This is a strange one, but I'm hoping for responses.
I was a misotheist before transitioning to atheism.
A misotheist is someone who believes in a god/gods or a godlike entity/entities that is/are malevolent or just plain evil.
A misotheist is an antitheist who sees religion as harmful not just because of the damage it does to humanity, but also because it promotes the worship of an unworthy being or beings.
The misotheist's goal is the same as that of atheists, but with belief.
Would you welcome misotheists as allies, or would you reject them because of the belief?
Also, what impression do you get? Are misotheists merely deluded, or perhaps they seem batshit crazy to you?
Thank you for responding, as this is a topic of personal importance.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I didn't know that term, "misotheist". That is what most believers think that atheism means.
From a purely atheist perspective, misotheism is just as deluded as theism, apart from that misotheists recognize that their religion/god causes more damage than it does good.
From a antitheist perspective, a misotheist should absolutely be an ally. From what I understand, it's more or less a theist who is also antitheist at the same time.
You're right. Believers mistake atheists for misotheists all the time. The terrible movie God's Not Dead features a protagonist who is supposed to be an atheist professor but is actually a militant misotheist. He's a stereotype of what Christians imagine atheists to be like.
I was kind of that guy before I became an atheist, but it was a private belief I only shared with friends. So they do exist, but no one knows how many there are. I sometimes see a glimmer on misotheism in atheists who have been badly abused by Christianity, and rightfully so.
I considered myself an ally of atheists before becoming one. Then I let go of the hate because it's silly to hate something that doesn't exist. It's like hating Santa Claus because he gives some kids coal.
You are right about the theist / antitheist paradox.
There's a decent page on misotheism at Wikipedia.
There's also the closely related maltheism, described at RationalWiki, where they see it as different from misotheism. Others see it as synonymous.
I see a much bigger dichotomy between misotheists and atheists than I do between theists and atheists. It is not so much what you have chosen to believe as it is how you have come to believe it. Atheism is about rational realism. You may have a different view of your "god" as malevolent rather than benevolent, but you are still harboring supernatural beliefs that have no basis in evidentiary fact. Atheists don't believe God is evil because they believe there is no evidence that God even exists. How is that a match made in Heaven...so to speak?
Let's say there's a constitutional infringement by a religious group, such as putting a statue of Jesus on public property. Would atheists and misotheists be able to work together to correct the injustice?
I understand that supernatural misotheism is unfounded and that we atheists are on the side of reason in rejecting it. Atheism and misotheism are incompatible as world views, of course. But would atheists and misotheists be able to temporarily unite in the spirit of antitheism for a common cause such as this one, despite the incompatibility of our views? It's the ability, or inability, to work together for a common goal that interests me.
I'm more inclined towards microtheism.
"The Great God Om" comes to mind.
Are you referring to Eben Alexander and his book Proof of Heaven?
"Are you referring to Eben Alexander and his book Proof of Heaven?"
http://discworld.wikia.com/wiki/Great_God_Om
I've put in on my To Read list. I laughed while reading the synopsis. Funny stuff. It's so easy to make up gods, isn't it?
"Would you welcome misotheists as allies, or would you reject them because of the belief?"
Well, Puzzled, I welcome or reject folks based more on their behavior than their beliefs. For instance, there are asshole atheists and really pleasant theists. I would rather share a beer with the pleasant theist.
As to the word 'allies' in that quote...it depends completely on what was being allied for / against.
I adhere to the live and let live principle when my conscience allows me to do so. (I go into detail about this on my recent thread about antitheism.)
The alliance would be based on the fight against religious privilege and indoctrination. However one chooses to fight is a personal matter.
Misotheists are like Gandalf and his allies fighting against Sauron, which we obviously reject as fiction. But they are on our side nonetheless.
Some atheists would be reluctant allies to the misotheists, like the dwarves in LOTR. But flat out rejecting them as allies seems to me like the Battle of Five Armies. However, misotheists can certainly be called out on their delusion by atheists.
Misotheism is the position of the uninformed but honest enough to see facts in front of his face.
EG:
Basically if he finds in the bible, that Jesus says that he "did not come to bring peace but a sword"., a Misotheist is honest enough to accept what Jesus wanted to convey and not try and get the desired meaning like a dishonest theist.
Believing in the bible as the word of god or not is a separate question for a Misotheist.
Basically, just because god is an evil god it does not mean that he does not exist.
It is much easier to reason with a Misotheist then with a theist because they are more honest with themselves.
"Would you welcome misotheists as allies, or would you reject them because of the belief?"
So yes in general a Misotheist is a better person then a theist basically because they are still sane.
Allies is not the right word.
I would see them as people who are also wrong but not as bad as the theists.
Like comparing adultery with murder.
Both are wrong but one is worse then the other.
Understanding the harm that theism does (anti-theism) is not enough to make a person not believe in the existence of an evil god but it is the first step to find the truth.
If you cannot even get there, then you are insane, a theist.
(Fun Fact for theists, the bible IS describing an EVIL god that is depicted as a good one)
The fact that theists cannot even understand their own bible always amazed me and its is one of my interests to first get the theists to accept the fact that the Abrahamic god described in the bible is an evil one.
"Also, what impression do you get? Are misotheists merely deluded, or perhaps they seem batshit crazy to you?"
I see them as more honest and not well informed people, surly not "batshit crazy", that would be a theist.
Actually I would enjoy a discussion with them more then I would with a theist.
By "uninformed", do you mean people who are not familiar with the arguments against the existence of a god, and perhaps don't understand how the universe functions without a god?
I used "allies" because I couldn't think of a better term to represent, well, an alliance of attitude. People can play on the same team to achieve the same goal but not agree with or even like each another personally. If you have a word that you consider more accurate, please tell me. As a lover of language, I'm always up for reconsidering my vocabulary.
Adultery vs. murder is an apt analogy if you mean the murder of a spouse's trust in his or her partner.
Regarding the fictional character Yahweh, I think of him as wearing an ancient Greek comedy mask while being a raging totalitarian underneath. This analogy doesn't work all the time, though, since Yahweh often has no problem showing his rage. Perhaps this image better fits Jesus, the "peaceful" savior who preached about hell and said the thing about the sword.
Off topic: I sometimes wonder if an entity could have an effect on the universe in a way that is so subtle, it's indistinguishable from chance. I'm not saying I believe it. It's like Victor Stenger suggesting that a deistic god could have played dice with the universe in a way that has left no trace of its existence.
I like having debates like this with fellow atheists. It improves my thinking, and hopefully my ideas make others think too.
"By "uninformed", do you mean people who are not familiar with the arguments against the existence of a god, and perhaps don't understand how the universe functions without a god?"
Yes, as i said, most of them are not "familiar with the arguments against the existence of a god" or they don't know the bible well enough.
Not everyone is willing or has the time to study his own religion.
You have to understand that most Theists and Misotheists alike although they claim to believe, they do not believe the bible but they started to believe because of their local church indoctrination.
A Misotheist may believe differently after learning some things about the bible,
The question is, did he learn enough to become an atheist?
So a Misoatheists should be respected by the atheist because he might be in the process of getting there and return to be an atheist himself.
But the atheist cannot accept the Misoatheist position yet as a reasonable one.
If you get enough knowledge on the bible, it is quite obvious that it was written by man that did mistakes and that did not agree with one another on various topics.
Also the use of allegory and dark jokes inserted in the bible makes it obvious that the authors had an agenda that has nothing to do with a god.
If you are interested on who might have invented Christianity and why, you should try this 1 hr video:
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/174117/Caesars_Messiah__The_Roma...
Adultery vs. murder, is was an analogy to say that both are wrong but the crime is not on the same level.
1)One side is saying that a good god would do evil things.
2)The other is saying that an evil god would do evil things.
1) is insane, and it is expected for an insane person to believe stupid things.
2) is consistent, but why would you believe it exists? No evidence was presented except contradictions.
The Adultery guy follows the law and respects the lives of his fellow citizen, he is not insane to the point of killing people.
That doesn't make him have the right to betray his/her partner though.
Yea a deistic type of god, say a black-hole that has no character and is at the center of the galaxy surly exists.
It depends on how you define a deist.
Since a deist is always looking for god through science, he doesn't know what god is per se.
I assumed that deists believed in some kind of intelligent designer. It's interesting to think of a deistic "god" as a black hole. Perhaps "god" is the Big Bang itself? I like this broader definition of deism. But doesn't it become atheism by default? Unless the natural phenomenon really is their god or the equivalent of one.
Atheist means, A= NOT a theist.
Lacks belief in the proposition of the theistic claim.
Before the theistic claim came about an atheist meant a guy that is "Without" any god, then the theistic concept came about and new words and meanings started to arise.
One of them is to not be a theist, an Atheist.
You may find on the net that Atheist means without any gods, but the truth is that its is without any gods presented yet.
For a very long time only the theistic gods were openly presented to people without persecution and the language changed accordingly.
So if you are a Deist you are also an atheist like some of the founding fathers.
Atheist is a state of being, you are born like this, not a theist, or if you wish without believing in any gods. The default position.
A deist is a position/opinion you hold when you are capable of holding different positions.
They are not the same but can be held at the same time depending on your definition of a deistic god.
"Perhaps "god" is the Big Bang itself?"
Yea a Deist considers god as the prime mover or the engine of life itself, a kick starter of sorts. Though he rejects revelation.
The Big bang is a candidate. A large black hole might also be at the center of that big bang too.
Your explanations help. Thanks!
Puzzled Primate - "I sometimes wonder if an entity could have an effect on the universe in a way that is so subtle, it's indistinguishable from chance."
I'd suggest that it is a pointless debate. If x is indistinguishable from y; x is y.
Devil's advocate: Would a pantheistic approach resolve this issue?
No.
If pantheistic approach looks like god=universe then we're back with what Nyar said - "If x is indistinguishable from y; x is y". If (like in pantheistic approach) you can't distinguish god from universe then just stick with name universe because it already has a name. In this case additionally naming it god/God would look like if you want to slip in some undefined (and usually illogiacal and contradictory) properties (of gods) to already defined term - universe.
Pantheistic approach was made for people too educated to believe in personal god and too indoctrinated to just get rid of theistic idea.
Or pantheism was invented by people with a need for emotional spirituality, and this is their expression of it. A.k.a. pantheism is about feelings, not logic. God is thus a metaphor.
I admit that pantheism is attractive to me precisely because I'm a creative, artistic person. But I consider myself an atheist. Is this consistent?
'Or pantheism was invented by people with a need for emotional spirituality, and this is their expression of it. A.k.a. pantheism is about feelings, not logic. God is thus a metaphor.'
Actually all theism are about feeling, and never about logic.
god is a very bad metaphor - god means (among any other meanings) conscious being with plans, likes and dislikes which is precisely what universe is not
'I admit that pantheism is attractive to me precisely because I'm a creative, artistic person. But I consider myself an atheist. Is this consistent?'
People can be creative without believing in Santa Claus, fairies YHVH or any other imaginative friends.
But in my opinion being atheist and admitting attractiveness of pantheism is not necessarily inconsistent as long as you do not take the pantheism seriously.
After looking up the definition of God, I agree that God is a bad metaphor. The term "pantheism" is now odious to me. The Universe already has a name, and it doesn't need to be muddied up with theism. I have a reverence for the Universe without the need for any God references, so I should be on solid ground as an atheist.
I too had not heard of the word misotheist before but I certainly agree that it is want many theists seem to think that we all are. I'm not sure that they can really absorb the fact that we simply do not believe in god(s) & assume that our thoughts go off into all sorts of complex directions. Some responses that I have had when I've mentioned my atheism are:
"Why do you hate god."
"Is it true that you worship the devil."
"So you only think of yourself then."
They are all fairly unintelligent responses I know, but it seems that my experiences are not unique, or even particularly unusual.
I've had religious people say they feel sorry for me. They were all college educated.
I used to hang out with people on the wrong side of the tracks. Some of them wouldn't care about my atheism at all, and some would think it was totally wrong. (As if they acted Christian, ha ha.)
I'm lucky because I live where religion isn't much of a public thing.