[Serious] Comfort in Faith at Death

[The Grand Nudger]

We can sanitize the debate between antitheism and positively valued things and people by referencing a dead culture.

Massively summarizing the Havamal to just two statements. Don’t be an idiot, and be generous to guests. Neither of these things seem objectionable in surface analysis, no more so than the nebulous idea of comfort in distress. What antitheism contends in both cases is not that comfort, wisdom, and generosity are bad things, but that in the context of divine mandate and the subtext of human psychology they each -become- so.

The wit and group generosity of Norse dictates necessarily constrained targets of violence( this was their explicit purpose- regardless of whether they were fully effectual). The divine voice mandating these things left human beings with a need to export their otherwise internecine violence to achieve full piety.

In this way, theism transformed wit and and generosity as the twin crutches of raider ethos. As hitchens put it....religion poisons everything. Not just our base urges but our loftiest aims.

Maybe that helps to clear up antitheisms rejection if otherwise positively valued things and people? Yes , comfort is good, but the aim of comfort is predictably subverted through the conceit of divine license or mandate.

[Shell B]

Pretty big blanket you're making your bed with there, buddy.

Sure, but since that’s a function of the grand winners in theists forever war, the theists themselves don’t have much say in the matter.  They either believe in their silly religions, or they don’t....and if they don’t, is their religion the thing comforting them, in reality?

Yet another argument for antitheism.

Sure, doesn't mean it's a good one.

There is a metric fuck ton of theists and religions. It's ludicrous to put all of them under the same umbrella and say they all serve the same function. They can partially believe in their religions as well. Of course, it's their religion comforting them. They're comforted by the idea of seeing their loved ones again, of being at peace and knowing it, of remaining conscious after death. They don't have to fear it if it doesn't exist.

[The Grand Nudger]

You’re not absorbing this at all. Antitheism contends that -theism- is shitty, not theists. I can paint theists with a broad brush only insomuch as they correctly qualify for the title, theism, denoting a common belief shared by them all.

You didn’t want to make this about any particular theist, and antitheism doesn’t make it about any particular theist. It states that - theism- affects good and bad people in similar, predictable, and historic ways. The individual believer doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and theism, warts and all, can’t persist without them.

Theism does not refer to the belief in an afterlife. It exploits that belief ( or desire, or fear). Not for comfort, which it doesn’t specifically or demonstrably provide... but for control, which it does. This will mean nothing to the newly departed, because they’re dead...but it does play on the heartstrings of those who remain alive by conflating and cashing in on our attachment to the departed- just as it’s done in thread.

.....to a bunch of atheists....

[Shell B]

Sigh. When you say "theists are . . " etc., I'm responding to your posts about theists. I'm not debating antitheism. I'm talking about things you have said in this thread. I'm not interested in trying to absorb your train of thought. It's a nightmare.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because all theists must satisfy the criteria that makes calling them a theist accurate, shell.

I can note, for example that all theists believe in a personal and intervening god. That’s what makes them theists in the first place, lol. I can further note what this belief in a personal and intervening god is used for in the context of death, or the common effects of such beliefs in death (and in life). That makes it s discussion of whether a given theist is an active participant or a useful rube. This distinction doesn’t matter to anti theism anymore than the factual existence of a god would, or anymore than some specific and factual comfort arising from theism would.

Imagine a god exists, imagine people really do find comfort in their belief in this specific god. Neither of these two things argue against ( or even approach) the basic contention of antitheism.

[Shell B]

You've completely lost the thread of the conversation we are having.

You said this:

"Theists are vultures who pray on that fear"

I responded to that. I didn't even begin to discuss the validity of antitheism with you. I responded that you have made blanket statements about theists, not theism.

Then you said:

"You’re not absorbing this at all. Antitheism contends that -theism- is shitty, not theists."

I wasn't talking about antitheism, but rather your massive and inaccurate blanket statement.

Try to respond in a sentence or two. It might prevent this:

[The Grand Nudger]

Because they are. That’s a function of the variant of theism that eradicated all others in western culture. It’s not specifically their fault, just what the movement has been groomed to accomplish. Hell , the earliest Christians didn’t even believe in the afterlife contemporary christians do, it’s just that the contemporary afterlife is a much more effective hook to sink into human flesh with.

Antitheism approaches god belief as s phenomena of culture and human psychology, not as a condemnation of specific believers or beliefs.

Thus I remind you that the specific beliefs do not produce comfort. That’s s physiological response to distress found in human beings regardless of what or even if they believe... and even if it where a property of some specific set of theistic ideas....it’s not a free lunch.

You don’t have to agree with my assessment of the relative value of that comfort against the strings attached, but it would help for you to understand how, that, and why comfort is irrelevant to a given antitheists assessment. I -expect- people to find comfort and to communicate that in whatever way dominate their cultural narrative, as we’ve always done.

[Shell B]

I find value in that comfort, as their afterlife narrative is a more beautiful thing to look forward to than most of us can dream up. It would be much easier to think you’ll see someone again than to think the opposite. Tell me what else can give a similar comfort. You have yet to describe these other comforting things.

You still contradicted yourself by referencing theists and then claiming your argument is about theism, not theists, yet another reason why antitheism has an unsavory flavor.

[The Grand Nudger]

As already mentioned, there’s nothing wrong with comfort and ofc we all find comfort valuable. Also, as already mentioned.... theism does not refer to the belief in an afterlife. Anti theism, not anti comfort or anti afterlife-ism.

I don’t think that what’re comfort theism is supposed to provide, which is highly debatable in and of itself, is worth the noted effects of theism. You may not be able to imagine comforting notions equal to an afterlife( and specifically a contemporary Christian afterlife, no less).... but others can and do, and that’s not what theism or antitheism refer to in the first place.

If that’s your main objection to antitheism it’s entirely equivalent to objecting to hockey because you don’t like the taste of slurpees.

[Shell B]

Can you name these equally comforting notions? I specifically asked you to if I recall correctly.

Did I say it was my main objection? I can't remember, but your analogy is terrible. Many, many theists only believe the romantic aspects of their religions, doing wonderful deeds in the name of Christ, and finding comfort in the notion of heaven. It's like being fine with hockey in general because you if you remove the face bashing, it's an all right thing.

Now, did you or did you not talk shit about theists and then say your argument was against theism, not theists, because you're really skirting right over salient bits of this exchange.