Atheist or anti-theist

[charlou]

I used to be strongly anti-abrahamic-god (=anti theist). Currently I would say that I don't care what people believe or think, just what they do. And that the reason why they do harm it is a fictional entity isn't worse than others.

If I had to define myself I would like it to be humanist, not atheist. I feel beyond reason a duty to mankind and to this world, and I also feel the need to try to make my presence in the world a positive one. I believe that there is good and bad, defined in terms of individual and global harm, and I can't ignore that belief. It is an important element of my actions.
Those are more in the humanism stance than the pure atheist.

You've captured very succinctly a view I share. I'm a humanist who happens to be an atheist. As it happens, my humanism played a large role in my journey out of indoctrinated theism and makes far more sense as an atheist.

[Sisifo]

I used to be strongly anti-abrahamic-god (=anti theist). Currently I would say that I don't care what people believe or think, just what they do. And that the reason why they do harm it is a fictional entity isn't worse than others.

If I had to define myself I would like it to be humanist, not atheist. I feel beyond reason a duty to mankind and to this world, and I also feel the need to try to make my presence in the world a positive one. I believe that there is good and bad, defined in terms of individual and global harm, and I can't ignore that belief. It is an important element of my actions.
Those are more in the humanism stance than the pure atheist.

You've captured very succinctly a view I share. I'm a humanist who happens to be an atheist. As it happens, my humanism played a large role in my journey out of indoctrinated theism and makes far more sense as an atheist.

I have always found strange the idea of religious humanism, although it exists. It seems a little bit like a religious scientist... Odd.

Like you, my atheism is a consequence of my humanist life stance. To tell you the truth, I kind of miss the concept of humanism, that has been washed out by the "New Atheism", as the media call it.

[leo-rcc]

I have always found strange the idea of religious humanism, although it exists. It seems a little bit like a religious scientist... Odd.

Like you, my atheism is a consequence of my humanist life stance. To tell you the truth, I kind of miss the concept of humanism, that has been washed out by the "New Atheism", as the media call it.

The media have yet to show me what is so new about this "New Atheism". There is nothing in T.G.D. or G.I.N.G. that I haven't read in atheistic essay's of the 18th and 19th century apart from some scientific advances that a Baron D'Holbach or a Percy Bysshe Shelley had no knowledge of.

As for Humanism. I've not delved very much in the whole Humanism thing. What would you say are it's main tenants? I assume the well being of humans come in the first place, but apart from that?

[Sisifo]

I have always found strange the idea of religious humanism, although it exists. It seems a little bit like a religious scientist... Odd.

Like you, my atheism is a consequence of my humanist life stance. To tell you the truth, I kind of miss the concept of humanism, that has been washed out by the "New Atheism", as the media call it.

The media have yet to show me what is so new about this "New Atheism". There is nothing in T.G.D. or G.I.N.G. that I haven't read in atheistic essay's of the 18th and 19th century apart from some scientific advances that a Baron D'Holbach or a Percy Bysshe Shelley had no knowledge of.

As for Humanism. I've not delved very much in the whole Humanism thing. What would you say are it's main tenants? I assume the well being of humans come in the first place, but apart from that?

AS in the Humanist Manifesto III

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.


Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.

[maiforpeace]

I have always found strange the idea of religious humanism, although it exists. It seems a little bit like a religious scientist... Odd.

Like you, my atheism is a consequence of my humanist life stance. To tell you the truth, I kind of miss the concept of humanism, that has been washed out by the "New Atheism", as the media call it.

The media have yet to show me what is so new about this "New Atheism". There is nothing in T.G.D. or G.I.N.G. that I haven't read in atheistic essay's of the 18th and 19th century apart from some scientific advances that a Baron D'Holbach or a Percy Bysshe Shelley had no knowledge of.

As for Humanism. I've not delved very much in the whole Humanism thing. What would you say are it's main tenants? I assume the well being of humans come in the first place, but apart from that?

Since the question was, atheist or anti-theist I did choose atheist. However, I am a member of ethical culture first, then humanist, then atheist.

What I do know about humanism relates mostly to ethical culture. My understanding of religious humanism is simply that some humanists have incorporated rituals and practices in their community that support their beliefs. So, they have chaplains to perform marriages, administer to the sick and dying, they provide moral education for their children for example. Just like Church does for Christians. There's nothing really that strange about it.

In my opinion, humanism in the U.S. was starting to take more dogmatic stances. In recent years humanism has seemingly been focusing more on the belief aspects rather than actual actions and behavior, (to define itself among other belief systems? I couldn't say) and I think this is one of the reasons why they call it the "new" atheism.

That is the reason why I ended up leaving humanism for ethical culture because it seemed like it was all talk and no action.

Ethical culture is considered a 'religious' movement. When I describe what makes us religious to others, I usually say we have all the good things that church provides, without all the dogma. We gather together in community, we work together to improve the community, we have fun, we share sorrows that sort of thing.

[Rum]

I think we are getting a bit tangled up with this thread. Humanism isn't part of the 'continuum' of an atheism anti-theist attitude I don't think. It is a moral framework, which I personally also adhere to as it happens. But it is a separate question to that raised in the IP.

I think I was trying to get at the reasons for the radical approach taken by Hitchens and others as opposed to a more relaxed passive atheism, which probably most of us here adhere to.

[charlou]

I think we are getting a bit tangled up with this thread. Humanism isn't part of the 'continuum' of an atheism anti-theist attitude I don't think. It is a moral framework, which I personally also adhere to as it happens. But it is a separate question to that raised in the IP.

I think I was trying to get at the reasons for the radical approach taken by Hitchens and others as opposed to a more relaxed passive atheism, which probably most of us here adhere to.

I think Sisifo's comment

Currently I would say that I don't care what people believe or think, just what they do. And that the reason why they do harm it is a fictional entity isn't worse than others.

was directly topical, particularly to the question about anti-theism.



Mai, wrt calling a world view and/or lifestyle a 'religion' because it approximates that of religious adherents in some way is an interesting, if personally challenging, idea, I guess. I've seen this idea before but not given it much of thought ... pretty much dismissing it by ignoring it, really.

[charlou]

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

Sisifo, while the ideals of that manifesto work for me, I don't hold the letter of it as the ideal by which all members of humanity can or ought to be considered humanist. The manifesto, on the one hand allows for variation by taking the diversity and complexity of circumstances and experience into consideration and it's that acknowledgment that appears to make it accessible and relevant. On the other hand, though, for those who subscribe to some form of theism, a supernatural stance, yet otherwise hold humanist values, the manifesto, in its evaluation of what makes a humanist, seems to ignore the circumstance and experience that leads to holding faith over evidence, belief over science. I don't think I'm any more a humanist than I was as a theist (but then I never, even then, ascribed my humanist morality to the god I'd been indoctrinated to believe exists ... and that, as I said, is partially responsible for my journey out of theism), I'm just better informed and hold, what seems to me, a world view that is now even more amenable to humanism.

[Hermit]

I think we are getting a bit tangled up with this thread. Humanism isn't part of the 'continuum' of an atheism anti-theist attitude I don't think. It is a moral framework, which I personally also adhere to as it happens. But it is a separate question to that raised in the IP.

I think I was trying to get at the reasons for the radical approach taken by Hitchens and others as opposed to a more relaxed passive atheism, which probably most of us here adhere to.

Some of the reasons why I am an anti-theist as well as an atheist are expressed by Richard Dawkins here:

• Every day, all across the world, millions of our fellow humans are diminished by religion: religion that may force them to mutilate their children, cover their hair or faces, stay silent when they have so much more to say than those who suppress them, surrender control over their reproduction, donate money they cannot afford, obey and submit to their inferiors, deny reality, forgo education, close their minds, reject proper medical care, suffer needlessly, be burdened by pointless guilt, and live with the spectre of eternal torment. Every day, religion works to recruit more victims, among the young, the sick, the poor and dispossessed, the old: anyone who is weak and vulnerable is a legitimate target in religion’s eyes.

Yes, there are theists that are perfectly unobjectionable in that regard, but there are relatively few of them. More pertinently, their preparedness to accept things on faith rather than evidence opens the way to the majority of theists who do the sort of things listed above. It also prevents those who do not actually perpetrate the cruelties to simply passively accept them as part of their credo.

[Sisifo]

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

Sisifo, while the ideals of that manifesto work for me, I don't hold the letter of it as the ideal by which all members of humanity can or ought to be considered humanist. The manifesto, on the one hand allows for variation by taking the diversity and complexity of circumstances and experience into consideration and it's that acknowledgment that appears to make it accessible and relevant. On the other hand, though, for those who subscribe to some form of theism, a supernatural stance, yet otherwise hold humanist values, the manifesto, in its evaluation of what makes a humanist, seems to ignore the circumstance and experience that leads to holding faith over evidence, belief over science. I don't think I'm any more a humanist than I was as a theist (but then I never, even then, ascribed my humanist morality to the god I'd been indoctrinated to believe exists ... and that, as I said, is partially responsible for my journey out of theism), I'm just better informed and hold, what seems to me, a world view that is now even more amenable to humanism.

I see what you mean. But I read it differently. As I read it, it doesn't require to be free of supernatural beliefs, but it states that we have an ethical responsability and that this responsibility is unrelated to supernaturalism. It is just for being human.
You know that the Manifesto has changed since it started in the 193x... I sympathize with this one, because it states a position of duty and responsibility that I have. It also starts having a hint of responsibility towards the environment; now it's not just humans for humans. It's also humans for the world.

To my liking, this reformed manifesto fell short to the expectatives. When this one came out, there were talks about the signature of an Universal Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities that was aimed to substitute or annex the declaration of Human Rights. No more "Right of humans beings to be Unharmed", but "Duty to protect human beings from Harm", No" right to be free" "obligation to protect your freedom", instead. That declaration was going to have a chapter of individual duties, government duties, and duties and responsibilities towards environment. In the end, as far as I know, the idea died.

[floppit]

Some of the reasons why I am an anti-theist as well as an atheist are expressed by Richard Dawkins here:

Every day, all across the world, millions of our fellow humans are diminished by religion: religion that may force them to mutilate their children, cover their hair or faces, stay silent when they have so much more to say than those who suppress them, surrender control over their reproduction, donate money they cannot afford, obey and submit to their inferiors, deny reality, forgo education, close their minds, reject proper medical care, suffer needlessly, be burdened by pointless guilt, and live with the spectre of eternal torment. Every day, religion works to recruit more victims, among the young, the sick, the poor and dispossessed, the old: anyone who is weak and vulnerable is a legitimate target in religion’s eyes.

Yes, there are theists that are perfectly unobjectionable in that regard, but there are relatively few of them. More pertinently, their preparedness to accept things on faith rather than evidence opens the way to the majority of theists who do the sort of things listed above. It also prevents those who do not actually perpetrate the cruelties to simply passively accept them as part of their credo.

I think RD is wrong and here's why:
He excuses their behaviour and instead blames 'religion' people mutilate children not religion. One of the biggest issues surrounding faith is one of a person's ability to determine their own behaviour. People of faith may argue that we have original sin, that god rather than man determines the course of events, we don't advance any cause to reduce brutal behaviour by joining in and agreeing the individuals who indulge in cruelty have no choice - that doesn't wash when it comes to war crimes, why should it with religion?

What would be so bad about condemning denying a child education or healthcare or forcing women to shut up and cover up without making excuses for those that do it. It's as if RD sees religion as something which came from nowhere (was he at one time religious?), if it is acknowledged that it comes from people, is used by people and shaped by people one can only conclude that it's absence will not remove the flaws of it's creators.

Last of all, and this is the bit I think is simple bad thinking, historically and currently religion is tied to struggles for power, particularly power of one group over another, to think this can be disentangled or simply ignored leaving a clear cause and effect with religion alone is surely untenable - at least as yet I have not heard anyone convincingly, or even mildly convincingly do so. One only has to look at the history of employment, child labour, the rise of unions, working hours and education of the masses to see similar issues appear simply from power imbalance and economic gain - almost every issue on RD's list could be found in something as mundane as the history of employment. Of course the Quaker philanthropists did plenty to challenge many of them.

I find that with almost every RD quote I read I have less respect for his sociology - what I can't help but wonder is whether a man so capable of incredible science is just caught up in his own battle with sincerity or simply making money, because hell, he makes more than the quiet scientists by far!

[Hermit]

I think RD is wrong and here's why:
He excuses their behaviour and instead blames 'religion' people mutilate children not religion.

To be sure, a world without faith heads will not be paradise. FedUpWithFaith put that rather well when he said: "If our wildest dreams of an atheist world are someday achieved, I can assure you that atheists will be responsible for all the murders, rapes and whatnot worldwide." This does not, however, mean that without religion there would have been the same number of abuses, crimes and sheer inhumanity as there are with it. Religions and the concomitant institutions they give rise to - in fact any institutions at all - are not mere epiphenomena of 'human nature'. They are real enablers and catalysts for actions and events, both pernicious and benevolent. For example, you don't need to be a muslim male to be circumcised, but just about every muslim male is. If you can think of a reason why such mutilation would be just as prevalent without Islam, I'd love to hear it. Another example: yes, jews have been persecuted pretty much throughout history, but I doubt that six million of them would have been systematically exterminated all over Europe in just a few years time if it was not for the SA, the SS and the NSDAP.

To repeat: Institutions (and there is not much religion without institutions) do have very real effects, and those effects are not reducible to 'human nature'. Richard Dawkins is right, you are wrong and I feel justified for not just being an atheist but also an anti-theist.

[Thinking Aloud]

I've always liked the term "anti-dogmatist" because it covers more than just religion.

[Sisifo]

I've always liked the term "anti-dogmatist" because it covers more than just religion.

And it may not cover all religion...

[floppit]

This does not, however, mean that without religion there would have been the same number of abuses, crimes and sheer inhumanity as there are with it.

Clearly evidence this - disentangled from power struggles, governments, hatred, and greed and I'll be all ears - you'll have a full blooded anti - theist and that's a promise.

If you can think of a reason why such mutilation would be just as prevalent without Islam, I'd love to hear it.

For generations circumcision was practised in the UK under the false belief that it reduced STD's and other infections, purely for hygiene. This may well have been where the religious texts got the idea to start with.

Religions and the concomitant institutions they give rise to - in fact any institutions at all - are not mere epiphenomena of 'human nature'.

Again, evidence this well and I'll be listening, otherwise it is no more than an idea tied to an idea rather than the real world.

Another example: yes, jews have been persecuted pretty much throughout history, but I doubt that six million of them would have been systematically exterminated all over Europe in just a few years time if it was not for the SA, the SS and the NSDAP.

The Chinese cultural revolution (est death toll 44 - 72 MILLION) and the killing fields of Vietnam would be two (of many) good examples, they are less well retold as stories, the victims failed to be white.