Anti-theists (many) are Anti-Civilization-ists too

Anti-theists (many) are Anti-Civilization-ists too

They start by equating problems of religions to all religions.

But if we were to point out the differences, we would notice that it is complicated.

But if we were to spend effort to describe the differences, it would be complex, and they would say it is mental gymnastics. In fact, even if it is simple, if it's a few paragraphs so that they don't misrepresent it, they would say that they are busy and they need short answers. If it's short enough, they would do their best to pretend to not see it. And also, if you make it short by omitting details, they would misrepresent it.

The thing is, life is inherently complicated. And when one attempts to describe it, the anti-theists would accuse you of trying to make it more complicated.

But any civilization requires understanding various perspectives and ensuring everyone lives together in peace. And that requires explaining everyone's perspectives. If it isn't done well, some people will be left out.

So, in the absence of a complex description, what they want is for everyone to realize that there is no law. They want society to be one where everyone can do whatever they want, with rights forming from alliances.

More Notes 1 (On their attempts at progress) BEGIN:

But they do not realize that this is exactly what has happened. When people form alliances, the fact that many people believe in God also gets taken into account. If anti-theists were any smart as they self-centredly claim to be, they would also realize that by their own definition, most other people are not smart, and so they cannot exert force to control what everyone else thinks, when they can't even control an earthquake or tsunami.

Basically, they try to focus on what they can, and avoid focusing on what they cannot control. But then they are working on an unstable ground. Their only guarantee is the fact that they observe natural laws to be consistent. But the consistency of natural laws does not at all mean that natural phenomena will be predictable, because we simply do not know enough to predict it. And even if we try to find everything and succeed, we would only be removing the chance for any miracle - and to qualify that - any law or phenomena we failed to look into - to occur. However, I state that, with also the observable guarantee, that there will always be something beyond our knowledge.

If the universe exists, it, by that fact, implies some grounds for its existence - and you can also not know anything about that ground unless you had a direct link to it. But consciousness is one requirement for a world to exist, and it is directly immanent with us, so in that way, we do have direct access to at least one part of it.

So they do attempt to share their ideas via education. But their core idea - that we people can entirely by ourselves, change the fate of the world - is something built on shaky grounds. We can come to a high state of development, but it is only guaranteed by the foundation of reality itself. If it is inert, it simply is not guaranteed, and it is only guaranteed if it is conscious. What anti-theists love is free will, but denial of metaphysics only leaves them with nihilism, if they happen to also look at it logically. If they don't, an ignorant person's position would've never even be worth considering.

More Notes 1 (On their attempts at progress) END:

More Notes 2 (On their disagreement with prophets) BEGIN:

Now I did say that "they do not realize that this is exactly what has happened." But there is the argument that prophecy cannot be true, as it gives power to one person. But then they do not care to recognize that firstly not all religions are based on prophecy, and secondly, that many of them who follow a prophecy also use the ethical coherence of the prophecy as a rationale to follow it, and so on. Of course, it may seem absurd to some people to call them ethical, but I said "ethical coherence" - and that's two words.

One way of arguing against ethical coherence is that in the absence of a coherent theory of everything, we would have to use contradictory models for different cases.

Anti-theists however would prefer to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They are impatient and that leads to a complete disregard for other people's perspectives. Some theists do that, and doing this towards them is justified, but using their case as an argument to do this towards everyone else makes them no different. They say they don't systematically harm people, but ignorance is very harmful. Systems not only harm people, but also protect them. So being against systems simply removes any form of protection. But if they wish to make a system that is free of religion, then they are excluding many people from it. They like to frame it as equality, but it is not equality if people don't listen to other people's views.

The truth remains that religions are tolerant of more people than anti-theism is. Anti-theists claim that it is because most people are bigoted, but then that's just what reality is. At least from my perspective, I would tolerate atheists, but atheism has been taken over by materialism and further, by anti-theism. For this reason, I simply had to cut off ties with atheists, while specifically excluding the minorities like Buddhists. It is more rational now to exclude Buddhists from atheists than to exclude anti-theists, because most atheists are anti-theists now. I'm not saying that Buddhism is the only anti-theism, it's just that it's the only dominant example. I guess I would add Samkhya and Yoga too, as they are atheistic schools, although they consider there to be a revealed text from within nature.

More Notes 2 (On their disagreement with prophets) END:

Anti-theists (many) are Anti-Civilization-ists too

Backlinks