Atheism or antitheism?

[Nancy Allen``]

I thought this would be an important topic to bring up. Atheism is something that is becoming more and more prevelent, and I'm sure that part of the reason for it would be religiously motivated crimes, Islamic terrorism. Now let me make it clear that there is nothing wrong with not believing in god and religion. However I feel that at times atheists can go from non belief to voicing that there should be no religion, militant atheism or antitheism. So which is it for you? Atheism or antitheism?

[Alkonium]

It's hard to say. I've seem the flaws of religion, but it has such a hold on the world it's hard to undo the damage. As much as I like to respect other's beliefs, the line between devotion and fanaticism is sometimes hard to see. It seems in the US, that fundamentalists are trying to impose their beliefs on others, which have been disproved by science. Another thing is that they seem to oppose most things I consider to be for what I like to call the greater good. (no, that is not a reference to the Tau from Warhammer 40,000, although they are my preferred race.)

[Achilles]

I thought this would be an important topic to bring up. Atheism is something that is becoming more and more prevelent,

This is an interesting claim. Could you please define for us what "more and more prevalent" means to you? No doubt that the statistics for atheism are slightly higher now than they have been in the past, but it would seem that these numbers are hardly reliable for a multitude of reasons. It entirely conceivable that the actual number of atheists hasn't changed, but people are more comfortable being forthcoming about their personal philosophies today.

 

and I'm sure that part of the reason for it would be religiously motivated crimes, Islamic terrorism.

Just so I'm understanding this correctly, is the argument that religious persecution is causing more people to become atheists? Do you have any evidence to support this or does this simply reflect your perceptions?

 

Now let me make it clear that there is nothing wrong with not believing in god and religion. However I feel that at times atheists can go from non belief to voicing that there should be no religion...

what's wrong with that? It would seem that this would be an exercise protected by the first amendment.

 

...militant atheism...

I'm not sure I know what that is. Could you please expand on this for those of us that have never heard of this before?

 

...or antitheism.

Again, we'll probably need to operationally define this. I know what I think anti-theism is, but I'm not sure what picture that paints for us when you use the term. How would this differ from the concept of atheism for you?

 

So which is it for you? Atheism or antitheism?

Which is what for me?

[MdKnightR]

Deism for me. I think that many non-religious people would find that they are more in line with Deism than anti-theism or atheism.

[Pavlos]

I'm an atheist. Just as I have a right not to believe, you have the right to believe. But equally so, provided it doesn't hurt anyone, anti-theists have the same rights and can campaign against religion. It's not a view I particularly agree with but we live in countries where freedom of speech is very much the corner stone of society. But then again, I tend not to think of it too much so perhaps my ideas are underdeveloped.

 

I do have a friend who is obsessed with anti-theism. He's a nice guy... just don't bring up religion within five miles of him if you want him to be in a good mood. The more seriously someone takes their belief, or lack of belief, the more confrontational - perhaps not the best word but I can't think of any other - they seem to become.

[Nancy Allen``]

I've provided a link explaining antitheism, that might help.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

 

Another thing is that they seem to oppose most things I consider to be for what I like to call the greater good. (no, that is not a reference to the Tau from Warhammer 40,000, although they are my preferred race.)

 

Stem cell research, abortion (making things such as rape especially vile), I can see what you're saying.

 

This is an interesting claim. Could you please define for us what "more and more prevalent" means to you?

 

I'd go with what you're saying about it being more in the open.

 

Just so I'm understanding this correctly, is the argument that religious persecution is causing more people to become atheists? Do you have any evidence to support this or does this simply reflect your perceptions?

 

I'd say that hearing people parroting on about religion to justify their atrocities if not cause an incrase in atheism\anti theism then make them refuse to be silent.

 

what's wrong with that? It would seem that this would be an exercise protected by the first amendment.

 

It goes along the same lines as making racist comments and anti gay slurs, or...and I'm not saying that it would but words against religion, not just stating there is no god but condemning those who follow it, can lead to action.

 

I'm not sure I know what that is. Could you please expand on this for those of us that have never heard of this before?

 

The antitheist stance is sometimes thought of as militant atheism, the same as militant theism. They want to prohibit religion. Antitheism is something from my research on the matter as a more extreme view than that. There's some dispute over how accurate such a term is, but I feel that both are not willing to accept that people are legally entitled to follow religion.

 

Again, we'll probably need to operationally define this. I know what I think anti-theism is, but I'm not sure what picture that paints for us when you use the term. How would this differ from the concept of atheism for you?

 

Atheism is simply the non belief of god, where as antitheism is the direct persecution of religion. Something like how pavlos' friend might be, except probably worse off.

 

Which is what for me?

 

Do you take the athiest view that there is no god or the antithiest view that religion shouldn't be allowed?

 

But equally so, provided it doesn't hurt anyone, anti-theists have the same rights and can campaign against religion. It's not a view I particularly agree with but we live in countries where freedom of speech is very much the corner stone of society.

 

Where does one draw the line however between not believing, or even liking religion, and campaigning against it?

 

The more seriously someone takes their belief, or lack of belief, the more confrontational - perhaps not the best word but I can't think of any other - they seem to become.

 

QFT.

[stoffe]

I thought this would be an important topic to bring up. Atheism is something that is becoming more and more prevelent

 

Are people classified as atheists if they just don't have a reason to care either way? People for whom religion plays such a small or non-existent part of their lives that they feel they have no more reason to ponder the existence of a god than they'd have to go around and ponder the flaws of the Theory of relativity during a typical day, i.e. a lofty matter that has no direct bearing on them.

 

Do people who live secular lives with no religious influences and with a total disinterest in religious matters count as atheists?

 

If so then atheism is clearly spreading in northern Europe. I read somewhere (don't remember where) that since the church and state where separated in my country, and church membership no longer was mandatory the church has been losing roughly 200 000 members/year consistently. Though granted not all of them may do so due to disinterest or lack of beliefs, some may simply switch to other churches or faiths. (It also leaves the question whether people actually where all that much more religious before, or if they simply believed "at gunpoint", so to speak, when Christianity was a state religion and prayer services and such was mandatory at schools throughout the time they grew up.)

 

As an aside, how about religions that worship no god? Are Buddhists considered atheists since they don't believe in the existence of a god?

[Nancy Allen``]

I think that ignorance, or indiffirence, alone doesn't make you atheist. As I understand it it's a concious choice that you make the clear decision not to believe or follow religion.

 

As for Buddhism, apparently it is atheist.

 

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/buddhism_atheism.html

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I thought this would be an important topic to bring up. Atheism is something that is becoming more and more prevelent, and I'm sure that part of the reason for it would be religiously motivated crimes, Islamic terrorism.

Possibly. Another big contributor is that rationality and mythologies are incompatible, and that being atheistic leaves you free of dogmatic rules and threats of eternal damnation or reincarnation as something icky.

 

[...] I feel that at times atheists can go from non belief to voicing that there should be no religion, militant atheism or antitheism. So which is it for you? Atheism or antitheism?

Antitheists are atheists, too. Trying to separate the two is like trying to separate North Americans from Canadians. The latter is merely a distinction of the former - one is North American and Canadian, not either-or.

 

It goes along the same lines as making racist comments and anti gay slurs, or...and I'm not saying that it would but words against religion, not just stating there is no god but condemning those who follow it, can lead to action.

I, for one, does not consider religious opinions different from political opinions. I review them with the same critical eye, and if they're found wanting, I discard them. If communism, social democracy, neo-conservatism, or any other ideology doesn't work, I discard it. If Christianity, Wicca, Hinduism or any other religion doesn't hold water, I discard it. Simple as that. I don't 'respect' a non-functional or untrue religious belief more than I 'respect' a faulty political belief.

 

Sure, disrespect of religion could technically cause people to carry out violence on Christians, Jews, Hindus, Wiccans, Jedi, and Satanists, just as pushing a certain political belief could cause people to start beating up neo-Nazis, communists, anarchists and others. That's an inherent risk. If we were to respect everyone's belief, we'd be utterly incapable of discussing anything.

 

Person 1. 'I do believe it was a good idea to invade Iraq.'

Person 2. 'But why? Where are the WMDs? What about the civil war now raging there? What about--'

Person 1. 'Oh, for goodness' sake, how disrespectful is it possible to be?! Respect my political faith! Do I go about questioning your politics?!'

 

I read somewhere (don't remember where) that since the church and state where separated in my country, and church membership no longer was mandatory the church has been losing roughly 200 000 members/year consistently. Though granted not all of them may do so due to disinterest or lack of beliefs, some may simply switch to other churches or faiths.

Actually, I'd say many are switching to alternative stuff such as the belief in ghosts, homeopathy, spiritism, channeling, ouji boards, UFOs, and so on. They've discovered that religion is not for them, bu they need something to fulfill their natural 'religious/mysticism drive', and head for the New Age culture.

[Jae Onasi]

The more seriously someone takes their belief, or lack of belief, the more confrontational - perhaps not the best word but I can't think of any other - they seem to become.

 

I take my belief pretty seriously, and I'll get into passionate discussions about it with some, but I don't get confrontational with it otherwise. I can't force people to believe or not believe--they have to make that choice themselves, so there's no real point in being confrontational about it. Religious extremists may think they're forcing someone to believe their way, but that doesn't mean the 'convert' truly believes in their heart. I'd rather someone became a Christian because they wanted to share in the love of Christ and a relationship with God, not because they were forced to. Belief happens in the heart, not on the lips.

[Pho3nix]

Atheism is something that is becoming more and more prevelent, and I'm sure that part of the reason for it would be religiously motivated crimes, Islamic terrorism.

I think the main reason is that science explains more and more natural phenomena that was thought to be 'supernatural' for centuries. There's not much, or no need for a religion that explains how the world works when science helps us understand the truth.

 

Islamic terrorism and other crimes related with religion have a small effect in my opinion.

 

I'd rather someone became a Christian because they wanted to share in the love of Christ and a relationship with God, not because they were forced to. Belief happens in the heart, not on the lips.

In a perfect world perhaps. But unfortunately that's not generally the case, Muslim women who denounce their faith might get killed by their own family and there are Christians who are Christian simply because their parents are, and are too afraid to express their own beliefs and perhaps also denounce their faith.

[Jae Onasi]

I'd rather someone became a Christian because they wanted to share in the love of Christ and a relationship with God, not because they were forced to. Belief happens in the heart, not on the lips.

In a perfect world perhaps. But unfortunately that's not generally the case, Muslim women who denounce their faith might get killed by their own family and there are Christians who are Christian simply because their parents are, and are too afraid to express their own beliefs and perhaps also denounce their faith.

 

While they may express one faith publicly in order to stay alive or please parents, what they believe internally may be another matter. You can torture and abuse someone into publicly recanting faith of any kind, but whether they've recanted in their hearts or not is another matter. That's what I'm meaning there by not being able to truly force someone to believe or denounce belief.

[PoiuyWired]

I think that ignorance, or indiffirence, alone doesn't make you atheist. As I understand it it's a concious choice that you make the clear decision not to believe or follow religion.

 

As for Buddhism, apparently it is atheist.

 

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/buddhism_atheism.html

 

Well, depends on how you see it. IF so then technically I am Atheist.

 

I think that conflicts related to religions does have the adverse effect of reducing people's interest into religion in general.

 

Simply put, Priests and religious organizations of various religion related (or even not related) to the conflict may have an opinion to what is going on. Such opinion may range from good will mercy to taking sides to smiteing parts of the conflict. Such opinions might be too strong or too weak to some believers.

 

I won't go as far as to "turning them atheists" but this would surely reduce the interest in religious related activities.

 

As for militant atheists types, they are just about as annoying as any other types of ideal fanatics like them militant feminists or eco terrorists or religious crusade supporters(no warhammer 40K corpse emperor reference) Basically they are just as bad as things they are trying to condemn, if not worse.

[Darth InSidious]

Vexen is not a good source. It if fallacious, riddled with holes, and largely made up of empty rhetoric, it seems to me.

 

I think perhaps the question is one of extremism. What is extremism? I'm not sure, but I think a good guiding principle is that it is the denial of any possibility that you are wrong. When you are an extremist on any subject (be it theology or the mating habits of the average tabby cat), the concept of anyone not seeing things your way requires them to have something wrong with themselves.

 

As for whether or not disrespect for another's religion could cause violence, rest assured it does, has and will. Disrespect is bred of fear, and many people fear what is alien to them. Such fear creates violence. It doesn't matter what subject causes the fear, whether it be skin colour, or religion, or job, or class, or whatever.

 

"Where there is ignorance, let us sow understanding..."

[Achilles]

"Where there is ignorance, let us sow understanding..."

QFE

 

I'd go with what you're saying about it being more in the open.

Ok, so atheism itself isn't any more prevalent (as far as we can tell), but the climate is such that more people feel comfortable sharing their views. Done and done.

 

I'd say that hearing people parroting on about religion to justify their atrocities if not cause an incrase in atheism\anti theism then make them refuse to be silent.

So first and foremost, we both acknowledge that this is all conjecture. Even with that out of the way though, I'm still not sure I understanding the argument.

 

It goes along the same lines as making racist comments and anti gay slurs, or...and I'm not saying that it would but words against religion, not just stating there is no god but condemning those who follow it, can lead to action.

Anything can lead to action. Possible vs. Probable once again.

 

Physicists don't revolt at conferences. Recovering alcholics don't riot and start trashing liquor stores after AA meetings. I'm not sure why it is I should make the leap into the belief that atheists are going to start burning down churches just because they tend to agree that religion does more harm than good.

 

The antitheist stance is sometimes thought of as militant atheism, the same as militant theism. They want to prohibit religion. Antitheism is something from my research on the matter as a more extreme view than that. There's some dispute over how accurate such a term is, but I feel that both are not willing to accept that people are legally entitled to follow religion.

I think the dispute stems from the fact that these terms are usually applied to atheists by theists.

 

This entire enterprise sounds contrived.

 

Atheism is simply the non belief of god, where as antitheism is the direct persecution of religion.

I would tend to disagree with that definition, but you can define the terms how ever you would like.

 

Here's what the model looks like it my head:

 

Atheism - a lack of belief in a god or gods.

Anti-theism - a belief that there is no god/are no gods.

Militant atheism - an atheist doctrine that supports the persecution of theists and/or theism.

 

Personally, I feel that this is a little less convoluted and does a good job of matching terms with the concepts that they represent. But this is only my opinion.

 

Do you take the athiest view that there is no god or the antithiest view that religion shouldn't be allowed?

I take the view that there is no rational argument for the existence of god, therefore there is no rational reason to believe that he/she/it/they exist. Furthermore, since religious doctrine is frequently violent and promotes intolerance, I feel that the spread of religion should be stopped via dialog and education.

[tk102]

Ok, so atheism itself isn't any more prevalent (as far as we can tell), but the climate is such that more people feel comfortable sharing their views.

With our unprecedented ability to communicate instantly, I would certainly say that was one factor. The internet has given us freedom to voice our beliefs (anonymously if we prefer). Atheism has particularly benefited from this since it is by nature decentralized. There is no atheistic church that people go to visit on Sundays as part of a community, but the internet now fills that role. Heh heh, look at Kavar's Corner and the Senate Chambers.

 

But additionally, the rise of scientific progress going back at least to the Age of Enlightenment, has answered a number of unanswerable questions that heretofore only religion could address. What is our place in the universe? How did the earth form? Where did life come from? What is the nature of the mind? It seems to me that religious explanations for these are having to cede ground to scientific explanations now more than ever before.

 

For these two reasons, both technologically based, I would conjecture to say there is more atheism today in the world than ever before.

[Achilles]

If we're going back to the Enlightenment, or even to the rise of homo sapien sapien, then there can be little doubt. If we're going back to the 1950's however, I'm probably going to want to split hairs a little. Since Nancy didn't provide much in the way of context, I've been left to fumble around in the dark whilst trying to determine what she means by "more and more prevalent". Sorry for any confusion.

[tk102]

Really, you think there were as many atheists per capita today as in the 1950's? "In God We Trust" became the national motto of the USA in 1956. Plus I think of McCarthyism and its fight against those "godless communists". Billy Graham began making waves back then. Christianity Today magazine was started.

 

Granted, that's a pretty USA-centric viewpoint.

[TK-8252]

Personally, I don't understand why the word "antitheism" even exists. You never hear the word "protheism" do you? If there's an anti, there has to be a pro. What, do you call evangelical Christians or fundamentalist Muslims "protheists" instead of "monotheists?"

 

And I've never understood this claim of "militant atheism." When was the last time an atheist blew up a church, or murdered a preacher, in the name of atheism? Never.

[Pavlos]

Where does one draw the line however between not believing, or even liking religion, and campaigning against it?

 

I don't believe, but I don't choose to campaign and spread my views. To me, religion - or lack of - is very much a private issue, which is basically the traditional view in Britain; heck, the Church of England is essentially a secular institution - confession was replaced with having tea and cakes with the vicar, God is the ultimate good chap, and being a nice guy is pretty much as good as canonisation.

 

I don't really see why anyone needs to campaign on religious views... I mean, they have the right in a free society but it seems a bit pointless - no one will believe what they are forced to say they believe.

[Achilles]

Really, you think there were as many atheists per capita today as in the 1950's? "In God We Trust" became the national motto of the USA in 1956. Plus I think of McCarthyism and its fight against those "godless communists". Billy Graham began making waves back then. Christianity Today magazine was started.

 

Granted, that's a pretty USA-centric viewpoint.

Actually, I probably wouldn't venture a guess either way. My argument has been that we really can't really tell because there are too many variables and a great many of them are unknown.

 

My point in the last post was that I would probably wager a guess that numbers haven't changed as significantly over the past 50 years as they have over the past 400.

 

If you wanted to say that there are a lot more atheists today than in the 1700's, I'd say you're probably right. If you wanted to say that there are a lot more atheists today than in the 1950's, I'd say you could be right, but you could be wrong, and either way you're guessing.

 

@TK-8252 - Amen, brotha. I don't understand why we need the term "atheism". We don't have a term for people that don't believe in UFO abduction or people that don't believe in fairies. Seems asinine that we need a term for people that don't believe in god.

[PoiuyWired]

Well, on the other aspact of OP's topic, people do seem to spend less of their time in religious related activities, simply there are more other stuff to do. Simply put, life is a bit less simple relative to those "goold old days" considering there are many more activities one can engage in relative to religious activities.

 

Another thing is that since the world is more open than what it was "way back" in most places, people are exposed to more versions of different viewpoints. People probably move around places more often, and are exposed to different cultures, either physically or thru different media. In short, people are given more choices.

 

Another thing is, well, science give us the answer of many things that are only seen as mystical in the past. We know that thunderstorms are not caused by spirits dancing upon the clouds, invisible angels do not hold the birds up in the sky, and the planet earth is definitely not flat. This might have severe impact to some religious sects that would cling onto the old religious explanations of things as definite truth fanatically disregarding anything else to be "evil's work" Things like creation stories and mystical misinformation of the world would more or less fall into this group in a way.

 

I mean, we know that there is no fiant dome in the sky where the clouds stuck onto, and if I fly east/west continuously I would go around the plenat and not fall down the abyss into hell. But there are some sects of some religions that would still strongly clings onto such things, and that might put off some believers.

[Jae Onasi]

@TK-8252 - Amen, brotha. I don't understand why we need the term "atheism". We don't have a term for people that don't believe in UFO abduction or people that don't believe in fairies. Seems asinine that we need a term for people that don't believe in god.

 

"The Glyphs formerly known as Atheists"

 

[Achilles]

"The Glyphs formerly known as Atheists"

 

Sweet. I've always wanted to be replaced by a symbol.

 

Seriously though. We don't have terms for other natural states. It seems rather bizarre to me that we do for this one.

 

We should start a list of all the other natural states that need a term to distinguish them from non-natural states.

[Jae Onasi]

Well, UFO and faerie believers call the rest of us all non-believers. Atheism is just a fancier term for 'non-believer in God'. People who don't believe in God are going to get called something, and 'atheism' is a lot shorter than 'people who don't believe in God'.