Are You An Atheist?

[VacuumFlux]

 

VacuumFlux,

 

Hi. I meant in the sense of developing models for the purpose of trying to explain reality. And as the model of the atom has been superseded by quantum theory, I see religious models being superseded by a Jungian analysis of what the human psyche is doing (with religion) trying to explain reality. (Also, it's a bit curious that both the traditional atomic structure and the Christian godhead are tripartite.)

 

I was just looking for an analogy. Just a curiosity.

 

Thanks,

Human

 

 

Ah, ok. I guess... despite being a materialist monist, my experience of self feels more dualistic. So to me, religion is important for dealing the stuff going on inside my head, and don't connect it much with the outside world, which I think of as a bit more "real" (or at least less malliable by my will, and therefore having a stronger not-me reality than the thoughts inside my head). So when you talk about explaining "reality", I tend to think of the physical world. For the outside world, I think religion has been superceeded by science, but I would agree that for the internal world Jungian ideas seem to be a more advanced form of religion. (Though even with science, after struggling to understand the maths and numbers for a while, I do find myself making up explainations that feel more like stories so that the rest of my brain can share in the realization.)

 

I've never thought of the atom as having 3 parts; the protons and neutrons just clump together to make a singular entity called The Nucleus. Even with a more accurate quantum model, I group those particles together in my head because they're both made out of the three quarks, and are therefore a different type of thing than the electrons. I tend to think of the nucleus as a stable thing, like the sun, huge and solid, that the itty bitty other things orbit around. A breakdown of the nucleus make the atom a different element, while the electrons can come and go and do a crazy dance without changing the essential nature of the atom.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

That's pretty much it. Anti-theism is the position that religion is bad and/or harmful. You could call it militant atheism. It is fundamental opposition to religion. Atheism, itself, is not necessarily antagonistic to religion. I do consider myself anti-theistic in some respects, but not all. I can't deny the great social benefit people can get from religion, which is a good thing in itself. Although, many doctrines, I believe, are harmful. The doctrines of hell and vicarious redemption are among those. I list vicarious redemption because it leads one to believe that all they have to do is trust in Jesus and ask for forgiveness, and this absolves them of responsibility for their actions. All the while, everyone else who does take responsibility for their actions but simply fails to believe the "correct thing" are not forgiven.

Well said. I'm anti-theist in the respect that I think the world would be better off without organized religion, but also recognize the constraints in removing it. In many places, Russia for example, the church fills gaps that would otherwise be filled by NGOs and government welfare programs, but that don't exist or are too inefficient. History has shown that outlawing religion or removing it suddenly, as happened during the Bolshevik Revolution, has the opposite of the intended effect. Finally, the genetic/evolutionary component in religious belief needs to be better understood before successful anti-theist programs can be developed- the de- or anti-indoctrination campaign will take place mostly in science classes, but our scientific knowledge of the religious phenomenon needs to be expanded before we get there.

 

It's possible we may never shake off religion fully due to our natural disposition towards it. Being ex-Christians, I think we can all empathize with the appeal.

 

Hard/strong atheism is sometimes confused with anti-theism.  Hard/strong atheism is the belief that no gods exist, as opposed to soft/weak atheism, which is the lack of belief in gods.

 

Anti-theism is separate from atheism.  You can be atheist without being anti-theist.  Anti-theism is opposition to theism/religion.  

 

I am happy to just be called an atheist, but to be accurate, I am an agnostic soft/weak atheist and anti-theist.

Okay, according to the above views, "anti-theism" does not necessarily imply holding an actual belief asserting there is no god. One can be atheistic (not holding any view about gods) and still also be anti-theistic, in the sense of being opposed to religion but not necessarily or primarily opposed to the belief in a god.

 

But can a person hold a view which asserts that there are no gods, and not be opposed to religion -- i.e., be somewhat indifferent to the existence and practice of religion? Would you still call that person "anti-theistic" or simply "hard atheist"? And wouldn't the opposition to religion more precisely be "anti-religious"? Again, there are theistic minded people (even some self-identifying Christians) who believe in God/Christ but are opposed to (organized) religion and practice their faith independently and individually.

 

I would take "anti-theist" to mean someone who holds an actual view asserting that there is no god. I would call someone who is opposed to religion, not "anti-theistic" but "anti-religious." And would still define "atheism" as "the absence of a belief in the existence of a god" (and not the presence of a belief asserting there is not god).

 

I appreciate help in sorting this out. Thanks.

 

Human

 

 

I think someone can be an atheist (weak or strong) without being anti-theist or anti-religion.  In a way, being anti- is a choice. It's a political opinion.  Whereas atheism is not a choice, its a lack of belief.

 

I've decided to separate out anti-theism and anti-religionism... I am both but primarily anti-theist... my anti-religionism is a consequence of that.  I'm not just opposed to religion, I am opposed to the belief in gods.

 

These resources might help:

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Antitheism

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism

 

Look for the sections on weak and strong atheism on the atheism page.

[Bayard]

Personally I think the distinctions are an arbitrary matter of semantics, and interchangeable if qualified. The most important thing is to make your position clear through description rather than labels.

[Neverlandrut]

Human,

 

Yes, I think one can be against religion but not be a "hard" atheist. One can even be a theist and against organized religion, as you point out. Anti-theism is not directly connected to strong atheism (the positive belief there is no god). In my post where I made the distinction between atheism and anti-theism, I was pointing out that my original concept of atheism was one of being antagonistic toward religion. I came to learn that was the definition of anti-theism, and that I did not have to be antagonistic toward religion in order to "lack a belief in god." I became a lot more comfortable with calling myself an atheist once I realized that that was all it meant.

 

Since that time, as I stated, I have become a bit more anti-theistic.

 

P.S. I actually think we split hairs sometimes when distinguishing between strong and soft atheism. I don't think it is as hard of a distinction as we like to think. I lack a belief in unicorns, but I also firmly believe they do not exist. In an absolute epistoligocal sense, no one can know for sure no god exists. In that sense we cannot really "know" anything. Therefore, claiming that we cannot know no god exists in such a sense is a kind of red herring. It is logically possible to know no god exists with as much certainty as anything else. I am more of a strong atheist in terms of the gods described by religions, absolute knowledge excluded. All evidence there is highly suggests these concepts are man made. I am more of a soft atheist toward the general concept of a possible creator of the universe. Although, it is a far jump from saying an intelligent being may have created the universe to calling said being a god. What would make such a being a god exactly? It could have been some super strong, intelligent being but not a god. I don't advertise any of these terms when telling people about myself. But if anyone asks, I'll stick to atheist.

[Neverlandrut]

Personally I think the distinctions are an arbitrary matter of semantics, and interchangeable if qualified. The most important thing is to make your position clear through description rather than labels.

I saw this after I posted my last comment. I very much agree ????

[Deidre]

 

 

 

Curious for those who have deconverted, do you still believe in a god or would you "categorize" yourself as an atheist? If you're an atheist, how did you go from believing in the existence of a deity to not?

Just curious, look forward to hearing your stories.

Atheist. All things considered I was atheist growing up, had my "religious phase" in college, and am now back to atheism. Reflecting back, I'm not sure that I ever really believed. As a Christian I never had any spiritual feel-good experiences and it always felt like I was trying to convince myself God existed. I was practical about my faith and decided action (being a good person) was more important than belief. Then I realized I didn't need Christianity to be a good person, and Christianity (besides making very little logical sense) was doing me more harm than good anyway, so I left. That's more or less my deconversion story.

 

Hai Pari!

Why did you try to convince yourself that a god existed? Just curious on that point.

I like your comment that u realized you didn't need Christianity to be a good person. It doesn't make anyone a good person frankly. It just makes already good people label themselves "Christian." Or so it seems. lol

 

Hi Deidre

 

I don't know... like many others I guess I wanted the comfort and security of believing in some higher power, that everything happens for a reason, even the bad stuff. I wanted to believe God existed because the alternative was too scary at the time: that there is no grand metaphysical design behind the universe, that my relatives and ancestors and great minds throughout history had constructed their lives around a lie. So, in high school/early college I became convinced with the help of apologists like GK Chesterton and CS Lewis that Christianity really was the Truth*, and at that point it was just a matter of figuring out what denomination to join. History has always been my passion so I chose the branch of Christianity that's been the most consistent throughout history in its dogma, teachings, and practices. I figured Truth would never need to change and if Christ brought the Truth, the Early Church was the closest to that Truth, and the Orthodox Church was closest to the Early Church, since it has preserved their teachings and practices more so than any other denomination (for example, in their veneration of the patristics/Early Church fathers).

 

Sorry for the long explanation. If my last post was my deconversion story, I guess this is my conversion story!

 

*capitalized to illustrate how it's used in Orthodox theology, to denote holiness, like "God" or "Church"

 

That's interesting, thanks for sharing it. Was your belief in the Jesus story the last to fall away? That was the final thing for me. When I let go of the NT, I let go of the belief that all deities existed. Not sure why that all seemed to 'click' at once, but it did.

[Bayard]

That's interesting, thanks for sharing it. Was your belief in the Jesus story the last to fall away? That was the final thing for me. When I let go of the NT, I let go of the belief that all deities existed. Not sure why that all seemed to 'click' at once, but it did.

For me it wasn't so much about believing the Jesus story was true so much as suspending disbelief- trying to silence my instinct and logical reasons why it was false. That's what Christianity demands of its followers, that they put aside their own convictions and blindly follow what the Church dictates. I'm more of a freethinker so that didn't work for too long with me: four months after converting, to be precise. Besides, I never took Christianity seriously as a kid and was never indoctrinated so that probably made it even easier for me to let go.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

Hard/strong atheism is sometimes confused with anti-theism.  Hard/strong atheism is the belief that no gods exist, as opposed to soft/weak atheism, which is the lack of belief in gods.

 

Anti-theism is separate from atheism.  You can be atheist without being anti-theist.  Anti-theism is opposition to theism/religion.  

 

I am happy to just be called an atheist, but to be accurate, I am an agnostic soft/weak atheist and anti-theist.

Okay, according to the above views, "anti-theism" does not necessarily imply holding an actual belief asserting there is no god. One can be atheistic (not holding any view about gods) and still also be anti-theistic, in the sense of being opposed to religion but not necessarily or primarily opposed to the belief in a god.

 

But can a person hold a view which asserts that there are no gods, and not be opposed to religion -- i.e., be somewhat indifferent to the existence and practice of religion? Would you still call that person "anti-theistic" or simply "hard atheist"? And wouldn't the opposition to religion more precisely be "anti-religious"? Again, there are theistic minded people (even some self-identifying Christians) who believe in God/Christ but are opposed to (organized) religion and practice their faith independently and individually.

 

I would take "anti-theist" to mean someone who holds an actual view asserting that there is no god. I would call someone who is opposed to religion, not "anti-theistic" but "anti-religious." And would still define "atheism" as "the absence of a belief in the existence of a god" (and not the presence of a belief asserting there is not god).

 

I appreciate help in sorting this out. Thanks.

 

Human

 

 

I think someone can be an atheist (weak or strong) without being anti-theist or anti-religion.  In a way, being anti- is a choice. It's a political opinion.  Whereas atheism is not a choice, its a lack of belief.

 

I've decided to separate out anti-theism and anti-religionism... I am both but primarily anti-theist... my anti-religionism is a consequence of that.  I'm not just opposed to religion, I am opposed to the belief in gods.

 

These resources might help:

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Antitheism

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism

 

Look for the sections on weak and strong atheism on the atheism page.

 

FTNZ,

Thanks for the links and further comments. In the article about anti-theism, I found the section on "In a theistic context" to be ironically revealing about what most Christians are: dystheists. That is, people who excuse "God" for being immoral. They make excuses, usually complicated theological rationalizations, as to why it's okay for God to be bad, but that it's not really bad because it's God and he says he's good. That is a "theistic antitheist," more particularly a dysfunctional theist who makes excuses for a bad god.

 

So, I'm now trying to understand what to call a person who is a theistic antitheist but who does not excuse God's immorality and evil behavior, but rather confronts or opposes it. Perhaps it would be a "eutheist antitheist" (where the prefix eu- means "good"), indicating someone who has a healthy theistic view (holding God to be moral and morally accountable) but being antitheistic in that the person rejects and/or opposes a morally evil god.

 

Anyway, for awhile early in my deconversion, I was still theistic but opposed to "God," until I had done sufficient psychoanalysis on myself and was convinced that "God" existed only as a conjuration of the human psyche.

 

The prefix "dys-" in dystheist refers to the dysfunctional theism of a person who would excuse an immoral god, and to the immorality of that god. That's why I suggest the prefix "eu-" in the term "eutheism." And that term would apply to a theistic antitheist who would believe in only a morally good god, if any god at all, and who would disbelieve in a morally bad god or oppose a morally bad god if one existed. This sense of eutheism is how I would characterize the early part of my deconversion. That latter part had, of course, become Humanistic.

 

I enjoy language and philosophy.

 

I also realize that my current views are now atheistic and antitheistic to a degree. I have days when I try to see positive aspects of liberal religion. And on other days, I wish religion were eradicated from human society. I do believe that Humanity needs to evolve completely beyond all religion -- all theistic religion. Perhaps a Jungian type of metaphorical atheistic religion would be a reasonable and practical transition phase. Maybe that's what religion is becoming as it grows more liberal.

 

Human

 

That all seems to make sense, Human.  Glad you found the wiki helpful.