No More Anti-Theists

[Shuffle]

I also would encourage critical thinking by using cherry picking and apoplectics.  

I just had to cherry pick this out since thinking of cherry picking as a tool of critical thinking sent me into gales of apoplectic laughter.  It's okay.  I'm over it now.

   Where did you get that!?

[Ben Davis]

Respectfully, I don't think anyone here can tell me who I have and have not encountered, and whether I would or would not be able to get a vibe for what type of people they are. Furthermore, I'm not so cold hearted and unaware that I wouldn't "notice" that myself or my group were "being horrible" to other people.

I love ya, but I gotta be honest, I did not appreciate this comment very much.

Okay, I don't pretend to know who you know or how well you know them so I apologise if my comments came across as a personal criticism/attack. My point was related to the institutionalisation of certain forms of behaviour and how they might be received/perceived by in/out groups; it was not intended to insult you. Please, allow me to rephrase in a hypothetical scenario so that there's no inference that you are horrible (which you're not!).

Let's imagine a 'doubter', someone who's progressed in their internal dialogue to the point where they no longer believe in 'the truth of god's existence' but still have no idea how to relate that realisation to their life. They've kept their tentative disbelief private, no-one knows other than the doubter (although their priest may have deduced it from certain confessions) and they've decided that it's best to keep up a semblance of belief until either they believe again or leave their church. Whilst in this 'undecided period', life strikes them with difficulty: they may lose their job, become ill, have family problems or something like that. The church community swings in to action in times like these with the aim of providing support; people make themselves available with offers of help, consoling sentiments and other perfectly normal, empathic human responses to the idea that someone 'in the in-group' is having trouble. That help is often framed by religious baggage: consolation comes with the words 'we'll pray for you' or 'god sometimes tries us, stay strong and your faith will be rewarded', 'god moves in mysterious ways', 'it's all part of god's plan for you'; social expressions that are useful to a believer, given with sincere best intentions to provide emotional support. The issue is that the doubter may no longer consider themselves to be part of that in-group and that without the core belief, those sentiments may well seem empty, even insulting. It's possible that even the idea that it's the church community providing the help could trigger negative responses such as the realisation that the help wouldn't necessarily be there if the community were aware of the disbelief. The doubter might respond in a number of ways; they could shrug off 'the baggage' and accept the help in the way that it's intended, indeed use it as a crutch for new-found belief; they could withdraw, socially, as they struggle with cognitive dissonance from their 'doubtful' perceptions of the help; they could be racked with guilt (a common catholic response!) and cause themselves harm, physically or through making poor decisions as they try to cope with their difficulty.

I've tried to create an example here to highlight circumstances in which 'good' behaviour (from the perspective of the in-group) could be perceived as 'bad' by those outside that group, with a spin that you may be able to relate to. You said in your response to Mister Agenda that you've been surrounded by people of faith all your life. Could you imagine that circumstance having arisen in your community? Are you able to see how 'help' might not actually be 'helpful' and might actually be harmful, irrespective of the intentions or 'goodness' of the giver? One doesn't need to be 'horrible' for one's actions to be harmful. Well chosen words can be damaging if badly targetted. I think the phrase 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' has some application here. Does that make sense?

Thinking about it, my initial post is a great example of my point. On this forum, the in-group are atheists so my behaviour (in this case, the way I constructed & phrased my point) is couched in language which is commonly acceptable to atheists. When you read it, it came across a completely different way than was intended. I failed to cater for the 'out-group' factor and my privilege showed by causing you offense. Does that make sense?

[Ben Davis]

That my religiosity, religious behaviour and religious identity are 3 separate yet complicit objects so although I hold certain antitheistic views, I'm no more an antitheist than I am an atheist. I prefer to look at it like this: my value systems are atheistic (they have an absence of theistic propositions) and sometimes antitheistic (they can lie in opposition to theistic values), my religiosity is irreligious, my behaviour is secular and my identity is Ben Davis.

When I'm being antitheistic, feel free to say so but remember that it rarely serves to reduce personalities to one-dimensional labels because that ignores people's intellectual complexity and is often patronising.

But I said not to do that.

No, you said that people shouldn't label themselves as they choose.

I wouldn't use 'antitheist' as my 'religious views' response because the direct reflection of my religiosity, 'irreligious', is more pertinent a response than the occasional behaviour, antitheism, which results from the incorporation of that religiosity in to my value-systems. I wouldn't dream of telling people that they shouldn't use the label 'antitheist'. I might ask them why they chose to do so and share with them, as part of that conversation, why I wouldn't.

[Shuffle]

But I said not to do that.

No, you said that people shouldn't label themselves as they choose.

I wouldn't use 'antitheist' as my 'religious views' response because the direct reflection of my religiosity, 'irreligious', is more pertinent a response than the occasional behaviour, antitheism, which results from the incorporation of that religiosity in to my value-systems. I wouldn't dream of telling people that they shouldn't use the label 'antitheist'. I might ask them why they chose to do so and share with them, as part of that conversation, why I wouldn't.

I never said that either. All I was saying is that he can say whatever he wants in his own little bubble, but I am going to keep calling him an atheist, because that is what he IS.

[Ben Davis]

I never said that either.

Really? So when you said this...

Everyone that has Anti-Theist for their "Religious Views" should remove it.

...you weren't telling people what labels they should/shouldn't use?

All I was saying is that he can say whatever he wants in his own little bubble, but I am going to keep calling him an atheist, because that is what he IS.

If someone can provide a reasonable justification (you know, so that we're not talking about nutters completely redefining words) why they want to assume a label, why would you do them the discourtesy of using a different one? From now on, shall I call you 'FootDragger' because your logic?

[Shuffle]

Oops oops oops oops. Sorry! I thought this was another thread. I just woke up. Ok, let me try this again.

No, you said that people shouldn't label themselves as they choose.

I wouldn't use 'antitheist' as my 'religious views' response because the direct reflection of my religiosity, 'irreligious', is more pertinent a response than the occasional behaviour, antitheism, which results from the incorporation of that religiosity in to my value-systems. I wouldn't dream of telling people that they shouldn't use the label 'antitheist'. I might ask them why they chose to do so and share with them, as part of that conversation, why I wouldn't.

Ok, so just a few posts ago Cato beat some sense into me, and I changed my mind about this whole topic. I agree with you now.
By the way, I thought this thread was the Neil Degrasse Tyson thread I created a while ago, so I answered you thinking it was that thread.

[IanHulett]

I had like millions of labels in my "religious views" and it got a bit excessive. So, I just reduced it to theological noncognitivist. I feel better.