Atheism Vs. Anti-Theism

[Moloch-De]

I have to agree that science is not a thing comparrable in therms of aplles or oranges but i think a more apptopriate description of what i meant refering to science is the enligthenmend and the path that people choose who prefere to base their moral vallues on rationalism.

i (of corse) dont think its much of an argument to say that religion is mostly bad and cite examples of war, the biggest war in Human history was started by people with most definite anti-God views, science WAS the religion of both Nazi Germany AND the USSR, pick a random 2 or 3 day battle in WWII and more people were killed in the name of 'science' than in all the 'religious wars' in human history combined. thats really a point i feel compelled to make.

That is just wrong. The battels where firce but even with every holocaust victim and everyone starved to death in Russia after the germans burnt their crops world war II was a smal fish compared to wars of previus centuries. That is because you have to compare the number of victims to the populaton of the time the war takes place.

My examples wherer chosen for a reason: They are all unnessesary. If People with a whole lot of reasonable ideas like you (Wyatt) practis their religion its fine with me and i guess it won't effect me in any negativ way that you ar a christian instead of an atheist or agnostic.
But my examples are taken out of real life and they are Part of a big package of readymade belives that many christians will just accept as bonus to their savior. Those people gain a lot of momentum because they are so manny. Example: If a womman gets raped and she happens to be in the wrong county she won't be able to choose if she wants to keep the baby or not since the christian majority choose to make that decision for her.

I won't say that communism in the russian style or fashism are less dangerous but they are commpareble in terms of large movemends of people who surrender their right of an own oppinion to an institution.

Now for the very nice word "tolerance": I consider myself tolerant to a reasonebal level and i too would love the world to be a whole lot more tolerant BUT there is a line where tolerance turns to a dubble eged sword.

As in my examples above you would agree intervention in a case of genocide (ww2 or africa) is the right thing to do even if that means to stop tollerating the gouvermend of the involved countrys...ok i start that argument again since goodwins law aplies...

You wouldnt tolertate the actions of some forigneners beating up an old lady in a subway just because you are not a racist. Tolerating people who use christianity as a means to gain political influence or to recrute terrorists is bad the same way that it crosses this line. I don't want to convert any christians to be atheists but i want to chalenge them to form their own opinnion.

 

[misterk]

The issue it when people use religion to support prejudice, as has happened throughout history, and is happening right now with the oppression of homosexuals. Thats when atheists like myself need to stand up and be counted.

I do not disagree with you on a pecticular sect of people being oppressed by the religious. It has happened through out history numerous times, the same way that one cannot ignore the breakthroughs in science.

However, I do not believe that in the country in which I live, America, There should be a second class citizen. The minorities have fought for to long to bring to light the injustices dealt to them from the ignorant, and those unable to accept different points of view. With that, I do not believe the Church should sway in their decision to allow homosexuality. It should not be outlawed to be homosexual by our ruling government, but the government should in no way encroched(sp) upon the religious establishment that our country was established on, that being freedom of religion. The church and state should be separate.

I think this is the true problem with religion fanatics, and the "Anti-Theists". They are way to quick to force their points of view upon others, and are not willing to live and let live. I am not fond of homosexuals, but I have a few friends who are. It may upset me a bit when they kiss in front of me, but I have the ability to turn my head and not pay attention.

To those who have problems with the religious people downtown who like to spread the word of god in an attempt to save your souls, feel good for those people. They are not causing harm. These people are genuinely worried about you and are afraid that you will not end up with them in heaven. They care for you and are doing what they believe is helpful toward you.

But anyone who forces their opinion on someone else and treats them as less than a person, that person is scum, and the VERY problem with mankind and peace ever existing anywhere.

I'm having a bit of a problem with the wording of your argument here, in that I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not! I think your disagreeing, and I believe you are arguing that the church should allow to continue what it is doing, otherwise that would imply non-seperation of church and state? Maybe? I'm not sure.

Anyhoo, my issue is that I don't think religion is a good argument for discrimination. I'd also point out that homosexuals are discriminated against on the topic of gay marriage, and thats a view primarily... in fact I would argue utterly... enforced by religion. I have yet to be presented with any non-religious argument that is in the least bit convincing, so one is left with the religious arguments. Admittedly I don't find them convincing either, but if you accept the bible as (ah ha) gospel truth, then you can be convinced by them.

As has been argued many times, Pascals wager doesn't work because, as he utterly ignores evidence, there an infinite number of supernatural beings one can create, so picking one does not work. The other point to be made is that I have yet to meet someone who can make themselves believe something just like that.

Root, the whole point of any scientific theory is that they are falsifiable. You can never prove anything, realistically, but scientific theories- good ones- should make falsifiable claims and predictions. It is utterly possible to disprove the theory of evolution- precambrian rabbits is the classic example given by someone or other.

And a list of agnostic opression? Interesting... "EVERYONE, BY DECREE OF OVERLORD ZARG, YOU SHALL BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE NOT ENTIRELY SURE ABOUT WHETHER GOD EXISTS, I MEAN, IT COULD GO EITHER WAY, THERES NO EVIDENCE, SO THE ODDS ARE PRETTY MUCH 50-50". I don't think agnosticism is a very sensible position to maintain, for the same reason that I don't think being agnostic on a giant invisible monkey is very sensible, but the idea of opression directly due to it's philosophy.... unlikely to me.

There are examples, which some atheists will deny with the no true scotsman argument, of people being opressed by atheists for not being atheists. The most obvious examples are communist Russia and China. One can certainly argue that this is not core to the beliefs of atheism, as after all it espouses no moral philosophy, simply the lack of existence of god, but I suspect many christians would disavow most massacres carried out in gods name. However, they are harder to find. The claim that Hitler was an atheist (the evidence is murky), is really quite meaningless unless you find evidence to back up that this was what drove him to do what he did. Social Darwinism was part of his notions, but as a theory it is somewhat divorced from atheism.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

[

p.s. root of all evil has a list of atheist related tragedies to wave at you so realize that its a two way street

I also have a list of religious tragedies and agnostic tragedies. I like to call them human nature.

Science trumps destructive power, Religion trumps Terrorism, Agnosticism trumps destruction of human rights.

Just because I'm interested, let me see that list of Agnostic Tragedies.

Ok, Pol Pot destroying Cambodia for Science being Evil. 750,000-1.5 million
Rwandan Genocide ; 80,000 over ethnics.
Adolf was of a strange religious/scientific bent; so I'm not sure which party line he'd come under. I think he 'just' touches on Roman Catholic, but had distanced himself from it like so many Atheists. Goebbels and Goering were almost purely Scientists though.
One could also postulate on the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah for not-believing, as there wasn't a specific counter-religion they held.
Darfur: 350,000-400,000 in the Killing Fields.

The Boxer Rebellion and most Communist attacks/defences could also quite easily be seen as Agnostic due to their beliefs in faith, but not in Religion.

The problem is categorising most of it, when any idiot can stand up and say "In God's Name..."; and most Agnostic tragedies simply take ethnic violence as their Faith instead.

Whilst the Holocaust was from Roman Catholics, it was rooted within the Agnostic beliefs (As Hitler was the Avatar), struck back with Anti-Theistic teachings (Nietzsche, re-written by his Anti-Semitic Sister), strengthened by the Atheistic manner (The Ubermann, held as a rival to God himself) and used for Science (The Camps being used for guinea pigs).

I'm sure I could find more, but I don't want to bring you down too much.

Quick note : Theism (and therefore Agnosticism/Atheism) didn't really exist before 1678; Atheism was first back in 1587. Before that you were just expected to believe, it just depended how much.

 

[oobee]

Brief resume : Invisible rhinos not existing doesn't imply that Unseen Entities also don't exist.

Proof : Wind Power.

Apparently, you haven't read my post (well), because I haven't said anything about gods not existing. I said that because we can neither disprove or prove that a god(s) exist, we shouldn't act like there is one.

there's not meant to be any rhyme or reason to having faith, i think logic and fact is a test of the strength of ones beliefs. I'm an atheist because i know more or less all religions derive from pagan sun worshiping, that's a fact.

 

[GloatingSwine]

New metaphysical law: The definite position and direction of a thread is indeterminable from one post to the next.

Schrodinger's Thread?

Heisenberg's.

Schrodinger's Thread is one where you can't tell whether it's been locked yet without hitting the reply button and collapsing the waveform.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Brief resume : Invisible rhinos not existing doesn't imply that Unseen Entities also don't exist.

Proof : Wind Power.

Apparently, you haven't read my post (well), because I haven't said anything about gods not existing. I said that because we can neither disprove or prove that a god(s) exist, we shouldn't act like there is one.

there's not meant to be any rhyme or reason to having faith, i think logic and fact is a test of the strength of ones beliefs. I'm an atheist because i know more or less all religions derive from pagan sun worshiping, that's a fact.

All science derived from men trying to get the elixir of life or a better canoe.

That does not decrease its worth, in fact, it adds to its majesty.

 

[Beowulf DW]

Arguing existentialism on a message board is pointless.

Everyone is so certain of their infallibility, neither side is ever moved by the others argument.

Here's what I think: The religious and the atheist are both wrong, neither side knows shit from shit, and they're both full of jerks.

Humanity is annoying.

To go way off topic here, this guy/gal has a point.

I mean, I'm already convinced I'm correct about whatever it is I happen to be discussing. I wouldn't jump around the Escapist forums being wrong. I'm not an idiot. Duh. (/joke)

 

[Uncompetative]

New metaphysical law: The definite position and direction of a thread is indeterminable from one post to the next.

Schrodinger's Thread?

Heisenberg's.

Schrodinger's Thread is one where you can't tell whether it's been locked yet without hitting the reply button and collapsing the waveform.

Wow. That is really witty.

 

[oobee]

Brief resume : Invisible rhinos not existing doesn't imply that Unseen Entities also don't exist.

Proof : Wind Power.

Apparently, you haven't read my post (well), because I haven't said anything about gods not existing. I said that because we can neither disprove or prove that a god(s) exist, we shouldn't act like there is one.

there's not meant to be any rhyme or reason to having faith, i think logic and fact is a test of the strength of ones beliefs. I'm an atheist because i know more or less all religions derive from pagan sun worshiping, that's a fact.

All science derived from men trying to get the elixir of life or a better canoe.

That does not decrease its worth, in fact, it adds to its majesty.

i totally agree with you Ultrajoe, its just that religion is not my cup of tea

 

[dadeisvenm]

Jobz, I don't think you understand certain dynamics. Religiously, it is highly discouraged for unequally yolked; people with different belief systems, to date or marry. In error most try to convert through sex and dating which does not work. So your better off either understanding, in this case, Christianity COMPLETELY via study or ONLY hanging in Atheist circles... that are comfortable for you.

Atheism is not a belief, it is a statement much like Christianity is a declaration. A (
no)+theo (God)= No God. A declaration.

If I were Atheist I'd be empatheticlly neutral. So being Christian, I'm surprised you raised the question. Christianity is not meant to be obstructive. Some Christian think just as fervently as Anti-theist but they are like butting rams. Does more harm then good for little gain. If you want to understand "belief systems" you have to be pluralistic and well informed and (most important) UNDERSTANDING. The girl you dined next to though your belief was disgusting because it IS HER belief period. Deal. Water of a ducks back.


Agnosticism (is the fancy pants word you're looking for Zek109)

 

[Nightfalke]

New metaphysical law: The definite position and direction of a thread is indeterminable from one post to the next.

Schrodinger's Thread?

Heisenberg's.

Schrodinger's Thread is one where you can't tell whether it's been locked yet without hitting the reply button and collapsing the waveform.

Good call. It's been a while since my quantum mechanics course in college.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Brief resume : Invisible rhinos not existing doesn't imply that Unseen Entities also don't exist.

Proof : Wind Power.

Apparently, you haven't read my post (well), because I haven't said anything about gods not existing. I said that because we can neither disprove or prove that a god(s) exist, we shouldn't act like there is one.

there's not meant to be any rhyme or reason to having faith, i think logic and fact is a test of the strength of ones beliefs. I'm an atheist because i know more or less all religions derive from pagan sun worshiping, that's a fact.

All science derived from men trying to get the elixir of life or a better canoe.

That does not decrease its worth, in fact, it adds to its majesty.

i totally agree with you Ultrajoe, its just that religion is not my cup of tea

Then let us forget all troubles and sing songs of merriment!

Suggestions?

 

[Uncompetative]

Atheism is not a belief, it is a statement much like Christianity is a declaration.
A (no)+theo (God)= No God. A declaration.

This seems entirely wrong to me. Are you really suggesting that Christianity is not a belief?

I would say as a non-militant, non anti-theist, Atheist that my world view cannot be proven or disproven so it is a belief.
I believe what I believe out of a preference to live in what I regard to be Reality (i.e. no Santa Claus, etc.).

Christianity is broadly similar and is also a belief, although it differs slightly as it generally requires faith.

Unless you have not re-examined your belief system since your cultural indoctrination (where some, mean people would call you a Sheep).

 

[Fraught]

Well, you can say I'm an atheist. Sorta. My school is a very religious one, and we have these church, uhh, things every so often. When other people do it (pray), then I usually do it too, but I don't believe in such a thing as God or something of a higher power. I mean, I can't prove there is a god. And also, like I already have said, different religions have different gods. We don't even know which one of them is right or wrong.

 

[Alex_P]

As for the people who have lost their loved one's to suicide, I wasn't bringing up their loss or their pain or how they deal with this.

What's this? "If the very thought of hell, and holy retribution hasn't saved many a stressed soul through-out the years from stealing from their loved one's themselves, and you still have a problem with religious dogma, then you are a bad person."

Saving "loved ones" some grief was basically the only argument you were making, given that the individual contemplating suicide in your little example has a life of "no happiness" to look forward to for himself.

-- Alex

So what exactly, is your argument then Alex? I simply put that religion, in a hypothetical setting, has been the sole purpose of people's aversion to suicide and has been the very thread on which life or death has rested upon for many a person, the crutch if you will, that has helped them through the dark days of our lives. What exactly, are you arguing Alex? That God doesn't exist? That God is merely a crutch? That religion is bad? That religion is the very root of the evil that plagues mankind? That if we all were all to take an Atheist point of view, those who committed suicide, their families who were atheist and had no fear as to where they ancestors souls rested, would be at ease because there is no hell to which they were sent?

"Loved ones" with parenthesis.

I'm arguing that using fear as a motivator is a double-edged sword, and shouldn't be embraced lightly. To that end I offered an example of how the concept of suffering and damnation as punishment for suicide -- which you seem to endorse on the grounds that it might discourage suicide -- can also be a social ill because it increases the trauma of a suicide upon the dead person's friends and family.

("Loved ones" in quotation marks because that's an idiom you use that I generally don't.)

-- Alex

 

[teh_gunslinger]

I would describe myself as an anti theist, but perhaps not in the was that OP uses the word.
I don't believe in any kind of divine beings, spiritual mumbo jumbo or stuff like that.

My reasons for not believing are primarily that I don't see a place for God in the world. Things work fine without him. I was recently asked by a sweet old lady from Jehovas Witnesses if I believed in god. No, I answered. She then asked me how I could fail to see the beauty of the Creation. I answered that to me, the universe is much more beautiful without god. I love life and sometimes I think I value it more because I know it's all I got..

That's the atheist part. I'm not a believer. (Though to be completely truthful to my scientific world view I have to admit that God is not impossible, just highly unlikely, and so I disregard that tiny possibility.)

The part about anti theism, for me at least, is less based on science than on feelings. I am opposed to religion and find that it does more good than harm. We, as a race, or what ever, simply don't need it anymore. We cripple ourselves by clinging to this nonsense. so I would only be happy if religion was removed from the world. I would, however, not force it to happen. I'm confident that the rest of humanity will grow up some day. And I wont take away peoples right to believe in whatever invisible friend they like. Just as I want to think the way I do. I would never try to force anything on anybody. I just wish religion out of existence. Such a simple wish, eh?

But I go further than that. If, however unlikely, Gods existence was proven to me I would have to acknowledge that fact. No problem. But nothing would make me worship him, by which I mean follow him. I would never relinquish my life to a, to steal a bit from Hitchens, celestial dictator. So I would know he was there, but ignore him. Simply put: I do not want to worship God, even if he was real.

I am an anti theist, but I don't attack religious people at every turn. (Apart from creationists, dinosaur fools and the like)

EDIT: I have edited the second to last part and changed believe to worship. It seems that I was to vague in my refusal to believe/worship god even if he was proven to exist.

 

[Jobz]

Jobz, I don't think you understand certain dynamics. Religiously, it is highly discouraged for unequally yolked; people with different belief systems, to date or marry. In error most try to convert through sex and dating which does not work. So your better off either understanding, in this case, Christianity COMPLETELY via study or ONLY hanging in Atheist circles... that are comfortable for you.

Atheism is not a belief, it is a statement much like Christianity is a declaration. A (
no)+theo (God)= No God. A declaration.

If I were Atheist I'd be empatheticlly neutral. So being Christian, I'm surprised you raised the question. Christianity is not meant to be obstructive. Some Christian think just as fervently as Anti-theist but they are like butting rams. Does more harm then good for little gain. If you want to understand "belief systems" you have to be pluralistic and well informed and (most important) UNDERSTANDING. The girl you dined next to though your belief was disgusting because it IS HER belief period. Deal. Water of a ducks back.

What I gather from reading this, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that people with different beliefs shouldn't associate with each other. Which to me is absolutely ridiculous. I have friends who follow all different religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, even a few Wiccans) so I know it's possible for people to be open minded, I've seen it. I also know couples with differing faiths who manage to stay together (One of my best friend's father is Anglican, while his mother is an atheist, and they've been together for over twenty years.)

Also, I know quite a bit about Christianity. Religion (In theory, not practice) has always been fascinating to me, and I've studied them independently because I'm a knowledge addict. In my experiences I have more knowledge about Christianity in particular than most Christians do, which is quite sad.

As for your point about Atheism and Christianity being statements and declarations, not beliefs. That just confuses me...I don't have any idea what you mean.

 

[Uncompetative]

I would describe myself as an anti theist, but perhaps not in the was that OP uses the word.
I don't believe in any kind of divine beings, spiritual mumbo jumbo or stuff like that.

My reasons for not believing are primarily that I don't see a place for God in the world. Things work fine without him. I was recently asked by a sweet old lady from Jehovas Witnesses if I believed in god. No, I answered. She then asked me how I could fail to see the beauty of the Creation. I answered that to me, the universe is much more beautiful without god. I love life and sometimes I think I value it more because I know it's all I got..

That's the atheist part. I'm not a believer. (Though to be completely truthful to my scientific world view I have to admit that God is not impossible, just highly unlikely, and so I disregard that tiny possibility.)

The part about anti theism, for me at least, is less based on science than on feelings. I am opposed to religion and find that it does more good than harm. We, as a race, or what ever, simply don't need it anymore. We cripple ourselves by clinging to this nonsense. so I would only be happy if religion was removed from the world. I would, however, not force it to happen. I'm confident that the rest of humanity will grow up some day. And I wont take away peoples right to believe in whatever invisible friend they like. Just as I want to think the way I do. I would never try to force anything on anybody. I just wish religion out of existence. Such a simple wish, eh?

But I go further than that. If, however unlikely, Gods existence was proven to me I would have to acknowledge that. No problem. But nothing would make me believe in him, by which I mean follow him. I would never relinquish my life to a, to steal a bit from Hitchens, celestial dictator. So I would know he was there, but ignore him. Simply put: I DO NOT want to believe in God, even if he was real.

I am an anti theist, but I don't attack religious people at every turn. (Apart from creationists, dinosaur fools and the like)

Excellent post. I also choose not to believe in a God regardless. As to the OP's musings about social conduct (saying grace) my advice is:

Good Manners
Tolerance
Avoidance

In that order of application to interpersonal situations. So, the 'saying grace' scenario is actually the fault of the host if they make you feel awkward for not doing as they do (or, 'God forbid' start the meal whilst it is still hot in deference to the cook). What a shambles. Sometimes even then you have to wait for the 'head of the household' to carve the meat and dole it out parsimoniously even though they did nothing to cook it in most cases.

I see this as a breakdown in communication between cultures/creeds. Yet, it is incumbent for both parties involved in a dinner invitation to communicate properly so at least there are no awkward surprises. This is much the same as being a vegetarian and not telling your host until you see the beef stew, or being someone who eats meat visiting a vegetarian who then says "I can't eat any of this, I have a nut allergy!"

 

[Janus Vesta]

I think this comic describes why I flip from kind athiest to evil, neck snapping anti-thiest:

(Sorry for small text in the image.)

I'm not saying it's 100% true but it's what I believe (or don't believe to be more accurate.

Also, for those of you who don't know Epicurus was one of the original Athiests:

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Simply put: I DO NOT want to believe in God, even if he was real.

O....K....

As for the Atheist poster, Evil is a artificial product of morality; and doesn't imply malevolence, just neutrality.

And the 'open letter' just sounds like someone being an ass.