Why Tolerate Anti-Theism?

[Yittle]

If you think we should tolerate anti-theism, please share why so I can try to attack your claims and ignore your points that are counterproductive to my entire fantasy.

Here are my thoughts on this for you:

If acceptance without reasonable evidence is faith.
And if a theism contains even one proposal requiring faith.
Then this theism is unreasonable.

Finally, why would a league of reason wish to tolorate the unreasonable?

Telling a person something as fact which is not yet supported by sufficent evidence (or lying to put it simply) is not a desirable feature of humanity at all.

The idea of "FreedomOfSpeech" dosn't at all qualify what the speech intails but i see Hytegia's point.
Given the power I would remove the "freedom to speak" from any religious nut intent on lying constantly for the rest of their days.
So either i'm wrong; or we need to change it to "FreedomOfHonestSpeech".
Where only claims which havn't been disproven and have sufficent evidence are permitted; which you'd hope everyone would want from their discourse anyway.

 

[Inferno]

Ah, that explains the heated discussion. In that case I agree that the Anti-Theism of UB is almost as bad as religion.

 

[Shydrow]

I don't think we should censor it but accept the fact some people really hate religion for whatever reason. I don't care what said reasons are in here by the way i'm just stating you hate religion thus you rather it not show up anymore.

The point it to censor them is a violation of there rights to speak what they think is right. It is a matter of opinion. As you have been doing you can debate and try to convince them that religion isn't all bad and it shouldn't be banned. They will argue otherwise. I personaly think religion should be private and out of public dormain.

We should not tolerate anything we dislike in society and we should aim to change it but we must be slightly understanding in the fact they think they have the right idea just as you do.

 

[Jotto999]

Telling a person something as fact which is not yet supported by sufficent evidence (or lying to put it simply) is not a desirable feature of humanity at all.

That does not fit the bill of a lie. A lie is something you say that you know is false, but you say it intending to convince others that it is true. Theists do not think what they are saying is false, and so are not lying, even though their opinion is irrational and they try to convince others that it is true.

Therefore, if your justification to censor the religious is that they are lying and thus could be viewed as immoral and harmful, then your justification is faulty.

 

[Yittle]

That does not fit the bill of a lie. A lie is something you say that you know is false, but you say it intending to convince others that it is true. Theists do not think what they are saying is false, and so are not lying, even though their opinion is irrational and they try to convince others that it is true.

Therefore, if your justification to censor the religious is that they are lying and thus could be viewed as immoral and harmful, then your justification is faulty.

Good point; distilling the dishonesty i mentioned down to a simple lie is probably too much of a stretch, its true for too few people to be valid.
Also your right about person in question considering their own argument satisfactory by their standards of evidence.
But i consider that very notion to be dishonest.
Is it reasonable for me to hold someone to account for being so dishonest that they believe their own lies and therefore "wrap-around" back to being honest?

If living honestly inside a security blanket of lies is unacceptable then my argument holds, On the grounds that we can throw away any religious person's personal standards of evidence on the grounds that they are to incompetent to hold a reasonable opinion on their own beliefs.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

Ah, that explains the heated discussion. In that case I agree that the Anti-Theism of UB is almost as bad as religion.

I would say it all boils down to how you wish to express your anti-theism. There's the whole "RELIGION SHOULD BE BANNED!!! GRRRAAAH!!! I HATE EVERYTHING!!! HULK SMASH!!!" type of anti-theism that some people might represent. People like that are probably a bit more strongly influenced by the literature which condemns a lot of religious extremism and simply appoints the same condemnation to all religion. Sometimes, it might appear that the likes of Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens represent this as well, but their brand of anti-theism offers sound reasoning at all levels, not strictly at the level of extremism. At the very least, though, you do say "almost" as bad. While it is as emotionally biased as religious bigotry, it is at least hating ideas that warrant hatred.

There is the fundamental argument that the risk of extremism is always there with any religion. I also alluded to this in a piece I put up on my site. But even aside from extremism, there's just the risks that religion present which are more innocuous and subversive because it just alters the way people think. Or rather, damages their ability to think. This is sort of the engineer's argument against religion in that one cannot only look at how well something works (i.e. looking only at the positives of religion), but also how well it fails. If something works well, but fails catastrophically, it's still a bad idea. Do we want to support bad ideas?

I think this argument going along the lines of attacking freedoms is something of an equivocation fallacy. It's equivocation of the impartiality of critical thinking with the freedoms to have any ways of thinking individuals might have. One doesn't achieve impartiality by simply creating balance artificially, but by taking the same approach to all ideas. Sometimes, things are simply wrong on an objective level, and as such there is nothing intrinsically bad about being against those ideas. Sometimes, certain ways of thinking are just plain wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt, so there's nothing evil about being against those ways of thinking. While you can argue that people do have the right to indulge in delusional ignorance, it is a right that only extends as far as the individual, and it ends where the rights of others begin. The sort of anti-theism that advocates legislating religion away is indeed going to violate individual rights, but the sort of anti-theism that seeks to inform people precisely why their beliefs are wrong and have no place in the real world doesn't really do that.

 

[Inferno]

Sometimes, it might appear that the likes of Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens represent this as well, but their brand of anti-theism offers sound reasoning at all levels, not strictly at the level of extremism.

I doubt that they would ever ban religion. Christopher Hitchens at least (I'm not a big fan of Harris) argues (from what I have seen of his arguments anyway) that people should be educated and that this education will in itself drive people away from religion. (Insert graph about IQ and Atheism here. )
(And that's exactly the sort of Anti-Theist I am too.)

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

I doubt that they would ever ban religion. Christopher Hitchens at least... <snip>

Well, I don't think they would either. I only mention it because I've seen that argument -- mainly from theists -- that the sort of people like Hitchens and Harris who advocate not applying magical thinking for anything that really matters is tantamount to supporting the outright banning of religion.

While there's a lot of talk from both of them about extremist behavior like 9/11, they also bring up a lot of day-to-day stupidity, too. I mean, I'm pretty darn anti-theist as well, and the usual argument is that sometimes people need that sort of guidance -- to which I say, then you either need to provide a secular guide that isn't morally reprehensible or inform them properly so that they can grow out of that weakness and actually think for themselves. I tend to prefer the latter, of course.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I don't advocate the banning of religion, but I do advocate its eradication.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I'm a theist - but my beliefs/religion are simple and aren't really morally reprehensible in the same regard as the Bible / Quran is. Some people simply enjoy their imaginary friends, and see no problem in believing in something. I see no problem in someone believing in something until it begins a gradual pressure upon what I believe...
Honestly I'm not a big fan of anti-theist thinking, but I'm not ACTUALLY against your ability to speak your minds and make yourselves known. This entire thread was a satirical laugh at that other thread.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

I'm a theist - but my beliefs/religion are simple and aren't really morally reprehensible in the same regard as the Bible / Quran is. Some people simply enjoy their imaginary friends, and see no problem in believing in something. I see no problem in someone believing in something until it begins a gradual pressure upon what I believe...

While that may be true for you personally, that is not something that can be universally said about theism, as theism is generally going to be tied to religion (as opposed to say, deism). Religions are going to have all sorts of stuff for people to find which may be good or bad, and you have no real certainty of what sort of a person it's going to create. Moreover, it's all prescriptive messages, rather than any sort of exposition of thought processes, so it simply doesn't have the sort of fluidity necessary to keep up with changing tides.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that we're talking about a sort of "unchurched" theism, in the sense that you believe in a personal God, but don't necessarily buy into any of the moral dictates of any particular religion, and is something fairly personal. The first question, then, is where does the basis of your beliefs come from? And then, there's the further question of what does it buy you?

Here's the thing with simply believing in a magical imaginary friend. The problem is why.... When you accept belief in something which, by its very nature is unbelievable, then what basis do you have for forming that belief? Is it simply the idea that's it's presumed to be a good thing to believe things? Well, then doesn't that prime your way of thinking towards believing other things for no good reason? Do you believe it simply because it feels good? Well, then, doesn't that prime you on some psychological level to accept things on the basis of how you feel about it rather than what is proper? That is damaging enough that it is putting you at risk of making some very poor decisions... and because it has fundamentally altered the way you think, there's pretty near zero chance that you will realize it yourself.

I know this is sort of a slippery slope argument, and it's probably not the case that people who believe in a God are more likely to fall for all sorts of new-age feel-good bollocks or buy into all sorts of alternative medicine. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a mild negative correlation since people who already take the God drug to feel good may nor really feel the need for "The Secret" or "Dr. Phil" in order to feel good. But it doesn't change the fact that the same sort of functional impairment is prescient, and puts one at risk of going for all sorts of stupid things for explicitly stupid reasons. There's nothing wrong with believing things... there's only something wrong with believing things for no good reason.

 

[Demojen]

I don't advocate the banning of religion, but I do advocate its eradication.

Finally, someone gets to the point.

Banning religion doesn't even address the issue of religion as it stands today. That merely places a choke hold on free thought.
Now, eradication of religion, at least then we're taking a stand. I look forward to a future where religious beliefs are treated appropriately and religion is treated as it should be, like the conspiracy theory psycho-babble its always been.

I look forward to a future when we as a species can appreciate one another for the things we do and not the things we ought to.
It is unfortunate that even mentioning these ideas raises the defense and ire of the religious, but we're fortunate that science continues to thrive amidst the controversy and can no longer be silenced by the church. Religion won't need to be eradicated. One day it will just die.

Die, perhaps is the wrong word. Religion will one day settle down, like the dust in an ancient tomb disturbed by the light of day as it is being excavated for science.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I'm not really up for banning anything - it's petty, useless, and generally doesn't work.
And, in the end, you can ascribe Religion to have some good for mankind - it's the loonies that turn Religion into a bad thing. All it takes to make a Religion, really, is for 5 people getting together and their worldviews being the same. Religion is the culmination of the other rights (assembly, press, speech, etc.) that we hold dear...
So I don't see it vanishing anytime soon.

 

[terriblecanyons]

I'm not really up for banning anything - it's petty, useless, and generally doesn't work.
And, in the end, you can ascribe Religion to have some good for mankind - it's the loonies that turn Religion into a bad thing. All it takes to make a Religion, really, is for 5 people getting together and their worldviews being the same. Religion is the culmination of the other rights (assembly, press, speech, etc.) that we hold dear...
So I don't see it vanishing anytime soon.

From this definition of religion that you provided, going to the supermarket is also a culmination of rights.

I think you're missing the point here. I, along with others in this thread, believe that there is nothing wrong with gathering in a building and demanding that some guy in the sky hear and acknowledge the fact that they're eating crackers in his name. But, there IS a problem with it getting in the way of the furthering of the human race - those who believe that science is a manipulation of satan, for example. Your definition of anti-theism is not only skewed but also completely and totally biased to fit your argument.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Your definition of anti-theism is not only skewed but also completely and totally biased to fit your argument.

That was the point of the Thread.

 

[OGjimkenobi]

Yep, we need to ban anti-theism outright and promote religion in every aspect of every person's life.

Also, there should be capitol punishment for blasphemy.

 

[Prolescum]

Yep, we need to ban anti-theism outright and promote religion in every aspect of every person's life.

Also, there should be capitol punishment for blasphemy.

Why don't people actually read the thread (not just the title) before responding? Perhaps it's time to let this one close, its purpose was fulfilled and its point is being missed so often...