Antitheism

Tnophelia

DISREGARD THIS POST.

Khwarizmi

Probably none.

I used to be an antitheist; I'm now a theist of sorts.  Kinda a turnaround, I guess.  At the time, I was mainly motivated by the fact that some people do bad things in the name of religion, and God as portrayed in the Bible Genesis, Exodus, the gospels and bits of Job seemed kinda like a totalitarian dictator only much worse to me, so I dunno, the whole thing seemed stupid to me because it appeared to contradict science, so I was just all like "snap out of it, people!"

But I grew out of it, thankfully.

CommandoDude

Because it's easier to fight fire with fire then come up with a genuine solution.

Sammy

Sure is strawman up in here.

Khwarizmi

^ Not really.  The OP exaggerates a bit, but no.

Noimporta

To others it's "Prove god exists, oh wait, you can't, therefore you are a sheep and you must be culled from the earth".

Every group has assholes, moreso in the internet, judging it by a few bad examples is an attitude that's often criticized when displayed by atheists and antitheists (and justly so), so it would only be fair to not display it oneself.

What benefits can be gained from being an antitheist besides being a fucking asshole?

From an antitheist's perspective: the time people "waste" praying and/or going to church, more acceptance to things such as homosexuality and abortion, a better general predisposition towards science and, depending on your views of history, preventing slaughter and wars in the name of Religion.

Now, I don't consider myself an antitheist, mostly because I think religion's impact on our history is far more complicated than either side gives it credit for, and because I think that, generally, the effort put on proselytizing far outweighs the benefits, but I'm not unsympathetic to their position, and most definitely not because they have a few (or many) assholes among their ranks. Remember the Longfellows, not the Falconflys.

Khwarizmi

Longfellow's a reasonable antitheist.  I wish they were all more like him.

I don't hate antitheists.  I have a flatmate who's an antitheist, and we kind of joke about it sometimes.  But quite a lot of antitheists do act like douchebags, which is especially pointless because it doesn't do anything other than annoy people.

DonZabu

I used to be an antitheist, now I'm an agnostic. I wrote a pretty awesome allegory describing why I was agnostic for philosophy class, too.

Anyway, back in the day, I thought organized religion brought too many bad things into the world for its existence to be justified, and to tell the truth, I still think that to a smaller extent. I just don't rant about it quite as much as I used to.

Gelzo

I don't think religion should exist in the way it does now, if at all. Dunno if that makes me count.

In any case I don't think I put much effort towards convincing people to drop religion. I just say what I think, and only get into arguments if there's a specific view the other side has that I find despicable or blatantly illogical. 

Khwarizmi

Don't get me wrong, I think religion needs people to call it out on its bullshit, of which there is a great deal, especially when it's dangerous bullshit.  Nevertheless, I don't know if I could handle living in a world where religion (or at least, theism and similar belief systems) didn't exist.  I'd probably adjust, much as I adjusted to atheism, but I did so by becoming extremely confused and nihilistic, and at the expense of being accused of wishy-washiness and whininess by some.  I honestly think religion does a lot of good for people.

Tnophelia

DISREGARD THIS POST.

Nyktos

Is it wrong to think it's stupid to believe in astrology, or homeopathic medicine, or vaccines causing autism? As far as I'm concerned, believing in God is no less ridiculous, and I do in fact wish that less people did.

That said, I don't really consider myself an antitheist, and I save my ire for irrational beliefs that could actually hurt people (like homeopathy or vaccines causing autism) rather than mostly harmless ones (like God and astrology).

Central Avenue

^ This, pretty much.

(I hate it when I agree with a post but have nothing to add.)

Khwarizmi

I'd say it'd be unfair to consider somebody stupid for believing in astrology if you didn't know precisely what they meant by the word and exactly why they believed in such a thing.

Nyktos

I mostly meant taking newspaper horoscopes seriously, but I can't imagine a form of astrology that I wouldn't consider superstitious nonsense.

That said, there's a difference between considering beliefs stupid and considering people stupid. The former can lead to the latter, but I certainly wouldn't consider someone to be a complete moron just because he obsessively checks his horoscope every day.

Khwarizmi

^^ I'd say it's a ridiculously presumptious aim, but I don't see how it's a horrible one.

^ I can think of a variety of belief in astrology that I wouldn't consider superstitious - one that was justified.  As yet, I've encountered no such thing and see no reason to expect to, but the possibility remains, however slim.

Nyktos

Justified in what way?

Khwarizmi

By their experiences which led to that belief, by the metaphysics they subscribed to, and so on.

I suppose what I mean is, if they had arrived at their beliefs regarding astrology in a manner that was rational given their starting axioms and life experiences.

DonZabu

Homeopathic medicine and autism-vaccines can and have been proven wrong, though, so there's not a lot of comparison to be made there with religion and astrology.

Nyktos

You can't prove a negative.

DonZabu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy

Nyktos

Straight from that page: "The current scientific consensus is that no convincing scientific evidence supports these claims." That's a far cry from "it's 100%, absolutely, guaranteed to be not true".

Look, vaccines obviously don't cause autism. I know that. You know that. But the fact of the matter is that the most you can objectively say is "no convincing scientific evidence supports these claims". No convincing scientific evidence supports the claim that God exists either.

Khwarizmi

Science makes observations of prior events and uses them to attempt to explain the world around us.  It is not the only way knowledge can be obtained.  Take Descartes' famous statement, "I think, therefore I am."  From the starting point "I think," Descartes obtained an additional piece of information, "I exist," and he did so without using the scientific method.  Or suppose I were to look in a book and read that the capital of Chad is N'Djamena.  I would have obtained that information without applying the scientific method.  Or, for that matter, suppose I read an entirely invented horoscope, believed it, and it turned out to coincidentally be true.  I'd have again obtained real information without using science.

There are also some facts which science simply isn't suited to obtain.  For example, the whole not being able to prove a negative thing.  In addition to this, while science has proven extremely efficient in terms of predicting future events, it can also make inaccurate or downright erroneous predictions, due in no small part to the limited perspectives of the scientists using said method.  Furthermore, even the hardest of hard sciences will tend to make metaphysical assumptions, such as Mathematical Platonism, which are not actually self-evident.

What I'm getting at is that it's not correct to assume either that all information obtained scientifically is true, or that only information obtained scientifically is true, or that all information even can be obtained scientifically.

In addition to all this, religion, and even belief in God, are such broad categories that to make the blanket claim that they are universally irrational or wrong is a sweeping statement that is bound to dismiss numerous beliefs which the antitheist hasn't yet heard or considered, thereby making the assumption that anyone who uses the ambiguous and multi-layered terms "religion" or "God" to describe any aspect of their worldview is automatically wrong, regardless of how they are using these words.  I don't think this is a fair or sensible assumption.

And I spent so long typing this that I made myself late for church. >_>

Longfellow

Yeah, I'd call myself an antitheist (and I'm flattered that you wish they were like me), though I haven't gone burning and pillaging religious communities in awhile. Seriously though, I think we'd probably be healthier without religion but I don't feel that strongly about it (until I get drunk off a few forum debates). It's an enormously complicated question though. I would rather spend my energy promoting the wellbeing of fellow atheists than deconverting theists.

Or suppose I were to look in a book and read that the capital of Chad is N'Djamena.  I would have obtained that information without applying the scientific method.

Well let's trace your reasoning here. You read it in a book, and books tend to be reliable sources--well, some of them--and you have no reason to suspect that N'Djamena isn't the capital of Chad, there's nothing weird about this claim, so you trust that it's true. So why do you trust that the book's a reliable source? Previous books were right about stuff. Or maybe a parent or authority figure told you books are trustworthy, and these people themselves are usually right, so you trust books by proxy. Either way it folds back on observing prior events (i.e. the truth of previous books) and using them to explain the world around us, which is exactly how you describe science.

That's how we learn most things, really. I've never taken raw data to see if common ancestry really is tenable, but I know that scientists rigorously test their claims and I know a bit about how they justify common ancestry, which inclines me to think it's no extraordinary or weird claim, and gives me no reason to exercise undue skepticism. So I think living things have common ancestry. No scientific method, sure, but you could say that in considering prior events I'm doing a sort of undisciplined science.

Tnophelia

DISREGARD THIS POST.

Noimporta

and I'm flattered that you wish they were like me

It's the bishiness, dude, you guys need a good front man.

DonZabu

^^ Plato's Allegory of the Den did that for me for a while.

Tnophelia

DISREGARD THIS POST.

Chagen

 Seriously though, I think we'd probably be healthier without religion but I don't feel that strongly about it

You do realize how passive-aggressive this sounds, right?

"Oh, I think you're an uneducated heathen who is dumb and retarded but I don't hate you for it".

Chagen

It still sounds passive-aggressive. Not to mention I hear that a lot from antitheists. 

Chagen

But saying it gives off the notion of superiority over theists for Outgrowing Those Silly Superstitions. At least that's how I view it through my jaded mind.