Atheist Or Anti-theist?

[chad]

Jun,

 

Because I havn't figured out how to use the quote function due to mental laziness, I'll use an alternating format in response to your post.

 

JUN: "Why would it matter what others label you as?"

 

CHAD: Perhaps you partially misunderstood me. In asking my original question, I was solely concerned about how others would label themselves in light of the distinction between atheist and anti-theist that Hitchens makes. And futhermore, why an exian would label himself/herself as an atheist; that is to say, why he/she would want religion or God's existence to be true on a certain level based on Hitchen's construal of an atheist. Therefore, the purpose of my overall post was NOT to engage in a discussion regarding the reasons others might personally label me as X,Y, or Z.

However, now that you mention it, I'm persuaded that labels are important to the extent that they are necessary to communicate one's ideas in an efficient manner. Imagine the confusion that would ensue in the field of philosophy or politics (you fill in the blank) if labels were not utilized to capture ideological nuances therein (e.g., centrist versus moderate conservative or soft determinist versus hard determinist, etc. . . )--people would begin to majorly misrepresent each other, which is not the best formula for achieving beneficial political ends or attaining philosophical truths. Imagine the time and energy that would be wasted if one were forced repeatedly to explain the subtle details of his/her position during philosophical and political (so on and so forth) discourse in the absence of concise, accurate labels–people would begin to disengage from important lines of dialogue due to exhaustion or boredom. (Wait, hold on, I don’t know if the situation is much different in the political arena; it would just be notably worse, lol)

In this case, specifically, consider an atheist (in keeping with Hitchen, one who sometimes wishes religion was true to a certain extent and thereby perceives moderate forms of theism to be positive) who begins to attend a community forum dedicated to combating its growing drug and alcohol problem in terms of treatment programs. Knowing that most drug and alcohol programs are heavily influenced by AA/NA philosophy, which prioritizes theism as an integral part of effective treatment, his motive for attending is to advocate on behalf of humanistic or secular alternatives like Rational Recovery (a treatment program geared toward the non-religious). But because most of the other attendees construe atheism to be synonymous with anti-theistic sentiment, they develop the mistaken impression that Mr. Atheist is there to oppose religious/theistic forms of treatment. Consequently, his proposed alternatives are dismissed as an attempt to thwart other programs of a religious/theistic orientation, which was certainly not his intention.

Hitchen’s distinction between an atheist and anti-theist would be handy here. If the other attendees understood the difference between an atheist and anti-theist, Mr. Atheist’s treatment alternatives would have probably faired much better; in that, they wouldn’t automatically assume that his motive was adversarial merely based on his identification as an atheist. That said, I think one would be hard pressed to demonstrate that a correct understanding of labels or names is not conducive to quality communication (i.e., conveying one’s general ideas and position on various issues in a manner that avoids, inasmuch as is possible, misunderstanding and misinterpretation). Apparently then, a good deal of communicative value is in a name (or label).

All the above does not mean that labels are not abused to circumvent quality communication (plenty of examples could be cited to this effect). However, labels are not inherently detrimental to communication just as knives are not inherently detrimental to life. Ok, enough about freakin labels already!!!!

 

 

JUN: "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."

 

CHAD: I never suggested that it did; in fact, I emphatically agree!

 

JUN: "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."

 

CHAD: Speaking of nonesense, with all due respect, this claim reflects the common fallacy of over generalization! Just because you've never encountered an atheist that has never, from time to time, found himself wishing that certain aspects of religion or God's existence were true, this certainly deosn't mean that such a phenomena is bogus! When you come to a broad, sweeping conclusion on the basis of an insufficient sample, you commit an over generalization. And the limited experiences of one measly atheist (yourself) definitely constitutes an insufficient sample. That is to say, your individual experiences of other atheists are not diverse and extensive enough to make such a authoritative claim (unless you are some sort of incognito vampire who's birth dates back to the dark ages).

Case in point: I happen to be an atheist who wishes that certain aspects of religion were true from time to time. In addition to myself, I've encountered many atheists on this website that share these sentiments to one degree or another. Hitchens, a man that must have associations with a large number of atheists due to his profession and educational background, also reports that a good deal of atheists fit this profile. In view of these facts, I think a full retraction is in order.

 

 

JUN: "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."

 

CHAD: Agreed. I never suggested that this was not a fundamental aspect of atheism and anti-theism.

 

 

JUN: "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."

 

CHAD: Such a portrayal does not amount to agnosticism (although this point is debatable). Micheal Martin, a prolific atheist philosopher, draws a distinction between positive and negative atheism. Positive atheism claims to prove the nonexistence of God, whereas negative atheism merely claims that there is not sufficient evidence to justify belief in God. So how is an agnostic different from a negative atheist, one may ask. Well, a negative atheist definitively claims that the available evidence is in fact insufficient to at least justify belief in God, whereas the agnostic contends that he simply doesn't know whether the available evidence is sufficient or insufficient to either prove God's existence or justify belief in God. Subtle but important difference.

[Mankey]

Dave comes off to me as someone who does not like logic....

 

And you come off as a jerk.

 

Plonk.

WRONG,WRONG,WRONG,WRONG,.....WRONG,WRONG,WRONG,WRONG,........You're wrong!

 

The consensus is in......from many people offline who have said it.

 

....People say I am a dick,....

From page one of this thread.

 

Anyways, I acted like a knee jerking retard who had sand in his vagina. Towards you. I had to get in one last swing with my purse, before apologizing to you. It seems obvious that you are not a cynic or an enemy of reason. sorry.

[Antlerman]

Strictly from etymology: a is from the Greek for without. Theism for a god. Without a god. Anti-theism would be a much newer concoction to express a more active role. FWIW.

Anti-theist is usually a term used by theists to dismiss, without a thought, Atheists and other non believers. They actually believe that we are against them in some kind of war. Did I mention it here, or maybe somewhere else..... it seems that theists, especially the christians, have a dire need to be persecuted. To them it somehow justifies their beliefs. They need to have anti theists so they see anyone that is not for them as against them.

What's unfortunate is that anyone defines themselves as anti-anything. Why the hell would you label yourself with a negative and be proud of it? Anti-theist sounds like a negative philosophy. What's appealing about negative philosophies? What real substance do they offer other than the illusion of strength by rallying around a common foe? Reminds me of the cult I was in where we were so united because of our common enemy, false religions! Like I said, this is switching churches. Not deconverting from religion.

[Mankey]

Strictly from etymology: a is from the Greek for without. Theism for a god. Without a god. Anti-theism would be a much newer concoction to express a more active role. FWIW.

Anti-theist is usually a term used by theists to dismiss, without a thought, Atheists and other non believers. They actually believe that we are against them in some kind of war. Did I mention it here, or maybe somewhere else..... it seems that theists, especially the christians, have a dire need to be persecuted. To them it somehow justifies their beliefs. They need to have anti theists so they see anyone that is not for them as against them.

What's unfortunate is that anyone defines themselves as anti-anything. Why the hell would you label yourself with a negative and be proud of it? Anti-theist sounds like a negative philosophy.

It is a negative philosophy. A person can have more than one philosophy. Just tell people that antitheism is one philosophy that an atheist might or might not hold. I do not want atheists who are not antitheists to be thought of as antitheists.

 

What's appealing about negative philosophies? What real substance do they offer other than the illusion of strength by rallying around a common foe?

A person can have more than one philosophy. They can offer other philosophies that they might have that are positive.

 

Reminds me of the cult I was in where we were so united because of our common enemy, false religions! Like I said, this is switching churches. Not deconverting from religion.

A person can be an antitheist, but not say that they are, but try to be very subtle in how they undermine religion by planting seeds of doubt and pimping Free Thought lite, and trying to peak peoples interest in science. Working under the radar as Sam Harrison said.

 

Here is another thing that I was thinking about.....but people have insulted me for simply putting it out there as a possible good idea. That is to try to bring everybody who might be interested into Free Thought. Yea....Christians too. That way people of different beliefs are exposed to eachother, hear many kinds of arguments, even antitheist arguments. Theists would be considered Free Thinkers and will enjoy the good reactions to their thoughtful and intelligent ideas. As an antitheist I think we will see a lot more de-conversons that way. More people who are open minded and develop tolerance for atheists. More theists who pimp science. This idea even fits with my Transhumanists philosophy. Many of us see that religion is a problem and chew on many different possible solutions.

 

Reminds me of the cult I was in where we were so united because of our common enemy, false religions! Like I said, this is switching churches. Not deconverting from religion.

You can not show that deconverting is the same as converting. There is an important difference. More over, as I said before people are not books. People do not always agree in everything their heroes say. When it comes to this topic, you don't even know what the hell you are talking about. If you want to change minds then you should be trying to change certain antitheists minds, that way certain books might not sell as well.

[Dave]

Anti-theist is usually a term used by theists to dismiss, without a thought, Atheists and other non believers. They actually believe that we are against them in some kind of war. Did I mention it here, or maybe somewhere else..... it seems that theists, especially the christians, have a dire need to be persecuted. To them it somehow justifies their beliefs. They need to have anti theists so they see anyone that is not for them as against them.

What's unfortunate is that anyone defines themselves as anti-anything. Why the hell would you label yourself with a negative and be proud of it? Anti-theist sounds like a negative philosophy. What's appealing about negative philosophies? What real substance do they offer other than the illusion of strength by rallying around a common foe? Reminds me of the cult I was in where we were so united because of our common enemy, false religions! Like I said, this is switching churches. Not deconverting from religion.

That's my point! Most do not label themselves as an anti-theist, it is a label thrust upon them and it is a label meant as a dismissive one.

 

Sometimes it is good to be anti something. I am anti slavery, anti racial bias, anti homophobes, anti death penalty, and so on. Those are not negative in any way, but positive stances against a greater wrong.

[Antlerman]

Reminds me of the cult I was in where we were so united because of our common enemy, false religions! Like I said, this is switching churches. Not deconverting from religion.

You can not show that deconverting is the same as converting.

What are you talking about? I am defining deconversion in this context as shedding off the mentality that made fundamentalist religion appealing to begin with. I've seen plenty of people who now embrace reason, logic, and "Freethinking" as the now *real* truth. This is simply changing churches in my opinion. The mentality is the same. I had a frined say to me, "Yeah, but the difference between then and now, is that now I do have the truth." He was quite sincere in saying this, as I'm sure you are too. But to me, the real lesson hasn't been learned yet. It's exactly the same thing.

 

You say you respect what I have to say, even though you have a hard time holding back ad hominen attacks whenever the impluse inspires you, then you should really consider this. I'm responding because you made an effort at civility with me.

 

P.S. for goodness sake drop the accusations of other posters with the "Straw Man," "Red Herring" logic fallacies. Frankly, using them yourself is a red herring tactic.

 

P.P.S. FYI, my thoughts about people and society does not come from my reading books. You know nothing about who I am.

[Mankey]

Reminds me of the cult I was in where we were so united because of our common enemy, false religions! Like I said, this is switching churches. Not deconverting from religion.

You can not show that deconverting is the same as converting.

What are you talking about? I am defining deconversion in this context as shedding off the mentality that made fundamentalist religion appealing to begin with.

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. The bible is still there for anyone of any denomination to read and the bible is what I am against. As far as solutions to the problem of religion....not sure yet. Its good to debate or discuss those things.

 

I've seen plenty of people who now embrace reason, logic, and "Freethinking" as the now *real* truth. This is simply changing churches in my opinion. The mentality is the same. I had a frined say to me, "Yeah, but the difference between then and now, is that now I do have the truth." He was quite sincere in saying this, as I'm sure you are too. But to me, the real lesson hasn't been learned yet. It's exactly the same thing.

Yea. I see what you mean. I never took them as serious when reading comments like that from people. But decoverting is still not the same as the fallacious tactics that Christians use and Christianity is a bogus product to boot....which is harmful to individuals as well in cases. There is no product in deconverting people. No product. Unless we offer them one.

 

I am more concerned with methods than answers that people give to what is probably true....if you know what I mean.

 

You say you respect what I have to say, even though you have a hard time holding back ad hominen attacks whenever the impluse inspires you, then you should really consider this. I'm responding because you made an effort at civility with me.

I have mood swings. I am impulsive. Why do you think I like logic in the first place. Medicine is for the sick. Besides, what you posted....jokingly really was like a baseball bat to the head. Not just the antitheist bashing, it was the jokes about the sheeple. That was the last straw for me after I read the antitheist bashing. It wasn't funny to me.

 

P.S. for goodness sake drop the accusations of other posters with the "Straw Man," "Red Herring" logic fallacies. Frankly, using them yourself is a red herring tactic.

 

P.P.S. FYI, my thoughts about people and society does not come from my reading books. You know nothing about who I am.

We will have to agree to disagree on that one. As far as Dave goes....even though I was not the one strawmanning him or pulling any red herrings on him, I was wrong about my suspicions of him. I did ask for clarification in a dickheadish way and was open for him to explain what he was getting at. He did make a straw man. But I was wrong about the way I did things....not about the fact that he did indeed straw man me....but it was a little thing not worth being a whiny bitch over.

[Mankey]

Antlerman:

P.P.S. FYI, my thoughts about people and society does not come from my reading books. You know nothing about who I am.

Inferences can be wrong of course. That is the truth. Especially from impressions gotten from just a small sample of a persons behavior. The same goes for ones inferences about certain heathens who have a habit of using the word 'truth.'

 

It was a kind of confirmation bias against you on my part. Sandbagging against other things that I have seen from you.

[mwc]

Sometimes it is good to be anti something. I am anti slavery, anti racial bias, anti homophobes, anti death penalty, and so on. Those are not negative in any way, but positive stances against a greater wrong.

Dave makes a point here but I would say that these are negative if you happen to be "pro" these things (it simply works that way).

 

Being anti-slavery is fairly easy since no one wants to be a slave and so it's easy to say that slavery is bad. It wasn't always so clear cut (it might be to us now, looking back, but in those societies, at those times, things were different). But even now slavery still exists in many forms.

 

Someone who thinks that homosexuality is wrong (for whatever reason) would take the anti-homophobe position as an attack on them. A desire to destroy them. That is the goal after all. Whether it be through education or physical violence. The goal is to eliminate the homophobe just as with anti-slavery the desire is to destroy the slaver and end slavery.

 

This same holds true for all "anti" positions. You remove the persons in the "pro" position so you no longer need to hold the "anti" position (basically the "anti" position becomes the default position). Anti-atheists would mean they want all atheists to be simply "gone" through some means. Anti-theists convey the same exact message. "We want your kind gone." It's simply the "where," "when" and "how" that are currently up for debate.

 

mwc