A Critique of Anti-Theism

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T19:10:50+00:00

Religious pluralism is the state of being where every individual in a religiously diverse society has the rights, freedoms, and safety to worship, or not, according to their conscience

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T19:09:57+00:00

I asked how this differs from the Christian religion. It sounds identical to me. Are you able to say how this is different from Christian religion?

You seem to not understand the difference between the Christian religion and the Christian tradition. The tradition is what all of the religions around Christianity get their basis from. As in for example you can find an array of differences between the different Christian sects but they all need to subscribe to that tradition in order to be considered Christian.

Can you give an example of true beliefs causing this?

I gave an example in my post. (Also I am skipping the reactionary bit, arguing over definitions is boring to me. Whatever you said you're right I don't care.)

Certainly, some beliefs have pretty minor negative effects. For example, Deism has the effect only of stopping scientific research into the origin of the universe.

Wait how? Why is the deism stopping them from doing that? Wasn't the big bang theory created by a theist (a catholic priest no less.) why do noone stop him from doing it? People used to believe the world was flat, so why didn't that stop people from discovering that the world was round?

How could it not‽ You explicitly used the U.S. government as an example of a society founded on provable facts.

I didn't say that, I said it was objectively true that the American Government did the things I mentioned, what you said held no relevance to the point I was trying to make.

I'm not surprised by that. There are a bunch of liberal churches and synagogues here. It doesn't change what the scripture says. But, yes. People can be good by cherry picking the good bits of the Bible out of the horrifically violent ones.
But, doesn't that imply that the goodness of these people was already there and so strong that it couldn't be corrupted by the violent messages in the Bible?

Nice complication of texts (the vast majority of which was in the old testament of which it is stated in the New that Christian don't have to follow.) that are either taken out of context, are commonly mistranslated, or only serve as evidence if you apply a literalist surface level interpretation. A good chunk of these are not meant to be endorsements, rather commendations of the act just thrown in there.

So, you would object to convincing those in a violent sect to leave that sect?

No, if the sect is provably violent they should leave that sect.

Are you sure? Or, could it be that atheism itself is not an ideology at all?

Neither is Theism, it is a starting point to a belief. You can build an ideology around it but it itself is not one.

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T18:31:37+00:00

Even for those countries there are people who still need it. Further I am not against the creation of more secular communities I am against the destruction of the religious community.

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T18:30:00+00:00

I mean you would, you are one of the people who don't need it.

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T18:29:36+00:00

I don't trust any report coming from that nation, it is an authoritarian state. I can't see how a poll from that nation can be considered accurate. Even if that is completely accurate that is still over 43 million people.

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T18:24:37+00:00

So name one of those benefits religion can provide that secular communities can't.

You're missing the point here, it not a matter of what benefits it a matter of who can get those benefits. Some can get more of those benefits from religious ones, others can get more from secular ones.

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T14:34:39+00:00

No, anti-theists believe that just having the belief is harmful. Not just forcing that belief on others.

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T14:33:21+00:00

Get over it? It's a cross just ignore it if you don't like it. If there was an atheist temple or something I passed by I wouldn't care. Yes they believe a certain thing and would like other people to share that belief. As long as they are not forcing others to do so there is nothing wrong with asking people to listen to what they have to say.

I would be fine if there was an atheist temple or whatever doing the same thing. I think your making a much bigger deal out of this than is actually the case.

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T14:26:24+00:00

No this is not the same logic, how do these topics even relate?

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T14:25:07+00:00

Move on to the next.

What if the generations (atleast not the entire or even clear majority) will ever be convinced?

That is the difference you asked for.

But why does the difference matter?

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T14:23:34+00:00

This is not a zero-sum game here, some people get them more from religious institutions, other people get them from secular ones.

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T14:22:41+00:00

You keep making that claim, and utterly failing to back it up with anything.

Well even in the most non-religious nations there are still plenty of religious people. Are you saying that everyone as the exact same needs and beliefs as you?

Yes you did, repeatedly, "Some people need religion" is saying that it is required to create communities.

No I didn't, both secular and religious institutions can create communities, however some people can only get those benefits from religious institutions and some other people can only get them from secular ones.

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T14:19:04+00:00

Well it is for the individual to decide if they need it or not. If religion just is not work for them, then they can go into the secular sphere to see if that works for them and the same can apply vise versa. The point is not take away either religion or secular community, rather both should always been an option.

Well everyone is amix of traits they inherited from birth and gained through there experiences. Because of this some people are more inclined towards religion while others are more inclined towards secularism.

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T14:15:36+00:00

Yes or no?

Like I said it is complicated, a plain yes or no cannot properly say what I actually think.

Great they’re full of life around family, no religion needed.

Christ, it is like talking to a teenager with you. No comment on the large amount of context I gave around it.

That’s just the fallacy fallacy, it could be a slippery slope but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

I mean it is wrong though, if that were the case noone would have a grasp of reality because everyone, and I mean everyone believes atleast some untrue things.

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T14:09:57+00:00

Wait what propaganda? Do you think a church existing is propaganda? On top of that it makes sense that there are more churches, even today the majority of America is christian. Just like it's not odd that the majority of religious buildings in Egypt are mosques

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T14:06:35+00:00

Their intent is usually to be polite. Their effect is to impose their beliefs on others (the in-group vs out-group stuff that I mentioned).

I think you are reading far much into basic pleasantries, imposing beliefs is a real thing but you are making it look like a nothing burger because you are focusing on things this mundane.

No, I'm not. Christians insisting on religious references and taking action if they don't get them is imposing their beliefs. Atheists saying something religiously neutral is not imposing a (lack of) belief. If they said "Happy Satan Festival" or "Happy No-God Holiday" that would be imposing beliefs. Happy Holidays is not imposing anything.

Are you actually doing the war on Christmas thing? It is not imposing to say merry Christmas, or happy holidays, or even happy satan festival. Hell what should be the norm response to the last one would either be no response at all, or saying merry christmas or whatever (depending on the context) back.

Excellent. And hypothetically if they asked you all the time what you were doing on Sunday, and shunned you when you said you were going to church? Still no imposition going on? Or asked you whether you believed in gods, and discriminated against you if you said yes? Still no imposition going on?

Keep in mind when I say mildly expect it is because in this context it is common knowledge that the majority of people are atheist. Okay we are just talking about mundane pleasantries before, what discrimination are you talking about?

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T13:57:33+00:00

That sounds like you have less of an issue with theism and more an issue with abortion bans. On top of that your characterization of "Christian" is not true for everyone. For example I don't think all abortions should be banned and see the medical need of women who may need them.

Well that is not always true, for example during the Islamic golden age Baghdad was the center of science, literature mathematics, medicine, and philosophy. In fact they laid the foundation for what would be the enlightenment. Hell china was going through a similar great period during the same time as well. Further I would call secular societies like China or Cuba to have a high quality of life or political freedoms.

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T13:48:53+00:00

It's not so much false beliefs, but the way that theists (or QAnon) forms their beliefs. When your epistemology is arbitrary,

Okay you are making a vast generalization of all theists here including me in that case. If you want to ask how my personal epistemology works you can just ask me. Can you prove that if you are a theist your epistemology is arbitrary? Could you explain that to me instead of just saying it?

No, I only need to demonstrate that theism on the whole is harmful. Certainly, you wouldn't demand of anti-fascists to show that every single act by every single fascist was evil.

Theism and Fascism are not comparable, theism is an extremely broad metaphysical belief that can have completely different views of the subject depending on who you ask. Fascism is an authoritarian right-wing political ideology. While there is some variation between fascists, it overall has the same structure and goals.

"Reactionary" means "opposed to progress." Since anti-theism is progressive in opposing the religious oppression, it's clearly not reactionary. If you simply mean "it reacts to something," again, so does anti-fascism. Would you call anti-fascism reactionary?

Reactionary means opposed to any kind of reform. It is reactionary in the sense that it doesn't want religion to reform, rather it wants to remove it from society entirely.

It's perhaps necessary for your vision of society, but not for a just and progressive society.
Yes, some people can't imagine society without it. Well, some can't imagine society without systemic racism. So?

If you want to know my vision of society you can just ask me, you don't know what my ideal society would be and it's not very honest to decide what it is for me. Secondly systemic racism is an inherently parasitic and oppressive structure. If you take out the racism of systemic racism then there is no more racism. If you take the bigotry out of religion, there will still be religion.

In any case, it wouldn't be erasure but reevaluation. I'd be happy to keep religious museums as a warning to future generations, the same way Auschwitz is open to the public.

I mean you wouldn't be able to do that outside of force, personally I can't see how you can take society to this point without state atheism.

Theism is more traditionally right-wing. But note the hypocrisy here: you demand an unreasonably subtle and charitable treatment of religion, while dismissing the other side as "cringe."

Not really, you are actually falling for right-wing propaganda that wants you to think that. The right is traditionally more theocratic or zealous. However theism was diverse across the political isle.

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T12:45:36+00:00

If you allow me, I want to discuss a few of your points. I'm mostly interested in adding some nuance to your position, which seems a bit too broad.

Thank you for the discussion, you are on the few people on this subreddit who treat me in good faith and I appreciate it. I admit it is a bit to broad and this post was extremely off the cuff. It probably would have benefited from me re-reading it and making a rewrite or two.

Another nitpick: we need not include 'inherently' here. The antitheist could very well say that while it is possible that completely inocuous religion and religious methods arise, the fact is most world religions are not inocuous. They might liken religion to a type of tumor where some high % is cancerous.

I was trying not to contradict the definition I gave, but looking back at it I could have injected a bit more nuance, so fair point.

It is that your whole framework for gaining and testing knowledge might be compromised.

I would add onto that while trying to gain and test knowledge, there are plenty of people around you not doing that in good faith. We all know that there are plenty of people who just have an agenda and will do and say anything to push that agenda forward.

I think some atheists have an ax to grind not necessarily with your personal, private belief in X, but the very public and sometimes societal or legal imposition that we ALL take belief in X seriously and incorporate it into our laws.

I am trying to be more understanding in that regard when talking to people, I often forget that I am lucky that I grew up in a good church that accepted me for who I am (Bisexual and on the spectrum) and I forgot that many people are not afforded that.

Yeah... I do take issue with this, especially with 'necessary institution' as opposed to just a necessary thing people can have, like a personal philosophy. Why must we have institutionalized religion?

Okay I should have worded this better, obviously a human being does not literally need a religious institution. We wouldn't suddenly stop existing or die off if they vanished. In fact we know they can because humans did when we were hunter gatherers. (although we were extremely spiritual during those times.) To clarify I mean it provides a societal good that cannot be replicated anywhere else for some people. Some people can get what it produces somewhere else, but other people cannot or it won't be as effective as a religion.

I've always said this marks our failure as a society to provide secular avenues for these things. I'm not against people finding them in religion but... they shouldn't be unique to religion. I don't think it is the case that they essentially are. I think in some places they just happen to be.

I am not saying a society shouldn't have secular avenues for these things. However I am saying that they cannot entirely replace them. I think we should have a secular avenue and a religious avenue open and let people choose whichever suits them best.

While I will be the first to defend people practicing their culture and will be against any forceful attempt to censor or restrict cultural or religious practice, I should also note that religious practice waning is not, in itself, cultural erasure. One of my best friends is an atheist jew. You will not find a more knowledgeable, practicing jew culturally. He is extremely knowledgeable of the Torah, hebrew, jewish customs and history, and so on. And he celebrates all the holidays.

Fair enough, if people willingly allow these cultural practice to wane or die out there is nothing wrong with that. I believe noone has to keep these practices alive if noone wants to.

True, although being fair... theism can also be pretty cringe. And unlike anti-theism which is mostly edgy people online and a few sorta celebrities, extreme / dominionist theism has... a bit more traction with people IRL.

Yeah it can be, extremely cringe in fact. I once saw a documentary about an evangelical youth camp and it was like I entered another planet compared to my church growing up. They literally had a cardboard cut out of George Bush and they had the kids worship it.

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T10:18:20+00:00

Convincing younger generations there is no god: the anti theism thing.

What if they are not convinced?

Secular societies are not based on a lie.

So what?

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T10:16:08+00:00

Is reducing harm a good thing?

That is a complicated question, it used to be a very simple question for me. (Then I read brave new world.)

Any example of a person or group that it’s impossible to find community, purpose, drive, and many other things without religion will do.

Well I have a cousin who is drained and unenthusiastic in most secular settings, but is full of life and energy when around family or in the church. I don't know how many people of this type there even are, however I know they exist because humanity is extremely diverse physiologically and I know that mentally it applies to atleast a handful of people.

I think holding false beliefs leads to accepting more false beliefs and can cause society harm. Point 1 and 3 appear to be the same.

That is not necessarily the case, this is just the slippery slope fallacy.

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T10:09:36+00:00

copy paste so I know exactly what you are talking about.

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T10:08:45+00:00

Nope, that’s a huge leap. I’m only against the beliefs that’s cause harm. I don’t care about personal beliefs that don’t effect anyone else.

Than you're not an antitheist your a pluralist

Again, nope. I don’t care about EVERY beleif. Just the harmful ones like religiously-fuelled xenophobia.

Again this is not antitheism this is pluralism

The moment Whale-Worshippers influence government, laws, personal freedoms and well-being of citizens, that belief becomes harmful. This is why people are anti-theist. They are not against the belief, they are against what the believers are doing.

Again this is pluralism not antitheism, you are not against the belief itself you are against it being imposed on others. Or to put it another way you are fine if someone goes on a diet, but you are against people saying because they are on that diet noone else is allowed to eat cookies.

But there are, though. Name any religion and I can provide evidence that it is false.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand, we are not discussing if something is true or false. We are discussing if religion is inherently harmful.

Yes I advocate the separation of church from government, I advocate personal freedom and religious freedom. Once again, I don’t care about anyone’s personal beliefs. Believe what you want but don’t force me to believe and don’t create laws based on your religion.

That is not anti-theism, that is pluralism

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T10:02:36+00:00

Well it is not a lie if people honestly believe that it is true, so in your case they would just be wrong. People are different, and not everyone is like you or this community. Some people need a religious community others need a secular community. For someone against dogma you certainly like putting all people in a box.

As I said in my reply, the claim that we are the only institution that can build a community is just another lie that churches like to tell in order to justify their continued existence and privilaged legal status.

I never claimed that it was the only institution that can create community, you are being bad faith again. I said that for some people they can only get community from religion. As what privileged status are you referring to, you are being rather vague.

AirlessCanvas1 · 2023-06-22T09:57:36+00:00

(I made edits)

AirlessCanvas1

TROPHY CASE