I know many Christians. I know some Jews.
None of them spend their time and money trying to force others to share their beliefs. In fact, the Muslims I worked with didn't, either.
These people, however, are doing just that.
It isn't enough that they don't believe, they don't think anyone else should, either.
Anti-Theism seems to be more of a religion than they would care to admit.
UPDATE: I was curious how I got a "you're so stupid" comment so quickly on such a nothing post, so I checked my logs. Turns out, Sam found me via a google blog search for the term "atheism". I guess it is cool that Vox popped up there, but who would imagine some poor guy searching for posts about atheism at 1:00 in the morning? Curious.
UPDATE 2: This old post shows, again, the difference between atheism and anti-theism. Unfortunately, the post it referenced is gone, but the snippet I grabbed at the time is pretty clear.
Posted by Vox at August 25, 2008 10:02 PM | general"I know many whites. I know some blacks.
None of them spend their time and money trying to force others to share their beliefs. In fact, the asianI worked with didn't, either.
These people, however, are doing just that.
It isn't enough that they don't believe, they don't think anyone else should, either.
Anti-racism seems to be more of a religion than they would care to admit."
Care to say something less stupid next time? Do I need to point you to the word "ideology"?
Posted by: Samuel Skinner at August 26, 2008 12:58 AMWow - maybe I am stupid, I certainly never realized that being white, black or Asian was a belief.
Hmmm, better look up that word to be sure I know what it means. "Ideology: A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system."
Yeah, pretty sure that doesn't encompass ethnicity - apparently I'm not the stupid one, after all.
Thanks for trying, Sam.
I do like the idea of anti-racism, though. Go with that. Or do I need to point you to the meaning of the words?
Hey Sam! You know a GREAT way to win people to your cause? Calling them stupid. (I think I read that in Dale Carnegie or something.)
The anti-theists remind me of certain zealous believers. Like a guy who carries a graphic anti-abortion sign near little kids. And when the parents object, he cries, "I'm just being persecuted for my faith!"
No, you're being persecuted for being a jackass.
Posted by: Exurban Jon at August 26, 2008 08:27 AMPretty amusing. I used to be like that guy. I wasn't just an atheist - I wanted to convince everybody else too. You know why? Insecurity. Any given position is easier to believe when everybody else does too. I was afraid that someone would successfully challenge my choice to not believe in God. I thank Him every day that he guided me to successfully pose that challenge to myself.
Posted by: John McJunkin at August 26, 2008 01:02 PMI have insomnia and use google when I am bored. Simple really.
The example I used is more applicable to homosexuality, but you seem not to get the point.
Mainly, trying to change other people beliefs and being ferverant are NOT requirements for a religion.
I am calling the author an idiot because he appears not to understand what the word religion means. Is PETA religious? The ACLU? The Red Cross? No. PETA is a good example- they use violence, have a message, try to convert others, etc and yet are NOT a religion.
I am aware I am an asshole and I don't deny that. However, that doesn't change the fact that your position is rather stupid. You are attacking people for... trying to convince others their position is right. You do realize that such an idea is the basis of liberal democracy? You know, words instead of force?
Technically anti-racism would be egaliatarianism, except egalitarianism has other conotations.
Thank you people for not having any valid criticism what so ever (except for Vox for pointing out skin color isn't an ideology- maybe if I used the word culture he'd accept it).
I'd also like to thank John McJunkin. Yes John- everyone else in the world thinks exactly like you. Especially the people who do so for reasons entirely differant than your own.
I do this because...
http://xkcd.com/386/
So my point is simple- calling people religious because of their fervancy is FALSE. Please have the decency to use avoid double talk.
As for the differance between atheism and antitheism, I am aware of that- I AM an antitheist.
Here is your previous post.
"A certain fringe of leftists and radical atheist libertarians would have the concept of god never surface in political thought. That position is not only naive, it is dangerous."
Thomas Jefferson was a radical leftist? It is nice to see you reject the first amendment of the United Staes. Yes, yes, I know "politics", not congress. Well, if something has to be justified on religious grounds, it is a good indicator there is no secular (aka real world answer) for its implementation. Like the objection to "playing God".
"Religion plays an important part in our politics and culture. A vast majority of people have some belief in god, and as an atheist, I don't begrudge that belief. The end result of the ethics of religion largely overlap those of my own ethics of reason. They are rooted very differently, but in the end, they agree more than disagree."
This could be said of just about any ideology- after all communists, facists, democrats, republicans and all other range over the political spectrum agree more often then they disagree. As for playing an important role... that is entirely irrelevant.
"The danger of removing god from political discourse is that, inevitably, god is replaced by the State. This was the whole point of Marxist atheism, and it is still the thrust of those leftists who would purge god from US politics."
See, this is why I think you are an idiot. You don't get what the word "secular" means. Lets look at Europe where some of the countries have removed God from politics. Or Japan. You now what the best example would be? Turkey!
And guess what? None of these countries are communist dictatorships. In fact, some communist countries allowed religion- a third of the USSRs citizens were theists and China has recently adopted the policy that religion is good for "Social Harmony" and have started regulating religion.
Still, the idea that eliminating religion leads to communism is BS- all the communist revolutions have occured in countries where a large percentage of the populations is religious and poor.
PS- Are you Vox Day? Because, I'll be honest- I have an abysmally low opinion of him. Mostly because of this:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/02/mailvox-sharpening-knives.html
On the bright side, you are vigorously logical so you might actually give a responce.
[edited, for formating only, to make it clearer what came from my previous post, and what were SS's points]
Posted by: Samuel Skinner at August 26, 2008 06:42 PMThat's a funny cartoon, Sam - and does indeed apply in this case!
When I was an antitheist 18-year old, I was concerned with what everyone else thought.
Now as an adult, I don't care about that any more.
Posted by: John McJunkin at August 26, 2008 08:06 PMQuick note: Vox isn't a "he".
Posted by: Exurban Jon at August 27, 2008 10:51 AMYou raise some interesting questions, Sam, though I think you may be missing my original distinction being Atheist vs Anti-theist. I have some thoughts that may make a whole new post if I have time later.
For now I will just say that I am not sure PETA doesn't constitute a religion for the members. Though, perhaps, my line about anti-theism being more of a religion than they would like to admit was a bit too flip and unclear.
I think, at least in part, John McJunkin is correct. There is no reason for Atheists to need to convert believers, other than fear, unless they are actually anti-theists. Just as there are few reasons for believers to try and convert Atheists, besides fear they have the desire to 'save' others.
Anyway, like I said, it could be a whole post and I am tired, hungry and cranky right now. Maybe later.
Posted by: Vox at August 27, 2008 06:46 PMExJon - I am not sure what it is, the cartoon girl at the top, the radioblog playing songs about kissing, but I have had several people, on first visiting this blog, think of me as a "he". I used to think it was the way I wrote in the early days when I was much more political and prolific (and trying very hard to impress "Edward Boyd") - but now I am at a loss for the confusion.
It doesn't bother me a bit, but I do think it is curious.
Posted by: Vox at August 27, 2008 06:50 PMYou don't care anymore? Do you want me to violate Godwin's law to show why you SHOULD care? At the very least, you should be concerned about people who are eager to screw you over.
As for he... sorry. I thought you were Vox Day. Well, it is a good thing you are not. It is a good thing I didn't assume it entirely... that would have been... embarresing. If you are curious, he wrote the book "The Irrational Atheist".
As for why people think you are he... they don't look at the bar on the top, and on the web, people assume you are either a generic individual (white, male, 30, brown hair) or exactly like them. Or they stereotype... which doesn't work here, because the stereotype is women are more religious, right?
Antitheists are people who are:
1 Atheists
2 Think religion is harmful
3 Believe they have to do something
By default antitheists would be doing things like trying to convince theists they are wrong.
As for PETA, you encounter movements. Here is the definition of a religion:
"1 b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
-Mirriam Webster
I cropped it- you can see the origional here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/netdict?Religion
Any way, the only consistancy is faith. Faith is:
"1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonyms see belief
— on faith
: without question "
Yeah- it is a logical morassous. I'm going with
"firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
Anyway, the Raelians and Scientologists have that, which is why even though they are atheists, they are a religion.
PETA doesn't. All PETA has is the moral principle that all sentient living things have the same moral worth... which means they value animals as much as people.
Morality is sticky territory, but differant moral basis do not make a religion. It is taking beliefs about the nature of reality on faith that do.
I'm making a habit of posting late, aren't I? Eh- I was busy reading atomic rocket... I love that site.
Posted by: Samuel Skinner at August 30, 2008 01:30 AMWhat is an atheist doing Googling at 1:00 am?
Dunno, but I can't believe no one posted this joke:
What does a dyslexic, agnostic insomniac stay up thinking about?
"Is there a dog?"
Posted by: Queen1 at September 1, 2008 05:54 PMI slept in late so I stayed up late so i slept in late... you get the idea.
As for "a" dog, no- but there is a unicorn.
http://www.popfi.com/2008/06/13/unicorn-deer-freaky-bambi/