticX]

I didn't say you did?

Was that comment a response to some other post then?

No, it's the opposite. Faith is not an act of will, it is a reflection of one's experiences in life: growing up often plays a part of it, but not always. I wasn't raised with any spiritual or religious beliefs at all.

Actually I'm glad this is the way current believers are spinning the term, but I'm talking about traditional faith--as described in Hebrews 11--traditional biblical faith. The fact that traditional biblical faith is too much of an offense to the intellect for many believers to really pull off much of it speaks well of them and for the future of religion. Redefining these things (faith and religion) is good--very good, but it doesn't help to shift to the second use of the terms when it's the first that's actually at issue.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

@Cephus I just read your post and realized i had typed 'rationality IS a measure of a complete person'. I meant IS NOT.

smh

I'm blaming the beer. I'll respond properly when time allows, but for now bed is calling.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's remember that all theism posits is a belief in or acceptance of god(s), or sacred/valued things worthy of worship. Let's not jump the gun here and make it more than what it is. Theism, in of itself, says nothing about the characteristics, attributes, or nature of god(s), including whether or not they are supernatural. Being a theist does not require one accept a supernaturalistic god-concept. It is very easy to deify and worship things that aren't supernatural, and is kind of the norm once we get outside the classical monotheism box. Various LHP engage in autotheism, or deifying the self, but that doesn't mean they think they're some sort of supernatural entity. Ancestor worship was, and still is, quite prevalent, and our deceased human relatives aren't exactly supernatural beings either. Nor is the planet and its various aspects; these things are basically deified and worshiped by animists, polytheists, and pantheists.

This is a valid criticism generally, but only to a point. I do think that Westerners - theists and atheists alike - sometimes have the tendency to treat the different flavours of Christianity as the be-all and end-all of religion, and I agree that this is incorrect. No picture of theism or religion as a whole is going to be accurate if we ignore the Dharmic religions, for instance.

... but beyond that, it's important to remember that if we're asking about the net effect of theism, the fewer adherents a particular belief has, the less relevant it is to the big picture of whether theism is good or bad overall. The impact of, say, Norse Pagans or "cargo cults" is less than the rounding error of the impact of a single large Christian denomination.

We can still answer questions about theism's overall effect on the world without examining fringe beliefs in great detail, just because the impact of those fringe beliefs is so miniscule in the grand scheme of things that they aren't going to tip the overall balance one way or the other.

 

[Quintessence]

For what it's worth, I totally would! So long as I believed your political stances more beneficial than those of the other candidates.

Be careful about that. My platform would consist of what others would perceive as "radical" environmentalism and "radical" support of the sciences, the arts, and education. That's dangerous stuff there!

The analogy wasn't meant to imply that all aspects of smoking have an analog in all forms of theism; it's just meant to point out that "opposition" doesn't have to mean any sort of attack or attempt to deny personal freedom to the person you're opposing.

My apologies, that's entirely fair. I think my misinterpretation is understandable given your analogy was to something that causes cancer and is overtly harmful to everyone. It doesn't exactly paint a nice picture. But I suppose that was the point as well, perhaps. Even so, I think it's kind of messed up to be against a highly heterogenous expression of human values and gratitude. In the end, it probably doesn't matter, because I've not once seen an "anti-theist" who is actually against all theisms, just as I've never seen an atheist who rejects/disbelieves in all god-concepts and I've never seen a theist who accepts/believes in all god-concepts either. More precise language to communicate these things is out there, but for whatever reason, many of us don't use it. I guess I can be a stickler about that sometimes.

Will probably get to other stuff in a bit, but kind of running out of things to say.... heh.

 

[Breathe]

Was that comment a response to some other post then?

I'm not sure which one you're thinking of, but if it's the one I'm thinking of, it was a general statement.

Actually I'm glad this is the way current believers are spinning the term, but I'm talking about traditional faith--as described in Hebrews 11--traditional biblical faith. The fact that traditional biblical faith is too much of an offense to the intellect for many believers to really pull off much of it speaks well of them and for the future of religion. Redefining these things (faith and religion) is good--very good, but it doesn't help to shift to the second use of the terms when it's the first that's actually at issue.

This doesn't apply, necessarily, though.

This is Hebrews, New Testament, so it only applies to those who follow the message of Paul. It has nothing to do with me, so I'm not going to defend it nor comment on it since it is not really my domain and I probably couldn't do it justice to defend it. Although this may be an interesting topic in itself, so I think it would be worth asking to see how others define it.