What is antitheism?

[Baladas]

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!



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.

Well, then you have my vote!

 

[SkepticX]

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.

Hebrews 11 is a description of faith. Today believers are redefining faith to more or less the opposite of traditional biblical faith, but the original hasn't gone away--it's just a description of human thought and behavior, not some kind of doctrine or rule that only applies to believers who subscribe to it.

If rather than accepting an unknown you choose to validate a proactively formulated belief about the cosmos by attaching the term faith to it, you're engaging in traditional biblical faith, or faith as described in Hebrews 11. Doesn't matter at all if you revere the Bible or not, or whether or not you order your life around it.

But yeah, absolutely. It's kinda important to make sure we're talking about the same thing, or at least comparable things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

But tobacco *isn't* "overtly harmful to everyone." It has plenty of benefits.

For instance, as a gearhead, I recognize that getting rid of tobacco sponsorship really hurt motorsport. I don't know if we'll ever get back to the levels we had when Winston, Marlboro, and Players were pumping huge amounts of money into racing.

The area where I am has traditionally had two main crops: tomatoes and tobacco. The local Heinz plant shut down last year. It would've hurt the area a lot less if there was more of a market for tobacco.

And plenty of people really enjoy smoking. I'm not just talking about satisfying cravings from addiction; I'm talking about how it can be nice to enjoy a good cigar.

There are plenty of positives to smoking. Some of my out-of-work neighbours would be a lot less harmed than they are now if there were tobacco jobs to be had.

Still, I'm anti-smoking. I realize it has positive aspects, but I think they're outweighed by the negative aspects.

Even so, I think it's kind of messed up to be against a highly heterogenous expression of human values and gratitude.

And I think it's a misrepresentation to say that theism is always or even generally an "expression of 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.

You don't need to be against "all theisms" to be against theism generally. To use another analogy, it's still meaningful to say "I don't like Adam Sandler movies" even if you've never seen some home movie he made when he was 10. Maybe it's the cutest, most charming thing you'll ever see... but it's a very small part of what "Adam Sandler movies" means.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

You know, I almost included something that would have addressed this at the end of my last post, because the default response to the existence of theisms that fall outside of someone's preconceptions about it is to perform erasure and pretend they don't exist or aren't "really" theistic. But I removed it for brevity and because it is really hard for me to talk about that and not get very snippy. This kind of erasure and oxymoronic nonsense like "non-theistic theism" annoy me quite a lot.

In fairness, when we judge others, we all tend to do this sort of nonsense because we force our map of the territory onto others who use entirely different maps. We deny the ways they identify themselves because it is inconvenient for our own map of the territory. I do this as much as anyone else, as one of 9_10th's posts reminded me of. It's why it's so important to have deeper lines of communication with each other. These words: theism, atheism, anti-theism, anti-atheism, god(s)... mean too many things. We've got to go deeper to get at expressing what we feel in our hearts and minds.

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.

That's generally been my observation, yes. But the theisms that are "just" using the word god(s) are not "just" doing anything. I'll offer my congratulations to the classical monotheists of antiquity and today for so successfully brainwashing our culture into a telescopic vision of what theism is. And also some very strong condemnation.

This also seems as if you're trying to get theism off the hook on a technicality.

Nope. Just trying to instill an awareness of the extreme diversity of theisms; that all theism means is belief in or acceptance of god(s). I certainly do not want to dissuade an in-depth examination of various types of theism. It's not as if I've been working on an entire series of threads about that or anything in the Theism subforum, which all started with this thread from two years ago.

I just get sick of all the oversimplification and erasure that goes on. Which, ironically, I see from both atheists and other theists. It'd be kind of fascinating if it didn't annoy me so damn much. *laughs*

Also, you mentioned you thought that non S&M theists (LOLZ that term... not sure I'd lump in mysticism with supernaturalism, though) are a minority? Do we really know that? I mean, obviously this is the case in America where classical monotheism has a stranglehold on our thinking about theisms, but historically? In other countries? I'm not convinced. Plus, given that classical monotheist religions seem to be loosing that stranglehold on my country, I think that these "alternative" theisms are more common than people realize.

 

[SkepticX]

Sorry my non-theistic theists comment was offensive. It was meant to be a pointed comment, but not to offend.

In fairness, when we judge others, we all tend to do this sort of nonsense because we force our map of the territory onto others who use entirely different maps. We deny the ways they identify themselves because it is inconvenient for our own map of the territory. I do this as much as anyone else, as one of 9_10th's posts reminded me of. It's why it's so important to have deeper lines of communication with each other. These words: theism, atheism, anti-theism, anti-atheism, god(s)... mean too many things. We've got to go deeper to get at expressing what we feel in our hearts and minds.

I'd argue it's far simpler ... I don't think the term theism applies to those who don't believe gods exist or to concepts that aren't about gods, and I don't think non-theistic "gods" fit a useful definition of what gods are. They just confuse an already deeply confused issue. On the other hand I'm fine with making the distinction somehow, because these aren't major issues for me and these people and concepts aren't really at issue here as far as I'm concerned. These are not the droids I'm looking for. As far as the discussion is concerned at least, that's all there really is to it.

That's generally been my observation, yes. But the theisms that are "just" using the word god(s) are not "just" doing anything. I'll offer my congratulations to the classical monotheists of antiquity and today for so successfully brainwashing our culture into a telescopic vision of what theism is. And also some very strong condemnation.

What's the theo part about if not gods though?

The thing is, it's not like I have any personal problem with these concepts, and certainly not with these people. I just don't think it works to call natural things gods for whatever reason.

Nope. Just trying to instill an awareness of the extreme diversity of theisms; that all theism means is belief in or acceptance of god(s).

I certainly do

not want to dissuade an in-depth examination of various types of theism. It's not as if I've been working on an entire series of threads about that or anything in the Theism subforum, which all started with this thread from two years ago.

Sorry ... can't get the editor to cooperate on that formatting.

Looks interesting. Just scanning the OP, I'd like to point out I'm not thinking exclusively monotheism at all. In fact I'd narrow the focus of the issue to me personally as the heavy investment in presumption, particularly to the point that it effects others negatively or forms the basis or significantly enables or elevates the harsh judgment of others based upon presumption. As I said before, theism is a result of the real problem rather than a cause (or maybe that was another forum).

Also, you mentioned you thought that non S&M theists (LOLZ that term... not sure I'd lump in mysticism with supernaturalism, though) are a minority? Do we really know that? I mean, obviously this is the case in America where classical monotheism has a stranglehold on our thinking about theisms, but historically? In other countries? I'm not convinced. Plus, given that classical monotheist religions seem to be loosing that stranglehold on my country, I think that these "alternative" theisms are more common than people realize.

Yeah, that's a fair criticism. I'm skeptical of the idea that these other forms of theism are very common though, but in any case I'd only lump them together, here, in terms of the same fundamental error--proactive perception presumed to reflect actual external reality (and I'm not sure I'd have much of an issue with that when it's not dogmatic).

Here's a video I really like to use because it does a great job of explaining where I'm coming from on these kinds of issues.

 

[SkepticX]

I think a chunk of that last post mighta got et.