What does Anti-theism mean to you?

[lrkun]

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.

^-^ I can respect that. Again, like I said, this is what anti-theism means to me. Censorship or prohibition of theism.

But the correct definition is opposition to theism.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

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.

^-^ I can respect that. Again, like I said, this is what anti-theism means to me. Censorship or prohibition of theism.

You see, this is why I simply cannot stand all of this 'respect' talk you keep regurgitating. I don't want you to respect my opinion, I want you to defend yours.

If I'm wrong, I want to know about it. If you're wrong, I would you should want to know this as well. The only way to refine our beliefs is to examine and contest them. We don't achieve any forward motion by sitting here waxing respectful at each other.

 

[lrkun]

You see, this is why I simply cannot stand all of this 'respect' talk you keep regurgitating. I don't want you to respect my opinion, I want you to defend yours.

If I'm wrong, I want to know about it. If you're wrong, I would you should want to know this as well. The only way to refine our beliefs is to examine and contest them. We don't achieve any forward motion by sitting here waxing respectful at each other.

Ah, you wish for me to argue my position. It's simple. I think theism is detrimental to society. If no reason, logic, or education can produced the desire the effect, why not censor and prohibit theism. Sure, people can worship and be deluded at their own homes, but not in public. In short, anti-religion.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

You see, this is why I simply cannot stand all of this 'respect' talk you keep regurgitating. I don't want you to respect my opinion, I want you to defend yours.

If I'm wrong, I want to know about it. If you're wrong, I would you should want to know this as well. The only way to refine our beliefs is to examine and contest them. We don't achieve any forward motion by sitting here waxing respectful at each other.

Ah, you wish for me to argue my position. It's simple. I think theism is detrimental to society. If no reason, logic, or education can produced the desire the effect, why not censor and prohibit theism. Sure, people can worship and be deluded at their own homes, but not in public. In short, anti-religion.

Wait, now I'm confused.

I was asking you to defend your definition, that is to say, 'why do you define it that way, and not another?'

I wasn't asking you to mock debate as though you were a proponent of your definition (if that's what you're doing), or to state your own ideology (which would probably require a whole new thread.)

 

[lrkun]

Wait, now I'm confused.

I was asking you to defend your definition, that is to say, 'why do you define it that way, and not another?'

I wasn't asking you to mock debate as though you were a proponent of your definition (if that's what you're doing), or to state your own ideology (which would probably require a whole new thread.)

@.@ Well, you asked me a reason why I defined it that way. So I gave you an answer. @.@

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Alright then...

Ah, you wish for me to argue my position. It's simple. I think theism is detrimental to society. If no reason, logic, or education can produced the desire the effect, why not censor and prohibit theism. Sure, people can worship and be deluded at their own homes, but not in public. In short, anti-religion.

Why should this be called 'anti-theism?' Why not 'anti-religionism?' Why not 'theistic-prohibitionism?' And what's this about reason, logic, and education not being able to produce the desired effect? What's this about public vs private religiosity? Since were these a part of the anti-theist manifesto?

How do you get from the words:
Anti-
Theist
to this?

And are there any self-proclaimed anti-theists who hold this view? I know of at least one very vocal anti-theist who would object entirely to the point that education, reason, and logic are not sufficient to produce the desired outcome.

Since your definition seems to me to fail both on accounts of etymology and usage, I contend it is a poor definition.

 

[lrkun]

Alright then...

Ah, you wish for me to argue my position. It's simple. I think theism is detrimental to society. If no reason, logic, or education can produced the desire the effect, why not censor and prohibit theism. Sure, people can worship and be deluded at their own homes, but not in public. In short, anti-religion.

Why should this be called 'anti-theism?' Why not 'anti-religionism?' Why not 'theistic-prohibitionism?' And what's this about reason, logic, and education not being able to produce the desired effect? What's this about public vs private religiosity? Since were these a part of the anti-theist manifesto?

How do you get from the words:
Anti-
Theist
to this?

And are there any self-proclaimed anti-theists who hold this view? I know of at least one very vocal anti-theist who would object entirely to the point that education, reason, and logic are not sufficient to produce the desired outcome.

Since your definition seems to me to fail both on accounts of etymology and usage, I contend it is a poor definition.

Valid point. You're looking at the meaning of the word. On the other hand, I'm looking at the effect of the word in question. Yes, it isn't the best word to describe the whole shebang, nevertheless, it's what I think the result would be if the term anti-theism will be put into use.

It's not the best definition, as you said, it's not the CORRECT one, but it works for me. Again, the thread starter asks what does anti-theism means to you. That's my answer. ^-^

---

Anti-theism. Against the belief in gods or the supernatural.

How are we to apply this?

1. education, logic, reason, science, and others.

extreme 2. censor, penalize, and prohibit.

Thing is, most constitutions out there don't. So, I'm unlikely to gain followers nor convince people. But it's worth a test, if all else fails.

 

[Inferno]

Irkun I have to admit that I still don't follow you.

As A-Rex says, there is not a single Anti-Theist I know of who would be in favor of oppressing or censoring religion. So your definition (while being theoretically possible) goes against all practical use of anti-theism.
Or to break it down for you: While it is of course possible that anti-theists oppress religion, they don't do that in the real world. So your definition (again, while being theoretically possible) has little to no application in the real world and you actually shove aside the more valid definition of anti-theism, yet you still lump all anti-theists in a bag. (But not the bag they belong to.)
Do you see the problem here? I'll try another analogy: People are asking you to define animals and the way you define them is by saying that only unicorns are animals. Since of course you had to define animals, you then have to lump all animals into your definition of unicorn. And while a unicorn may be an animal, it doesn't exist (at least not in the way one uses unicorn) and it is only a part of the larger group.

I hope that analogy is easy to understand, but somehow I have my doubts, having written that bit just after getting up.

 

[lrkun]

Irkun I have to admit that I still don't follow you.

As A-Rex says, there is not a single Anti-Theist I know of who would be in favor of oppressing or censoring religion. So your definition (while being theoretically possible) goes against all practical use of anti-theism.
Or to break it down for you: While it is of course possible that anti-theists oppress religion, they don't do that in the real world. So your definition (again, while being theoretically possible) has little to no application in the real world and you actually shove aside the more valid definition of anti-theism, yet you still lump all anti-theists in a bag. (But not the bag they belong to.)
Do you see the problem here? I'll try another analogy: People are asking you to define animals and the way you define them is by saying that only unicorns are animals. Since of course you had to define animals, you then have to lump all animals into your definition of unicorn. And while a unicorn may be an animal, it doesn't exist (at least not in the way one uses unicorn) and it is only a part of the larger group.

I hope that analogy is easy to understand, but somehow I have my doubts, having written that bit just after getting up.

@.@ Anti-theism, to me, means prohibiting theism. I think that's clear. The "to me" should give you an idea where that's the definition of anti-theism as I understand it to be. Again, the correct definition is against or opposed to theism. Also, I've explained this a few the posts back as to why I defined it this way.

The key point here is we were asked to define anti-theism in our own understanding. I did just that. @.@

 

[Deleted member 619]

To my mind (or at least as I apply it to myself), anti-theism is the proposition that we would be much better off without the concept of deity, regardless of the actual existence of said deities. IMO, they're a hinderance to humanity.

 

[Prolescum]

Irkun I have to admit that I still don't follow you.

As A-Rex says, there is not a single Anti-Theist I know of who would be in favor of oppressing or censoring religion. So your definition (while being theoretically possible) goes against all practical use of anti-theism.

See here and here. The idea is more prevalent than you suppose.


This is the anti-theism I referred to in my initial post on this thread.

 

[Laurens]

Although I am anti-theism, I would refrain from using the label myself, simply because the term anti-theist would probably be misinterpreted by religious folk as me being someone who doesn't believe in God because I hate him and want to sin etc etc.

 

[Inferno]

Although I am anti-theism, I would refrain from using the label myself, simply because the term anti-theist would probably be misinterpreted by religious folk as me being someone who doesn't believe in God because I hate him and want to sin etc etc.

I very much agree. I joined the evolutionfairytale.com forum a few days ago, I wanted to see if they even know what a theory and a fact are. (Obviously, they didn't.)
I introduced myself by saying that I'm an Anti-Theist. Inevitably, this followed:

The only thing you did was add a caveat; the anti-theist is simply a mad atheist.

See here and here. The idea is more prevalent than you suppose.


This is the anti-theism I referred to in my initial post on this thread.

I stand corrected, they actually do exist. (This is like a rule 34... If it's possible, it exists. On the Internet of course...)
However, this still leaves out the (hopefully) majority of anti-theists like Laurens and Christopher Hitchens and me.

And IMO hackenslash nailed the definition.

 

[Krpi]

An anti-theist would be a person who sees religion as a negative thing in the world. Aaaand that's about it. I don't think anti-theism requires to you be vocal or actively act towards getting rid of theism altogether. And just like it's the case with atheism you can be an anti-theist for any conceivable reason. You can also have an anti-theistic view on one religion while being indifferent about another. I also don't relate anti-theism to any particular method with which to decrease the effects of religion (as opposed to someone immediately screaming "censorship!" when this topic comes up).
Very much like atheism, there's so much variations under the concept of anti-theism that I like to make as few assumptions as possible.

 

[Andiferous]

To my mind (or at least as I apply it to myself), anti-theism is the proposition that we would be much better off without the concept of deity, regardless of the actual existence of said deities. IMO, they're a hinderance to humanity.

Would you all really believe this? This sounds like something out of an Orwellian universe.

Of course there may always be a concept of a deity, as there might be a concept of Santa Claus, or of fairies and unicorns. If we're talking about concepts then banishing one makes anti-theists opponents of free thinking. No one can stop me from thinking about Mr. Snuffleupagus, so how can anyone stop anyone from dreaming up a god concept? What are you going to do if I'm seven years old and pretending to be Pallas Athena in the playground with the other Olympic gods?

Oodles of literature, art, music and culture over the ages have revolved around the concept of god. Is this to suggest we should do away with all of it?

Alright then...

Why should this be called 'anti-theism?' Why not 'anti-religionism?' Why not 'theistic-prohibitionism?' And what's this about reason, logic, and education not being able to produce the desired effect? What's this about public vs private religiosity? Since were these a part of the anti-theist manifesto?

How do you get from the words:
Anti-
Theist
to this?

This is an excellent point. "theism" is not interchangeable with "religion."

 

[Deleted member 619]

Whoah, hoss! Who said anything about banishing? I'm not an advocate of telling people what to think, or any kind of enforcement, I just think we'd be better off without it. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

Sheesh! What do you take me for?

 

[Andiferous]

Whoah, hoss! Who said anything about banishing? I'm not an advocate of telling people what to think, or any kind of enforcement, I just think we'd be better off without it. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

Sheesh! What do you take me for?

:lol:

I suppose I'm getting all these little definitions confused.

 

[Zetetic]

It seems like all we have to do here is make one distinction: You can be a libertarian anti-theist or an authoritarian anti-theist. Both would consider theism to be a harmful set of practices that should be discouraged, one would say that you have to make the decision to stop being a theist, one would ban all theism prohibition style. I think the former are more common than the latter, though perhaps it would be a good decision to make the distinction to avoid the sort of confusion by Irkun (who assumes it means something authoritarian) and some of the others who don't.

 

[MillionSword]

I consider myself an anti-theist in that I am against religion (or any dogmatic thinking) and I think it is dangerous, but this only describes my own beliefs. Acting on these beliefs in the form or censorship or making the positive claim that there is no god are just extras that an anti-theist may or may not support but aren't necessary, just as supporting evolution isn't strictly a part of atheism, but just a by-product.

I'm not into preventing peoples' right to believe whatever they want, but I do think religion is dangerous and am against it. So yeah I'd be an anti-theist in the same way as self-professed anti-theists like C0ctopus and Jen from the Atheist Experience.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

In fact, the worlds most outspoken self-proclaimed anti-theist has come out precisely against this.

Yes, I have. Nice that someone has finally noticed.

I am completely against theism, so that makes me anti-theism... and smart! Theism is always something to be against, because it values faith over evidence and reason. Even when a religion is relatively benign, the idea that you should base your beliefs on anything other than sound reasoning, logic, and evidence? That's never benign, and we should all seek to eliminate it from our lives and the lives of others.

However, you can't eliminate it by banning religion, or attacking religious people in general. Freedom includes the right to have bad ideas, and even to act on them when they don't infringe on others. The answer to ignorance is education, and the answer to a bad idea is a better idea.