Anti-Theism in America

[GenSeneca]

I am Non-Religious. I used to consider myself an Atheist before I realize that most people who call themselves Athiests are not, in fact, most who call themselves Atheists are Anti-Theists who seek to remove all religious influence from all society as they believe such Authoritarian and intolerant dogma's can benefit mankind... So, I now consider myself Non-Religious to prevent from being confused with such hate filled bile.

When it comes to God and Religion, Atheists do not feel there is enough evidence one way or the other to prove or disprove the existence of God and likewise there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the validity of any religion.

Atheists also do not have anything against Religion or God, they don't attack the followers, believers or the idea that God could exist... (Which does make them very close to the Agnostic view) But there is another group that likes to call themselves Atheists, though they do not hold similarly tolerant views of God and Religion....

Anti-Theists tend to believe:

• There is NO God, Period.
• Religion is Evil and used for perpetuating the same.
• People who believe in Religion are dupes, sheep, non-thinkers... Not at all equal with the "enlightened" Anti-theist - who KNOWS the truth about the unknowable, and frequently say so.
• Religion has been the cause of most of the worlds misery
• Religion is in direct conflict with Science and the scientific method, stifling the progress of science whenever possible.
• The world would be better off without Religion.

Quite simply: Anti-Theists are Bigots, Atheists are not.

Anti-Theists are bigoted against Religion, religious people and the very mention of God is offensive to them - thats an easy way to spot them. They find NOTHING good about what religions teach, about the morals religions attempt to instill in its followers, about the ethics that are taught through "tall tales" such as those laid out in the Bible, but instead hold up extreme examples of religious perversion and claim the exceptions are actually the rule.

These hate filled people often attack religion for being intolerant... while they themselves are intolerant toward religion, but they excuse themselves from this hypocrisy by pointing to "religious atrocities" and ignore all the atrocities that have taken place in the name of Science... Like that of Eugenics.

Anti-Theist also don't believe in equality... at least where people who believe in God or religion are concerned. They often speak of how grand it would be to remove religion, God, and all who believe from public service and public view - saying the religious should be forced to pray to "fairies" in the privacy of their own home because the mere sight of prayer or religious symbols is offensive to the Anti-Theist. The only equality they care to achieve is a universal Anti-theist Society that banishes the Religious to the roll of second class citizens. Look closely, its a lot like the sentiments you hear about Gays coming from Homophobes... Yet we recognize Homophobes as being Bigots and stand against their intolerance. Why are Anti-Theists and their bigotry tolerated in a civilized society?

So... To all you Anti-Theists out there in Cyberspace, stop being bigots. Accept Religious people as equals in society, free to think and believe as they wish, stop looking down on them for not acting and thinking as you do. Stop attacking the things they hold dear because you find it offensive - you have NO right to not be offended.

 

[Pandora]

I have met a whole lot of Anti-Theist and I dont like them at all.

I dont care what people want to have faith in or not have faith in, as long as they dont shove their ideas down my throat and I wont shove mine down theirs.

I like the non religous term better because those Anti-Theist have ruined the word atheist.

I think though that I would go further and say that they have made an actual religion out of thier Anti-Theistism. They preach it like some pastor might preach jesusk, and get as mad as heck when people believe in anything other than what they believe.


Great post gen

 

[GenSeneca]

I have met a whole lot of Anti-Theist and I dont like them at all.

I dont care what people want to have faith in or not have faith in, as long as they dont shove their ideas down my throat and I wont shove mine down theirs.

I like the non religous term better because those Anti-Theist have ruined the word atheist.

I think though that I would go further and say that they have made an actual religion out of thier Anti-Theistism. They preach it like some pastor might preach jesusk, and get as mad as heck when people believe in anything other than what they believe.


Great post gen

Thanks!

In many ways it is a religion, but the Anti-Theists often ascribe to one of the Humanist view which some do consider religions... The Humanist philosopies compete against all the others. Notice that most religions have a history of conflict with other religion? There is no difference where Anti-Theism is concerned... THEY and only THEY KNOW the truth and proselytize their twisted message down the throats of others, as you pointed out. THEY seek to destroy all other religions and replace them with the Secular Humanist or Scientific Humanist philosophies - AKA Anti-Theism.

Micheal Newdow is a great example of an Anti-Theist High Priest and Prophet... His bigotry and intolerance has helped the Anti-Theists to make "Progress" in removing religion from the public arena wherever possible. Chances are, anyone that finds Newdow to be anything other than a Bigot, is a follower of his Anti-Theist religion.

Secular Humanist believe their philosophy is superior to Religion:

Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making.

The following are supposed to be the tenets of Secular Humanism but I have YET to find even one of its followers who are not hate filled bigots bent on the destruction of Religion, religious symbols and seeking to achieve a total separation of Church and State where those who believe are second class citizens:
* Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
* Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
* Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
* Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
* This life – A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
* Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
* Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.


Same with Scientific Humanism who's intolerance is summed up by this quote from one of its founders:

Edward O. Wilson claimed to be "the only worldview compatible with science's growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature".

 

[pocketfullofshells]

you sound more Agnistic then Atheiest. Athiest belive there is no god, while agnostics hold the view that we dont know one way or the other. I am agnostic heavy on the Athiest side myself.

 

[GenSeneca]

you sound more Agnistic then Atheiest. Athiest belive there is no god, while agnostics hold the view that we dont know one way or the other. I am agnostic heavy on the Athiest side myself.

That is incorrect my friend... Atheism is based on skepticism. The "Atheists" who say Atheists "believe" anything are not Atheists at all... Atheism is the lack of belief or faith. Richard Dawkins would be an example of an Anti-Theist that parades around as an Atheist.

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism*. It is also defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.

*Those who reject Theism are, by definition, Anti-Theists:

Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to belief in any deity, while in a theism context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.

 

[vyo476]

By that definition of atheism, agnostics are atheists, too - since a necessary component of being undecided on the religious issue is an absence of one solid belief, but openness to the possibility.

What, then, is the difference between atheists and agnostics (such as myself)?

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

By that definition of atheism, agnostics are atheists, too - since a necessary component of being undecided on the religious issue is an absence of one solid belief, but openness to the possibility.

What, then, is the difference between atheists and agnostics (such as myself)?

active denial?

 

[vyo476]

active denial?

But Seneca is saying that there is nothing "active" about atheism - that true atheism is simply the lack of faith in deities, not the active denial of the existence of deities.

 

[GenSeneca]

By that definition of atheism, agnostics are atheists, too - since a necessary component of being undecided on the religious issue is an absence of one solid belief, but openness to the possibility.

What, then, is the difference between atheists and agnostics (such as myself)?

Actually, you're quite correct... there is very little difference between the two.

Agnosticism:

is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable.

This only differs from Atheism in that they have an absence of belief in deities - NOT a disbelief in deities as Anti-theists do.

Agnostics don't have the absence of belief in deities, they simply believe the truth about deities is unknown or unknowable. So the differences are slight but are there nonetheless.

 

[vyo476]

Actually, you're quite correct... there is very little difference between the two.

Agnosticism:

This only differs from Atheism in that they have an absence of belief in deities - NOT a disbelief in deities as Anti-theists do.

Agnostics don't have the absence of belief in deities, they simply believe the truth about deities is unknown or unknowable. So the differences are slight but are there nonetheless.

Okay. I don't totally agree but I can respect your view on it; and I have to say that I prefer your brand of atheism to what you've dubbed "anti-theism," which is the version of atheism that really drove me to become an agnostic in the first place.

 

[Libsmasher]

But Seneca is saying that there is nothing "active" about atheism - that true atheism is simply the lack of faith in deities, not the active denial of the existence of deities.

Atheists deny the existence of God, agnostics take no position, and many of them hold that it is impossible to know for certain if God exists. Many agnostics, such as myself, call atheists people of faith, since they assert that which they cannot prove.

 

[vyo476]

Atheists deny the existence of God, agnostics take no position, and many of them hold that it is impossible to know for certain if God exists. Many agnostics, such as myself, call atheists people of faith, since they assert that which they cannot prove.

These were the definitions that I was used to as well, but I see where Seneca is coming from. Example:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
-Dictionary.com

The first is an active definition; the second, passive. Seneca is describing the passive version - one that does not actively deny the existence of God but is the simple lack of belief in the existence of God.

While I don't agree that his version of atheism (the passive version) is the one true atheism and that antitheism (active atheism) isn't atheism at all, I'd fully support his version of atheism as being more fair-minded and closer to the spirit of non-theistic systems (agnosticism and atheism).

 

[Dr.Who]

I am Non-Religious. I used to consider myself an Atheist before I realize that most people who call themselves Athiests are not, in fact, most who call themselves Atheists are Anti-Theists who seek to remove all religious influence from all society as they believe such Authoritarian and intolerant dogma's can benefit mankind... So, I now consider myself Non-Religious to prevent from being confused with such hate filled bile.

When it comes to God and Religion, Atheists do not feel there is enough evidence one way or the other to prove or disprove the existence of God and likewise there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the validity of any religion.

Atheists also do not have anything against Religion or God, they don't attack the followers, believers or the idea that God could exist... (Which does make them very close to the Agnostic view) But there is another group that likes to call themselves Atheists, though they do not hold similarly tolerant views of God and Religion....

Anti-Theists tend to believe:

• There is NO God, Period.
• Religion is Evil and used for perpetuating the same.
• People who believe in Religion are dupes, sheep, non-thinkers... Not at all equal with the "enlightened" Anti-theist - who KNOWS the truth about the unknowable, and frequently say so.
• Religion has been the cause of most of the worlds misery
• Religion is in direct conflict with Science and the scientific method, stifling the progress of science whenever possible.
• The world would be better off without Religion.

Quite simply: Anti-Theists are Bigots, Atheists are not.

Anti-Theists are bigoted against Religion, religious people and the very mention of God is offensive to them - thats an easy way to spot them. They find NOTHING good about what religions teach, about the morals religions attempt to instill in its followers, about the ethics that are taught through "tall tales" such as those laid out in the Bible, but instead hold up extreme examples of religious perversion and claim the exceptions are actually the rule.

These hate filled people often attack religion for being intolerant... while they themselves are intolerant toward religion, but they excuse themselves from this hypocrisy by pointing to "religious atrocities" and ignore all the atrocities that have taken place in the name of Science... Like that of Eugenics.

Anti-Theist also don't believe in equality... at least where people who believe in God or religion are concerned. They often speak of how grand it would be to remove religion, God, and all who believe from public service and public view - saying the religious should be forced to pray to "fairies" in the privacy of their own home because the mere sight of prayer or religious symbols is offensive to the Anti-Theist. The only equality they care to achieve is a universal Anti-theist Society that banishes the Religious to the roll of second class citizens. Look closely, its a lot like the sentiments you hear about Gays coming from Homophobes... Yet we recognize Homophobes as being Bigots and stand against their intolerance. Why are Anti-Theists and their bigotry tolerated in a civilized society?

So... To all you Anti-Theists out there in Cyberspace, stop being bigots. Accept Religious people as equals in society, free to think and believe as they wish, stop looking down on them for not acting and thinking as you do. Stop attacking the things they hold dear because you find it offensive - you have NO right to not be offended.

I am not sure that yours is the only definition of atheism but it does make much more sense and is much more clear.

Also, your attitude is much better.

 

[foggedinn]

Since athiests, agnostics, and the non-religious have contibuted to the forum, perhaps a man of faith can also. I'll try not to shove my beliefs down anyones throat.

With the help of Webster's 3rd, I read the OT(KJV) as an eight year old child. It took a month to get through the first page, and a week to get through the second. In those five weeks, I'm sure my vocabulary increased by over a thousand words. I started in January and finished in early December.

I've found out in the decades since I did this, that it was unusual. At the time I did it, I thought I was kind of behind because I had only read the OT.
While my brothers were watching Hoody Doody and Captain Kangeroo, I was reading the stories of Abraham, Job, and David.

It's hard to describe the sort of faith that this early exposure to the Word, along with weekly attendance of the worship and sunday school gives to a young child. Although it's true that I drifted away from the church for a long time, my faith still carried me through situations that I would not have survived without it.

The Lord recently called me back into the church. Praise God.

I realize that my personnal experiences are not transferable, and that I will never convince any of you through arguement or reason. Still, I have faith that the Lord will call some of you to Him.

 

[GenSeneca]

The first is an active definition; the second, passive. Seneca is describing the passive version - one that does not actively deny the existence of God but is the simple lack of belief in the existence of God.

While I don't agree that his version of atheism (the passive version) is the one true atheism and that antitheism (active atheism) isn't atheism at all, I'd fully support his version of atheism as being more fair-minded and closer to the spirit of non-theistic systems (agnosticism and atheism).

I'm not saying Anti-Theism isn't Atheism at all... Let me explain,

Here's my view of the breakdown and why there are overlaps in definitions:

For this example I'll use the Democrat Party. It's primarily comprised of people who identify themselves as being either Liberal or Progressive (You won't hear any Republicans call themselves Liberal or Progressive). Now, lets look at where the definitions overlap - At #1 on both:

Liberal:
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
Progressive:
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters

Now in this example, as in Atheism Vs. Anti-Theism, Liberal is Passive while the Progressive is Active... Yet they sound almost identical and BOTH fall under the umbrella of being Democrats. (Please note how the Progressive definition makes it sound like Liberals are just wishing for Reform while the Progressives are trying to lead the charge) These two groups are not opposed to each other, they seek similar goals but through different approaches.

There was word that Vyo attached to Atheism = True Atheism

I prefer to use a different word: Classical

Thats at least my attempt to avoid the No True Scotsman Fallacy because, as I see it, Classical Liberals (and Classical Atheists as well) take a more tolerant approach to dealing with opposing views while Modern Liberals (as well as Progressives and Anti-Theists) are incredibly intolerant to opposition.

Its not my intention to say one is "real" or "true" but to point out the distinctions that separate tolerance from intolerance in the respective viewpoints.

Worth noting is the fact that the "Non-Religious" title, which I have labeled myself with, covers many groups:
Agnostics, Atheists, Secular Humanists and even Theists - just to name a few. This is analogous to the Democrat Party example where groups are not purely homogeneous but instead are comprised of different groups that are far more similar to each other than they are to the opposing parties.

Lets really fry some braincells... Bi-Partisanship. I think we all understand how this is supposed to work in Politics - Both sides make demands and both sides make concessions to come to an agreement.

There is no such word for describing how the Religious and Non-Religious might also work together on a compromise - Neither side is willing to compromise and hence are perpetually locked into their "partisan" views. Silly as it may sound, I think such a word does exist - Tolerance... And thats what I try to "preach" to both sides.

Recognizing and encouraging tolerant views inside of divergent parties (be they religious or political), and discouraging the intolerant ones, is the key to reaching Vyo's lofty goal of Co-Existence in religious terms and Bi-partisanship in the political world.

However, there is no compromising with intolerance... So I think its important we recognize exactly where that line is drawn and we also need to recognize where double standards are allowing such a compromise to take place with intolerant views... thats also why I often complain about the double standards applied, knowingly or unknowingly, in the world of Politics and Religion.