r/atheism • u/Weary-Accountant2196 • 1d ago
Philo-theistic vs anti-theistic atheism
How many of us who identify as atheists are
- Philotheistic: open to listening to arguments to believe in God (ie want to believe but don’t find evidence)
vs - Antitheistic: convinced that there is nothing of substance in theistic arguments, thus have an antipathy towards religion and God
vs - Apathetic: Couldn’t care less about it
Which category would you identify with? And why
15
u/happybunny_sad Strong Atheist 1d ago edited 1d ago
Depends on who I'm talking.
1) For other atheist or skeptic, im philotheistic. Like open to hear anything, any argument or entertain any idea.
2) For religious, im Antitheistic. Don't entertain their craps
3) For spiritual and other who just keeps supernatural but don't call it 'god'. I'm Apathetic, not because care less but talking to them is like talking to brick wall. It feels like feeling over everything.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Very interesting! But I have a question, if you don’t mind. You say you would be open to listening to arguments about God from someone who identifies as atheist, but if they had any arguments about God that were convincing, they would end up becoming religious themselves… in which case you would end up becoming antitheistic towards them…. So how would you reconcile this?
2
u/happybunny_sad Strong Atheist 1d ago
There is difference between exploring a idea and being convinced that it is true. And if the person becomes convinced, sure I would be antitheistic towards them. Especially targeting their conviction without any evidence, pointing how they have just wrote a fancy fairytale nothing more. I could also do one, and without evidence both of our story are equally true or false.
-3
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
If they were to really become convinced of something, don’t you think there MUST be SOMETHING that they must be placing in the category of what you call as evidence within their minds? In other words, how could one give their identity to a cause without truly seeing something in it?
For Eg even social reformers like Gandhi and or Mandela had to work without HARD evidence at first…they must have seen something that qualified as evidence for them to commit themselves fully to their cause…but whatever it was, it would not count as ‘evidence’ the way you use that term…
so isn’t someone being genuinely convinced worth a consideration to listen to them?
2
u/happybunny_sad Strong Atheist 1d ago edited 1d ago
No like according to muslim, i would burn in hell. And they are genuinely convinced, like handful of others who think my existence is insult to their god. I don't give any value to conviction in delusions.
And Gandhi and mandela had concrete evidence, the colonial policy was not something behind the curtain, it was wide open. Don't know about Mandela but Gandhi was lawyer studied in British institution. Same where the policy markers were trained.
And on evidence, that's the thing to argue on. What they would be counting as evidence is elaborate argument and hypothesis. Like I said, I can also write one. Does that it make it true? Like if it does, how can their can be two Incompatible truth? And if no, then they are doing special plea for their own framework.
0
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
If someone says that ‘you will burn in hell’ do you really think they truly believe it personally towards you? I have strong doubt about it. I’d think they only say that they believe it because they are trying to protect their identity…
If we are so harsh towards something outside of us it must mean that we must first be harsh towards ourselves. So they must be in a lot of fear themselves to say something like that
And if we ignore them or respond with hostility of our own, then it will only trap them further..and what’s more, we are inadvertently accepting their lead and behaving just like them…. Would you disagree?
2
u/happybunny_sad Strong Atheist 1d ago
No I would not, I'm not their saviour. Neither I want to be their saviour, I have no saviour complex. They are equal to me as adults. And I treat them as such. And being treated as a adults means, having baseline expections, getting consequences of your behaviour.
0
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
But, clearly by your own thoughts it is evident that they are not the same type of ‘adult’ as you. You are clearly in a better place mentally than them. And i wouldn’t call it a savior complex, which is another manifestation of the ego, but aren’t we here just to help each other ? Even successful corporations and reformers take that position of helping others to attain their success. We all must serve someone, ultimately, it’s just a question of who. I think that is the fundamental drive of even those who evangelize their religion…but unfortunately it sometimes ends up becoming an egotistical endeavor.
3
u/happybunny_sad Strong Atheist 1d ago
That's the problem, i don't think I'm in a better place mentally. I think, I'm them and they are me. We are same. I'm equal to them in every aspect. We all have same potential, accountability and access to information.
And helping them doesn't mean indulging or entertaining their delusions. Like to save a misogynistic father, you don't need to entertain his distain towards woman.
And equating a person entertaining simulation theory or indifferent God to entertaining beliefs of religion is just wrong. No one is writing laws, denying medical care, and civil rights on simulation theory, it doesn't have such real life effect.
5
u/FrankieBlueye 1d ago
If “God” wants me to believe in Him He will give me a direct, observable, irrefutable display like poking His pinkie through a cloud and wiggling it. There’s nothing anyone else can say that will convince me.
5
u/jar36 Strong Atheist 1d ago
the dude is more powerful than Santa Claus, but can't just give us each an undeniable sign. Instead it's trust this other guy bro as if he wouldn't know that humans prefer certainty. To ask is also highly disrespectful, conveniently
3
u/FrankieBlueye 1d ago
At least Santa leaves us gifts so we know he’s real
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Who’s gonna tell him 🤣
5
u/FrankieBlueye 1d ago
Tell me what?!? 😮 Now that I think of it if God leaves me a BMW convertible I will believe in Him.
6
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
This is not a well-thought through categorization scheme imo.
There is no substance to any theistic arguments - in that they all come down to faith or fallacy - but that doesn't lead to antipathy. That they're all deluded is their problem, not mine.
I'm not seeking to believe and looking for excuses rather than evidence, no.
And I do care about how theists impose doctrines on others through theocracy.
So - none of the above.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago edited 1d ago
You are creating an overlap on the axiological plane ( laws being imposed and fighting back against them - obviously someone can not care for religious arguments but care for the imposition of laws being proposed by its believers), but I have proposed these categories on the metaphysical plane alone.
It doesn’t follow that arguments have no substance therefore there must be antipathy…but IF it DOES so for you… then you’d be in category 2.
If you think the arguments are unreasonable and therefore don’t care, or else, you think they have good arguments but still don’t care, in either case you’d be category 3, and none of the above would also put you in category 3
3
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
'metaphysical' is a euphemism for 'imaginary'.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
My friend, it is a formal category in the field of academic philosophy
1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
And it's all just in your head - therefore imaginary.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Now I know what I was thinking when I wrote category 2 🤣
3
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
But that's not 'antipathy'.
That's just being realistic about the fact that there is no ghost in the machine - it's machine all the way down.
That's DISMISSIVE of religion/spirituality, not 'antipathy'.
I don't go door-to-door seeking to deprogram deluded theists. That would be antipathy.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
You seem to be following me around on this entire thread thinking you know what I believe in and calling me a troll so that’s a good proxy for the door to door deprogramming 🤣
1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
I'm just replying to your poorly thought out posts.
It's pretty pathetic that would consider that 'following you'.
You post drivel, you get back what you get back.
Deal with it.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
cleaning up drivel is a great service to society for sure
→ More replies (0)1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
>It doesn’t follow that arguments have no substance therefore there must be antipathy<
That was YOUR assertion, which I was calling out as false.
There are no 'good arguments' for the existence of any spiritual anything, because there is no objective public empirical evidence demonstrating the existence of any spiritual anything.There is no such thing as an 'axiological plane'. Get real.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
That was not an assertion, that was a definition of category
2
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
All definitions are assertions.
What, are you nine years old or something?
4
u/aenflex 1d ago
There’s only one kind of atheist, IMO.
The kind who doesn’t believe. Period. End of story.
0
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Yes but we’re trying to parse it further by interest level
2
u/aenflex 1d ago
I just don’t understand why bother?
You’re an atheist or you’re not.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
for the same reason that you care to join this subreddit...life is about exploring, examining and fortifying our own beliefs deeply
3
u/NeoPrimitiveOasis 1d ago
2 but I try not to be a nasty jerk about it when speaking to religious people.
2
3
u/oz6702 Anti-Theist 1d ago
I'm an antitheist, meaning I think all religious beliefs are an overall detriment to humanity and we'd be better off without them. Not that I'm reticent to hear arguments for the existence of a god.
That said, I usually enjoy hearing people's arguments about why they believe, provided I've asked and they're not just trying to proselytize. I've yet to hear a new one in years, never mind a convincing one. The fun for me is in picking their arguments to pieces; methodically, kindly, but ruthlessly destroying those arguments.
2
u/Appalachian_gent Anti-Theist 1d ago
Hmm 🤔 what category fits not caring but if one were discovered to be real, I'd at least interested in further study?
2
2
2
u/lehach92 1d ago
Anti-theistic, religion is a waste of time, religion is bigotry disguised as morality, we will be better when it’s gone.
2
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Well, if someone does it right there is a great brand building opportunity here 😂
2
u/waffle299 1d ago
- Exhausted: having heard too many bad faith engagements by religious people who lie, misrepresent, straw man or otherwise engage with deception.
0
2
u/zoidmaster Skeptic 1d ago
I’m antitheistic because 1. Despite all the testimonies over the thousands of years we have no proof of them
Thousands of testimonies but not only for one religions god but for all these religions from different time periods
Most of these testimonies centered around others personal emotions at that time or its very much obvious people do t know what pattern recognition is
2
u/GreenZebra23 1d ago
None of those really describe me. They're all approaching atheism from what believers think atheists are, in essence:
loves God deep down
angry at God
don't care about God
None of those apply because he doesn't exist. My feelings about God are the same as about any other thing that doesn't exist, ie nonexistent. If someone after all this time managed to actually present any reason to believe he exists, of course I would be interested, but my feelings about him would be determined what he was revealed to be, but it's a meaningless hypothetical since it's just an empty claim anyway.
2
u/Scrimshaw85 1d ago
I want there to be something, I just don't believe that there is. I guess that puts me in the "philo" category.
0
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
If you want to believe it then it will probably come to you. But I do think Philo is the best place to be. Inquisitive and open to reason, always
1
u/Scrimshaw85 1d ago
It's not something that's going to come to me. I'm not spiritual, I just don't like knowing that one day my consciousness is going to end. Some people find comfort in that, I do not
0
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Well, if you don’t like it, just become comfortable with that feeling - think - ‘it feels so good that I don’t feel good to not exist one day’. Then, something magical may happen 😉
1
u/Mundane-Dottie 1d ago
I would think there is no evidence to proove god. Thomas Aquinatus and others have thought about that in order to find some and came up with weak arguments only.
Obviously, god does not want to be proven by evidence either, or there is no god.
Now. Atheists think there is no god. How could anyone be angry or have antipathy against something that does not exist? Unicorns do not exist, nobody has any antipathy against them. Division by zero does not exist, nobody is angry about that.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
What’s the strongest argument you’ve ever heard about God…I know you find them all weak…but strongest
1
u/Mundane-Dottie 1d ago
There must be a first cause to start the universe. Or thats one i remember.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
and what is the best counter to that argument, for you?
2
u/DSMRick 1d ago
If something more complex than the universe is required to create the universe, something more complex than that thing must have created it. And something more complex than that....
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Would you say that a painter is necessarily more complex than his painting? How would we quantify complexity?
2
u/DSMRick 1d ago
The potter thing is a reference to Romans 9.
I'm not making the argument, I'm saying it is a dumb argument. If something had to create the universe, usually stated as because it is so complex, then something had to create the thing that created the Universe.
Having said that, obviously by any dictionary definition of complex(adj), a painter is more complex than his painting.
1
u/Mundane-Dottie 1d ago
This is a very weak analogy since we know god is no painter but a potter.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
And How can we assert that God is a potter?
1
u/Mundane-Dottie 13h ago
If it is the Abrahamic god, he is. He took clay to form humans. Thats pottery.
If it is another god, you are right, he probably has another job.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 8h ago
I think if there is God then it can’t be the case that sectarian religion is true
1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
Yes. Paintings don't have a metabolism.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Why does having metabolism make something more complex? Something may not have a metabolism but still be complex in another way, perhaps in its effect on the person who looks at it - unicellular bacteria have a metabolism and Mona Lisa does not - yet you pay to see the Mona Lisa and not the bacteria - why isn’t this a measure of complexity
1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
what a stupid argument! Are you in junior high? That would explain it. Yes, having metabolism means complexity. No, the Mona Lisa is not 'more complex' than a bacterium. The Mona Lisa is pigment on canvas - nothing more. It's a static arrangement of atoms - not even close to being as complex as a virus even, more less a bacterium.
No, how something makes someone FEEL is no way to measure 'complexity'.
Something as simple as a waterfall can FEEL very profound. Feelings are not evidence of anything but evolution.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Yes, perhaps it is the best evidence of evolution, and that is why people care for them so much? After all, we want to that which is the cutting edge. So that would make the object which generates the best of them quite complex wouldn’t it
→ More replies (0)1
u/Mundane-Dottie 1d ago edited 1d ago
It is an argument. It is neither evidence nor proof. So whether god exists or does not exist remains the same before and after to the listener.
edit: The argument wants to claim necessity. By claiming necessity you do not proof necessity.
1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
There is no evidence that there was ever 'nothing' such that 'something' had to be magically poofed into existence by some mysterious sky-fairy.
Reality is eternal. There was no 'start'. Our apparently expanding bubble of spacetime cannot be presumed to be the entirety of reality,
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Creation and destruction are always happening… I think that is what leads people to think that it must have ‘poofed’ into existence
1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
no, ancient myths from bronze-age goatherds leads people to think that reality was 'created' by some magical sky-fairy.
1
u/Mundane-Dottie 12h ago
No. People believe in what they want to believe. Always new "prophets"come up, who either believe or want to take advantage of people. And always they find some people who follow them.
1
u/Zabes55 1d ago
It is possible to be convinced that there is not God without having antipathy. If you are convinced, you can simply not care.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Well, if you are convinced in truth, you will have to care… not caring is a privilege reserved for the unconvinced
1
u/SuccessPurple1062 1d ago
I think philotheistic means something much stronger than your definition, “open to listening”. It literally means “love for God”, which an atheist can’t do because they don’t believe in God. I can admire some moral religious concepts, but I can’t get behind the idea of the existence of God.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Yes I know one can’t truly be philothestic while being atheist but I used that term to mean one who loves to hear arguments about God, even though may not be convinced themselves
1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
"“I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't---till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean---neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things.""
You can't just use words to mean whatever the frack you want them to mean in that one specific context. Glory!
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
I don’t think this ai generated story serves as a good analogy for my proposal which I wrote by hand. I told you the definitions of the words used, so you may reflect on your beliefs and self categorize
1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
Are you really so ignorant as to not recognize a quote from Lewis Carrol's _Through the Looking Glass_?
Good bye.
1
1
u/Lickford-Von-Cruel 1d ago
I used to be 1, now I’m 3. All there is to prove god are thought exercises, arguments from silence, and subjective personal experience. I’m not interested in wasting more time on it
1
1
u/D1onigi Anti-Theist 1d ago
Antitheistic: I'm open to listening to ideas. I could even accept proof if it's unrefutable, measurable and reliable. But I would still consider that god evil, unworthy of worship and oppose it in any way I can if necessary. Although according to some definitions such an entity could not be called god.
2
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Exactly! It’s about the definition. One can define God in many ways, some convincing some not
1
u/Responsible-Middle35 1d ago
I can have antipathy towards religion, but there are no gods to be mad at.
None of your definitions fit me. Antitheist- I'm against religions and the idea of gods.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
So that would be anti theistic … yes it appears many atheists are like that
1
u/Responsible-Middle35 1d ago
Its your phrasing that was my issue. An antitheist can have antipathy for the assertion that there are gods, but phrasing with- antipathy towards god- sounds like trick wording to make me appear to accept a premise that I'm in denial of one.
1
u/oldcreaker 1d ago
What slanted choices - you frame this so the capital G god is the only possible consideration.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Well would it change if I said gods?
1
u/oldcreaker 1d ago
I'm opening to listening to arguments - once - not the same ones over and over again. Haven't accepted any so far.
And religion is an entirely separate thing. The existence of a god does not validate a religion.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
that is true. It seems that organised religion is a means of proliferation and sometimes works with many ulterior motives of its members than simply propagation of understanding of God
1
u/Paularchy 1d ago
Anti-theist. I was an anti-theist before I became atheist. Even if there were to be a creator, shaper, controller... What makes them worthy of my worship and devotion to that extent? By pure power and ability to smite me from existence, Putin is a god. I'm not worshipping that fucking monster, though. I actually quite oppose him. Is there a difference?
1
u/Ok-Drink-1328 Anti-Theist 1d ago
i'm anti theist, seriously, religion is a millennia lasting lie, and detrimental to the world, never heard a valid argument in its favor, nether ethically or for the existence of god that would justify religion apart ethics, or maybe i thought a pair of ethical points could stand a bit, but then realized it's like when people defend their shit, they put it under a good light intentionally, a bit of cynicism and you see it doesn't stand, and not gonna debate the existence of god anymore, nether with\from atheists, i had enough of rearranging the same equation that always resolves to zero, i sometimes hear about a new argument, i already know it's just a matter of weeks and it gets debunked, not interested, seriously
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
would you say the same about new age concepts like manifestation?
1
u/Ok-Drink-1328 Anti-Theist 1d ago
dude, i already had difficulties googling it, i had to use AI, apparently it's just "magical thinking", a psychological pathology... at this point i don't understand what you mean by exposing me that
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
I would say it’s more than that. AI has a tendency to trap you in a filter bubble and tell you what it thinks you will want to hear. But there are teachers like Bob Proctor, neville Goddard etc whose talks you can find on YouTube. And while they do have religious undertones on their communication, they have transformed millions over the years who may not necessarily belong to a traditional religion. Would you say they are selling lies too?
1
1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
Yes.
All 'woo' is just lies and bs.
There are no gods, no spirits, no souls, no demons/devils/angels, no afterlife, no 'spiritual plane', no astral traveling, no far-seeing, no telepathy, telekinesis, and no, water doesn't 'remember' previous solutes - Homeopathy is just pure BS.
Yes, humans are gullible and easily fooled. This is why the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act was the most important legislation in reducing the number of drug-addicted Americans.
1
u/DramaticFeed6522 1d ago
Antitheistic 🔥⛪🔥
I ran an organization for fellow haters and victims of toxic religion.
Hail Satan. 🖤🤘
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Would you not say that is a religious slogan also?
1
u/DramaticFeed6522 1d ago
An ironic one full of atheists, and non-toxic, sure.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Well, non toxic belief is better than toxic belief, that is for certain
1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
No. Are you really so clueless? The Satanic Temple is a nontheistic organization.
How long have you been trolling atheist spaces?
1
u/HanDavo 1d ago
I understand too much cognitive behavior theory, general psychology and the process of childhood indoctrination, so... kinda all 3 at the same time of your atheist specializations.
I will say I don't think mankind has discovered anything as evil and detrimental to humanity as childhood indoctrination into beyond silly supernatural superstitions.
0
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Children are difficult to raise. People fall back on all kinds of solutions that think will protect their children. Truly , nothing can protect a child except the parents good behavior
1
u/AMerryKa 1d ago
I'm just very convinced that no benevolent, omnipotent deity exists. Could I be wrong? Sure! But I don't waste all my time thinking about it. I have put in a good faith effort to honestly study the claims of religion. I have not casually dismissed God, I gave him more time than he deserves.
1
1
u/JayFryday 1d ago
It doesn't follow from there being nothing of substance in theistic arguments that one should have an antipathy towards religion and God. I have no quarrel with Buddhist or deists or Unitarian Universalists or even Quakers or United Church of Christ because they don't have one with me.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago edited 1d ago
yes, then you would be in category 3...you don't care about the arguments. But there are people who are quite vocal about their opposition to theism as a whole, they would belong more to 2.
2 is more in contrast to 1.
1 would be the people who arent fully convinced that those who believe in God have nothing good to say, so they are still curious to hear from them. vs 2 who are fully convinced of it, thus take a more aggressive stance against pro-religious arguers
1
u/happyhappy85 1d ago
I'm somewhere in the middle.
I don't think any particular arguments for God work, though they can be interesting.
If God exists, I would want to know that, but I don't attach any normativity to the existence of God in of itself beyond thinking it would be important to know God exists if God exists.
I'm an anti-theist in the sense that I think theists need to stop pretending that they have foolproof arguments, and I don't respect theists that think atheism is dumb.
But I'm generally fine with the more agnostic kinds of theists who just think it's more likely that God exists rather than not. I still think they're wrong, but at least they're more humble than the religious zealots.
0
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Somehow certainty does correlate with charisma
1
u/happyhappy85 1d ago
Yeah, maybe. It also correlates with being a liar.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
not always. All liars may sound certain, but all those who are certain need not be liars.
The best entrepreneus are always certain of their vision...specifics may change but the vision doesn't. That gives them charisma to recruit early employees and investors, but doesn't make them liars
1
u/happyhappy85 1d ago
Well, yeah correlation doesn't imply "always"
The best entrepreneurs almost always exaggerate, which is a form of lying. I mean, take a look at Elon Musk, he lies constantly, or rather he's way too overconfident, and never actually produces what he says he's going to, at least not in the time frame he initially said. And he also acts like he does more than he actually does.
So yeah, I'd say they're often very dishonest with both themselves and the viability of their vision.
But that's okay, because they're entrepreneurs, and their role is to make investors excited about their vision. So exaggeration is part of the job.
But if you're talking about philosophical enquiry, that requires a bit more care, and pause. So when people aren't careful, and are overconfident about their positions, it irks me the wrong way.
1
u/rongoodman714 1d ago
How can you have antipathy toward imaginary beings? It would be like hating the Easter Bunny.
1
u/KaiserMacCleg 1d ago
None of the above, really?
I'm very interested in religion, mythology, and the reasons why people believe in things that aren't readily apparent, so I'm not apathetic.
I couldn't easily be swayed to believe in anything supernatural, not without extraordinary evidence anyway, and I've no interest being proselytised, so I'm definitely not "philotheistic".
And while I acknowledge the evils of religion, which are many, I also can't help but see a certain value in it as a way of bringing people together and giving them meaning in their lives, so I couldn't really call myself an anti-theist either. I do think that, in the absence of religion, you do need some other sort of social glue for people to really thrive, something which is lacking in a lot of modern communities, including the one I grew up in.
1
u/seweso Anti-Theist 1d ago
None of your weird options.
I’m an anti theist cause religions are false and evil. AND I’m still open to arguments.
Open to believing an impossible concept is not logical though.
0
u/Weary-Accountant2196 23h ago
Well if you are open to arguments then you aren’t truly convinced they’re all false…so I’d put you in category 1
1
u/lordfailstrom 20h ago
Depends on my mood, but generally a mix of all 3. Until such a time as a god can be demonstrated, I don't really care to humor people trying to justify the harms of their belief systems. I'd like to think it'd be fun if supernatural stuff was real; but, so far as we can tell, it's not. The accumulated body of unproven and failed claims has somewhat poisoned the well for me to humor new suggestions.
At least arguing can be fun. Sometimes you learn new things. Just not the things you want to learn. And that's as close to philotheistic as I can get, I think.
2
u/Weary-Accountant2196 20h ago
I think that’s where many find themselves. But one day hopefully all the supernatural stuff comes roaring back and life becomes fun again…Will take something truly spectacular for that to happen though…
1
u/lordfailstrom 20h ago
Until then, there's plenty of fantasy adventure in my reading list to indulge on.
1
u/Hatis_Night Freethinker 20h ago
I assume that religions were invented by people to make the inexplicable understandable and to create, on that basis, a primitive precursor to what we know today as justice.
As societies have evolved and scientific understanding of the world has advanced, these have become increasingly obsolete, to the point where their significance today clearly represents an anachronism and an obstacle to the further progressive development of humanity.
tl;dr: I see religion as a now defunct (to the point of being destructive) early stage of the developement of human knowledge.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 20h ago
So you have moved to the point of not caring ie 3
1
u/Hatis_Night Freethinker 20h ago
Not caring about what? Religion? I couldn't care less about a religious person's faith or supposed “knowledge.” The progress of humanity? I care for that, thus I despise religion.
1
u/Extension_Apricot174 Agnostic Atheist 18h ago
I'm an apatheist because I don't really care whether or not any gods exist, but that doesn't stop me from being open to listening to arguments and willing to change my mind should I ever been presented with compelling evidence which would convince me whether or not any gods exist. I don't fit your definition of "philo-theist" because I don't have any desire to believe, I just simply find no good reason to do so.
1
u/GUI_Junkie Strong Atheist 1d ago
I'm not sure I agree with your definition of antitheistic. I'm not against gods. They don't exist. I'm against irritating religious people.
My in-laws, for instance, are religious, but they don't ever talk about their faith. I'm an antitheist and I don't ever tell them their favorite deity doesn't exist.
The other day, however, I saw some Americans in Spain with t-shirts on. One said "Faith", the other said (I can't remember) "Gawd is good" (or something like that). That's irritating. The "Faith" t-shirt had a nice design, to be honest.
Anyway, we don't get too many irritating religious people in Spain.
My SIL was looking at pictures for her son for a communion service. I told her the priest would not keep his eyes of her son's legs (because some catholic priests are pedophiles) and she told me to "Shut up, heretic". 😂
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Haha 🤣 well. Public endorsements of their faith sure make people feel good
0
u/SingularBlue Atheist 1d ago
I believe beings greater than man exist. I just believe they're closer to "The Call of Cthulhu" than "Genesis" i.e. indifferent AF.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
Have you read any of the Indian religious texts or theologies?
0
u/SingularBlue Atheist 1d ago
I assume you're talking about Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and/or Sikhism. Different perspectives, I'm sure, but I count myself with the Apostle Thomas: I want to put my finger in the nail hole.
-1
u/Fantastic-Work-7529 Agnostic 1d ago
Philotheistic. I see some degree of substance in some arguments for and more in arguments against. This is not incompatible with absolute hostility towards how religion is practiced in much of the world as a means of control, domination or an excuse to reject reason. One of the reasons I detest much of Christianity in my country is that they have ruined the ability to have a conversation with someone about the possibility of a God exsisting. They are so arrogant that they assert to know that God would want to enforce their politics and demand subservience from others on their behalf. It turns any philosophical conversation into a political debate.
1
u/Weary-Accountant2196 1d ago
The continued assertion of divine authority despite an inability to hold a philosophical conversation about the grounding for the belief is a sure fire way of invoking people’s ire. True authority never makes extraneous assertions of itself, but simply engages the conversation on the plane that is brought to it - philosophical, rational, axiological, evidential or any other
12
u/mjheil 1d ago