Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you make a distinction between atheists and anti-theists. fair enough, although it is a nuance lost on me. we agree some kind of indoctrination does occur.
Apparently we don’t agree as it is an obvious (and very clear) distinction. Atheists lack a belief in the existence of a god; however, we do not oppose others’ beliefs (as anti-theists do). Essentially, anti-theists have a universal belief of their own i.e. religion is ‘evil’ and harmful to society, as a whole. Hence the indoctrination of sorts relative (only) to the latter.
Apparently we don’t agree as it is an obvious (and very clear) distinction. Atheists lack a belief in the existence of a god; however, we do not oppose others’ beliefs (as anti-theists do). Essentially, anti-theists have a universal belief of their own i.e. religion is ‘evil’ and harmful to society, as a whole. Hence the indoctrination of sorts relative (only) to the latter.
If you reference a dictionary, it is i.e. ‘a’ vs. ‘anti’ (atheism vs. anti-theism). The vast majority of us (atheists) are not anti-theists; in fact, I’m anti anti-theism. :-)
If you reference a dictionary, it is i.e. ‘a’ vs. ‘anti’ (atheism vs. anti-theism). The vast majority of us (atheists) are not anti-theists; in fact, I’m anti anti-theism. :-)
I think I'm in the middle, based on your earlier definition. I do think that religion is often harmful to individuals and society, but I do believe in freedom of religion...within reason.
I think I'm in the middle, based on your earlier definition. I do think that religion is often harmful to individuals and society, but I do believe in freedom of religion...within reason.
Religion doesn’t harm folks; mentally unstable people do, often relative to hyper religiosity. That said, it isn’t up to you (or any of us) to ‘believe in’ freedom of religion or to make the determination as to what is ‘within reason’; the first amendment guarantees such freedoms. It is what it is.
Religion doesn’t harm folks; mentally unstable people do, often relative to hyper religiosity. That said, it isn’t up to you (or any of us) to ‘believe in’ freedom of religion or to make the determination as to what is ‘within reason’; the first amendment guarantees such freedoms. It is what it is.
The first amendment doesn't cover most of the world.
Overall I like your posts, but you seem rather black and white here.
The first amendment doesn't cover most of the world.
Overall I like your posts, but you seem rather black and white here.
From my perspective, as a lawyer (and atheist) in the US, it is a ‘black and white’ issue. It’s foolish to think we can protect our own freedoms while simultaneously expressing complete disrespect/disregard for such.
From my perspective, as a lawyer (and atheist) in the US, it is a ‘black and white’ issue. It’s foolish to think we can protect our own freedoms while simultaneously expressing complete disrespect/disregard for such.
Apparently we don’t agree as it is an obvious (and very clear) distinction. Atheists lack a belief in the existence of a god; however, we do not oppose others’ beliefs (as anti-theists do). Essentially, anti-theists have a universal belief of their own i.e. religion is ‘evil’ and harmful to society, as a whole. Hence the indoctrination of sorts relative (only) to the latter.
Antitheists are all atheists, too. Plenty of overlap, there. (And you can also be a theist and an antitheist.)
It's 2 totally different questions: 1) Do I believe in God, 2) Do I think religion is a positive, constructive force in the world, overall, in general, in our shared objective reality as humans on Earth in the year 2023.
For me, the answers are 1) No, 2) No, for the most part. Especially when it comes to the more organized and serious/fundamentalist the particular religion we're talking. And the specifics of the dogma matter a lot.
So, In that respect I'm an antitheist. I oppose at least some of the religion out there. And even I don't have any problem with someone's having a belief in a higher power and whatever. I don't have a problem with people going to church and singing. I don't have a problem with anyone's being comforted. I have no objection to there being a plethora of different takes about deep philosophical concepts, spirituality, etc.
I just, observe/reason that belief/religion is overall doing harm, in a lot of different ways. And people are wasting so many lives and resources in killing each other in parts of the world because they have a different version of a magic baby myth or whatever. It's all just needless, sad nonsense, with no grounds in humanity.
Either way, whether you're opposed to religion or not (antitheism), whether you have issues with it or not, that's just a viewpoint, or opinion. And it might be a nuanced view about religion, or opposition to only one type of religion. But antitheism is not a belief system or a religion. It's the suggestion that religion is bad.
To answer your question, I refer to a statement made by the OP. It's a great statement because, for me, it tries to capture the problem with believing. When it comes to believing, there is a push that something is either right or it is wrong. So if something is attractive, such as an afterlife, it must be right and we should believe it. The OP warns against this. But I don't think attraction or belief is the problem, because as we have discussed, it adds a layer of culture to human activities.
The issue arises when we are only given the option to call something right or wrong. There can be other labeling options. The OP mentioned one - observations. The other option is the ability to judge the observation. We can ask what the observation means to us. This is preference.
The easiest example would be death. Humans can observe that living things die. They don't come back to life. It is a preference to believe that there is an afterlife because we can't observe it. Yet, somebody may interject with "you're wrong, there is no afterlife" (because, again, it cannot be observed). But being right or wrong should not be the only option in which to judge this conversation. Recognizing that humans have a preferred way of seeing things is another option.
I think there is a potential for any kind of teaching to become indoctrination. If a statement is being positioned as right or wrong, true or untrue, when we could have just viewed it as a preference, then there may be an attempt at indoctrination. I think many times, it is not done on purpose. It happens because of the limited choices we have to label something or the limited approaches to how we handle a conversation.
I mainly just want us to acknowledge and be more mindful of our inherent biases towards what we prefer. That was really the main point of this thread.
The thoughts and ideas and hypotheses that give people comfort, may give people comfort, but we should approach our reality and our understanding of reality, based around what is rationally observed. And then be comforted, within that. We should be wary of putting the comforting concepts first, and then trying to reconcile and fit our actual observations into that. Because pretty much nothing about the universe is comfortable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
