Essay talk:Why I am not an anti-theist

Nice work, but I spotted something odd. The end reads "And that is why I am an anti-theist." Missing a word there? Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks, fixed it-- "Shut up, Brx." 23:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Can't follow the logic here
It seems to me to be:
 * P1: Science cannot arbitrate morality. (True)
 * P2: Anything that can't be directly observed is not part of science. (Questionable)
 * ???
 * C: Anti-theism is wrong.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Anti-theism in the context of treating science as the only worthwhile epistemology. You get people that say all claims should be scientifically valid.  I find them really annoying.  And really, that seems to me to be the principle root of anti-theism.  -- "Shut up, Brx." 01:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be scientism, not anti-theism. In addition, anti-theism can be driven by social and political concerns rather than scientific ones. (Think Karl Marx.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, not quite (also, Why I am not a scientism-ist is more awkward a title than I'm willing to allow). I covered objection to (all) religion on social and political concerns (the bits where where I talked about the possibility of somebody being inspired by their religion to do bad things).  I determined that it was silly to assume the future of any ideology, since any ideology can spur anyone to do bad things.  And Karl Marx was not an anti-theist.  Karl Marx  simply saw that religion was often used as a tool to keep people down.
 * But at least, I'm glad that you get the gist of what I'm saying, even if you don't agree (not saying you don't, just saying I'm glad you understand) or that we are thinking of different categories. Sometimes, I have trouble expressing my thought process.-- "Shut up, Brx." 01:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just cutting in here, Karl Marx was indeed anti-theist, though only in the sense that it was part of the problem, not the problem. He saw it as a tool for keeping the lower classes down, and the rejection of religion as a salve against mistreatment as the precondition to class consciousness and a revolutionary outlook. Also, you're basically saying that because an ideology disagrees with the existence of religion might do bad things, it's views on religion are invalid. If an ideology views religion as merely a hindrance, rather than a moral wrong, than this does not follow in the least. Heavy Metal Jesus (\m/ \m/) 01:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see Marx as an anti-theist. He was not opposed to religion in and of itself, but rather as a means of either justifying inequality or distracting the masses.
 * I think the essay does cover all anti-theism, in the sense that anti-theism is fundamental opposition to religion. If that doesn't work for you, then just treat the term anti-theism in my essay as meaning "fundamental opposition to religion" instead of whatever you feel it means.-- "Shut up, Brx." 02:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In regards to your edit summary, I am a marxist...so I don't really care if someone refers to me as such. Although it may violate the Demeyer Laws, I think a direct quote is in order:
 * Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
 * I bolded the relevant parts. As you can see, he definitely did not take a shine to religion as a direct concept. Not for moral reasons, but because it was holding people back. It was not a means, but rather a part of the superstructure that those who controlled the means of production had created and supported. You are defining all opposition to religion as being based on moral grounds, when that simply isn't the case. At least that's the only reason I can think of for disqualifying other ideologies because they may or may not have committed actions which are morally unsound. So perhaps you should add something about this being about anti-theist on moral grounds to the title. Heavy Metal Jesus (\m/ \m/) 02:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)