Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism

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.JonEdited by Jon, : subtitle

---

Love your enemies!

Well, those are the people this thread is primarily about. I think you should read through the first thread I linked to in the OP. The position that the Christian religion was invented in its basic current form for profit and a laugh is down-right unsupportable. Clinging to this position can be nothing other than an unwillingness to address reality and reasoning.Now, don't get me wrong, I am all for people having the right to hold to unrealistic and unreasonable beliefs without being judged. But when they begin deluding themselves and others into thinking that their unrealistic and unreasonable beliefs are supportable facts, then they have rightly earned themselves the label 'fundamentalists'. Well I did actually mention two of them, and then gave some examples:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 1:

​

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.

---

There was the thread at the Skeptics Forum (link in OP) as well as the one at FA (link also in OP). If you feel that these examples were nonillustrative, then let me know what you find wrong with them so that I may present other examples that you may not consider failures. I don't think that all atheists are unreasonable, just the ones who behave in a manner similar to what I laid out in the OP, that is, just the ones who behave unreasonably.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

A:B:I think it is appropriate to label people of type A2 and B2 'fundamentalists' (as well as any potential C2, D2, etc.).This thread is to discuss the A2 variety; why their positions are unreasonable, why they hold to their unreasonable positions, why they are convinced that they are not unreasonable, etc.We've many threads here discussing those things regarding the B2 variety. Now we have one for discussing the A2 variety. Well, I'm not talking about 'typical' atheists. I am specifically saying, let's examine the atheist counterparts of folk like Buz and Dawn. I am not hoping to draw sweeping conclusions about atheism. I am hoping to look at a particular group of atheists and study them.It is my position that such a group is large enough to warrant investigation.JonEdited by Jon, : mssng letters

---

Love your enemies!

Reasonable? Reasonable to claim that a logical fallacy supports your argument?

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.

---

Not sure where I called anyone names. I might have, but I can't find it. Oh wait... calling you a 'loonie' later onread furtherreminded me that I did call them 'loons'. Which is why you're entirely not fit for having a rational discussion on this matter. As I said in the OP, fundamental atheists are convinced of the rationality of their irrational positions. A rational discussion with such folk is out of the question.If the matter up for discussion was why fundamentalist Christians are deluded into thinking the Genesis account is entirely accurate, and Buz pops in claiming that it's not a delusion, his testimony carries no weight.The same goes for you in this thread if you are going to admit, by way of behavior, to being one of those fundamental atheist loonies. If you want to argue that your irrational positions are actually rational, start a thread for them.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Absolutely bullshit. The 'anti-theistic pig-headedness' folk don't replace the rejected mythology with anythingmost people who reject the mythology rarely replace it with anything. They aren't choosing something in favor of something else; they're just rejecting the something else outright.But those are not the kind of people I want to look at. Rejecting myth is one thing; rejecting conclusions based on critical, historical research is something else. Most atheists are willing to do this. This thread isn't about them. Like I said, we can go on talking about C2, D2, etc. But there are a lot of threads here talking about theistic 'fanatics' (as you call it); I've decided to start one about atheistic 'fanatics', mostly because I don't think the topic gets nearly enough attention, and also because I think there are a good deal of atheists who do fall into this categorymore than most atheists would like to admit. People in general tend to be easily swayed into 'fanaticism', and their religious, or non-religious, views seem to rarely get in the way of that. However, their religious, or non-religious, views do impact the type of fanaticism that folk fall victim to.For example, I find that many Christian 'fanatics' tend to believe they are right because they think evidence supports their position; they think that their holy books are accurate reflections of reality; they think that reading those books and examining the evidence with a 'real' open mind are the only things needed to realize they are right: The earth was created 6000 years ago.Atheist 'fanatics', on the other hand, tend to be of the opinion that by being an atheist they are automatically tuned in to all matters of reality, reasoning, and science; by rejecting the notion of any gods, they've 'magically' thrown off the shackles of irrationality and ignorance in all matters of truth; if you just open up your mind and accept their position that there aren't any gods, then you'll realize them to be right on everything else.Not surprisingly, I think such behavior in these atheist 'fanatics' to be as ridiculous as bygone Christians thinking they could eat deadly poison and not be harmed.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

This thread isn't about Jesus.This thread is about fundamentalist atheism. Fundamentalism penetrates all spheres of belief and non-belief.The presumption that being an atheist precludes one from being a fundamentalist is not only ridiculous, but a sentiment typical of fundamental atheists.Anyone who wants to deny the existence of fundamentalist atheism is free to do so, but then there is little reason for them to continue participating in a discussion on the matter.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Very good, Modulous! Thank you for addressing the topic.According to you, there aren't any specific 'dogmatic' (previously called 'fanatic', as well) standards, if you will, in any spheres of anti-theism (except, perhaps, the obvious: 'there are no gods', but that isn't something I want this thread to devolve into).As you use the term 'fundamentalism', I too would be cautious applying it toward any groups like atheists/anti-theists. The notion of 'defining' characteristicscharacteristics shared by all members of the groupmay be overstepping the evidence. I had mostly made use of this definition:

quote:

---

fundamentalism (noun) from Wiktionary:

​

4. Strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.

---

But if my use of a word is hindering discussion, let me reverse the claim; taking the denial of an historical Jesus, do you suppose that, though not shared by all anti-theists, that all people who share it are likely to be anti-theists/extreme atheists?Jon

---

Love your enemies!

I provided two examples in the OP. That you failed to examine my evidence is hardly my problem.You can take a horse to water... but something something even if you shove his fucking nose in the god damned pond he can still refuse to drink... or another.I'll give you a hint, the FA thread had nothing to do with Jesus, but was related to what I said in the OP about it:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 1:

​

... 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).

---

Start from scratch shall we?Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Like I said, if we started a discussion on why Creationists cling to the Genesis creation myth and a 6000 year old Earth, creationists dropping by to tell us it is because it's truethe earth really is that youngwould hardly be of any value to the discussion; and we certainly wouldn't have to take time away from our discussion to deal with their trolling.I started this thread to discuss the same attitudes held by extremist anti-theists, and so far, the majority of replies to this thread have been extremist anti-theists popping in to say 'nuh uh; no I'm not!'.You can understand why, like their Creationist counterparts, I've little desire to take them seriously. I'm looking for some honest discussion here, preferably with people who aren't so obstinate as to think ignorance a purely religious phenomenon.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Well, we're not looking at generalized. Specifically, I'm looking at the atheist equivalent of religious fundamentalists.I think I've made this clear in numerous replies to objections just like yours.

---

Love your enemies!

I suppose you can call it what you'd like. I think you certainly seem to understand what I am talking about, so I'm not too concerned about a miscommunication between you and I. One thing I wanted to avoid in this thread was a worn-out discussion of whether or not there are any gods and whether or not any position on the propositions related to gods are reasonable or not. I wanted to stick to verifiable/falsifiable claims. This is why I used real-world examples: the existence of historical figures, the statements made in books, etc. My thesis, according to the OP, is that there are fundamentalist (strident, fanatic, or dogmatic) atheists making claims about the real world that are demonstrably unreasonable, unrealistic, and illogical.Nevertheless, under a false assumption that the adoption of atheism automatically makes one reasonable, realistic, and logical (or something like that), these fundamentalist atheists maintain their positions to be reasonable, realistic, and logical. And so it is as impossible to have a discussion with them on their position as it is to have a discussion with any other fundy.We can spot these folk when we find them using the same kind of shitty arguments as other fundieswith whom we're more familiar: logical fallacies, arguments based on false/nonsensical information, etc.My main question is: If these claims are so ridiculous, why do these people make and cling to them? What is the mindset(s) fostering the irrationality of irrational (fundamentalist, strident, fanatic, or dogmatic) atheism?Jon

---

Love your enemies!

What type of Christian would that be?

---

Love your enemies!

It won't; which is why I've avoiding such conflating.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

The Jesus Myth theory isn't restricted to denying the existence of only the Jesus of the canonical gospels.And this thread isn't about that theory anyway.

---

Love your enemies!

I think many of these groups have various motives. I don't think any of them are reasonable, but we all knew that already about the religious. I think the anti-theistic motives get too often overlooked and forgotten as these people crown themselves kings of rationality and reasonability on account only of their anti-theism. And why do you suppose they hold to these positions? Is extremism just one of those things that cannot be rationally investigated? Do we just call them irrational and move on?Jon

---

Love your enemies!