#antitheism — Public Fediverse posts on home.social

Another reason I'm becoming anti-theist, is because religion in general is another way for the corporate elite to control people as well too.
So anything that's run by corporate elites, I'm pretty much against in general.

#blog #explaining #rant #anti-theism

#blog #explaining #rant #antitheism

🇺🇦 Sean Prophet ⚛ @[email protected] · 2023-03-10 · 23:20 UTC

The question of "god-belief" is already inherently biased toward religion. When someone asks you, "Do you believe in God," from an intellectual standpoint, it's like asking "When did you stop beating your significant other?"

There's no good response to the question. If you say you "don't believe," people get bent out of shape and start pestering you with nonsense like "how can you not believe--who made the universe, then?" or "no one knows what happens after you die" and "you can't prove that." Well, duh, the question was about *belief,* not proof. On the other hand if you say you *do* believe, most people take your belief at face value as your right under freedom of religion, and leave you alone.

So what's really being asked? Do you conform? Are you willing to submit to social proof? What group identity are you willing to embrace? It's a no-win situation. You either self-identify as a social pariah, you lie, or you face-plant intellectually.

Because the question assumes its own premise, that there's a God that can be "believed in" or "not believed in." Stripped down to its essentials the question is asking you to accept that this all-important thing, hinges on the opinions of human beings.

As George Carlin pointed out, no one has to ask if you believe in the Sun.

The better question about God is, "does it exist?" Well, what is "it?" Most people refuse to define their terms. Let's take a commonly accepted definition:

"God is a supreme being, a creator and ruler of the universe, who is believed to be transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent."

This definition is absurd. Logically inconsistent and nonsensical for all the familiar reasons.

-Any creator of the universe must also have a creator, so "god" solves nothing.

-A "ruler" of the universe would mean that it's an undemocratic place. Hitchens' "celestial dictatorship" is the model for all Earthly dictatorships. Which are a horror show.

-Despite all the efforts dedicated to theodicy over the centuries, there's no way to reconcile the problem of evil with a benevolent God.

-Epicurus famous Trilemma: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

So, to sum up:

1) The question of god-belief is a nasty bit of social engineering to force you into a positive answer, with the implication that a negative response will be punished with exclusion.

2) The question of "god's" existence is logically absurd and meaningless, in addition to being unfalsifiable. Dismissed without regard or hesitation.

So "atheism" (as declared non-belief in god) only makes sense as a political reaction to the cultural hegemony of god-belief. Forget Dawkins' 7-point scale and all that jazz. Without "God" as the default position, atheism has no meaning. Nor does agnosticism.

This is why I self-identify as an *anti-theist.* Anti-theocracy. Because what's worth opposing with every gram of passion you can muster, are all the despicable things being done in "God's" name.

#atheism #antitheism #carlin #dawkins #epicurus #hitchens #theodicy #god #theocracy #agnosticism