Godless Ones: Are You Atheist Or Anti-Theist?

[raoul]

The classic definition of atheism is the 'absence' of any god belief not, as you stated, 'denies' the notion (of god belief). By agreeing with your definition, the atheist would then have to defend his/her position to the cultists which is exactly the trick they keep trying to pull on those of us engaged in debates with them. By adhering to the classic definition which is the correct one (see Smith's 'Case Against God' and various C. Hitchens and R. Dawkins various writings for sources), we do not have to defend our lack of belief which would be silly and fallacious from the philosophical sense.

I am going to second VacuumFlux on this.

 

I am agnostic in that I maintain it is impossible to either prove or disprove the notion of "God". In my view, it can not be decided so the choice "still deciding" does not apply, nor does "atheist" which denies the notion. Deist is yet another choice that should be present as it is distinct from both theist and atheist.

[raoul]

Sorry DrNo - didn't see your correct definition of atheism before I hurredly penned mine. And from a humorous note - it cracks me up whenever I see an 'agnostic' make an attempt to define atheism. I used to be an agnostic eons ago and someone accused me of fence straddling - one foot in and one foot out. Sorta like Pascal's wager in a twisted way I suppose.

 

I am going to second VacuumFlux on this.

 

I am agnostic in that I maintain it is impossible to either prove or disprove the notion of "God". In my view, it can not be decided so the choice "still deciding" does not apply, nor does "atheist" which denies the notion. Deist is yet another choice that should be present as it is distinct from both theist and atheist.

 

Atheism does NOT deny the possibility of god. That is why I provided the link above. It simply means without belief in god. A minority of atheists might be considered "strong atheists" or "atheist-gnostics", meaning that they believe that they can disprove the existence of god. But this is a minority. On the theism scale, you either believe or you don't or you are still deciding. (A)gnosticism does not enter into this. Again, please see the link above for clarification.

[boftx]

I won't argue that there are differing views on what "atheism" is. A simple Google search on "atheism definition" yields many entries, that mainly cluster in two groups, the "weak" and "strong" atheist. Be that as it may, I would still suggest that the choices given are inadequate.

 

What I would argue is that at least for those of us in the US the idea of being anti-theist in the sense that one opposes the imposition of any religious belief upon the population in general by means of law is valid and vital.

[par4dcourse]

 

What I would argue is that at least for those of us in the US the idea of being anti-theist in the sense that one opposes the imposition of any religious belief upon the population in general by means of law is valid and vital.

Amen.

[R. S. Martin]

 

 

What I would argue is that at least for those of us in the US the idea of being anti-theist in the sense that one opposes the imposition of any religious belief upon the population in general by means of law is valid and vital.

Amen.

 

That's why we go for secular. Secular allows people to be religious in private, or not, as they wish. At the same time, it allows all of us to work together on things like business, education, and law for the everyday material aspect of life that impacts all of us in common. Omit religion and life philosophy from law. Use public contract for law. Of course, if we get a land with a majority of fundamentalist religionists of whatever stripe, the law is then going to reflect this. Presumably, however, the majority of the population want that reflection. If we get things like we do in the US where fundamentalists gang up for votes and petitions while the rest of the population lives more ad hoc each to his own, then things get out of balance. Perhaps the "live and let live" people will have to find a way to organize, too, for a common purpose if they wish to get a more amenable law for the land. A very similar situation exists in Canada and some of us are working on getting organized. I think that's part of what Freedom From Religion Foundation and American Atheists are about in the US.

[Mling]

Technically anti-theist, just because I believe that it would be a bad thing if a god (by most definitions) existed, and I think that religion is more harmful than helpful, but I don't really try to fight it in public.

[Vigile]

I'm not sure how to vote here.  I'm not 'actively' opposed to religion in that I tend to keep my thoughts to myself around religious types.  At the same time, I have an extreme dislike for most religion and think the world would be a better place were better critical thinking skills were taught in schools and nonsensical ideas were put to the test of hard science so that young people could make a rational decision about what they want to believe or disbelieve.  Right now I think religion is forced on people and ideally, the role of education is to shine the light of knowledge on ignorance exposing it.

 

I'm not sure why testing widely-held beliefs, such as the efficacy of prayer and acceptable standards of evidence, would be such a radical measure for public schools even though I'm positive it would be seen as such in the current paradigm. I think we do our kids a disservice because we are afraid to upset people's sacred cows. 

[ClaraOlive]

Although I'm opposed to religion in public venues (government, schools, etc), I voted atheist because the fight against religion is not one that I'm interested in making a main focus of my life. I respect those who do, but for me there are enough other things to concentrate on, that dealing with religion in my life isn't a necessity.

[ConureDelSol]

I suppose I've got some anti-theist leanings, but only in situations where there is blatant abuse.  I recognize the benefits of religion and I don't see it as a wholly bad thing.  

[Kurari]

I put "still deciding" because while I am for certain an atheist, I'm not certain about being entirely anti-theist. I guess I lean that way though. I'm certainly anti-Abrahamic-theist.

[roadrunner]

I'm in the atheist camp but thank god for antitheists who were willing to show me how stupid I was. So I think we need both.

[Geezer]

Agnostic - with an interest in panendeism.

[DrNo]

I'm in the atheist camp but thank god for antitheists who were willing to show me how stupid I was. So I think we need both.

 

Thank who?

[RachelSkates]

I afraid I have too much anger not to be an anti-theist.  

[ShackledNoMore]

I went ahead and marked anti-theist, although it's really not that simple.

I am anti-theist in that I think that religion is a dirge on humanity and is a front for all sorts of ills.  It is bad for a society's health and it is bad for its victims in whom it clutches with fear as it inhibits growth and instills intolerance and a certain ruthlessness.  I want nothing more than to see the world shed this plague and replace values of faith and submission with values of inquiry and knowledge.  Values of solving our problems with courage rather than soothing ourselves in the bosom of Abraham with our heads in the sand.

That being said, I think that people should also be free to believe foolish and even detrimental superstitions and it is not my place to be an evangelist for skepticism.  I would do my little piece to encourage critical thought over superstition, but I could not rally to ruthlessly suppress and destroy religion in the manner that various factions of the elect have forcefully imposed their religions over the ages.

Oh, and I certainly don't think that religion should enjoy any special favored status from government.

[roadrunner]

 

 

I'm in the atheist camp but thank god for antitheists who were willing to show me how stupid I was. So I think we need both.

Thank who?

lol pun intended