?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Atheists versus anti-theists.

I despise anti-theists. If you don't know what they are, I shall explain: anti-theists are to atheism as rabid "convert the heathens!" creationists are to Christianity. They PROSELYTIZE. Anybody who isn't an atheist is, in their eyes, a complete moron and must be converted or destroyed. And even when they claim to be aware of Hinduism and other many-god models, they still retain some ridiculous fucking notions. I made the mistake of arguing with one earlier on Facebook. Like her Christian counterparts, she doesn't listen to anything I say except to deliver arguments that don't make any fucking sense. She claims to know about polytheism but can't explain how her arguments, tailored to the monotheistic view, apply to the polytheistic model. All she could come up with was the same bullshit that if "they" had the power to end human suffering, and don't, then they were evil. I tried to point out that humans find it difficult to cooperate with one another, what makes her think gods would find it any easier, and she just repeated herself. Which is a classic sign of a proselytizer: no matter how intelligent they may be in other regards, there's something inherent in the proselytizer reality-tunnel that inhibits thought. I have never heard an intelligent argument about anything that anyone was proselytizing about.

From genuine "I don't believe but I don't care if others believe or not" atheists, I have had some fascinating and wonderful debates with. But anti-theists? It's like Robert Anton Wilson said: "When dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases." The more rigid your thinking about any subject, the smarter you will seem to yourself, and the stupider you will sound to others

Here is the bulk of a comment I made that explains:
I used to be an atheist, too, but then I learned how to think outside of my humanocentrism. Humans tend to think they're so important, and so any gods, if real, should pander to all of their every desires. They tend to think that suffering is evil and thus anyone with the power to end suffering is evil if they don't. But if it weren't for suffering, then humans would not have evolved to begin with. Then people tend to assume humans are done evolving, which is absurd. Of course we're not done evolving! And so we still need suffering, to motivate us.

And then there's the biggest human hubris: the belief that because humans think they're so important, that God or gods should agree.

In my religion, Yahgahn (which I freely admit is a neo-mythos religion), the only truly omnipotent deity is Kohraindehr, who is the All of Everything. But Her mind is so vastly beyond human comprehension that no human could ever hope to communicate with Her, let alone be noticed by Her. She runs the whole fucking universe, which is unimaginably huge, and an infinite number of alternate universes as well, and it would be the height of hubris to think such a being would notice us when we are, from Her POV, a dust speck on a dust speck on a dust speck.

Then the other gods in the pantheon are like the Lwa/Loa of Yoruba - powerful ancestor spirits, but not all-powerful. Not even within the bounds of the planet are they all-powerful. They can help out, though. And they're not so much worshiped as worked with.

It infuriates me when theists and atheists alike have such limited, humanocentric views of gods. Either gods must be humans writ large, and completely good, or they are either evil or worthless. Because (sarcasm) humans are the pinnacle of creation/evolution, the whole fucking universe revolves around them, and so anything that doesn't recognize our obvious superiority is obviously worthless. (end sarcasm) How fucking CONCEITED! How fucking limited! Yeah, we all have limitations; human minds are tiny compared to the universe, and so even I have limitations. But it pisses me off when I seem to be one of a small percentage of people who recognize my limitations and try to surpass them.

And therein is my problem with atheism. If you don't believe in gods, then fine, whatever. But don't try to use limited, bullshit logic to defend your position; don't use arguments that are only tuned to a certain extremely narrow reality-tunnel. Myself, I would be perfectly happy if you simply said "I don't believe in god/gods." It's when people not only prove themselves to be extremely limited, not only prove themselves to be unaware of how limited they are, but seem completely oblivious to their limitations even when they are POINTED OUT, that pisses me off. It's THAT kind of bullshit that makes your behavior no better than when limited theists pull the same shit for their own side.

So yeah, if you're atheist, then fine. It's a perfectly legitimate POV. But things like the picture above don't do anything to help your cause. The people who hate you for being an atheist will never EVER listen to you, and the people who are fine with your being an atheist get pissed off at your anti-theistic dogma. And there's a major difference between being an atheist and an anti-theist. Atheists simply don't believe in god or gods, and don't care what others believe as long as it's not made into law. Anti-theists are the "must convert the heathens!" of the atheist world, and a lot of what you post and comment comes off as you trying to convert people to atheism. But surely you know how much proselyzation pisses people off? It doesn't matter WHAT position you're proselytizing.

Anyway, I will leave my comments there. Because you've probably ignored everything I've said anyway. Talking to you about this subject is just as bad as trying to talk with a raving creationist.
It is because of anti-theists and proselytizing "skeptics" that one of the rules of Yahgahn is "No proselytizing!" Because it doesn't matter what the proselytized belief is: PROSELYTIZERS TEND TO BE DICKHEADS BECAUSE PROSELYTIZING IS A DICKHEAD THING TO DO.

And all this ties in with my frustration whenever I see "intelligent design versus evolution." Why can't it be BOTH? Why can't it be that some all-powerful being created the universe designed SPECIFICALLY TO EVOLVE? Specifically so that life could evolve? Why does it have to be one or the other? Why must humans so often think in such black and white ways? "Intelligent design OR evolution, not both." "Gay or straight, you can't be both." "Male or female, you can't switch sides or be both/neither." Fucking infuriating!

I really need to learn to avoid talking with people like that about the subjects they're dogmatic about. Because not only is it pointless because dogma makes people stupid, it's further pointless because, again in the words of Robert Anton Wilson, "Communication is only possible between equals." And dogmatic points of view ALWAYS have "My position is superior to yours" as an inherent attribute.

Like my LJ title says, "Opposed to rigid modeltheism"!

EDITED TO ADD:

* Oh lovely, dogmatists that refuse to believe they're dogmatists.
* Dogmatist about atheism: "no belief is involved." You know, strangely, I have heard a Christian dogmatist use that exact phrase. Dogmatists tend to believe that their belief is self-evident.
* It doesn't fucking matter WHAT I say, NOTHING is getting through to this person. I have literally had more meaningful conversations with street signs.
* This person has begun resorting to ad hominem attacks and parroting my words back at me. I am fucking tired of this bullshit, it is the conversational equivalent of banging my head repeatedly against a stone wall. UNFOLLOWING POST AND UNFRIENDING. I honestly don't know why I didn't do that months ago.

This was cross-posted from http://fayanora.dreamwidth.org/1172225.html
You can comment either here or there.

Comments

( 1 comment — Leave a comment )
kengr
Sep. 6th, 2013 05:06 am (UTC)
And all this ties in with my frustration whenever I see "intelligent design versus evolution." Why can't it be BOTH? Why can't it be that some all-powerful being created the universe designed SPECIFICALLY TO EVOLVE?

Because that's not what "intelligent design" *is*.

So-called "intelligent design" says that all the traits are *designed in*. That is that all the features/differences of various species are the result of deliberate design *decisions* by "god".

That's why it's either/or. Because "intelligent design" is *specifically* set up to be *anti*-evolution.

You've fallen into the same trap you are accusing them of. You didn't pay attention to what they were actually saying when they talk about "intelligent design" but instead "defined" the phrase the way *you* wanted it to be.

( 1 comment — Leave a comment )

Profile

mourning
fayanora
The Djao'Mor'Terra Collective
Fayanora's Web Site

Latest Month

August 2019
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Taichi Kaminogoya