Antitheism (For real this time)

Chagen

I have calmed down since my outburst yesterday. Now, I have a critisism of antitheism.

To me, antitheism is giant overreaction to a problem that exists. It's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Antitheism seems to run on this logic (the emphasis is important):

Religion exists, and people follow it.

Some religious people do bad things.

Ergo, we must eliminate all religion.

(note that I did not say "religious people". I said "religion", as in the concept of it. I've gotten over the godwin bullcrap.)

This "logic" is ridiculous. It's false dichotomy, first: It takes an "all or nothing" stand on the issue, when many more factors exist.

Second, it's a Sweeping generalization. It views all religion and religious people as one monolithic block, when it is a vastly more complicated thing in the first place. It completely ignores the moderate religious people, and states that they should stop worshipping because a few people did bad things in the name of religion.

Most antitheists I've heard state that religion does horrible things. This is also wrong. Religion is not sentient or intelligent. It can't do anything. Religion does not do bad things (except in the cases where the dogma explicitly says to commit immoral acts, which most do not). Crazy people subvert the religion and do bad things. This does not mean the religion is flawed, just that a small amount of the people following it are crazy.

Not only that, but demanding that perfectly normal, upstanding people abondon their religion, and usually their culture and heritage as well, is kind of dickish. To actually mandate such a thing is near cultural genocide. It may not be killing people directly, but it is mandating and asking for the destruction of their heritage and culture.

To use an analogy, say that someone (religion) comes into a doctor's office complaining about a very heavy migraine (fundies and other types who do bad things under the guise of religion).

Antitheism is like killing the entire man because one part happens to be bad. Instead of, you know, fixing the problem. It is a massive overreaction to a problem.

I hope we can have some good discussion on this. I would like to know more of why antitheists hold these opinions.

Gelzo

I stopped reading when I got to the part in bold and realized you were probably working with a straw man.

I personally think that we'd be better off without religion, but I don't think it's especially productive to work to eliminate it as opposed to correcting people when they make something easily explained as a mistake. I can't speak for everyone and I'm not certain what definition of anti-theism is closest to the standard, but I think the logic and assumptions made would be better represented as something like:

There's no evidence for the model of reality that religion provides that makes it superior to a secular model.

There's no social good that can be done by a religious organization that cannot be achieved just as efficiently by a secular organization.

Time and resources going into the furthering of religion would be wasted.

It is for the best if an end is put to religion so these resources are not wasted.

These aren't necessarily my beliefs, but I'd agree with some of it. It's pretty basic too, I probably skipped some steps.

Chagen

The seperation of Church and State ensures that secular organizations can do their job efficiently. And most religious buildings are private. Their owners can do whatever they want with the money they have. At least in a free market they can.

And why would we be better of without religion? As I said, it's a small subset of followers that fuck everything up. Why should people be denied the right to practice what they want? We have freedom of religion for a reason.

Just because you don't like religion, doesn't mean everyone else has to give it up. Antitheism seems to be a rather narcissistic ideaology.

Vorpy

Because every Christian is exactly the same, right?

BaronGrackle

So how about the time and resources that go into creating a... for example, a Maoist socialist philosophy?
The way I see it, people will always have ideologies. If you were somehow able to eliminate the concept of "religion" from everyone's minds, they would still create a facsimile of it.

Chagen

Baron is right. Religion would be hard to get rid of. And demanding that it be gotten rid of is technically discrimination.

Khwarizmi

^ I don't doubt that there are some antitheists who would like to see religion outlawed and religious people forced to abandon their beliefs, but I find it highly unlikely that this is a common opinion for antitheists to hold, and it's not one I've encountered before.  I'd go so far as to say that it's sufficiently rare that claiming that antitheists want to make people abandon their religion is a strawman argument, or at the very least is extremely misleading.

The impression I've gotten is that, when an antitheist says they'd like religion to be eliminated, they typically believe that religion is a kind of irrationality or ignorance (or even insanity) that people would abandon if they could only realise how silly it is.  Now, I find this kind of claim highly insulting and presumptious, but it's a lot less scary than attempting to actually ban religion, isn't it?

And of course, antitheists aren't a monolith.  Some of them might believe that religion is irrational or promotes irrational thought and should be eliminated as part of a wider campaign to reduce all irrational behaviour.  Others might be misotheists of sorts - the idea being that, while they don't believe in God, they find the idea of God disturbing or even morally repugnant.  Some people who might be perceived as antitheists might in reality only oppose certain religious beliefs, and then there are some who might object to only certain beliefs but oppose all religion out of a desire to reduce the risk of those objectionable beliefs emerging.

So it encompasses a lot of different views, and I think it's important to be aware of that.  I'm not in favour of antitheism, but I think if you're going to argue against something, you need to know what precisely it is you're arguing against.

Now, personally, @Gelzo, I'd like to know what exactly you meant by "we'd be better off without religion", because it's an assertion I see often but which can mean a number of things, many of which I think are pretty dubious.

Gelzo

The way I see it, the negative effects of the existence of religion outweigh the benefits. That's all I was saying.

I'm willing to expound on why, but that wasn't your question.

Anyway, Baron had a good point, but he's neglecting that from an atheist perspective, religious groups are concerned with things that do not exist. I think it follows that they would then be less productive. You'd be less willing to donate to a charity that spends funds to prevent things that wouldn't happen anyway, right?

You could then fairly make the argument that there are some secular political groups that are concerned with problems that do not exist or are otherwise misguided, but we're also better off without them as well. However, saying we're better off without X doesn't always mean it's a worthwhile pursuit to eliminate X, though it can be helpful to discourage X.

Khwarizmi

If you'd like to expound on why, by all means go ahead.

Edit: I'd contest the suggestion that religions (whether the things they believe in exist or not) do not affect things that actually happen; they clearly have real world effects.

And of course, organisations operating under a Maoist socialist philosophy might well have real world impact, but that's not necessarily a good thing.

Gelzo

I'm assuming you're showing some interest here. Okay then.

Let's see. Well, there's some degree of intolerance, fear, and violence that stems from religion. Granted, this would occur without religion, but I think it's fair to assume that if you remove one source of a problem, the problem is reduced. In some cases it seems to me to promote ignorance and refusal to acknowledge evidence. I guess it's like you said earlier, I think religion is generally irrational. Though, I can't say for sure how much it encourages irrational thought or is just symptomatic of it.

I think the primary positive effect that religion gives us that is difficult to substitute is emotional comfort, but I think that's something that can be given up.

^Oh I'm certain they have real world effects. It's just that there's a more efficient use of resources if the non-existent is not a concern.

I'm not sure which ideological/political organizations are going to have a positive effect, I'm just saying I think secularity in an organization tends towards making the effect more positive or at least more efficient.

BaronGrackle

So what of the illogical values that all of us have, some implanted by religion and some ingrained by biology? One example being the value of human life, and another being the propogation of the human race.

I understand that nearly all atheists and antitheists place a high value on human life, and end to suffering etc. But I still don't understand why. Who cares if some guy suffers and dies over there? Who cares if you or I die? We do care, and people still share this value universally, but I guess I just don't understand where it comes from, among the irreligious.

Gelzo

I'm having a hard time deciding how to respond to that. Are you asking why the irreligious put value on human life, or are you asserting the worth of "illogical" values such as these?

If it's the former, I'm going to make the argument that this sense of empathy is part of human psychology and doesn't need to come from whatever your perspective on reality in general is.

If it's the latter, I object to your placement of these values as illogical. I don't think value judgements like these can be analyzed by logic. You can use logic to show that something doesn't make sense, but you can't use it to say that something is good or bad.

Myrmidon

I've noticed that most attempts to get rid of religion and spirituality just ends up spawning different forms of it.

Khwarizmi

@ Gelzo: Yeah, I was curious, sorry.

Well, I can't really dispute most of what you said, although I don't agree with your conclusions.  I guess it boils down to what you (general you) value the most and to what extent you think religion itself has negative consequences.

In response to ^^, I think that religious beliefs are often less far removed from value judgements than one might think.

@ BaronGrackle: If I dislike suffering, is it irrational to want to prevent it?  Of course, there may be nothing rational about that dislike itself, but religion doesn't solve that problem; there is no belief system that is wholly rational.

BaronGrackle

^ But killing puts a rather abrupt end to suffering. Certain forms of killing are painless, and if you have no belief in either an afterlife or universal truth/morality, then there's no real reason it shouldn't be implemented more often. Particularly as a means of population control.

Gelzo

Yet death prevents the future attainment of pleasure, and causing others to die causes suffering for the survivors.

Chagen

But why do you care about that?

Atheists/Antitheists make themselves out to be bastions of rationality. It is completely irrational to sacrifice something to let others be happy, because that does not benefit you in any material way nor does it let you pass your genes on (Face it, humans are animals, and our sole purpose in life is to fuck, breed, and die. That's it. We do a lot of things in the interest of getting the first two done and then the last one happens naturally). Yet you guys do it.

I'm not critisizing Atheism, but you guys seem to be slightly contradictory.

BaronGrackle

^ Future attainment of pleasure? Maybe. But it's likely tempered with attainment of pain and disappointment. And besides, they won't know about it one way or the other. Survivors could end their suffering for the lost members, by simply coming to terms with the fact that death is the natural end. Or, if the survivors' suffering is too great, we could kill them in their sleep, and they won't have to worry about anything at all. They won't know the difference, won't suffer pain. Just turning the power off on a video game.

Khwarizmi

>But killing puts a rather abrupt end to suffering. Certain forms of killing are painless, and if you have no belief in either an afterlife or universal truth/morality, then there's no real reason it shouldn't be implemented more often. Particularly as a means of population control.

In order for that to necessarily follow, you'd have to either find somebody who wanted to die, or else you'd have to regard the life itself preceding death as irrelevent, which is about the bleakest and most boring form of nihilism imaginable and which also defeats the whole point of wanting to kill somebody to alleviate their suffering in the first place, since they'll die anyway and it's not your responsibility to help them get there.  Neither of those addresses the issue that killing one person also severely hurts others, so the only way to "humanely" kill the average human being, even if you do think life is irrelevent, is to also kill everybody who cares about them, and everybody who cares about them, ad infinitum.

And that's without going into other ethical philosophies which some atheists may hold (e.g. the social contract), or the fact that "atheist" does not mean "thinks all religion is necessarily false" (it only means "does not personally believe in any god").

I also don't see how objective morality is relevent.  One can still behave immorally even if one believes in an objective morality, and people with subjective moral codes still have moral codes.

>Face it, humans are animals, and our sole purpose in life is to fuck, breed, and die. That's it. We do a lot of things in the interest of getting the first two done and then the last one happens naturally

No, that is not "our sole purpose" in any meaningful sense.  Nature makes for a very shitty god.

Anyway, it's not like religious beliefs make any fewer irrational judgements.  Christianity, for example, relies upon its followers liking God.  If a Christian ceases to regard God as good, or continues to regard God as good but decides that they prefer evil, then that person is no longer a Christian, and will become a misotheist instead.  There's no purely rational reason to like or dislike God; it may be based on a series of rational reasons, but ultimately it's a value judgement, or it's based on reasoning which is based on one or more value judgement(s).

Gelzo

Changen, I'm not certain you know what it means to be rational. It's not irrational to be willing to sacrifice something so others are happy, it just means that you either are happier having done so or value the net happiness of a group more than your personal level of happiness.  

And I do plenty of things due to habit rather than what I've concluded is the wise thing to do. For instance, posting in this thread rather than working on my schoolwork.

If you ask me why I want humanity to continue to exist if happiness can't outweigh pain, it's because I think we're a lot more interesting than boring old rocks and giant balls of fire set against the endless expanse of nothingness. And if there's any reason to exist other than pleasure, we probably have a better shot at finding it than the dolphins.

BaronGrackle

"or else you'd have to regard the life itself preceding death as irrelevent, which is about the bleakest and most boring form of nihilism imaginable"

And how would life be relevant, apart from entertainment value?

Khwarizmi

Uh... just to be clear here, are you asking me for the meaning of life?

BaronGrackle

^ Perhaps the laconic.

Religions give meanings. But biology assigns no meaning itself. Organisms strive to survive. But how would you or I be worse off, if we failed to wake up tomorrow. Why would it matter, if ALL LIFE suddenly disappeared?

Gelzo

If you ask me, the closest answer we'll get in this discussion regarding the meaning of life is happiness.

Religion doesn't give us much of a better answer as far as I'm concerned. Why live? Because God wants you to and it makes him happy? Because you'll be happy if you get into heaven? Why achieve enlightenment/ transcend to a higher state? Because it reduces suffering? Because it makes us happy to have a goal?

BaronGrackle

^ In such a world, happiness would simply be manipulating your brain to present pleasure. You could hook people up to machines that do that for them, but it'd be expensive. If you depopulate the entire planet, though, then no one is ever unhappy. Zero suffering. And no one will say that they are unhappy.

Gelzo

If you don't start recognizing that I'm working under the assumption that happiness is desirable- perhaps even moreso than the reduction of suffering to zero- and that total depopulation means the elimination of any chance for happiness, I'm going to start assuming that you're being intentionally difficult.

It should also be said that happiness has different interpretations. I would include existential satisfaction under its scope, which would likely not be met for some people (though importantly surely for some) if they spent their lives hooked up to a lotus eater machine.

BaronGrackle

Is 90% happiness worth 10% suffering?

If yes, then... when you decrease the first percentage and increase the second, at what point would it just make more sense to turn off the game? Is it at the 51% mark, or before?

Khwarizmi

@BaronGrackle: The lack of unhappiness ≠ happiness.  If everybody is dead, nobody is happy, so that isn't addressing Gelzo's concern if what he wants is happiness. [Edit: ninja'd]

Religions give meanings to life, but only in the same sense that secular philosophies do.  There is no more inherent reason to act according to a religious philosophy than a secular one.  Why follow God?  What is the point, really?  Because God is good?  Why should you care?  To get into Heaven?  Why do you want to do that?

As far as my own desires are concerned, I would be worse off if I was dead because I wouldn't physically exist, and I want to exist.  If there's no afterlife then I guess I wouldn't know any better, but I still wouldn't be here to enjoy life, so in that sense I'd be worse off.  And if all other life disappeared, I'd have nothing to eat, nobody to be friends with, and I'd be stuck on a largely featureless lump of rock, sucking away at the oxygen until I choked or starved to death.  So that would be kind of unpleasant for me.

Edit:

>Is 90% happiness worth 10% suffering?

Can't answer for Gelzo, but from my own perspective, it doesn't work like that.  A few people suffering a little is not sufficient to invalidate everybody else's happiness, but all the happiness in the world won't make up for the severe oppression of a group of people in order that others may attain said happiness.

Edit edit: And another thing, which I forgot the first time around - regarding your "why not kill people" question, if other people's lives matter, then ending people's lives against their will is obviously cruel and a violation of their personal freedom.  If other people's lives don't matter, then it's hardly your responsiblity to kill them to alleviate their suffering, is it?

Gelzo

^^You're essentially asking what would cause me to decide suicide is the best option. I can't say for sure, but you might be able to find a lot of answers to that question if you read up on suicide statistics and individual cases.

BaronGrackle

"Why follow God? What is the point, really? Because God is good? Why should you care? To get into Heaven? Why do you want to do that?"

Well yeah, if you believe that there is an omnipotent being of infinite goodness, and by correlation there is a concept of absolute truth and goodness, and all that jazz, then there's a certain drive to be in accord with what is good and right and true. But I suppose that's enough from me on that tangent. Our different reasons for morality, or even if life is worth living without a God and afterlife... these should be irrelevant as to what we believe.

Khwarizmi

Well, I know that.  I'm not exactly an atheist myself.  I just don't think that "God is good" is sufficient reason to follow God - you have to also believe that good matters (or is at least superior to evil) in order for that to be a reason at all.  You can talk about objectivity, but ultimately it boils down to a question of values.