Why I Am Not an Anti-Theist

[LuisDantas]

Well I sure don't hate it.

What do you understand by "religion" exactly?

My question was about the reason why you consider yourself anti-theism but not anti-theism. Or maybe you don't? It is entirely possible that I misunderstood you.

 

[Bunyip]

What do you understand by "religion" exactly?

I just go by the dictionary definition.

My question was about the reason why you consider yourself anti-theism but not anti-theism. Or maybe you don't? It is entirely possible that I misunderstood you.

I am neither.

 

[LuisDantas]

That, unfortunately, works against you to the best of my understanding, Bunyip.

The lack of specificity makes those who ought to listen to your criticisms oblivious, among other troubles.

 

[Bunyip]

That, unfortunately, works against you to the best of my understanding, Bunyip.

The lack of specificity makes those who ought to listen to your criticisms oblivious, among other troubles.

Not sure what you mean. Definitions of religion tend to specify a belief in a higher authority and a system of practice/dogma.
I was challenging the claim that some religions do not have a higher authority or dogma by simply pointing out that those are qualities that define religion.

 

[Laika]

What is "theism"? Is that anything that isn't atheism? Seems to me that both of them, the theism and the atheism, are conditions of a philosophical nature which have no real absolute meanings yet are presented as a binary. Such a study of religion(s) may be counterintuitive, that people know by experiences.

For example, I see these words "new atheist", "militant atheist", "anti-theist", and appears to be some manner of differentiation. Are there sects or denominations of non-belief? Secularism, humanism, universalism?

Yes, there are considerable differences between atheists and a great deal depends on the philosophical premises which helped them arrive at atheism.

Are there any atheists who are directly positive about who and what they are, or do all atheists define themselves by having their sense identities constructed by some remote or apostate form of other religions? Would it be fair to say that many are simply anti-Christian, for example? That being the case, is it still not the Christians with the power to define them from afar off?

Yes, there are atheists who positively define themselves rather than simply being in opposition to, and showing scepticism for religious belief. (Marxist) Communists are an obvious example, yet precisely for asserting atheism as a 'positive' system of beliefs, many atheists will criticise communists as being 'religious', 'dogmatic' etc and say "there not 'real' atheists" because they go beyond the realm of scepticism.
Most atheists today accept atheism as a personal belief and as scepticism of plausability religious cliams and continue to support secularism rather than think of atheism as a scientific fact with a moral imperative to shape society on the basis of atheism- possibility to the extent of compelling believers to give up their religious beliefs as false or illusionary.

That would explain a lot why there seems to be so many atheists, or anti-theists, hellbent on annoying the rest of us, I suppose. Attempting to do society a favor by mocking us and insulting us over the wires, as if somehow we are owners and operators of their world, but are they really truly oppressed? No. As far as I know it's been a long, long time since we've bound any to the iron maiden or given them to the rack, if we ever truly did, they just can't handle criticism very well when we're as skeptical of their beliefs as they are of ours. At least, that is from the perspective of this Christian, I don't necessarily speak for all Christians.

It depends how you define oppression, but yes, atheists are oppressed.
Apostasy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US does continue to have anti-atheist laws on the statue books going back to the 19th century, preventing atheists from being on jurys or standing for an election- but these are deemed unconstitutional by the US supreme court and a violation of first amendment rights. They remain on the statue book in spite of this.

Given that christians tend to assert that god must be the basis for governing morality on earth and indoctorinating children to comply with that morality for fear of eternal judgement, for example as part of the "culture war" in the United States- atheists do have to wage a struggle against religion to preserve a secular system of government from theocratic tendencies in Christianity, Islam, etc

 

[Augustus]

Not sure what you mean. Definitions of religion tend to specify a belief in a higher authority and a system of practice/dogma.
I was challenging the claim that some religions do not have a higher authority or dogma by simply pointing out that those are qualities that define religion.

'Religion' is not a neutral word describing supernatural belief systems, it is a word that grew out of the Christian tradition and society. Utilising it is problematic when discussing non-Christian belief systems as it assumes certain similarities that may not be recognised by followers of other belief systems.

 

[Bunyip]

'Religion' is not a neutral word describing supernatural belief systems, it is a word that grew out of the Christian tradition and society. Utilising it is problematic when discussing non-Christian belief systems

Sure, but I guess then all of the terms here need to be defined. What then does anti-theism mean?

 

[illykitty]

One question, @Debater Slayer , if you don't mind, are you mostly opposed to organised religion? Because there are many things I would consider religion that aren't really organised and they're more personal/subjective rather than trying to claim objective truth and assimilate everyone. I don't want to put words in your mouth and assume certain things.

I understand feeling opposed to religions that have rigid set in stone hierarchy and rules. Not to say that people can't behave or believe differently, some follow religion to the letter and others take a more subjective approach... But if just looking at the religion, I understand where you're coming from. I feel some laws, ethics and rules in those to be disturbing.

 

[Augustus]

Sure, but I guess then all of the terms here need to be defined. What then does anti-theism mean?

If you take theism at its broadest sense, theism means belief in 1 or more Gods. Some people might limit their definition of anti-theist to revealed religions with eternal creator Gods though.

Anti-theism therefore means hostility towards the belief in Gods. I personally find it a bit of a silly belief, and one that is far less rational than most of its adherents believe it to be.

To rationally be against something requires evidence that it is harmful. To be against theism requires evidence that all types of theistic belief systems are harmful, this is an almost impossible task without relying on huge 'leaps of faith'. Most anti-theists therefore rest their claims on these basic arguments instead:

1) Gods don't exist therefore all of these stories about them are lies. Believing things that are objectively false is stupid and irrational and delusional people harm our society. Unicorns, pixies, flying spaghetti monsters etc.

2) Theistic beliefs cause obvious harm such as wars, stoning of gays and bigotry. Any benefits are far outweighed by harms. This is self-evident and requires almost no proof save quoting the odd verse and saying '30 years war' or 'al-Qaeda'.

3) If there were no Gods we would all be wonderful happy rational people with secular humanist values (or at least closer to this goal).

Anti-theism generally requires absolutely no knowledge of theism, and most anti-theists, including the famous ones, will happily admit to having almost no knowledge of theistic belief systems (I stopped reading fairy tails when I was a kid...) and instead base their views on a stereotype of what they think theism is and a superficial, literalist reading of sacred texts (ironically akin to that of the fundies who they despise). it is one of the few subject areas that people actually boast about being ignorant of and see it as not being any kind of impediment to discussing the topic as an expert.

Anti-theism is a faith based position anyway, just as theism is. It is based on assumptions that are, arguably, less rational than many theistic belief systems (humanity is essentially 'good' and evil acts are a distortion of man's true nature, society is 'progressing' towards a more advanced and moral state, humans are made in my image thus are rational and want to be more rational and humanistic, 'rational' non-Religious beliefs couldn't be worse than what we have now, etc)

 

[Quintessence]

THEISMS were the context. An example of a theistic religion please. A specific one.

Several of the things on that list were theistic religions. Paganisms are theistic. Christianity is theistic. Unitarian Universalism is often (but not always) theistic. Several (but not all) Eastern religions are theistic. Many NRMs, including some LHPs, are theistic.

 

[Windwalker]

Most atheists today accept atheism as a personal belief and as scepticism of plausability religious cliams and continue to support secularism rather than think of atheism as a scientific fact with a moral imperative to shape society on the basis of atheism- possibility to the extent of compelling believers to give up their religious beliefs as false or illusionary.

Would that this were true that it was in fact recognized as a personal belief. Anytime I've suggested that atheism is a belief it is met with everything but an acknowledgement of this, saying it's simply a lack of belief in God, etc. I don't think it's an offense to recognize that atheism is a belief. I think it's helpful towards understanding the importance of multiple perspectives. And within that belief, you have just as much a spectrum of dogmatic to non-dogmatic approaches as you do in religion proper. It really is individuals and how they think, and the the voices they are attracted to that reflect that thinking.

High level overview here, but fundamentalism does not create black and white thinking. Black and white thinking both seeks out and creates fundamentalism. So atheism is not exempt from this, and it can in fact become equally as dogmatic and authority driven where you hear retorts of "Where's your evidence!", on the atheist side as you hear, "Chapter and verse please!", on the religious side. It's simply two sides of the same coin. And likewise, you can have rational theists and rational atheists, progressive theists and progressive atheists, mystical theists and mystical atheists. It's not the beliefs themselves that are the dividing line, but HOW they are believed that is. Yet people assume it's about the beliefs, on either side of that street.

What someone should be is not anti-religion, or anti-theism, or anti-atheism, but anti-dogmatic thinking. They should instead unite in seeking to move people beyond "dogmatic thinking", be that theist or atheist, religious or secular, into a much more unitive consciousness. Now that would be refreshing!

 

[Quintessence]

It makes more sense to consider how much of an impact those categories make than just whether they exist in practice, IMO.

Possibly. I'm not sure how one would measure "impact" objectively, though, and given the complexity of what we're dealing with, I'm skeptical that it is possible to do so at all in a fashion that allows us to do anything other than make mere correlations of things. But I take it that it isn't so much that you deny the existence of non-dogmatic theisms or religions, but that you don't regard them as significant?

To clarify, non-dogmatic irreligion and dogmatic irreligion simply means something that isn't religion, but is either dogmatic or non-dogmatic respectively. Simple examples include dogmatic (or non-dogmatic) thinking about things like economics, politics, relationships, etc.

 

[Marisa]

I think too often people confuse being able and unafraid to say why a particular theism or theistic concept doesn't compel *you* for being anti-theistic in general. I tend not to give a flying fart in space who wants to believe what right up until they use that belief to dehumanize or otherwise marginalize others. Then I critique that belief.

 

[icehorse]

To the OP:

In theory, theism ought to be behavior-neutral. In practice, it seems overwhelmingly to lead to religion. While definitions vary, to me a useful definition of "religion" is when middle-men (clergy), assume authority in handling important spiritual and moral questions.

I guess I ought to change my tagline to "anti-religious" instead of "anti-theism", but it doesn't seem quite right (not sure why)...

 

[LuisDantas]

Not sure what you mean. Definitions of religion tend to specify a belief in a higher authority and a system of practice/dogma.

"Tend to" as in politics tends to lead to corruption, on that much I would agree.

You are treating the disease as if it were the point.

I was challenging the claim that some religions do not have a higher authority or dogma by simply pointing out that those are qualities that define religion.

Which is simply not at all the truth.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure, but I guess then all of the terms here need to be defined. What then does anti-theism mean?

Anti-theism seems a fairly clear concept to me, but I must admit that it is far too often mistaken (intentionally or otherwise) for something quite unlike it.

It is simple disapproval of the use of and belief in concepts of deities.

 

[LuisDantas]

Possibly. I'm not sure how one would measure "impact" objectively, though, and given the complexity of what we're dealing with, I'm skeptical that it is possible to do so at all in a fashion that allows us to do anything other than make mere correlations of things. But I take it that it isn't so much that you deny the existence of non-dogmatic theisms or religions, but that you don't regard them as significant?

Quite on the contrary actually. I think those are the cream of the crop, the example that the others must follow. Or to be blunt, the healthy variety of both.

To clarify, non-dogmatic irreligion and dogmatic irreligion simply means something that isn't religion, but is either dogmatic or non-dogmatic respectively. Simple examples include dogmatic (or non-dogmatic) thinking about things like economics, politics, relationships, etc.

As in the cult of the offensive that so influenced WW1, or supply-side economics? I get what you mean.

I will however point out that generally it is easier to deal with dogma when it is not protected by religious belief - particularly when it is not literally presented as the word and will of god.

Theism is a dangerous aggravant and enabler of dogma, IMO. Enough so to make anti-theism simple common sense.

 

[Bunyip]

Anti-theism seems a fairly clear concept to me, but I must admit that it is far too often mistaken (intentionally or otherwise) for something quite unlike it.

It is simple disapproval of the use of and belief in concepts of deities.

Well I would have thought the meaning of religion was equally simple and common. Sadly I think that reducing any discussion to pointless semantics is all too common here. It is common alternative to meaningful discourse.

 

[Bunyip]

"Tend to" as in politics tends to lead to corruption, on that much I would agree.

You are treating the disease as if it were the point.



Which is simply not at all the truth.

You are mistaken, consult your dictionary.

 

[Bunyip]

Several of the things on that list were theistic religions. Paganisms are theistic. Christianity is theistic. Unitarian Universalism is often (but not always) theistic. Several (but not all) Eastern religions are theistic. Many NRMs, including some LHPs, are theistic.

Well I asked for just one specific example, clearly you are not going to give one.Paganisms by the way are not necessarily theistic, you are mistaken. Given that you have not identified any of the 'Eastern religions', NRMs or LHP's you refer to I imagine you would have given an example if you had one.