I think many forms of anti-theism can rightly be called systems of irrational beliefs.
Amongst the anti-theists, and by that I mean people typically regarded as fundamental atheists or religion-haters in general, there flows a set of core beliefs and behaviors that define them as a group in the same manner that members of religious denominations hold to tenets that define their membership. Despite claims of being rational, many anti-theists most often present arguments about religious matters that are irrational and unreasonable, and even seek out religious topics to which to apply these irrational, unreasonable argumentsi.e., they target dissenting opinions with irrational, unreasonable garbage arguments. The great danger, here, of course, is that their belief in their own 'unreasonable reasoning' prevents reasoning with them on any matters relating to religion about which they've already formed their beliefs: They cannot be reasoned with in matters where they are behaving blindly unreasonably.
As with all people, of course, their statements are not always irrational, unreasonable, and/or wrong. But unlike their rational, more reasonable counterparts (agnostics, weaker atheists, etc.), they often succumb to the same reasoning errors, illogical mental gymnastics, and sophistry typical of religious apologists. In this they reveal their positions not to be supported by reasoning and rationality, as they claim, but instead to be supported by irrational and unreasonable beliefs. The greatest harm comes in their false portrayal of themselves as being rational and reasonable, when they are not. Thus they fail to recognize rationality and reasonability and are so incapable of understanding arguments based on rationality or reasonability regarding the beliefs to which they cling.
One of the primary beliefs and behaviors that I have seen in this group is the rejection of the reality of any real basis for religious belief. Another is the willingness to resort to bullshit, illogical argumentation strategies for any possible opportunity to 'bash' religious beliefs.
Here are some examples of what I'm talking about, and some of the threads that inspired me to propose this topic.
In a thread on another forum, I've been participating in a debate about the death of Jesus and its significance to Christians as a human sacrifice story. Here is the OP and the author's thesis:
quote:
kennyc in Is the crucifixion story just a spin on human sacrifice? at The Skeptics Society Forum:
I was watching this: Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk&feature=playe...
(Great video on its own, but not totally relevant to this topic)
and at one point he talks about human sacrifice (to cure the king of syphilis or to bring the rains) and it suddenly struck me that the whole Jesus crucifixion story is really just a "human sacrifice to the gods" story that has been spun and adapted and modified to fit the christian religion. Human sacrifice to save the society....
My first reply was this:
quote:
Gremled the Great (Jon) in Is the crucifixion story just a spin on human sacrifice? at The Skeptics Society Forum:
Since the 'christian religion' didn't exist at the time of the crucifixion, and not even for several decades after, I find it difficult to believe that the crucifixion was designed to fit a preconceived worldview.
In reply to me, the OPer wrote:
quote:
kennyc in Is the crucifixion story just a spin on human sacrifice? at The Skeptics Society Forum:
There was much propaganda of a savior etc. way before it happened. It doesn't matter if it had a name or not. The point is the event was just an magnification/enhancement/spin of prior human sacrifice events within the developing religion, just as "God" was a combination of prior gods but spun into the christian god for fun and profit.
And then there was this malarkey:
quote:
OlegTheBatty in Is the crucifixion story just a spin on human sacrifice? at The Skeptics Society Forum:
You are assuming that the crucifixion actually happened, and that Jesus actually lived, though neither premiss has compelling evidence to support it.
If, as evidence suggests, the Jesus mythology was created decades later, then the crucifixion portion is a form of human sacrifice, with the authors of the myth doing the sacrificing of their story's hero (but not really, cause they bring him back to life a few days later) for their own purposes.
After a short volley of posts in which I requested some evidence for the claims, I was hit with the typical reply from people who have nothing to support their fantasy delusions:
quote:
kennyc in Is the crucifixion story just a spin on human sacrifice? at The Skeptics Society Forum:
You need to educate yourself on the history of religion and gods.
Shocked to see self-proclaimed intellectuals closing their mind to reasoning and evidence, I did more research and found out that there is a whole movement of these loons:
quote:
Wikipedia on Jesus Myth Theory
New Testament scholar Robert M. Price, who argues it is quite likely there never was an historical Jesus in the sense that the Gospel version is in essence a composite character and therefore unable to be reasonably verified as a single historical person, writes that the Jesus myth theory is based on three pillars:- There is no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources.
- The Pauline epistles, earlier than the gospels, do not provide evidence of a recent historical Jesus.
- The story of Jesus shows strong parallels to Middle Eastern religions about dying and rising gods, symbolizing the rebirth of the individual as a rite of passage. Price writes that Christian apologists have tried to minimize these parallels.
What I take from this is that these people (anti-theists) are willing to close their minds to any reasonable evidence or discussion in order to continue under the delusion that no religion (especially the currently popular ones) could possibly have its origins in any actual historical events. Such closed-minded bias used to support a position contrary to any reasonable interpretation of reality is what is typically referred to as fundamentalism, which is an extremist form of belief. What is most important to this observation is not the belief itself that is held (the real Jesus may well have been so different from any accounts of his life as to be unrecognizable to any modern person studying the matter), but the fact that the belief is held and clung to in the face of reasoning against it.
As another example, let me link to a thread at FA, which I already linked to once in a different thread here about a different topic. In an effort to bash religious beliefs in any manner possible, the OPer in that thread has been arguing for and clinging to a set of ridiculous beliefs regarding the origin of the OT God, most notably that he was originally worshipped as a volcano (or something like that).
Here is a link to one of the later posts; I think reading from there to the end of the thread should be sufficient to demonstrate the utter lack of reasoning or evidence for TheJackel's claims, as well as his standard of argumentation, which consists of openly using logical fallacies, quotemines, strawmen, irrelevant 'evidence', and much more. As an example, he states:
quote:
TheJackel in An interesting questions for Christians at Friendly Atheist:
1) Your very reply, or post here is direct evidence that supports my position.
2) Things like G-lock, deep water blackouts, and sedation also support many key points of my position
3) Information theory is evidence for my position, digital physics is evidence of my position ect ect.
4) Total lack of ANY evidence on your part is evidence for my position..
5) Your inability to reply without using information/energy is evidence, and proof of my position.
6) My correct use of the terms use such as "Omniscience", 'Omnipresence", ect are evidence for my position.
Thus, I conclude that it is highly likely that anti-theism (extreme atheism, religious hatred, etc.) meets the minimal standards to rightly be called a belief system, and an extremist one at that, driven by the same type of ignorance, mental gymnastics, and sophistry so typical of any other religious fundamentalism.
But I imagine there are some here who disagree with me, so I'm open to a discussion.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : subtitle
Love your enemies!
™ Version 4.2
(1)
