there will be a race war, and there has been in the past aswell, britian is slowly making it's way to another one.
If atheists are right - how come there are so few of them?
- Thread starter John J. Bannan
- Start date
there will be a race war, and there has been in the past aswell, britian is slowly making it's way to another one.
The definition of the word matches the first. :shrug:
Juries do not EVER establish or define the truth.
They do (and their duty is to) decide beyond reasonable doubt.
They can still be wrong, but in no doubt that they were right.
But that's humans for you, eh?
Race war or theology war?
Well thats illuminating. :bugeye:
Its obvious that some of those who lack a belief in God embrace theism.
Some have an absence of a belief. Others want to rid the world of a belief. A Christian for example is typically anti-Allah. They want to rid the world of belief in 'Allah'. Stalin was anti-everything and quite militant about it. There are also Atheists whom practice religion with beleivers or don't care what others believe.
It might not be the correct word. When dealing with a belief, there can be people whom promote it, people who don't buy it, and people who want it eliminated. Promotion and elimination can be done constructively and destructively (I don't think theose concepts apply to people who dont buy it though).
Guess it's just me then - and of course sam who actually brought it up in his post, (he explained that atheists try to make theists "look bad" - thus anti. Atheism is a lack of belief in god/s. It says nothing about who's bad and who isn't).
My problem comes with the 'anti', and Crunchy Cat seems to be the only one that picked up on that. There is for instance a big difference in: "a person that lacks belief in christ" and the "anti christ". The difference? (I hear ashura and sam ask): One lacks a belief, the other is actively opposed to.
Now, ashura was kind enough to offer the definition of dictionary.com, but I personally find Websters more appropriate. We are then left with a proper understanding that antitheism is:
"direct opposition to theism"
"not to be confused with atheism, the lack of belief in one or more gods, which does not imply opposition to theistic belief.." Oxford dictionary also brings to light the opposition. "The concept allows a useful distinction to be made between the simple rejection of theism, atheism, and a position of antipathy or opposition towards such beliefs"
Chambers defines antitheism as: "doctrine antagonistic to theism; denial of the existence of a God; opposition to God."
Christopher New wrote in an article: "Antitheists, like theists, would have believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal creator; but whereas theists in fact believe that the supreme being is also perfectly good, antitheists would have believed that he was perfectly evil."
I hope that clears this up, but that it what I was referring to.
Antitheism and atheism are by no means the same thing. Done.
So atheism as a concept does not oppose theism. Okay. They think there may be a God but they lack belief in him since the concept is a mystery to them. Got it.
Ah, sorry for the confusion SnakeLord (never again shall I stick to one dictionary
). I think I understand now. The difference S.A.M. between anti-theism vs. atheism vs. theism is the difference between someone who hates vanilla ice cream vs. someone who is indifferent to vanilla ice cream vs. someone who loves vanilla ice cream... I think.
Does that make any sense to the rest of you?
Ah, sorry for the confusion SnakeLord (never again shall I stick to one dictionary
The difference S.A.M. between anti-theism vs. atheism vs. theism is the difference between someone who hates vanilla ice cream vs. someone who is indifferent to vanilla ice cream vs. someone who loves vanilla ice cream... I think.
Does that make any sense to the rest of you?
Atheists never make sense to me, but I have a sudden hankering for ice-cream.
So what would anti-atheism be? Not theism?
No more than agnosticism opposes knowledge. the 'a' is "without" not "against".
The concept might very well not be a mystery but they would then be without belief in that concept, not specifically "opposed" to it. (Opposed being: to be hostile or adverse to).
Anyway, glad you got it.
Atheists never make sense to me, but I have a sudden hankering for ice-cream.
So what would anti-atheism be? Not theism?
I'm sorry, I've been enjoying some cherry vanilla ice cream (hence the analogies).
Do you consider yourself an anti-atheist S.A.M.?
The only thing I got is that atheists embrace theism without belief, mostly because they have no concept of whats what.
In terms of religion, of course. I could hardly say I embrace atheism as a theist. That kind of rational thinking I leave for the atheists.
See, these are examples of anti-atheism. If I said all theists were brainless twonks then that would be antitheist. A theist believes in god, that's what it defines. Hatred towards atheists would add the 'anti' to the front of the word atheist but you'd still simply be a theist. An anti-atheist theist.
In terms of religion, of course. I could hardly say I embrace atheism as a theist. That kind of rational thinking I leave for the atheists.
Does not embracing something automatically make a person opposed to it? They can't just be indifferent to it?
Do you sense any indifference here?
You're an example of one person who doesn't embrace and does oppose. That doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't embrace also opposes.
Unfortunately as the concept already exists, the only positions possible are yes, no or maybe. (theism, atheism, agnosticism)
"Have no opinion" is possible, but does not define atheism in my opinion. More like braindead-ness