#antitheism

[humnooshop]

Gay the pray away :)

Available in posters, wall art and more on my Redbubble

[mitchfynde]

I love how Christofascism is now a global threat, but we would never tell Christians that they can't believe because their beliefs are bigoted. No, it's the antitheists who are the bigots. You aren't allowed to be against religion as a whole. That's antisemitic!

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. This is the result of telling people their ethnicity is inherently religious, which is impossible btw. Unless you're a theist who believes your religion is infallible, that's not even a coherent belief let alone one that actually applies to reality.

[creature-wizard]

People being like "we must abandon religion!!!" in the sort of conditions where religion is crucial in keeping people going are... something.

[a-dinosaur-a-day]

Hi would it be okay if i asked you why you detest richard dawkins?? Cause i also hate him to pieces and would like to share some indulgent hatered of this fucking old ass shit man. Please go off

I mean, to go FULLY into it would require me to write an entire essay, and I just don't want to?

But the short version is

antitheism is cultural genocide and patently bullshit

focusing on genes rather than the whole organism in evolution is patently ridiculous when the minimum unit of evolution is the *population*, not the gene

in fact, when you realize the minimum unit is the population rather than the gene, you see that altruism and social behavior are very beneficial, even across species (see: symbiosis), and "selfishness" "red in tooth and claw" "law of the jungle" are just bullshit things some people made up to justify their crappy behavior (re: racism. their crappy behavior was racism.)

IQ and intelligence are smoke and mirrors we invented to convince ourselves we're more evolved than other animals (we're not, and every organisms has the intelligence it needs for its environment, adapted for its ecology, and that means that a diversity of intelligences is actually a good thing like diversity of anything is a good thing)

the man is a eugenecist and that speaks for itself

I hate him, and I hate that we live in a world where he is still alive and Stephen Jay Gould is dead, zichrono livracha

[earthytzipi]

on that note, to all ex-Christians who are now atheists (to be specific, those of you who are anti-theist): atheism does NOT make you more logical or analytical than people who are religious. if you sincerely believe that it does, you are still working from a Christian mindset that makes you believe that your culture is the best. it is rooted in white supremacist ideals. spend some time deconstructing that.

[oceanicmarxist]

During the Spanish revolution and the ensuing civil war, Spanish workers and peasants engaged in anti-clerical violence against the Church that spent centuries raping, molesting, murdering, beating, abusing, and oppressing them.

[jessicalprice]

One of the weird anomalous things about Christianity that explains the behavior of both Christians and Christian antitheists is that Christianity requires an Other.

That’s not a given for most cultures.

[hyperpotamianarch]

For one, the belief that the truth is impossible to know feels like a way of shutting down further questioning,

As you said I can point out said covenant likely doesn’t exist, I can point out the historical evidence against the exodus, the fact the Israelites likely merged from previous Canaanite tribes, the aspects of the various stories clearly taken from the epic of Gilgamesh, etc etc

And I can also point out that if your god is just “holding the laws of the universe together” then the universe with your god in it is functionally exactly the same as a world without it.

I am not trying to force you to only believe in probably tree things, just like you can’t stop me from believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster that only I can detect in any way, but you wouldn’t have to treat that belief with any special consideration correct?

The other aspect is how religious beliefs are somehow more “sacred” than secular ones? As you said thete is a difference between a theory like flat earth and belief in a creator deity, but belief in something like, say, astrology? Is THAT held with the same regard?

Heck, since this started with you arguing with an anti thrust (who I also disagree with for the record” what about their belief that all religions are evil or harmful? That belief is not disprovable, heck what about the hypothetical chaos worshipper you mentioned? Their belief is just as real as yours.

The belief that the truth is impossible to know isn't exactly what I've been bringing up here. The truth is possible to know and scientifically check in many matters. The existence of G-d might also be possible to know if He revealed Himself to you, despite the lack of possibility to disprove it. Of course, I'm also not asking you to accept my faith unquestioningly. Considering you say you're not an antitheist I'm not sure what my purpose here is considering you came to me - I initially assumed it would be to persuade you to respect my way of life.

The second point you raise is likely the best one here - because it would lead me to apologia and a series of explanations on the lack of archeological evidence of the Exodus. I honestly don't feel qualified to talk about this, but this is likely something I should consider, since it does matter for the sake of my faith.

Your third paragraph feels redundant, as this is kind of the point of indisprovability. It's impossible to see the difference between a world with G-d and a world without Him, but if it were different, if there was a perceivable difference, then the existence of G-d would've been a scientific question. As it stands, it's no more possible than proving or disproving the existence of a demon messing up with your experiments. Also, there might be differences - just not ones that can activate be empirically measured. And there is a difference to me, and to any other believing person in the world.

The rest of your message is a list of beliefs you claim should be getting equal rights to any other beliefs. For that, according to everything I said so far, they need to: 1. Be impossible to disprove using the scientific method, and 2. Not cause harm to anyone. This definition could be elaborated upon more, though.

The list of beliefs you supply are as follows:

Pastafarianism, or the belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Astrology

Antitheism

Golbism, or the belief in the god of Chaos that wants all life destroyed.

So, let's go over them by order. First, is it possible to disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as described by you (because I don't know the official Pastafarian definition of it)? I think we can safely say that it's impossible, because you claim that only you can perceive it. So the next question is, does that belief lead you to cause harm? To my knowledge, Pastafarianism does not include any tenet that is directed to hurt people. If that's so, then supposedly it's a religion like any other and deserves the same care as any other religion does. Some countries in Europe and around the world have given its practitioners such rights. However, Pastafarianism is also considered a satire religion in some places, leading me to ponder another criteria for deserving of respect - that this belief is genuinely held, and not used as a way to mock other beliefs. In theory it could count as harm, but I'm not really sure about that.

What is Astrology, this secular belief you are suggesting should get more respect? It's the practice of divining the future from the stars and constellations. So, is it disprovable using the scientific method? I think I can argue that yes, it is. If true, a practitioner should be able to accurately predict the future, to a certain degree, and it should be repeatable. If said practitioner has made predictions, and said predictions were proven untrue time and time again - that disproves it. If there is evidence that the practitioner is essentially using the Barnum effect to predict vague things that could be read as anything... Well, in that case it might be considered impossible to disprove, and as long as it's doesn't cause harm it shouldn't get more derision than any other religion. I'm not completely sure about that part, however - I need to consider if proving something uses the Barnum effect can be considered proving it untrue.

Then, we go on to the third belief: antitheism as framed by @mitchfynde. This definition is believing that all religions are inherently harmful, and that it would be best for the world if all of humanity willingly abandoned them. So, first question: is it disprovable?

Well, actually, I think it is! Sure, there are many religions in the world, but it's still a finite number. And even if it wasn't, technically finding one religion that doesn't cause bigotry among its believers would already disprove this belief. It would be harder, and perhaps impossible, to disprove the claim that the world will be better if everyone willingly abandoned religion. In theory, you could make an experiment, but considering it would need to be global it's kind of impossible. A possibility would be to gather a group of people who already willingly abandoned religion, from various backgrounds, and put them in an isolated, self-sufficient community. This experiment might be unethical, which would be a problem, but the mere possibility of it makes this a question of science.

Considering that, I think it's not a belief, but a theory - that, to my knowledge, is as of yet unproven. If proven, then by my own system no religion would be qualified as an acceptable belief, because it's harmful. I could try getting into whether or not this theory is harmful - it depends on what you define as harm, since in theory this shouldn't lead to violence or murder. It can lead, however, to coersion and erasure of cultures, or to verbal abuse. Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about the "willingly" disclaimer - not that I don't believe it's sincere, I'm not sure I believe it will work in practice. However, that remains to be seen, and if this theory is proven then decreasing the harm might be our next focus.

The last option, frankly, is your worst point in this entire ask - because you're completely ignoring why I brought Golbism out in the first place. Golbism might not be scientifically disprovable, but it's inherently harmful. It was a part of the definition: the belief in a god of Chaos who wants their followers to destroy all life. This is a classic case of a harmful belief, so regardless whether or not it's true or provable - the Last Scholar of Golb needs to be stopped, because they harm people. Possibly put in jail or an asylum, but I'm not going to debate proper treatment of it here. The problem isn't that they believe unprovable thongs, the problem is they cause harm.

All things considered, this system needs refinement. What does a belief being acceptable mean? How can you prove something is indisprovable using the scientific method? And what is defined as harm? Can you really gauge the genuinity in a belief, and should it be a criterion in deciding whether or not a belief is acceptable? And if so, what would you do with a belief that isn't genuine but is indisprovable and doesn't cause harm? It's not acceptable, but it's probably not the same as a harmful belief, and it's certainly not a scientific theory.

[nebby-the-protogen]

how come when god tells you to do a good thing it's "what -insert religion here- is actually about" but if he tells you to do a bad thing it's just "cherry picking untrue-scotsman fundamentalist bad apples misinterpreting -insert scripture here-"

and don't get me started on "they're just using god as an excuse to be evil for no reason", it goes both ways, the desires of men become the desires of god and the desires of god become the desires of men, some are inspired to say god tells them what they want, some want things because someone else said god wanted it.

and i hear this exact same "it's not real -insert religion here-" spiel from basically every old-atheist, even moreso than theists

[nonegenderleftpain]

There are few things I hate more than "Jewish ally" anti-theists and atheists that spout complete bullshit about Judaism and our supposed beliefs as though they know better than we do what we believe. When we talk about cultural xtianity, this is the kind of shit we're talking about.

"You might not believe in hell but most Jews do, my ex-xtian interpretation of your holy texts is correct despite thousands of years of information on the subject, here's a video telling you that you're wrong." Spent several posts calling non-religious people "freethinkers," and continuously dodged the question regarding the harm eliminating religion would do to so many cultures. Not to mention going from "I think the world is better without religion" to "you have an anti-xtian bias that I don't like" as though there's not a reason for that.

Ex-xtian atheists - you need to address and unlearn your xtian belief that your way is the only right way. That you are objectively correct and everyone else is just ignorant. That you know better than the religious minorities you are addressing. People like this want an excuse to talk down to religious minorities under the guise of polite language, and if you don't want to be associated with them, you have to put in the work to not be like this. I say this as an ex-Catholic, and a former anti-theist - do better.

If you are making objective assertions about someone else's religion that you have not studied and cannot answer basic questions about, you're not being critical of religion, you're being an atheist supremacist. If you pull a "gods are more harmful than helpful" like this person but cannot tell me the impact of Kali or Sàngó on their respective cultures, you are not being critical, you're ignorant and self-absorbed. If you have not studied religion, you do not know what you are talking about, and if you are only accepting xtian interpretations of other religions as true, even as a basis for hatred of religion, you're just a xtian with a new wallpaper.

If you are advocating for anti-theism, you are advocating for the cultural genocide of hundreds of different cultures around the world. If you are advocating for anti-theism, you are inherently anti-Jew. And if you are talking over Jews when they correct you on your blatant misunderstanding of our culture, only to call us *liars* when we counter your misconceptions, or call out your cherry-picked sources for why you know better than we do, you're not just an asshole, you're an Antisemite.

I took this conversation in good faith, hoping that the ignorance was born from misunderstanding instead of malice. I should not have been so kind. And if you're going to come onto this post and whine and cry about "not all atheists," or "cultural xtianity isn't real," save us both the time and block me. I'm done entertaining atheists that will not acknowledge that y'all don't know better than the religious minorities you are insulting by assuming we're all just blind sheep being lied to by some hierarchy that doesn't exist outside of certain religions. My partner is an atheist. I was for a long time, and I chose to return to religion on my own. I'm still an atheist, but I am also very religious. I'm the "smart Jew" that ex-xtians love to talk about; enlightened and no longer clinging to the supernatural. And I'm telling you that you're a fucking asshole and I associate more with the most spiritual Orthodox Jew than I ever would with someone who thinks atheism makes you superior.

[mitchfynde]

Question: what does being antitheist mean to you, as opposed to being merely an atheist?

I want the people of this world to make the choice and leave their religions. Every single one of them. I think religion, on its face, is bad. I think it necessarily brings superstition, even in the most secular religions. I believe superstition to be a threat to human progress. Superstition justifies racism and xenophobia. It justifies all fear of the unknown. It justifies intellectual laziness. It prevents people from facing the reality of death and this one life we're living.

I want all religion gone. But it has to be by choice. That's why I take serious issue with people calling me a bigot or saying I'm talking about genocide. Individuals choosing to change their mind isn't a genocide.

[womenaremypriority]

i truly can’t think of anything more evil than convincing children they’re going to hell and suffer eternal torture because of their natural attraction to other girls or other boys. every time I think of what religion has unleashed on this world I get unforgivably angry

[swagging-back-to]

not sorry but when people genuinely talk about praying and how god gave them all this stuff and how god is treating them so nice right now the only thing going through my head is

you are a delusional nutzoid.

[hyperpotamianarch]

Right but a world of diverse viewpoints does t include allowing g the belief of probably false things, like the existence of, say, a creator deity, should be held in the sane standard

Someone being wrong doesn’t get special treatment no matter how sincerely held it is.

Interesting point here is the "probably" part, of course. There is no definitive proof of the inexistence of, say, a creator deity.

I think an important point in this discussion is: is my belief in the existence of a creator deity inherently harmful? If so, I can see why you might think that persuading me away from it is best. However, I'm honestly not persuaded by the claim that the mere belief in G-d makes me a danger to anyone.

And so, I hold a belief. One that you don't share, to the degree you think I'm objectively wrong. Maybe I am. Maybe I'm not. That's actually is rather the point here, isn't it? Are we talking about diversity of belief or diversity of knowledge?

Had I been advocating for something that was empirically disproven, like, say, claiming the Earth is flat. Something that you can prove is false by pointing out how horizons work, or by supplying me with footage of Earth as seen from space. I don't think the belief in a creator deity has been empirically disproven. And if we assume - as I do - that it's impossible to disprove, than it's not in the scientific field that we make our discussion, because a scientific theory needs to be possible to disprove.

There might be metrics other than the scientific method to judge whether something is true or false. But if the entire point is that it's not scientific because it can't be disproven, I think it's pretty much out of the window. And so, I think the actual question here would be the harm done by my belief. I do not think my belief is inherently harmful, so I would really like for you to not try and conform me to your favourite belief system just because you believe I'm wrong.

[nebby-the-protogen]

The doctrine of hell is not only a harmful self-destructive idea, but it's just comical, absolutley silly, it sounds like something out of a Terry Pratchett book, like really i cannot stress how funny the idea is.

a dark pit of gloom and sadness where it's always raining fire and it's physically impossible to feel positive emotions and you just CAN'T leave, ever? sounds like the ending of a poorly written video game creepypasta

[johnwicklover1999]

yaknow i think the easiest way to explain the harm in anti-theism is that because religion, spirituality, and culture are so heavily intertwined that when you get rid of religion you then get rid of culture. that creates a lot of contradictions when it comes to supporting cultural movements.

you're an anti-theist but you want to support native americans? ok, cool, but what about our culture? are you gonna advocate for our land back and then ridicule us for smudging sage and honoring Creator? great, thanks, that's exactly what colonizers did.

you're an anti-theist but you want to support african american culture? ok, cool, but what about our spiritual practices and our superstitions? do you want to get rid of hoodoo and voodoo? go ahead, but that's erasing valuable black culture.

what about ethnoreligions? where will you draw the line between ethnic culture and religion?

or is culture just as nonsensical? and yeah, some people might say "oh no, you're wrong, i'm not against culture." okay, let's go back to native americans. i'm partially choctaw. if you advocate to give us our land back and protect our tribe will you defend our spirituality? if not, and if you succeed in getting rid of religion then you also get rid of the patterns in our regalia and our beadwork, our mythology, and our Creator.

i dunno, how can anti-theism succeed without destroying culture? if anti-theism truly aims to succeed, it must also destroy spiritually and culture.