When explaining the burden of proof, Armoured Skeptic, in his video "Why being A Theist doesn't make sense" briefly made the point that a person who lacks a belief in McDonald's does not have the burden of proof. The person who claims McDonald's exists has the burden of proof, and they must demonstrate its existence with substantial evidence, such as advertisements, food, or taking the doubter to the restaurant itself. As I thought about it briefly, I began to realize this very brief explanation of the burden of proof can be used to demonstrate the position of an antitheist. There are atheists who aren't antitheists (*cough* Alain de Botton *cough*), but I am personally an antitheist, just like many of the voices critical of organized religion.
Antitheism comes from the Greek prefix 'anti' meaning 'against' added to 'theism', the belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
Why would one want to be an antitheist? Let us return to the McDonald's-ist and a-McDonald's-ist.
If an a-McDonald's-ist says he isn't convinced McDonald's exists, the McDonald's-ist has the burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of this restaurant franchise, but the anti-McDonald's-ist is someone who doesn't like the idea that such a fast food franchise exists, that unhealthy food is sold for a cheap price, and that it is the cheap diet of millions. If demonstrated that the a-McDonald's-ist is wrong, they will change their mind, but if they are an anti-McDonald's-ist, they wouldn't be happy about the fact, and they wouldn't want to partake in the food distributed there.
As an atheist myself, if I was presented with the existence of a deity or deities, I'd change my mind, but as an antitheist, I'd not be too happy about the fact that theistic beings exist, and I'm quite certain I most likely wouldn't worship or like him, her, it, or them, especially if it were the Abrahamic god found in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
I'd be interested in other's opinions of antitheism, atheists who aren't antitheists, what would be the down side to a reality where any of the world's religions were fundamentally true and evident, who would suffer from it, and who would consider themselves an antitheist?
Attachments
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Hi. I consider myself anti-theism, not anti-theists. I was indoctrinated and I'm aware of the consequences of that indoctrination, of the gulibility exploitation, so I cannot blame on others for believing and perpetuating on their kids what they think is right. My mum is a believer and she's a wonderful person, caring and honest, she's just uninformed and misleaded. She indoctrinated me because she was convinced that she was doing what was best for me...
Also, religions are the best way of creating contempt for other people, other cultures... I guess we shouldn't imitate believers, and hate people just because of their different beliefs, but to see them as what most of them are: victims and fools.
P.S. Fools because they fool themselves.
Hi, Valentin, interesting thoughts on anti-theists and anti-theism. I would put myself in Angiebot's camp as regards theists in general and theism as an abstract.
One thing I've noticed here and elsewhere is that there is some unclear etymology at work when defining what these different terms mean. The way you define it when breaking down the words anti and theism makes sense, but when you offer the McDonalds analogy it seems there is a different meaning coming into play: that it means one would be against god even if it were proved to be fact.
The reason this is problematic is that an atheist does not possess a belief in any god, deity, or whatever and would be using supposition to evoke something to be against. This is akin to saying that if Star Wars were real one would kick the Sith Lord in the nuts. Sure, it may be the way one would feel if Star Wars were true, but does one really want to define themselves by what they would be if a fairy tale were real? Actually, that's not the best example, people do that all the time.
How 'bout this? You say that as an atheist, if presented with proof of a god you would accept it. Further, as an antitheist you would despise that god. By your example an atheist cannot be an anti-theist, because to be an antitheist one must believe there is a god and be against it (ergo no longer atheist).
I think the generally accepted definition of antitheism is being against theistic religions. Which is a perfectly understandable and reasonable position when one looks at how much division and destruction they are responsible for. And to be fair, theistic religions are made up of theists and wouldn't really exist without them, so putting a lot of the onus on theist leaders and a little on all theists isn't that unreasonable either; especially when there's all these internet connected computers around the help one with facts and stuff.
The McDonalds thing is an amusing analogy, though, and definitely perfect for it's original intent.
Preference versus proof isn't a goal of mine to dangle a carrot in front of. Provenance is the usual focus in both camps. Atheism accuses theism of dreaming up the whole of theism and demands it provide proof of its claims. Theism, regardless of the claim by atheism that it dreamed up the whole drama, insists that atheism provide proof that it made the story up. Atheism provides the archeological record in juxtaposition to the biblical claims for the same timeline. Theism provides the bible as a record against the documents in the archeological evidence. Tit for tat, the line in the sand runs strong and deep. Then out of the blue comes this notion of antitheism that demands nothing but validation. So, we add another level to the claim against theism that cannot be found in purpose but rather in preference only. It more than dilutes atheism's approach and by its wholesale lack of a virtue it goes so far as to bring into question atheism's claim on credibility. Sorry, but there's purpose and there's preference and antitheism does not sport the former's reality.
Well said, Pitar. I had never even heard the term before I joined this group and got into a very lengthy debate over why to even have such a label. I suspect it has something to do with people who were true believers at some point and now are atheists and are pretty upset at having been lied to and abused for so long. But like you said, it's just a statement of preference and not very helpful in terms of an actual claim against theism. In some cases it may actually hurt the claim, because it can lend credibility to those who dismiss valid arguments on the grounds that atheists just hate their god.
C. M. Allen
Well said, sir. I label myself as an agnostic antitheistic atheist. I a) realize that the existence of any deity can never be known, proven or disproven, b) I personally don't see enough evidence on a deity to make me go through all the rigamarole that accompanies it. I just don't have any faith. And c) I'm pretty pissed at all the crap that organized religionists are doing to the world. If anyone wants a shorter version, I just say I'm an antitheist. It always takes the religionists a moment to parse that one out.
One potential benefit of antitheism is that it can lead to a critical examination of religious beliefs and practices, which can be valuable in promoting skepticism and rational thinking. It can also serve as a means of Snow Rider 3D promoting social justice and opposing harmful practices that are rooted in religious traditions, such as discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, women, or minority groups.