Anti-theism and atheism are two different things so why do some not distance the two?

[Lovelife090994]

Anti-theism and atheism are two different things so why do some not distance the two?

I am sure we have all seen it online especially where two people are in a debate especially over religion but ever noticed it where the debate is now bashing and insults that are flat out inhumane?

I know that many atheists are good people, I do not doubt that but why do so many people say they are atheist yet they are actually hateful and want to literally kill off all the religious of the world and those who are okay with others' beliefs?

I believe the word for that should be antitheism or flat out hatred when all that person does is argue and demean ohers at any possible moment.
I have literally seen people get cursed out for saying "God Bless You" to a sneeze. I mean seriously? They are wishing you well. Not everyone just says it like an empty phrase and even if they do they are not wishing you ill so stop being so combative or pugnacious.

Any thoughtson this? I think people need to really call out and distance the good atheists who are living their lives and don't care how others' live theirs and the bad people who call themselves atheist but they are really just hateful and probably hurt but too mean and prideful to admit it.

[Cygnus]

Anti-theists are still atheists, so they can still qualify as the same thing, but yes, some are disrespectful towards religion for stupid reasons, like past me.

[Lovelife090994]

Anti-theists are still atheists, so they can still qualify as the same thing, but yes, some are disrespectful towards religion for stupid reasons, like past me.

How can they qualify as the same thing when most atheists are not anti-theist?

[Cygnus]

How can they qualify as the same thing when most atheists are not anti-theist?

But anti-theists are atheists, so even though anti-theists don't think the same as atheists they still qualify in that group.

[Lovelife090994]

But anti-theists are atheists, so even though anti-theists don't think the same as atheists they still qualify in that group.

If an atheist is anti-theist wouldn't that make them against the religion and the religious? So many people are religious.

[Luminous]

Is anti-theist a thing? I have never heard of that.. So anti-theist is someone who hates all religion, and atheist is someone who does not have any religion or beliefs but doesn't mind if someone does, that's what you're saying, correct? I've never even said I'm an atheist, because I always considered anti-theist and atheist synonyms.. in the sense that I have never heard of the former.

[conniption]

Anti-theists would qualify as atheists, as they don't associate themselves with any religion. So all anti-theists are atheist, but not all atheists are anti-theists.

[Lovelife090994]

Is anti-theist a thing? I have never heard of that.. So anti-theist is someone who hates all religion, and atheist is someone who does not have any religion or beliefs but doesn't mind if someone does, that's what you're saying, correct? I've never even said I'm an atheist, because I always considered anti-theist and atheist synonyms.. in the sense that I have never heard of the former.

Anti-theist does mean against religion, sadly because many anti-theists are quite outspoken and at times hateful yet under the name of atheist, most atheists aware of them refrain from being called anti-theist. Anti-theist--the people truly against religion and those who follow one are ant-theists because not only are they atheist but unlike atheists they can be downright hateful and atheists do not want to be associated with that message.

[darthearth]

I would call anti-theism a subset of atheism. There is a new "gnostic" and "agnostic" lingo some people like to use now. A "gnostic" atheist is an atheist who really believes that they "know" there is no god. An "agnostic" atheist is one who has no belief in a god, but they are unsure if there is one (these people used to be just called "agnostic"). I am a "gnostic" theist, meaning I believe beyond any doubt that there is a God. An "agnostic" theist believes in a god but is not 100% sure there is one. I'm guessing all those who call themselves "anti-theist" are gnostic atheists who hate religion and feel it should be eradicated due to its perceived harm to society.

But there are also "Gnostic" people, the capital "G" distinguishes this term, usually they are of a particular version of Christianity, but exist in other religions too. I think what distinguishes them is a more Deist view of God, not the traditional conception of a personal Creator that intervenes much on the Earth.

But for the original post, anti-theists I think just feel religion has done too much harm to be continued, that's why they are angry. However, if you look at their arguments, they almost always like to talk about religious texts and how awful they are, to me they do not make many strong logical arguments against the general idea of theism. Indeed I don't perceive they can, otherwise, I wouldn't be a gnostic theist.

[ksdnfkfr]

Most atheists seem to be against religion.
Few seem to be indifferent about it.
I am truly indifferent and that is why
I do not label myself. I might as well call
myself aparanormal or atoothfairy etc as
call myself atheist.

[Lovelife090994]

I would call anti-theism a subset of atheism. There is a new "gnostic" and "agnostic" lingo some people like to use now. A "gnostic" atheist is an atheist who really believes that they "know" there is no god. An "agnostic" atheist is one who has no belief in a god, but they are unsure if there is one (these people used to be just called "agnostic"). I am a "gnostic" theist, meaning I believe beyond any doubt that there is a God. An "agnostic" theist believes in a god but is not 100% sure there is one. I'm guessing all those who call themselves "anti-theist" are gnostic atheists who hate religion and feel it should be eradicated due to its perceived harm to society.

But there are also "Gnostic" people, the capital "G" distinguishes this term, usually they are of a particular version of Christianity, but exist in other religions too. I think what distinguishes them is a more Deist view of God, not the traditional conception of a personal Creator that intervenes much on the Earth.

But for the original post, anti-theists I think just feel religion has done too much harm to be continued, that's why they are angry. However, if you look at their arguments, they almost always like to talk about religious texts and how awful they are, to me they do not make many strong logical arguments against the general idea of theism. Indeed I don't perceive they can, otherwise, I wouldn't be a gnostic theist.

Oddly you are correct. Whenever some one would debate me of my beliefs and they were an open anti-theist they always brought up historical events and writings that have nothing to with me or my faith. What you sad is quite broad yet complex.

[Jess]

I would call anti-theism a subset of atheism. There is a new "gnostic" and "agnostic" lingo some people like to use now. A "gnostic" atheist is an atheist who really believes that they "know" there is no god. An "agnostic" atheist is one who has no belief in a god, but they are unsure if there is one (these people used to be just called "agnostic"). I am a "gnostic" theist, meaning I believe beyond any doubt that there is a God. An "agnostic" theist believes in a god but is not 100% sure there is one. I'm guessing all those who call themselves "anti-theist" are gnostic atheists who hate religion and feel it should be eradicated due to its perceived harm to society.

But there are also "Gnostic" people, the capital "G" distinguishes this term, usually they are of a particular version of Christianity, but exist in other religions too. I think what distinguishes them is a more Deist view of God, not the traditional conception of a personal Creator that intervenes much on the Earth.

But for the original post, anti-theists I think just feel religion has done too much harm to be continued, that's why they are angry. However, if you look at their arguments, they almost always like to talk about religious texts and how awful they are, to me they do not make many strong logical arguments against the general idea of theism. Indeed I don't perceive they can, otherwise, I wouldn't be a gnostic theist.

I see myself as a gnostic atheist (I am absolutely certain there is NO God) but I still respect other people's beliefs, as long as they respect mine and do not infringe on the rights of others. I do not like RELIGION (I believe it's nonsense, to be bluntly honest - apologies if I offend anyone but I'm just saying what I believe in), but I am okay with the religious PERSON (I won't hate him/her) as long as they aren't an extremist.

I'm not sure I would call myself anti-theist though, but I don't know, maybe what I posted will make people think I am one *shrugs*

[Lovelife090994]

I see myself as a gnostic atheist (I am absolutely certain there is NO God) but I still respect other people's beliefs, as long as they respect mine and do not infringe on the rights of others. I do not like RELIGION (I believe it's nonsense, to be bluntly honest - apologies if I offend anyone but I'm just saying what I believe in), but I am okay with the religious PERSON (I won't hate him/her) as long as they aren't an extremist.

I'm not sure I would call myself anti-theist though, but I don't know, maybe what I posted will make people think I am one *shrugs*

Yes and no. You are sure there isn't a god or that God is not real as much as I wholeheartedly believe God is real and there. Just a difference in us is all. I would not call you anti-theistic, maybe a bit anti-religion but in Christianity religion has two meanings: a belief, and unneeded ritualistic doctrine not based on the Bible. In other words Christians want spirituality not religiosity. Make sense?

[saea97]

The right to argue objectively for what you believe in is precious, whether a firm atheist, antitheist or theist, or an agnostic version of the same. Using insults and ad hominems is not symptomatic of antitheism, it's simply bad arguing and can apply to all sets of believers.

Also, it's a person's prerogative to be offended by a certain statement, but does the offence you take necessarily make the statement "offensive" in a blanket sense? An antitheist will certainly argue vehemently against religion, but why is that offensive? I'm not "offended" when theists argue for religion.

[Lovelife090994]

The right to argue objectively for what you believe in is precious, whether a firm atheist, antitheist or theist, or an agnostic version of the same. Using insults and ad hominems is not symptomatic of antitheism, it's simply bad arguing and can apply to all sets of believers.

Also, it's a person's prerogative to be offended by a certain statement, but does the offence you take necessarily make the statement "offensive" in a blanket sense? An antitheist will certainly argue vehemently against religion, but why is that offensive? I'm not "offended" when theists argue for religion.

I see what you mean on the antitheist, theist, and atheist point of a false argument or how a debate can just become insults.

However, your latter paragraph on the offense of a statement was not clear to me. Can you elucidate your meaning? I am unsure what it means.

[saea97]

I see what you mean on the antitheist, theist, and atheist point of a false argument or how a debate can just become insults.

However, your latter paragraph on the offense of a statement was not clear to me. Can you elucidate your meaning? I am unsure what it means.

My point was that everyone is offended by different stimuli, and it's their choice whether or not to be offended: the argument is not at fault unless it was deliberately designed to cause offence. For example, if I say "There is no god, because..." and then provide reasons, and a theist takes offence, that's their problem, as my statement was concerned with facts and not emotions. But if I said something like "There's no God and you're stupid for believing there is." (which I wouldn't) then your offence is legitimate, because it's an ad hominem attack and not an argument. Some Christians may find any proposed refutation (even if purely objective) of their God aggressive and offensive, but does that mean it shouldn't be proposed?

[Lovelife090994]

My point was that everyone is offended by different stimuli, and it's their choice whether or not to be offended: the argument is not at fault unless it was deliberately designed to cause offence. For example, if I say "There is no god, because..." and then provide reasons, and a theist takes offence, that's their problem, as my statement was concerned with facts and not emotions. But if I said something like "There's no God and you're stupid for believing there is." (which I wouldn't) then your offence is legitimate, because it's an ad hominem attack and not an argument. Some Christians may find any proposed refutation (even if purely objective) of their God aggressive and offensive, but does that mean it shouldn't be proposed?


We take offence because some don't like our answers. This is true. I don't take offense if a person offends me, I ignore them and leave if I can. If not I return it back to them to end it and if they continue I am not rallying insults.
The reason why saying "there is no God because..." is offensive is because the person is already saying that there can be no God and as a Christian, loving God and following by his example to hear someone try and tell you why you are wrong as a Christian can be insulting. No one wants to be told they're wrong and it's worse when your wrong or possible wrong is a heartfelt belief.

[Gigablue]

I am sure we have all seen it online especially where two people are in a debate especially over religion but ever noticed it where the debate is now bashing and insults that are flat out inhumane?

I know that many atheists are good people, I do not doubt that but why do so many people say they are atheist yet they are actually hateful and want to literally kill off all the religious of the world and those who are okay with others' beliefs?

I think it's important to draw the line between insult and disagreement. Most atheists don't intend to offend religious people when arguing. It's just that religious people take offence when their religion is attacked. It's important to separate the religion from the religious person, then debate the merits and faults of the religion specifically.

Secondly, there are very few, if any, extremely hateful atheists. Many atheists want to get rid of religion, but no one wants to kill all the religious people.

Lastly, I want to address the idea of being okay with other people's beliefs. This is such an overused and meaningless phrase. I respect your right to have a religious belief, but you have to respect my freedom of speech when I challenge it. Too often, the idea of respect is used to silence critics.

Anti-theist does mean against religion, sadly because many anti-theists are quite outspoken and at times hateful yet under the name of atheist, most atheists aware of them refrain from being called anti-theist. Anti-theist--the people truly against religion and those who follow one are ant-theists because not only are they atheist but unlike atheists they can be downright hateful and atheists do not want to be associated with that message.

Most anti theists adopt their position because they see the harm done by religion. I think society would be much better off without religion. That being said, I'm not against religious people. Religious people are generally good people, and also generally rational except for their religion. But I think religious people would be better without religion.

I would call anti-theism a subset of atheism. There is a new "gnostic" and "agnostic" lingo some people like to use now. A "gnostic" atheist is an atheist who really believes that they "know" there is no god. An "agnostic" atheist is one who has no belief in a god, but they are unsure if there is one (these people used to be just called "agnostic"). I am a "gnostic" theist, meaning I believe beyond any doubt that there is a God. An "agnostic" theist believes in a god but is not 100% sure there is one. I'm guessing all those who call themselves "anti-theist" are gnostic atheists who hate religion and feel it should be eradicated due to its perceived harm to society.

You don't have to be a gnostic atheist to be an anti theist. Richard Dawkins identifies as an agnostic atheist, and also an anti theist.

Personally, I think a god is exceedingly improbably, and not supported by the present evidence. However, if I were to claim that no god exists, I would then have the burden of proof. Therefore I am an agnostic atheist. At the same time, I think society would be better without religion, so you could also categorize me as an anti theist.

But for the original post, anti-theists I think just feel religion has done too much harm to be continued, that's why they are angry. However, if you look at their arguments, they almost always like to talk about religious texts and how awful they are, to me they do not make many strong logical arguments against the general idea of theism. Indeed I don't perceive they can, otherwise, I wouldn't be a gnostic theist.

The main reason people are anti theists is because they see the harm of religion. However, that isn't why they are atheists. There are, in my opinion, many overwhelmingly strong arguments for atheist, though that's obviously a topic for a different thread.

Yes and no. You are sure there isn't a god or that God is not real as much as I wholeheartedly believe God is real and there. Just a difference in us is all. I would not call you anti-theistic, maybe a bit anti-religion but in Christianity religion has two meanings: a belief, and unneeded ritualistic doctrine not based on the Bible. In other words Christians want spirituality not religiosity. Make sense?

What does that even mean? I don't think you could even separate the ritual from the belief.

Also, in my opinion, both are bad. Religious rituals and traditions are pointless and divisive, but the belief is much worse. Religion, or what you are calling spirituality, teaches people to accept claims without evidence, it stifles free thought. I think we would definitely be better off without it.

[Lovelife090994]

I think it's important to draw the line between insult and disagreement. Most atheists don't intend to offend religious people when arguing. It's just that religious people take offence when their religion is attacked. It's important to separate the religion from the religious person, then debate the merits and faults of the religion specifically.

Secondly, there are very few, if any, extremely hateful atheists. Many atheists want to get rid of religion, but no one wants to kill all the religious people.

Lastly, I want to address the idea of being okay with other people's beliefs. This is such an overused and meaningless phrase. I respect your right to have a religious belief, but you have to respect my freedom of speech when I challenge it. Too often, the idea of respect is used to silence critics.



Most anti theists adopt their position because they see the harm done by religion. I think society would be much better off without religion. That being said, I'm not against religious people. Religious people are generally good people, and also generally rational except for their religion. But I think religious people would be better without religion.



You don't have to be a gnostic atheist to be an anti theist. Richard Dawkins identifies as an agnostic atheist, and also an anti theist.

Personally, I think a god is exceedingly improbably, and not supported by the present evidence. However, if I were to claim that no god exists, I would then have the burden of proof. Therefore I am an agnostic atheist. At the same time, I think society would be better without religion, so you could also categorize me as an anti theist.



The main reason people are anti theists is because they see the harm of religion. However, that isn't why they are atheists. There are, in my opinion, many overwhelmingly strong arguments for atheist, though that's obviously a topic for a different thread.



What does that even mean? I don't think you could even separate the ritual from the belief.

Also, in my opinion, both are bad. Religious rituals and traditions are pointless and divisive, but the belief is much worse. Religion, or what you are calling spirituality, teaches people to accept claims without evidence, it stifles free thought. I think we would definitely be better off without it.

This is hard to phrase since the word religion is so often overused, but many Christians like myself who are nondenominational don't follow the strict relgious doctrines of others such as Baptist, Apostolic, Lutheran, etc. We are just Christian and we follow God and the Bible, we have nothing against female preachers and make up and we try not to be ritualistic and drag on sermons are prayer past their point.

[saea97]

The reason why saying "there is no God because..." is offensive is because the person is already saying that there can be no God and as a Christian, loving God and following by his example to hear someone try and tell you why you are wrong as a Christian can be insulting. No one wants to be told they're wrong and it's worse when your wrong or possible wrong is a heartfelt belief.

This seems to me to be a problem of outlook. If you find any challenge, even if objective, to your beliefs offensive, are you not also offended by the thousands of other gods proposed as a refutation of yours? Why is this thread about atheism, specifically? It sounds like you're implying that religion shouldn't be challenged in any way because people believe in it and love their belief, but you could extrapolate this to so many aspects of society that the practice of debating would cease to exist. It almost comes across as insecure, as if religious people try to prohibit counterarguments from being advanced because they're aware their foundation is shaky. But that's just my wishful speculation.

As for "no one wants to be told they're wrong", well, sorry, but I disagree. As opposed as I am to religion, and as unlikely as I find the idea of a God, if I was proved wrong by a theist with enough reliable evidence, then I would be a convert without a second thought, because I'm objective about my beliefs, not sentimental.

[Lovelife090994]

This seems to me to be a problem of outlook. If you find any challenge, even if objective, to your beliefs offensive, are you not also offended by the thousands of other gods proposed as a refutation of yours? Why is this thread about atheism, specifically? It sounds like you're implying that religion shouldn't be challenged in any way because people believe in it and love their belief, but you could extrapolate this to so many aspects of society that the practice of debating would cease to exist. It almost comes across as insecure, as if religious people try to prohibit counterarguments from being advanced because they're aware their foundation is shaky. But that's just my wishful speculation.

As for "no one wants to be told they're wrong", well, sorry, but I disagree. As opposed as I am to religion, and as unlikely as I find the idea of a God, if I was proved wrong by a theist with enough reliable evidence, then I would be a convert without a second thought, because I'm objective about my beliefs, not sentimental.

The thread was to prove that hateful antitheists are not just atheist is at all but hateful. I did not say you should never challenge religion at all.

[saea97]

The thread was to prove that hateful antitheists are not just atheist is at all but hateful. I did not say you should never challenge religion at all.

"Hateful antitheists are hateful": I'll give you that tautology, yes, but not all antitheists are - how have you proved that? I don't hate religious people.

You've stated that people get offended by any challenge, even if objective, to their religion. This encourages people not to challenge it.

[Lovelife090994]

"Hateful antitheists are hateful": I'll give you that tautology, yes, but not all antitheists are - how have you proved that? I don't hate religious people.

You've stated that people get offended by any challenge, even if objective, to their religion. This encourages people not to challenge it.

You just said it. I was saying that the hatefuls should stop calling themselves atheist because it makes atheists look bad. Plus, not all are hateful, I know that much. I also was asking as to why some are so hateful.

[darthearth]

You don't have to be a gnostic atheist to be an anti theist. Richard Dawkins identifies as an agnostic atheist, and also an anti theist.

Personally, I think a god is exceedingly improbably, and not supported by the present evidence. However, if I were to claim that no god exists, I would then have the burden of proof. Therefore I am an agnostic atheist. At the same time, I think society would be better without religion, so you could also categorize me as an anti theist.



The main reason people are anti theists is because they see the harm of religion. However, that isn't why they are atheists. There are, in my opinion, many overwhelmingly strong arguments for atheist, though that's obviously a topic for a different thread.


I thought "gnostic" and "agnostic" referred to degree of belief, not degree of evidence. If it is a degree of belief I would definitely consider you and Dawkins to be gnostic atheists. If it were as you say, then absolutely NO ONE could rationally be a gnostic atheist, because, as you said, they have a burden of scientific proof that can't possibly be met. I couldn't be a gnostic theist either, because I could not meet a burden of iron clad scientific proof that would satisfy everyone. Dawkins has absolutely no doubt that there is no god, as I have absolutely no doubt that there is. We are gnostics.

[Gigablue]

I thought "gnostic" and "agnostic" referred to degree of belief, not degree of evidence. If it is a degree of belief I would definitely consider you and Dawkins to be gnostic atheists. If it were as you say, then absolutely NO ONE could rationally be a gnostic atheist, because, as you said, they have a burden of scientific proof that can't possibly be met. I couldn't be a gnostic theist either, because I could not meet a burden of iron clad scientific proof that would satisfy everyone. Dawkins has absolutely no doubt that there is no god, as I have absolutely no doubt that there is. We are gnostics.

Gnostic and agnostic refer to the degree of certainty. If you're absolutely certain of your belief, you're a gnostic, otherwise, you're an agnostic.

I don't think that anyone could rationally be gnostic atheist, since you can't prove that something doesn't exist. However, you can be an agnostic atheist, and just think that the probability of a god existing is practically zero. The only difference is that gnostic atheism is a less philosophically sound position to take.

Also, Dawkins isn't one hundred percent sure. He once said 'On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six.'

Either way, I don't think you have to be a gnostic atheist to be an anti theist. If you are opposed to the idea of religion and think were better off without it, you are an anti theist, regardless of whether you claim absolute certainty in your beliefs.

[darthearth]

Gnostic and agnostic refer to the degree of certainty. If you're absolutely certain of your belief, you're a gnostic, otherwise, you're an agnostic.

I don't think that anyone could rationally be gnostic atheist, since you can't prove that something doesn't exist. However, you can be an agnostic atheist, and just think that the probability of a god existing is practically zero. The only difference is that gnostic atheism is a less philosophically sound position to take.

Also, Dawkins isn't one hundred percent sure. He once said 'On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six.'

Either way, I don't think you have to be a gnostic atheist to be an anti theist. If you are opposed to the idea of religion and think were better off without it, you are an anti theist, regardless of whether you claim absolute certainty in your beliefs.

OK, I see where we are differing. I think of gnostic and agnostic to be a sliding scale where (if we were talking about a scale of 1-10, 1 being completely uncertain and 10 being completely certain) 1 - 5 would be categorized as agnostic while 6 - 10 is categorized as gnostic. It seems your view is agnostic = 1 - 9, and gnostic = 10.

But it still seems you speak of anti-theism as being against religion instead of theism. Why do I hear "religion" all the time from anti-theists, and not "theism". Same frustration I have when I keep hearing atheists equate belief in a god with religion, they are two different things. According to this idea of anti-theism, it seems I would also be an anti-theist because I think religion has done more harm than good and I would like to see it eradicated for all the lunacy. But I am at the same time a gnostic theist. ????

[Luminous]

Anti-theist does mean against religion, sadly because many anti-theists are quite outspoken and at times hateful yet under the name of atheist, most atheists aware of them refrain from being called anti-theist. Anti-theist--the people truly against religion and those who follow one are ant-theists because not only are they atheist but unlike atheists they can be downright hateful and atheists do not want to be associated with that message.
Oh wow. I agree that should be different things.

[Lovelife090994]

Oh wow. I agree that should be different things.

Yes, that is the point. Ever seen hateful comments on anything religious even if it is a beautiful photo or video? That is what I do not like and I see and hear that even in real life. My community is quite varied.

[Gigablue]

But it still seems you speak of anti-theism as being against religion instead of theism. Why do I hear "religion" all the time from anti-theists, and not "theism". Same frustration I have when I keep hearing atheists equate belief in a god with religion, they are two different things. According to this idea of anti-theism, it seems I would also be an anti-theist because I think religion has done more harm than good and I would like to see it eradicated for all the lunacy. But I am at the same time a gnostic theist. ????

I was using the term religion to encompass both theistic belief and religious rituals. I believe both of them do harm. The rituals, what you call religion, I think we both agree is harmful, but is think theism is also bad for society.

My biggest problem with theism is that it is simply wrong. I don't care if it does good, I think people should try to have as many true beliefs and as few false ones as possible.

Theism also teaches that faith is a valid way of knowing. Faith is basically claiming to know when you have no valid way of knowing, instead of accepting that you don't know.

In other words, I am opposed to both organized religion and theism.

[Lovelife090994]

I was using the term religion to encompass both theistic belief and religious rituals. I believe both of them do harm. The rituals, what you call religion, I think we both agree is harmful, but is think theism is also bad for society.

My biggest problem with theism is that it is simply wrong. I don't care if it does good, I think people should try to have as many true beliefs and as few false ones as possible.

Theism also teaches that faith is a valid way of knowing. Faith is basically claiming to know when you have no valid way of knowing, instead of accepting that you don't know.

In other words, I am opposed to both organized religion and theism.

You are free to do that but you should not be free to have that arrogant belief that your way is the only way. You seem to feel as if you are right and others are wrong which no ome has the right to say. Who's to say I'm right? In my belief only God can judge on that as I am not perfect. Nor without sin to cast to first stone. To say all theology is wrong is a gross detestable statement even if the mythology may have yet to be accepted or proven. Many things from many theologies have done good. And if people wish to do good and live by faith let them. Faith's meaning is so much more than that cold statement you gave, it is like hope but more certain and it grows stronger with each test and naysayer's words, faith is truth, it is knowing when things are going to be well and it is knowing when you are certain about what you believe in versus what you know be it worldly or spiritually.

[tovaris]

There is no such thing as antitheism yust theism... or religious fanatism as you may call it and there is loads of that.

[Lovelife090994]

There is no such thing as antitheism yust theism... or religious fanatism as you may call it and there is loads of that.

Antitheism exists, you can't tell me you have never noticed it.

[tovaris]

Antitheism exists, you can't tell me you have never noticed it.

That is just plane fanatism puting one religion infront of a nother at all costs.

[Jess]

Anti-theism isn't a religion.

[Vlerchan]

Neither is Atheism, I might add.

[Lovelife090994]

That is just plane fanatism puting one religion infront of a nother at all costs.

No, that's superiority through some methods of which I do not like. You have never seen people who hate all religion and those who follow one?

Anti-theism isn't a religion.

I never said it was.

Neither is Atheism, I might add.

No but it is has a group behind it.

[Jess]

@Lovelife090994

I know that, I was replying to maticek :)

[Lovelife090994]

@Lovelife090994

I know that, I was replying to maticek :)

Sorry then! No worries or harsh feelings here :)

[Gigablue]

You are free to do that but you should not be free to have that arrogant belief that your way is the only way. You seem to feel as if you are right and others are wrong which no ome has the right to say.

Obviously I think I'm right. If I didn't think I was right, why would I still hold my position, let alone argue it.

Who's to say I'm right? In my belief only God can judge on that as I am not perfect. Nor without sin to cast to first stone.

Since I don't accept your theology, you can't use it as a persuasive argument.

Also, I'm not talking about judging people, which you seem to be talking about. I'm talking about judging a factual claim. There is an objective answer. God either exists, or does not exist. Anyone can apply logical reasoning to the available evidence to come to a conclusion. You don't need any special privilege.

To say all theology is wrong is a gross detestable statement even if the mythology may have yet to be accepted or proven.

I'm not saying all theology is wrong. I'm saying that there is insufficient evidence to accept any theological claims, and therefore we should default to the null hypothesis.

Many things from many theologies have done good. And if people wish to do good and live by faith let them.

Religion can do good, but that doesn't make it true.

Also, people are free to live however they want. They have freedom or religion and freedom of expression. But I have freedom of speech, and this am free to criticize their religion.

Faith's meaning is so much more than that cold statement you gave, it is like hope but more certain and it grows stronger with each test and naysayer's words, faith is truth, it is knowing when things are going to be well and it is knowing when you are certain about what you believe in versus what you know be it worldly or spiritually.

Faith is believing without evidence. That's all it is.

Faith is the opposite of what society needs. We need to look at the evidence, and use proper logic. We need science. Faith cannot prove anything, and faith doesn't help us develop as a people. It may provide some temporary comfort, but you have to look at how it has hindered science over the years. We would have progressed far more without it.

[Lovelife090994]

Obviously I think I'm right. If I didn't think I was right, why would I still hold my position, let alone argue it.



Since I don't accept your theology, you can't use it as a persuasive argument.

Also, I'm not talking about judging people, which you seem to be talking about. I'm talking about judging a factual claim. There is an objective answer. God either exists, or does not exist. Anyone can apply logical reasoning to the available evidence to come to a conclusion. You don't need any special privilege.



I'm not saying all theology is wrong. I'm saying that there is insufficient evidence to accept any theological claims, and therefore we should default to the null hypothesis.



Religion can do good, but that doesn't make it true.

Also, people are free to live however they want. They have freedom or religion and freedom of expression. But I have freedom of speech, and this am free to criticize their religion.



Faith is believing without evidence. That's all it is.

Faith is the opposite of what society needs. We need to look at the evidence, and use proper logic. We need science. Faith cannot prove anything, and faith doesn't help us develop as a people. It may provide some temporary comfort, but you have to look at how it has hindered science over the years. We would have progressed far more without it.

You seem very combative, clearly we are on two separate chapters, not even pages!

I do not want special priveledge and I do not want to say you are wrong and I am right or vice versa.

By the way, religion does not hinder science. Have you no idea how mnay scientists are and were religious be it Christianity or other? Have you not heard of the scientific works of the Vatican?

[saea97]

You seem very combative, clearly we are on two separate chapters, not even pages!

I do not want special priveledge and I do not want to say you are wrong and I am right or vice versa.

By the way, religion does not hinder science. Have you no idea how mnay scientists are and were religious be it Christianity or other? Have you not heard of the scientific works of the Vatican?

Only 7% of the American National Academy of Sciences believe in God, and only 3.3% of the UK's Royal Society do. That's hardly reflective of the standard population.

Some of the finer scientific works of the Vatican included the execution (by burning at the stake) of Giordano Bruno and the indefinite house arrest that Galileo was subject to. It's not too surprising that there exists a Pontifical Academy of Sciences given the immense wealth of the Catholic Church, but the Vatican has an expansive and proud history of being hostile to any science that contradicted its doctrines. That's a reason to be antitheistic right there.

[Lovelife090994]

Only 7% of the American National Academy of Sciences believe in God, and only 3.3% of the UK's Royal Society do. That's hardly reflective of the standard population.

Some of the finer scientific works of the Vatican included the execution (by burning at the stake) of Giordano Bruno and the indefinite house arrest that Galileo was subject to. It's not too surprising that there exists a Pontifical Academy of Sciences given the immense wealth of the Catholic Church, but the Vatican has an expansive and proud history of being hostile to any science that contradicted its doctrines. That's a reason to be antitheistic right there.

That doesn't justify hatred of the Vatican today, the people alive in the Vatican now have nothing to do with what was done over 100 years ago.

Antitheism when hateful cannot be justified. Hate can never be justifed, maybe a strong disapproval and dislike but never hate.

[saea97]

That doesn't justify hatred of the Vatican today, the people alive in the Vatican now have nothing to do with what was done over 100 years ago.

If we want to talk about more current science, how about the fact that the Catholic Church only came to accept evolution in 1950, at which point the 100th anniversary of On the Origin of Species was drawing nearer? And even with this acceptance, Pius XII stipulated that the human soul (which apparently exists despite lack of evidence) was placed into humans especially by God, regardless of whether evolution occurred. It's blatantly anti-scientific. And how exactly do Adam and Eve fit into it? If the Church affirms evolution as true, the whole story in Genesis 2-3 collapses, and with it the doctrine of original sin upon which the entire Catholic Church is built.

Antitheism when hateful cannot be justified. Hate can never be justifed, maybe a strong disapproval and dislike but never hate.

Why not? It's not such a gap between "strongly dislike" and "hate". I would probably describe myself as hating religion. Not the people, of course, that would be ridiculous, but the doctrines themselves - like the encouragement of blind faith and the requirement of unquestioning obedience to an invisible dictator - are all deeply harmful to our society.

[Gigablue]

You seem very combative, clearly we are on two separate chapters, not even pages!

I do not want special priveledge and I do not want to say you are wrong and I am right or vice versa.

By the way, religion does not hinder science. Have you no idea how mnay scientists are and were religious be it Christianity or other? Have you not heard of the scientific works of the Vatican?

We hold two mutually exclusive points of view. Therefore at least one of us must be wrong. I don't see the point in avoiding it, or in saying that all beliefs are equally valid.

Also, what scientific discoveries have been made by the Vatican? To my knowledge, they haven't made a significant contribution to any scientific discipline.

That doesn't justify hatred of the Vatican today, the people alive in the Vatican now have nothing to do with what was done over 100 years ago.

Antitheism when hateful cannot be justified. Hate can never be justifed, maybe a strong disapproval and dislike but never hate.

I think we have different definitions of hate. Disagreement is not hate. Speaking out against people's actions and beliefs is not hate. Hate means discrimination, violence, marginalization, etc.

Also, most atheists don't speak out against theists, but against theism. You can't really be hateful towards an idea. If theists get offended when religion is attacked, that's their prerogative, but they shouldn't accuse atheists of being hateful.

[Lovelife090994]

We hold two mutually exclusive points of view. Therefore at least one of us must be wrong. I don't see the point in avoiding it, or in saying that all beliefs are equally valid.

Also, what scientific discoveries have been made by the Vatican? To my knowledge, they haven't made a significant contribution to any scientific discipline.

I think we have different definitions of hate. Disagreement is not hate. Speaking out against people's actions and beliefs is not hate. Hate means discrimination, violence, marginalization, etc.

Also, most atheists don't speak out against theists, but against theism. You can't really be hateful towards an idea. If theists get offended when religion is attacked, that's their prerogative, but they shouldn't accuse atheists of being hateful.

Research, the Vatican is making large contributions to the astronomical community. And you seem to be on the line of disagreeing with the religion and the religious.

If we want to talk about more current science, how about the fact that the Catholic Church only came to accept evolution in 1950, at which point the 100th anniversary of On the Origin of Species was drawing nearer? And even with this acceptance, Pius XII stipulated that the human soul (which apparently exists despite lack of evidence) was placed into humans especially by God, regardless of whether evolution occurred. It's blatantly anti-scientific. And how exactly do Adam and Eve fit into it? If the Church affirms evolution as true, the whole story in Genesis 2-3 collapses, and with it the doctrine of original sin upon which the entire Catholic Church is built.



Why not? It's not such a gap between "strongly dislike" and "hate". I would probably describe myself as hating religion. Not the people, of course, that would be ridiculous, but the doctrines themselves - like the encouragement of blind faith and the requirement of unquestioning obedience to an invisible dictator - are all deeply harmful to our society.

You seem to think that religion, all of it is a dictatorship which it isn't.

[darthearth]

I was using the term religion to encompass both theistic belief and religious rituals. I believe both of them do harm. The rituals, what you call religion, I think we both agree is harmful, but is think theism is also bad for society.

My biggest problem with theism is that it is simply wrong. I don't care if it does good, I think people should try to have as many true beliefs and as few false ones as possible.

Theism also teaches that faith is a valid way of knowing. Faith is basically claiming to know when you have no valid way of knowing, instead of accepting that you don't know.

In other words, I am opposed to both organized religion and theism.


When I said I would like to see religion eradicated, I'm talking about the mindless following of organized religions without question, lacking objective free thinking regarding its details.

You can't say definitively that theism is wrong, you said yourself there is doubt and you can't be 100% sure. It's better to use the phraseology "I believe it's wrong." The statement you made does sound arrogant and improper.

I believe faith teaches to accept the obvious (that we have a Creator), regardless of how you can proof the obvious scientifically. Atheists can't see the forest for the trees.

Only 7% of the American National Academy of Sciences believe in God, and only 3.3% of the UK's Royal Society do. That's hardly reflective of the standard population.....Pius XII stipulated that the human soul (which apparently exists despite lack of evidence) was placed into humans especially by God, regardless of whether evolution occurred. It's blatantly anti-scientific.

What relevance does this have to the view that religion does not hinder science? I see none. And just because a particular church or belief system may hinder acceptance of scientific results does not mean religion inherently hinders science, as the OP said, good science can be done by very religious people. And you can call it "non-scientific", but not "anti-scientific".

We hold two mutually exclusive points of view. Therefore at least one of us must be wrong. I don't see the point in avoiding it, or in saying that all beliefs are equally valid.


And you are the wrong one. Completely wrong. Your belief that there is no God (without proof) is not equally valid to theists who accept the obvious without the need to prove it scientifically (defend your requirement that it needs to be proven scientifically when the subject matter lies completely outside of science), we theists understand that God created the physical world and see no need or even logic in having to use that world to prove Him. There must be a first cause even if the world is scientifically found to be a constant loop of destruction and creation, the question remains why there is something rather than nothing. And physical systems can't be p-conscious (this is self-evident), therefore it is clear we are non-physical entities (immortal spirits) reading out the brain to produce a life experience, thus creating an immortal soul (which is a spirit that has a self-identity). Very clear, very logical, very much makes sense. Blind faith? I think not. Does it sound arrogant and improper for me to be so assertive?

[The Trendy Wolf]

Atheism isn't a religion because they don't believe in a god. Anti-theism might be considered to be opposing the beliefs of religion, which is more hostile than simply not believing in a religion at all.

I agree that some people are often too critical of other peoples' beliefs, but it is limited to a certain point of criticism at which it will be considered unjustifiable. These people are accusing others that they are wrong, and they are critical as a result, thus disregarding the fact that people have their right to believe what they want.

The same works vice-versa. These people also have the right to disagree with someone else's beliefs, but when they become too critical of them, then it becomes unjustifiable.

[Lovelife090994]

Atheism isn't a religion because they don't believe in a god. Anti-theism might be considered to be opposing the beliefs of religion, which is more hostile than simply not believing in a religion at all.

I agree that some people are often too critical of other peoples' beliefs, but it is neither justified nor un-justified. These people are accusing others that they are wrong, and they are critical as a result, thus disregarding the fact that people have their right to believe what they want.

The same works vice-versa. These people also have the right to disagree with someone else's beliefs, but when they become too critical of them, then it becomes unjustifiable.

I believe I agree althouh your middle paragraph and end on whose side is justfied nearly cancel each other out. Is that wrong?

[The Trendy Wolf]

I believe I agree althouh your middle paragraph and end on whose side is justfied nearly cancel each other out. Is that wrong?

I believe it is justified by the closing paragraph.

[tovaris]

No, that's
superiority through some methods of which I do not like. You have never
seen people who hate all religion and those who follow one?



I never said it was.



No but it is has a group behind it.

blindly hating all dieties can itself be described as a religion

[Lovelife090994]

blindly hating all dieties can itself be described as a religion

I understand disagreeing but I don't think any religion says to hate all religion. I agree, many religions are more to themselves in their beliefs but not sure about them hating all others.

[Laquifa]

How can they qualify as the same thing when most atheists are not anti-theist?

That's like saying:


Square = Rectangle, but Rectangle ≠ Square.


A square meets the minimum requirements to be a rectangle (quadrilateral, all sides linked at 90° angles), but a rectangle does not meet the minimum requirements to be a square (quadrilateral, all sides linked at 90° angles, all sides of equal length).



Atheists are rectangles, and antitheists are squares, see it now? :)

[Lovelife090994]

That's like saying:


Square = Rectangle, but Rectangle ≠ Square.


A square meets the minimum requirements to be a rectangle (quadrilateral, all sides linked at 90° angles), but a rectangle does not meet the minimum requirements to be a square (quadrilateral, all sides linked at 90° angles, all sides of equal length).



Atheists are rectangles, and antitheists are squares, see it now? :)

I suppose I see it. I don't agree with it, but whatever avoids confusion.

[Laquifa]

I suppose I see it. I don't agree with it, but whatever avoids confusion.

What I really should have added was:


Atheists:

Do not believe in a deity.

Antitheists:

Do not believe in a deity.
Oppose the ideas of religion and theism.
Are not tolerant nor accepting of others ideas on religion.



That what I meant by the square and the rectangle, haha.

[Lovelife090994]

What I really should have added was:


Atheists:

Do not believe in a deity.

Antitheists:

Do not believe in a deity.
Oppose the ideas of religion and theism.
Are not tolerant nor accepting of others ideas on religion.



That what I meant by the square and the rectangle, haha.

Thanks, now I get it.