Why I Am Not an Anti-Theist

[Bunyip]

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.

Well that is a definition I have not seen before. Dictionaries of theological terms tend to define theism as a belief in a personal or interventionist god. Not all conceptions of God are theistic. Those people who limit their definition of theism to revealed religions with creator gods would be reflecting a broadly understood definition.

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)

Most of that was some strange, misguided generalised attack on anti-theists, not an argument.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

If you think religion is a well-defined, widely-agreed upon word... you are just wrong.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are mistaken, consult your dictionary.

Did you mean to be funny?

 

[Bunyip]

If you think religion is a well-defined, widely-agreed upon word... you are just wrong.

Not at all. That there are some exceptions to a definition does not invalidate it. Don't know what made you think otherwise.

A common usage does not need to be universally accepted to remain a common usage. It does not need to apply to all contexts, it is just a commonly understood usage.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are kidding. See you some other time, then.

 

[Bunyip]

Did you mean to be funny?

No, I meant to encourage you to look up the definitions of religion found in dictionaries and theological glossaries. As I said, worshipping a higher authority and dogma are two defining characteristics of religion. That there may be some philosophies others may define as religions that do not posit a higher power or have dogma does not change that. I am surprised you thought it did.

 

[Bunyip]

You are kidding. See you some other time, then.

Nope, are you?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Apologies on answer, I'm on my smartphone, which commonly leads to errors. See how we go.

Put me in the camp that suggests atheism isn't a belief. Then again, I have wrestled with simply describing myself as an agnostic, so if your point is more technical (ie. An atheists believes a God less likely than likely) then sure, I guess I can see your point. I don't find that unique, though.

Atheists though? They all hold beliefs. They can certainly hold dogmatic beliefs. So i kinda agree with your thrust if not quite your point?

Happy to extrapolate further if of interest, once i have a proper keyboard at my disposal.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

I can't help but wondering if you're being deliberately and needlessly difficult, considering I did provide specific examples. Imagine what you'd like. I should have known better than to respond in the first place.

 

[Bunyip]

I can't help but wondering if you're being deliberately and needlessly difficult, considering I did provide specific examples. Imagine what you'd like. I should have known better than to respond in the first place.

No, and I apologise if you have taken it that way. If you did provide a specific example, I clearly missed it and apologise further - could you identify the post please?

I am being sincere, 'religion' is an identifier generally applied to faiths that believe in higher power and have a system of practice/dogma. Those are as I said characteristics of religions. That there may be exceptions is irrelevant unless you are speaking on behalf of one, are you?
That the definition of any word may have exceptions does not invalidate the definition. Why would it?

This thread is about anti-theism which is by far most commonly understood to be a reaction to Islam and Christianity in practice - if you are thinking of some other form of faith/religion why not specify rather than what strikes me as a rather extraordinary reaction to my applying a common usage?

If two people are discussing anti-theism and one says;
"Well a lot of anti-theists reject the notion of a higher power (which is true), and also reject the value of revealed dogma (which is also true)."

Then you respond by saying;"Ah hah! But, by my definition pantheism is a form of theism and pantheists don't believe in a higher authority or have dogma!"

You would be either utterly missing a significant point, or deliberately obfuscating.

 

[Augustus]

Most of that was some strange, misguided generalised attack on anti-theists, not an argument.

Might want to check the dictionary definition of argument while your at it

Out of interest, would you say it was misguided? What points would you say were inaccurate?

 

[Bunyip]

Might want to check the dictionary definition of argument while your at it

Out of interest, would you say it was misguided? What points would you say were inaccurate?

I did identify them. It was more of a general ad-hominem attack on atheists than an argument per se. I looked up 'logical argument' and such ad homs' are considered fallacious.

 

[Augustus]

I did identify them. It was more of a general ad-hominem attack on atheists than an argument per se. I looked up 'logical argument' and such ad homs' are considered fallacious.

possibly look up ad hominem too then

Main crux was anti theists generally consider themselves uber rational yet base their arguments on the dodgy premises that I previously mentioned. Anti theism relies on faith not solid evidence.

Any comments on this and why you consider the specific points to be incorrect?

 

[Kirran]

Non-dogmatic theisms include Gardnerian Wicca, depending on your definitions Daoism, Shiva Advaita, some types of Buddhism, Saiva Siddhanta, most types of Hinduism for that matter etc.

 

[Bunyip]

Non-dogmatic theisms include Gardnerian Wicca, depending on your definitions Daoism, Shiva Advaita, some types of Buddhism, Saiva Siddhanta, most types of Hinduism for that matter etc.

Sure, but how often are debates about atheism/theism referring to Gardnerian Wicca, Buddism or Hinduism?
Wouldn't it just be easier to say that this is the conception of god you wish to discuss, rather than try to stretch the definition of anti-theism?

 

[Kirran]

Sure, but how often are debates about atheism/theism referring to Gardnerian Wicca, Buddism or Hinduism?
Wouldn't it just be easier to say that this is the conception of god you wish to discuss, rather than try to stretch the definition of anti-theism?

You're right, in Western discourse theism generally refers to Abrahamic theism.

I was just providing some examples on non-dogmatic theism, as you'd been asking for.

 

[Bunyip]

You're right, in Western discourse theism generally refers to Abrahamic theism.

I was just providing some examples on non-dogmatic theism, as you'd been asking for.

Thankyou.
To be honest, you are stretching the meaning of 'theism' rather outrageously. Wicca, Dao, Buddism are not theistic. Theism refers to the belief in personal, interventionist Gods.
I do understand that if we really really stretch our definitions there would be theists who do not believe in a theistic god, but to what end?

I guess I am wondering how the idea that wicca could be seen as theistic is relevant to anti-theism? Or that many atheists reject dogma? That not all theisms are dogmatic would seem rather a pointless obfuscation wouldn't it?

 

[Kirran]

Thankyou.
To be honest, you are stretching the meaning of 'theism' rather outrageously. Wicca, Dao, Buddism are not theistic. Theism refers to the belief in personal, interventionist Gods.
I do understand that if we really really stretch our definitions there would be theists who do not believe in a theistic god, but to what end?

I guess I am wondering how the idea that wicca could be seen as theistic is relevant to anti-theism? Or that many atheists reject dogma? That not all theisms are dogmatic would seem rather a pointless obfuscation wouldn't it?

Does theism necessarily refer to gods who are personal and interventionist? I don't think this makes sense, as this would make a lot of people who believe in God in other fashions into atheists. Which is not what they are.

 

[Bunyip]

Does theism necessarily refer to gods who are personal and interventionist?

Not necessarily, but generally yes. There are always people who define words a little differently. But yes 'theism' refers to personal interventionist gods. Dao (for example) is not theist.

don't think this makes sense, as this would make a lot of people who believe in God in other fashions into atheists. Which is not what they are.

Well unless the god in question is theistic - then yes, of course they are atheist.
Dao and buddism (being two of your examples) are often classified as atheist philosophies. Only a small subset of Buddists see Budda as a God. And there is no god in Dao either.

 

[Kirran]

Not necessarily, but generally yes. There are always people who define words a little differently. But yes 'theism' refers to personal interventionist gods. Dao (for example) is not theist. Well unless the god in question is theistic - then yes, of course they are atheist.
Dao and buddism (being two of your examples) are often classified as atheist philosophies. Only a small subset of Buddists see Budda as a God. And there is no god in Dao either.

So you're saying that somebody who believes in God, but believes that God is fundamentally impersonal or transpersonal is atheist?