Antitheism vs Atheism

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I don't like to consider atheism a religion, but, if the moderators do, I won't cry or anything. However, I would like to get the thoughts of leftists here. Most people call themselves atheists. Oh, you don't believe in God or believe he doesn't exist. Big deal, some people say. Everyone has their beliefs. Others are horrified. Still, are we sending a strong message that we aren't wishy-washy secular liberals? I know it is just a term, but is it better for the left to identify as Antitheist.

[apathy maybe]

We are materialists (generally), and that means atheist as well, we are also against and opposed to any superstition (generally).

So while we are atheist, we should also and as strongly be anti-theist. But more then just against the concept of god/s, but against any superstition, ghosts or elves or Santa's. We are supposed to be rational and believe in natural laws and physics.

Yes, let us be anti-theist, oppose those would attempt to spread their superstition, attack "proofs" for the existence of god or gods. Also attack metaphysical bullshit such as scepticism, it is irrelevant to us, as is the question of free will.

(Note I do not speak for those on the Left who are superstitious or "spiritual", they are welcome to their beliefs, so long as they do not attempt to infect anyone else.)

[chimx]

i personally waver between a kind of agnostic-maltheism and atheism.

antitheism implies that the religious institutions are inherently evil, as opposed to the spiritual entities themselves being inherently evil. I disagree with this.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 04:45 PM
antitheism implies that the religious institutions are inherently evil, as opposed to the spiritual entities themselves being inherently evil. I disagree with this.
Can you explain/justify that opinion?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 04:45 PM
i personally waver between a kind of agnostic-maltheism and atheism.

antitheism implies that the religious institutions are inherently evil, as opposed to the spiritual entities themselves being inherently evil. I disagree with this.
The 'spiritual entities themselves' cannot be inherently evil as they don't exist! If you think they do then you are a theist.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Not only do I not believe in god, I am also against such beliefs, hence anti-theism.
It's quite simple really.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+Sep 12 2006, 06:17 PM--> (Citizen Zero @ Sep 12 2006, 06:17 PM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 04:45 PM
i personally waver between a kind of agnostic-maltheism and atheism.

antitheism implies that the religious institutions are inherently evil, as opposed to the spiritual entities themselves being inherently evil. I disagree with this.
The 'spiritual entities themselves' cannot be inherently evil as they don't exist! If you think they do then you are a theist. [/b]
Precisely.

Unless he is referring to Priests etc, but essentially they make up the institution of religion anyway...

[LuXe]

Damn...

I thought an atheist didnt belive in any god/religious figure and therefore atheism is not considered a religion. Even though everyone says there is a GREAT distinction between religion and atheism. And religion means beliving in a god/religious figure.

Looks like im wrong. :D

XD

Sorry, pointed out the fact that you said that the mods "may call it a religion" :P

[rouchambeau]

Being atheist or anti-theist doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the Left.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 10:11 PM
Being atheist or anti-theist doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the Left.
Actually, it does. People who are religious do not analyze the world based on material reality. Their views conflict with leftism and result in incorrect conclusions about their surroundings.

[Delta]

I agree with Dooga, and for his stated reason.

I prefer to use the term atheist. Anti-theist can be misinterpreted to mean that we are against all people who are theists, which includes the vast majority of workers. However, it is absolutely true that I am completely against religious beliefs. So sure, I'm an antitheist, but I wouldn't go around trying to convince people with that label.

[Dyst]

Who cares.

[gilhyle]

Anti-theism is not well defined in this debate. While marxism considers churches reactionary institutions, it does not seek to suppress them - I am assuming your definitions of anti-theism dont extend to the suppression of churches.

[chimx]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Sep 12 2006, 05:02 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Sep 12 2006, 05:02 PM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 04:45 PM
antitheism implies that the religious institutions are inherently evil, as opposed to the spiritual entities themselves being inherently evil. I disagree with this.
Can you explain/justify that opinion? [/b]
certainly. antitheism is defined as the opposition to the belief in the existence of god(s), as opposed to atheism which is simply the disbelief in god(s). As such it doesn't pit itself against the deity itself, but against the institutions which preserve the belief in the deity, ie. churches, priests, christian sacraments (including marriage, funerals, etc.)

alternatively, dystheism, maltheism, etc. focus on the immorality of god himself. a omnipotent and allegedly benevolent god creates or allows "evil" to exist, though allowing us to be save through worship amounts to nothing more than spiritual coersion--bringing to doubt the truly benevolence of god.

but i question the praxis of antithesism, its attacks on priets, churches, etc., which can and have operated as positive institutions. liberation theology in Korea in the 1980s took on a radical neo-marxian angle. the same is true for some of latin america. I would prefer to see these institutions looked on as neutral institutions, manipulated by their historical context. Churches were capable of serving the ruling class under slave society, feudal society, and capitalist society. I see no reason to think why this can't continue to be true for a communist society.

though i disagree with the spritiual beliefs of the church, i prefer to direct my criticism at the deity instead of the organs of the deity, which often times mean well. thus i prefer dystheism to antitheism.



also, i know few working folk who would be eager to hear about why he or she should hate god and religion in the same breath as why he or she should hate capital. it is an alienating concept to many.

[cb9's_unity]

do we have to consider ourselfs athiests or antithiests? i know i believe in some sort of god but i usually keep it to myself. my point is that religion doesnt have to be an issue of the left movement, as long as people don't try to push there religion on to others its not a big deal.

[karmaradical]

Personally I dont think it would be wise to call the leftist movement anti-theism. IF anything we should be focusing on abolishing capitalism before God, because God will fall after capitalism.

I take the stance not to refer to myself as athiest, or anti-theist, because I think the question of God is so ridiculous, it shouldnt even be bothered with. I would say it would be much more productive for the left to abandon God all-together, and take attention away from trying to dis-prove it, to trying to disprove capitalism.

There are more important philosophical questions that the question of God.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I wouldn't have said initially that this should hav ebeen moved, but I think most of us take the stance of anti-theism and atheism, however if this topic is to develop it will inevitably have to be moved:P This isn't to say that atheism is similar to religion, it is just that no one can really oppose the views presented here outside of religion, and that is not what a discussion board is for.....


Actually, it does. People who are religious do not analyze the world based on material reality. Their views conflict with leftism and result in incorrect conclusions about their surroundings.
Much of the time yes, but moderate or mildly religious people (not your normal church goers) and also private worshippers often differ on theories of creation. In the absence of a definitive theory about the origins of the world our only certain approach (materialistic approach if you will) is agnosticism. You can be a materialist that doesn't know something, but it is more difficult to base materialism on incorrect beliefs (whethere these refer to god, the big bang, the flying space monkey or plasma cosmology).

For the most part however, allowing institutions, be these secular or not, to influence you does compromise your whole perspective. Media, Government or religion can affect materialistic world views, there is nothing exceptional about religion, except perhaps when referring to certain zealots. Again this is far removed from your average believer, and even further so from mere irreligious (although superstitious) believers.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+Sep 13 2006, 09:12 AM--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor @ Sep 13 2006, 09:12 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 10:11 PM
Being atheist or anti-theist doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the Left.
Actually, it does. People who are religious do not analyze the world based on material reality. Their views conflict with leftism and result in incorrect conclusions about their surroundings. [/b]
Eh, leftists are not paragons of rationality. Emersing yourself, your world-view within a an ideological framework, like marxism or capital A, Anarchism, can generate some pretty distorted views of 'reality'. Ideological dogmatism can trump 'material reality' and rational thinking for A LOT of leftists, which can lead to plenty of 'incorrect conclusions' about our surroundings. One of these arguably is dogmatic atheism, a rather short-sighted, unproductive position, that serves mainly to alienate even many of the most sympathetic religious people (say hi to the majority of the globe).

Moreover, being religious or having religious beliefs does not prevent people from being revolutionary communists, nor does it make them irrational fools who are constantly jumping to 'incorrect conclusions', that's a pretty silly caricature.

No human is perfectly rational, and certainly not dogmatic atheists.


chimx
also, i know few working folk who would be eager to hear about why he or she should hate god and religion in the same breath as why he or she should hate capital. it is an alienating concept to many.

Agreed.

Hopefully people will 'get over' this brand of dogmatism, and focus on like... getting the working class religious folk turned on to overthrowing capitalism and the state.

[Ambition to Learn]

Hi there.. Comments on this subject and please don't speed read -.- lmao

God Doesnt Exist..

"Who made you so angry?" This comment one is full of implications, and I could answer in a variety of ways. One favorite response is "Who made you so dumb?" But I could focus on the "made" part and say, "Well, God made me, so he must have made me angry." I could also point out that the question itself is extremely angry, and that those who see anger everywhere are themselves seething with anger but are repressing it and are thus not mentally balanced. Human beings SHOULD be angry, because their situation is atrocious. If there were such a god person directing everything, they should be very angry at "him," because this world is a mess and every day abominable things are happening to millions of people. Of course, the standard stupid response to this is that "God gave us free will."
"I'll pray for you!" This comment sounds like an alien language to freethinkers. It comes out something like this: "BZZZPPFFFFTTT." When interpreted, it becomes clear that the person who is making such a comment feels quite smug and superior in that he/she has chosen the RIGHT god, compared to whatever it is you do with your consciousness, such that he/she now has a direct pipeline, whereas you do not, and he/she will put in a good word for you, you lowlife scum. Since the concept of "God" is completely arbitrary, we could respond that we will pray to the Cosmic Mickey Mouse that our well-wishers become intelligent. Naturally, we are not talking about loved ones who make this heartfelt prayer comment in times of true trauma. We are addressing the condescending offer presented by missionaries and proselytizing fanatics who have never even met us but who feel they know we are sinners who need prayer to their "Father in heaven." Theirs is a rather unctuous and smarmy mentality.
Now, just in case you think I'm being a bit harsh in pronouncing these statements and sentiments psychotic, I offer up the following email--you decide. Do you truly want to live in a world dominated by this kind of mentality?

"Alas, your vile vulgarness comes out. It's obvious you and your mind belong to Satan. The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. You are a very sad excuse of a human being. You babble about things you know nothing about. The Jews aren't Christkillers. Whoever told you that. Jesus died for all of us, so we all are Christkillers.... Whether or not you like it, or admit it, you were created by God, you will be judged by God, and you will be punished by God. You can play all the games you want to until that day of judgement, but it's coming."

To these loving, advanced concepts, I respond, "You and your mind obviously belong to Ahriman the Devil! Ahura-Mazda the Almighty will judge and punish you! My Persian boogeyman is bigger than your Judeo-Christian one! You barbarian with a bone in your nose! Ooga-booga!" Then I follow this with much saber-rattling, teeth-baring and chest-beating.

All of these comments reflect that the believer is angry, volatile, primitive, arrogant, mentally unbalanced and does not display critical thinking. Let us now spell it out:

If you believe there is an invisible giant man of a particular ethnicity in the sky who is directing everything and who is so hateful he will viciously punish us for challenging his existence--
If you believe that this invisible giant man got a 13-year-old virgin girl pregnant, who then gave birth to him as his own son--
If you believe that this god person wrote a book--and one book only--
If you believe that "confessing the Lord" will instantly remove your sins, thus allowing you to commit more--
If you believe that a stone will remove your sins, thus allowing you to commit more--
If you believe in vicarious blood-atonement, i.e., that "the Lord died for your sins" and thus you can commit as many as you wish--
If you believe that merely believing in such a god person makes you righteous, no matter what atrocities you commit and what hatred and intolerance you carry and spread--
If you believe that some "good" god person is going to reward you for killing living, breathing human beings "in his name"--
If you believe that going to church, temple, synagogue or mosque, making pilgrimages, or wearing particular clothes or headdresses, makes you a righteous person, even though you don't behave like one otherwise--
If you believe that you are special and chosen because of what you believe--
If you believe that it is good to mindlessly go along with whatever anyone tells you about the nature of God and religion--
If you believe that believing in one God makes you better than and superior to those who don't--
You are not displaying critical thinking, not using your mind. You are also uneducated as to the world's cultures and history. It is not a sign of great intelligence to blindly believe what someone else has told you is true, especially when such beliefs basically condemn hundreds of millions of other people. Many of these blind believers are simply not very bright, yet they assume that their belief equalizes them with those who are smarter. "Jesus loves you just the way you are!" is the hypocritical hue and cry of those who feel inferior but who will not recognize it and admit it. Yet, according to these same cheerleaders, Jesus DOESN'T love you just the way you are--you must thoroughly change, surrendering your mind and soul to him. A bit of a psychotic extortion racket.

The bottom line is that those who dare to question and challenge cherished beliefs which are not rational and reasonable, and who live relatively righteous lives without such irrational and intolerant beliefs, should be recognized as being the epitome of what any god person would wish in "his children." They are utilizing all of the gifts that such a god person would provide, were "he" real. And if they have utilized these "God-given" gifts, they know that the interpretation of "God" is a cultural artifact, not an absolute truth that must be defended and beaten into other people. In using these gifts, they will discover that over the millennia, hundreds of millions of people have held differing opinions as to the Infinite, which is only common sense, since it is, after all, Infinite.

Humans need to lighten up! Their gods and religions are dreary, humorless, wrathful, intolerant, oppressive and generally unpleasant. There is no love, no joy, no fun! Humans are under the dominion of ideologies that are slowly but surely killing them. They need to release them and be free! No one is going to punish them for enjoying life, and there is no point to living if they can't enjoy it. No good god person wants to see people stumbling around in dread seriousness, doing cockamamie rituals and constantly beating up themselves and others. Life is a joke. There is no purpose, so everyone is free to create his or her own, making it as amusing, joyous and scrupulous as possible
Comments .. Please feel Free.

[Ambition to Learn]

Bump Bump Bump

[Guifes]

Isn't anti-theïsm a bit authoritarian in it's defiance. I don't believe in any deïties myself, but I don't think that grants me the right to condemn people religion. People who want to believe will believe, in fact they will become more fundamental believers if you deny them their beliefs. Besides you can't really prove the non-existence of a deity so atheism is in fact a belief, just as theism is.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Isn't anti-theism a bit authoritarian in its defiance. I don't believe in any deities myself, but I don't think that grants me the right to condemn people religion. People who want to believe will believe, in fact they will become more fundamental believers if you deny them their beliefs. Besides you can't really prove the non-existence of a deity so atheism is in fact a belief, just as theism is.

Wow that’s all a load of shit.

Anti-theism is not authoritarian, how could it even thought to be?

Religion keeps people from forming rational ideas. In developing nations, where religion is highest the workers there generally have the most contradictory ideas.

People will believe what they are indoctrinated with. It’s no coincidence that if your parents follow a certain religion then you will be more likely too also.

This works on a societal level too. If the State you live in gives a particular religion a "special" place then regular people will un questioningly follow it.

If you challenge theists on religion and can debunk their myths then you will slowly gain more credibility. The industrialised west is a good example of the scientific community challenging Christian interpretations of the world and debunking them. Eventually this will happen all over the world, hopefully.

And atheism is not a belief just like theism. Theism makes UNPROVEN claims. Atheism says you’re wrong about those claims you made, but since we didn’t make the claim we don’t have to provide evidence disproving you until theist evidence is provided.

We don’t need to prove the non-existence of a deity, since they are making unproven claims in the first place.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Excellent post, Ambition To Learn. You're preaching to the converted, (if that's the right phrase) but it's nice to hear rational voices once in a while, especially while the angry god-squad(s) knock on your door.

-Alex

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 12 2006, 01:33 PM
We are materialists (generally), and that means atheist as well, we are also against and opposed to any superstition (generally).

So while we are atheist, we should also and as strongly be anti-theist. But more then just against the concept of god/s, but against any superstition, ghosts or elves or Santa's. We are supposed to be rational and believe in natural laws and physics.
You raised a good point there actually, and it's something I've never thought of. Santa. Is there anything wrong in allowing children to believe that Santa brings them presents? Will the whole thing be just scrapped along with Christmas? If Christmas is replaced, will the new festival have a mythical being who delivers presents?
An odd thing to think about really, just occured to me I've never really considered a belief in Santa harmful, though I suppose it potentially could be, making children believe in more than material reality from a young age.

[Notso Outlandish]

I used to hope and think that the grip religion exerts on the world would be naturally eroded by increased educational standards. I am now not so sure. It's one thing to respect the rights of others to believe anything they wish; it is another thing altogether to allow them to indoctrinate innocent children with those beliefs.

While accepting people’s right to believe whatever they wish, I don't feel that those beliefs should be accorded any more immunity from scrutiny, analysis or refutation than any others simply because they are "religious".

I am currently reading Richard Dawkins The God delusion, which the author hopes will have the result that “religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down". Being an anti-atheist myself, I am of course too biased to judge if he has achieved his aim. I can't imagine though that any rational person with a genuinely open mind could maintain a belief in an omnipotent supernatural creator after reading it. (Mind you, Ambition to Learn does it for me in infinitely fewer words, nice post AtL)


A minor point Dawkins mentioned in the preface to the book concerns the Lennon song, Imagine. He says that "the song is sometimes performed in America with the phrase "and no religion too" expurgated” and that "One version even has the effrontery to change it to "and one religion too""

Now that would be sacrilege! :-)


"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion"

Robert M. Pirsig - Zen and the Art of Motorcycling Maintenance

[Severian]

Originally posted by Notso [email protected] 15 2006, 06:16 PM
It's one thing to respect the rights of others to believe anything they wish; it is another thing altogether to allow them to indoctrinate innocent children with those beliefs.
And what do you propose to do about that?

I'm imagining the size of the police-state apparatus it would take to take away the children of millions.....

[Notso Outlandish]

[/QUOTE] And what do you propose to do about that? [QUOTE]

I don’t expect to be in a position to personally do anything about it.

If my opinion where to be canvassed or considered, I would suggest that children should at least be protected from state sponsored religious indoctrination in faith schools. I did not of intend to imply that children should be removed from all religious parents.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Notso [email protected] 16 2006, 01:37 AM
If my opinion where to be canvassed or considered, I would suggest that children should at least be protected from state sponsored religious indoctrination in faith schools.
That's a much more limited statement.

[An archist]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 12 2006, 05:08 AM
I don't like to consider atheism a religion, but, if the moderators do, I won't cry or anything. However, I would like to get the thoughts of leftists here. Most people call themselves atheists. Oh, you don't believe in God or believe he doesn't exist. Big deal, some people say. Everyone has their beliefs. Others are horrified. Still, are we sending a strong message that we aren't wishy-washy secular liberals? I know it is just a term, but is it better for the left to identify as Antitheist.
Jup, anti theism all the way!

[Notso Outlandish]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 09:55 AM
That's a much more limited statement.
My statement regarding how I think the problem might be addressed in no way limits my previous statement that imo, indoctrination of children is totally unacceptable. In fact I consider it to be tantamount to child abuse.

[nmlssone]

Anti-theism implies that you care and actively disdain religion. I care and actively disdain religion. Therefore I am an Anti-theist.