Atheist vs Antitheist

[theoneandonlypencil]

Some quick food for thought; I think there could be less tension of Christians would learn the definitions of 'Atheist' and 'Antitheist'.

It seems like most of us tend to label the first group as the latter, which is damaging considering only the latter presents a literal anti-God view.

I feel like most Atheists aren't anti-God, so much as they're opposed to believing in anything too 'far fetched' or without scientific basis. Honestly, id even say most seem to enjoy playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion to promote critical thinking...which really isn't a bad thing.

Thoughts?

 

[muichimotsu]

You can be both, they're more positions on metaphysics and ethics respectively with relation to God belief either being unjustified epistemologically or being immoral in the consequences of belief in it as motivates behavior and in the lack of rigorous epistemological justification.

That's a rough assessment anyway, from me

 

[Dave-W]

Not sure there is such a thing as an antitheist. Is that a made up term?

I have known some evangelical atheists; those who try to convert you to their way of thought.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Some quick food for thought; I think there could be less tension of Christians would learn the definitions of 'Atheist' and 'Antitheist'.

MOST "Atheists" when you talk to them are nothing more than common "Agnostics" who aren't really sure about ANYTHING. I haven't seen the term "antitheist" before, and have a suspicion that it's really only a "Fix" for the term "Atheist" which generally means "Agnostic".

 

[section9+1]

No difference.

 

[Uber Genius]

The fact of the matter is that Richard Dawkins has led a group of atheists, named "The New Atheists," that have, as the centerpiece of their rhetoric, mockery of Theists. These would include people like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens,mDaniel Dennett, Larry Krauss, Peter Atkins.

They represent the fastest growing portion of atheists and the New Atheists' arguments dominate the Internet infidel community.

There are other like Grahm Oppy, JH Sobel, Michael Ruse, et. al. That would fit your definition of atheists. They give cogent arguments in favor of atheism and defend them or did when alive.

I have a large number of atheists as friends and find that few are familiar with good arguments for their view. I am constantly helping them get acquainted with the best arguments for their view rather than the deeply fallacious ones used by the new atheists. Michael Ruse has taken a lead disparaging the new atheists for their philosophically vapid rhetoric.

We want to engage the best views for all explanations of the data we have in any area of knowledge.

Dawkins' is perhaps the worst of the lot. P.Z. Myers and Vic Stenger give or gave him a run for his money. Stephen Fry and Bill Mahre also represent the thoughtless, snide, appeal to mockery often accompanied by sweeping genralizations, red herrings,M cherry picking, false dilemmas, ad hominem attacks and appeals to verbosity.

Just as we can discount the vapid arguments for hatred wrapped in judeochristian scriptures from an ever-shrinking KKK, so to the New atheists rhetoric.

For more I have a series of posts entitled "tricks atheists play," and "tricks theists play," that callout fallacious ways to argue for both positions.

Many Christians never study how to defend their views and are easy prey for the new atheist arguments as weak as they are. I encourage irenic, rational discussion, with much attention being given to accurately representing each other's views.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Misotheism - Wikipedia - just in case it is of interest.

 

[AvisG]

Some quick food for thought; I think there could be less tension of Christians would learn the definitions of 'Atheist' and 'Antitheist'.

It seems like most of us tend to label the first group as the latter, which is damaging considering only the latter presents a literal anti-God view.

I feel like most Atheists aren't anti-God, so much as they're opposed to believing in anything too 'far fetched' or without scientific basis. Honestly, id even say most seem to enjoy playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion to promote critical thinking...which really isn't a bad thing.

Thoughts?

The vast majority of atheists and Christians alike, in my pretty considerable experience, hold their positions almost without regard to metaphysical truth. They hold them as the result of parental indoctrination, the pronouncements of supposed authority figures, or for cultural, social or economic reasons unrelated to metaphysical truth. Many would admit as much. Few can cogently defend or even explain their positions.

Atheists, as others have suggested, run the gamut from virulently anti-theist (and mostly mindless) New Atheists to extremely thoughtful and committed atheists to those who are more properly described as agnostics or seekers to those who have no clue what they even mean by the term atheist. Pretty much ditto for Christians.

I don't think any useful purpose is served by introducing a new term such as antitheist. Would it be useful to introduce a term such as whacked-out Bible-thumper? Any discussion has to occur at an individual level. For a meaningful dialogue to take place, the believer must understand what species of atheist he is dealing with, and vice-versa for the atheist. Identifying the species is seldom difficult.

For those who haven't read it, James Fowler's 1981 classic Stages of Faith is very instructive as to how all belief systems, including atheism, "work." Across the spectrum of all belief systems, the vast majority of adherents are forever stuck at one of the lower stages where reliance is placed on authority figures and no meaningful questions are asked or allowed. For a meaningful dialogue between an atheist and a believer to take place, both participants must at least be at Fowler's stage four.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I feel like most Atheists aren't anti-God,

Many Atheists here, if not most, definitely seem to be anti-God, yet they refer to themselves as Atheist. However, I think those are the ones drawn to sites such as CF, so they can complain about how bad God is, while others may not care enough to bother, meaning you could still be correct with your assessment.

 

[bekkilyn]

Here are the definitions I use:

Agnostic - Believes that there is a God or some creative force or entity, but not within any particular religious view. There is something out there bigger than ourselves, but specifics are unknown.

Atheist - There is no evidence of God or the existence of any supernatural forces. Would not necessarily be opposed to God IF God could be proven to exist, but as it is, God is simply a fairy tale or wishful thinking.

Anti-Theist - One who sets oneself in opposition to God, regardless of whether or not one believes in God. If God exists in any form, God is an enemy and contributes nothing good to humanity or anything or anyone else, and all religion everywhere is dangerous and needs to be abolished.

 

[durangodawood]

....the definitions of 'Atheist' and 'Antitheist'....

How could a person be against God if they dont believe there is God?

It doesnt make sense.

 

[Speedwell]

Many Atheists here, if not most, definitely seem to be anti-God, yet they refer to themselves as Atheist. However, I think those are the ones drawn to sites such as CF, so they can complain about how bad God is, while others may not care enough to bother, meaning you could still be correct with your assessment.

I don't remember seeing any one argue the point that "God" is "bad." Atheists, don't forget, disbelieve in God and something that doesn't exist can't really be said to be "bad."

On the other hand, I have observed many atheists who argue that the idea of God held by one particular sect or another is bad or harmful. Sometimes even other theists will support them in these arguments.

 

[Speedwell]

Here are the definitions I use:

Agnostic - Believes that there is a God or some creative force or entity, but not within any particular religious view. There is something out there bigger than ourselves, but specifics are unknown.

Atheist - There is no evidence of God or the existence of any supernatural forces. Would not necessarily be opposed to God IF God could be proven to exist, but as it is, God is simply a fairy tale or wishful thinking.

Anti-Theist - One who sets oneself in opposition to God, regardless of whether or not one believes in God. If God exists in any form, God is an enemy and contributes nothing good to humanity or anything or anyone else, and all religion everywhere is dangerous and needs to be abolished.

Anti-religionist--One who may or may not believe in God but has a negative view of religion. Sometimes such persons may be mistaken for atheists by theists.

 

[jayem]

Anti-religionist--One who may or may not believe in God but has a negative view of religion. Sometimes such persons may be mistaken for atheists by theists.

Exactly. I don't oppose gods that I don't believe exist. But I do oppose some of what believers have done, and might do, in their god's name.

And anyone who believes in a one particular god, feels the same way about believers in a different god.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I don't remember seeing any one argue the point that "God" is "bad." Atheists, don't forget, disbelieve in God and something that doesn't exist can't really be said to be "bad."

It's your prerogative to disbelieve me.

Exactly. I don't oppose gods that I don't believe exist.

I've called a few out for doing just that, and I see it happen often enough here. It always tickled me why they even bother coming to CF, I mean if there's no God to disagree with, convince us he doesn't exist, tell us how bad he is, or whatever, why bother?...yet here you all are.

 

[Kenny'sID]

How could a person be against God if they dont believe there is God?

It doesnt make sense.

I agree and always have....why don't you ask them how?

 

[Speedwell]

I agree and always have....why don't you ask them how?

Because they see what belief in God (whether there is one or not) sometimes does to people.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Since a lot of people seem to be confused and making assumptions...let me clarify my definitions.

Anti-theist; Against the concept of there being a God/gods and claims there is no God, guilty of the same 'burden of proof' problem that theists suffer from. You cannot claim there is/isn't a God, as there is no way to back up the claim.

Atheist; Indifferent to the existence of a God/gods. Can either hold an agnostic view or claim there is no God--the latter is generally based on lack of compelling evidence and, ultimately, acceptance that there is no way to know for sure. Ultimately, doesn't know if there's a God; and doesn't care. Typically only wants to escape religious dogma being forced upon them.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

I agree and always have....why don't you ask them how?

Some are against enforcing the concept. I'm against the concept of the pagan god Zeus existing, and I'm sure you do too; does that mean you and I secretly believe in Zeus?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Some are against enforcing the concept. I'm against the concept of the pagan god Zeus existing, and I'm sure you do too; does that mean you and I secretly believe in Zeus?

Good point.