Does antitheism exist?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I note that anti-capitalists have a similar argument - pointing to capitalism doing more harm than good e.g. the links between capitalism and slavery and capitalism and inequality as some of the reasons for being anti-capitalist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/industrialisation_article_01.shtml

We can see a direct historical link between capitalism and slavery and we can see the poverty that capitalism causes today due to asset and resourcing stripping of countries leading to a wealthy minority having power over a far poorer majority. So anti-capitalists decide the type of society they would like to live in and based on some of the outcomes of capitalism they reject capitalism as doing more harm than good.

However, the alternative to capitalism has not worked out too well for any country, so people have accepted a form of capitalism where they try to rebalance some of the inequalities inherent in the system as being better than the alternative.

That’s a false equivalence I think. Yes capitalism has produced some horrible results along the way, but it’s also given us untold benefits. By contrast can you think of any theocracy that hasn’t descended quickly into savagery? I can’t.   

Having been an atheist and anti-theist myself, I think anti-theism will catch on probably about the same amount as anti-capitalism. I think given the human capacity to hold beliefs, it's probably more realistic to work to rebalance some of the inequalities caused by theism or many other beliefs (political, cultural, moral) rather than try to rid society of theistic beliefs as they will just be replaced with some other abstract belief.

That’s a Vladian straw man. No-one’s suggesting trying to “rid society of theistic beliefs” at all. Rather some of us think theistic beliefs are fine for those who like that sort of thing, but they shouldn’t have a privileged position in society such that they tell the rest of us what to do. The rebalancing would be treating the various faiths as we do any other private members’ clubs, but nothing more.     

There are of course some beliefs that would be difficult for society to entertain. For example we rescue people from cult leaders who ensnare people with their promises to change the world and then indoctrinate them to be under the control of the cult leader.

Yes we do. Private beliefs or not the state has a role to play when religious beliefs manifestly harm people, children especially. Where that line should be is of course a matter of great uncertainty and much discussion. 

[Nearly Sane]

Gabriella,

That’s a false equivalence I think. Yes capitalism has produced some horrible results along the way, but it’s also given us untold benefits. By contrast can you think of any theocracy that hasn’t descended quickly into savagery? I can’t.   

Cherry picking in the extreme. Every advance, and indeed capitalism itself, can easily, and logically  be argued to arise both from the religious and how religious people think. As so often you want to see religion as some external thing which as an atheist makes no sense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Cherry picking in the extreme. Every advance, and indeed capitalism itself, can easily, and logically  be argued to arise both from the religious and how religious people think. As so often you want to see religion as some external thing which as an atheist makes no sense.

How so? I was merely comparing capitalist societies with theocratic ones. Of course there have been (and are) the former with lots of religious people in them, but that’s not the point.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

How so? I was merely comparing capitalist societies with theocratic ones. Of course there have been (and are) the former with lots of religious people in them, but that’s not the point.

No, you talked about capitalism, not capitalist societies. And the vast majority of capitalist societies we have are also based on some form of theism. Indeed there is a good argument that capitalism arises from a protestant view  of Christianity.  It's a long standing argument - see Durkheim.

And you miss that you that you regard religion as external.

[ProfessorDavey]

Having been an atheist and anti-theist myself, I think anti-theism will catch on probably about the same amount as anti-capitalism. I think given the human capacity to hold beliefs, it's probably more realistic to work to rebalance some of the inequalities caused by theism or many other beliefs (political, cultural, moral) rather than try to rid society of theistic beliefs as they will just be replaced with some other abstract belief.

But that is a false dichotomy.

In the UK religiosity has been on the decline for decades, with greater proportions of people being non religious (and also atheist) - I think the more likely scenario is that religion gently declines in its importance and influence, becoming an irrelevance to the vast majority, while remaining hugely important to a few people.

So we will have neither anti-theism, nor theism reborn in a new form. We will end up with a comfortably secular and largely non religious society where the few who want to believe and to practice their beliefs will be free to do so provided they don't bother the rest of us.

[Nearly Sane]

But that is a false dichotomy.

In the UK religiosity has been on the decline for decades, with greater proportions of people being non religious (and also atheist) - I think the more likely scenario is that religion gently declines in its importance and influence, becoming an irrelevance to the vast majority, while remaining hugely important to a few people.

So we will have neither anti-theism, nor theism reborn in a new form. We will end up with a comfortably secular and largely non religious society where the few who want to believe and to practice their beliefs will be free to do so provided they don't bother the rest of us.

That seems a complete misreading of what Gabriella says which is not a dichotomy but arguing for a much more complex approach.

[ProfessorDavey]

That seems a complete misreading of what Gabriella says which is not a dichotomy but arguing for a much more complex approach.

But on the basis of religion, seemingly not seeing beyond anti-theism and a kind of natural belief reborn in some kind of manner.

I think neither is likely - perhaps Gabriella thinks that too, she can answer for herself, but my reading of her post was the choice was anti-theism or theism with the bad bits removed. I don't think those are the only options, not the most likely outcome for the UK in the decades to come.

[Nearly Sane]

But on the basis of religion, seemingly not seeing beyond anti-theism and a kind of natural belief reborn in some kind of manner.

I think neither is likely - perhaps Gabriella thinks that too, she can answer for herself, but my reading of her post was the choice was ant-theism of theism with the bad bits removed. I don't think those are the only options, not the most likely outcome for the UK in the decades to come.

is ant-theism like ant-music?

[ProfessorDavey]

is ant-theism like ant-music?

Yup - with the two drummers and all.

[Nearly Sane]

Yup - with the two drummers and all.

That theism's lost its flavour, try another flavour...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We will end up with a comfortably secular and largely non religious society where the few who want to believe and to practice their beliefs will be free to do so provided they don't bother the rest of us.

Chilling and threatening by turns with IT'S THREAT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

ALSO the suggestion that secularism can only be comfortable when atheists don't feel bothered by the religious gives lie to the claim that secularism is somehow a neutral position or enterprise in which religious people can play a full part.

I on the other hand am not against having a secular side to society as long as the spiritual side is recognised.

[Nearly Sane]

Chilling and threatening by turns with IT'S THREAT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

ALSO the suggestion that secularism can only be comfortable when atheists don't feel bothered by the religious gives lie to the claim that secularism is somehow a neutral position or enterprise in which religious people can play a full part.

I on the other hand am not against having a secular side to society as long as the spiritual side is recognised.

lying drivel

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not an unlimited number, and there is nothing preventing religious people being nominated into those positions - indeed, a significant number of them, as I've already shown, are already filled with religious people.  No-one is suggesting that religion should in any way prevent people being in a position in the Lords.  The problem is when positions in the Lords are reserved explicitly for religious people, and in particular one particular sect of a religion - that is privileging that group over and above everyone else.

It's simple: do you think the Church of England should have additional, specific spaces in parliament?  If you don't, then you are in accord with the secular position on this. If you do... why?

O.

I believe there should be Lords spiritual. Not necessarily religious but certainly representing the various world views including atheism and humanism and there should be Lords temporal. People chosen because of their secular experience and achievements. And of course the system ensures the appointment of Lords  world view and Lords secular.

[Nearly Sane]

I believe there should be Lords spiritual. Not necessarily religious but certainly representing the various world views including atheism and humanism and there should be Lords temporal. People chosen because of their secular experience and achievements. And of course the system ensures the appointment of Lords  world view and Lords secular.

World view drivel

[Walt Zingmatilder]

lying drivel

So you are comfortable with this warning then

We will end up with a comfortably secular and largely non religious society where the few who want to believe and to practice their beliefs will be free to do so provided they don't bother the rest of us.

free to practice their beliefs provided they don't bother the rest of us.

[Nearly Sane]

So you are comfortable with this warning then free to practice their beliefs provided they don't bother the rest of us.

Just as being a bird watcher, member of the TUC, or a woman. Campaign and get support. Claim you need privileged support because other's are not as important - No. But then I don't support apartheid, and you do.

[Nearly Sane]

So you are comfortable with this warning then free to practice their beliefs provided they don't bother the rest of us.

As it is talking about privilege. Yep.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just as being a bird watcher, member of the TUC, or a woman. Campaign and get support. Claim you need privileged support because other's are not as important - No. But then I din't support apartheid, and you do.

I disagree
I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony
Grow honey trees and cockaneys
Bring peace across the land.

It's the real thing
Doo da doo da
Coca cola
La de dum da.

[Nearly Sane]

Just as being a bird watcher, member of the TUC, or a woman. Campaign and get support. Claim you need privileged support because other's are not as important - No. But then I din't support apartheid, and you do.

I disagree
I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony
Grow honey trees and cockaneys
Bring peace across the land.

It's the real thing
Doo da doo da
Coca cola
La de dum da.

That's nice

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

That’s a false equivalence I think. Yes capitalism has produced some horrible results along the way, but it’s also given us untold benefits. By contrast can you think of any theocracy that hasn’t descended quickly into savagery? I can’t.

I was referring to theism, not to a theocracy. Or are you defining anti-theism as being the same as anti-theocracy?

There are lots of different ideas around anti-capitalism. Some people regard capitalism as a system where private individuals rather than governments or co-operatives own property and businesses but many others regard capitalism as an idea of economic freedom e.g. Milton Friedman's argument that “A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”

So I might have missed it where you defined what you mean by theism.

That’s a Vladian straw man. No-one’s suggesting trying to “rid society of theistic beliefs” at all. Rather some of us think theistic beliefs are fine for those who like that sort of thing, but they shouldn’t have a privileged position in society such that they tell the rest of us what to do. The rebalancing would be treating the various faiths as we do any other private members’ clubs, but nothing more.

You are defining anti-theism as secularism? If religious people are part of society they will try to tell the rest of society what to do based on their abstract ideas about freedom and morality, much like atheists have beliefs (not about gods) about all kinds of abstract ideas - political, economic, cultural, social freedoms etc and they try to tell the rest of us what to do based on those beliefs. As to privileging beliefs - as society becomes less religious I assume any privileges will decline if democracy is working properly.

[Outrider]

I believe there should be Lords spiritual. Not necessarily religious but certainly representing the various world views including atheism and humanism and there should be Lords temporal.

So why does the 'spiritual' spectrum require reserved seating when the sciences don't, the military doesn't, healthcare doesn't, business and industry?  Why is that 'spiritual' dimension somehow special?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Chilling and threatening by turns with IT'S THREAT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

Hysterical non-sense. An atheocracy might, an overtly anti-theist society might, but that's not what I'm talking about - indeed I specifically rejected those as likely outcomes. No I am talking about a secular society - one in which there are no special privileges, nor discrimination (which is just the former turned on its head) on the basis of whether an individual is religious or not.

And of course it cuts both ways - if you don't wish to be negatively impacted by anti-theism (a reasonable desire) then atheists should not be negatively impacted by religions.

And freedom of expression has always been tempered - we might be able to believe what we like but society has always put limits on expressing those beliefs in actions - specifically where those actions impact negatively on others.

ALSO the suggestion that secularism can only be comfortable when atheists don't feel bothered by the religious gives lie to the claim that secularism is somehow a neutral position or enterprise in which religious people can play a full part.

Secularsim is an entirely neutral position - it means that society is not taking a side (so to speak) in preferential terms between one religion or another nor between religious and non religious people.

I on the other hand am not against having a secular side to society as long as the spiritual side is recognised.

And while individuals have a spiritual side that will always be recognised - but that doesn't require spiritualism to be formally embedded in the societal structures, any more than atheism, vegetarianism, post-marxism, neo-liberalism etc etc should be formally embedded in societal structures. As soon as you start doing that (and you cannot do it for every -ism) you end up with a society that is seen to have a institutional preference for one -ism over another - you end up with societally-sanctioned special privileges and discrimination.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Davey
A neutral secularism would recognise that it is one of two
facets of humanity, not seek elimination of spirituality.
Your version of secularism is imperialistic seeking at least relegate important aspects of humanity reducing everything and e everybody to utility and capital.

Secondly you continue to paint me as seeking to preserve the status quo. That isn't true since I would have atheists and humanists there as well.

Finally since the division is purely between the secular and the spiritual it is clear there is nothing being privileged.

[ProfessorDavey]

Davey
A neutral secularism would recognise that it is one of two
facets of humanity not seek elimination of spirituality.

You are comparing apples and pencil sharpeners.

In societal terms spiritualism is not the opposite of secularism - theocracy and/or atheocracy are the non-neutral alternatives to secularism, and neither is appealing as both will lead to special privilege and discrimination. Only a secular society can be free of special privileges and discrimination on the basis of whether its citizens are religious, spiritual etc or not.

A secular society recognises the rights of individuals to believe as they wish, but that it should be societally neutral with regards to those beliefs (or lack thereof).

[ProfessorDavey]

Finally since the division is purely between the secular and the spiritual it is clear there is nothing being privileged.

Of course there is.

That's a bit like saying, since the division is purely between the democratic and the socialist it is clear there is nothing being privileged of you want to afford privileges to socialists and socialist views that aren't afforded to capitalists, liberals etc etc.

Democracy is a societal mechanism to be neutral in terms of political belief - neither providing special privilege nor disciminating between individual political views. If you counter democracy with socialism (in other words you provide a special place in society for socialist views, not accorded to any other political views), then you are providing special privileges and you fundamentally undermine democracy.

So secularism is to democracy, as spiritualism is to socialism.

I think you actually understand this perfectly well Vlad but aren't prepared to accept that our current situation provides many special privileges to religions and religious people that aren't afforded to individuals with other views. That is wrong.