Are you afraid of Anti-theists?

[A Vestigial Mote]

Conflict thesis - Wikipedia.

I get that many scientists were (and some are) theists. I get that much of theism is not related directly to making claims that can be falsified using science. I get that there have been a lot of interpretation-based attempts made to reconcile various religious ideas/texts/claims with scientific discoveries in order to ease the minds of those worried over what scientific advancement means for the cogency of their faith-based beliefs. However the fact still stands that there have been a great many scientific discoveries that some religious people have felt threatened by, scoffed at, demonized, or actively tried to thwart. Sure this is anecdotal, and doesn't apply to all theists... but the mindset is seen most often from those of a theistic persuasion. Hell... theists of various colors have even demonized things like Disney movies, dancing and "Cabbage Patch kids." There are a great many "conflicts" brought into the world specifically by religious people. I don't care what "historians" have to say on the matter. I have first hand experience, so their overall opinion is moot to me.

Dark Ages (historiography) - Wikipedia

I can't even tell what this has to do with anti-theism.

 

[Augustus]

Can you cite an example or two?

French Revolution, Soviet Union, etc

 

[icehorse]

French Revolution, Soviet Union, etc

In most of those cases leaders were trying to establish themselves as a sort of new religion, just a variant on theism.

 

[epronovost]

Can you cite an example or two?

China's imprisonment of around 800 000 Uyghur due to the fact they are muslims. The killing of about 35 000 Tibetan monks and the destruction of dozens of monastery.

These examples are much better than those of Augustus since the killing of priests and religious zealots in the first French Revolution and in the Soviet Union could be considered as good old fashion revenge considering the Tsar and the French monarchy had strong theocratic accents and the clergy mistreated severely the underclass. The PRC invaded Tibet without bein threatened by the regime of Lhama (as feudal and brutal as it was for its population, it wasn't an agressive nation at the time) and the Uyghur, despite a few incidence of islamic terrorist attacks and some demonstration of independist movements, didn't represent a critical threat to the regime either.

 

[icehorse]

China's imprisonment of around 800 000 Uyghur due to the fact they are muslims. The killing of about 35 000 Tibetan monks and the destruction of dozens of monastery.

I guess I would argue that the inflicters aren't anti-theists the way I think of anti-theists. That in spirit, they are inflicting their thoughts about theism on others.

 

[epronovost]

I guess I would argue that the inflicters aren't anti-theists the way I think of anti-theists. That in spirit, they are inflicting their thoughts about theism on others.

Anti-theists have "thoughts about theism". In fact anti-theism is defined by "thoughts about theism" more particularly by the belief that all forms theism (save perhapse pantheists) is wrong and immoral and that organised religion is one of the greatest evil on the planet. That's what anti-theism means in its general usage. You can have a personnal definition if you want, but people aren't necessarily going to respect it de facto.

 

[icehorse]

Anti-theists have "thoughts about theism". In fact anti-theism is defined by "thoughts about theism" more particularly by the belief that all forms theism (save perhapse pantheists) is wrong and immoral and that organised religion is one of the greatest evil on the planet. That's what anti-theism means in its general usage. You can have a personnal definition if you want, but people aren't necessarily going to respect it de facto.

I largely agree with that definition. But it's a bit ambiguous because in reality, there are a TON of people who think that "their" form of theism is "correct", and they are anti-theists when it comes to the world's other 10,000 forms of theism.

So - for example - in the case of China, I would say that they are inflicting their own flavor of religion or demi-gogery or whatever on others.

In my case, I distinguish between spiritualism and religion, and think that - on the whole - religion these days does more harm than good. That of course allows for some takes on religion to be okay in my book

 

[Augustus]

I don't care what "historians" have to say on the matter. I have first hand experience, so their overall opinion is moot to me.

Thank you for proving my point

It's amazing the number of 'Rationalists' who suddenly become completely anti-intellectual and hostile to evidence based critical scholarship (or is it "scholarship") when it undermines that which they have a strong emotional attachment to.

The conflict thesis is about history, not modern US fundies, and you have no 'first hand experience' of medieval Christendom...

I can't even tell what this has to do with anti-theism.

You haven't heard the 'Christian Dark Ages' trope?

Good Graeco-Roman 'secular rationalists', very very bad anti-science Christians ruin everything (booo), Renaissance! Some brave people rediscovered the Greeks and think for themselves again leading to Enlightenment: the source of all good ever™If it hadn't been for those pesky Christians we'd all be living in castles on the moon by now

(Tongue in cheek of course, but only a little...)

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Thank you for proving my point

It's amazing the number of 'Rationalists' who suddenly become completely anti-intellectual and hostile to evidence based critical scholarship (or is it "scholarship") when it undermines that which they have a strong emotional attachment to.

The conflict thesis is about history, not modern US fundies, and you have no 'first hand experience' of medieval Christendom...

I get that my personal experience may not matter to you, but it does to me. What I am saying is that no matter how many times a "scholar" told me that religious types simply "don't find conflict with science in their doctrine," I'd simply nod my head, smile and humor them. My personal experience informs me otherwise. You think I am going to just forget all the times a person has argued tooth and nail against evolution for the sake of preserving some story in their "good book?" All because some "scholar" on the subject told me it "doesn't happen?" Please. Go peddle your sorry excuse for "wares" elsewhere. I have no need of them.

You haven't heard the 'Christian Dark Ages' trope?

Good Graeco-Roman 'secular rationalists', very very bad anti-science Christians ruin everything (booo), Renaissance! Some brave people rediscovered the Greeks and think for themselves again leading to Enlightenment: the source of all good ever™If it hadn't been for those pesky Christians we'd all be living in castles on the moon by now

(Tongue in cheek of course, but only a little...)

Can't say I have seen this one. I've heard tell of the grand academic achievements of the region we call the "Middle East" in times past. And that those times "passed" in some correlation with Islam taking stronger hold of the nations' interest and culture. I suppose there is an argument against that one too...

 

[Augustus]

I get that my personal experience may not matter to you, but it does to me. What I am saying is that no matter how many times a "scholar" told me that religious types simply "don't find conflict with science in their doctrine," I'd simply nod my head, smile and humor them. My personal experience informs me otherwise. You think I am going to just forget all the times a person has argued tooth and nail against evolution for the sake of preserving some story in their "good book?" All because some "scholar" on the subject told me it "doesn't happen?" Please. Go peddle your sorry excuse for "wares" elsewhere. I have no need of them.

You seem to have the wrong end of the stick, the conflict thesis is about history, not modern US fundies, and you have no 'first hand experience' of medieval Christendom...

It emerged in the 18th/19th C looking backwards from then.

So unless you are saying knowledge of modern US fundies is all one needs to understand 1800 years of European history, your experience is irrelevant.

Can't say I have seen this one.

It's very very common, on RF and IRL.

 

[Augustus]

In most of those cases leaders were trying to establish themselves as a sort of new religion, just a variant on theism.

It's easy when you can just redefine everything on the fly so that your side remains untainted by the past

Removing gods/religion creates a vacuum that needs to be filled by something else. Whatever this is is the functional equivalent of a religion, human rights for example, are basically a 'religious' concept (not to mention they borrow axiomatic assumptions from monotheism). The anti-theist tends to assume that whatever replaces religion must be better than it, but history shows this is not the case. One reason why Communism was so brutal was it's rejection of human rights as they were just Christian morality repackaged and thus false consciousness.

If we were to identify something to fear from anti-theists it would be this overconfidence that the replacement will be better.

 

[Augustus]

These examples are much better than those of Augustus since the killing of priests and religious zealots in the first French Revolution and in the Soviet Union could be considered as good old fashion revenge considering the Tsar and the French monarchy had strong theocratic accents and the clergy mistreated severely the underclass.

Factions like the Hebertists, who thought Robespierre was too much of a moderate, were not simply engaging in 'revenge', it was an ideological struggle for the soul of the nation.

In rural areas, particularly the Vendee, which saw some of the worst atrocities of the Revolution, the peasants overwhelmingly supported the Church and were slaughtered for doing so.

Also, in the Soviet Union, Lenin didn't begin persecuting the church out of revenge, but because atheism was a central tent of Marxism and the removal of religion was deemed essential for the eventual emergence of the true communist society.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You seem to have the wrong end of the stick, the conflict thesis is about history, not modern US fundies, and you have no 'first hand experience' of medieval Christendom...

Well shoot... then I don't care. Not a bit. This specifics of the history doesn't affect the here and now, where I live and breathe. I mean, the effects of accumulated minutiae from times past have built what there is today, and perhaps there is something to glean from examining those times to understand what we see as going wrong with certain things that may be related to a certain period of cultural development... but in the end, all any of that would be attempts to get our hands on tools to deal with things as they are happening now. I'll leave the study of history to the historians - it honestly (and I am being honest) doesn't interest me much. I get the "so we don't make the same mistakes" idea - but in the end, I feel what is most important is the abstract of the useful knowledge that is gained by our forebears. I don't need to know the specifics and details of their travails that got them the knowledge. The knowledge itself is what is most important.

So unless you are saying knowledge of modern US fundies is all one needs to understand 1800 years of European history, your experience is irrelevant.

Again... I don't care about the exact details of 1800 years of history. Do not.

It's very very common, on RF and IRL.

Well that's nice.

 

[icehorse]

It's easy when you can just redefine everything on the fly so that your side remains untainted by the past

I believe it was Hitchens who coined the term anti-theist. He was a secular humanist, as am I. We don't believe in supernatural or semi-supernatural beings. We believe that religion should be separate from government. The communist leaders that were mentioned or implied set themselves up to be demigods. They were not advocating for their populations to champion logic and critical thinking, instead they demanding unquestioning loyalty.

I'm not making anything up.

Removing gods/religion creates a vacuum that needs to be filled by something else.

Secular humanists (among others), are proof that that's not always the case. And the more we learn about the universe, the more gods recede, the less frequently we need religion to fill anything.

If we were to identify something to fear from anti-theists it would be this overconfidence that the replacement will be better.

I suspect we would largely agree on the definition of "better". Based on that, I think it's easy to make the case that societies based on the ideas of secular humanism are in fact better.

 

[Augustus]

Well shoot... then I don't care. Not a bit.

That's fine.

I just gave the Conflict Thesis as an example of something that anti-theists tend to be irrational about and resistant to facts and evidence on. That's still true whether you are interested in it or not.

Well that's nice.

Yes, it helps to choose well known examples

 

[Augustus]

The communist leaders that were mentioned or implied set themselves up to be demigods. They were not advocating for their populations to champion logic and critical thinking, instead they demanding unquestioning loyalty.

That's a bit of an oversimplification.

Communism was disproportionately popular among the intelligentsia who were attracted to the belief system through logic and critical thinking.

The French Revolution was a product of The Enlightenment and was rife with factionalism that was not based around competing 'god-leaders'.

Secular humanists (among others), are proof that that's not always the case. And the more we learn about the universe, the more gods recede, the less frequently we need religion to fill anything.

SH is a just a stripped down Christianity. Much of the stuff it assumes to be natural and universal really emerged in a European Christian context. People just don't realise as the values have been so thoroughly internalised that they only become apparent when compared to the vast majority of cultures that emerged in different circumstances.

Regardless of this, all worldviews are the functional equivalent of religions. Better yet, religions are simply ideologies and giving them some special status makes little sense.

I suspect we would largely agree on the definition of "better". Based on that, I think it's easy to make the case that societies based on the ideas of secular humanism are in fact better.

I should have said:

If we were to identify something to fear from anti-theists it would be this overconfidence that the replacements will be better.

What we can be certain about is that there will always be a diversity of views, so looking at what you consider to be best and assuming this will be the norm is the wrong approach. Especially as we know many people will always be susceptible to extreme ideologies.

If you look at the sum total of non-religious ideologies and compare them to the sum total of religious ideologies, the picture doesn't look quite as rosy.

Anti-theism holds theistic religion as bad per se, regardless of any tangible harms caused. I think it much better to criticise ideologies that cause tangible harms rather than simply worry about whether they are based on gods or some other unprovable axiom.

 

[icehorse]

SH is a just a stripped down Christianity. Much of the stuff it assumes to be natural and universal really emerged in a European Christian context.

For the sake of discussion, I'm happy to grant you this. As a SH, I don't care. I'm happy to accept good ideas from whatever source they emerge

Regardless of this, all worldviews are the functional equivalent of religions.

I think you need to define your terms here. This statement is packed full of assumptions that we might not agree with.

Better yet, religions are simply ideologies and giving them some special status makes little sense.

The religious claim that their ideologies deserve special status, that's one of the reasons I'm an anti-theist

What we can be certain about is that there will always be a diversity of views, so looking at what you consider to be best and assuming this will be the norm is the wrong approach. Especially as we know many people will always be susceptible to extreme ideologies.

Agreed on the diversity. I do not claim that SH will become the norm. I hope for it, but don't by any means assume it.

Anti-theism holds theistic religion as bad per se, regardless of any tangible harms caused. I think it much better to criticise ideologies that cause tangible harms rather than simply worry about whether they are based on gods or some other unprovable axiom.

As the chosen spokesperson for anti-theists (ha!), we do not propose that theistic religion is the only bad set of ideas in the world. We reserve the right to be critical of more than one set of ideas

And I hold that theism does cause tangible harm. If it didn't, I wouldn't care.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To complete the collection

No, they tend to just be annoying.

 

[epronovost]

Factions like the Hebertists, who thought Robespierre was too much of a moderate, were not simply engaging in 'revenge', it was an ideological struggle for the soul of the nation.

In rural areas, particularly the Vendee, which saw some of the worst atrocities of the Revolution, the peasants overwhelmingly supported the Church and were slaughtered for doing so.

Also, in the Soviet Union, Lenin didn't begin persecuting the church out of revenge, but because atheism was a central tent of Marxism and the removal of religion was deemed essential for the eventual emergence of the true communist society.

I would declare this analysis to be overly simplistic as it gloss over the historical context that saw the rise of such an ideology and the factors that saw to its popularity. It also transforms tens of thousands of people with their own motives and ideological framework into the perfect agents and puppets of ideological leaders which is also rather simplistic in my opinion. In fact, it's basically follwing the theisis of "the Great Men of History thesis" which is just as ridiculous as the Conflit Thesis. Note that I don't disagree that these are also examples of anti-theistic violence, simply that they aren't as solid as the examples I have provided.

 

[Augustus]

I would declare this analysis to be overly simplistic as it gloss over the historical context that saw the rise of such an ideology and the factors that saw to its popularity. It also transforms tens of thousands of people with their own motives and ideological framework into the perfect agents and puppets of ideological leaders which is also rather simplistic in my opinion. In fact, it's basically follwing the theisis of "the Great Men of History thesis" which is just as ridiculous as the Conflit Thesis. Note that I don't disagree that these are also examples of anti-theistic violence, simply that they aren't as solid as the examples I have provided.

Has nothing to do with 'Great Man Theory' which places emphasis on unique characteristics of leaders. Lenin, for example, was simply following orthodox Marxist ideology in aiming to eradicate religion. You would have expected any leader to do the same. In a totalitarian state, state policy matters and it is fair enough to look at the reasons for that state policy and consider these significant even if this might not have been the precise motivation for every single person involved in carrying out the policy.

A top-down ideologically driven attempt to eradicate all religion as in the USSR, to me at least, seems a far more clear cut case of anti-theistic oppression than Chinese persecution of 2 specific religions associated with separatist minorities. It's really more ethno-nationalism than ideological anti-theism, as Christianity has been allowed to grow rapidly among Han Chinese.