Atheist vs Antitheist

[muichimotsu]

I'd almost want to bring up a thread of my own in regards to nontheism as a broader term to cover atheism and other variations, like theological noncognitivism and apatheism, both of which I have some familiarity with and a positive regard to.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yeah, I'm sure you're the source of being able to determine that in terms of interactions where you take even criticism of God as somehow indicative of underlying hatred of it as if it's real (not the same thing)

So, lets take any Atheist who really does hate God but for the reason that if they admitted they hate God, they would have to admit he exists, so the only way out is to try to convince others we couldn't possibly detect those who hate God.

Imagine that.

 

[muichimotsu]

So, lets take any Atheist who really does hate God but for the reason that if they admitted they hate God, they would have to admit he exists, so the only way out is to try to convince others we couldn't possibly detect those who hate God.

Imagine that.

You're just talking about a misotheist at that point, the term exists, your ignorance of it can be corrected by pointing it out, while atheist isn't making that acknowledgement, only of God as a concept other people hold as reality, not as reality itself, anymore than you acknowledge leprechauns as anything more than a subset of fairies that people believe in, but you don't think exist (right?)

And antitheist doesn't require acknowledging God as reality either, merely a concept they find damaging in how it affects people's behavior and moral reasoning, etc

 

[Kenny'sID]

Correct. And that's why these things are discussed--to resolve the annoyance if possible.

I don't believe those particulat annoyances will ever be resolved.

We would if they advanced atheism as a justification for their actions.

You are seriously saying that doesn't happen?

No, the actions of people sometimes cause problems and when they fall back on God as the cause or justification of the problem they can expect some response from those who don't believe that God exists. It's like when the student says "Teacher, the dog ate my homework." and the teacher responds, "But Kenny, you don't have a dog."


No, you miss the point. Sometimes people make nuisances of themselves, right? And sometimes even Christians make nuisances of themselves (because Christians are people too, right?). So if a Christian makes a nuisance of himself and advances the existence of his God as a justification for it, he can expect some pushback from atheists about it. Are you with me so far? The pushback is not against the existence of God per se, but against the use of what atheists believe to be a nonexistent being to justify antisocial behavior. The Christian in question may also experience pushback from theists who don't believe God actually wants him to behave in that way, but that doesn't mean they're atheists and to brand them as such is not a useful rhetorical strategy.

While none of that does away with the fact some hate God. You can pretend we don't understand or that doesn't happen but you'd only be deluding yourself.

Some Atheist hate God.

 

[AvisG]

We already have a term for the virulently religious, it's called fundamentalist.

"Fundie" is indeed a pejorative term used by some species of atheists for any believer. I've been characterized as a "fundie" more than once on atheist forums, when at a Christian site such as this the most common complaint I get is "you're not a Christian at all." (I find these two reactions oddly comforting.) More to the point, fundamentalism has a long, distinguished and intellectual history within mainstream Christianity, and the term is by no means equivalent to "whacked-out Bible-thumper" or "over the top proselytizer."

And methinks there's some generalization going on in regards to someone mocking religion and mocking the religious, because that's not the same thing. Me criticizing someone's deeply held views is not identical with insulting them as a person. Also, the "mindless" qualifier seems based on a needlessly intransigent idea that someone cannot criticize religion without having some deep bias against it instead of reasonably pointing out the problems in religion.

My use of "mindless" in relation to many New Atheists was intended as a precise description. I have pretty extensive experience with the New Atheist community, and it does seem to me to comprise a very large segment of teenagers with a mental age of about 12 who have utterly no idea what atheism is about or religion is about. Within this very large segment, proclaiming oneself an atheist is little more than a form of teenage rebellion, like getting a tongue piercing or facial tattoo. The New Atheist spokesmen appeal directly to this audience. Plenty of Christians are equally mindless, course.

Atheism isn't a belief system, I fail to see remotely how a response to one question is a system at all anymore than theism is a belief system but merely a position on one aspect of metaphysics.

There is indeed a small segment of the atheist community that does not also accept the naturalistic/materialistic paradigm, but the vast majority of atheists do. The naturalistic/materialistic/atheist paradigm is most certainly a full-scale belief system. Even the bare conclusion "there is no deity" or "there is a deity" cannot exist in a vacuum - it answers one of the core questions of metaphysics and carries with it enough ripples and ramifications to be called a belief system.

It seems to be a tactic within the atheist community these days to attempt to "water down" atheism to make it appear as though it's "not really" what it really is - a position that there is no deity and one diametrically opposed to religious belief. (I realize that you identify as a Buddhist.)

Not sure if Christians are necessarily above circular reasoning or a particular appeal to authority even if they're not doing so in regards to people (the bible as an authority has its own issues in terms of effective argumentation, because it makes a massive assumption in itself)

A well-founded Christian theology does not start with any axiom that God exists or that the Bible is God's word. A discussion of religious and atheistic epistemology is way outside the scope of this thread, but epistemology happens to be one of my pet interests and I see only the most minor differences in the epistemology of well-founded religious belief and well-founded atheistic belief. Obviously, everyone who arrives at a Christian belief is going to think an atheist's epistemology is flawed, and vice-versa.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Because you're convinced God exists and the point is not convincing you of the opposite in some absolute sense, but actually to utilize critical thought instead of regarding God as sacrosanct

What's as sacrosanct? And if you are actually saying something coherent there, can you please rephrase it?

Maybe the whole, "atheists hate God" for starters, or are secretly just believing in God, but want to be contrarian. You've insinuated a number of things, arguably

Who claimed "atheists hate God"?

The belief in God is the problem: it doesn't always lead to the problems, but the nature of the belief and what is believed in creates a tendency to not use critical thought in regards to it, regarding the entity as unquestionable and just self evident, rather than considering one might be engaging in confirmation bias to ignore anything to the contrary about that entity

What exactly is the problem with even the belief in God?

Also, yeah, you're pulling a no true Scotsman fallacy, just thought you'd like to know

Seems to me some Atheists could do better than constantly claiming "fallacy" instead of presenting a real argument.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You're just talking about a misotheist at that point,

I was talking about exactly what you were talking about in the post I replied to, so, are you now trying to change what you are talking about?

LOL!

 

[muichimotsu]

"Fundie" is indeed a pejorative term used by some species of atheists for any believer. I've been characterized as a "fundie" more than once on atheist forums, when at a Christian site such as this the most common complaint I get is "you're not a Christian at all." (I find these two reactions oddly comforting.) More to the point, fundamentalism has a long, distinguished and intellectual history within mainstream Christianity, and the term is by no means equivalent to "whacked-out Bible-thumper" or "over the top proselytizer."

I didn't use the term fundie, I said fundamentalist, they're not strictly the same thing, one can and is used in the sense of describing a particular manifestation of religiosity.

The traditional nature of something doesn't make it more compelling unless you take that notion seriously in the first place: you might as well be appealing to original Star Wars canon before Disney took over as the pure Star Wars rather than anything post 2012. Also, teh term isn't strictly used in Christianity: it's as much used in terms of sociology of religion

My use of "mindless" in relation to many New Atheists was intended as a precise description. I have pretty extensive experience with the New Atheist community, and it does seem to me to comprise a very large segment of teenagers with a mental age of about 12 who have utterly no idea what atheism is about or religion is about. Within this very large segment, proclaiming oneself an atheist is little more than a form of teenage rebellion, like getting a tongue piercing or facial tattoo. The New Atheist spokesmen appeal directly to this audience. Plenty of Christians are equally mindless, course.

That's basically a tu quoque, that doesn't actually lend credence to the idea that the group is wrong merely because you can point out hypocrisy, particularly in terms of teenage rebellion, which is kind of just a matter of growing up

There is indeed a small segment of the atheist community that does not also accept the naturalistic/materialistic paradigm, but the vast majority of atheists do. The naturalistic/materialistic/atheist paradigm is most certainly a full-scale belief system. Even the bare conclusion "there is no deity" or "there is a deity" cannot exist in a vacuum - it answers one of the core questions of metaphysics and carries with it enough ripples and ramifications to be called a belief system.

You just made my point for me, atheism i snot unifying, so you can't remotely generalize based on a particular definition you hold, that's prescriptivist and myopic

No, it's not a full belief system, because I'm pretty sure it involves more than mere metaphysics, which is the most you could call it in terms of a type of worldview in the scale of metaphysics and such versus a full worldview that encompasses epistemology, ethics, etc

Never said it was in a vacuum, but no, it doesn't carry the impact you believe it to, because God is not necessarily essential in the first place, nor is the question of its existence necessarily a point that people will focus on, it's your ilk that claims it to be so

It seems to be a tactic within the atheist community these days to attempt to "water down" atheism to make it appear as though it's "not really" what it really is - a position that there is no deity and one diametrically opposed to religious belief. (I realize that you identify as a Buddhist.)

I can be atheist and Buddhist, there's not an innate contradiction there anymore than a Christian being agnostic given the notion of the word does not entail unbelief in a deity, it's epistemological

Atheists are not anti religious necessarily, that's technically another aspect that can vary among atheists, like pretty much anything beyond a general position that isn't convinced of a God's existence, to whatever degree of certainty will vary (strong/weak, positive/negative, the distinctions are hardly a waste of time, there's a spectrum in the same vein as with theism)

A well-founded Christian theology does not start with any axiom that God exists or that the Bible is God's word. A discussion of religious and atheistic epistemology is way outside the scope of this thread, but epistemology happens to be one of my pet interests and I see only the most minor differences in the epistemology of well-founded religious belief and well-founded atheistic belief. Obviously, everyone who arrives at a Christian belief is going to think an atheist's epistemology is flawed, and vice-versa.

It starts with axioms that are more than unfounded, they're irrational in that they aren't actually exercising critical thought, but only a sense of the "systematic theology" or the like, which is more the pretense of being reasonable, but working within the notions of sentiment as sufficient justification based on purely subjective experiences of a supernatural quality.

Again, you can say I believe it, but even if I granted that, I'm not the one making an absolute claim or one related to the actual reality of such a thing, but that the concept is unfounded, the reality isn't necessarily the focus of the discussion when the concept of concern is not nearly so simple as a "tree" or a "mountain"

 

[muichimotsu]

I was talking about exactly what you were talking about in the post I replied to, so, are you now trying to change what you are talking about?

LOL!

No, you described someone that hated god and mistakenly said it was an atheist, what you were describing was not an atheist, but a misotheist, you don't seem to have very reading comprehension

 

[muichimotsu]

What's as sacrosanct? And if you are actually saying something coherent there, can you please rephrase it?

You can't use Google and just look up the word? It's not complicated and it's not incoherent because you don't understand it when it's a word that has a pretty easily known definition in the first place. You don't want to question God, so now you deflect from actually considering your regard for God being irrational in the first place and just act like I'm being crazy

Who claimed "atheists hate God"?

You did, and I can quote you, "Some Atheist hate God." You're not saying all atheists, but you're still generalizing based on what you think is an atheist and what you associate as hating God as reality rather than the concept, which is not the same thing

What exactly is the problem with even the belief in God?

That it encourages people to not actually use their brains critically, but just go with simple explanations for things instead of actually investigating in a meaningful manner

Seems to me some Atheists could do better than constantly claiming "fallacy" instead of presenting a real argument.

I'm not making a claim here, that's you, burden's on you for that and me pointing out a flaw in your argument is basic logical criticism, it's not a sign of weakness, it's me actually analyzing an argument for faults in the reasoning process, which you don't want to do, a sign of intellectual laziness

 

[Speedwell]

"Fundie" is indeed a pejorative term used by some species of atheists for any believer. I've been characterized as a "fundie" more than once on atheist forums, when at a Christian site such as this the most common complaint I get is "you're not a Christian at all." (I find these two reactions oddly comforting.) More to the point, fundamentalism has a long, distinguished and intellectual history within mainstream Christianity, and the term is by no means equivalent to "whacked-out Bible-thumper" or "over the top proselytizer."

Yeah, all the way back to 1910.

A well-founded Christian theology does not start with any axiom that God exists or that the Bible is God's word. A discussion of religious and atheistic epistemology is way outside the scope of this thread, but epistemology happens to be one of my pet interests and I see only the most minor differences in the epistemology of well-founded religious belief and well-founded atheistic belief. Obviously, everyone who arrives at a Christian belief is going to think an atheist's epistemology is flawed, and vice-versa.

Does not that position violate the very "Fundamentals" you were referring to?

 

[Speedwell]

Some Atheist hate God.

If person actually hates God then he is a Misotheist, not an Atheist.

 

[AvisG]

Yeah, all the way back to 1910.

The term "fundamentalism" dates to the early 1900's - specifically 1920, as I recall. The movement that culminated in the adoption of the term dates to the 19th century. The roots of the movement are far deeper than that. Moreover, the use of the term has broadened to the point where virtually any conservative or evangelical mainstream Christian is labeled a fundamentalist (and often happy to wear the label, even when it technically doesn't fit).

Moreover, the poster to whom I was responding equated "fundamentalist" with "virulently religious," which was plainly incorrect.

Does not that position violate the very "Fundamentals" you were referring to?

I have no idea what this even means. Moreover, whether my notion of religious epistemology conflicts with that of the fundamentalists is of utterly no consequence to me.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If person actually hates God then he is a Misotheist, not an Atheist.

And the OP calls them something other than that...whatever.

One you all have the official terms hashed out, please make an announcement.

 

[Speedwell]

The term "fundamentalism" dates to the early 1900's - specifically 1920, as I recall.

The BIOLA version came out in 1917.

The movement that culminated in the adoption of the term dates to the 19th century. The roots of the movement are far deeper than that. Moreover, the use of the term has broadened to the point where virtually any conservative or evangelical mainstream Christian is labeled a fundamentalist (and often happy to wear the label, even when it technically doesn't fit).

If you like, they go all the way back to the Reformation. But I think that the term is most often used today to describe a person who believes that only conservative Protestant Christian belief can provide salvation and that it requires a right-wing political stance.

I have no idea what this even means. Moreover, whether my notion of religious epistemology conflicts with that of the fundamentalists is of utterly no consequence to me.

You said, "A well-founded Christian theology does not start with any axiom that God exists or that the Bible is God's word." The purpose of "The Fundamentals" was to provide just such axioms.

 

[Speedwell]

And the OP calls them something other than that...whatever.

One you all have the official terms hashed out, please make an announcement.

That's what the thread is about. If you were not interested in "hashing out" these terms, why did you join the discussion?

 

[durangodawood]

Was anybody able to explain how one could hate a being that he doesnt think exists?

(Note, this is different than hating the idea of such a being, or the effect of that idea in society).

 

[AvisG]

I didn't use the term fundie, I said fundamentalist, they're not strictly the same thing, one can and is used in the sense of describing a particular manifestation of religiosity.

You equated "fundamentalist" with "virulently" religious, which is simply incorrect. The pejorative term "fundie" is more appropriate for the "virulently" religious.

The traditional nature of something doesn't make it more compelling unless you take that notion seriously in the first place: you might as well be appealing to original Star Wars canon before Disney took over as the pure Star Wars rather than anything post 2012. Also, teh term isn't strictly used in Christianity: it's as much used in terms of sociology of religion.

I didn't suggest the historical and intellectual tradition underlying fundamentalism makes it "more compelling." I don't happen to find it compelling at all. I simply suggested that by using the term "virulently religious" in reference to fundamentalism, you reveal that you have no depth of understanding of fundamentalism.

That's basically a tu quoque, that doesn't actually lend credence to the idea that the group is wrong merely because you can point out hypocrisy, particularly in terms of teenage rebellion, which is kind of just a matter of growing up

I didn't say that segment of New Atheism was wrong. I said they were mindless, which they are. If atheism happened to be 100% true, this segment would still be mindless and completely clueless as to why it was or wasn't true.

You just made my point for me, atheism i snot unifying, so you can't remotely generalize based on a particular definition you hold, that's prescriptivist and myopic

The philosophical definition of atheism is "the position that there is no deity." The fact that all species of people co-opt the term to mean other things, just as all species of people co-opt the term "Christian" to mean whatever they would like it to mean, is irrelevant for purposes of a philosophical/metaphysical discussion.

No, it's not a full belief system, because I'm pretty sure it involves more than mere metaphysics, which is the most you could call it in terms of a type of worldview in the scale of metaphysics and such versus a full worldview that encompasses epistemology, ethics, etc

By my definition, which you are certainly not required to accept, "belief system" encompasses the whole ball of wax. It is not confined to "one's answers to the ultimate metaphysical questions." It encompasses what you are terming a "worldview." A worldview inevitably flows from one's answers to the metaphysical questions, which is what I meant by ripples and ramifications.

I find this new tactic, whereby atheists wish to cordon-off their atheism, quite interesting - almost as though they're a bit embarrassed by it.

I can be atheist and Buddhist, there's not an innate contradiction there anymore than a Christian being agnostic given the notion of the word does not entail unbelief in a deity, it's epistemological

Sure. I have quite an extensive background in Buddhism, in terms of study. I was simply tossing you a bone lest you take umbrage at being lumped with the atheists in my discussion.

It starts with axioms that are more than unfounded, they're irrational in that they aren't actually exercising critical thought, but only a sense of the "systematic theology" or the like, which is more the pretense of being reasonable, but working within the notions of sentiment as sufficient justification based on purely subjective experiences of a supernatural quality.

A well-founded theology, Christian or otherwise, doesn't start with any axioms at all. It arrives at first principles, such as the existence of a creator God, via basically the same epistemological route by which any belief system, religious or secular, arrives at them. They then take on axiomatic status. "A deity exists" is an axiom of theistic belief. "A deity does not exist" is an axiom of atheistic belief.

If Christian or theistic theology begins with "axioms" that are "irrational" and lack "critical thought," isn't rather odd that the vast majority of the greatest minds in every field of human endeavor - including all academic and scientific disciplines - have been theists or specifically Christians? Isn't it odd that even today, with the peer pressure that exists in Western cultures to conform to the naturalistic/materialistic/atheistic paradigm, such substantial percentages of all people, including those in all academic and scientific disciplines, continue to hold to theistic or specifically Christian beliefs? With such dummies at the helm, it's amazing the human race has survived and thrived, is it not?

 

[AvisG]

The purpose of "The Fundamentals" was to provide just such axioms.

And thus you made the typical leap of illogic that anyone who dares to give a modicum of respect to the Fundamentalist tradition, in the face of a clearly incorrect characterization by the poster to whom I was responding, must himself be a Fundamentalist.

 

[Larniavc]

Some quick food for thought; I think there could be less tension of Christians would learn the definitions of 'Atheist' and 'Antitheist'.

It seems like most of us tend to label the first group as the latter, which is damaging considering only the latter presents a literal anti-God view.

I feel like most Atheists aren't anti-God, so much as they're opposed to believing in anything too 'far fetched' or without scientific basis. Honestly, id even say most seem to enjoy playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion to promote critical thinking...which really isn't a bad thing.

Thoughts?

I like that. Extra time I get approached by the seemingly ubiquitous folks in my nearest town who hang around the market square or come knocking at my door just as I’m about to sit down for my tea I shall explain my lack of belief with “it all seems a bit far fetched, to me”.