Anti-Atheism

[(Q)]

I continually hear theists complaining about Anti-Christianity this and Anti-Islamic that, yet I've never seen nor heard any such edicts proclaimed from Atheism, yet those same Monotheisms both contain edicts in regards to non-believers and what will happen to them in the alleged afterlife.

So, it would appear Anti-Christianity and Anti-Islamic are not valid terms, and in fact the term to be considered valid is Anti-Atheism.

I would ask that all theists please discontinue the use of those invalid terms.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sometime christians appear anti Islamic, and th e opposite is also true of Islmaic people - an atheist however tends to be anti-religion - I guess they earn the stamp of "anti-christian" when they are not sufficiently versed to express antagonistic views on other religions

 

[SkinWalker]

Most of the atheists in this forum are probably 'anti-religion' (I generally am), but I suspect that most atheists in a national population are probably ambivalent or at least could give two shits about religion one way or the other. They're neither for or against it, they simply don't believe in it themselves.

The average religious adherent is unlikely to knowingly encounter them since they aren't predisposed to discuss their opinions on religion or voice against it. Instead, the atheists that religious adherents will likely encounter are those such as myself who are willing to openly criticize and question religious superstition.

 

[Roman]

I continually hear theists complaining about Anti-Christianity this and Anti-Islamic that, yet I've never seen nor heard any such edicts proclaimed from Atheism, yet those same Monotheisms both contain edicts in regards to non-believers and what will happen to them in the alleged afterlife.

So, it would appear Anti-Christianity and Anti-Islamic are not valid terms, and in fact the term to be considered valid is Anti-Atheism.

I would ask that all theists please discontinue the use of those invalid terms.

How are Anti-Christianity and Anti-Atheism mutually exclusive?

 

[Adstar]

I continually hear theists complaining about Anti-Christianity this and Anti-Islamic that, yet I've never seen nor heard any such edicts proclaimed from Atheism, yet those same Monotheisms both contain edicts in regards to non-believers and what will happen to them in the alleged afterlife.
So, it would appear Anti-Christianity and Anti-Islamic are not valid terms, and in fact the term to be considered valid is Anti-Atheism.

I would ask that all theists please discontinue the use of those invalid terms.

Yes in the "afterlife" But for us not in this life.

Some atheists do not care what theists believe, But some like in here are anti-christs. I disagree with atheism but i accept that atheists will exists till the last day. I do not seek to Get rid of the atheists.. But to give each person the opportunity to accept Jesus as their Redeemer. That’s not anti-atheisim that’s just providing someone with an alternative.

But those who are anti-christs seek the removal of the Alternative that is offered by the Theists. and that is a true anti-christ objective.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[swivel]

Anti-Atheism is a funny thing. Here's the situation:

1. An atheist makes the claim that theists are all incorrect
2. Theists take offense, and since they can not prove that they are correct, they...
3. ...insist that it is the Atheists who are incorrect

But the funny thing about this process is that the atheist is not really making any claims of his own. There is no belief system inherent in atheism. It isn't a stance, but rather a lack of some other stance. The atheist isn't saying "I'm right" about something so much as, "I refuse to get on-board with you guys, I think you are all wrong".

What makes the process become illogical is when the theists forgets that it is their own beliefs in question, so they pretend that the atheist has their own beliefs, and question those in return. In order to do this, they assume that all atheists are scientists, or "worship" science. This, of course, is fallacious and does not follow. They pretend that atheism is its own sort of religion, so that the arguments of atheist apply to themselves as well, but this is also fallacious since the concept inherent in atheism is the lack of a faith, not the replacement of it with something else.

The burden of proof is with the theists, the ones with the original claim. They either need to embrace their faith and abandon any attempts at logic, or stop being surprised when logical people don't succumb to their delusions. They can't have it both ways.