Are most atheists in fact anti-theists?

Question

Try to put aside the rational argumentation for the existence of G*d on this one. I'm curious here about the human emotions.

It occurred to me that the vast majority of atheists were born and raised as believers, including such prominent ones like Dawkins who used to pray to angels, Diagoras the very first famous atheist or even Jean-Paul Sartre who claimed he was an atheist since he was 12. They all had a well-developed idea what god is, so they definitely were not a "carte blanche" when they became atheists.

This transition from a believer to a non-believer almost always is an angry reaction against authority, which of course is an emotion. The rationale that Gawd doesn't exist (even though perfectly logical) seems to be almost an afterthought which serves mainly to further cement their disbelief.

A true atheist, in my opinion, would be someone who has absolutely NO interest in god or religion and would actualy do his best to avoid any such discussion.

Continued...

This is not the case, in my experience. Most atheists I've met, including myself, are very vocal in their opposition to religion (particularly Christianity) and g_d.

Answer 1

This is not the case for me, at least. While not atheist in a principled sense I am agnostic and live my life as a practical atheist.

I did not choose to become an atheist in rebellion or reaction to anything. My parents, the rest of my family, and my friends were all people who had open minds - although different beliefs from each other. Growing up in this environment I saw similarities and differences in belief systems and attributed the former to commonality in humans and the latter to cultural differences/individuality. None of it for me, however, smelled of truth. So instead I chose to accept that I don't know, and may never know but am ready for an answer if one ever comes. Until then, I'll just live my life.

Answer 2

"This transition from a believer to a non-believer almost always is an angry reaction against authority, which of course is an emotion. The rationale that Gawd doesn't exist (even though perfectly logical) seems to be almost an afterthought which serves mainly to further cement their disbelief. "

actually my "transition" was nothing like that.

i never really believed in any of the stories of the bible as truth, when i got old enough to tell my parents i didnt believe in christianity, they said fine and i stopped going to church

Answer 3

I agree with your statement, it's well composed with valid argument.

However the example you used in your second paragraph is not always true. In my case I fall on that paragraph but not on the subsequent one. Case in hand that I don't hold an angry reaction to a Judeo-Christian diety or the doctrine it represented. But rather came to the conclusion of atheism through logic instead of rebellion against authority, such as your argument exposes.

I hold true and with proof that there are no deities or gods, and by definition an atheist. This, however, does not mean I can't have valid cases against theism in which I could share but also answer questions related to my philosophy.

Answer 4

'No belief' does not in any way corrlate to 'no interest'... particularly in an environment where religious beliefs are encroaching into government, schools, foreign policy, health care, and other areas of life... to the DETRIMENT of life and our constitutional protections.

Also, I strongly disagree with your statement that "This transition from a believer to a non-believer almost always is an angry reaction against authority, which of course is an emotion." In my experience, the transition usually involves an 'awakening', which comes as a result of learning how to think properly. The religious 'beliefs' just go away. The only instances that I am aware of where there is 'anger' involved usually has to do with contending with the emotional reactions of family members, having 'lost' a loved one to the dark, evil forces of Satan. (LOL)

In my view, most atheists are 'anti-' gullibility, irrationality, willful ignorance, self-delusion, intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy and drooling stupidity. Since religious belief encapsulates ALL of those things to one degree or another, I guess it WOULD be fair to say that most atheists are (probably) 'anti-religionists', rather than 'anti-theists'.

More precisely, that would mean that most atheists are against the religious 'meme' (infectious viral idea), or against the 'institution' of religion, rather than being against the 'believers'. They are, after all, just victims... mostly.
.

Answer 5

You can be an atheist and an anti-theist. But what you're thinking of in your last paragraph is an ignostic.

Anyway, I had no angry reaction to authority. In fact, I never really rebelled. And I hardly think Dawkins is at the point in his life where it's rebellion.

But yeah, sure, I'm rebelling against superstition and dogma. That whole "atheists are in rebellion" thing is just plain condescending, and that assertion is made without evidence.

Answer 6

"A true atheist, in my opinion, would be someone who has absolutely NO interest in god or religion and would actually do his best to avoid any such discussion."

No. I'm very much interested in the incredulity of many religions. That does not mean I believe in the validity of any of them.

And no, not angry at an imaginary being either.

Answer 7

Granted, I am against religion, mainly because its true purpose is not to reinforce faith but to control people. Religions, like gods, are creations of men. Religion is interested only in the acquisition of power in its own name. It controls others through the use of fear, that amorphous threat of "hell," or "divine retribution." By speaking out against religion, atheists try to limit the power of religion, stop the formation of a theocracy and prevent the loss of our personal freedoms.

I am an atheist because there are no gods.

Answer 8

This has been my experience, both as an atheist who'd never been a theist and as a polytheist who'd been an atheist but never a monotheist.

Also, many atheists define the god they don't believe in in strict Christian terms, making it impossible for them to dialog with theists outside that box.

I would not use the term "True atheist" though.

Answer 9

It would be hard to say about most. The ones that aren't are very often not open about the fact that they are atheists.

I personally wish that it were safe to avoid the discussion. If religion ever lost its political power, you would be shocked at how many of us would jump right into your "true" definition. But politics today won't allow us.

Answer 10

I feel a lot like you do, but its not so much that religion itself is bad, its that people take religion WAY to seriously. Example: Crusades, Holocaust, Salem Witch Trials, Asatru Opression, Buddhist/Daohist wars, Middle Eastern Muslim/Jewish conflict, Soviet blacklist, American blacklist, diaspora, Egyptian/African wars, Egyptian/Arabic wars, Scandinavian/Roman wars, Spanish Inquisition, Mao, Japanese isolation, Gay marriage ban, marijuana ban, Westboro Baptist church, Indian Christian occupation, Darwin persecution, the dark ages, Religious persecution of native Americans, Spanish conquest, Portugese conquest, Russian/Mongolian dispute, Nepalese opression, etc etc etc. 90% of all wars ever fought were over religion, but the problem isn't that people have a religion, it's that people take their religion too seriously. (Though I agree, this world would be much better off with no religion whatsoever.)