20 May 05
1 edit
hopefully Scribs has not already posted about the antitheist.
while the atheist is characterized by a lack of belief in a god or gods, the antitheist is characterized by a predisposition against the belief in a god or gods.
so the antitheist is like a strong atheist but goes a step further and says that not only is there no god or gods, but the belief in a god or gods is dangerous and destructive to society, based on the assertion that religion in general causes conflict among people who hold differing (and all ultimately wrong) beliefs.
does anyone on this site consider themselves to be an antitheist? if so, what are your reasons why you think religion is destructive to society?
are there any out there who would classify themselves as anti-antitheist? if so, why?
20 May 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloCould you for the purpose of this excersise declare whether you believe religion to be the same as believing in a God. Further would you consider a spiritual person to be religious?
hopefully Scribs has not already posted about the antitheist.
while the atheist is characterized by a lack of belief in a god or gods, the antitheist is characterized by a predisposition against the belief in a god or gods.
so the antitheist is like a strong atheist but goes a step further and says that not only is there no god or gods, but t ...[text shortened]... ciety?
are there any out there who would classify themselves as anti-antitheist? if so, why?
20 May 05
Originally posted by Nyxieokay, these are certainly fair points of concern.
Could you for the purpose of this excersise declare whether you believe religion to be the same as believing in a God. Further would you consider a spiritual person to be religious?
i'll propose a couple co-existing interpretations of religion, which are negotiable, so if other people want to add to/change/completely deny these interpretations, then by all means propose other interpretations; but this will at least be a starting point:
religion:
1. belief in and reverance for a god (or gods) whom one deems as the creator and/or governor of the universe.
2. ascribing to beliefs/values/practices/doctrines which are based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
if the spiritual person to whom you refer would fit within one of these categories, then we could say he is also religious. i would guess that most 'spiritual' persons would also be religious by this measure.
20 May 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloI think it is #2 where we differ here. I myself don't believe that religious = spiritual. I also don't think that believing in God makes you religious.
okay, these are certainly fair points of concern.
i'll propose a couple co-existing interpretations of religion, which are negotiable, so if other people want to add to/change/completely deny these interpretations, then by all means propose other interpretations; but this will at least be a starting point:
religion:
1. belief in and reverance for ...[text shortened]... ligious. i would guess that most 'spiritual' persons would also be religious by this measure.
You said in the first post that it is religion that causes the (hypothesized) trouble in the world. So perhaps it is not a belief in God itself that causes these problems, but in the practice of doctrination (let's call this dogma) that is associated with most believers in God.
Also some spiritual people do not believe in any gods, yet follow the beliefs of other spiritual people. Are these people religious, and would they fit this description of a hypothetical troublemaker?
Nyxie
the Valkyrja
20 May 05
Originally posted by Nyxiei must say your questions are quite perceptive, and i am not sure i can answer them all adequately. here are my interpretations:
I think it is #2 where we differ here. I myself don't believe that religious = spiritual. I also don't think that believing in God makes you religious.
You said in the first post that it is religion that causes the (hypothesized) trouble in the world. So perhaps it is not a belief in God itself that causes these problems, but in the practice of doctrinat ...[text shortened]... ious, and would they fit this description of a hypothetical troublemaker?
Nyxie
the Valkyrja
I think it is #2 where we differ here. I myself don't believe that religious = spiritual.
i also don't think that religious and spiritual are equivalent or equal, in as much as i think it would be wrong to say something like 'a person is religious if and only if he is spiritual.' but i think that a religious person can be spiritual, and i think that a spiritual person can be religious.
I also don't think that believing in God makes you religious.
this is probably going to be a problem for this discussion since it contradicts my definition #1. however, it suffices to say this: the antitheist is against the belief in a god or gods. thus, whether you think a belief in god makes you religious or not, if you hold a belief in god, then the antitheist will frown upon your belief, and will probably say that your belief in god is destructive and counterproductive for society.
btw, do you have alternate interpretations of religion that you wish to propose?
You said in the first post that it is religion that causes the (hypothesized) trouble in the world.
just to be clear, i said that the antitheist generally holds this belief that religion is troublesome; i, myself, am not antitheist.
So perhaps it is not a belief in God itself that causes these problems, but in the practice of doctrination (let's call this dogma) that is associated with most believers in God.
yes, good point. i think the antitheist would agree that dogma, or doctrination is destructive for society. i was trying to work the dogma angle into the #2 interpretation of religion that i proposed; the #1 interpretation was meant to just work in the belief in god or gods.
Also some spiritual people do not believe in any gods, yet follow the beliefs of other spiritual people. Are these people religious, and would they fit this description of a hypothetical troublemaker?
again, i was hoping these people you describe would fall under the category of my #2 religion interpretation. yes, i believe these people are religious, and i would guess that the antitheist would believe that their practices are destructive for society.
how do you think we should modify my 2 interpretations of religion?
how do you feel about the antitheist's beliefs?
20 May 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloOn your first point I agree religious can be spritual and spiritual can be religious, but I still don't think they are equatable.
i must say your questions are quite perceptive, and i am not sure i can answer them all adequately. here are my interpretations:
[b]I think it is #2 where we differ here. I myself don't believe that religious = spiritual.
i also don't think that religious and spiritual are equivalent or equal, in as much as i think it would be wrong to say so ...[text shortened]... hould modify my 2 interpretations of religion?
how do you feel about the antitheist's beliefs?[/b]
On the point of religion, this is harder to define. Religion to me is a practice of certain beliefs shared by more then one person. I don't think believing in God makes you automatically part of a religion.
Let's use the baptism, if you're not baptised you're not a Christian as it is accepted that all Christians should be baptised. If you believe in Jesus, but do not get baptised or attend church, are you a Christian?
Let's say we believed in God. Following this we believe in the Bible and the Hebrew God. We also believe in Satan. Satan believes in God. Is Satan religious?
On the antitheist point, I realize you have'nt claimed to be, I was just repeating your criteria to be clear.
On the last part, again I assert that there are spiritual people who do not believe in gods. How would an antitheist consider them still destructive to society?.
My feelings on the antitheists beliefs?
I can't see how simply believing in God would cause harm, and can not support this belief. I see no evidence to support, and ask that some be supplied.
If I believed that God existed but never once said it would my oppinion be harmful to society? If noone else knew that I believed this?
20 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NyxieOn the last part, again I assert that there are spiritual people who do not believe in gods. How would an antitheist consider them still destructive to society?.
On your first point I agree religious can be spritual and spiritual can be religious, but I still don't think they are equatable.
On the point of religion, this is harder to define. Religion to me is a practice of certain beliefs shared b ...[text shortened]... on be harmful to society? If noone else knew that I believed this?
as you were discussing earlier, i think the antitheist sees religious doctrine as destructive for society. Even if these spiritual people you refer to do not believe in gods per se, they may still follow the practices and doctrines of a spiritual leader, and the antitheist would see these as destructive practices.
Let's use the baptism, if you're not baptised you're not a Christian as it is accepted that all Christians should be baptised. If you believe in Jesus, but do not get baptised or attend church, are you a Christian?
i don't know. i didn't know that you cannot be considered xtian if you were not baptized. is that true? that would just be one more thing i don't get about the xtian faith.
I can't see how simply believing in God would cause harm, and can not support this belief. I see no evidence to support, and ask that some be supplied.
as far as evidence that an antitheist would supply, he would probably point out that many people have fought wars for religious reasons, and many of those people lost their lives in religious wars. the antitheist would conclude that these people lost their lives needlessly for religions that are wrong in the first place. he would also point out that mutual differences between groups that practice different religions often lead to confrontations and arguments that generally decrease quality of life. he would also point out that all the time and money spent on religious worship is just a waste of resources that could be put to better use since the religions are all wrong to begin with. i am sure there are lots of so-called evidence that the antitheist would come up with for religion being detrimental for society.
If I believed that God existed but never once said it would my oppinion be harmful to society? If noone else knew that I believed this?
i don't think so, but this is a specific case of theism. generally speaking, the antitheist is against theism. but of course, if the antitheist had no idea what your beliefs are (if you don't vocalize them or allow them to influence your actions in public), then he would probably have no beef with you.
21 May 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloTaking the last part of your post to help with my point. If the antitheist does'nt know I'm a theist then he does'nt believe I harm society.
[b]On the last part, again I assert that there are spiritual people who do not believe in gods. How would an antitheist consider them still destructive to society?.
as you were discussing earlier, i think the antitheist sees religious doctrine as destructive for society. Even if these spiritual people you refer to do not believe in gods per se, th ...[text shortened]... r allow them to influence your actions in public), then he would probably have no beef with you.[/b]
So in my oppinion we go back to religion and doctrination, or the practicing of religion that is harmful to society in the theists oppinion. Simply saying a belief in God is enough makes the argument fall flat because he can't know if I believe or not.
Nyxie
21 May 05
Originally posted by Nyxiei agree with you that it would be wrong for an antitheist to claim that a person's belief in a god or gods is sufficient cause to say that person is harming society in some way. this is really not a strong point against the antitheist though, for there are many people and groups who are very open and vocal about their beliefs and they go out of their way to influence others.
Taking the last part of your post to help with my point. If the antitheist does'nt know I'm a theist then he does'nt believe I harm society.
So in my oppinion we go back to religion and doctrination, or the practicing of religion that is harmful to society in the theists oppinion. Simply saying a belief in God is enough makes the argument fall flat because he can't know if I believe or not.
Nyxie
i am a little bit confused about how to precisely state the antitheist's position. if we base it on religion, as given by my interpretations #1 and #2, that may not be right because if we suppose that having a belief in a god or gods is not a necessary condition for being religious (as my #2 interpretation implies), then we may be talking about antireligion, rather than antitheism, where i think there may be a distinction to be made.
regardless, these are all trivial concerns.
just consider a person, and we will call him an antitheist, who believes that those people who are vocally and openly religious (insert your own definition of religious here) and try to indoctrinate others are harmful and destructive to society.
do you think this stance by the antitheist has any merits, based on your own observations?
21 May 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloNow that stance makes more sense to me. Simply saying because one believes in God seems insufficient.
i agree with you that it would be wrong for an antitheist to claim that a person's belief in a god or gods is sufficient cause to say that person is harming society in some way. this is really not a strong point against the antitheist though, for there are many people and groups who are very open and vocal about their beliefs and they go out of their wa ...[text shortened]... y.
do you think this stance by the antitheist has any merits, based on your own observations?
I've just been trying to make that point.
Nyxie
21 May 05
Originally posted by Nyxiei think some antitheists would argue that it is sufficient, however, which i think just shows that some of them base their beliefs on hatred and bigotry, rather than logic.
Simply saying because one believes in God seems insufficient.
but another subset of antitheists would agree with you, but would still of course argue that, generally speaking, the belief in a god or gods is harmful to society. these are the antitheists i wonder about. what are their reasons for thinking such and do they have any merits? i guess i was hoping that such an antitheist would show up and argue for his position, but it looks like a no-show.
21 May 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloI would also like to meet one of these antitheists and ask them why. I believe that there must exist at least one so I do hope they introduce themselves and help cover some of the points we've raised here.
i think some antitheists would argue that it is sufficient, however, which i think just shows that some of them base their beliefs on hatred and bigotry, rather than logic.
but another subset of antitheists would agree with you, but would still of course argue that, generally speaking, the belief in a god or gods is harmful to society. these are the a ...[text shortened]... g that such an antitheist would show up and argue for his position, but it looks like a no-show.
Nyxie
21 May 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloA lot of Theists hold similar views about organized religion.
hopefully Scribs has not already posted about the antitheist.
while the atheist is characterized by a lack of belief in a god or gods, the antitheist is characterized by a predisposition against the belief in a god or gods.
so the antitheist is like a strong atheist but goes a step further and says that not only is there no god or gods, but t ...[text shortened]... ciety?
are there any out there who would classify themselves as anti-antitheist? if so, why?
Some organized religions do indeed cause sectarian strife.
Mind you this.. There's been many religious wars fought over who had the right religion .. never one over which Atheist country disbelieved better than the other.