Atheist Or Anti-theist?

[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.

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”.

 

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.

For starters there professor why don't you enlighten us all to what exactly these secular replacements of Dawkins and Hitchens are.

 

Next, there is zero grounds for this assumption because at no time in history has the masses been raised up to truly be thinking citizens. If you have no confidence in humanity then why not stop calling yourself a humanist. It would be the honest thing to do in my opinion.

 

I think we can do without religions social engineering. Our culture as it is allows bad thinking habits to be socially acceptable.

[Antlerman]

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

Anti-theist by definition is anti-religion. No? How can it not be? It’s against theism.

 

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

Careful. You are straw manning antitheists here.

The full context in which I said this says, “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.” Read it again. I was talking about ME. But since you took that as an indictment of antitheists in general, let’s go ahead and extrapolate from that.

 

For me to make a comment that “all religion should be wiped from the face of the earth,” by default says I think my ideas should reign supreme over all others. Right? If I don’t think my ideas are the Answer with a capital A for everyone, then I wouldn’t make that statement.

 

Do you think religion has no merit for anyone anywhere? If so, are you that wise to be able to say this? I’m not. But don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of it, but I think the lines are a hell of a lot more blurred that those like Dawkins cuts them out of the fabric of human psychology, language, and society.

 

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.

Fundamentalism is more a social reaction. You’ll always have them, on both sides of the bell curve. It’s no surprise you would be seeing radial atheism at the same time you see radical theism. It’s how societies work. Theists have “rewritten” their scriptures by seeing them in more modern terms. This is WHY you have fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is about resisting change.

 

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.

Care to explain? I think I’m usually pretty clear. I’m not the only one who sees fundamentalist thought in the camps of militant atheists. My major complaint was this person presuming to define what atheism is. I prefer those who try to be more balanced in presenting their points of view. If I wanted to hear things that pandered to my feelings then I’d go seek out a church or something.

 

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.

Do you understand why I compared it to religion? My comparison was not idocy, knee jerking, or hero worship. My comparison was black and white thinking. Good – Bad. No in betweens. Right – Wrong. No in betweens, no grey areas, no balanced thought. I’m right. I think right. They believe lies. The bible isn’t true, so therefore it’s a lie. Etc, etc.

 

I find it boring. It’s just politics, not the search for understanding.

 

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?

I really hate this argument. It’s like when I make the comment, “The truth is there is no truth” and a Christian counters, “But you just said that’s the truth, so you’ve contradicted yourself. You see, even you believe there is truth!” Phooey. It’s just a limitation of the language because of our dualistic mindset of opposites. The understanding is clear, even though the language falls short of supporting it. (Look up the “Liar’s Paradox” argument on Wikipedia).

 

I’m not going to tell people to get rid of religion, even though I find no value in it for myself. I won’t get caught up in an argument about logical paradoxes. The meaning is clear.

 

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.

And to say all religion is shit and should be eliminated isn’t bigotry and dogma? You’re making my point.

 

For starters there professor why don't you enlighten us all to what exactly these secular replacements of Dawkins and Hitchens are.

 

Next, there is zero grounds for this assumption because at no time in history has the masses been raised up to truly be thinking citizens. If you have no confidence in humanity then why not stop calling yourself a humanist. It would be the honest thing to do in my opinion.

First of all, that “professor” snip there I’ll let slide once. Please don’t test that again.

 

How can I be a humanist when I’m also a realist? Humanism is my ideal. I believe in the ideal. I recently wrote a long explanation of the role of ideals in another thread (I’m too lazy to go find it right now). Believing in an ideal as something to strive towards has a real purpose in human motivation. However, literalism, perfectionism, and black and white thinking are unrealistic. They are the ones who set up humanity for failure.

 

Ideals are goals. Idealism is non-reality. I am not an idealist. But I do believe in the value of ideals and goals. Do you understand now? I am a humanist, but it doesn’t mean I am delusional about utopist expectations.

[godlessgrrl]

If I am bound to answer the question according to Hitchens' definition, then I can't really answer it either. I can't see any reason why Hitchens gets to define atheism vs. anti-theism for anyone but himself. Nor do I see any reason why I should define said terms according to what Hitchens thinks, especially with respect to my own life. Hitchens doesn't define my atheism. I do.

 

That said, whether or not I'm an atheist or an anti-theist depends on how pissy a mood I'm in, and whether or not some religious wackjob has recently pulled some theological asshattery in my general vicinity.

 

Most of the time, I am a functional atheist: I lack a belief in a god or gods, because I have not encountered any convincing evidence to suggest any exist. Most of the time, I don't really care that much if someone else happens to be a theist, because I'm beginning to come to the realization that a lot of people find religion useful somehow - and if it aids someone's life, great.

 

It's only when I encounter things like the latest shit-and-run fundy here, or read about yet another Catholic priest being sued for abusing people, or hear about the latest attempts by the Religious Wrong™ to dumb down science education or outlaw abortion or deny citizenship to atheists that I get my dander up, and start thinking that religion needs to be eliminated. In those moments, I'm definitely anti-theism. (Or anti-dipshit-theist.)

 

If the above is of any use to you, great. Otherwise, ignore it.

[Mankey]

Anti-theist by definition is anti-religion. No? How can it not be? It’s against theism.

Not necessarily. it can be against one God, multiple Gods or all Gods. According to Junes Wik entry. And that makes sense to me given that I have ran into some antitheists who think that theism is shit, but they are more concerned with certain religions instead of all religions. Not mention that most religions have deities. Some theists do not subscribe to any holy books so that pisses some of us off less. Also, there is a certain thread that discussed the topic of What a True atheist is more or less. You might want to read it.

 

The full context in which I said this says, “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.” Read it again. I was talking about ME. But since you took that as an indictment of antitheists in general, let’s go ahead and extrapolate from that.

Sorry I thought you meant antitheism which is not necessarily against all religions. Honest mistake.

 

For me to make a comment that “all religion should be wiped from the face of the earth,” by default says I think my ideas should reign supreme over all others. Right? If I don’t think my ideas are the Answer with a capital A for everyone, then I wouldn’t make that statement.

Well, then here is your straw man of anti-religious folks. Listen to yourself. There is plenty of room for individuality and Free Thought without religion. Getting rid of religion is not the same as forcing every single idea ya got down some ones throat. You are using a rhetorical device here that is fallacious....

 

Do you think religion has no merit for anyone anywhere? If so, are you that wise to be able to say this? I’m not. But don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of it, but I think the lines are a hell of a lot more blurred than those like Dawkins cuts them out of the fabric of human psychology, language, and society.

I did say that in this thread that I am open minded to what"tolerant" atheists have to say. It might depend on the religion. Not all antitheists are against all religions. There are two that seem to really be on every bodies shit list. I judge a religion by its holy book first. Not everyone worships Dawkins either.

 

I really hate this argument.

That is tough. What are you even doing in the colosseum if you don't like logic. You might as well tell me that you do not want civiized convo. That you don't want to be fair.

 

It’s like when I make the comment, “The truth is there is no truth” and a Christian counters, “But you just said that’s the truth, so you’ve contradicted yourself. You see, even you believe there is truth!” Phooey. It’s just a limitation of the language because of our dualistic mindset of opposites. The understanding is clear, even though the language falls short of supporting it.

Hahaha! Sorry. Nice try. hehe.

 

(Look up the “Liar’s Paradox” argument on Wikipedia).

hehe. The liars paradox is incoherent as it points to nothing outside itself. What you did was coherently demonstrate that you can't take your own advice. You were slamming us in a fallacious manner with a lot of your post.

 

I’m not going to tell people to get rid of religion, even though I find no value in it for myself. I won’t get caught up in an argument about logical paradoxes. The meaning is clear.

I and some others don't think it would be right to ask you to. What do you think of that? And I know you won't talk about the paradox.

[Mankey]

And to say all religion is shit and should be eliminated isn’t bigotry and dogma? You’re making my point.

Not necessarily. And there is nothing wrong with openly cherry picking holy books and openly rejecting what is shit. But to deify human beings statements about humanity, and all of creation can be problematic.

First of all, that “professor” snip there I’ll let slide once. Please don’t test that again.

Never happen again. My word. It was wrong of me to pull that shit.

How can I be a humanist when I’m also a realist? Humanism is my ideal. I believe in the ideal. I recently wrote a long explanation of the role of ideals in another thread (I’m too lazy to go find it right now). Believing in an ideal as something to strive towards has a real purpose in human motivation. However, literalism, perfectionism, and black and white thinking are unrealistic. They are the ones who set up humanity for failure.

 

Ideals are goals. Idealism is non-reality. I am not an idealist. But I do believe in the value of ideals and goals. Do you understand now? I am a humanist, but it doesn’t mean I am delusional about utopist expectations.

I say stupid shit all the time Antlerman. The best thing I can say is what you posted really bumbed me out and perhaps I crossed the line. But I was bumbed out by your pessimism of humanity. I wasn't angry but bumbed out.

 

 

It was a bitch dealing with the quote function...so I do not expect you to really break down my posts and I will give you the last words here and seriously give some thought to your ideas and criticisms.

[Mankey]

Forgot these ones

 

Antlerman:

Fundamentalism is more a social reaction. You’ll always have them, on both sides of the bell curve. It’s no surprise you would be seeing radial atheism at the same time you see radical theism. It’s how societies work. Theists have “rewritten” their scriptures by seeing them in more modern terms. This is WHY you have fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is about resisting change.

This is red herring to my points about the bible. The bible is still there 'as is' for an honest reading. Religion itelf is a social thing that always reacts to something either positively or negatively. There might be plenty of social reactions in the future with the bible 'as is' for an honest reading. No mater what happens the bible is there 'as is'. What do the fundies cling to when they get their panties in a bunch?

 

"Radical" atheism is trying to correct mistakes and we do it a lot faster. We don't have dogmas around our necks like religions do. Free Thinkers call each other on things all the time. You do not take into account Free thought. Only religion and traditions apply to your "understandings" of society.

 

Antlerman:

Care to explain? I think I’m usually pretty clear. I’m not the only one who sees fundamentalist thought in the camps of militant atheists. My major complaint was this person presuming to define what atheism is. I prefer those who try to be more balanced in presenting their points of view. If I wanted to hear things that pandered to my feelings then I’d go seek out a church or something.

Haha. Books arent people old man. I am a small fish and you in no way could hold your own at antitheists forums. You are stagnating by not debating or discussing over at antitheist boards. You know interacting with a lot of people who hold opinions that you are against?

 

Antlerman:

Do you understand why I compared it to religion? My comparison was not idocy, knee jerking, or hero worship. My comparison was black and white thinking. Good – Bad. No in betweens. Right – Wrong. No in betweens, no grey areas, no balanced thought. I’m right. I think right. They believe lies. The bible isn’t true, so therefore it’s a lie. Etc, etc.

 

I find it boring. It’s just politics, not the search for understanding

Some of us are like that......but not everyone. All I am saying is that antitheism might be a valid position despite what you are pointing out in some people.

 

I really don't think you understand the people so much as books old man. Sorry.

[Antlerman]

Haha. Books arent people old man. I am a small fish and you in no way could hold your own at antitheists forums. You are stagnating by not debating or discussing over at antitheist boards. You know interacting with a lot of people who hold opinions that you are against?

 

Antlerman:

Do you understand why I compared it to religion? My comparison was not idocy, knee jerking, or hero worship. My comparison was black and white thinking. Good – Bad. No in betweens. Right – Wrong. No in betweens, no grey areas, no balanced thought. I’m right. I think right. They believe lies. The bible isn’t true, so therefore it’s a lie. Etc, etc.

 

I find it boring. It’s just politics, not the search for understanding

Some of us are like that......but not everyone. All I am saying is that antitheism might be a valid position despite what you are pointing out in some people.

 

I really don't think you understand the people so much as books old man. Sorry.

I'm really not sure how to take you. But I have no desire to go to some forum where people sound just like the Christian cult that I left, except holding science as the new Truth instead of Jesus. It's the mentality I left, not so much the myth. Sorry. I don't care to spend more time on this. Narrow thought is distasteful to me.

 

It's really more your tone that shows you're not worth my time.

[HuaiDan]

I second Dave,

Somehow humanity is doomed to believe things.

Because we're not perfectly logical, cognitive beings. In fact, I believe, due to our biological nature, we operate more on instinct than we'd like to believe. There are neural pathways in our brains and bodies, either learned or hardwired, that usually work most of the time, and save us the trouble of logically parsing every single situation. Taking time to assess every single situation life presents to us can be detrimental, so we take shortcuts which have worked in our evolutionary history and have ensured our survivability, as well as learned shortcuts.

 

Take, for example, the instinct to follow the herd. It's a strong one. If you're in a crowded public place, and suddenly everybody starts screaming and running in the same direction, chances are, if you're like most people, you'll start running in that direction too, whether or not you actually perceive any danger.

 

Religion exploits this tendency shamelessly. God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Bypass any logical assessment of the situation, and merely apply the formula that has worked for thousands of years. This science stuff is all new-fangled; it may show some promise now, but it hasn't withstood the test of time.

 

Even those who accept the teachings of science fall prey to shortcut-taking. We simply don't have the time or stamina to re-assess every premise, piece of evidence, or conclusion offered by scientific examination, even if we did know it all. Thus, science becomes belief, in a sense. We need to be careful where we apply these shortcuts, lest good science morph into preposterous beliefs like the Raelians you mentioned.

[Mankey]

I second Dave,

Somehow humanity is doomed to believe things.

Because we're not perfectly logical, cognitive beings. In fact, I believe, due to our biological nature, we operate more on instinct than we'd like to believe. There are neural pathways in our brains and bodies, either learned or hardwired, that usually work most of the time, and save us the trouble of logically parsing every single situation. Taking time to assess every single situation life presents to us can be detrimental, so we take shortcuts which have worked in our evolutionary history and have ensured our survivability, as well as learned shortcuts.

 

Take, for example, the instinct to follow the herd. It's a strong one. If you're in a crowded public place, and suddenly everybody starts screaming and running in the same direction, chances are, if you're like most people, you'll start running in that direction too, whether or not you actually perceive any danger.

 

Religion exploits this tendency shamelessly. God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Bypass any logical assessment of the situation, and merely apply the formula that has worked for thousands of years. This science stuff is all new-fangled; it may show some promise now, but it hasn't withstood the test of time.

 

Even those who accept the teachings of science fall prey to shortcut-taking. We simply don't have the time or stamina to re-assess every premise, piece of evidence, or conclusion offered by scientific examination, even if we did know it all. Thus, science becomes belief, in a sense. We need to be careful where we apply these shortcuts, lest good science morph into preposterous beliefs like the Raelians you mentioned.

This is true, but if we can reject religion then it is possible for more people to do the same. And it don't hurt none for non-religious people to become a large minority.

 

This really does not take away from the fact that any mankey can improve pretty much. This mitigates bullshit.

[HuaiDan]

I'm starting to believe some are more capable than others. IIRC there's some evidence suggesting the tendency to experience religious ecstasy may have a foundation in genetics. And let's not forget, as long as most people believe it, you'll have the mighty force of popular opinion to swim against.

[Mankey]

I'm starting to believe some are more capable than others. IIRC there's some evidence suggesting the tendency to experience religious ecstasy may have a foundation in genetics. And let's not forget, as long as most people believe it, you'll have the mighty force of popular opinion to swim against.

Yea. I'm not convinced you have to be a theist to have those kinds of experiences. Also, even people as dumb as rocks can improve....I never mentioned perfection in helping empower people. Power to the People?

 

Large minorities have been able to over come some hurdles in the past.

[Mankey]

You are right there was a bit of a tone. I will give some thought to your criticisms. You have changed my mind about some things Antlerman so you were not a waste of my time from discussions we had in the past.

[Dave]

I second Dave,

Somehow humanity is doomed to believe things.

Because we're not perfectly logical, cognitive beings......

Would we want to be?

[HuaiDan]

I always thought Mr. Spock was cool.

[Asimov]

I second Dave,

Somehow humanity is doomed to believe things.

Because we're not perfectly logical, cognitive beings......

Would we want to be?

 

Doesn't mean you have to be unemotional.

[Asimov]

I'm not antitheist. I don't care what people think as long as they don't think that it's ok to harm me or anyone else because their God told them to.

[Dave]

I always thought Mr. Spock was cool.

But he never had any fun. He missed out LIVING life.... which I think was the whole point of his character. He, and other Vulcans, suppressed who they really were in order to conform.

[Mankey]

I always thought Mr. Spock was cool.

But he never had any fun. He missed out LIVING life.... which I think was the whole point of his character. He, and other Vulcans, suppressed who they really were in order to conform.

If I am reading you right you are implying that people who value logic for self improvement and as a fair means of discussing or debating are going to suffer the same fate as the fictional character Mr. Spock and that logic turns you into a conformist in a cult then you are making the logical error of giving us a....

 

....False dilemma

 

If I am reading you wrong then what exactly are you saying?

[Ouroboros]

I could be wrong, but I think the story about the Vulcans was that they were extremely emotional and violent in the past, and they had to become logical and surpress the violent emotions with reason to survive as a species.

[Mankey]

I could be wrong, but I think the story about the Vulcans was that they were extremely emotional and violent in the past, and they had to become logical and surpress the violent emotions with reason to survive as a species.

I forgot about that. Well in that case to Daves post we can add....

 

 

False analogy

 

Being emotional is a part of being human and there is no escaping that and to give a false dichotomy is a red herring all its own. Logic is tool not a brainwash. I notice that rhetorical tactics with little logic is a favorite pastime for some heathens. I notice that not all heathens like logic.....unless they are playing with the fundies. I suppose I could be wrong. But it sure looks like so far.

[Dave]

I always thought Mr. Spock was cool.

But he never had any fun. He missed out LIVING life.... which I think was the whole point of his character. He, and other Vulcans, suppressed who they really were in order to conform.

If I am reading you right you are implying that people who value logic for self improvement and as a fair means of discussing or debating are going to suffer the same fate as the fictional character Mr. Spock and that logic turns you into a conformist in a cult then you are making the logical error of giving us a....

 

....False dilemma

 

If I am reading you wrong then what exactly are you saying?

Moderation. All things in moderation..... even moderation. Your creative interpretation of what I said contained no moderation. You went straight to the extreme. Try coming back to the middle. Vulcans did not moderate, they went to the extreme. It's not the logic that was wrong, it was the extreme. I did not present a false dilema, you came back with a straw man.

[Dave]

I could be wrong, but I think the story about the Vulcans was that they were extremely emotional and violent in the past, and they had to become logical and surpress the violent emotions with reason to survive as a species.

Yes, but they took it to the extreme. They lost more than they gained. Anyway... I serioulsy doubt that humans could ever be THAT logical. It would be awfully boring.... not "interesting."

[Dave]

I forgot about that. Well in that case to Daves post we can add....

 

 

False analogy

 

No, but we would add the false dilema to your argument. You're saying it's either all solid logic or nothing. Try arguing from the middle instead of the extreme.

[Antlerman]

I forgot about that. Well in that case to Daves post we can add....

 

 

False analogy

 

No, but we would add the false dilema to your argument. You're saying it's either all solid logic or nothing. Try arguing from the middle instead of the extreme.

Black and white thinking can only conceive of itself. It's the only reality and all else is absurd to it.

[HuaiDan]

Allow me to interject at this point. I stated that humans are not completely logical and cognitive beings, to which Dave replied "Would we want to be?" So, in this case, I introduced the black and whiteness of the situation...by saying we as humans are not completely "black or white", in this case, not completely logical. I brought this up to make a point about human instinct and the tools our biological heritage has equipped us with to ensure our survival, ie., those 'shortcuts' that have worked through the millenia, that maybe aren't the best, most reasonable, logical course of action, but ones which have worked because of brevity and efficiency.

 

Now, when faced with the question "would we want to be?", I have to admit I was a bit flabbergasted, because I was not, in my post, extolling the virtues of being completely logical, but pointing out one possible cause why we humans are "always doomed to believe things," in Dave's words. But, I didn't want to be put on the defensive by Dave for a point I wasn't even trying to make, so I decided to be a bit flip and post something about Mr. Spock (and then Asimov has to go and make a post with his Mr. Spock avvy...too ironic!! )

 

 

Annnnnnyway....Mr. Spock is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER. Yeah, a cool one, and like many heroes and role models, it would be folly to strive to be 100% completely like them, unrealistic and neurotic. The best we can hope for is to borrow some of their style and try to be a little more like them. Which, in this case, I would like to emulate Mr. Spock a bit more often. Try to be a bit more coolly logical in stressful situation, evaluate situations a bit more instead of following gut instinct which isn't always 100% reliable. I never even implied that our instinctual side is harmful or completely useless, but just that it can steer in the wrong direction sometimes and is responsible for some of the more puzzling aspects of human nature.