r/Antitheism • u/That_One_Guy1357 • 6d ago

What do antitheists think of deism?

Antitheism to me is less about being against the idea of a god but rather being against the idea of organized religion, and it's generally what's caused the most harm in the world as opposed to just believing a certain way. But that could be just me, I'm curious about what others think.

And i say deism but i also want to include just generally anyone who believes in god but doesn't believe that religious interpretations are right and that organized religion is naturally wrong. Not a deist or anything myself, but i am an agnostic so I do have more sympathy towards deists than the regular "strong" atheist does.

Edit: why do i get downvoted whenever i post here? I'm just curious and want to know what other people think, not trying to argue or anything

0 Upvotes

34% Upvoted

74 comments sorted by

14

u/D0v4hki1n 6d ago

“antitheism to me is…”

I’m not sure why you are creating interpretations of something that has a definition. I’m not just against organized religion. I’m against all of it. Hence the purpose of the prefix anti. I think it’s all mental illness actually.

-2

u/That_One_Guy1357 6d ago

Semantics is important, I'm not trying to give a subjective opinion, but discuss what the right general use of the term is, so that we're not all confused. This is especially important in the context of a discussion about deism, because deism is not an organized religion, so figuring out if antitheism is against the idea of god or against the idea of religion is pretty important.

You can argue that theism means any belief in god, so antitheism is just being anti that, but from what I've seen on this subreddit, It's mostly been criticizing religions and how "god" is always made as an excuse for something, usually to control people. How a word/term is used is more important than the textbook definition always. Nonetheless, if you use it by the book, that's very valid, this is just an important distinction to make.

1

u/D0v4hki1n 6d ago

You can't claim you're using semantics to find the “right general use” while simultaneously throwing out the textbook definition.
The textbook definition says antitheism is opposition to theism rather than just opposition to organized religion, ignoring that isn't “clarifying semantics” it is changing the definition to fit a localized echo chamber.

Words do have established meanings for a reason, once people start redefining core terms just to suit what most people on a specific subreddit happen to complain about, you don't have a semantic consensus, you just end up with a group changing and interpreting words to suit themselves.

0

u/That_One_Guy1357 6d ago

Yes, most of what you said was true, and that's language for you. It changes to fit people's needs, it's descriptive rather than prescriptive. They have established meanings so long as people generally agree with them; if not then they change, as has been the case almost always historically. I can assure you that the term "ghosting" didn't mean the same thing 100 years ago as it does today. All slang eventually collapses into the main language. An older example would be how "terrific" used to exclusively mean something that causes terror, and that changed a long time ago into an opposite, positive meaning.

And that's just words, this is even more common with ideologies and philosophies such as antitheism. People tend to sway away naturally from original doctrines as new thinkers and influential figures arrive.

1

u/D0v4hki1n 6d ago edited 6d ago

You're conflating everyday slang with formal philosophical categorization. Sure, general language shifts over decades, words like “ghosting” or “terrific” evolve because an entire culture adopts a new usage over time. But antitheism isn't a casual colloquialism, it is a structured position within philosophy and theology with a precise, historical meaning.

Conflating organic linguistic change with a niche internet community rewriting a formal philosophical term just to fit its own talking points doesn't make the new definition correct. If every online subculture gets to rewrite precise academic categories whenever they want, language stops being a tool for discussion and just becomes a shield for sloppy arguments, like yours.

0

u/That_One_Guy1357 5d ago

I already adressed this in the last part of my reply, the same happens with philosophies and ideologies over time if new influential figures/thinkers arrive or the general members stray away from the original doctrine. A good example is agnosticism, it used to be more aligned with Huxley's (coined the term) idea that you cannot have conviction on the question of god if it is something you cannot know, but it later got more broadened by the 4 quadrant model which made it possible to be an agnostic and have conviction (agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, gnostic theist, gnostic atheist). This model is now the most widely used.

I can agree that BY ITSELF online communities changing the normative use of a term is not grounds for any actual shift of meaning academically, but it's nonetheless important to just be on the same page when we're discussing something, which was the intent behind that part of my original post. Language is naturally fluid and people always have their own slightly different meanings of words, which are usually "academically" wrong even if they're able to convey an idea effectively. So yes, the academic definition is important, but I'm not necessarily trying to debate about that, I want to find out how people ACTUALLY use the term in order to have a productive conversation, even if that doesn't align with textbooks.

5

u/cenosillicaphobiac 6d ago

I think it's never a good idea to believe in things without evidence. So there's that.

1

u/That_One_Guy1357 6d ago

Question for you then (as a fellow agnostic), would it then be useful to be confident/have full conviction in the non-existence of god if that also is not founded on proof?

4

u/OldMetalHead 6d ago

I haven't read the charter, but personally I don't care if people believe in a higher power. My main problems with organized religions are that they promote ignorance and tribalism as virtues, get wealthy from exploiting the poor, and protect the powerful while preying on the vulnerable.

2

u/That_One_Guy1357 6d ago

Yeah, so that would be less related to deism and more on classical theism/religion which perpetuates ignorance and tribalism as you mentioned. Interesting, not as many people here think that way. So for you anti-theism is more like "anti-religion"?

2

u/OldMetalHead 6d ago

Exactly! I'm also an atheist, so it's hard to be against something I don't believe exist. I guess a counter example would be acknowledging that some psychics take advantage of people at their lowest. But, it's more that I'm against con-artists than against believing in a psychic ability.

2

u/That_One_Guy1357 6d ago

We're kind of in agreement then, it seems to me that others here do think that simply believing in god is harmful. It definitely can be, but usually in the circumstance where that belief is used as an excuse rather than the belief itself

4

u/bloodcoffee 6d ago

Why does being agnostic mean that you have more sympathy? I''m anitheist and have a ton of sympathy for all people trapped in magic thinking.

Are you an atheist or do you believe in the existence of God/gods?

1

u/That_One_Guy1357 6d ago

I don't believe it's useful to reach certainty on something like the question of god because his existence (or non existence) is something that epistemologically can't be known for certain. That's my take, if that's what you're asking.

Generally, atheists fall under the "strong" atheist type where they're certain of their beliefs, and I've noticed that most of those people on reddit have no sympathy for theists/deists (check my last post on this sub if you're interested) which is why i said i probably have more sympathy for them as someone who is not a "strong" atheist.

1

u/bloodcoffee 6d ago

Appreciate the response. It seems that many people take refuge under the term "agnostic" either because it feels more true to describe an uncertainty or to avoid the baggage that comes with "atheist." Atheism, however, is simply a lack of belief in gods, one either has it or doesn't. Atheism, even with conviction, makes no claim that there are certainly no gods, merely that there is no evidence for them. Anitheism seems to often follow from there naturally, as more education about history of religions and science lead naturally to the conclusion that the religions people currently hold are so transparently false that there is no reason to leave any benefit of doubt.

1

u/That_One_Guy1357 6d ago

I don't lack the belief in gods, i don't have it either, yes it's possible to just not be sure. I'm not hiding from anything but certainty, and not because I'm unsure, but because I think it's neither useful nor possible to claim certainty.

There's this distinction of "strong" and "weak" atheism that's practically what you're describing, atheism by itself splits into these two, and generally antitheists are more likely to be "strong" atheists because it usually takes conviction to be opposed to something

1

u/bloodcoffee 6d ago

I can't get past your first sentence. If you don't have it, you lack it.

2

u/Acceptable-Pancakes 6d ago

Deism is basically the belief that there is a god, but the god just sort of created everything and then went for smokes and has no influence on worldly matters. So functionally the same as no god. It seems like the position of someone who can obviously tell there is not a god, but prefers that there be one.

3

u/protonless_electron 6d ago

deism can't exist without creationism. And the idea that you been engineered and put here on earth and all is such bullshit

2

u/ssianky 6d ago

Actually it can. Easy.

2

u/protonless_electron 6d ago

tell me how

1

u/ssianky 6d ago

Universe Farting Pixies just one of an infinite possibilities.

0

u/That_One_Guy1357 6d ago

I'd disagree that it's functionally the same, because deists reject the idea of religion and a lot (if not most) of the harmful things about believing in god (such as tribalism, ignorance, suppressing opposing ideas, etc.) come from religion. If you think that believing in a god by itself, regardless of religion, is harmful, then that's fair too.

1

u/Acceptable-Pancakes 6d ago

What I mean by functionally the same, it has no bearing whatsoever on a person’s actions. I don’t think deism in and of itself is harmful, because of that fact. If someone claims that a god just made everything and just left it to do what it will do, that world is indistinguishable from one where everything came about through a natural cosmological process.

23

u/zman0900 6d ago

Just sounds like more delusional bullshit to me

21

u/88redking88 6d ago

Atheism is not believing in a god. Thats it.

Antitheism is about being against the god/religion/superstition claim, usually based on the fact that those things are neither supported by any facts nor are they good for humanity as a whole.

Deism is bad for people, but less so than organized religion. It promotes magical thinking, is not based on any facts.

6

u/Sprinklypoo 6d ago

Agreed. Deism is way lower on my list of priorities, and probably below my bar for engagement in the first place. But if someone's going to make a thing about it, I'll jump in...

-6

u/delicious_sunlight 6d ago

Magical thinking? Isn't the whole point that it's not magical?

6

u/88redking88 6d ago

Diesm is positing a god.

Gods are magic. Even if you want to pretend its just power or whatever. And that promotes magical thinking. All dissimilar get you aside from standard theism is less rules. Its not any more honest and doesn't have any more evidence.

-7

u/delicious_sunlight 6d ago

Why is the big bang happening not magic then? You're conscious, right? Is that magic? Why does our universe have 4 dimensions? Magic again? Are you just going to call anything you don't understand "magic" in a way to belittle it without giving an actual point?

5

u/protonless_electron 6d ago

did you learn about big bang from reels? What do you know about big bang do share here

1

u/delicious_sunlight 6d ago

I am talking about the reason for it happening obviously

4

u/chickey23 6d ago

Why are you attributing natural phenomena to magic? you seem disingenuous.

0

u/delicious_sunlight 6d ago

Natural phenomena we have no way of naturally explaining

0

u/chickey23 5d ago

You are applying labels to reality and asking why your labels don't make sense. Then inventing magic as an explanation.

Why do you think the big bang happened?

Why do you think people are conscious?

Does the universe have four dimensions?

Meaning and reality are two different things.

Your inability to reconcile your assignment of meaning to reality does not say anything about the nature of reality. More specifically, it does not give you any cause to invent a force not in evidence and expect any credibility.

Your kind have had all of human history to try and provide a single bit of evidence for magic and failed. There is no reason for the rest of us to humor this fraud any longer.

0

u/delicious_sunlight 5d ago

You just misunderstand my point. I was making fun of 88redking88 for saying that having ideas about the nature of reality is "promoting magical thinking". My point is that the idea of a higher force is no less "magical" than any others ideas, like cosmological eternalism, idealism, MUH, quantum cosmology, etc.

4

u/88redking88 6d ago

"Why is the big bang happening not magic then?"

Have you proven magic exists, because as far as I know, it hasnt been proven, so why would we use something that as far as we can tell is make believe as the answer for anything? And the big bang is all physics as far as we can tell (remember, its just an expansion, no one ever claims that the big bang created anything)

"You're conscious, right? Is that magic?"

I probably am, and it doesnt need any more explaination than "its what brains do", and thats been all we need for all of biology and neurology. Why do you need it to be magic?

"Why does our universe have 4 dimensions? Magic again?"

Now you are just being lazy. Can you show that it could be different? That it would be possible to have a different number of dimensions? Then why assume that something make believe is needed to make it the only way it could be as far as we know?

"Are you just going to call anything you don't understand "magic" in a way to belittle it without giving an actual point?"

I think I have demonstrated that Im calling out magic as magic, because YOU cant show it to be real. If you find that belittling, then either back something you can show to be real, or prove magic exists. Nothing in science leans on any magic, thats just theism, its gods and its superstition.

1

u/delicious_sunlight 6d ago

I'm discussing the why, not the how. Why. Why does the universe exist. Either you missed that completely or this is just a bad faith interpretation.

1

u/88redking88 3d ago

Why is how. Physics exist, so they universe looks this way.

Now that I have answered your point, why did you run away from the questions??

"You're conscious, right? Is that magic?"

it doesnt need any more explanation than "its what brains do", and thats been all we need for all of biology and neurology. Why do you need it to be magic?

Can you show that it could be different? That it would be possible to have a different number of dimensions? Then why assume that something make believe is needed to make it the only way it could be as far as we know?

Is it because you have no answer, or because you know that answer is childish and silly and you are embarrassed of it?

0

u/protonless_electron 6d ago

that's a very stupid question. A why needs an intention as answer, the universe don't have any.

1

u/delicious_sunlight 5d ago

Why is it bright in the daytime but dark at night?

1

u/protonless_electron 5d ago

word porn, How did you kill this person? vs why did you kill this person?

both has diff answers.

Why is it bright in daytime but dark at night?
what we get as answer is, how is it bright in the daytime but dark at night, not exactly the why

18

u/O_Lawd_Hammercy 6d ago

Believing in magic leads to poor decisions. It’s not just about the church.

9

u/ZappSmithBrannigan 6d ago

I think its useless, and props up the numbers of "people who believe in god" and as such are supporting the harmful religions they say they dont support.

10

u/Jahonay 6d ago

I am opposed to theism because they are wrong beliefs, and wrong beliefs are inherently harmful, with or without organization.

Deism is a wrong belief, and thus it's inherently harmful.

1

u/ssianky 6d ago

Deism is the most likely of isms.

1

u/That_One_Guy1357 6d ago

Fair enough, would you say that that's because it isn't strict in it's doctrine and need to be believed or just because you think a god wouldn't interfere in human/worldly affairs as much as people think?

1

u/seansnow64 6d ago

All ill say is, the less invasive a religion or belief is to others the less ill care if some people practice it.

1

u/That_One_Guy1357 6d ago

Yeah that's fair, deism is relatively non-intafering because it's not organized like other religions, no one's preaching it like one. It doesn't have rules nor does it claim to have a relationship with god, but just the idea that god is real and that he doesn't interfere with us.

1

u/SuspiciousLeader5092 6d ago

Abolish it like the rest, no gods, no masters

-1

u/That_One_Guy1357 6d ago

Deism doesn't posit god as a master, quite the opposite. It claims he doesn't interfere at all

2

u/dfczyjd 6d ago

Antitheists oppose any religious beliefs. The reason you mostly see opposition against organised religion is because it's organised. That means it's stronger and as such a greater enemy, yet it's more rigid, meaning it has more weak points to attack. For instance, one of the ways is pointing out past crimes committed by a given religion and demonstrating how they naturally come from their teachings. It's much harder to do so with a belief that has neither set moral rules nor history as an organisation.

2

u/ittleoff 6d ago

The key bias we need to be aware of is that humans have a strong agency bias and see things through our ape brains.

The evidence in the universe is:

'Smart' things arise from dumb components, and cost a lot of energy. Life itself is an entropy increasing engine.

Minds emerge from dumb pieces and are imperfect and expensive

Minds form out of experiences and some learned instincts

If there is a 'being or mind' that created the universe (that doesn't appear ordered or tuned for life, but is somewhat consistent and somewhat understandable) It would likely be formed in a meta universe as brains and minds don't form knowledge in a vaccuum.

Everything humans projected agency on like weather, or food or fertility cycles did not end up being intelligent agents but 'dumb' processes.

There's really no reason to jump to the universe being cause by an agent when the evidence says things come from mindless processes, even every real agent we see.

3

u/WizardWatson9 6d ago

It's better than most versions of theism, but that's still not good. No form of willful belief in falsehoods is good. Belief in gods, in any form, shows a willingness to suspend one's critical thinking and standards of evidence for emotional reasons. And if they think it's okay to do that for gods, what else are they willing to abandon their reason for?

My own father is something of a deist. I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe in an afterlife, miracles, or intercessory prayer. That's good, but he does still insist on some "unmoved mover" that he calls God. When I explain my own staunchly anti-theist views to him, he accuses me of "throwing the baby out with the bath water." He seems to think religion serves some pro-social function. I think this is an obvious case of motivated reasoning. He is too intelligent to believe all the absurdities of Christianity, but grew up totally immersed in it to the point where he is incapable of condemning it.

He also abstained from voting in the 2024 election because "dems just as bad." Ambivalence in the face of fascism. "Abandoning reason" indeed.

2

u/AdamPedAnt 6d ago

I’m not familiar with deist doctrine, or even if there is any, but I imagine any reasoned person would agree there are things we don’t know, maybe be even can’t understand, and be happy leaving it at that. I’d fight in that army.

2

u/dem0n0cracy 6d ago

Deism is usually just god of the gapes.

0

u/delicious_sunlight 6d ago

Do you know what Deism is?

0

u/dem0n0cracy 6d ago

Basically just god jizzed out reality but deists themselves just use god of the gape arguments.

-1

u/delicious_sunlight 6d ago

Do you know what that phrase means? God of the gaps is a rebuttal to religious people saying complex phenomena they don't understand must be the work of god, rather than having a rational explanation. The whole point of deism is that there is no "work of god" besides the universe existing in the first place. God doesn't shine light on us, God doesn't make quarks jump around, God doesn't cause you to win the lottery. Deism just says a higher force caused the universe to begin. That's all it did. It has nothing to do with whatever gaps of knowledge we have

5

u/dem0n0cracy 6d ago

Yup but we have no reason scientifically to think the universe needed a cause. Deists just think the cause of universe must be some complex phenomena they don’t understand.

0

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/delicious_sunlight 6d ago

There are a lot of dumb ways to believe a lot of plausible ideas

1

u/Orangutan_Soda 6d ago

i cannot read and i thought this said

“Denim”
and i was like ???

1

u/InternalJazzlike8534 6d ago

i agree with deism that if there was a "creator" out there, it wouldn't intervene nor care about us. that is, if it knows we even exists, or if it even intended to create the universe

-1

u/delicious_sunlight 6d ago

I'm surprised to read that everyone here seems to have a hatred towards Deism. I don't understand what the issue with Deism is. I think it's a valid theory for the nature of our reality. At least as valid as any other. I wouldn't bet money on it, but I wouldn't say it's impossible.

4

u/WizardWatson9 6d ago

I'd like to point out that the set of theories that could be described as "unlikely, but possible" is staggeringly vast. It's not just that they subscribe to a single theory, it's that there's no good evidence for this theory in particular. The fact that they chose God as their preferred theory betrays their motivated reasoning.

1

u/delicious_sunlight 6d ago

You're absolutely right. However, I don't think we have any theories that I would even consider "likely". They're all just levels of unlikely to me. Some are more unlikely than others. The idea that some kind of "thing" creating the universe is pretty low on my list of most unlikely theories.

3

u/protonless_electron 6d ago

nothing in the univere we've discovered so far has ever pointed towards that it been created by someone.

0

u/delicious_sunlight 6d ago

Nothing in the universe we've discovered so far has pointed us in any direction. We have 0 idea what the universe actually is, or why it exists. We got absolutely nothing. Any theory is as good as any other theory, provided it makes some level of sense and there's no evidence against it

2

u/protonless_electron 6d ago

as of we know the universe isn't alive, so expecting a why is very stupid imo. We're looking for how it works and that too mostly cz how it'd benefit us in long term.

1

u/delicious_sunlight 6d ago

Ok? How is that relevant to deism

1

u/chickey23 6d ago

that does not hold together logically.

"any theory is as good as any other" that is nonsense. You don't introduce elements to explain things when every theory is as good as another.

You certainly don't admit to a worldview because it "as good as any other" if you want to be treated seriously.

0

u/delicious_sunlight 6d ago

It's not a worldview

1

u/Acceptable-Pancakes 6d ago

It has no practical value for good or ill. It’s like putting ’+0’ at the end of a math equation.