What does Anti-theism mean to you?

[Nightmare060]

Greetings one and all!

This is something I have been thinking about for quite a long time. I was never very religious, and even when I did consider myself a Neo-Pagen, I never took it very seriously to begin with. However I have dramatically changed my stance on religion in the past few years regardless.

I used to raise an eyebrow at the statements that "Religion is child abuse" or the notion of a "Skeptic", thinking that they were just people who were deliberately picking fights with people of faith in anything supernatural and putting them down, just like religious "Extremists" (which I saw as an extreme minority).

However now I am far more critical of religion and accept the large amount of damage it does to peoples lives and how barbaric that religion can be to people. I am now a secular humanist and I do not think that religion is useful or necessary to peoples lives, and I would much rather promote skepticism and get people to think about all aspects of what their religion really is.

That being said, I still do not consider myself an anti-theist. The reason being that I find the notion of being "Against all religion" to be much to vague. What does it mean to oppose something? Does it mean you would willingly force people to abandon their religion if you could? Does it mean that you think all religion, no matter how relaxed and liberal, is always a bad thing? If this is the case, then I would consider myself Anti-Fundamentalist (in what I think forcing fundamentalism is wrong), but not anti-theist since I do not mind those of moderate faith.

But unlike what is the popular notion, I don't find many of what these notions would describe as a "fundamentalist Atheist". Even Dawkins and Hitchens I just see as critics of religion. Despite not minding people of moderate faith, I don't think any belief should be immune to criticism. But on the same level, I do realise that many people of faith would gladly call out the bullshit of their own religious institutions.

So I would like to know, anti-theist or not, what do you define anti-theism as? Is it possible for you to be an anti-theist and still be accepting of moderate religious people? Where do you draw the line between moderate and extreme, if at all?

I would much prefer to get information on what people actually think rather than base my opinions on a misconception.

 

[Squawk]

I define myself as being atheist and anti-theism (and to some extent anti-theist). However, I'd probably argue that what I really am is anti-woo and it just so happens that religion is the most pervasive woo around right now.

I like informed opionion and critical thinking. I love the idea of lots of people with different ideas and approaches, different world views, different outlooks, but I hate the idea that these differences are based on nothing more than bullshit. My usual example of this is abortion. I can argue either side of the abortion debate passionately, and my position on it is never fixed. I balance various different aspects and I find a constant dilemma, there simply isn't a right answer, there is probably just a "best" answer, and we can argue about what best is until the sun goes down. My opinion is free to change as new evidence is brought to light.

Religion can (not must, but can) serve to prevent informed discussion. There will be some who will argue that a zygote has a soul, and no reasoned argument can take place. The conclusion has been dictated by the particular brand of woo the person has attached themself to and prevented them making a decision. If someone is to argue that abortion is 100% wrong then I'm happy for them to do so, but I want them to have a valid reason (ethics, but lets not get into that).

I hate conclusions being dictated by faith, and thus I define myself as anti-theism. I dislike conclusions based on bullshit, and religion can only ever provide such bullshit.

 

[Prolescum]

I am of the view that anti-theism (of the UltimateBlasphemer type) is counter-productive and irrational. Most people are religious, this will not change overnight, nor within our lifetimes.

Humanity's longing to understand has been expressed numerous ways over the millenia, and although superior, science is by no means a complete answer. The truth is, until our world is one of equity and compassion, religion will be a rallying cry to the poor and the weary, the sick and the oppressed; until people come to the realisation that we have to literally stand against abuse for the sake of profit that fosters discord and bedlam, religion will be a cushion against the pain; until education is genuinely regarded as an enshrined right for all and persecution based upon ethnicity is denounced without dissent, until we finally give a toss about each other, religion will be there to tell them at least someone loves them.

The best I think we can do is promote critical thinking and reason, people like Christine O'Donnell show exactly why these are important.

:lol:

 

[Andiferous]

Nicely said.

 

[DeusExNihilum]

To me, Anti-theism is Atheism that asserts itself. There are atheists who don't get involved with the debate, with the counter apologetics, with refuting the claims etc etc...and there are those who don't. The former, IMO, are anti-theists. There's usually also a nice big spoonful of anti-accommodationism thrown in too.

They/we also go by the names "Gnu atheists" or "Militant Atheists" of "Fundamentalist Atheists" depending on whether, usually, you agree with them or not.

 

[lrkun]

It means censorship to me. Stoping/preventing theism. It's not very appealing, because I support the idea where it's better to have a lot of belief templates rather than one correct thing.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

It means censorship to me. Stoping/preventing theism. It's not very appealing, because I support the idea where it's better to have a lot of belief templates rather than one correct thing.

How many anti-theists can you name who support censorship?

You definition doesn't seem to sync with the constituency.

 

[Inferno]

It's interesting how everybody has different views on Anti-Theism here.

The Wikipedia definition is of course

The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.

So while I agree with Irkun's

Stoping/preventing theism.

I have to disagree with

censorship

(Wholeheartedly agree with Anachronous Rex, beat me to it mate.)

There is a distinction to be made between "oppressive anti-theism" (in which case I would agree with Irkun) and what I would call "intellectual anti-theism" or maybe "Christopher Hitchens anti-theism". (In which case I revert to my original position: I disagree with "censorship".)

People like Christopher Hitchens and me (I too am an Anti-Theist) would never advocate censorship. I hold the position that "I'll defend your right to say stupid things to my death, but I'll equally have the right to expose them for the idiotic things that they are". If that's censorship then obviously everything I've said is wrong, but it doesn't seem to be. If the above only makes me a strong Atheist...

Well in any case my definition goes on. Contrary to what Atheists may think about God ("It would be beneficial if a God were to exist." And by God I don't mean the Christian God or the Muslim God, but the IMO very contradictory, all encompassing, omnibenevolent, omnipresent God.) I as an Anti-Theist would be utterly appalled at the idea of any God to exist (except of course the FSM, the IPU and Thor) because God seems like the concept of ultimate evil.
So even if I was absolutely 100% sure that God existed, I would not bow down to it, not worship it and certainly not be happy about that.
(The whole thing collapses if a new, non-contradictory God who would be truly good and loving were to emerge, but I have yet to see such a God.)

I also want to challenge Prolescum's

Most people are religious, this will not change overnight, nor within our lifetimes.

That may very well be the case, but that's not a reason why I shouldn't challenge religious belief. If I let religion spread, (IMO a detrimental world view) I will most certainly have problems with religion in my lifetime and my kids will certainly live in a worse world. (That's notwithstanding that there are some genuinely good religious people out there, of course there are. But religion as a whole, that's the problem.)
Maybe I'm a selfish bastard but I want religion to be gone in my lifetime. (Forgot who said that...)

Saying that Religion won't go away overnight is true but it opens this back-door to saying "well no need to do anything then."

 

[lrkun]

It means censorship to me. Stoping/preventing theism. It's not very appealing, because I support the idea where it's better to have a lot of belief templates rather than one correct thing.

How many anti-theists can you name who support censorship?

You definition doesn't seem to sync with the constituency.

I'm just answering the thread-starter's question where he/she asks what anti-theism means to me. The above is how I define it, if it's correct or wrong, is subject to scrutiny.

 

[Prolescum]

I also want to challenge Prolescum's

Most people are religious, this will not change overnight, nor within our lifetimes.

That may very well be the case, but that's not a reason why I shouldn't challenge religious belief. If I let religion spread, (IMO a detrimental world view) I will most certainly have problems with religion in my lifetime and my kids will certainly live in a worse world. (That's notwithstanding that there are some genuinely good religious people out there, of course there are. But religion as a whole, that's the problem.)
Maybe I'm a selfish bastard but I want religion to be gone in my lifetime. (Forgot who said that...)

Saying that Religion won't go away overnight is true but it opens this back-door to saying "well no need to do anything then."

I didn't say you shouldn't challenge it, my point is that until the underlying political issues are resolved, you're fighting the wrong battle. Arguing on the internet or telling Mormons who knock on the door to piss off doesn't really have much impact. Deal with the reasons people turn to faith, desperation, destitution, poverty and similar and it will lose much of its power.

 

[Aught3]

So I would like to know, anti-theist or not, what do you define anti-theism as? Is it possible for you to be an anti-theist and still be accepting of moderate religious people? Where do you draw the line between moderate and extreme, if at all?

Say you had a giant dial, if you turned it to the left the religiosity of the world increases but if you turn it to the right then the religiosity of the world decreases. If you would turn the dial to the left I would say you are a pro-theist, if you would turn the dial to the right then I would say you are an anti-theist. You could also not care, in which case you are in the middle.

Considering all the extremist religiosity that is around I think it's possible to anti-theist (want to reduce religiosity) and be accepting of moderates.

I dislike lines, but if I had to draw one I would probably put it between those who recognise that their religious restrictions apply only to themselves (moderates) and those that try and extend their religious rules to those who don't share their faith (extremists).

 

[Anachronous Rex]

How many anti-theists can you name who support censorship?

You definition doesn't seem to sync with the constituency.

I'm just answering the thread-starter's question where he/she asks what anti-theism means to me. The above is how I define it, if it's correct or wrong, is subject to scrutiny.

You are of course entitled to your own definition, but if your definition neither conforms to etymology or to usage then I have to ask, "what's the point?"

I don't mean to be adversarial here, Irkun, but suppose I were to define 'anime enthusiast' to mean 'hentai enthusiast.' How would that make you feel as someone who likes anime?

I would think as someone who probably deals with the fragrant abuse of the 'atheist' moniker by religious types, that this would be a familiar concept.

 

[lrkun]

You are of course entitled to your own definition, but if your definition neither conforms to etymology or to usage then I have to ask, "what's the point?"

I don't mean to be adversarial here, Irkun, but suppose I were to define 'anime enthusiast' to mean 'hentai enthusiast.' How would that make you feel as someone who likes anime?

I would think as someone who probably deals with the fragrant abuse of the 'atheist' moniker by religious types, that this would be a familiar concept.

I don't mind. I like hentai. Hehe. What's wrong with enjoying something sexy every now and then. ^-^ Of course, I might be wrong with respect to the general populace of anime enthusiast aswell as with my definition of anti-theism, but the consequences is something I have to face alone.

I see anti-theism as censoring theism. In one point of view it is so, because it prohibits theism.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

You are of course entitled to your own definition, but if your definition neither conforms to etymology or to usage then I have to ask, "what's the point?"

I don't mean to be adversarial here, Irkun, but suppose I were to define 'anime enthusiast' to mean 'hentai enthusiast.' How would that make you feel as someone who likes anime?

I would think as someone who probably deals with the fragrant abuse of the 'atheist' moniker by religious types, that this would be a familiar concept.

I don't mind. I like hentai. Hehe. What's wrong with enjoying something sexy every now and then. ^-^ Of course, I might be wrong with respect to the general populace of anime enthusiast aswell as with my definition of anti-theism, but the consequences is something I have to face alone.

I see anti-theism as censoring theism. In one point of view it is so, because it prohibits theism.

I think you're really going to have to qualify that. I know of no anti-theist who has come out in favor of prohibiting theism. Unless you have some specific example in mind, I'm tempted to think that you are imagining this.

 

[lrkun]

I think you're really going to have to qualify that. I know of no anti-theist who has come out in favor of prohibiting theism. Unless you have some specific example in mind, I'm tempted to think that you are imagining this.

By definition, anti means opposed to. One who is opposed to theism or the belief in a god. The end goal is to stop theism.

An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. An antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular. The concept allows a distinction to be drawn between the simple indifference or apathy towards theism, atheism, or agnosticism (cf. apatheism), and a position of antipathy or opposition towards such beliefs. Hence, Stefan Baumrin defines an "antitheist" as "one who actually espouses atheism and would try to convince theists of the error of their ways. A mere atheist might think, or even write, as in a diary or a wellworked manuscript to be left in a locked desk drawer these words but would never broadcast them." [1]

Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University, states "while atheism is the lack of belief in any god, anti-theism means actively seeking out the worst aspects of faith in god and portraying them as representative of all religion. Anti-theism seeks to shame and embarrass people away from religion, browbeating them about the stupidity of belief in a bellicose god."[2]

Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who take the view that theism is dangerous or destructive. One example of this view is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which Christopher Hitchens writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."[3]

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

The "anti" prefix simply means "against" or "opposed to"... so all it means to me is to be opposed to theism. I'd define myself as an anti-theist in this sense since I am opposed to theism. That theistic beliefs and their groundings are harmful and counterproductive to society. Faith is basically indefensible, and religious dogma is more appropriate as a scarlet letter of shame on humanity.

I'm just answering the thread-starter's question where he/she asks what anti-theism means to me. The above is how I define it, if it's correct or wrong, is subject to scrutiny.

Well, according to your definition, then, would you say then, that there is a significantly large contingent of anti-theists? I wouldn't say that it's zero, but I would think it pretty small. At best, it might be the sort of thing that even so-called agnostics might blurt out in a fit of rage, but I don't think that really counts for much.

With the semi-literal definition I used, while it at least speaks of being opposed to be the very idea of people having theistic beliefs, it says nothing about the specific method of opposition that people would seek to employ. Whereas including censorship and the outright infringement of people's rights in the definition does make that definition fairly specific. How then, would you define someone who is vehemently opposed to religion and theism in general, but seeks to rid the world of it through rational discourse with the goal of actually convincing people little by little? How would you define someone who seeks to rid people of their belief in creationism by teaching them actual science? Neither of these acts are acts of censorship, yet both carry the intention of being against theism... but according to you, actually marginalizing belief by force of law is the definition of anti-theism.

Deal with the reasons people turn to faith, desperation, destitution, poverty and similar and it will lose much of its power.

As an anti-theist myself, the thing that sticks out is that those of us who are atheists are not atheists for simple or uniform reasons, but one thing is common. We're atheist by choice, and among the majority are people who are atheist by virtue of the knowledge and understanding they've amassed over the years. There's little point in being an atheist by force... it'll never stick anyway. In terms of how I picture a strong and effective destruction of theism, the most powerful weapon I can put forth is proper education availed to all. That by itself will not be 100% complete, but as individual measures go, it's about as effective as it gets.

 

[Nightmare060]

So I would like to know, anti-theist or not, what do you define anti-theism as? Is it possible for you to be an anti-theist and still be accepting of moderate religious people? Where do you draw the line between moderate and extreme, if at all?

Say you had a giant knob, if you turned it to the left the religiosity of the world increases but if you turn it to the right then the religiosity of the world decreases. If you would turn the knob to the left I would say you are a pro-theist, if you would turn the knob to the right then I would say you are an anti-theist. You could also not care, in which case you are in the middle.

Considering all the extremist religiosity that is around I think it's possible to anti-theist (want to reduce religiosity) and be accepting of moderates.

I dislike lines, but if I had to draw one I would probably put it between those who recognise that their religious restrictions apply only to themselves (moderates) and those that try and extend their religious rules to those who don't share their faith (extremists).

Interesting point. If we go by this definition, then I would be anti-theist. But I probably would not be one to turn the dial (a more fitting physical analogy, but I digress) all the way back. So to some extent I am an anti-theist, but I still think that Secular Humanist describes my views better. That, and I am quite fond off the mythos behind pagenism, wicca and shintoism. In the same way as I would enjoy mythological stories.

 

[Aught3]

Dial! That's the word I was looking for.

 

[theatheistguy]

The prefix 'anti' has two meanings:
1) opposed to
2) opposite of
For example, someone who is anti-abortion is opposed to abortion, and having sex with them may be an anti-climax (Carlin anyone...?). The latter of course does not refer to being opposed to climaxes, rather just the opposite of climaxing. Therefore, I define anti-theism in two ways:
1) to oppose the belief in a deity or deities
2) to believe there are no deities (that being the opposite to believing in deities - atheism being the neutral middle ground between theism and anti-theism).

An anti-theist can fit either or both of these criteria. I personally define myself as an agnostic (I do not know if deities exist), atheist (I lack a believe in a deity or deities), anti-theist (see both definitions above).

Theism is not the same as religion (there seems to have been some confusion in the earlier comments) and while an anti-theist may be opposed to the belief in a deity, as well as being anti-religion, the individual may not believe in censorship (another matter of confusion earlier) or the restriction of an individual's rights or beliefs.

I would think it best that someone not believe in a magical being that could command them to kill their children, or make believe that science in nonsense wrapped up in lies (oh the hypocrisy), however I will not forcibly stop someone believing (if such a thing were possible), nor stop them from following out their beliefs. My only point of interjection would be in self-defence, or that of another.


As a final point, I would like to rebut a common response to definition #2 of anti-theism, that it is therefore a faith based believe, on par with religion. No, it is not. I do not believe in a deity (and this may differ for others) because I see no evidence of one but do see so much evidence supporting the natural origins of the universe and life. There is no faith there, I am not blindly believing in something which provides no evidence, and where evidence to be provided, I'd be embarrassed, but I'd admit I was wrong.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I think you're really going to have to qualify that. I know of no anti-theist who has come out in favor of prohibiting theism. Unless you have some specific example in mind, I'm tempted to think that you are imagining this.

By definition, anti means opposed to. One who is opposed to theism or the belief in a god. The end goal is to stop theism.

An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. An antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular. The concept allows a distinction to be drawn between the simple indifference or apathy towards theism, atheism, or agnosticism (cf. apatheism), and a position of antipathy or opposition towards such beliefs. Hence, Stefan Baumrin defines an "antitheist" as "one who actually espouses atheism and would try to convince theists of the error of their ways. A mere atheist might think, or even write, as in a diary or a wellworked manuscript to be left in a locked desk drawer these words but would never broadcast them." [1]

Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University, states "while atheism is the lack of belief in any god, anti-theism means actively seeking out the worst aspects of faith in god and portraying them as representative of all religion. Anti-theism seeks to shame and embarrass people away from religion, browbeating them about the stupidity of belief in a bellicose god."[2]

Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who take the view that theism is dangerous or destructive. One example of this view is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which Christopher Hitchens writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."[3]

It is a mistake to equate opposition to prohibition. Again, I can think of no anti-theist who favors prohibiting religion. In fact, the worlds most outspoken self-proclaimed anti-theist has come out precisely against this.