jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (10 posts)

Are you an atheist or an anti-theist?

  1. Rhonda D Johnson profile image71
    Rhonda D Johnsonposted 5 years ago

    Are you an atheist or an anti-theist?

    A hubber started a forum in which he described him/herself as an anti-theist.  I think this is very different from an atheist, which is just someone who doesn't believe that God exists.  The prefix anti means to be proactively against.  How can we be actively against something that does not exist?  I'm not a Christian and I am not trying to challenge anyone with this question.   I've just never heard anyone call themselves an anti-theist and I'd like to get your opinions on this.

  2. Georgie Lowery profile image95
    Georgie Loweryposted 5 years ago

    An anti-theist is technically someone who is completely opposed to a belief in God. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. I identify as an atheist. While I don't believe in God or the worshiping of one, I believe "to each his own."

    I've seen the term anti-theist, with or without the hyphen, for the last couple of years or so. Antitheism can be summed up with this Christopher Hitchens quote: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." Many anti-theists believe that religion is one of the biggest problems of humanity and that the world would be a better place without it.

  3. profile image0
    Old Empresarioposted 5 years ago

    I am an atheist, like most of the world with the exception of the US of A. I wonder why people think it is rude for me to assert that god does not exist when I have to listen to so many people assert that he does exist. They don't have any proof and I feel a little boxed in having to listen to all of their nonsense when they ramble off about this scripture or that one. And I'm not one of these crazy atheists that wants to ban prayer in schools or anything like that. I had experienced faith until I was about 27 or so. Now I'm grown up and have put away childish things to accept life for what it is. Some people just can't come to grips with the fact that nothing happens to them after they die. They just die. It's a scary thought to some, though I find the idea wonderful. The universe is huge and life on earth does not have to have a purpose or meaning. We are just lucky to get to experience something in it.

  4. heatblast92 profile image79
    heatblast92posted 5 years ago

    What Georgie said, antitheism is the outright opposition of anything concerning religious faith (racism, sexism, gay discrimination, condoned rape, religious warfare, etc), and may I point out that not only does this delusion exist, that there is a force of omnipotence (of the ivory-bearded variety as most would choose to believe), and that there is something awaiting us beyond this life, it would continue to persist in its existence unless we somehow manage to find a way to displace blind faith in favor of logical reasoning. Antitheism isn't so much a stand against the idea of a god as it is against the lengths people would go to appease whomever they believed to be their maker in order to gain entrance into his good books, or more frequently than not, how far they would exploit the narrow-mindedness of the faithful to their own ends. Quoting Susan B. Anthony, 'I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.'

    1. lone77star profile image83
      lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I think what Susan B. Anthony was talking about was ego. And ego is the heart of selfishness -- the source of all evil, not just religious evils.

  5. nightwork4 profile image60
    nightwork4posted 5 years ago

    they are also called fools. what i mean by this is just because you don't agree with a persons beliefs or lack of, calling yourself anti is like saying i'm too foolish to even think.

    1. heatblast92 profile image79
      heatblast92posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I won't be so quick to call them out as fools, considering most of them that I've seen have somewhat valid reasons to oppose religion in general.  Labels as subjective usually don't reflect the true nature of someone anyway.

    2. Georgie Lowery profile image95
      Georgie Loweryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      An anti-theist is usually against religion and those who practice it, which are both very real things. IMO, this answer is nothing but inflammatory.

  6. lone77star profile image83
    lone77starposted 5 years ago

    I'm neither. A-theist = no-god (a belief that God doesn't exist; or a lack of belief in God). Anti-theist = opposition-of-god.

    There is a clear difference between,
    * A belief that God does not exist, and
    * A lack of belief that God exists.

    The first is certain about the nonexistence of God; the second remains uncertain. Some atheists say they are one, but act as if they are the other.

    I know I'm not a physical body. I'm an immortal spirit who has a Homo sapiens body. I've been outside of this physical shell and seen the world without the use of physical instrumentalities (eyes). I've experienced extraordinary miracles (not just the accidental, ordinary kind). Both of these prove creation and spirituality. A physical cog or accident cannot create such things.

    The universe EXISTS, therefore God IS.

    Physical objects do not create themselves, no matter how smart Hawking is. Gravity is a physical force. Something had to put it here. But God is ultimate source. Source doesn't need an external source.

    One atheist made a point that miracles could happen given enough time and enough observers. As the the population of Earth increases, more accidents occur which could be seen as "miraculous." Well, this is interesting and seems perfectly valid for "accidental" (ordinary) miracles, but this cannot explain the "walking on water" caliber of miracle -- the extraordinary variety that transcends physical law. No amount of accident can allow someone to walk on liquid water of great depth without sinking. Only spiritual faith (perfect confidence, untainted by doubt) can accomplish this. Such is an act of creation. I've experienced this on numerous occasions.

    Skeptics don't realize that if they attempt to study such a phenomenon, they are adding the wrong ingredients to such an experiment. It's like having a scientist study flame and other scientists come in an piss on the experiment. Besides being insulting, such an act is incredibly dumb, but scientists don't realize they're doing this. What is this erroneous extra ingredient? Skepticism itself! Skepticism contains the very potent bias of "doubt." Doubt plus faith are incompatible! That's why Peter walked on water on the Sea of Galilee for only a few seconds -- until doubt returned.

    1. lone77star profile image83
      lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, BTW. Science could use a better paradigm -- one without the bias of doubt. Simple restraint and humility would work, but ego doesn't like humility.