where are the differences between Anti-theistic and Atheistic

[Aupmanyav]

The term is "Nastik" and means someone who rejects belief in God.or in this case of Hinduism rejects the Vedas and the Devas.

Na + asti = Not accept = NAstika. The other word is Astika = Asti = Yes, accept; that is for the believer.

 

[Windwalker]

You have not proven this statement. You need to show some actual evidence that all proselytization has a primary goal of reducing atheism.

I think what proselytizing is for is to make converts to a belief that the proselytizer believes is superior to other beliefs. Inherent in that is the view that the person's beliefs that they are proselytizing are inferior to their own. And because those that proselytize tend to think in black and white terms of right and wrong, either-or equations (as opposed to 'both & and' thinking), they are naturally against the belief that is in conflict with their own thinking.

So therefore, 'anti-theists' are really just trying to convert people to their version of truth, the same as any evangelical theist. They don't have room in their thinking for the validity of other points of view, that it's an 'either/or' world and not a 'both/and' world, they believe they are doing the other a favor to persuade them against their current inferior beliefs in favor of the superiority of their own. It is a moral mission on the part of both to save the world.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So therefore, 'anti-theists' are really just trying to convert people to their version of truth, the same as any evangelical theist.

Not necessarily, it might just be an irritation with the sheer irrationality of some versions of theism.

 

[Windwalker]

Not necessarily, it might just be an irritation with the sheer irrationality of some versions of theism.

Evangelical theists consider atheism to be irrationality. It's part and parcel with the sort of thinking that sees their own beliefs and views and "right" and those of a different mode of seeing things as "wrong". To each side looking at each other the other's views are irrational. "How can you not see the plain truth that is right in front of you!," each side dismays over the other.

What has to happen is to peal back what appears on the surface as the core differences, God versus No-God, to the underlying structures themselves. The irritation that you speak of is really not about God-belief, but about fundamental differences in social structures. I think both sides would do far better to argue about conservative versus progressive points of view, which is the core rationality behind these debates. In doing so, it would include atheists and theists on both ends of that spectrum!

Pointing fingers that the progressive side is represented by atheism, and the conservative side is represented by God and therefore getting rid of God gets rid of the conflicts and irritations of cultural differences is misguided and itself is at best a fallacy and at its worst irrationality, in that it is not supported by the facts. It's simply each side wanting to convert each other to themselves to get rid of the perceived conflict.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Pointing fingers that the progressive side is represented by atheism, and the conservative side is represented by God...

But it does seem that way when you look at modern societies, particularly in the west - secularism often does appear to be the more progressive trend. Religious institutions are having to adapt, for example here in the UK the Church of England has recently agreed to women bishops. Increasingly people are rejecting institutional religion which is perceived as conservative and church attendance is dropping off.

 

[Windwalker]

But it does seem that way when you look at modern societies, particularly in the west - secularism often does appear to be the more progressive trend. Religious institutions are having to adapt, for example here in the UK the Church of England has recently agreed to women bishops.

Now we're talking. To add a finer point to this, it's really even more basic than conservative versus progressive views. It's rather about traditional, versus modern, versus postmodern value systems. That's the real benchmark. You have conservatives and progressives within each of those as well, if you think about it. You have fundamentalists within the traditionalist view that even make traditionalists wince, like Pat Robertson. You have fundamentalists within modernity that make many in modernity wince, like Richard Dawkins, and so forth.

To your point above, religions tend to be representative of the traditionalist value system. Religion always follows along behind supporting the culture its part of. Because of the sheer logistics of an institutional form of religion it is slow to adapt to changes in culture, but adapt it in fact does do. But conservatives within a culture are about putting the brakes on change, to halt a runaway effect where a society runs the risk of losing its sense of self identity and the support structures that keep it stable. Progressives are about pushing for needed change to adapt to changes in the landscape. They are necessary too to keep a culture from imploding in on itself as it becomes stagnant and unable to adapt to those changes in the environment.

Obviously religion is not conservative by default. If it were, Christianity or Buddhism or any other new emergent form of religious movement would never have been born! Christianity was like the hippie movement, pushing the boundaries away from traditionalist holdings, not about making more! But as within anything, it itself became a structure of a society and culture and the value systems of the culture took hold within it, and it's voice becomes the voice of the people with the officials at the top setting its tone.

I could go on, but I think you see my point. It would really behoove people to move beyond the debate about the 'rationality' of atheism and the 'silliness' of theism to the real issues. It's a little more complex and challenging to address than God versus No-God, but definitely more realistic and productive a discussion.

 

[Vinayaka]

Of course we would, when we felt that it would be for the best.

Can you give me an example, Luis? This is the exact same thing type of thing Christian proselytisers say to support why they do it.
"We're just trying to save you from hell."
"It's my duty."
"We're only trying to help you."

I stand against all proseltysing, from all sides.

 

[Willamena]

I think what proselytizing is for is to make converts to a belief that the proselytizer believes is superior to other beliefs. Inherent in that is the view that the person's beliefs that they are proselytizing are inferior to their own. And because those that proselytize tend to think in black and white terms of right and wrong, either-or equations (as opposed to 'both & and' thinking), they are naturally against the belief that is in conflict with their own thinking.

So therefore, 'anti-theists' are really just trying to convert people to their version of truth, the same as any evangelical theist. They don't have room in their thinking for the validity of other points of view, that it's an 'either/or' world and not a 'both/and' world, they believe they are doing the other a favor to persuade them against their current inferior beliefs in favor of the superiority of their own. It is a moral mission on the part of both to save the world.

Just so. Ego-talk.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Anti-theism is troubling to me for a few reasons.

First, theism is a hugely heterogenous category and it just doesn't make sense to be against all theisms. With how heterogenous theism is, it is difficult to see an anti-theist as anything other than a person who has a limited understanding of theism. Often, I see the anti-theists as folks who had some bad experiences with a subset of theism, then take that hate and anger to an overgeneralized extreme. It is neither well-reasoned nor healthy to be doing that to me.

While I understand this approach somewhat (I like to tell people "it's not that you don't like beer; it's that you don't like the beers you've had so far"), don't you think that the term "god" means something? If there are a few core concepts in the term "god", then there very well may be something there that could be rejected.


Also, I sense a double standard. I'd bet dollars to donuts that when it comes to theists, you're willing to let THEM frame their beliefs in their own understanding. If it's okay for a theist to say "God exists, as *I* understand the meaning of 'God'", why wouldn't it be okay for an anti-theist to say "God does not exist, as I understand the meaning of 'God'"? Why is it only the anti-theist who has to accommodate not only his own understanding, but also the understanding of you and every other theist?

Second, suggesting everybody would be better off if they were just like me s

peaks of a desire to control what other people do and think that is troubling. I get that not everybody embraces pluralism as a proper family value, but whenever I see attempts to homogenize cultural diversity, it raises big red flags in my brain. It speaks to a level of arrogance and authoritarianism that I have a really hard time swallowing, even as I recognize that this sort of arrogance is almost universally human and part of all of us to some extent.

Frankly, I think your argument here against anti-theism is just the sort of rejection of pluralism and suggestion that everyone would be better off if they were like you that you condemn.

Last, and perhaps most importantly, I find it downright disturbing that anyone would be against expressions of value, wonder, and sacredness that bring so much positive influence to human lives and cultures. Do conflicts over what we value and find sacred pose significant challenges for human cultures? Of course they do. But to let this so completely overshadow the positives and try to rip a beautiful source of meaning out of someone else's life is, well... disgusting.

And anyone who thinks that "god" means something more than "expression of value" or "subject of awe" is just plain wrong, eh?

And, obviously, as a theist, I'm going to feel personally threatened by anybody who wants to wipe me or my ideas off the face of the planet. Call it a survival instinct.

Exactly what do you expect anti-theists to do to you? Among the ones I know who hopeto get rid of theism, the way they plan to do it is by talking to those theists who choose to engage with them and make rational arguments, with the expectation that evidence and reason will eventually persuade the theist to stop believing.

... and those are the ones who actually want to engage theists. Most anti-theists don't. Many believe that religion will die out over time on its own. Many don't worry about deconversion of theists at all.

I'd hardly blame an atheist for having the same reaction to anti-atheism. Come to think of it, I have pretty much the same problems with anti-atheism that I do with anti-theism. Both smack a ridiculously heterogenous category, are much too authoritarian, and aim to destroy sources of meaning in people's lives. Both are equally troubling to me, and both speak of intolerance and bigotry to me.

You're the second person in this thread to say that anti-theism is bigotry. Why? What do you think that "anti-theism" means that you would decide that it amounts to bigotry.

To me, anti-theism is simply the rejection (as opposed to mere lack of acceptance) of god-claims. It can also be used to describe the belief that a particular god is a bad example to follow. How are either of these ideas necessarily bigoted?

 

[arthra]

That seems extreme to the point of dishonor. How would you call someone who makes a point of mentioning, say, about once a week that he thinks everyone would be better off letting go of belief in God? Is that anti-theism?

Luis...

Thanks for your post.. It's always nice to know the staff here are so involved in the discussions!

- Art

 

[Windwalker]

Just so. Ego-talk.

You mean what I said, or what motivates proselytizing? Of course it's operating at the egoic level. It's a stage of ego development.

 

[LuisDantas]

Can you give me an example, Luis? This is the exact same thing type of thing Christian proselytisers say to support why they do it.
"We're just trying to save you from hell."
"It's my duty."
"We're only trying to help you."

I stand against all proseltysing, from all sides.

I don't think it is fair to make such a comparison, Vinayaka. "Hell" is a belief, which means among other things that brandishing it forces one to challenge or submit to the proselitiser's beliefs.

I have seen families where one or more members flee from accepting their obvious duties towards each other and themselves because they would rather "trust" prayer to solve it on their stead.

If you see those situations as equivalent, I guess there is just no way for us to reach an understanding on this matter.

Myself, I think there is a basic human duty to care about each other and not to pretend that otherwise.

If any religion or god belief denies that, I see no reason to refrain from saying that it is a very wrong belief indeed.

 

[Vinayaka]

Proselytising is violence. In India, families that used to get along are split up when a person in it is converted outside of the original harmonious faith. It doesn't matter whether that individual converts to Christianity, or becomes an atheist and joins a Marxist thug group in a revolution. I stand against that sort of thing. I personally think its a huge double standard to criticise proseltysers, but then willingly admit you would do the same thing if according to you, it was necessary. This forum has rules against proseltysing, and for very good reason.

I agree that it is a basic human duty to care for each other, but to put our noses in other people's business when its not asked for is also uncalled for at times. I guess it really depends on that line of when it's appropriate to intervene, and when it isn't. I have my limits as well. For example, breaking the laws of the country is clearly something I would intervene in. I'd report it. But belief in a differnt God than the one you believe in? Or no belief in God? These aren't things that I'd ever 'proseltyse' over.

 

[LuisDantas]

Then I guess I find it unfair of you to call anti-theism proselitism.

 

[Vinayaka]

Where did I ever call it that? (Maybe I did.) As far as I'm, concerned,. anyone can be anti-anything. It's a human right. Just don't come to my door and tell me I'm wrong merely for having a different POV than you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Proselytising is violence. In India, families that used to get along are split up when a person in it is converted outside of the original harmonious faith. It doesn't matter whether that individual converts to Christianity, or becomes an atheist and joins a Marxist thug group in a revolution. I stand against that sort of thing. I personally think its a huge double standard to criticise proseltysers, but then willingly admit you would do the same thing if according to you, it was necessary. This forum has rules against proseltysing, and for very good reason.

I don't criticize proselytizers simply because they try to persuade; I criticize them because of WHAT they're trying to persuade people of and because of their tactics.

If a theist approached me for a good faith discussion to make their case for God and no dishonest tactics were used and where they were open to having their mind changed, too, I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, I've never seen this happen.

I agree that it is a basic human duty to care for each other, but to put our noses in other people's business when its not asked for is also uncalled for at times. I guess it really depends on that line of when it's appropriate to intervene, and when it isn't. I have my limits as well. For example, breaking the laws of the country is clearly something I would intervene in. I'd report it. But belief in a differnt God than the one you believe in? Or no belief in God? These aren't things that I'd ever 'proseltyse' over.

How about faith healing? If you knew a family who decided to pray over their child instead of take them to the doctor, would you try to persuade them that they shouldn't believe what they do about the power of prayer?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Where did I ever call it that? (Maybe I did.)

In a conversation about anti-theism, you jumped straight to proselytizing. I thought you were equating the two things.

As far as I'm, concerned,. anyone can be anti-anything. It's a human right. Just don't come to my door and tell me I'm wrong merely for having a different POV than you.

Except, IMO, it's never for *merely* having a different POV. It's for wanting taxpayer funded schools to promote a POV, or for pushing it on kids in harmful ways, or for trying to disadvantage people who don't share the POV... things like that.

 

[Quintessence]

While I understand this approach somewhat (I like to tell people "it's not that you don't like beer; it's that you don't like the beers you've had so far"), don't you think that the term "god" means something? If there are a few core concepts in the term "god", then there very well may be something there that could be rejected.

Sure. It's something that a person or culture has deemed worthy of worship. That could be many, many things and for many, many reasons. There is very little that can be said about theism as a whole because of the heterogeneity of what god(s) are to various peoples.

Also, I sense a double standard. I'd bet dollars to donuts that when it comes to theists, you're willing to let THEM frame their beliefs in their own understanding. If it's okay for a theist to say "God exists, as *I* understand the meaning of 'God'", why wouldn't it be okay for an anti-theist to say "God does not exist, as I understand the meaning of 'God'"? Why is it only the anti-theist who has to accommodate not only his own understanding, but also the understanding of you and every other theist?

Not only do I have no problem with people framing god(s) in terms of their own understanding of that term, I would damn well like to require it. It is very tiresome to hear (a)theists barking on about what god(s) "really" are as if their perspective is incontrovertible. But what you describe here isn't anti-theism. It's just atheism. So I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here.

Frankly, I think your argument here against anti-theism is just the sort of rejection of pluralism and suggestion that everyone would be better off if they were like you that you condemn.

Obviously, and I implied as much in what you quoted, though it wasn't stated directly so I'd understand if you missed it. Arrogantly imposing our views on others is a universal human tendency We all do it, without exception. However, I don't think that negates the very clear difference between a pluralistic mindset and an exclusivist mindset. I am not interested in wiping out anti-theism. Anti-theists, however, are interested in wiping out theism. Sorry, but I have a problem with that. It's personally threatening to me, and I don't agree with homogenizing human culture.

And anyone who thinks that "god" means something more than "expression of value" or "subject of awe" is just plain wrong, eh?

No. And I said nothing of the sort.

Let me just state something plainly. I think anti-theism is a misnomer. Anti-theists are not anti-theist. They're anti-some-specific-flavor-of-theism or anti-some-specific-theistic-ideas and in some cases, they're really anti-some-particular-thing-of-religion that doesn't have much to do with theism at all. I'm not a fan of certain flavors of theism or certain things that happen in certain religions either! But I do like to be more precise with my terminology instead of making blanket statements about atheism, theism, religion, or irreligion.

Exactly what do you expect anti-theists to do to you? Among the ones I know who hopeto get rid of theism, the way they plan to do it is by talking to those theists who choose to engage with them and make rational arguments, with the expectation that evidence and reason will eventually persuade the theist to stop believing.

Think for a moment about what anti-anything does to people and a culture. First, it implies there's something wrong with that person and what they're doing. It's a condemnation. How does that make people feel? How does that influence interpersonal relationships? It's not good. Second, these kinds of condemning attitudes translate into real-world intolerance and discrimination When we look down on something, we can justify differential treatment. It shapes cultural norms that are hostile to certain groups of people. In a word, the necessary intolerance of being anti-X can and does produce bigotry that hurts actual people.

... and those are the ones who actually want to engage theists. Most anti-theists don't. Many believe that religion will die out over time on its own. Many don't worry about deconversion of theists at all.

I wouldn't classify these people as anti-theists. If they're not actually doing anything, what they think holds no meaning outside of themselves and it has no impact on others. I have no problem with people who keep their intolerance to themselves.

You're the second person in this thread to say that anti-theism is bigotry. Why? What do you think that "anti-theism" means that you would decide that it amounts to bigotry.

It should be pretty self-evident. Anti-anything is a form of intolerance, and bigotry is acting upon intolerance. Again, as above, when I criticize anti-theism, I really do not consider passive anti-theists to be anti-theists.

 

[Vinayaka]

I can't see myself ever being in that situation, but it would be over the line for me, yes. But from my experience, it's usually done after all else fails. I could be wrong. I stand against the JW ban on blood transfusions for example. But of course the problem is the slippery slope effect. If a government bans faith healing, what's to stop them of slowly banning faith. I mean, many people pray right alongside going to the doctor. There is no harm in that.

 

[Vinayaka]

I agree with Quintessence on all of this. Passive anti-theists aren't true blue hard core anti-theists.

I'm not anti-atheist. Many times I've spoken with high regard to many atheists. To me, it is far more about behavior than belief. If the guy is going to come over here and help an old woman shovel the darn snow, I'm happy. But if he won't ... for whatever selfish reason he has, religion, race, age, politics, eye color, or whatever, well, I can't respect him. Same for food distribution, and much more.