Atheist Or Anti-theist?

[chad]

Over the past couple weeks, I've become a huge Christopher Hitchens fan. He wrote a book entitled "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything", and the tone of the book is very similar to that of Dawkins and Harris. He is a major figure in what some have called the movement of "New Atheism": an expression of atheism that has come out of the closet and is in your face.

 

I've become such a big fan lately because of his impressive debating skills. He has demolished every opponent in my opinion, and I've watched nearly all of his debates on youtube. His ability to articulate atheist arguments and pick apart apologetical nonsense is better than any of his contemporaries. The aspect of Hitchens' debating style that distinguishes him from other decent debators is his knack for making the opponents' argument seem plain stupid while maintaining a poker face (I'm sure the impression of intellectual superiority that only a strong British accent and crisp pronunciation can convey has something to do with it).

 

At the beginning of many debates, he emphasizes the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist. An atheist, according to him, is one that simply can't bring himself to believe in God (particularly the traditional forms of monotheism) due to what he perceives to be a terrible lack of evidence. Yet, at the same time, he wishes he could believe it; that is, he wishes Chritianity (not necessarily in its fundamentalist form only) were true for various reasons (e.g., eternal life, ultimate justice, a transcendent sense of meaning, etc. . .). Similar to the atheist, the anti-theist is also one that can't bring himself to believe in God due to a lack of evidence. Unlike the atheist, however, the anti-theist is overjoyed and celebrates his conviction that theism is not true or that God does not exist for various reasons (e.g., a total lack of personal privacy due to constant thought policing, the feeling that you are on an ethical/moral stage every moment of your life, the reality that most people -- including those that you love -- are headed for eternal damnation, etc. . . ).

 

All that being said, I'm curious as to how ex-christians turned atheist would classify themselves: either atheist or anti-theist?

 

Note: No doubt that some will be tempted to challenge the very definition of or distinction between atheist and anti-theist on philosophical grounds, and thereby fail to answer the question. For the sake of argument, though, I would ask you to grant the distinction and stick to the question.

[Jun]

Interesting indeed. I quite liked Hitchens book "God is not great."

 

As to anti-theist and atheist, from Wiki -

 

An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. Furthermore, an antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.

 

The concept allows a useful distinction to be made between the simple rejection of theism, atheism, and a position of antipathy or opposition towards such beliefs.

 

Atheism

Antitheism may be adopted as a label by those who take the view that theism is destructive. One example of this view is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which Christopher Hitchens writes:

 

"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."

 

However, Hitchens's use of the word seems to be as a general anti-religious belief rather than exclusively as opposition to belief in deities. There is some support for this use, but it may be regarded as a misuse of the terminology by others, most of whom hold that antitheism is a subdivision within, or even a synonym of, atheism. For example, Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1996) defines antitheist simply as a "disbeliever in the existence of God".

 

In answering the question - I don't know. If an atheist, as according to Hitchens, is one that simply can't bring himself to believe in God due to what he perceives to be a terrible lack of evidence, then I'm an anti-theist.

 

But does it matter? What's in a name?

[chad]

Jun,

 

Because I asked the question, yes, it matters to me. And it obviously matters to Hitchens; otherwise, he wouldn't make a point to draw a distinction between the two names or labels. Also, insofar as others agree with Hitchen's distinction between the name atheist and anti-theist, it may also matter to them.

 

You mentioned that you were an anti-theist, so I'm assuming that means you don't want religion or the existence of God to be true as I highlighted above, correct? Recall that atheists, although they can't bring themselves to believe in God, wish that they could, whereas anti-theists don't wish that God's existance is true. On the contrary, they are actually quite happy that religion and the assertion of God's existance is bogus.

 

In my original post, I forgot to add the second part of the question: If you tend to identify yourself as an atheist rather than anti-theist, what aspects of religion or the notion of God's existence make you wish that it was true? Would you live your life any differently if it were true?

[Jun]

Jun,

 

Because I asked the question, yes, it matters to me. And it obviously matters to Hitchens; otherwise, he wouldn't make a point to draw a distinction between the two names or labels. Also, insofar as others agree with Hitchen's distinction between the name atheist and anti-theist, it may also matter to them.

 

You mentioned that you were an anti-theist, so I'm assuming that means you don't want religion or the existence of God to be true as I highlighted above, correct? Recall that atheists, although they can't bring themselves to believe in God, wish that they could, whereas anti-theists don't wish that God's existance is true. On the contrary, they are actually quite happy that religion and the assertion of God's existance is bogus.

 

In my original post, I forgot to add the second part of the question: If you tend to identify yourself as an atheist rather than anti-theist, what aspects of religion or the notion of God's existence make you wish that it was true? Would you live your life any differently if it were true?

 

chad,

 

Why would it matter what others label you as?

 

Don't want religion to be true? My wants have nothing to do with it. What I want has no bearing on the falsity of religion.

 

Atheists don't wish that they could bring themselves to believe in "God." What nonsense. I've not come across an atheist who would wish that religion or "God" were true.

 

Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism.

 

Anti-theism is active opposition to theism.

 

Am I active in my opposition to theism? Yes. Does my view reject theism and affirm the nonexistence of gods? Yes. Am I an atheist or an anti-theist? I don't know, does it matter? Not to me. There are no gods or supernatural powers controlling life on this rock or creating life on this rock.

 

According to Hitchens, an Atheist is one that simply can't bring himself to believe in God due to what he perceives to be a terrible lack of evidence. I thought that described an agnostic? So I chose to say anti-theist.

 

Peace

Jun the anti-theist, atheist, Buddhist, mammal of the human race.

[Mankey]

I could care less if people simply believe in God without all the bullshit that religion/idiots tack on to it.

 

I am against the belief in a heaven. Belief in one cheapens this life. Not only that but all the time and resources waisted on religion could be put to better use. Science is one example of many. I hold that science suffers neglect due mostly to theism. The concept of heaven is used to fallaciously manipulate people.

 

I am against the belief in a hell. It is psychologically damaging to think that your loved ones might be sent there. The concept of hell is used to fallaciously manipulate people.

 

I am against religions belief in a mythological creation story. I am against any claims that are irrational and can't be backed by evidences.....I am especially against faith. Science and other disciplines suffer because of this bullshit.

 

I am a kind of antitheist I suppose and if not I have nothing at all against antitheists. It is because not only do I not care if people simply believe in a God, but I do not care if some one showed another that such a belief is bullshit.

 

At the same time I am not against "tolerant" atheists trying what they consider to be mitigating the harm that comes from these counter productive concepts. I am open minded to what they have to say.

 

As far as what I wish were true in regards religious claims....I could not give a rats ass about a magical afterlife or a transcendent sense of meaning. I think it would be more interesting for humanity to achieve immortality and a few other things that religion promises on our own.

[pandora]

I would consider myself anti-theist when it comes to Christianity and atheist when it comes to wishing there were a higher order with consciousness of some sort. But like others, I'd always imagined the anti-theist label was something for those outspoken about their anti-ism, which I am not. I generally live and let live.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

I would consider myself anti-theist when it comes to Christianity and atheist when it comes to wishing there were a higher order with consciousness of some sort. But like others, I'd always imagined the anti-theist label was something for those outspoken about their anti-ism, which I am not. I generally live and let live.

Everyone is welcome to their own definitions of "atheist" - that's not something I get too caught up in.

 

My definition of an atheist is someone who doesn't think there is sufficient evidence to believe that gods exist. I don't include any type of desire for or against the existence of gods in my definition.

 

My definition of an anti-theist is someone who is an activist against theistic beliefs and behaviors.

 

As for me, I'm an atheist when it comes to a person's private beliefs. I don't believe in gods myself but I'm ok if others decide they want to believe in the existence of one or more gods. However, I'm an anti-theist when theists attempt to force others to adhere to the theist's beliefs. That's where I draw the line and become an anti-theist activist.

[Dave]

I, personally, do not use the anti-theist label since that term is basically a strawman argument used by theists to dismiss non believers.

 

I am an Atheist in the truest, and most basic, sense of the word - someone that lacks a belief in gods. I am not against religions but I am against ignorance and blind fundamentalist type believing.

[Ouroboros]

I second Dave,

 

I'm a passive-atheist, and not an active-reactive-anti-theist, because I truly believe that religion is so deeply rooted in most people's mind that you can't just pluck it out, but you have to cultivate them into non-belief. Not everyone is capable of understanding a world without a god, and we can see from the strongly secular France the example of Raelians, a new religion spawns in the midst of agnosticism and atheism. Somehow humanity is doomed to believe things. So the real answer might not be to remove religion, but to replace it.

[Mankey]

I second Dave,

 

I'm a passive-atheist, and not an active-reactive-anti-theist, because I truly believe that religion is so deeply rooted in most people's mind that you can't just pluck it out, but you have to cultivate them into non-belief. Not everyone is capable of understanding a world without a god, and we can see from the strongly secular France the example of Raelians, a new religion spawns in the midst of agnosticism and atheism. Somehow humanity is doomed to believe things. So the real answer might not be to remove religion, but to replace it.

The Raelians are for science on one hand but on the other hand they encourage pseudo-science. Asshats.

 

I see your points about people always running to some kind of religious bullshit. My girlfriend is a new ager that believes in psychic healing and shit......

 

I am in hell. This shit really irritates the hell out of me.

[Ouroboros]

The Raelians are for science on one hand but on the other hand they encourage pseudo-science. Asshats.

 

I see your points about people always running to some kind of religious bullshit. My girlfriend is a new ager that believes in psychic healing and shit......

 

I am in hell. This shit really irritates the hell out of me.

And now there's this new thing "The Secret". I only started watching it, but could continue because it sounded so new-agey and "if you just believe then all good will happen to you" kind of message. They even send it on TV now!

[Mankey]

The Raelians are for science on one hand but on the other hand they encourage pseudo-science. Asshats.

 

I see your points about people always running to some kind of religious bullshit. My girlfriend is a new ager that believes in psychic healing and shit......

 

I am in hell. This shit really irritates the hell out of me.

And now there's this new thing "The Secret". I only started watching it, but could continue because it sounded so new-agey and "if you just believe then all good will happen to you" kind of message. They even send it on TV now!

Yea. New agers go from one bullshit fad to another. What am I supposed to do? Humor people? People say I am a dick, but I really try not get angry at that stuff, but it is hard for me.

[Vigile]

Haven't read or heard Hitchen's before. I just watched him on YouTube though and to be honest, he left a bad taste in my mouth. His arguments on Iraq seem as ridiculous as anything I've ever heard spewed from a neo con. Good debating skills don't impress me. Truth impresses me. Good debating skills sometimes has a tendency of repressing truth.

 

Anyone who uses strawmen the way this guy did with Reagan Jr come accross to me as disingenuous. Hitchen's doesn't have my respect just because he's a fellow atheist. He needs to earn that and from my first exposure to him, he is behind the 8-ball on the respect earning game. Not that he gives a shit.

[Antlerman]

An atheist, according to him, is one that simply can't bring himself to believe in God (particularly the traditional forms of monotheism) due to what he perceives to be a terrible lack of evidence. Yet, at the same time, he wishes he could believe it; that is, he wishes Chritianity (not necessarily in its fundamentalist form only) were true for various reasons (e.g., eternal life, ultimate justice, a transcendent sense of meaning, etc. . .). Similar to the atheist, the anti-theist is also one that can't bring himself to believe in God due to a lack of evidence. Unlike the atheist, however, the anti-theist is overjoyed and celebrates his conviction that theism is not true or that God does not exist for various reasons (e.g., a total lack of personal privacy due to constant thought policing, the feeling that you are on an ethical/moral stage every moment of your life, the reality that most people -- including those that you love -- are headed for eternal damnation, etc. . . ).

 

All that being said, I'm curious as to how ex-christians turned atheist would classify themselves: either atheist or anti-theist?

 

Note: No doubt that some will be tempted to challenge the very definition of or distinction between atheist and anti-theist on philosophical grounds, and thereby fail to answer the question. For the sake of argument, though, I would ask you to grant the distinction and stick to the question.

Then I can't answer the question. It's like asking a , "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" sort of question.

 

I don't accept the definition that an atheist is someone who wishes he could believe Christianity were true. Nor do I accept his definition of an anti-theist. So it's not possible to answer which one of these I am as defined. Neither. Both. Depends.

 

I'm a satisfied atheist who does not wish that religion was true, and also celebrates being free from it in my life. At the same time, I am not anti-religion and wishes it to wiped from the face of the earth and think my way of thinking is the best for everyone. People who talk like this are doing the same thing as the religious who see the world through the lense of True (with a captial T) and False (with a captial F). Black and white thinkers are not thinkers in my opinion.

[Antlerman]

I second Dave,

 

I'm a passive-atheist, and not an active-reactive-anti-theist, because I truly believe that religion is so deeply rooted in most people's mind that you can't just pluck it out, but you have to cultivate them into non-belief. Not everyone is capable of understanding a world without a god, and we can see from the strongly secular France the example of Raelians, a new religion spawns in the midst of agnosticism and atheism. Somehow humanity is doomed to believe things. So the real answer might not be to remove religion, but to replace it.

Here we go. I'm going to state first that people like Dawkins and this guy are taking such a ridiculously over-simplified view of humanity that it really for all practical purposes is just as out of touch with reality as the religion they want to replace with their own secular ideas.

 

Let me explain. I had this realization lately that because humans are humans and do the sorts of things you describe above, no matter what the new ideology is, no matter what the new religion is it will go through a predictable transformation. It starts out as a fringe idea that challenges the mainstream beliefs. It then gains popularity and is adopted by the mainstream, however... it adopts the forms and practices and without really understand the ethical substance of it because it wasn’t a personal evolution for them. Next this popularized movement becomes exploited by politicians and eventually institutionalized as the new order when it’s wide-spread enough. Now it becomes dogma and rules and bears little resemblance to the spirit of the original idea. The Atheist label at that point would have an entirely new meaning, just a Christian does today. You know they considered early Christians atheists? I’m pretty certain why.

 

What would happen if I started a new religion? There would be a core group of those who identified with it, and if it got big enough then the mainstream would join because it was popular, then it would become dogma and look nothing reflective of what I believe in originally. The point is that you can't expect your ideas to become adopted by the world. Once they own it, it won't be your ideas anymore. Just look at any religion. Narrow minded-atheists are annoying to me. I prefer to consider myself a “practical atheist”.

[Ouroboros]

I prefer to consider myself a “practical atheist”.

A pragmatheist?

[Vigile]

Black and white thinkers are not thinkers in my opinion.

 

You said it AM...

 

It's just an exchange of one form of fundamentalism for another.

[Vigile]

What would happen if I started a new religion?

 

And you can! The template for doing so is pretty straight forward. Just apply a healthy dose of binary logic, appeal to the human need to create patterns where none exist, and then sprinkle in a bit of false hope, stir, and ask for money. You will be rich beyond your wildest dreams before next Tuesday.

 

Edit: I tasted and it is missing one ingredient. It will be most successful if you make it a twist on an already established religious wave.

[Vigile]

I prefer to consider myself a “practical atheist”.

A pragmatheist?

 

That's me. Idealism is just so 2000.

[Antlerman]

What would happen if I started a new religion?

 

And you can! The template for doing so is pretty straight forward. Just apply a healthy dose of binary logic, appeal to the human need to create patterns where none exist, and then sprinkle in a bit of false hope, stir, and ask for money. You will be rich beyond your wildest dreams before next Tuesday.

 

 

I'm consider income options at this moment. Funny you should mention. I mean why not? I already know it won't look anything like what I started once it gets going, so why not get rich off it? Fleece the sheep, I say. They'll feel cooler without all that extra wool. They'll thank me for the favor of draining off some of that cash.

 

I prefer to consider myself a “practical atheist”.

A pragmatheist?

Now that I like. I'm a pragmatheist, not a fundatheist.

[Ouroboros]

See under my avatar. I changed it. It's a cool label, just not sure how to pronounce it.

[Antlerman]

See under my avatar. I changed it. It's a cool label, just not sure how to pronounce it.

We are brothers! See under mine?

 

Pronounced: Prag-ma'-theist (with both a's pronounced with long a's, accent on the 2nd syllable).

[Ouroboros]

Wow, now we can start a church...

[Antlerman]

Wow, now we can start a church...

Done! See above my avitar. (sorry, it's actually below it)

[Mankey]

I am not anti-religion and wishes it to wiped from the face of the earth

Antitheists are diverse in what pisses them off. Not all are against all religions.

 

and think my way of thinking is the best for everyone.

Careful. You are straw manning antitheists here. The only fair way to discriminate for or against things is through rational methods and facts. No one is perfect but methods are very important. Religion....many of them are prejudice and bigotry not just positive stuff. Remember they are stuck with their holy books and regardless of new theologies that might be less destructive the holy book remains 'as is' for honest reading. Holy books contain the values of our ancestors and their values are not necessarily beneficial for us.

 

Dominionists. How about fundamentalism from America spreading in Europe? I see fundamentalism flaring up now and then in a never ending cycle until theists actually rewrite their holy books....which has not really happened yet.

 

Why do I get the feeling that some really do not test their ideas and convictions with that many people? I am sure you have better arguments and if not you can do a lot better than this after giving things more thought.

 

People who talk like this are doing the same thing as the religious who see the world through the lense of True (with a captial T) and False (with a captial F). Black and white thinkers are not thinkers in my opinion.

No. Not the same as the religious. Maybe there is some idiocy and knee jerking from us, but some of us do not do that all the time. Also, not all of us worships Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris. Remember that antitheists are Free Thinkers too.

 

and think my way of thinking is the best for everyone.

 

People who talk like this are doing the same thing as the religious who see the world through the lense of True (with a captial T) and False (with a captial F). Black and white thinkers are not thinkers in my opinion.

I see you contradicting yourself here. Who are you to define what thinking is when you claim that you do not wish that others think like you?

 

Everyone has a philosophy in life. Everyone has a politic. This is an inescapable fact. It is what makes us human. We do sometimes benefit from exchanging ideas and politics. However, the only fair way to discriminate for or against things is through rational methods based on facts. And it is to everyones benefit to try to be fair. Religion does a shit job of that some times and it is because of dogmatic thinking and bigotry.