Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think he just wanted to keep the same rhetorical form, so that one could say 'I am an atheist and an antitheist' or 'I am an atheist but not an antitheist'. Being antitheism, you are thus an antitheismist, heh. Anti-religionist might be slightly less unwieldy
There is a difference between anti theist and anti -religionist. I am not anti -theist in the sense that I don't mind if people want to believe in gods (though I think they are incorrect and will say why given half an excuse) but I am anti religion in the sense of wanting to see religion - organized religion - pushed out of its' position or privilege and influence in society.
And in fact there are a few Theists who are also anti religion. Or irreligious, at least. They are often the ones who put down "None" when asked their religion - but they still believe in a god of some sort.
These questions, as per topic, are often informative, but can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. You won't go far wrong if you just keep in mind that "Atheist" just means "Not believing in any gods" (and we all know that doesn't mean something of supreme importance like your fave group or city team, nor nature -as -our -creator) and much of the confusion comes about through theist apologists trying to muddy the waters (at least) with all sorts of wrong definitions of atheists that they invent to suit themselves. And all the other stuff like liberalism, belief in evolution, support for gay rights, and other liberal stuff is often the result of not having god -belief, but is not an obligatory on being atheist. Atheists may not even know they are atheists. They may prefer to call themselves "agnostic" or 'Not very religious", but if you don't buy into any god -claim, atheist is what you are.
The atheist may well not be activist or "militant" which is a term I rather like. There are some who are embarrassed by atheist activism and are even hostile to it. We are a real herd of cats, and that's how we like it.
When I consider who I mostly respond to in these forums my energy is focused on theists, but I don't feel anti-theist by providing an alternative point of view.
From what I gathered from the atheists here, they start with a claim that a god does not exist because he is not known through the senses. They now have the option to choose their source of knowledge and for many here, their source of information is based on reasoning and scientific discovery. I think this where the argument for lack of morals begins. In other words, a theists sees this, incorrectly, as an inability to know right from wrong. That's wrong. Atheist can learn right from wrong; it's just not religious guided learning. On the other hand, a theist, more times than not, starts with a claim made by somebody else. This begins the limitions on who they can learn from. This limitation is seen as necessary because it is how they claim a single authority. We couldn't possibly have more Indians than chiefs. This is religious guided learning.
The next step is how a person feels when they have no influence on others. That furthers the difference. So it was mentioned that Jesus has a gift of love to give others and if it is rejected, then it is due to Satan or stubbornness, the word choice of the modern Christian. They don't consider the idea that the unbeliever has chosen not to be teachable, not by God or Jesus, but by the theist.
So it's not a matter of atheist or antitheist, it's a matter of who I decide to learn from and what I decide to learn. The minute someone wants to decide that for me, that's when the flags start popping up. I don't go into attack or defensive mode, but I am careful about what I say.
A couple of things were mentioned like sex education. That is not a religious topic and does belong in the realm of public education. Some kids just are not ready for it. Therefore, I think parents should have the option to opt out. I don't because even though my daughter has learned more than what they teach in her year, I want her to be able to discuss it in the social setting. So I let her do it.
Last edited by elyn02; 12-08-2017 at 04:21 AM..
Reason: Fixed the chief sentence
In what way? Does it somehow discredit the validity of an atheist's beliefs?
in the exact same way christian behavior undermines their beliefs.
I was told by a few atheists, here at CD, not to talk about the science that makes makes lack belief, deny anything, and not to talk about beliefs that religious people can use to form a sound belief or even change their beliefs.
I was told that apologetics, meaning change yur conclusion based on new information is wrong. I was told to move out of the way so a milli-mental can attack theists. I was told as long as I keep my beliefs quite and attack theists it is ok. I was told that the belief statement of "religion is so dangerous some of us feel justified in anything we do to stop it." supersedes more valid science. I had one prominent atheists here at CD actually say "As an atheist I must conclude that .... (fill in the blank with a far less valid conclusion)". I was shunned by an atheists that claims "I have my reason for believing what I do." When i told him, what you believe is based on a gut wrenching event that affected you and it almost the exact same reasoning I get from theists, I was shunned.
do not you think that undermines some of the atheist's logic?
When I consider who I mostly respond to in these forums my energy is focused on theists, but I don't feel anti-theist by providing an alternative point of view.
From what I gathered from the atheists here, they start with a claim that a god does not exist because he is not known through the senses. They now have the option to choose their source of knowledge and for many here, their source of information is based on reasoning and scientific discovery. I think this where the argument for lack of morals begins. In other words, a theists sees this, incorrectly, as an inability to know right from wrong. That's wrong. Atheist can learn right from wrong; it's just not religious guided learning. On the other hand, a theist, more times than not, starts with a claim made by somebody else. This begins the limitions on who they can learn from. This limitation is seen as necessary because it is how they claim a single authority. We couldn't possibly have more Indians than chiefs. This is religious guided learning.
The next step is how a person feels when they have no influence on others. That furthers the difference. So it was mentioned that Jesus has a gift of love to give others and if it is rejected, then it is due to Satan or stubbornness, the word choice of the modern Christian. They don't consider the idea that the unbeliever has chosen not to be teachable, not by God or Jesus, but by the theist.
So it's not a matter of atheist or antitheist, it's a matter of who I decide to learn from and what I decide to learn. The minute someone wants to decide that for me, that's when the flags start popping up. I don't go into attack or defensive mode, but I am careful about what I say.
A couple of things were mentioned like sex education. That is not a religious topic and does belong in the realm of public education. Some kids just are not ready for it. Therefore, I think parents should have the option to opt out. I don't because even though my daughter has learned more than what they teach in her year, I want her to be able to discuss it in the social setting. So I let her do it.
That's a pretty good post. I might dicker about a few things but it is that good that they are really unimportant.
You correctly pick up the idea of the Authority for knowledge and the rival claims of human knowledge and divine. We goddless bastards demand (it has to be said ) some reason to believe that divine wisdom whether from the Bible or messages direct from the Almighty (1) are reliable. Using the 'What colour car" analogy so ably animated by Dark Matter (gwgll it) divine knowledge is not reliable.
So rather than a claim that a god does not exist because it is not known through the senses, I would say the resultant atheist position is not buying the god -claim because the evidence of various kinds does not make it a reasonable or substantiated claim (this is one of the more major minor quibbles ).
Peripheral stuff, like sex education (I had an advert in the tobacconists' window for months, but not a single client ) abortion and Gay Cakes is ..peripheral. Atheists do not have to sign up to a list of doctrines before being issued a party card, a signed photo of Darwin and the baby -barbiemat brochure.
I think Hitch got that one wrong, or at least stated it poorly. I am an atheist. I have many friends who are believers. I am not anti-theist, I am antitheism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalileoSmith
I am an atheist but I prefer the term "antitheism" rather than "antitheist". I am not against the person, generally speaking. I am against his belief. The same can be said for most ideologies although some of the ideologies demand that the person act inhumanly. Then the person too receives the "anti" prefix.
If a theist follows theism, and an atheist follows atheism, why would an anti-theist be "one who is against a THEIST"?
If a theist follows theism, and an atheist follows atheism, why would an anti-theist be "one who is against a THEIST"?
An anti-theist follows antitheism.
Because our language simply isn’t that precise or mechanistic.
Why do “flammable” and “inflammable” mean the same thing?
Why do we park on driveways, but drive on parkways?
Why do I grab napkins to clean my fingers after eating, and Transponder giggles when I say this?
Several posters have tried to clarify their thoughts by example, because we all realize that anti-theist can be taken two ways, and the group consensus seems to be forming that we aren’t against religious people as individuals, we tend not to like religious thought as promulgated by organizations.
Your assertion that a word means a particular thing, when everybody else is trying to honestly communicate a concept, is no helpful.
However, I cannot stand religious people and avoid them at all costs.
I don't go out of my way to avoid them but I'm afraid that, once I learn that they believe that a cosmic zombie is coming back to save them, that every species of living creature fitted onto a small boat, a man lived in a fish for three days...and other such palpable nonsense... I can't but have that colour my judgement of them.
Antitheism is a broad term referring to active, intentional opposition to belief in God or religion in general. The word describes a person’s intent and approach more so than his beliefs, as a person might well hold to an agnostic or atheistic worldview but not be considered an antitheist. Antitheism holds that theism is harmful and should be countered.
...
The modern antitheists’ tendency to demean and belittle is seen in the titles of their books The God Delusion and God Is Not Great and the movie Religulous. In eras past, such attitudes have been described as misotheism (“hatred of God”) or maltheism (“belief in an evil God”).
...
Non-believers are not necessarily antitheists; a person who merely disbelieves in God but does not hold theism to be stupid or immoral would not be considered an antitheist.
...
Antitheism is primarily an attitude of aggressive hostility toward religion and, by extension, religious people and ideas.
A. Are you inviting Agnostics along in your query? Atheists generally dismiss the existence of a God out of hand, no waiting for proof one way or the other. Agnostics defer to the stance no God exists due to lack of present evidence and/or proof, but remain open minded to a degree in leaving the door open for said evidence/proof to present itself.
B. If you eliminate the space between "An atheist" in your opening comment, you have "Anatheist".
Anatheism: As described in the Columbia University Press description of Richard Kearney's book states as follows... "A creative "not knowing" that signifies break with former sureties and invites us to forge new meanings from the most ancient wisdoms."
Additionally, Chris Samuel, on the site Quora, describes Anatheism as "A road map for those who have moved intellectually away from the notion of God."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
The term "anti-theist" or "anti-theism" suggests (to me at least) a sort of activist opposition to theism that doesn't really describe me.
my focus is still on critiquing thinking and policy that is not grounded in some sort of rational / empirical and justified thinking.
Is there a touch of Anatheism in your philosophy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz
One could say 'I am an atheist and an antitheist' or 'I am an atheist but not an antitheist'. Being antitheism, you are thus an antitheismist, heh. Anti-religionist might be slightly less unwieldy
Therein lies the rub... Things are not so cut and dry in the realm of human belief systems, there are "overlaps" and intersecting circles (think geometry class in high school). Add to this people's beliefs tend to have the habit of evolving and/of shifting over time and it creates an ever so slippery slope.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) some reason to believe that divine wisdom whether from the Bible or messages direct from the Almighty (1) are reliable. Using the 'What colour car" analogy so ably animated by Dark Matter (gwgll it) divine knowledge is not reliable. 
).
) abortion and Gay Cakes is ..peripheral. Atheists do not have to sign up to a list of doctrines before being issued a party card, a signed photo of Darwin and the baby -barbiemat brochure. 
