The Atheist Corner

[RichardHresko]

We seem to find echoes and harmonies with each new post crossing one another almost simultaneously.

I certainly agree that one must be careful of "-isms." I think Wittgenstein's doctrine of "family resemblances" provides a solution. He argues that some members thought to be connected by a single feature common to every member in a class may actually turn out to be connected by a series of overlapping similarities, and points to "games" or facial features within a family as illustrations. This doctrine is certainly applicable to any discussion of "isms."

"As a subsidiary point to this first one, would we include 'misinterpretations' of the '-ism' by adherents to count against the "-ism"?"

This seems to imply that there is something outside (or "objective") of the interpretations by which one could judge whether there are misinterpretations. For example, that there is a "real" Christianity different from its many interpretations. We may be mislead in our thinking here by the linguistic necessity in the use of "interpretations (of)" into thinking that the object of interpretations actually exists. If this is so, then there could not be a misinterpretion, only yet another interpretation.
Cheers,
John

This seems to be evolving into a question of the reality of species (or, in a nod to my avatar, "essences") as opposed to mental constructs composed of individuals. But if we do not allow for the existence of a species is there any meaning to a question such as "Can atheism do harm?" Even if we restrict ourselves to an individual, how to we separate that individual from his or her "-ism" to make the judgment?

I am not sure Wittgenstein can help in this instance since there seems no way to surgically separate the person from the "-ism."

[Drkshadow03]

Atheism and anti-theism really aren't different ideas; they're the flipside of the same coin. Rather one is the more radical counterpart of the other, sort of like Radical feminism to a more mainstream liberal feminism.

Can atheism cause harm? Sure, the Communist regimes demonstrate the case. Playing semantic games of saying, "well, no one is atheism and the other is really anti-theism" is just that a cheap semantic game. No doubt a part of Communist opposition to religion comes from their desire to prevent conflicting loyalties to the state, but it's also painfully clear to anyone with the least bit of common sense and a brain that their militant atheism was an equal factor for their persecutions of religion. I think to argue otherwise is simply disingenuous.

Like I said it doesn't take a large stretch of the imagination to conceive of a future society where the majority are atheists (don't believe in G-d) who eventually engage in what The Atheist is calling anti-theism, the direct persecution of religious people or opposition to religion.

Furthermore, since the majority of atheists I've engaged with here, the so-called atheist four horsemen, Hitchens, Dawkins, and crew, and the majority of atheists I've engaged with on the wider internet seem quite clearly to go far beyond the boundaries of "not just believing in G-d", but a thorough opposition to the belief in G-d, it would seem that a great deal of people going under the title of atheist are in fact really anti-theists and are using the wrong names. But of course this really just more semantics dancing around the truth, that atheism and anti-theism are pretty much one and the same, except the latter is a more virulent and aggressive form of the former.

[The Atheist]

As you yourself pointed out in your own definition of atheism, atheism is a matter of belief, not of evidence. That the belief is a negation does not change the fact that it is a belief.

Sorry, but that's not what I said at all.

Anyway, I don;t see the point in repeating myself, so I'll leave it there.

What do you think are the differences between atheism and anti-theism? Basically concretely define those terms. Anyone feel free to answer.

Yeah, I'll let you in on it, mostly because this next post is just flat-out wrong. Just read my reply and I'm sure you'll get it.

Atheism and anti-theism really aren't different ideas; they're the flipside of the same coin. Rather one is the more radical counterpart of the other, sort of like Radical feminism to a more mainstream liberal feminism.

No, that's completely wrong.

The issue is this simple:

The Atheist = "I have not seen any reason to believe in god/s"

The Anti-theist = "I hate god/God is bad"

And anti-theist is actually a theist. An atheist anti-theist is an oxymoron. How can one hate what one does not believe in? Anti-theists who claim to be atheists are simply lying.

... but it's also painfully clear to anyone with the least bit of common sense and a brain that their militant atheism was an equal factor for their persecutions of religion. I think to argue otherwise is simply disingenuous.

I'm almost 50 years old and have been a lifelong student of religion, humanism and history. My father fought in WWII and I have a pretty good grasp on what Stalin was really about from a lifetime's reading on the subject as well as talking to people who were actually there when Stalin was conducting the purges. I've spoken with survivors of both Hitler and Stalin.

I'd also rate my common sense pretty highly and I have an extraordinarily high IQ. I'm a successful businessman and have a list of personal and work achievements which I believe are equal to almost anyone my age, and if I'm being immodest, better than most. I believe that I have dispalyed objectivity all of my life and I apply scepticism to my own beliefs more strongly than I apply it to the beliefs of others.

Strangely, despite your contention that only idiots would believe that atheism wasn't involved in Stalin's purges, I am almost 100% confident that his atheism - if he was ever an atheist, which I seriously doubt - played no part in any of his insane murder sprees.

Like I said it doesn't take a large stretch of the imagination to conceive of a future society where the majority are atheists (don't believe in G-d) who eventually engage in what The Atheist is calling anti-theism, the direct persecution of religious people or opposition to religion.

It saddens me to think that people out there really think this way. At least I'm comfortable that the feeling doesn't result from evidence which suggests is happening or will happen.

But of course this really just more semantics dancing around the truth, that atheism and anti-theism are pretty much one and the same, except the latter is a more virulent and aggressive form of the former.

You're certainly entitled to retain that opinion.

Pity really, because a little more understanding on all sides would be helpful, and I generally find atheists to have minds which are open to new information.

[RichardHresko]

1)
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
As you yourself pointed out in your own definition of atheism, atheism is a matter of belief, not of evidence. That the belief is a negation does not change the fact that it is a belief.

Sorry, but that's not what I said at all.

Anyway, I don;t see the point in repeating myself, so I'll leave it there.


2)
The issue is this simple:

The Atheist = "I have not seen any reason to believe in god/s"

The Anti-theist = "I hate god/God is bad"
.

1) You posted the following: "Atheism simply "does not believe" in god." You cast the definition in terms of belief, as I asserted.

2) My argument here is that your ordering is backwards. First comes the matter of what one believes and then one finds the reasons (or not). In other words the old proverb would be more correctly worded, "believing is seeing."

For one to "see" a reason as being persuasive in terms of its content (as opposed to the validity of its logical structure, which has already been discussed) the content has to conform to the types of information that one has pre-determined to be acceptable. Obviously this once again requires filtering and the danger of tautology emerges. This happens on both sides and in a very similar way. The religious-minded believe there is something corresponding to god and therefore see reasons to believe. Atheists do not believe in god and therefore see no reasons to believe.

The upshot of this is that there is nothing that distinguishes the theists and the atheists (by your definition) other than the non-rational starting points and the subsequent (non-rational) choices of what should constitute evidence. As far as rationality goes, there is nothing to choose between the two positions.

[JBI]

Atheism and anti-theism are very different. I personally am an atheist, because I cannot believe in god, without openly lying to myself. I am still of the belief that religion is a good thing, and an important aspect in the cultural heritage of the world. I don't consider myself a destroyer of religion at all, and often find myself encouraging a spiritual, or religious quality in people I meet.

Anti-theism is nothing like atheism, as it is a moral, and political belief, rather than a metaphysical one (or unbelief, as atheism is). It's like a square and a rectangle - a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square.

[The Atheist]

The upshot of this is that there is nothing that distinguishes the theists and the atheists (by your definition) other than the non-rational starting points and the subsequent (non-rational) choices of what should constitute evidence. As far as rationality goes, there is nothing to choose between the two positions.

That's your opinion, to which you're most welcome.

I happen to think you're not only wrong, but demonstrably so, however, I think the discussion has now just turned to repitition and of little further value.

Atheism and anti-theism are very different. I personally am an atheist, because I cannot believe in god, without openly lying to myself. I am still of the belief that religion is a good thing, and an important aspect in the cultural heritage of the world. I don't consider myself a destroyer of religion at all, and often find myself encouraging a spiritual, or religious quality in people I meet.

Anti-theism is nothing like atheism, as it is a moral, and political belief, rather than a metaphysical one (or unbelief, as atheism is). It's like a square and a rectangle - a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square.

Yep, well put.

[Drkshadow03]

Sorry, but that's not what I said at all.

Anyway, I don;t see the point in repeating myself, so I'll leave it there.



Yeah, I'll let you in on it, mostly because this next post is just flat-out wrong. Just read my reply and I'm sure you'll get it.



No, that's completely wrong.

The issue is this simple:

The Atheist = "I have not seen any reason to believe in god/s"

The Anti-theist = "I hate god/God is bad"

And anti-theist is actually a theist. An atheist anti-theist is an oxymoron. How can one hate what one does not believe in? Anti-theists who claim to be atheists are simply lying.



I'm almost 50 years old and have been a lifelong student of religion, humanism and history. My father fought in WWII and I have a pretty good grasp on what Stalin was really about from a lifetime's reading on the subject as well as talking to people who were actually there when Stalin was conducting the purges. I've spoken with survivors of both Hitler and Stalin.

I'd also rate my common sense pretty highly and I have an extraordinarily high IQ. I'm a successful businessman and have a list of personal and work achievements which I believe are equal to almost anyone my age, and if I'm being immodest, better than most. I believe that I have dispalyed objectivity all of my life and I apply scepticism to my own beliefs more strongly than I apply it to the beliefs of others.

Strangely, despite your contention that only idiots would believe that atheism wasn't involved in Stalin's purges, I am almost 100% confident that his atheism - if he was ever an atheist, which I seriously doubt - played no part in any of his insane murder sprees.



It saddens me to think that people out there really think this way. At least I'm comfortable that the feeling doesn't result from evidence which suggests is happening or will happen.



You're certainly entitled to retain that opinion.

Pity really, because a little more understanding on all sides would be helpful, and I generally find atheists to have minds which are open to new information.

Anyway, your life history aside, I haven't actually disagreed with your points, at least not entirely. I just think there is more to it and I am interpreting the facts differently.

I should point out the only reason I tweaked your nose in my last comments is because I felt you tweaked mine first: "No, you simply need to learn history."

Having a minor in history during my undergrad certainly doesn't make me an expert on history, however, one of the first things you learn in formal academic training is that there is a lot room for interpretation in historical fact, especially when you start moving into the area of human motivations of historical figures or the implications and meaning of history.

One paper we had to write illustrates this point fairly well. We had to read Martyn Lyons's "Napoleon Bonaparte and the Legacy of the French Revolution." We had to decide whether we agreed with Lyons's thesis and whether we thought Bonaporte by reestablishing authoritarian rule overturned the values of the revolution or whether he was the ultimate culmination of the Revolution's values and representative of them.

As for your definitions of atheism versus anti-theism can you provide a citation to any scholarly source which defines them the way you do? So far as I predicted in one of my first posts in this thread this has mostly disintegrated in arguments over definitions and semantics.

I consider myself extremely open-minded as well; I'm constantly rethinking my ideas. So if you're half as open-minded as you claim and really are interested in having more understanding perhaps you should consider why I am stating some of the viewpoints that I am, part of it comes from experience dealing with people who at least claim to be atheists who come off as being "unable to fall asleep at night because someone, somewhere, may have the audacity to believe in G-d or a higher power" (my own play on H.L. Mencken's infamous Puritan definition).

Now if you want to call these people anti-Theists be my guess. If you have yet another term from them, again I don't really care. I am NOT opposed to atheists; you don't have to believe in G-d. No skin off my back. I have plenty of friends that are atheists.

The reason I bring this up is this particular thread is sucking up a lot of my time and energy that I could be spending doing other more useful things like reading a book or learning Spanish or writing fiction, and I am not even sure what the hell we're arguing about anymore or more specifically for what reason we're arguing.

[The Atheist]

Having a minor in history during my undergrad certainly doesn't make me an expert on history, however, one of the first things you learn in formal academic training is that there is a lot room for interpretation in historical fact, especially when you start moving into the area of human motivations of historical figures or the implications and meaning of history.

Very good.

I am a little surprised that you chose the communist/atheist link then, as it's a fairly obvious myth. I get annoyed at it because I've seen the same argument for >30 years. It was nonsense in 1970 and it's still nonsense in 2008.

As for your definitions of atheism versus anti-theism can you provide a citation to any scholarly source which defines them the way you do?

So far as I predicted in one of my first posts in this thread this has mostly disintegrated in arguments over definitions and semantics.

It surprises me that you're still on this tack, because we've tried to be very specific for that very reason. Could you just mean that the definitions we're using just don't match yours?

I don't believe there's any semantic argument needed. Right or wrong, the subject I'm discussing involves the definitions as given.

If you're a student of history, you would be aware that the English language is in a constant state of flux and there are no scholarly sources which are unable to be negated by further scholarly sources. That said, the works of supposed scholarly atheists - the four horsemen mentioned earlier - Dawkins, Dennet, Harris & Hitchens, will cover me pretty well. The thing I don't like about "scholarly sources" is that it's just an appeal to authority and I speak for myself.

Given that the position of atheism is owned by atheists, I think anyone not an atheist attempting to describe atheism can only fall into the trap which gets many atheists - attempting to create a stereotype for all christianity. It just doesn't work. Just as christianity is what christians make, Masonic Lodges are what Freemasons make them, and atheism is what atheists make it.

... part of it comes from experience dealing with people who at least claim to be atheists who come off as being "unable to fall asleep at night because someone, somewhere, may have the audacity to believe in G-d or a higher power" (my own play on H.L. Mencken's infamous Puritan definition).

Certainly every school has its lunatics. The trouble is that by painting those people as represntative of atheism, you're going down the same track as if I tried to paint Samuel Berkowitz as representative of christianity.

To add to that, atheism isn't as movement, it doesn't have meetings (although some atheist groups do), it most certainly doesn't have a bible and it doesn't have any leaders or spokespeople. That the four horsemen are visible is entirely due to their own efforts, nobody voted Dawkins Chief Atheist and only very few people believe he is anyway. The number of atheists actively involved in "atheism" is incredibly tiny. In the UK, disbelief is around 40-50%, probably 40 million people. Yet the world's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins has a fan club of about 200.

I either go or used to go to several atheist forums and the number of militant atheists is even smaller. I get just as annoyed at them as you or anyone else does, I assure you! Every major disagreement I've had online (20,000 posts over many years) has been with a militant atheist.

By "militant atheist" I mean an atheist who is anti-religion, which is different to anti-theism. I trust you get the difference.

I am not even sure what the hell we're arguing about anymore or more specifically for what reason we're arguing.

Well, I can tell you that the reason I persevere is entirely to do with the subject in hand. Atheism comes with lots of baggage and almost all of that baggage has been handed to us by theists. For some reason, many theists are sufficiently scared of their own faith that they must attack atheism, which is odd. I never see philatelists attacking people who don't collect stamps, I never see sportspeople attacking lazy, fat people, and I don't think I've yet seen a smoker attacking non smokers, either.

I'm trying to lighten the load by changing a few misconceptions about what atheism actually is.

Some people will listen.

[Jozanny]

1) It could well be that the issue is not one of dishonesty on either side but a failure to acknowledge that humans select and evaluate information based on pre-conceived notions. There is no possibility of knowledge without faith. (Here 'faith' is defined as the acceptance of something as true without direct experience of its truth. I am working with your definition of atheism, in the interest of both fairness and clarity you will work with my definition of faith.)

I don't know if I am entirely confortable defining faith on this basis, although jgweed's rebuttal is stronger than anything I might add, I will still add, at this point, that we stray into the problem of defining epistemological aquisition. Is *knowing* how to use my joystick on my power chair the same thing as believing this figure called Christ is a manifestation of the Hebrew deity?

A couple of other things: My pathway to non-belief started when the characterization of the Judeo-Christian god began not to make much sense to me. I have read rational theists who rebut this by saying it is the fault of our limited understanding, but my reply would be you cannot have it both ways. If biblical authors were *divinely* inspired it seems they aspired to a curiously human persona: One who is insecure, demands attention, and seems to think killing pagans is perfectly acceptable because of their ignorance of who the "true" deity" is--but a few centuries later he comes down in human form and says "hey, only hypocrites who mouth niceties about me being the son of god will be stuck dead, aren't I merciful?"

Again, this doesn't make much sense to my ethical values, which is why I am anti-religious in terms of religions being human constructs. Yahweh and Jesus don't make much sense, but from there, neither does Allah, even though Allah and Yahweh are identical constructs--and neither do Hindu gods, or Isis.

So I reached atheism from the starting point that our gods are manifestly superlative human characters which cannot and do not exist or have powers, because, as Atheist said, there is absolutely no evidence for this.

Modern believers claim god speaks to them, but for me this is a dubious assertion. Emotions are survival mechanisms--feelings derived from them are complex and not fully understood, but as a writer I can aspire without seeing this as proof of a cosmic designer egging me along.

In my case, it is not a matter of simple labeling, in that as an anti-theist god is bad and as an atheist god *isn't*.

I find Drk's position of Communism being extreme atheism untenable, for reasons already stated, but again, atheism is not an ideology. There may be atheists who are zealous, and occasionally unpleasant, (Dawkins, Hitchens, me)--but being against religious doctrine is not being anti-god, even though critical examination of Yahweh and Jesus is certainly a negation of them as acceptable representations.

I agree with JBI, however, about the cultural significance of established religion on society, even though I would like to see religions themselves diminish.

[The Atheist]

Good timing at the Times!

The NYT today has this article on the dilemma facing teachers and it has nothing to do with teachers claiming absolute proof, but the difficulty in changing minds which have been filled with literal Genesis.

[Drkshadow03]

Very good.

Certainly every school has its lunatics. The trouble is that by painting those people as represntative of atheism, you're going down the same track as if I tried to paint Samuel Berkowitz as representative of christianity.

One last point I want to make, I don't think I ever once painted atheism with some broad stroke; you and Jozanny seem to be confused on this point because you keep bringing it up. I never once said ALL atheists are this or that, nor did I ever say all atheists are represented by the lunatics.

[Jozanny]

Good timing at the Times!

The NYT today has this article on the dilemma facing teachers and it has nothing to do with teachers claiming absolute proof, but the difficulty in changing minds which have been filled with literal Genesis.

More evidence of a world power's decline, in my estimation--and Drk is alarmed at the prospect of religious suppression through what he assumes is a Dawkins' zealotry.

[Drkshadow03]

More evidence of a world power's decline, in my estimation--and Drk is alarmed at the prospect of religious suppression through what he assumes is a Dawkins' zealotry.

Heh. Believe me I am far more concerned about the Christian fundies suppressing the teaching of Evolution actually. Plus I just saw the Jesus Camp documentary, what a creepy movie filled with such creepy people!

[Jozanny]

Heh. Believe me I am far more concerned about the Christian fundies suppressing the teaching of Evolution actually. Plus I just saw the Jesus Camp documentary, what a creepy movie filled with such creepy people!

Honestly, I don't want to view Jesus Camp. I don't need to feel despair becoming ever more deeply ingrained. I've read about it though and seen clips.

[The Atheist]

One last point I want to make, I don't think I ever once painted atheism with some broad stroke; ...

Can I direct you to your own post where you do exactly that?

Atheism and anti-theism really aren't different ideas; they're the flipside of the same coin.

Rather one is the more radical counterpart of the other, sort of like Radical feminism to a more mainstream liberal feminism.

But of course this really just more semantics dancing around the truth, that atheism and anti-theism are pretty much one and the same, except the latter is a more virulent and aggressive form of the former.