Atheist or anti-theist?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

doctoremma

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Anti-theist.

Zombrex

I'm an anti-theist, I (unfortunately) think that religious belief and the wider phenomena in society of believe in supernatural claims and pseudo-science, does more damage than good.

That is not to say that I think all aspects of supernatural belief are horribly bad. I think it is nice that an old lady dying of cancer is not afraid of death because she believes she is going to meet Jesus

But (again unfortunately) that goes hand in hand a mother refusing a blood transfusion because she thinks God doesn't want her to have one, or the same old lady spending all her money of pseudo scientific "treatments" that do nothing or may make her worse.

Antbert

Well I definitely speak out about it so I suppose I'm an anti-theist. It seems so... hostile though. Ah feck it. I'm antitheist. For good reason though, I like to think.

Turtwig

Firstly can we make the distinction between the various forms of anti-theist?
You know the more "normal" one and the scary rohatch one? (Well I think it's scary.)

I don't like the term 'atheist' (too much respect to theism) so I guess that means I don't like 'anti-theist' either. Do I dislike all religion? Well, that not black and white either,but I'm more of a person against many forms of irrationial ideologies, many of which do not fall under any religion at all.
I prefer "freethinker" and will leave it at that.:)

Antbert

Malty_T wrote: »

Firstly can we make the distinction between the various forms of anti-theist?
You know the more "normal" one and the scary rohatch one? (Well I think it's scary.)

Oh my. Good point. That's a category I would not really like to be a part of.

Zombrex

Malty_T wrote: »

Firstly can we make the distinction between the various forms of anti-theist?
You know the more "normal" one and the scary rohatch one? (Well I think it's scary.)

I don't like the term 'atheist' (too much respect to theism) so I guess that means I don't like 'anti-theist' either. Do I dislike all religion? Well, that not black and white either,but I'm more of a person against many forms of irrationial ideologies, many of which do not fall under any religion at all.
I prefer "freethinker" and will leave it at that.:)

There is always one ....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

8kvscdpglqnyr4

This exact topic was covered before:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055398363

I am an Atheist. I think I'm more anti-organised-religion than anti-theist.

doctoremma

Alejandro Petite Stationery wrote: »

This exact topic was covered before:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055398363

I am an Atheist. I think I'm more anti-organised-religion than anti-theist.

I agree with this. However, I can't see a better way of taking out organised religion than by removing the very premise on which it was founded.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

NothingMan

I agree that anti theist does sound too militant. But I do actively speak out against religion when asked my views. I also would be a bit more strict on the whole baptism for easiness sake than some of the people here. But I don't ridicule anyone who does go to church or believe in a God so maybe "non miltant anti religious atheist".

Ickle Magoo

I'm not apathetic towards religion or theism and I wholeheartedly and often vocally deny the existence of a god, so I guess I must be anti-theist.

Edited to add: That doesn't mean I'm against theists as people - just the beliefs they hold in respect to religion/god.

Agricola

This thread reminds me that Dawkin's idea of re-branding atheists as "Brights" is a good idea. Well maybe not "Brights" as its abit elitist, but just something else. The word Atheist inherently relates to something that is irregular/odd and the term itself has negative connotations (especially in Ireland) while Anti-theist is obviously militant and aggressive.

As for myself, Id say somewhere in between. I would speak out against religion if the topic came up, but wouldnt go on a crusade to alter other peoples lives regarding faith.

Max Power1

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not apathetic towards religion or theism and I wholeheartedly and often vocally deny the existence of a god, so I guess I must be anti-theist.

Edited to add: That doesn't mean I'm against theists as people - just the beliefs they hold in respect to religion/god.

+1
That would describe me too. I would be quite vocal of my utter disdain for religion and religious belief, but my issue wouldnt be against the theist people themselves (except leaders of organised religion, but thats another story)

Galvasean

I'm mostly happy to let live in regard to religious people, to a point. When it gets to the point where they are doing crazy stuff like giving themselves retina damage by staring into the sun expecting to see the BVM, refusing life saving blood transfusions for their kids, teaching crap instead of science in schools (creationism), persecuting people for being gay, covering up child molestation cases, attacking cartoonists with axes because they drew a picture of some prophet, etc etc etc. someone has to yell 'STOP THE MADNESS!"
So yeah, I guess that makes me 'anti-theist' by defnition. But I am not against those who believe in God(s) as such, just the more harmful elements associated with various religious beliefs.
I consider myself more of an 'anti-religious BSist'. Of course, it's not exclusive to religion. It also extends to astrology, pseudo-science, X factor, ghosts and the loch ness monster.
So basically, I'm anti-BS.

Antbert

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm mostly happy to let live in regard to religious people, to a point. When it gets to the point where they are doing crazy stuff like giving themselves retina damage by staring into the sun expecting to see the BVM, refusing life saving blood transfusions for their kids, teaching crap instead of science in schools (creationism), persecuting people for being gay, covering up child molestation cases, attacking cartoonists with axes because they drew a picture of some prophet, etc etc etc. someone has to yell 'STOP THE MADNESS!"
So yeah, I guess that makes me 'anti-theist' by defnition. But I am not against those who believe in God(s) as such, just the more harmful elements associated with various religious beliefs.
I consider myself more of an 'anti-religious BSist'. Of course, it's not exclusive to religion. It also extends to astrology, pseudo-science, X factor, ghosts and the loch ness monster.
So basically, I'm anti-BS.

Well put. I think I'm the same.

There needs to be nice a summing up word for it. Someone who's anti BS and anti the harm it causes.

NothingMan

Antbert wrote: »

Well put. I think I'm the same.

There needs to be nice a summing up word for it. Someone who's anti BS and anti the harm it causes.

Intelligent.

Galvasean

NothingMan wrote: »

Intelligent.

Now we're back at the 'elitist' stage. We have to think of a name that doesn't make stupid people feel... stupid.

NothingMan

Galvasean wrote: »

Now we're back at the 'elitist' stage. We have to think of a name that doesn't make stupid people feel... stupid.

Rationalist?
perspicacious?

Anything the stupid people won't understand. (I used a thesaurus, I assume stupid people wouldn't think of that).

Galvasean

Ah Thesaurus...

Antbert

NothingMan wrote: »

perspicacious?

Please no. I'd have to google it.

GLaDOS

Alejandro Petite Stationery wrote: »

I think I'm more anti-organised-religion than anti-theist.

I'd be in this boat, I feel there is a lot on manipulation and misuse of religion for power, but it can inspire (though incorrectly imo) good deeds. I'd have nothing against an individual lay person or priest.

Apart from that, I consider myself agnostic

doctoremma

Antbert wrote: »

Well put. I think I'm the same.

There needs to be nice a summing up word for it. Someone who's anti BS and anti the harm it causes.

Adamsian? Pratchettian?

Dave!

Galvasean wrote: »

Now we're back at the 'elitist' stage. We have to think of a name that doesn't make stupid people feel... stupid.

Brights?

Damn I hate that term, hopefully it's in decline......

As for me, I'm an atheist. I get a bit uncomfortable when I see/hear people like the Hitchmeister taking very aggressively anti-theistic approaches. I guess I find Sam Harris's approach of being completely honest and not holding back, while being really polite and subdued and reserved, much more persuasive. I hate the way debates are often polarised, like religious vs. secular, public vs. private, pro- vs. anti-lisbon, and so on.

Even if you're on the side of truth and justice, like we are , I dunno I just find it very divisive. I get uncomfortable reading militaristic kind of language associated with debates like this. Richard Dawkins gave a talk entitled 'An Atheist's Call to Arms', and that title makes me cringe !

Having said that, I tend to lump religion in with all the other pseudoscientific and paranormal nonsense, as lazy, unscientific, intellectually dishonest, ignorant, naive gibberish.

Turtwig

Antbert wrote: »

Well put. I think I'm the same.

There needs to be nice a summing up word for it. Someone who's anti BS and anti the harm it causes.

Pearlist.

Physical Empiricist and Reasoned Logic.:)

Excelsior

I have always been interested how the anti-theists deal with their close friends who they respect but who have theistic tendencies?

Antbert

Excelsior wrote: »

I have always been interested how the anti-theists deal with their close friends who they respect but who have theistic tendencies?

I think most of my friends are buffet believers. I can still like them. It almost never comes up anyway. It just means we don't see things in quite the same way.

I did want to say 'I hate them.'.

Edit because I just thought of a friend I have that it does come up with. We argue about it. It seems to work.

Petrovia

Hmm. I suppose I'd like to call myself anti-dogmatist* and anti-woo... Religion is both (and a personal belief in God which is not part of an established religion is the latter), so...


*Mind you, I fear that might make people think I dislike dogs. Which I suppose I don't mind... I am more of a cat person really...

Ickle Magoo

Excelsior wrote: »

I have always been interested how the anti-theists deal with their close friends who they respect but who have theistic tendencies?

I don't have many close friends with theistic tendencies, those that do don't go beyond weddings and christenings out of the sake of family tradition. They have never known us to be anything other than anti-theistic and so are all well used to our views at this stage. For those we meet and the topic comes up we generally have a quick debate, debunk a few myths and move on. :pac:

Some of my in-laws are very religious and we have had some cracking debates over the years. When we first got married/had kids we used to have the odd awful comment, mostly out of ignorance it has to be said. As the years went by and neither us or the kids grew an extra head there has been much interest in what we think and why. Some have even come over to the dark side.

Soldie

I'm an atheist. I used to be more defensive of my position a few years ago, but never to the point where I'd have called myself an anti-theist. I was fed little to no religion as a child and, luckily, with the exception of one self-righteous ex-girlfriend's mother (:D), I've never had anyone else's religious beliefs forced upon me. I browse this forum from time to time and I must say that the depths to which some of the discussions go puzzles me -- I've never felt as though the burden of proof was upon the atheist, as it just seems like the most logical default position to me. Given my political views I'm critical of any intrusions foisted upon unwitting private individuals, be they religious, cultural, economic, or otherwise. Perhaps it is for this reason that I don't specifically target religion in my criticisms.

Turtwig

Soldie wrote: »

the burden of proof was upon the atheist,.

In before Jakkass says he believes theism has sufficient proof and atheism doesn't.:)

Zillah

As an anti-theist and naturalist I have little doubt that I personally will not make much of a dent in our species' belief in the absurd. I am, however, more than happy to be one drop in a growing tide of broad sceptical thinking.

My hope is not so much to deconvert the religious one by one, but to create an atmosphere in society whereby religion is seen as more and more ridiculous. This is one of the reasons I love people like Hitchens. While I may not agree with everything he says, and while I may think I'd have handled some situations with a more gentle hand, I think he is playing a very important role in this struggle. A very great many have an outlook that assumes religion is normal, special and deserves respect and immunity to criticism. Hearing Hitchens, even if they hate him, even if they disagree with him, will change their expectations and assumptions for the future. Instead of scoffing, raging or taking insult when they hear I am an atheist they think "oh", and little more.

Religion is all but dead in Europe. Religious institutions in Europe consist of crumbling Christian churches with too few priests, running on the fumes of the faith of a passing generation. It seems almost like my generation (current twenty somethings) very suddenly abandoned religion. I can honestly think of not a single genuine Christian in my extended peer group, let alone a devout Catholic. Many retain pretensions to religious or spiritual belief, but their faith is so feeble that it is virtually impossible for it to be inculcated in the next generation. Even my parents' generation express their religious beliefs with a vague embarrassment.

I'd say in another couple generations religion in Europe will be all but gone entirely. The US, while massively Christian, I'd say will eventually follow suit. The relatively recent extremism I think could be seen as a reactionary movement to their failing hegemony.

Daftendirekt

I'd generally come under the 'atheist' category. As others have said, I'd probably be more anti-organised religion or anti-dogma than anti-theism.

While my usual attitude is 'live and let live' I'd become a bit more aggressive (verbally! Not physically ) when a topic such as Islamic extremism or the denial of a blood transfusion to a child comes up. It's important for people to to realise that these are a direct consequence of people's adherence to dogmatic belief systems, and not merely a corruption of them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Daftendirekt

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't think an anti-theistic position is necessarily in conflict with a libertarian one.

After all, it's not about forcing people to change their beliefs, it's about breaking down the barriers that shield religion from criticism.

If it could be attacked like any other (bad) idea, a lot of the power it has at the moment would be lost.

eoin5

I want to see the decline of dogmatic ideology in general, so that makes me fall into the anti-theism bracket.

Mark Hamill

Im anti- gullibility and poor thinking. So many people "believe" in something because they where told to believe in it, I hate it when you ask someone why they believe what they believe and all they do is reiterate what they believe.
I'm anti- poor reasoning standards. Arguments from authority, arguments from majority, confirmational bias, people believing in something simply because it makes them feel safer or better, as if nice thoughts actually make bad things go away.
I'm always baffled at peoples lack of self respect, at how so many, otherwise intelligent, people will lie to themselves and hold to their own beliefs to such low standards.
I dont really consider myself anti-theist as I am open to the possibility that there is a theist somewhere that is not guilty of any of the above. However simply by questioning beliefs and practises of theists, I've yet to meet one whose beliefs dont fall apart under scrutiny.

Osgoodisgood

Atheist? Always

Anti-theist? When provoked by spying religious mumbo jumbo intertwined with normal society. And when I'm feeling ornery

Eliot Rosewater

I think that anti-theists are portraying a very negative image of themselves nowadays. At the risk of sounding extreme, I am repulsed by the Atheist Society in Uni. The irony of the Society is that while they are on a crusade to show Christianity for what it is, they've created an un-penetrable bubble for themselves. I saw one of their posters advertising a Is God Real debate, or some such thing, with two guest speakers. First speaker was from Atheist Ireland. And the second speaker from ... the department of Physics! So your "debate" on the validity of Christ is being held by two Atheists. Nice.


Im technically agnostic myself, for what it worth. But like any good liberal I cry shame when I hear of latest attempts of Muslim extremists to control our lives. But Im finding that the Anti-theists, more closer to home, are taking a lot more of my criticism than the religious. Theyre certainly trying to control my life more than the religious (here in humble and safe Cork).

eoin5

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Im technically agnostic myself, for what it worth. But like any good liberal I cry shame when I hear of latest attempts of Muslim extremists to control our lives. But Im finding that the Anti-theists, more closer to home, are taking a lot more of my criticism than the religious. Theyre certainly trying to control my life more than the religious (here in humble and safe Cork).

Eliot Rosewater

Remember the part I said about a bubble? Yeah, eoin5 just proved it.

Dades

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I saw one of their posters advertising a Is God Real debate, or some such thing, with two guest speakers. First speaker was from Atheist Ireland. And the second speaker from ... the department of Physics! So your "debate" on the validity of Christ is being held by two Atheists. Nice.

Were they they only speakers?
Seems a bit pointless alright. Would be like not allowing believers in here - potentially boring and predicable.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Theyre certainly trying to control my life more than the religious (here in humble and safe Cork).

Can you elaborate on that? I can't think of a situation where an atheist agenda might seek control of an aspect of my life.

Zillah

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Theyre certainly trying to control my life more than the religious

I bet this is utter hokum.

Mark Hamill

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think that anti-theists are portraying a very negative image of themselves nowadays. At the risk of sounding extreme, I am repulsed by the Atheist Society in Uni. The irony of the Society is that while they are on a crusade to show Christianity for what it is, they've created an un-penetrable bubble for themselves. I saw one of their posters advertising a Is God Real debate, or some such thing, with two guest speakers. First speaker was from Atheist Ireland. And the second speaker from ... the department of Physics! So your "debate" on the validity of Christ is being held by two Atheists. Nice.

Was this the poster?:

Firstly, I dont think it was a debate, looks like a lecture on the source of morality (from both the athiest and christian unions). Secondly, why assume the physicist is atheist?

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Secondly, why assume the physicist is atheist?

+1

I know that a Dr Frank Peters has preached at the largest Pentecostal Church in Cork. I presume this is the same guy? Funny how people just assume a physicist must be an atheist.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PDN

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Would that be trolls or humans walking on the water?

Sam Vimes

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Experiment: To walk on water.

Apparatus: Lake, person with legs

Method:

1. walk to edge of lake
2. Step out onto the water
3. A miracle occurs
4. put second foot on water
5. A second miracle occurs
6. Continue walking

edit: here he is describing the mathematics of it

robindch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, some bibulous scholars suggest that the accounts omit that the water could have been frozen at the time, while others point out that the water was simply pushing back. Creationists say "God did it".

You owe the oracle a fresh mojito.

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

Would that be trolls or humans walking on the water?

Wow PDN, probably the first time I've ever thank one of your posts and already you've made me regret it so much I've removed the thanks.