Talk:Antitheism/Archive 1

Diderot on the entrails of priests and kings

I note that the famous quote is attributed here to Diderot. However, the Article on Jean Meslier claims it for Meslier...and I note that the Wikiquote page for Diderot has a similar but not identical quote. Was the (actual) Diderot quote an allusion to Meslier? (This seems plausible) Which is the canonical soucce?

kthnx bai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Satanism

Is Satanism also anti-theist? Or is it actually a form of theism? I could find no reference to it on the this page or the theism page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.55.168 (talk) 09:56, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Satanism would be theistic, as to believe in a divine force of evil you need to believe in divine forces to begin with. And they'd need to believe in the Christian conception too--a Hindu Athiest wouldn't believe in any gods, but would have especially no reason to believe in another religion's devil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.247.91 (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Satanism has both theistic and atheistic forms with the latter being most common. Atheistic Satanism treats Satan as a metaphor. http://www.dpjs.co.uk/serpent.html#SINR Heihachi 02:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about the topic, rather than the article

is there any discussion going on on this topic???

well all i wanted to say was y should anti theism have anything to do with god's existence???

i beleive that anti theism should be about taking cognizance if the poison that is religion

do tell me if u agree or disagree

Wikipedia does not decide what a word's definition is, or what it "should" be; WP:NOR requires that we only list what other noteworthy sources (like dictionaries) have defined terms as, and not that we try to decide everything for ourselves. Wikipedia reports and organizes information, it does not generate entirely new conclusions. As for "taking cognizance if the poison that is religion" (incidentally, I'm delighted that you used the word cognizance while also spelling "you" as "u" and "why" as "y"; beautiful), that sounds closer to antireligion, which is opposition to religion, than to antitheism, which is opposition to theism. -Silence 09:53, 27 February 2006

Can Someone please clean this section up, and preferably remove the quotations to dictionaries. It is unnecesary, and confusing.

POV

"Some sources, particularly religious ones, have defined antitheism as opposition to God, holiness or the divine rather than simply as opposition to belief in God, theism." You can't be opposed to something you don't think exists. We should not be taking information about antitheism from theists.

According to that definition, an antitheist couldn't be an atheist because, as you said, they would have to hold belief in one or more gods in order to oppose them. Satan, for example, would fit that definition because it is opposed to God in Abrahamic mythologies. And all views can be presented, but you must say who holds those views. We can't say "the world is flat" or "creationism/intelligent design is true," but we can and are supposed to say, "some Christians believe the world to be flat and creationism/intelligent design to be true." For more information read WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 01:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I, as an antitheist, find nothing POV about that statement. It is simply stating that certain proponents of theism have argued that atheism or antitheism is "denial" of or "rebellion" or "opposition" against their god. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Term differences

• Antitheism is the opposition of the belief in god.
• Atheism is the lack of the belief that God even exist.
• Antireligion is the opposition of religon.
• Irreligion are those who have no religion.
• ****** is the opposition of god.

The difference should be noted! Monkey Brain 19:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the article. Antitheism has more than one possible meaning: it can either refer to opposition to the "actual" God, or opposition to belief in god (i.e., "anti-theism", opposition to theism). -Silence 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

hah, you're correct. things should be clearer though. So do you or anyone know what the term for opposition of God is?

There is no generally agreed term. --Dannyno 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert Flint

Does it make any sense to devote such a large part of the article to Robert Flint's views, given that they do not refer to either of the modern meanings of the term? Judging from the quoted section, he clearly uses the word "anti-theist" to mean "non-Christian". mglg_(talk) 19:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. He uses it as an umbrella term for all opposition to monotheism, not to Christianity. Originally I think the Flint section was in a different place in the structure of the page. The word "antitheism" has no generally agreed meaning, so it is useful to account for its historical usage by influential 19th C. contributors such as Flint, as well as "modern" usages such as that by Hitchens. But perhaps the quoted extract needn't be so long. --Dannyno 20:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

He does not refer to opposition to anything; he considers polytheists and pantheists to be anti-theists, not because they are actively opposed to anything, but merely because they hold different views. I did overstate it when I put the word Christianity into his mouth, but he certainly does not refer to monotheism in any broad sense, but to a restricted class of monotheisms that believe in a "supreme, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient, righteous, and benevolent Being, who is distinct from, and independent of, what He has created". In any case, this is not the anti-monotheism page. mglg_(talk) 22:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

He refers to "antagonism" which certainly qualifies as opposition, I would have thought. Also the word "opposed" is clearly there in the quote. However, Flint's definition does not capture the sense of "opposition" or "antagonism" that you find in Hitchens. My point, though, is that Hitchens' definition of antitheism is as idiosyncratic as, and no more privileged than, anyone else's. --Dannyno 08:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Deism

I was thinking. This article places too much emphasis on Atheism. Anti-theism merely implies by it's definition, an opposition to "theism". Atheism is not the only philosophy that does this.

Deism{and it's offshoots; PanDeism/PanenDeism}, as well as Agnosticism, and others; have many adherents that are adamantly opposed to Theism{and revealed religion,etc}. Some of us{I myself am deistic} consider ourselves very Anti-Theistic. But the impression given is that Anti-Theism is simply a synonym STRONG Atheism{or as I like to call it, "Adeism"}, which is not true.

Now, this article does'nt say OUTRIGHT that Anti-theism is a form of Atheism, but it still seems to imply it; and non Athiest ideologies{except perhaps Agnosticism} seem to be ignored. People reading this article will not easily get the impression or knowledge that one could be say a "Deist" and be also Anti-Theistic.

Therefore, I was wondering if someone{myself, or anyone here} could make that distiction in the article. Mention Deism and Agnosticism as beeing compatible with Anti-Theism, and poit out that Anti-Theism is NOT a synonym for "Strong Atheism". Also, perhaps the article could mention that Anti-Theism can act as an umbrella and uniter for all non-theists that are opposed to "Theism". I have allready done this in fact, and within a few hours it was deleted.

I was also thinking that the "Militant Atheism" section should be perhaps delated, or at least mentioned as one form of anti-theism. Because the article as awhole seems to point back to the "militant atheism", as if Strong or Militant Atheists have a monopoly on the term "Anti-theism", frankly- they don't and should not. The term belongs to ALL non-theists whom oppose theism{including agnostics and deists}. Atheists can be simply Adeists{opposed to all concepts of "god"-whether as first cause and impersonal,etc; or whether as a theistic,anthropomorphic sky-parent} and be simultaneously "Anti-Theists". I am a deist, but also proudly a Anti-Thiest, I would like to see the term "anti-theist" be shared in the public domain as something that any non-theist can be, not JUST Militant Atheists.

Thoughts?

--Irreverand-Bill 00:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that theists can be antitheists, while theists can't be atheists. I can be against theism, while still being a theist, just as I can be against sexism, but still be sexist. I agree that the article talks about atheism too much, as antitheism isn't inherently atheistic, but the reason for this is most likely because people often equate atheism with antitheism. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 02:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Lift?

Is this article a lift of the experts.about.com article here: http://experts.about.com/e/a/an/antitheism.htm Or has this article been taken by About.com?

The about.com article seems to an exact copy and no credit is given in either direction...

Jspr 04:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

About.com copied the article, but that encyclopedia is entirely a copy of Wikipedia articles as far as I know. It does say that it's from Wikipedia at the bottom of the page, though. Don't forget that contributions to Wikipedia—including all contributions to the antitheism article—are licensed under the copyleft license, GFDL. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 02:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

French Revolution etc..

I've removed the para "It is important to note, however, that these quotes are from a period where Christianity was a state religion. Thus, they are a result of the political structures of the times, and not nessesarily directed at theism per se." from the discussion on the French Revolution. This is both unsourced and wrong: Although Roman Catholicism (not "Christianity") was a state religion in pre-revolutionary France it was not bby 1773. NBeale 08:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Cross-posted (paraphrased) from NBeale's talk page:

NBeale added a section including, "in revolutionary France, where in 1773...", citing Michael Burleigh's Earthly Powers. But of course, the French Revolution didn't really get under way until 1789. Could this be a typo for 1793, maybe? I'd appreciate it if someone could double-check that (and maybe double-check Burleigh, for that matter, if he does indeed claim 1773). --John Owens | (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Antireligion -- Discussion

I vote against merging these two articles, although maybe we should merge both with atheism. The antitheism article may need independent merging with atheism (which is a better article) but since theistic religions are a subset of all religions, these clearly are not the same thing. It may be the antirelgion article should also be merged with the atheism article but then broken back out under a different name, since it is essentially a list of professed strong atheists, not really much of an explanation of antireligion (whatever that is!)--Jaibe 14:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I too suggest that they not be merged. To my understanding, in the simplest of terms, Atheism, Antitheism, and Antireligion mean the following:

Atheism: a personal disbelief in the existence of god or a divine entity.

Antitheism: a strong opposition to the belief in any god as well as to those who do believe.

Antireligion: a view that religion, especially organized religions, can be dangerous, separative, and/or destructive.

Assuming these simple definitions are correct, someone who is an Antitheist must also be, by definition, an Atheist. However, you would not have to be an Atheist or Antitheist to be an Antireligionist, although one could also assume that most Antireligionists probably are, at the very least, Atheists.

They seem quite different to me and therefore I think they should not be merged. (Some more Antireligion wikinfo would be nice.) --Formadmirer 02:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Antitheism: a strong opposition to the belief in any god as well as to those who do believe"

Shome mishtake, shurely! Antitheism doesn't imply opposition to theists; merely to their beliefs.

There may be antitheists who are opposed to theists themselves, but this would be an idiosyncratic position. The opposition of antitheism is to theism. --Cdavis999 (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Merging the two different concepts would cause problems. Many believers of non-theistic religions are antitheistic but not antireligion. I will take down the tag now unless an argument is made for merging. Shawnc 02:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dumped a lot of material

Well, there, I now dumped all the material on this topic form two titles covering this very same issue. I think the subheading "militant atheism" and "evangelical atheism" should be kept separated, but now the current atheism section should be integrated into the militant atheist one. --Merzul 15:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Relationship between Antitheism and Miliant Atheism

I think this article is a bit confusing about the relationship between Antitheism and Miliant Atheism. As far as I can see there are 4 sets, each of which is a subset of its predecessor(s):

1. Atheists
2. Antitheists
3. Those described (rightly or wrongly, but not irrationally) as Militant Atheists by commentators in relaible sources - some of whom (eg Dawkins?) do not so self-describe
4. Those who rationally self-describe as M.A.s (eg Lenin)

Can we find a way of clarifying this? NBeale 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds fairly close, but not quite, I'm afraid. I'd quibble with "but not irrationally", as I think Catherine Fahringer (referenced in the article) has dealt with that comprehensively and eloquently. I'm also not convinced by the idea of calling "militant atheists" a subset of "antitheists". I think MA is just one of many terms applied to those who, either by self-identification (Lenin) or by having the label thrust upon them (Dawkins), are more anti-theist than just plain vanilla-flavour a-theist. In other words, I think militant atheist (along with atheist evangelist etc) is roughly synonymous with antitheist (in denotation, though perhaps not in connotation). The real trouble, though, is the connotation stuff. I imagine you'd object to an article on Rabid Christianity (and no, I'm not advocating one), and you would probably feel insulted if I called you a "rabid Christian". Militant athiest isn't so far from that sort of language - that's the trouble. Snalwibma 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite interesting, we have been discussing the term militant atheism regarding Dawkins. Have you guys seen his TED speech, there is a true gem at 4:58 into the talk. --Merzul 14:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that "militant" just means "practicing". It has connotations with "military", but that wasn't the origin of the word. 92.6.234.176 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC).

The term "Militant atheism" is a hoax

This article is full of weasel words, such as "militant atheism". If you have a problem with so-called "militant" atheists, why not account for "aggressive", "militant" Christians, all of which you will find spouting their apologetics in the US media, and on university campuses. Having the temerity to criticise religion/belief in theism does not mean "intolerance", especially when one considers that outspoken atheists such as Dawkins, Dennett etc. are peaceful in their approach. By calling outspoken atheism, "militant" you are calling the criticism of religion/theism a personality type, rather than a methodological approach. It also manufactures a false dichotomy between strong atheism, and violent religious extremists, who, in the media, are often, and rather dishonestly compared to those who subject religion to analysis. Blind designer 00:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Militant atheist" is not a weasel word as understood on Wikipedia. There are some other problems here, but WP:WEASEL is most certainly not the issue. Weasel words are statements such as "Many philosophers argue...", so I will remove this tag, you can add a more appropriate tag or point out specific problems where the text violates Wikipedia policy. --Merzul 17:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, found one "Christian apologists argue", but that's already been tagged. --Merzul 17:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Richard Dawkins himself used the term Militant Atheism, most notably in his 2002 speech at the TED conference. Here is a link: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113 Dreamfoundry (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that it can be strongly argued that Richard Dawkins was attempting humour by merely using the term ironically, under the understanding that his audience was as aware as he was that even back in 2002, vocal atheist critics of religion would often be labeled militant atheists by religious apologists and the media, even though those critics didn't self describe as such and often objected to the use of the term. 92.0.245.16 (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just the atheist brand of Holocaust denial. I mean seriously, what do you think the Soviet Union was? If you can deny what happened in the Soviet Union, you can go around accusing religions of being violent without hurting your own ethos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.177.17 (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Which of the people today labelled "militant atheist" advocated murdering religious people?

"Communism was evil not because it was irreligious, but because it was too much like religion" --Sam Harris/ BillMasen (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That only further proves the point that atheism can behave as a religion. Atheists hate it when people say that, but I now see they like it both ways. You can say the atheists that killed people (for not being atheists, and don't tell me this didn't happen) were the religious ones, while the peaceful ones were the real godless. Therefore, you can blame all other religions for killing people, and say that atheists are all pacifists. Actually, Stalin even called his own anti-religious administration the "Society of the Militant Godless."

And many seem to think the world would be so peaceful without religion. That is too specific. What would be more accurate is that the world would be peaceful if everyone believed the same thing about God. Even the Islamic terrorists use this same argument: "If everyone were a Muslim, then there would be no more terrorist attacks, and there would be world peace." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.178.159 (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Origins of atheistic evangelism

There are many dubious claims there that are in dire need of reliable sources. NBeale is objecting to this section, and I think he is right. Please provide some sources for this interpretation of an otherwise notable agnostic as an atheist evangelist. --Merzul 22:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. I am also very doubtful about the sentence "The atheistic evangelism standard since then has been carried by many scientists and social theorists, including Ludwig Buchner, H.L. Mencken, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris." Who says these people are carrying any sort of standard labelled "atheistic evangelism"? Sounds like putting a spin on things to me! I think this whole sentence can be deleted, unless there are good sources that indicate a specific assocation between the term "atheistic avangelism" and these four people. Snalwibma 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• and the standard that they carry... It's very poetic writing though, "the atheist evangelism standard"... --Merzul 22:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have deleted the sentence about carrying standards. Nobody has come here to defend it, nobody has tried to make it make sense or relate to any verifiable source - so it's now gone. And - next candidate for deletion - what's all this about "New Activism"? Where is the source for that phrase? I think it's just a label applied by some religious commentator, or maybe even a new coinage by a wikipedia editor. Time to delete all that stuff too? I think, in fact, that the sections on "militant atheism" and "atheistic evangelism" can probably be reduced to a barely more than a couple of sentences saying that these are among the labels used, generally pejoratively, to describe an extreme antitheist stance. OK - maybe the Russian revolution stuff needs a bit more space - but most of the recent examples are just empty name-calling, and can go. Just my opnion, of course... Snalwibma 22:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps this "New Activism" can be renamed "New Atheism" as that is at least used sometimes. We are then basically covering all the labels of Dawkins :), except outright offensive ones like atheism fundamentalism. Now, about the lists usage examples, if there is any hope of getting them into a narrative then that's okay, but just a collection of usage is not very encyclopaedic. --Merzul 12:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tabash - dubious

I've removed "Edward Tabash, an atheist attorney based in California, states his purpose on his website as follows:

The arguments against the supernatural are powerful both from a philosophical and scientific standpoint. These arguments must be put before the public so that everyone will have access to the compelling reasons for coming to an Atheistic worldview, before deciding whether to believe or not believe. [ . . . ]

My ultimate goal is to help Atheism become so widespread and universal that when people state that they do not believe in God, we will not be able to tell, from that statement alone, what a person's position may be on a wide array of political issues. I am hoping that people from all over the political spectrum and from many diverse points of view will be able to come together and agree on the naturalistic reality that prevails in our world.

It is long overdue for Atheistic arguments to be given a seat at the table of the marketplace of ideas in today's world. I have established this website in the hope of providing a platform for the dissemination of these arguments.

There is no evidence that Tabash is notable at all from his article, and if he is indeed marginally notable he certainly doesn't deserve the prominence given here. It is too close to advertising. NBeale 07:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Millitant and Evangelical Atheism

These terms are in no way related to antitheism. 81.228.195.119 19:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"Militant atheism" is a term used by theists to describe antitheists, so it is relevant. However, "evangelical atheism" is less popular. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary theory and the concept of God

(Evolution, however, neither implies nor is implied by atheism, so this linguistic usage is effectively idiomatic.)

I have deleted this as it is too debatable a proposition to appear in parenthesis in a matter of fact way. I think that evolutionary theory very much undermines the idea that there is such a thing as God in most of the world religions - particularly the Abrahamic ones. This stems from the Old Testament/ Tanakh proposition that Man was created in the image of God and that the first humans were Adam and Eve - a story which most Jews, Muslims and many Christians subscribe to. Johnny.d2007 14:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that evolutionary theory very much undermines the idea that there is such a thing as God in most of the world religions - particularly the Abrahamic ones.

And yet the Catholic Church - a religion not without influence in the world - officially accepts evolution by natural selection. After all, the theory leaves open the possibility that a deity directs the process - so-called Theistic Evolution.

Seems to me that evolution no more intrinsically undermines religion than heliocentrism did; and religions seem to have gotten over that one. If some religions see evolution as a threat to their entire worldview, that is a problem for them. The discovery - by Nasa et. al. - that the earth is not covered by a crystal firmament is no less of an issue: I understand that some flavours of Islam believe that the Shuttle flies through 'holes' in this firmament to reach orbit.

But while these discoveries may be said to provide support for an atheist position that the world we inhabit results from natural processes (which is an corollary rather than the primary atheist stance), they can only 'undermine' religions that choose to stake their validity on such discoveries being invalid.--Cdavis999 (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Communism Issues

I have a hard time swallowing the ties this article makes to Communism and the USSR in general. Furthermore, the article is rife with connections with various fascist and militant groups that have nothing to do with the philosophy in general. None of the people who instituted the 'crimes' intimated here ever claimed to be capital "A" Antitheists. Instead, they were Marxists or whatever. This should be cleaned up and shortened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micahfaulkner75 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right - there may have been a particular anti-atheism (neocon?) POV at work in those sections. Go ahead and clean 'em up! Snalwibma 09:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And what are Marxists? Hmmmm, they wouldn't be atheists, would they? It's like saying Nazis aren't antisemitic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.188.86 (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Opposition to theism

Is this not just called science? 51kwad (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Along this line of reasoning, the more appropriate word would be "naturalism." Soylord (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Soylord

Wow, that's not arrogant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.168.223 (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Intolerance vs. Intolerance

So, essentially, the Anti-theists lay claim to Humanistic morals and Libertine tolerance all the while being completely intolerant of those whom they don't share beliefs with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlon (talk • contribs) 00:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I cannot speak for all antitheists, I know a great number of them (including myself) are perfectly "tolerant" of theists. We, however, maintain that people shouldn't believe in gods even though they have every right to. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)