Why anti-theism is a joke.

Copernicus · Jun 23, 2011

Victor said:
I wouldn't consider him an atheist either. At best, he had some contempt toward organized religion, but so do several other religious folks. To that end, he was definately religious or spiritual at the very least.

You are trying to put a positive spin (in your mind) on his clear anti-religious sentiment as expressed to acquaintances and relatives. Some have argued that he was an atheist, but he was also a skilled politician who understood the role of religion in the lives of most Americans. So the modern evidence is mixed.

You are playing a silly game here if you hope to contrast the behavior of atheist and theist rulers throughout history. First of all, the vast majority have been religious, and our past has been quite bloody. Stalin and Mao were not typical atheists, but Communist dictators. You can find quite a few countries today with very large populations of atheists or "non-religious" citizens, and they are far from oppressive regimes--Estonia, Czech Republic, Scandinavian countries, France, Japan, etc. You simply are not going to find good evidence that non-religious rulers or societies tend to be nastier than the religious ones.

Storm · Jun 24, 2011

Copernicus said:
Sorry, but I thought that I made it clear. My understanding of antitheism is the same as that in Wikipedia and various dictionaries. It refers to an active or outspoken opposition to belief in the existence of God(s). I don't see how you could not have gotten that impression from multiple posts, but I hope I've answered your question to your satisfaction now. Antitheism is neutral with respect to the manner in which a person actively opposes belief in gods.

OK, I'll take that as your position, but in post 81, you did say:

and
If you no longer label atheistic religious bigotry as "anti-theism", then we are on the same page.

I know that. I never took it as an insult. I was just saying that others would form that conclusion because they saw "antitheism" as a more neutral term than you did.

It is not just a matter of our disagreement. The dictionary definitions and the Wikipedia entry on that term are incompatible with your interpretation. Bigotry is simply not inherent in the meaning of that word. It is more like the word "theism" in that respect.

Yes, but "anti-theism" covers the entire spectrum, not just the far end. Should anti-theists consider bigotry to be inherent in theism because some theists make extreme remarks about atheists and call them names? I don't think that you have been able to justify using the label "anti-theist" for just one end of the spectrum of those who actively oppose theism.

Hi, Copernicus.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I just read the Wiki. You're right, and I won't use anti-theist to mean "atheistic religious bigot" anymore.

However, while it might be mistaken, I would point out that my previous understanding doesn't seem uncommon. You might cut others, such as the op, some slack.

Wombat · Jun 24, 2011

outhouse said:
Ya, well there not.

its was a glimpse of that society in that culture at that time.

It was a reflection of politics, not the lack of religion which in their case would have made no difference at all.

No.
The "politics" cannot be seperated from the central and essential anti religious stance.

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

Nor can it be dismissed as simply "a glimpse of that society in that culture at that time"...it has a long cross cultural history with deep roots-

"No God! No Religion! No King! No Constitution!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cruikshank_-_The_Radical%27s_Arms.png

Copernicus · Jun 24, 2011

Wombat said:
No.
The "politics" cannot be seperated from the central and essential anti religious stance...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cruikshank_-_The_Radical's_Arms.png

Yes, it can. Just because some people have chosen to mix atheism with politics, that does not mean that it has to be mixed with politics. Lenin was not a spokesperson for atheism. What he was concerned with was the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church had become deeply ensconced in politics in the early 1900s. Rasputin had become a powerful influence in the Tsardom, and people were fed up with the church meddling in the politics of the state. That is why it was so important to Lenin to make statements of that sort. After the Bolshevik revolution, the official state religion of the Tsars was seen as a counterrevolutionary force that the Communists saw as a rival to their influence. Communism, in many respects, was a rival evangelical religious movement.

Wombat · Jun 24, 2011

Copernicus said:
Yes, it can. Just because some people have chosen to mix atheism with politics, that does not mean that it has to be mixed with politics.. .

Atheism was a central and essential ingredient in the communist cake cooked up .

To say that atheism does not have to be mixed with politics (general) and/or Lenin was not a spokesperson for atheism is a blatant obscuring fudge of the issue. Lenin was a spokesperson for communism and in his words- "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
Not just a natural and inseparable part of Communism" but the natural and inseparable part of Communism."....central, essential, inseparable.
In fact in the Soviet one could potentially be a member of the Central Committee without being a member of the Communist Party....but one could not be a member thereof without being an avowed atheist.

Copernicus said:
Lenin was not a spokesperson for atheism .

He was a spokesperson and advocate for atheism as central and essential to communism-
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."

To attempt to deny the centrality of atheism within these communist regimes is like trying to pass off the Crusades as a Geo-Political land grab in which religion did not play a central role.

Copernicus said:
. What he was concerned with was the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church had become deeply ensconced in politics in the early 1900s. Rasputin had become a powerful influence in the Tsardom, and people were fed up with the church meddling in the politics of the state. That is why it was so important to Lenin to make statements of that sort. After the Bolshevik revolution, the official state religion of the Tsars was seen as a counterrevolutionary force that the Communists saw as a rival to their influence. Communism, in many respects, was a rival evangelical religious movement.

Oh please....spare me the historical revisionism and atheist apologetics...the militant anti theist stance taken by the communists was deep rooted and core- before, during and after the revolution. The Soviet League of Militant Atheists had MORE members than the Communist Party itself (Please...tell me again about the political influence of the church/Rasputin in the face of that fact)

The League of Militant Atheists- (Union of Belligerent Atheists or The League of the Militant Godless) was responsible for death and destruction on a vast scale...validating the original issue/point- "If Mao and Stalin is a mere glimpse of a world without religion" that was subsequently palmed off as some kind of localised culturaly specific political aberation- "a glimpse of that society in that culture at that time.....a reflection of politics, not the lack of religion..."

No.....it was a clear reflection of the communist intent to employ their determined and militant atheism to stamp out religion with unremitting force and violence.

Society of the Godless - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Militant atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

rocketboy · Jun 25, 2011

But atheism is not equivalent to Communism. Ayn Rand was a huge commie basher and laissez faire capitalist, but she was also an atheist. Atheists have all kinds of political views.

Wombat · Jun 25, 2011

rocketboy said:
But atheism is not equivalent to Communism.

Haven't seen anyone say or suggest there was equivalence between atheism and communism.

Just that atheism was central, vital and inseparable to the communist regimes mentioned.

rocketboy said:
Ayn Rand was a huge commie basher and laissez faire capitalist, but she was also an atheist..

Good for her.
Does she have anything to do with the various communist endevours to establish a Godless State/religion free society through militant atheism? :shrug:

rocketboy said:
Atheists have all kinds of political views.

A statement of the uncontested obvious that does not change, alter or reflect upon the fact that establishing a Godless State/religion free society through militant atheism was a central objective of those of the communist political view.

Copernicus · Jun 26, 2011

Wombat said:
Atheism was a central and essential ingredient in the communist cake cooked up.

Despite Lenin's words, that simply isn't true. Christian Communism existed long before Marx. Atheism had no logical connection with socialism or communism. Antitheism had more to do with the political oppostion to nobility, which tended to operate under the mistaken assumption that their privileges were god-given. Communists and socialists tended to see organized religion as a barrier to their aspirations for political and social change.

To say that atheism does not have to be mixed with politics (general) and/or “Lenin was not a spokesperson for atheism” is a blatant obscuring fudge of the issue. Lenin was a spokesperson for communism and in his words- "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."

You are the one dealing out the fudge here with your blatant appeal-to-authority argument. I have already given an explanation of why Lenin made reference to atheism. If you want to argue against my position, then explain why Lenin thought atheism so essential to Communism.

In fact in the Soviet one could potentially be a member of the Central Committee without being a member of the Communist Party....but one could not be a member thereof without being an avowed atheist.

So what? You must be a member of an established religion in the US, preferably Christian or Jewish, to run for public office. Voters would sooner elect a Muslim than an atheist. That doesn't mean that government office requires a religious affiliation. In fact, the US Constitution expressly forbids a religious test for public office. The Soviets officially tolerated religion, but they had a de facto prohibition on religious affiliation.

What he was concerned with was the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church had become deeply ensconced in politics in the early 1900s. Rasputin had become a powerful influence in the Tsardom, and people were fed up with the church meddling in the politics of the state. That is why it was so important to Lenin to make statements of that sort. After the Bolshevik revolution, the official state religion of the Tsars was seen as a counterrevolutionary force that the Communists saw as a rival to their influence. Communism, in many respects, was a rival evangelical religious movement.

Click to expand...

Oh please....spare me the historical revisionism and atheist apologetics...the militant anti theist stance taken by the communists was deep rooted and core- before, during and after the revolution. The Soviet League of Militant Atheists had MORE members than the Communist Party itself (Please...tell me again about the “political influence” of the church/Rasputin in the face of that fact)

First of all, I know a little bit about Soviet propaganda and religion in the former SU. I subscribed to Наука и Религия (Science and Religion) while still in high school, and I first visited the SU in 1965 to study Russian. While in the SU, I met with believers, observed officially sanctioned church services, and even met with a Catholic prelate from Latvia in Odessa. So don't lecture me about how the Soviets dealt with religion. People didn't always volunteer for organizations like the Soviet League of Militant Atheists out of patriotic fervor any more than they participated in rigged elections. As for Rasputin, I stand by my statements. He was a major influence on the attitudes of progressives and intellectuals concerning the meddling role of the church in state affairs.

The League of Militant Atheists- (Union of Belligerent Atheists or The League of the Militant Godless) was responsible for death and destruction on a vast scale...validating the original issue/point- "If Mao and Stalin is a mere glimpse of a world without religion" that was subsequently palmed off as some kind of localised culturaly specific political aberation- "a glimpse of that society in that culture at that time.....a reflection of politics, not the lack of religion..."

I don't know where you get your information from, but you have to understand something about Soviet statistics. They were notoriously unreliable. You cannot take raw numbers issued by the Communist Party as credible, as they quite often reflected the wishful thinking of the Party hierarchy, not to mention the fact that apparatchiki had a tendency to embellish their own reports of statistics in order to curry favor with their superiors. Objectivity in the gathering of statistics was a huge problem for the SU, which is one of the reasons that it ultimately collapsed. When we met with Komsomol members and debated religion, we quite often discovered that there were liberal and conservative elements that took different positions on matters of religion. After the fall of Communism, religion came back fast and furious. In the 1990s, the ROC was already influencing legislation to get the government to suppress evangelical denominations that it felt threatened by. In other words, it didn't take them long to get back to their old tricks.

No.....it was a clear reflection of the communist intent to employ their determined and militant atheism to stamp out religion with unremitting force and violence.

The force and violence was actually quite mitigated compared to what Catholics and Protestants did to each other in their religious wars. Stalin was very harsh on the ROC in the early parts of his reign, but he ultimately eased up on them, seeking some kind of detente during WWII. In the 1950s and 1960s, restrictions on religion were gradually lessened.

Quiddity · Jun 29, 2011

Copernicus said:
You are playing a silly game here if you hope to contrast the behavior of atheist and theist rulers throughout history.

That would indeed be a silly game if that was what I was trying to do....:tsk:.

waitasec · Jun 29, 2011

Copernicus said:
Atheism had no logical connection with socialism or communism. Antitheism had more to do with the political oppostion to nobility, which tended to operate under the mistaken assumption that their privileges were god-given.

:clap :yes:

Evolutionary Model · Jul 2, 2011

Part of it is just the feeling of wanting to open peoples eyes. I was like that, when I relinquished religious belief. I'm more mellow now, though.

Truth Beyond · Sep 20, 2011

I don't know and I don't care however if as a single man I desire a Jewish woman then I will waste no time being the lord of rumpy pumpy

atanu · Sep 21, 2011

Quagmire said:
Anti-theism seems to be the new orthodoxy.

It isn't any more tolerant or any less dogmatic or self-righteous than any of it's predecessors.

May be Anti Theism develops this way.

Peace Peace Peace

I am sure that there no anti theists in RF. :tsk:

:run:

Photonic · Sep 21, 2011

atanu said:
May be Anti Theism develops this way.

Peace Peace Peace

I am sure that there no anti theists in RF. :tsk:

:run:

I'm not really anti-theist. I'm more anti-(anti-)reasoning

Sententia · Sep 22, 2011

I am dear friends with people who preach to me for weeks and months on end when a mutual friend dies. Enough that I have to deal with the loss but now I have to politely deal with your supernatural lectures for months?

I know it sucks but your reassurance that we will be in heaven together rubbing shoulders again and your half thought out remarks of making up for past wrongs and joking around again in a fictional afterlife is ridiculous when you know I am an atheist...

Why do people do this? Its not a time to debate religion but its a time for me to shut up and listen to sermon after sermon and say nothing?

Beyond that its religious people who come to my door when I am trying to work and sure I'll invite you in and we can enjoy a tea or a root beer and a healthy debate but how many people are unemployed right now? Five a month? Are you preaching or casing my house?

Walking from my downtown office to get a coffee I get stopped by religious people... Not the usual people I would imagine but still... such a random time... its a 4 minute walk and I have headphones on and am purposefully avoiding eye contact... blocking my path to chit chat... Sure so politely remove headphones and they know less about their random christian religion then I do but feel inclined to stop me to tell me they really want me to go to their church this Sunday? Why? To support that women should follow god and have a baby even if having the baby will kill them or if the baby will be still born. (And they have pictures...)

Anti-theism is a joke? Your ability to derive valuable lessons from theism seems to be rare among theists. I often thank my religious upbringing for my values but some of those values were formed only by rejection of my upbringing.

As a side note have you read the god delusion? Dawkin's argues in Chapter 8 for why he sees religion as hostile. I can quote the intro but its a decent read nonetheless:

Dawkins said:
Chapter 8, one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding. Admissions of ignorance and temporary mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore unfortunate, to say the least, that the main strategy of creation propagandists is the negative one of seeking out gaps in scientific knowledge and claiming to fill them with 'intelligent design' by default.

He is making specific and not general claims. Chapter 8 begins with a quote by George Carlin:

GEORGE CARLIN said:
Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man - living in the sky - who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time . . . But He loves you!

Beyond that Dawkins makes many specific claims you could argue against. One point I agree with because I am highly against tricking people into thinking that if they die they will live on in a better world then they can imagine is also from chapter 8:

Dawkins said:
Suicide bombers do what they do because they really believe what they were taught in their religious schools: that duty to God exceeds all other priorities, and that martyrdom in his service will be rewarded in the gardens of Paradise.

There are many other points Dawkins makes but looking at america today it seems the theists delight in terrorizing or minimizing the non-theists. Most of the forerunners for the republican party don't even believe in evolution. Perry thinks the texas school system teaches creationism.

I am a crazy tolerant and patient person. What I would hope you would do is to read up on the non-theist position and then reply to your own post with updates. I don't think your mind will be changed by any means but I think your disagreements may be more clarion and easier to address.

I would suggest the God Delusion by Dawkins, Why god is not great by hitchens and Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist by Dan Barker. If you want to get crazy I can suggest an expanded reading list but I am not sure why one would state to not look at religion but rather to look at humans who are by percentage mostly religious. They have to rationalize their choices based on their beliefs and their beliefs may not be serving them well or might be serving them well but not those around them or any combination of those possibilities. Ultimately most people are religious and don't know much about why they are religious but devoutly religious all the same. Questioning people sure.... but why not religion? Is it sacrosanct or something in your opinion?

Shadow Wolf · Sep 22, 2011

Suicide bombers do what they do because they really believe what they were taught in their religious schools: that duty to God exceeds all other priorities, and that martyrdom in his service will be rewarded in the gardens of Paradise.

I'm sure if we could examine suicide bombers, we would probably find a reoccurring theme of mental illness.

And yes, I have read Dawkins. And found it to be painful. For every bad example of religion, there are good ones he ignores. Such as one ministry group that would buy food and resell it to the poor and needy for less than half of the store cost. And of course there are homeless shelters that although they are religious in nature, they do not require people to be religious or even force it onto people. And there are people who find strength for sobriety in religion. One size does not fit all in addiction treatment, but if it works for the number of people it has there is no reason to say it's wrong.
People will use anything to justify their hate, their ignorance, and even love and tolerance. You can replace religion with skin color, money, family of birth, and many other things that have done to people what religion does. Should we do away with money because so many people think that they are better than everyone else because they have more money?
And of course there are Christians that do not believe in Creationism, and instead look upon scientific evidence and realize the earth was created billions of years ago and life evolved from simple organisms. So what if they also believe God played a role in guiding the turnout of evolution?
And as much as I like George Carlin, he is wrong. Not every religion does believe in a God, and there are several that believe in a God that does not play any role in the day-to-day events of the earth and it's inhabitants.

I am a crazy tolerant and patient person. What I would hope you would do is to read up on the non-theist position and then reply to your own post with updates. I don't think your mind will be changed by any means but I think your disagreements may be more clarion and easier to address.

Actually I am a non-theist, and as an agnostic I am very convinced that ultimately we don't know, and can't know. I also realize it is folly to think science disproves God entirely because what we think is accurate today can be viewed as extremely inaccurate tomorrow. Any good scientist will realize this. And even Stephen Hawking admits science does not prove or disprove God, it just makes him unnecessary. Also there is really no more truthful statement than "There are no truths, only interpretations."

Sententia · Sep 22, 2011

Shadow Wolf said:
I'm sure if we could examine suicide bombers, we would probably find a reoccurring theme of mental illness.

One should probably hope so. But how are you sure?

Shadow Wolf said:
Also there is really no more truthful statement than "There are no truths, only interpretations."

So its your interpretation. I wonder if there are others. (Have you seen this?)

[youtube]J9lPA805Fvc[/youtube]
Leaked Pentagon Video Shows Vaccine Designed to Modify Behavior - YouTube

Shadow Wolf said:
And yes, I have read Dawkins. And found it to be painful.

Saying its painful doesn't address the points he was trying to make, its just an ad hominem argument.

Shadow Wolf said:
For every bad example of religion, there are good ones he ignores. Such as one ministry group that would buy food and resell it to the poor and needy for less than half of the store cost. And of course there are homeless shelters that although they are religious in nature, they do not require people to be religious or even force it onto people. And there are people who find strength for sobriety in religion. One size does not fit all in addiction treatment, but if it works for the number of people it has there is no reason to say it's wrong.
People will use anything to justify their hate, their ignorance, and even love and tolerance. You can replace religion with skin color, money, family of birth, and many other things that have done to people what religion does. Should we do away with money because so many people think that they are better than everyone else because they have more money?
And of course there are Christians that do not believe in Creationism, and instead look upon scientific evidence and realize the earth was created billions of years ago and life evolved from simple organisms. So what if they also believe God played a role in guiding the turnout of evolution?
And as much as I like George Carlin, he is wrong. Not every religion does believe in a God, and there are several that believe in a God that does not play any role in the day-to-day events of the earth and it's inhabitants.

I'm not sure where you are going of if you understood the book or chapter or what Dawkins was arguing which you claim to have read. Possibly too painful to remember? As I said before, if you have specific disagreements then it may be more clarion and easier to address.

Dawkins is an anti-theist but that doesn't mean he is against theism.

Shadow Wolf said:
Actually I am a non-theist, and as an agnostic I am very convinced that ultimately we don't know, and can't know. I also realize it is folly to think science disproves God entirely because what we think is accurate today can be viewed as extremely inaccurate tomorrow. Any good scientist will realize this. And even Stephen Hawking admits science does not prove or disprove God, it just makes him unnecessary. Also there is really no more truthful statement than "There are no truths, only interpretations."

We also can't know of Russell's teapot or the invisible pink unicorn. What if our lives are dictated by invisible and benevolent sentient energy creatures?

As far as being an agnostic, theist or atheist it bothers me little as I have been all three. Your suggestion to not question religion but rather people seemed rather silly to me. Religions are sets of beliefs and some of those beliefs are harmful and we can't continue to ignore them. Progress is being made... I am pretty sure we don't execute people for blasphemy anymore.

People are affected by beliefs differently.

Shadow Wolf · Sep 22, 2011

As far as being an agnostic, theist or atheist it bothers me little as I have been all three. Your suggestion to not question religion but rather people seemed rather silly to me. Religions are sets of beliefs and some of those beliefs are harmful and we can't continue to ignore them. Progress is being made... I am pretty sure we don't execute people for blasphemy anymore.

I never said religion shouldn't be question. Indeed some should be questioned and challenged. However not all religions are bad. My point is why focus on the symptoms instead of the illness. Religion is nearly a cultural universal, throughout history and into contemporary times. To say all religions are nothing but bad is to take a pretty extreme stance that you can't back up. As for progress, you have to also consider past cultures, like ancient Greece and Rome, that were not only religious but thrived and developed technologies that we wouldn't see again until modern times.
And while we may not kill over blasphemy anymore, we still do it over race.

People are affected by beliefs differently.

And that is why people should be held responsible instead of religion.

Quagmire · Sep 22, 2011

Photonic said:
I'm not really anti-theist. I'm more anti-(anti-)reasoning

Sounds like something an anti-theist would say.

Quagmire · Sep 22, 2011

Sententia said:
I am dear friends with people who preach to me for weeks and months on end when a mutual friend dies. Enough that I have to deal with the loss but now I have to politely deal with your supernatural lectures for months?

If what you see here in RF looks like "Supernatural lectures" to you, what are you doing here?

And if you're not talking about what you see here, why are you bugging us about it?

Sententia said:
I know it sucks but your reassurance that we will be in heaven together rubbing shoulders again and your half thought out remarks of making up for past wrongs and joking around again in a fictional afterlife is ridiculous when you know I am an atheist...

Why do people do this? Its not a time to debate religion but its a time for me to shut up and listen to sermon after sermon and say nothing?

I would ask you what you're talking about, but I have a feeling it wouldn't help.

Sententia said:
Beyond that its religious people who come to my door when I am trying to work and sure I'll invite you in and we can enjoy a tea or a root beer and a healthy debate but how many people are unemployed right now? Five a month? Are you preaching or casing my house?

You really have no idea at all what this threads about, do you.

Sententia said:
Walking from my downtown office to get a coffee I get stopped by religious people... Not the usual people I would imagine but still... such a random time... its a 4 minute walk and I have headphones on and am purposefully avoiding eye contact... blocking my path to chit chat... Sure so politely remove headphones and they know less about their random christian religion then I do but feel inclined to stop me to tell me they really want me to go to their church this Sunday? Why? To support that women should follow god and have a baby even if having the baby will kill them or if the baby will be still born. (And they have pictures...)

See, IMO, this sums up the problem: there are a lot of people just like you who don't have whatever it takes to tell these people to leave you alone in real life, so you come into a forum like this one and take it out on a bunch of people who aren't doing any of those things to you in what I'm guessing is a vain effort to re-establish your self respect.

How's that working for you?

Sententia said:
Anti-theism is a joke? Your ability to derive valuable lessons from theism seems to be rare among theists. I often thank my religious upbringing for my values but some of those values were formed only by rejection of my upbringing.

Theism and religion aren't the same things.

By the same token, anti-theism and anti-religion aren't the same things.

Why anti-theism is a joke.

Industrial Strength Linguist

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Active Member

Industrial Strength Linguist

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Industrial Strength Linguist

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Veteran Member

Member

New Member

Member

Ad astra!

Well-Known Member

Certified People sTabber

Well-Known Member

Certified People sTabber

Imaginary talking monkey

Imaginary talking monkey