Are you an antitheist or an atheist?

General discussions

Are you an:

atheist + antitheist
18
64%
atheist
10
36%
 
Total votes: 28
divil_a_bit
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:54 pm

Are you an antitheist or an atheist?

Post by divil_a_bit » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:19 pm

Dave (aka fritzwisty) brought this up in his introduction. He declared himself to be an antitheist. I actually feel the same way and recently my antitheism has become more prominent. Not only do I have a not believe in a god(s) but I also think that a belief in god(s) is harmful.
brianmmulligan
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:54 pm
Location: Sligo

Post by brianmmulligan » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:24 pm

Good question and in many ways one of the main reasons for having a site like this. Should we, as a group, just make sure that life is tolerable for us as atheists, or do we believe that the existence of religion at all not only degrades atheists lives but also the lives of theists. I'm undecided and open to any reasonable argument. By reasonable, I mean arguments that are not based on opinion or personal experience, but on sound evidence and logic. Convince me. I'll vote later.
Brian
CatHerder
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Are you an antitheist or an atheist?

Post by CatHerder » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:24 pm

divil_a_bit wrote:Dave (aka fritzwisty) brought this up in his introduction. He declared himself to be an antitheist. I actually feel the same way and recently my antitheism has become more prominent. Not only do I have a not believe in a god(s) but I also think that a belief in god(s) is harmful.
I’d like to know what exactly you mean by antitheist. It’s hard to decide otherwise.
Rincewind
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:08 pm

Post by Rincewind » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:55 pm

It maybe an idea have some sort of a questionaire to see how people found their way back to being an Atheist or how they came to be agnostic or antitheist.

P.s,
I have said that if the antichrist ever did show up I may align myself to him as the devil seems to be less of a muderous bastard than god and may have got some bad press (to the vistor goes history). Does athitheist mean you are against the idea of their god , anti god or anti the idea that god exists? I'm wondoring because I might get a couple of reserves together just in case. :D
CitizenPaine
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 462
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by CitizenPaine » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:45 pm

I assume an antitheist is someone who believes that religion should be suppressed, as opposed to an atheist who simply cannot believe in anything supernatural and is prepared to defend his or her position, but who is willing to allow others to hold whatever views they like so long as they do not try to impose them on others.

If so, suppression would be a major problem. For one thing, the Irish physche would not stand for it. The thing suppressed would only get stronger for the very reason that it was not allowed. For another, it is against the ideas of freedom of thought and freedom of expression, two extremely valuable human rights principles. Lastly, suppression amounts to nothing more than deploying the very tactics of coercion that we have spent so much time and energy railing against here on this site - I would feel most uncomfortable trying to convince people that they should do as I say, not as I do.

Suppression of religion would require resources. I firmly believe that those resources would be much better used in promoting rational thought and reasoned argument, along with as much exposure of scientific principles as possible.

It is far, far better to light a candle than to rage against the dark.

CitizenPaine
The moving finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

From the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (FitzGerald version)
Haymoon
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:58 pm

Post by Haymoon » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:58 pm

CitizenPaine wrote:I assume an antitheist is someone who believes that religion should be suppressed, as opposed to an atheist who simply cannot believe in anything supernatural and is prepared to defend his or her position, but who is willing to allow others to hold whatever views they like so long as they do not try to impose them on others.

If so, suppression would be a major problem. ..................I would feel most uncomfortable trying to convince people that they should do as I say, not as I do.



It is far, far better to light a candle than to rage against the dark.

CitizenPaine

I'm with CitizenPaine in this. It would be the antitheses of freedom of expression to promote a policy of suppression.

It is always better to "be for" something than against something

By the way CitizenPaine do you have to type that signature bit at the end of each of your posts or is there some way of automatically including it ?
Neesik
Posts: 284
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:19 pm
Contact:

Post by Neesik » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:12 pm

Isn't this topic already being covered here?
Abstinence makes the Church grow fondlers.
CitizenPaine
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 462
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by CitizenPaine » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:58 pm

Haymoon wrote:By the way CitizenPaine do you have to type that signature bit at the end of each of your posts or is there some way of automatically including it ?
I've been rumbled. I have to type it but I try to make it look as if it's automatic.

CitizenPaine
The moving finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

From the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (FitzGerald version)
smiffy
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:58 pm

Post by smiffy » Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:05 pm

CitizenPaine wrote:I assume an antitheist is someone who believes that religion should be suppressed, as opposed to an atheist who simply cannot believe in anything supernatural and is prepared to defend his or her position, but who is willing to allow others to hold whatever views they like so long as they do not try to impose them on others.
I think you're proposing a bit of a false dichotomy there. I don't think antitheist necessarily means that religion should be suppressed. It does, however, imply that religious belief should be challenged and opposed. The two aren't always the same.

I'll try to illustrate with a couple of examples. Supposing I identified as an anti-racist. This would suggest that not only do I not hold racist beliefs myself, but that I also believe that racist beliefs and claims need to be challenged. I might write letters to the newspaper, attend anti-racism demonstrations, promote the values of anti-racism or even just speak up where I hear I racist joke being made. However, this doesn't mean that I beleive racism should be 'suppressed' (which would suggest to me some sort of state or other coercion), and I might very well support freedom of expression, even where someone makes the most repulsively racist statements.

Another example might be to propose the hypothetical example of someone who is an atheist, insofar as they no believe that any God or God-like entity exists, but are pro-theist if they believe that the belief itself is beneficial to society as a whole (keeping the proles happy, in a kind of Straussian way). Now, if I was also an atheist, and didn't believe in God, but further than that, I believed that the belief in God itself was harmful, in that it promoted intolerance and ignorance, wouldn't this make me an anti-theist? I don't think any suppression is necessarily implied in this case either.

That is not, of course, to say that no one believes in suppression or coercion. I just think that one can be an anti-theist, while completely supporting the principles of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.
Rincewind
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:08 pm

Post by Rincewind » Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:14 pm

To oppress religion would be dangerous, better off to try and remove it from society rather than oppress it. Most sucessful religions today have survived oppression at some time in history and this didn't work. A lot of the major movements which have failed have been allowed to fail on their own. As long as there is an oppressor to blaim there is someone for the the believers to focus on rather than the shortcomings of their own believes. The roman & greek gods came to nothing and were replace by the judian god, not oppressed.
Many religions spread because they 'converted'. We need people to be deconverted, to get them to take a step back, have a good think, look reasonably at what they believe and then if they want to continue let them. Not allowing a person to read the bible or koran is wrong. I wanted to see the Life of Brian not because it was funny but because it was banned. I read the Blood and the holy grail because I was told it 'should b burned'. If the critics had said it was nonsense I may not have read it.
Censorship breeds curiousity and makes people wonder why they are not allowed to know something. Allow them to read but also promote other books & ideas, tell them about the 'god delision' and show them how religion came about. Give them knowledge, teach them to have an open mind but use logic and reason to protect it.

Better to allow people to come to an informed idea and then choose. The problem will be to allow people to come to the informed idea. Teachers, politicians and even parents will rarely allow their children not to believe in god(s). Who will decide how or what should be thaught to children? How many of us would allow creation to be thaught to our kids?

Rincewind
Post Reply