I seem to run into a lot of people that claim they are atheists, but when you listen to what they are saying you find that they are not atheists, they are anti-theists. Now according to them, anti-theism is just a more activist version of atheism. This post to to hightlight why this is not true and try to explain why so many anti-theists want so badly to be classified as atheists.
The best way to describe this is a little story. A theist walks up to an atheist and says "I believe I can fly". The atheist (rightfully so) responds with "Show me some evidence". After much arguing and no demonstration of this ability, the atheist says "I don't believe you can fly". When this story is replayed between a theist and an anti-theist. The only difference is the anti-theist says "I believe you cannot fly". The anti-theist also generally goes on make comments describing how the theist is lying and how they are such a low life for making such claims.
Where the atheists simply says "I don't believe you" the anti-theist actively asserts that they not only don't believe the theists but that the theist is wrong for making the claims they make. Both are rightfully using the lack of evidence as justification of their position. However the anti-theist is taking it one step further and applying some kind of moral judgement on the theists.
This gets at the heart of the difference between atheists and anti-theists. To a hard core atheist, there is no such thing as absolute good or evil. Those concepts are nothing more than expressions of people's likes and dislikes. To attempt to make them into something more than just personal opinions, is to do nothing more than raise one person's feelings of likes and dislikes to a level that is more important than other people's feelings. This of course has the effect of downgrading someone else's feelings to point where they can be disregarded.
For an atheist, NOBODY'S feeling are more important than anybody elses. There is no scale where somebody's feelings can be ranked as more virtuous than another's. In fact, the act of blessing some people's feelings and supressing someone else's feelings is generally the cause of most of the inflicted harm that is perpetrated on people every day.
However, the anti-theist look at this entirely different. They generally feel that theism has caused some kind of problem that they don't like and now feel justified to mock and insult the theists. The most militant of the anti-theists will actually advocate penalizing the theists.
This can only be described as a kind of mental disease. The theists are wrong because they want to force their beliefs on others, but somehow the anti-thists are right because they want to force their beliefs on others. The theists are wrong for pushing their moral agenda, but the anti-theists are right because they are pushing their moral agenda.
An atheists sits back and says, "While it's not possible for both sides to be right about the existance of a god. The other possible answer is that BOTH sides are wrong". Unless you are an idiot and have not kept up with the advance in mathematics during the 20th century, you would know that there are situations where it is simply impossible to make a decision about which is the right answer.
So while there may be some truth to one or the other answer to the question of a god's existance, it is entirely possible that this is just one of those situations where it is not possible to choose. In other words there may be some ultimate truth, but no human can EVER know the answer. Therefore choosing to be on the side of believing a god exists or believing a god doesn't exist, is simply wrong on an fundamentally trivial basis.
If you pay attention, you will find that most anti-theists where at one time theists and "deconverted" as they call it to their anti-theism position. This is actually a very interesting point. The hard core theists attempts to push their moral position on others while the hard core anti-theists do the same thing. They both follow the unethical position that they are right and the rest of the world should be forced to follow their kind of thinking.
Both positions are in sharp contrast to an atheist's position that NOBODY should be forced to believe or disbelieve anything. Every person has the right to make up their own mind, and there is nothing wrong with choosing any possible alternative. The only thing that could possible be a universally disliked thing is when someone else tries to force you to believe something you don't accept. Or worse, when someone advocates penalizing someone for their bad thinking.
If you want a demonstration of the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist, make the following statement: "Atheism is just another religion". An atheist will respond with sure why not, there is nothing wrong with religions. An anti-theists on the other had will take great offense at that statement. The anti-theists are so wrapped up in the ideal of how evil religion is and how wrong the theists are that they think it's an insult to claim such a blasphemy.
The anti-theists just like the theists, seem to be so unsure of their position that even the slightest hint that they may be wrong is unacceptable. An atheist on the other hand makes no moral judgement about a person based on their beliefs. For an atheist a preditor is not evil for killing Bambee, it's just feeding.
When the theists or anti-theists feel attacked they seem to identify with Bambee and consider the preditor is some kind of evil thing. The atheist simply accepts them for what they are and defends themself. No need to go out and hnut down those evil preditors and eradicate them or change them into something else. All you need to do is protect yourself from them and the stupid people who don't, simply choose to be the preditor's next meal.
I suspect that most anti-theists at some level understand how closely they are related to the theists they hate so much. They have a real fear of the same thing being in them that they see in those evil theists. Because of this they want to classify themselves are atheists (without god) to make themselves feel more confortable with what they are esposing.
However, if you think there is something wrong with theists, atheists, or anti-theists you are NOT an atheist. You are just a religious kook that is trying to use your personal view of religion to justify some crappy treatment of somebody you don't like.
Why don't you stop hating them for what they believe and hate them for being douche bags reguardless of what they believe. Don't people get that atheism is without the existance or non-existance of a god. It's simply without a god. If your running around talking about how bad people are because of their belief in a god, you are most definitely WITH a god. Just one you don't like.
Agree with the bulk of what you are saying, in that anti-theists and theists are like bizarro twins. They both have missionary zeal and seek to convvert others to their way of thinking. In other words, both sides are extremely insecure. Preaching sucks, whether it comes to the mouth of a theist or an anti-theist.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I disagree with you about is your statement that atheism is not a religion. I'm an atheist, I will be the first to tell you it is. I define religion to mean "my position on god". And if position on god is that god does not exist due to a lack of evidence, then that is my religion. It all turns on how you chose to define religion.
Based upon this logic, atheism is viewed as a religion for purposes of religious protection and establishment clause challenges, so it's not like my view is completely unsupported.
What a complete misunderstanding you have of what antitheists think and do.
ReplyDeleteNon violently oppose religious doctrine that promotes hate, prejudice, non free thinking and where it causes harm. Not singling out any particular faith. Where the faith causes harm no longer can people of sense and reason stand by and be perceived to respect their dogma through this perceived unspoken agreement to not speak out for fear of causing offense. There is nothing we could say or do that would come close to the offense the doctrines of faith create to those of us with any sense of decency, fairness and love of all humanity. Ironically unlike the many conditions the faiths place upon their acceptance of certain people, groups etc... Our love for humanity is truly unconditional. If it harms none then do as you will.
Islam and Judaism are seen as minority groups in the West and as racist far right organisations hide behind the banner of anti-religion. We have and want no association with such groups and do all that is physically possible to prevent such groups or their members using our page as a vehicle for their hate.
@antitheist You do a wonderful job demonstrating my point. Your hate, prejudice, and non free thinking are exactly the problem. You claim faith causes harm but what about YOUR faith that there is something wrong with religion. It seems all you want to do be an apologist for douche bags that use religion as an excuse just the same as you are using religion as your excuse.
ReplyDeleteClaiming that Islam and Judaism are racist organisations is no different than Christian groups that claim there is something wrong with people that don't agree with them.
Get it throught you fat head, if they are wrong for what they believe you are wrong for what you believe. What beliefs you choose to have has no bearing on what other people are allowed to believe. If it's perfectly OK for you to believe your bigotted prejudice ideas it's OK for them to believe their bigotted prejudice ideas.
Don't you get that YOUR views are exactly what makes their views valid. You cannot stop a douche bag by being a douche bag yourself.
I have, as one does when journeying through the dark depths of the internet, encountered a great number of anti-theists and I agree with you that their ideas are not sufficiently thought out.
ReplyDeleteHowever, whilst this may be nitpicking a minor point, their ideas, even if they may contain some cognitive dissonance, in no way constitute a "mental disease".
So what would you call claiming they are correct and the theists are wrong without any actual evidence to support their claims? Especially when they pretend that the whole problem with theists is that they make claims without evidence. If the anti-theists are right, then by definition they are just as fucked in the head as the theists are.
ReplyDeleteWell I certainly wouldn't call it mental disease. I don't think cognitive dissonance or being "fucked in the head" constitute any sort of actual disease of the mind.
ReplyDeleteOne could perhaps call it bad thinking, but I don't see how it's a mental illness.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. But I find more than just a little disturbing that someone could claim how wrong a theist is and then turn around and do the same thing they are claiming is wrong with the theists. It's especially true when the anti-theists are claiming how rational their position is.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, but the fact that you find something disturbing does not mean that that thing is a mental illness.
ReplyDeleteSo are you just trying to pigeonhole the term "mental illness" into a clinical definition? How would that change anything? When you consider the paranoia of many of the anti-theists, doesn't it seem to you to suggest some kind of underlying mental problem?
ReplyDeleteHaven't you noticed how the anti-theists always claim the thests are out to take away their rights. While at the same time the anti-theists want to curtail the rights of theists to use their religion in their reasoning process about laws.
Seems to me the anti-theists are just pissed they hold a minority position and want to outlaw their opposition.
I'm definitely trying to pigeonhole the term into a clinical definition, it's a clinical term after all. There is such a thing as actual mental illness and what you're talking about ain't it.
ReplyDeleteFrom what experience I have with anti-theists I don't think that extreme paranoia is necessarily a major characteristic of theirs. Their views are somewhat simplistic and filled with extreme overgeneralisations, but I don’t find them paranoid in any clinical manner. I suppose it's possible that some of them are, but the same could be said for any group and I doubt all, or even most, of them are.
Either way, it doesn't matter. You simply do not have enough information to claim that anti-theists are generally mentally ill.
You must excuse me, but people who throw around the term mental illness as if it was some insult or tool to use in an argument annoy me. Especially if they do so in an attempt to paint a group of people as being mentally ill because that group holds some view they dislike. I see the same thing from many anti-theists when they're dealing with religious people and it's just as bad and unpleasant an argument coming from you as it is coming from them.
It does indeed seem to me like there are a number of religious groups (conservative Christian to be more precise) over in the US that are trying to enhance their own privilege through political means whilst trying to marginalise the rights of people who hold different views. This is not an observation limited to anti-theists, several more moderate and liberal Christians and several members of other religions, such as Paganism and Buddhism have noticed the same thing.
The anti-theists you speak of may be wrong in attributing this to theists in general. However there do seem to be certain theistic groups who want to be able to enforce their own specific religious views over onto everybody else in the country. And they aren’t exactly small fringe groups, though they aren’t exactly representative of all or most theists either.
Theists do of course to some degree have a right to use their religion as a factor in their reasoning about laws. If someone is trying to stop them from doing so they are wrong in doing that. However at the same time your country is not an “anything the majority says goes” democracy and people do not have the right to make a law about something based only on their religion. If one is to make a law in the US, or in any modern democracy worth the name, it is not enough to say that; “My religion says this and therefore it should be a law”. Laws based mainly on the views of one particular religious group do not belong in the lawbooks of modern democracies. You can use your religion as a part of your reasoning if you wish of course, but you aren’t and shouldn’t be able to base US law on a specific religious viewpoint.
Even if anti-theists are pissed that they hold a minority position that is in no way a mental illness.
I find many anti-theists annoying because their views seem to me shallow, simplistic and somewhat prejudiced towards religious people. However reading your last message I’m starting to think that you have a rather unreasonable amount of hate for them.
To accuse people who’s opinions you don’t like of being mentally ill is a horrible way to argue and it only serves to further stigmatise and trivialise actual mental illness.
If your argument is that calling the anti-theists mentally ill is an insult to the mentally ill, fair enough.
ReplyDeleteMy objection to anti-theism is how it actually undermines the position of people that are non-anti-theistic and not theists (The real atheists). This is very similar to how most theists think about groups like the Westboro Baptist Church.
If the issue is one of gaining equal rights, the anti-theistic adjenda is destine to fail from the start.
Blacks did not get rights by vilifying whites, nor did women get rights by vilifying men. Gaining rights is about elevating people to the same level, not knock one group down to make a level playground.
That's sort of my point yes. Not in the sense that "Ooh anti-theists are so horrible that it's insulting towards mentally ill people to compare the two" of course. But rather in the sense that when you call someone mentally ill because their views seem to you stupid and unethical you're equivocating that with mentally ill people being stupid and unethical. Which is something they quite often aren't.
ReplyDeleteThat said I also think there's another, incredibly obvious reason why you shouldn't go around calling anti-theists mentally ill; namely the fact that they generally aren't.
As a tool in argumentation claims of mental illness are probably one of the worst I can imagine. It rudely and unfairly dismisses and insults the people you're arguing against, even if their views may be bad, and at the same time it also further stigmatises and trivialises actual mental illness.
If you hadn't gathered as much already it's a serious pet peeve of mine.
Personally my objection to anti-theism is that in the form I generally encounter it it's simplistic, shallow and not very well thought out.
As pertains to the whole equal rights thing I think you're obviously right in that we should treat theists, and people in general with basic respect.
I also think that for atheists to gain further acceptance we do have to be very visible in promoting our viewpoints. We should absolutely be respectful towards theists, but at the same time we shouldn't be afraid of making them a bit uncomfortable. Because quite frankly, many of them are gonna be uncomfortable with us no matter what we do.
The key to any equal rights movement is, it seems to me, one simple thing; high visibility. Women and blacks did not get their rights by vilifying whites or men, they did however get them by being loud and visible until finally the views of society started to shift so that their views became more and more accepted.
The message they sent, and the message non-religious people and most other people campaigning for equal right must send is, I think, this:
"We're here, we're not going anywhere, we want these things and we're gonna keep fighting till we get them."
I think the best thing atheists can do to advance the cause of atheism is to be open and out there about it. I believe a recent study showed that acceptance of atheists tend to increase in areas where people are aware that there are atheists living among them.
That being said, personally I live in Sweden, a country where atheism is fully accepted. So I don’t have as much of a stake in that whole rights fight as you do. Though I have a lot of sympathy for atheists over in the US and I wholeheartedly support their campaign for equal rights.
I agree with nearly everything you say, but the title is misleading. Anti-theists are atheists. It fits the definition of not having a belief in god.
ReplyDeleteYes, they also have the position that god does not exist (nearly the same, but different slightly), but that does not mean that they don't fit into the first category as well. And while I'm nearly certain that this wasn't intentional, it was a false dichotomy.
I, for one, think that there should be a word that means "atheist, not anti-theist."
Anti-theists are a group of people that are against theism. So what does a lack in a belief in god have to do with being against religion? How does a lack of belief translate into a position that theists are WRONG?
ReplyDeleteActually it was VERY intentional. Atheism and anti-theism are incompatable world views. Attemping to claim that an anti-theist is a form of atheist is to not really understand the atheist position.
Stating that you don't believe someone is not a statement that they are wrong. It's only a statement that you are not convinced by their arguments.
Atheism doesn't assign any moral value to any position. Claiming that a theist is wrong IS assigning a moral value to theism.
There has ALWAYS been a word for "atheist, non anti-theist". It's ATHEIST.
Just because a group of low life anti-theists want to make their position sound more reasonable by calling themselves atheists, is not a reason to change what have been the traditional definitions of atheism as claimed by the atheists themselves.
One should strive to never let biggoted people redefine terms to hide their biggotry.
I agree with most of what you wrote, but with one caveat. Anti-Theist are not really closely realted to Theists in general. Most Theists do not actua;l;y think that everyoen who disagres with them is Evil, and pleny of Theist respect Freedom fo Thought and the Right of others to beleive anythign they choose.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am certainly not arguing that all Theists are wonderful people, or open minded, or believe in Free Thinking, its just as wrong to resume that belief that a god exists somehow transforms you into a raving Bigot who thinks only your beliefs should be permitted.
I know you probably didn't mean to convery this sentiment, but I'm just saying that.
Anti-theists and theists are just opposite positions. It's no different than anti-atheists and atheists. The important aspect is the the "anti" part. Both the anti-theists and the anti-atheists take a position opposed to or against the other.
DeleteBelief in a god or non-belief in a god makes no difference what so ever. The issue is with people that choose to oppose the beliefs of others.
The shear level or intolerance and hate associated with thinking that a person should be able to decide the value of what beliefs another person has is the only problem.
People that don't get that anti-theists are NOT atheists, just as anti-atheists are NOT theists are missing the whole point. Atheism has nothing to do with being against the beliefs of others just as theism as nothing to do with being against the non-belief of others.