This is meant to be a general overview of meta-points. For a slightly more complete catalogue of my grievances with various forms of Christianity in particular, see this post.
I also do not address here, in detail, the effectiveness of an anti-theistic attack on religion — this is a more personal post. For information on effectiveness, see this post.
Without much ado, I’ll just dig right into it.
1. The Puppet God
Langston Hughes wrote this poem called “Gods” in 1924:
The ivory gods,
And the ebony gods,
And the gods of diamond and jade,
Sit silently on their temple shelves
While the people
Are afraid.
Yet the ivory gods,
And the ebony gods,
And the gods of diamond-jade,
Are only silly puppet gods
That the people themselves
Have made.
That poem encapsulates much of the reason I am against the theistic concepts of deities — a being outside of us that yet has authority over us. Promotion of belief in non-existent beings enables people to create a variable in society that they would not otherwise figure into the matrix of human decisionmaking. Today, more than ever, if we are going to thrive as a species, our decision-making needs to be motivated by consideration of what exists, not motivated by the fear or even love of what doesn’t.
Steven Weinberg once said that, “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” Although that’s a bit hyperbolic, the rhetoric resonates with me, in part, because I was there. Fundamentalists get a bad rap, as if they are naturally bad people, but I know from experience that it is not that simple. The reason many fundamentalists have the beliefs they do is that they have been frightened or otherwise manipulated into it by the puppet of a non-existent being.
The largest variable in their decision-making does not even exist in reality, and that is why they so often seem to partake in actions that do not follow from a healthy sense of reality.
So that’s part of why I’m an anti-theist. I really would like humanity to be prioritized above any conceptualization of a non-existent being, for the sake of all of our futures. I do not want to confuse the issue by being ambivalent, as if the fact that the single largest aspect of decision-making is a nonexistent concept is remotely inconsequential to our future decisions, when it clearly is very consequential to current and past decisionmaking.
2. Respect Of Theism Encapsulates And Perpetuates The Outdated Views Of the Deity’s Creators
If you’ll excuse me here, I’m going to focus on Christianity as an example.
The deity in this religion has done things that just about everyone agrees are disturbing. The Old Testament is disturbing. Paul and his views of women, slaves, family life, homosexuality, etc. are disturbing. Jesus and his seeming obsession with discussing hell is disturbing. Revelation is disturbing (especially insofar as it influences the way many seem to think about foreign policy). And yet, in spite of all that (and a laundry list of other items), Christianity has a squeaky-clean reputation among many.
Even as the fact is true that when Christianity, with its puppet deity full of 4000-year-old bigotry, hits up against we know today, there are frequently fireworks.
Why do people have such outdated views? Because we said, “This is true because this being said so” and that being encapsulated some of our most primitive values for four thousand years and beyond.
Think about this as just ONE example: The main reason why most people today are against gay marriage in the United States is because 4000 years ago a bunch of people who were homophobic said, “God doesn’t like it.”
That’s it. I swear, that’s the main, and in many cases the only, reason, for many people. And even liberal progressives, although they hem and haw about the issue a lot, and although they are for equal rights for lgbtq individuals, will frequently not unequivocally say, front and center, that homosexuality is just as beautiful as heterosexuality AND is not remotely sinful (even as they try to diminish it, or say that the positives of relationships outweighs any sin of homosexuality, or say that it can be “sanctified” by love, or something similar).
Some have found a way to reject homosexuality as sin, but it takes a lot of theological wrangling and, arguably, some dishonesty with or major adjustments of the text. Why struggle so hard with something when you could use that energy to just admit it’s wrong and move on? Homosexuality is beautiful, and we can’t see it because we used a non-existent being to encapsulate 4000-year-old values. That is why many of us (myself included) left our lgbtq prejudices the moment we left the non-existent being who once commanded stoning behind.
That’s an unpleasant truth, but it’s the truth. Do we really want to do the same thing again, even after many of us atheists have seen its damage inside religion?
3. We Need A Well-Defined Space For Those Escaping From Religion
A lot of my colleagues insist that I need to calm down and join with Christians a bit more. I have no problem helping them do good deeds, but I really think that the worst thing we can do is be lackluster in our stance against nonexistent beings that people manipulate to control others’s lives. Anti-theism is a stronghold for those escaping from religion, and this strong stance is necessary to shield those escaping from religion from attacks.
If we join with the ideology of a nonexistent being or fight against those who refuse to tolerate it, we perpetuate its existence and we leave less space for those who have been lied to and been told that a being exists who does not. We need to be a safe space for them as they escape and make a strong break from a non-existent being who is suddenly revealed to be a monster, in many ways.
Why would we want to be remotely attached to a destructive non-existent being that is normally defined by such a horrendous book and tradition? I confess that I don’t understand that — unless it’s about social pressure, honestly, and complaints from other people…
People also say that we should work with theists in various pursuits, but I am disturbed by their framing of this. Certainly I will work with people, as people. But what does it mean to work with theists, specifically, as if I’m trying to validate their stance? I am willing to tolerate their non-existent being in various ways, but when I see it doing harm or promoting dangerous patterns of thinking, it is important that we make sure there are spaces in which we can speak loudly and clearly against it without having to give religion undue respect.
4. Respect Is Theism’s Last Sanctuary
I do not think theism has a strong case — precisely because theists try so hard to shut us atheists up. Theists frequently complain that we are too critical of their religion, when they are the ones saying that we are going to spend eternity in hell — a fact we don’t complain about near as often, although that is a very rude belief to have. But religion has the power, so they can hypocritically point out our disrespect of their puppet-being that often disrespects us far more.
Which means, for me, that this is not the time to shut up. This is the time to speak up — now, when it’s unpopular, when movies like God’s Not Dead and Do You Believe? try to paint us as heartless — this is when we should speak up most, and honestly, and with our hearts as well as our minds so we come across like we have genuine, heartfelt concerns as we stick to logic in building our case (and, perhaps more importantly, so that we experience the freedom of our own honesty). If we respect religion now, as many atheists these days are urging, we respect a nonexistent being who according to many conceptualizations says humanity deserves hell (and thus we need to be “saved” from it, in various ways, depending on your denomination); who was created by misogynistic, homophobic bigots; and who has tremendous influence over current foreign policy and the future of this whole planet, as well as several other items.
I know I’ll get flack for not respecting that, but I’m willing to take all the abuse, all the arrows, all the insults, if it means that I can show that it is possible to unabashedly reject this falsehood; I am willing to sacrifice the entirety of my reputation for the truth and the good of humanity. If my atheist or Christian or otherwise religious fellow human beings object, I may be distained, maybe, but I’d rather retain my honesty and integrity. I’d rather be hated for trying to help than loved for an apathy disguised as consideration.
I mean, isn’t that what you Christians say Jesus would do, anyway?