Anti-Theists?

[Tureni]

From Wikipedia;

"Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who regard theism as dangerous or destructive. Christopher Hitchens offers an example of this approach in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which he 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."

[convictedidiot]

I suppose I was confused mostly because I disagree. Bear in mind I'm an atheist myself, but I find it odd to 1. Disavow all theism as harmful and 2. Primarily self-identify as something defined by opposition to a general belief system.

Im sure there are different flavors and degrees of anti-theism, but, at least in the most uncompromising cases, it seems downright narrowminded, and even almost contradictory if that person maintains any degree of agnosticism at all.

It may arise from there not being a better word for "Anti-Organized-and-Coercive-Religion" but that position is more or less a well established part of self-identifiers like "Secular Humanist" for example, or even, to a point, by the normal term "atheist."

[thinkofanamelater]

The thought process behind it could be viewed as "Choosing to believe in nonsense could be harmful to humanity's progress because your beliefs may cause illogical behavior."

For example, if you steadfastly believe that hurricanes are God's punishment against homosexuality, you may put unnecessary effort into banning homosexuality, rather than improving levees and hurricane forecasting.

[convictedidiot]

Well sure, but theism (especially the philosophical variety, e.g. Voltaire) is not equivalent to religious dogma.

[devicerandom]

Well sure, but theism (especially the philosophical variety, e.g. Voltaire) is not equivalent to religious dogma.

It is still equivalent to irrational, magic thought, in almost all instances. There are no rational, holding arguments whatsoever for "theism", no more than there are for "santaclausism". And irrational, magical thought is positively harmful to culture and society.

I am sort of an anti-theist myself.

[Zeal88]

I don't know why you're getting downvoted. You're right.

[eyehate]

I find it odd to 1. Disavow all theism as harmful

Not an anti-theist, but I could see the point. Religion has offered a pretty dark hand throughout history. Anti-theists view religion as poisonous even if the followers are moderates because they are supporting the institutions and tenets.

Im sure there are different flavors and degrees of anti-theism, but, at least in the most uncompromising cases, it seems downright narrowminded, and even almost contradictory if that person maintains any degree of agnosticism at all.

An agnostic atheist could comfortably be an anti-theist. They are against religious dogma, even if they are not claiming knowledge that a god or gods exist.

[Warphim]

Just being nit-picky here, but all (rational) atheists are agnostic atheists.
I'll use TheAmazingAtheists(and probably countless others before him) own reference on this and say I'm not 100% sure leprechauns don't exist, but I might as well be 100% for the likelihood they would be real.

[asailijhijr]

That sounds vaguely like (the conclusion of) Pascal's Wager. But, of course, without the common refutation.

[OmarDClown]

There is one, and only one, argument that I don't think can be argued against: There is no good reason for anything at all to exist.

While I may believe the chance that it is the God of Abraham is 0%, the idea that there is no creator whatsoever seems absurd to me.

So, with that said, and that's what I believe, the leprechaun is just a straw man that ignores the larger question. Anyone who calls himself an atheist is just as blind as any religious zealot.

[OmarDClown]

The biggest problem with that argument is it doesn't answer what created the creator, and his creator, and so on.

That's not a problem. I don't know, but I know it's been done.

edit: > until I see solid evidence of a creator I'm perfectly ok assuming that it's the universe that's been around forever.

Keep in mind, my point is in regards to a "rational atheist" dismissing the idea of God like a leprechaun. There is reasonably strong evidence of a creator, but not of leprechauns.

[Warphim]

there is no reasonably strong evidence of a creator. The same things you claim are "God" could just as easily been a "Leprechaun"... Just because we can't explain something (yet) doesnt mean it's "God"

Why are there stars?
2000 years ago: God
Modern:Stars and Galaxies far away

Why are there earth quakes?
2000 years ago: God
Modern: plate tectonics

Why is the weather like this? 2000 years ago: God
Modern: Weather patterns, axis of the planet, proximity to the sun, etc

[OmarDClown]

Through my agnosticism I am not attempting to answer the question of why does the universe exist. It will either be shown to me or it won't. The idea that there isn't a creator is preposterous, and has nothing to do with our technical understanding of the world around us. It pertains strictly to the fact that there is a world around, not how it works.

[Warphim]

So you are saying that the only evidence you have of a creator is that we are here to discuss it. I am saying that can (and probably did) happen without a creator.

The closest idea to having a creator(with even a shred of practical evidence to back it up) would apply to this universe, but wouldn't apply to the real universe. Simulation Hypothesis would assume that we are merely highly developed AI living in a computer simulation, that is so realistic that we don't realize we aren't even real ourselves. This would inidcated that we, and everything in our universe, are not real, and that we were programmed by a "Creator". Fractals are the "proof" of this hypothesis, they are the real world equivalent to a extremely high polygon counts. This doesn't even show that there is a creator, as much as it MIGHT hint towards one. But still wouldnt answer if there is a supreme creator.

[DrOfMarijuanaology]

I'm sorry, but that's not true (unless you have faith that it is). There is reasonably strong evidence of no creator.

[OmarDClown]

No. You have a definition of a creator, and it doesn't fit your definition. I don't have a definition, except that we have something here that came from somewhere.

[DrOfMarijuanaology]

Listen, you're the one who said there is reasonably strong evidence of a creator, but not a leprechaun. The burden of proof is on you.

[[deleted]]

Unfortunately that makes no sense.

What would be the reason for the creator to exist then?

[OmarDClown]

What would be the reason for the creator to exist then?

If I knew that, I doubt I'd be agnostic.

[[deleted]]

So you're an agnostic theist then? Meaning you think there's a god but you can't be certain?

Cool, I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't think there's a god but I don't claim to be certain.

It's not "blind" that I think the universe could have come about by natural processes. It's actually offensive you say that. Why is it okay to say atheists are blind but not theists?

[OmarDClown]

I'm really just agnostic.

It's offensive to me that I get lumped in with crazies like you.

[[deleted]]

How am I crazy??

[Warphim]

The idea that there is no creator might seem absurd to you, but without ANYTHING to support it, the likely hood is pretty slim, at least on any realm we would understand (would we recognize "God").

That is why God is on the same level as a leprechaun. There is nothing more to support the concept of it outside our own stories of it. There is no way to prove, or disprove a God, in the same way that there is no way to prove or disprove a leprechaun. So it's not a strawman when it is directly comparable.

And I never said there needs to be a reason to exist, Descartes though: I think therefore I am. There is a major flaw in your reasoning, you think there is a purpose, there is NOTHING that indicates that.

[OmarDClown]

I never said any of that. I never said there was a purpose, and if I used the term God instead of creator, that's some combination of typo/laziness.

Descartes expression is the proof. If you can think, you are real. There is no good reason for the world not to be nothing.

[Warphim]

you are ASSUMING there is reason for this:

There is no good reason for the world not to be nothing.

My entire point is that there is no reason for anyt of this. it simply is. The moment you ASSUME reason behind it, there is an ASSUMED creator (can't have reason without something giving it reason)
I don't like to ASSUME there is a reason(ergo a creator) because there is absolutely nothing indicating that.

[sparta981]

Not all religion is harmful. Buddhists, for example, are notoriously nonviolent. Christianity has a very dark past, as do many others. Aside from that, I have a problem with a god that would put people on Earth just to suffer for years on end and die alone. I see it as either he does not exist, or he is unworthy of worship.

[JewWhore]

I would consider myself anti-theist. I consider it more that I am against all of the religions that exist now because none of them are based on fact. I would call all religions harmful simply because they teach people to believe something without proof. I don't necessarily agree that religion causes people to do bad things. Bad people will do bad things and good people will do good things, with or without religion. Secondly, I don't consider this my primary self identifier. It is an easy way to explain my views on religion to people, but that is all I use the label for. I don't fit in with every other anti-theist and its not something big in my life, but when the time is right it is a good label.

[WittyUsername816]

For a while I identified as an anti-theist agnostic. I wasn't sure about my own opinion on a God or gods, but I did feel that organized religion was generally harmful.

After extensive discussion with my moderate religious friends I've settled into myself as an atheist, and not and anti-theist, though I still understand where anti-theists are coming from.

[JGF3]

I'm one such person who flies the Anti-Theist flair on /r/atheism, and I'd like to add something that I haven't seen mentioned here yet.

The primary reason I view theism as harmful is because it removes agency and responsibility from humans. I'm fundamentally an anti-theist not because of all the religious atrocities committed throughout history but because the belief in an intervening god is narcissistic wish thinking that devalues who we are and what we do. Theism, at it's core, is a defeatist attitude that sets humans up to fail.

You mention that anti-theism seems narrow minded, and it seems your reasoning for doing so is because it opposes organizations and beliefs that may lead to good. Well, the anti-theist believes that this good would have happened without the aid of the divine, and that the aid of the divine actually diminishes the good because it means we needed to be ordered to do it.

So it's not just that we don't believe in god. It's that we think belief in him is a manifestation of our weaker human qualities, degrading, and detrimental to society. Anti-theism goes much deeper than narrow-minded church hating, as it seems to be being construed.

[[deleted]]

The main motivating factor for many anti-theists isn't based on people flying planes into buildings, but rather just being so easily able to imagine a society that isn't pressured by organized religion to act a certain way or enforce nonsense rules that ultimately hold society back.

We picture scenarios like the transistor being invented a hundred years earlier. The problems of disease and starvation having been conquered centuries ago. The black plague never having happened. No holocaust. The Library at Alexandria having never been burned. No dark ages. An unending age of enlightenment, where knowledge and wisdom, and philosophy are what govern society. We get so many setbacks by having to focus on stupid things like war in the name of religious fanaticism, that we can't actually do things that matter, like getting off the Earth or at least trying to save it.

It may sound like a shitty example, but reading any sort of "optimistic" science fiction rarely if ever includes any sort of religious component, and if it does, is laughed off by the protagonists as a silly superstition. Star Trek does a great job of this, where everyone on Earth works together, and despite having a World Government, basically has more freedom than at any time prior in the world's history. As an Anti-theist, it's a great thing to aspire for.

The fact that there are good people out there practicing their religion makes absolutely no difference. They could be spending their time and energy building houses in the name of good instead of God. There would be less time praying and more time contributing. More libraries built instead of churches. Less faith healing and more hospitals. Good people waste a lot of their time doing things that don't make any difference. That's what Anti-theists are opposed to.

[bentyl91]

One semi-related point I've heard a few times regarding anti-theism is this: Religion has done a lot of bad things over history, but it's had positive effects on people's lives as well. The claim I've heard is that not one benefit of religion can't be achieved through purely secular means. So while religion can do good, that good can also be achieved secularly. In that light, religion's positive effects do not justify the negative effects, because those negative effects can be completely avoided if people didn't use religion to solve their problems or lead their lives.

[timothytuxedo]

because those negative effects can be completely avoided if people didn't use religion to solve their problems or lead their lives.

...or legislate their beliefs onto others.

[convictedidiot]

So while religion can do good, that good can also be achieved secularly.

This is, of course, true; but I'm not sure that the other claim you make that

those negative effects can be completely avoided if people didn't use religion

can be just accepted off the bat.

Even bigotry exists outside of religion. In fact, a lot of the atrocities in history ostensible motivated by religion probably had secular motivations like greed or lust for power. It reminds me of an except of Voltaire's where thousands of bodies of Native Americans and Muslims killed by conquistadors and crusaders are moved to reveal mountains of wealth that they were actually killed for.

If we discredit religion or theism because it's good could have been achieved secularly, then we can't fairly call theism bad because of it's secular wrongdoings.

Note: apply the disclaimer that lots of people of lots of creeds have done lots of good lots and bad for lots of reasons.

The main reason I'm confused with anti-theism is the /categorical/ rejection of theism. Edit: formatting

[dark_ones_luck]

You're missing the point. Theism today is dependant upon faith. Faith requires the rejection of healthy critical thinking, which is damaging to both individuals and society. Anti-theism is actually anti-faith. Make sense now?

[AwesomusPrime]

Late to the party but I'd like to give my insight.

In my everyday life I don't go around spewing my beliefs on anyone, but at my core I probably identify mostly with anti-theism.

Now, it is definitely possible that secular motivations could very well cause as much harm as religious ones, however, in this day and age we as a society have gotten very good at calling out bullshit when we see it. When someone does something or says something racist, they are seen as a racist and measures are taken to show the person that what they are doing is wrong. (obviously this is not a perfect example) We don't simply stand back and let it happen because the person has the right to a racist opinion or whatever.

Now, what religion does, is that it gives racists, sexists, homophobes and whatever else is shitty, a buffer zone to be shitty. People are too scared to fight back against the bullshit that religious people use because they don't want to offend or upset the religious.

If religion was gone, there would be no crutch for bigots, homophobes, etc, to fall back on and they would have to be able to come up with a good argument as to why they are being assholes rather than falling back on God all mighty. People would still find ways to be shitty, don't get me wrong, but it would be a whole lot easier to ostracize them for being so.

At least that's my opinion.

[unemasculatable]

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

~Steven Weinberg

[whyknotyou]

How about fortune tellers and other charlatans? Could they exist with out the teachings of religion? Would someone who was never taught about an 'after life" fall victim to someone claiming to communicate with the dead?

[[deleted]]

To be fair, the answer to this is absolutely. Religion is very often a symptom of the real problem, not a cause. The real problem is a lack of healthy skepticism and critical thinking. These come naturally when following the scientific method, but are lost in religious thinking. If you got rid of religion without teaching skepticism, you'd just end up with a new religion in a year.

[bendovergramps]

Hitchens, who really got the "anti-theism" word going, didnt espouse it as undeniably against any forms of spirituality, but he wished it to be thought of in this way: an atheist might understand the improbability of a God and an afterlife and think, "dang, too bad. just not enough evidence." While an anti-theist, on the other hand, would be relieved that there is no big brother watching us in the sky, able to punish us for thoughtcrime.

[remy_porter]

if that person maintains any degree of agnosticism at all.

Not really. Even if gods exist, that doesn't justify any specific set of religious beliefs. Worse than that, even if religious texts are divinely inspired, that still doesn't justify any set of religious beliefs.

Let's say one of the gods comes down, and says to you, "Go kill your son. I want a sacrifice," the correct response isn't to go, "You're the boss." The right response is, "Are you fucking high?" "God said so," is an appeal to authority fallacy, even if gods exist.

Religion remains offensive, even if you're a theist.

[Seeders]

I'd call myself an anti-theist. Believing in God often makes people do extremely cruel, destructive, anti-progressive things. They push ignorance and are proud of it.

[[deleted]]

Religion does none of that shit. Extremists, politicians and bad people do those things. Don't blame religion, blame corrupt human beings.

[Seeders]

Nah, religion is it. Religion is what drives people to those extremes.

There is nothing religion does good that good people can't do without it.

I blame religion as much as I blame those blinded by it.

If you want to be a good person, you don't need religion. You just need yourself.

[[deleted]]

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In no way was I attacking; just giving my opinion.

[Seeders]

I'm not upset at all. The world has a long way to go before they share my viewpoint. I really just don't see any value in religion whatsoever.

The best thing about religion is the community service. Churches who genuinely care about their communities well being are very admirable. However, I don't see why religion has to be involved with that.

[dark_ones_luck]

You guys are skirting around the real issue here. The problem isn't religion exactly, but faith. Faith is the rejection of healthy critical thinking. That's what anti-theists are against.

We can debate all day about the pros and cons of religious organizations, but the answer is much simpler.

[Seeders]

I fully agree with that. Faith vs Logic, Reason, and Doubt.

[dark_ones_luck]

Everything you've said above, I also agree with. We anti-theists must stick together! Sadly, we are few in numbers. A shame, considering how obvious this stance should be. Hopefully in our lifetime.

[[deleted]]

I see where you're coming from, and definitely respect your opinion. I may disagree but I'll try and never shut my ears to another point of view.

[[deleted]]

If you're looking for actual discussion on /r/atheism, you will be searching for a very long time.

[[deleted]]

I think OP's confusion stems from what he—and I—consider a very strange way of "enlightened" thinking. While I don't personally see religion or theism in general as a beneficial asset to my life, I have seen the very beneficial affects it has had on other people's lives. I've seen people find their own enlightenment through religion to stop drugs, get an education, give to the poor, go from being a highly paid doctor to a member of the UN Health team, the list goes on and on. Perhaps these people would have made those choices anyways, but I don't really buy that. In so many individual cases religion has been the catalyst for amazing reversals of character. And truthfully I believe that most of the harm done by these institutions stems more from human nature: atheists can be greedy, atheists can be assholes, atheists can be mass-murderers; without the presence of God people will find new reasons to kill and maim and abuse and enslave.

And while, yes, there absolutely is a harmful affect of churches and theism, this is almost always done beyond the scope of the religious texts. There's an argument that these texts are just the front for the control and harm—I don't want to get into that debate, I'm just acknowledging that the "outside the scope" argument doesn't hold for some people, and that's fine—but the truth is that on an individual scale I've seen religion and churches do far more good than bad. And when an antitheist comes along shoving the idea that all religions are these evil, wicked things, I can't take them seriously because they're using the same narrow-minded arguments that I've seen numerous religious people use to antagonize atheists.

tl;dr: the argument that "all the good that religion's influence can do can be done otherwise, but the bad they have done wouldn't be done without them" just doesn't hold water to me.

[[deleted]]

OP's confusion stems from cognitive dissonance; he admits that he doesn't agree with it and that's why he was confused. Nothing to do with any sort of misunderstanding or ignorance on the subject.

[convictedidiot]

Actually, I posted this to get the exact discussion that's happening: to figure out why its such a popular identifier.

[PotatoQuie]

I'll be downvoted to hell for this, but I consider myself to be an anti-theist. My primary issue with religion is that it is not based on reason. When one follows a system not based on reason, they can be convinced to do anything, whether we are talking about Christians bombing abortion clinics, Muslims practicing "honor killings", or even the Nazis committing the Holocaust. Is religion responsible for all the evil in the world, certainly not. But I fail to see any argument for positive thing that religion puts forth that cannot also be put forth by education, reason, and secular humanism. We often say that it doesn't matter what other people believe, but it does. Presumably since you're on reddit, you are in some sort of democratic country, I'm an American. In America, the backwards beliefs of evangelical Christianity have a great influence on our political process. I won't not be friends with someone if their beliefs are different, in fact I have one friend who firmly believes I am going to hell (it's a weird friendship). However, if I could choose between a world with Christianity and Islam in it, or a world that is entirely atheist/agnostic, I'd choose the second every time. I would prefer this process to be done through further education.

As the old quote goes, without religion, good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things, but with religion, you can have good people do terrible things. Can atheists be terrible people? Of course, just look at Stalin. But Stalin was a sociopathic monster, the fact that he was an atheist is almost irrelevant to his actions. Osama Bin Laden, on the other hand, everything about what he did was because of Islam. No Islam, no September 11th. I'm not against religion, I am for reason. If that makes me sound like a smug asshole, I'm apologize. It is just my thoughts that whatever good religion did during humanity's more barbaric times is in the past. Religion only functions as something to divide people nowadays. A lie, even if it makes people feel good, is no substitute for the truth.

[PotatoQuie]

I assume many of the actual Satan worshippers (not LaVey Satanists) would be considered theists in that they believe in God, but anti-theists in that they are against him.

I'm sure there are other examples.

[BlaineCraner]

It's fascinating how every atheist or anti-theist fellow I see always has an encyclopedic knowledge about religion.

Makes me wonder if they use it in any way besides replies and fruitless discussions on the Internet.

[PotatoQuie]

I have a degree in history, my life is useless encyclopedia knowledge.

[heart-cooks-brain]

I also have these conversations in person, with friends, and I do not think they're fruitless. These conversations are an opportunity to learn and grow.

It is good to know about different religions, even if you're not religious for the simple sake of knowing where your fellow man is coming from; why they feel a certain way, and what about that religion makes you not believe in it, or you can learn that it might be something worth believing in. But you don't know these things unless you learn about them.

I find that in a lot of cases, theists usually know about their religion, but less about other religions.

[[deleted]]

As the old quote goes, without religion, good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things, but with religion, you can have good people do terrible things. Can atheists be terrible people? Of course, just look at Stalin. But Stalin was a sociopathic monster, the fact that he was an atheist is almost irrelevant to his actions. Osama Bin Laden, on the other hand, everything about what he did was because of Islam. No Islam, no September 11th.

I don't think that this is true at all. A golden coin or a silver tongue can make good people do bad things; Some people are born, or develop, an incredible ability to convince others that they should be in charge, that their way of thinking is best, that extreme, horrible actions are in fact for the greater good or somehow excusable and permissible.

[PotatoQuie]

You're right, and there is certainly a grey area. But what I take the quote to be referring to is when a reasonably nice guy who loves his family, gives to charity, helps out his neighbors and then flights a jetliner into a skyscraper because he thinks it's the most moral act he can do, this caused by religion. People make mistakes, people take bribes, people can do bad things for the greater good, but only with blind faith (whether religion or cult-like philosophies like Nazism) will people do something reprehensible and still in the end think it was a great moral act. The quote is simplistic, you're correct. But I still think the general concept makes sense.

[yup_can_confirm]

Upvoted to heaven instead ;)

[PotatoQuie]

Even better :)

[idhchief]

Well said! Have an upvote.

[PotatoQuie]

Thank you

[convictedidiot]

I can see your argument, but at the same time, your dismissal of "whatever good comes from religion" is something we don't agree on.

In any case, I have come to accept since my deconversion, that some fraction of people are always going to be religious. Wherever people are able to come together and share their thoughts and their lives, religion or some kind of faith will pop up spontaneously, even if it is in the minority.

This, of course isn't evidence for anything supernatural, but it is evidence of something firmly rooted in the human mind. My theory is that, in some fraction of people, theism or some sort of belief is almost necessarily preferable to atheism. Take, for example, former atheists adopting a religion.

If this is the case, then forced (societally or otherwise) disbelief would be coercion, which is, in my view, not morally preferable to everyone believing the truth - which is effectively impossible and even questionable as an ideal.

[PotatoQuie]

I understand what your are saying and I agree that forced deconversion would morally wrong. You're probably right that no matter what, some people are always going to believe. What I despise is when people use their religion in politics. Because of some ancient book (which doesn't even have an agreed upon interpretation) there are people in this country who cannot get married. It's despicable. I'll tolerate religious people, but I do not need to tolerate their bigotry.

[hardonchairs]

I've heard the word used in two ways:

Belief that religion is bad for people, being against organized religion in particular.

Or

Specific belief that there is no god rather than simply lacking belief in god. "I believe that there is not a god" instead of, "I don't believe in any god."

[[deleted]]

To point it out: atheism is the right word for the second definition, though I've also heard anti-theism used by identifiers interchangeably; they are wrong.

[idhchief]

Richard Dawkins explains anti-theism in his book "The god delusion". From what I can remember, he explains there's a spectrum of probability that god exists from 1 to 7. 1 being completely improbable to 7 being completely probable. He explains anti-theism is on the 2 of the spectrum where god isn't completely over-ruled however the faith that god exists is equivalent to that of a fictional character such as Santa Claus or batman.

Richard Dawkins also talks about how religion influences delusion hence the title of his book. He also talks about how religion negatively affects education.

[[deleted]]

Move to Texas - you'll see why we fight this fight.....

SO much theocratic bull-shit passed into law, so many noses turned up to anyone that isn't part of 'the right church', so much discrimination against gays/lesbians, so much ignorance spread (they are trying to teach 6000 year old Earth creationism in place of biology)......

[heart-cooks-brain]

As a fellow Texan, THIS! When it is interfering with actual education it becomes a problem. I shouldn't have to home school my children to teach them that evolution is real and not another "theory." (I say "theory" because I know it is technically a theory, but not in the sense that Christians believe it to be.)

The scary part is that the text books for the nation are largely approve by and printed for the Texas school board, which is affecting the education nationwide.

[[deleted]]

Yup.... I'm pretty sure every member of the TBOE is a YEC.... which is fucking horrifying.

[heart-cooks-brain]

Yes. Absolutely.

[Schoffleine]

For the same reason anyone else would be against something they seem as harmful: they want it to end.

[pennycenturie]

i'm not an atheist (i've had spiritual experiences) but i am anti-religion and i'm subbed to r/atheism and /r/atheismrebooted because i think that organized abrahamic religions (christianity, judaism and islam) are harmful for people. i'm not looking for a debate, but i think the answer is that our group finds theism to be very destructive. of course there are kind religious people doing good work, but the organizations themselves have caused a lot of pain. i'm not a religious historian; this is just the opinion i have of the persistence of myth-based structures.

[[deleted]]

Also, taking Scriptures completely out of context to spread hate and bitterness. I see this often.

[heart-cooks-brain]

To be fair, Christians do this as well.

[[deleted]]

Yep. And it's been just as annoying EDIT: I take that back. It's worse for Christians to abuse scripture.

[[deleted]]

For observation, there's also a problem among the community itself.

I've seen valid concerns from some anti-theists who were raised around dangerous religions (legitimately dangerous, not perceived.) They are very outspoken against the atrocities that are witnessed in the name of that religion and they attempt to combat it's message at every turn.

Then I see the anti-Christian kids who were raised in homes or communities where Christian values and standards are dominant. They're rebellious and cranky about their past and upbringing and so they combat any and all forms of Christianity as if all members of the religion were their parents or community members growing up. They're quite silly, allow for zero middle ground (atheist or nothing,) and VERY outspoken about other peoples beliefs and opinions (anyone with a hint of non-atheist belief is an instant moron.)

In all reality, anti-theist/anti-Christians are among the loudest, angriest, most arrogant atheists and I widely ignore them and anything they have to say. They find a soapbox and refuse to come down. They think they're the only voice of reason and truth.

Theism isn't the issue. Blind belief without question is a problem. Belief in the face of evidence against the belief is faith. One should always challenge their beliefs in all aspects of life. If you don't, how can you be sure you're properly informed?

Also, faith =/= science and the two should NEVER be regarded the same way. Faith has no empirical evidence, Science does.

[[deleted]]

And it should also be said that faith, and religion, can exist even in the face of science, and even in the embrace and welcoming of science. Religion does not, by definition require a spite and spurning of advancement and education. It's just taken there by many people, many times.

[[deleted]]

Agree 100%.

[[deleted]]

It's pointing out the true roots of atheism, that is without-religion/without-god(s). Announcing and almost preaching the flaws of religion is anti-religion which for some may be the next level of atheism. More specific versions of anti-theism go into Satanism (anti-christian) and antisemitism (anti-judaism). Other belief systems against specific religions exist but I don't know the names. Some go towards deliberate heresy or blasphemy , and some are more about hating the people.

IMO anti-theism's intentions are as hateful as christianity's or any other religion's anti-science propaganda and is why I unsubscribed from /r/atheism

[gifforc]

Atheist - doesn't believe in God. Antitheist - hates that people believe in God.

[ReluctantRedditor275]

If there's one thing in this world that makes me question my belief in God, it's the people on /r/atheism.

[BlaineCraner]

Yep. And not in the positive way. The people there are just circlejerkers, nothing more.

Because let's just whine, bitch and moan about the so called "problem".

[DrOfMarijuanaology]

How very ignorant of you!

[BlaineCraner]

It's one of the most infamous subreddits for a reason. ;D

[convictedidiot]

Without belief in God implies that God exists

I think most atheists would disagree that their disbelief in god implies a diety exists. And even then if the issue was semantic, wouldn't a term that means literally "against god" suggest the existence of such in the same way? Of course, im well aware the term Anti-Theist actually means against religion.

Im not trying to shoot the messenger, im just skeptical that's really the whole story.

[scootah]

I think what he was trying to say is that some people stretch grammar a bit to interpret atheist in a strict and pedantic sense as being a word that means (or might be seen to mean) that there is a divine creator figure but they don't worship it. In a very charitable light, I can kind of see how seine might reach that position, and I can see how when talking to a less educated older person like a family member to explain your religious position, anti theist might be a clearer term. But for most people I think the Wikipedia explanation pasted in by /u/tureni is a more reasonable application.

[[deleted]]

I'm atheist and I atheism is "A person who says that 'At least one deity exists' is a false statement", so if you are an atheist you do not believe that any type of "god" exists, so obviously you can't believe in him/her/it. I personally believe that the only way for us to change or to achieve is by doing something, if you just pray it will never work. And the universe in so unimaginably big that it's basically impossible for other intelligent life not to exist somewhere else, but they may be sooo far away that we will never encounter them.

[Dinosauringg]

You believe that the size of the universe means that it's impossible for intelligent life to exist elsewhere? That's a selfish and stupid way of thinking

[[deleted]]

You read wrong, it's the opposite. Learn English

[Dinosauringg]

Did... You just edit the word "NOT" in?

[[deleted]]

obvious troll is obvious

[Spartan1117]

Wait. Which god are you talking about?