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.
I'd suggest the fact atheism, in general, may be rightly termed as a belief system is a given - it doesn't seem debatable.
However, I am taking issue with the way in which the term 'anti-theism' is being employed within this statement. In current form, it's an intentional jab at worst and causes confusion in the OP at best. Anti-theism is simply a way of saying atheism.
A generalized view of atheism among many people in general is 'not believing in god(s)'. Your line of reasoning begins to fail in this sense, as the majority of atheists/anti-theists fail to meet the qualifiers (ie. extreme, religious hatred, etc.).
Let's consider what atheism is and how is it defined ...
quote:
The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is not believing in any gods.
Link - atheism.about.com
This is the primary limitation implicated within any sect of the syncretic atheistic world belief system.
One may also compare this to the similiar theological premise found within Buddhism, etc.. Continuing from that source ...
quote:
No claims or denials are made - an atheist is a person who is not a theist.
Here we seem to lean into agnostic territories, but then again, they are often confused amongst each other, no? A difference can be noted in that the typical atheist claims nothing to discuss or ponder, while the agnostic does.
This is the average sort of atheism where no claims or denials are ever made and an atheist can simply maintain their status as one who's not a theist, and so, certainly not a fundamentalist. Furthermore, there is reason to suppose one of these would accept God within their belief system or world view if presented with compelling evidence to that end.
However, this 'no claim' atheism is not at all the brand of atheism often found roaming the interwebz or here at EvC, being a debate forum and all, and much less the sect traditionally applauded and held in high regard amongst YouTube followers.
A little further & we get to the meat of this ...
quote:
Sometimes this broader understanding is called weak or implicit atheism.
Consider, there is much theology - or theory, alleged to be ‘
based on the bible', but - as we both know, in actual practice it is based on selective quotations. This, of course, necessitates the obvious requirement of selective nullification.
It's this dynamic which, imho, best explains why there are hundreds of denominations and divisions in what is refered to as 'the church' - no canon is consistent and this leads to inconsistent selection and differences in opinion concerning what should and should not be nullified, resulting in schisms and sectarianism.
Likewise, variant perceptions of life itself are not always consistent, and so, this has lead to inconsistent selection and differences in opinion concerning what should and should not be nullified as reality itself, resulting in schisms and sectarianism forming a society with definitively pluralistic world views.
This dynamic is in no way spared on the variant traditions associated within atheism.
So then, a sectarian division of atheist's which may be commonly referred to as practitioners within the '
weak atheism' movement or practitioners within the '
implicit atheism' movement result through selectively nullifying variant perceptions.
quote:
There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called strong or explicit atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.
Conversely, through this type of schism, we're likewise confronted by another sect of atheist's which may commonly be referred to as practitioners within the '
strong atheism' movement or practitioners within the '
explicit atheism' movement.
These are those on the fringe who are willing to make claims and defend them in battle. A dynamic presenting itself is the use of
implicit and
explicit within these variant atheistic belief systems. As well, we find the terms
weak and
strong, with their hierarchical overtones ringing as only church bells do.
Ultimately, as far as one can tell, these dogmatic implications naturally wreak of religious orthodoxy.
Indeed, many atheists actually oppose those your threads wishes to examine, yet theses types aren't advertised well due in large part to their lack of activism, which defines them, in support of their preferred syncretic belief system.
Work of this nature is reserved for strong or explicit atheists - a group more in line with your OP, and so your conclusion, with regards to those who may be more rightly termed militant or fundamental atheists.
Nonetheless, typical atheists are - by definition, not found making claims. For this reason, the fundamental atheist begins exposing their mythology through the claims they choose to make, as they separate themselves from the typical atheist.
In
Message 3 Paulk noted, '
The Jesus Myth hypothesis is a fringe idea, but not one that can be conclusively disproven.'.
The implications encapsulated within this statement evidently describe an activist fringe group and it's activism of this nature which ultimately separates the explicit/ fundamental/militant/ strong atheist from the average and typical atheist.
Of course that doesn't address the fact various religious practioners maintain involvment with jesus myth traditions.
The thing is, an atheist does not display themselves as 'not believing in something'.
That may be an agnostic - one who has yet to purport a stance either way, due to a lack of convincing evidence to suit their individual perception of life.
Atheists have employed the absence of evidence, and established it as concrete perception; the paradigm then rests upon the premise of this absence.
The movement then becomes as candid as any other zealot's - see smooth operator and the geocentric uprising for more complete details ...
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ...
'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary
™ Version 4.2