Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.

[bennyboy]

[quote='whateverist' pid='755333' dateline='1411245619']
Don't get me wrong, I'm agnostic too. Very much so in fact.

But 'militant' agnostics, like a certain new member whose user name cuts a little close to home, tick me off. Please tell me what it is you think you know about what these god-things are that makes you argue so vociferously against non-belief in them.

Whos this new user? I'd like to give them a hug

[emilynghiem]

Don't get me wrong, I'm agnostic too. Very much so in fact.

But 'militant' agnostics, like a certain new member whose user name cuts a little close to home, tick me off. Please tell me what it is you think you know about what these god-things are that makes you argue so vociferously against non-belief in them.

I get agnosticism. I don't get anti-atheism. What is that about? Personally I have no more trouble with agnostic theists than I do agnostic atheists. These are my peoples.

Anti-atheist agnostics, like their brethren atheist anti-theists, carry around huge axes to grind. Both talk proudly of reasoned argument and evidence. But both are obviously more animated by emotional bile than any reason they actually own up to. Both are obviously working through issues which cloud their judgment.

[/vent]

Hi Whateverist: same with how radical left/anti-right and radical right/anti-left cancel each other out.They waste resources campaigning against each other, when those resources could have gone into solving problems instead of fighting for control.

I think this is an expression of pack mentality, barking down the other dog, marking territory, and trying to get the head of one pack to dominate the other by bullying.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The more they reject and blame each other, the other side does equally.

What I find is the more focus gets shifted to solving conflicts and investing in solutions both sides agree on, then we won't see such a need to win by bullying.

We can seek win-win situations where all sides contribute equally.
In the meantime, some people are still going through their tribal pack mentality phase, and need to establish territory boundaries and pecking order hierarchy.

when we are done organizing which people are under which groups and which leaders, maybe we can negotiate or separate solutions by groups. and get over the fact we have differences in beliefs and approaches that determine our affiliations.

[IanHulett]

Don't get me wrong, I'm agnostic too. Very much so in fact.

But 'militant' agnostics, like a certain new member whose user name cuts a little close to home, tick me off. Please tell me what it is you think you know about what these god-things are that makes you argue so vociferously against non-belief in them.

I get agnosticism. I don't get anti-atheism. What is that about? Personally I have no more trouble with agnostic theists than I do agnostic atheists. These are my peoples.

Anti-atheist agnostics, like their brethren atheist anti-theists, carry around huge axes to grind. Both talk proudly of reasoned argument and evidence. But both are obviously more animated by emotional bile than any reason they actually own up to. Both are obviously working through issues which cloud their judgment.

[/vent]

I actually made a post about anti-theism, but after reading about it quite a bit, I can say that all anti-theism is, is an opposition to religion for reasons such as being harmful. Being anti-theist doesn't automatically mean militant, or that you're judgement is clouded by your emotions. As an anti-theist myself, I do admit I have a tendency to be aggressive, but I've managed to work on that, and I'm more gentle about my opposition to religion now. I'm still an anti-theist, but I'm not aggressive unless someone loses a life or his/her life is threatened by religion, or if a person/group of people's rights are being infringed by religion(though I'm still working on this one). I'll admit that there are some anti-theists who belittle those for believing in God, but I don't go around calling people stupid and all that. I may say they follow a cult, or that what they BELIEVE is flawed, but I don't resort to ad hominems. Yeah, when I first became an atheist/anti-theist, sure. I may have let a few slip, however I've managed to get passed that, and insults are becoming less and less part of my arguments.

But to establish my comfort with my treatment towards religion, I have no problem mocking religion. It's not "sacred" or beyond criticism to me and if people are going to get offended that I point out flaws in their beliefs or make fun of religion altogether, then let them. I can't avoid offending everybody. Someone somewhere is going to get offended by something I say. No point in trying to prevent it, since that would just be a waste of time, and time is short.

As for anti-atheism, I have no opinion on that because I don't know what these "anti-atheists" are thinking.

[Brian37]

"Anti theist" does not mean anti human rights. It means, at least for me "anti flat earther" or "anti unicornist" basically a challenge to others to think about the claims they make.

[robvalue]

I would probably be classed as an anti theist by most definitions.

I don't want to try and stop religion happening, I want the harm it does to be reduced, preferably to near zero. Also I want to end all of its special treatment. Religion in England appears to me to be pretty much at the level I'd be happy for it to be worldwide. I can only speak for the areas I have experience of, which is a fair few places, but there may be hot spots of problems. I've stayed away from big cities, for example.

I don't want to force people to think more clearly, but I want to encourage it.

I don't want to force anyone to do anything, except of course that I want anyone committing harm to be stopped from doing so!

I guess the reason I stick to just "atheist" for now is that it's already a fiercely misunderstood term, even amongst many atheists who don't think they are atheists, that to add anti-theist to the mix is probably going to make that problem worse, from the point of view of theists relating to me. But I thoroughly respect others wearing that badge. Religion has to be stood up to, until such time that it is as peaceful and non instrusive as it claims to be.

[emilynghiem]

Don't get me wrong, I'm agnostic too. Very much so in fact.

But 'militant' agnostics, like a certain new member whose user name cuts a little close to home, tick me off. Please tell me what it is you think you know about what these god-things are that makes you argue so vociferously against non-belief in them.

I get agnosticism. I don't get anti-atheism. What is that about? Personally I have no more trouble with agnostic theists than I do agnostic atheists. These are my peoples.

Anti-atheist agnostics, like their brethren atheist anti-theists, carry around huge axes to grind. Both talk proudly of reasoned argument and evidence. But both are obviously more animated by emotional bile than any reason they actually own up to. Both are obviously working through issues which cloud their judgment.

[/vent]

Hi whateverist, I agree the best position is to stay neutral and centered enough where you can work with both people of theistic and nontheistic leanings. Because in life, you limit your options if you start getting anti- this or that. if you get in a conflict with a person or group you can't handles resolving things directly with yourself, you open yourself up to have a decision handed down to you by an outside third party who it does land on to intervene and settle it for you. And that usually ends badly.

The most powerful people I have met are often the most meek and unassuming, who can work with anybody, so they retain maximum free will and full respect to have direct authority in all that they do. Nobody fights or denies them because they don't threaten to impose on anyone.

as for anti-theists, there are different reasons I have found
1. if they suffered abuse or are projecting personal issues onto theists as representing this, and this is the anger or denial/projection phase of their recovery (and unfortunately that is a natural reaction and has to be worked through)
2. the rejection and imposition by theists creates a backlash, so these anti-theists serve as the equal and opposite reaction; and you can't disarm one side without disarming the other. they'd both have to agree to call a truce, or they both stay on the offense as the best defense against the other
3. some combination of personal internal issues and trying to correct bigger problems in society externally, usually both levels are connected.

it is an interactive dynamic. I don't see how you can address just one part of the puzzle without solving the whole thing as a consequence; and vice versa, sometimes solving the bigger problem means working internally.

[Dystopia]

When it comes to world religions, I think the Western monotheistic ones are by far the dumbest. It seems obvious that they’re all projections of human traits onto imaginary deities in order to establish cohesive tribal myths. Christianity is probably the most imbecilic major religion ever concocted. As someone who has a son, I can’t see how it’s an act of love to send your own son off to be crucified—if anything, it seems like a punk move. And Islam, with its eternally touchy and pissed-off God, is likewise nonsensical. Judaism, with its whole “chosen people” shtick, appears to be racist, if you’re worried about such things.

Still, atheism seems to require blind faith in the idea that the universe just occurred at random, that everything suddenly decided to belch forth from the void. It also depends on a blind faith that human cognition is capable of grasping the universe’s origins.

Quote from my thread about enlightened agnosticism

I hope this contributes, I find the claims in the quoted text very frustrating (not my own, it's from a website you can easily google if you type "agnostic")

[Whateverist]

Hi whateverist, I agree the best position is to stay neutral and centered enough where you can work with both people of theistic and nontheistic leanings. Because in life, you limit your options if you start getting anti- this or that.

That's a good practical reason alright Emily. Of course anyone could counter that they don't want those people in their life at all and the less interaction the better.

It looks like we come to similar conclusions for different reasons. I wonder if you would consider yourself an extrovert. A pattern I think I see is that some folks look to understand things politically and others look to do so psychologically. I tend to be in the latter camp.

My own reason for choosing to identify as non-theist rather than anti-theist has more to do with how I choose to meet the world, an introvert's reason. Back in my early adulthood I read some of Martin Buber "I and Thou". Pretty loosey goosey stuff, but I resonated with the idea that the manner in which we regard others impacts upon our own self regard. So for me choosing tolerance is a matter of meeting the world with respect equal to what I'd want for myself. I like the world and my life better when I regard others as peers and give them the benefit of the doubt.

When reflecting on what matters or what there is at a level that is beyond certainty, I like to imagine that the other person is someone I've encountered backpacking while sitting around at night looking at the sky. They're entitled to whatever theories they have. I don't need them to agree with me. Hell, another person's difference is just one more remarkable thing about the universe which I don't fully understand. It isn't my job to enforce uniformity and I'm not inclined to do it anyway.

---

as for anti-theists, there are different reasons I have found
1. if they suffered abuse or are projecting personal issues onto theists as representing this, and this is the anger or denial/projection phase of their recovery (and unfortunately that is a natural reaction and has to be worked through)
2. the rejection and imposition by theists creates a backlash, so these anti-theists serve as the equal and opposite reaction; and you can't disarm one side without disarming the other. they'd both have to agree to call a truce, or they both stay on the offense as the best defense against the other
3. some combination of personal internal issues and trying to correct bigger problems in society externally, usually both levels are connected.

The second reason is the most reasonable. You have a right to push back and stand up for yourself. The first one is largely a matter of processing life and everyone just has to do the best they can with what they have.

The third one is the one I find least tempting. The idea of social engineering for a better tomorrow seems impractical to me. Utopia only works if you have kingly powers and no one is going to give you that. Just not for me I guess.

[robvalue]

I'm afraid number 1 makes no sense to me; theists can still be anti-theist in as much as wanting to reduce the harm religion does, or even wanting religion stopped altogether. It's not an atheist issue. Also, standing up to what is wrong in the world is noble, and I don't think that implies any sort of character flaw. Of course the way you go about it is what matters. You can help with calm discussion and communication.

I forget who said it but, "All it takes for the evil man to win is for the good man to do nothing."

[Outtahere]

hi Rob,

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

by Edmund Burke ... a 19th century Protestant known primarily as "the father/founder of conservatism". funny that we find ourselves quoting even people we would normally claim to have nothing in common with .... seems like reason enough to , at least sometimes, hear the other side out before dismissing them in general??

it is my sincere hope that I found a way to say that without seeming like trying to pick a fight

just seems like the more I read about "atheism" on here , (which is WHY I'm here) the more I feel the need for agnosticism to be a jumping off point for all these discussions.

again , defining agnosticism as "I don't know, and neither do you!"

I replied to you assuming you would not take this as hostile ... figured the rest are gonna jump my shit anyway !

love and kisses Doc