(August 14, 2014 at 9:41 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: *I misunderstood the usage of the term anti-theist in the OP but that mistake was corrected by the posts of others.

Not a misuse Chad. The definition of anti-theist that you gave is a valid one. The term 'gnostic atheist' is actually less accurate, etymologically, but it is in common use and has a well accepted definition that meets the needs of the OP.

Anti-theism has the following burden of proof to meet:

1) To demonstrate that superstitious beliefs are, all things considered, harmful to human progress and modern society.
2) Refute any purported inherent connection between superstition and the good done in the name thereof.

Anti-theism is not required to dispel any particular notion of God. One can be an anti-theist and remain agnostic as to whether something like a Supreme Being is actually possible or not.

The burden of proof only lies with those who dogmatically assert one way or another. Anti-theism is more concerned with the practical effects that fictitious beliefs have on human behavior, fictitious because there are no arguments or proofs for theism as typically accepted that can be confirmed in experience.

(August 15, 2014 at 11:31 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Anti-theism has the following burden of proof to meet:

1) To demonstrate that superstitious beliefs are, all things considered, harmful to human progress and modern society.
2) Refute any purported inherent connection between superstition and the good done in the name thereof.

Anti-theism is not required to dispel any particular notion of God.

Like it's been said earlier, that depends on the definition of anti-theism that you're using. If the definition is 'the positive claim of the non-existence of a theistic proposition' (e.g. God doesn't exist) then there's a burden of proof other than those you've stated.

(August 15, 2014 at 11:34 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(August 15, 2014 at 11:31 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Anti-theism has the following burden of proof to meet:

1) To demonstrate that superstitious beliefs are, all things considered, harmful to human progress and modern society.
2) Refute any purported inherent connection between superstition and the good done in the name thereof.

Anti-theism is not required to dispel any particular notion of God.

Like it's been said earlier, that depends on the definition of anti-theism that you're using. If the definition is 'the positive claim of the non-existence of a theistic proposition' (e.g. God doesn't exist) then there's a burden of proof other than those you've stated.

Yes, dogmatical atheism is as much of a claim as dogmatical theism. But one can be little more than skeptical and still vehemently oppose any sacrifice demanded of humans in the empirical world for the sake of one that can only be imagined.

(August 15, 2014 at 9:07 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(August 14, 2014 at 9:41 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: *I misunderstood the usage of the term anti-theist in the OP but that mistake was corrected by the posts of others.

Not a misuse Chad. The definition of anti-theist that you gave is a valid one. The term 'gnostic atheist' is actually less accurate, etymologically, but it is in common use and has a well accepted definition that meets the needs of the OP.

The definition of anti-theist is in common use, as well:

anti theist
Web definitions
Antitheism is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.

---

(August 14, 2014 at 8:12 pm)Polaris Wrote:

(August 14, 2014 at 8:03 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I just don't get the mindset that produces a statement along the lines of "I am sure that my god exists and the burden of proof lies upon anyone who doubts me".

Is it any different than saying I dismiss all existing evidence of God's existence and the burden of proof lies upon the theist to provide new evidence I can't possibly dispute?

Yes. Despite deliberately wording it to make it appear that the speaker didn't carefully consider the evidence, the latter assigns the burdern of proof correctly, on the person trying to establish the existence of something.

(August 15, 2014 at 11:34 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(August 15, 2014 at 11:31 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Anti-theism has the following burden of proof to meet:

1) To demonstrate that superstitious beliefs are, all things considered, harmful to human progress and modern society.
2) Refute any purported inherent connection between superstition and the good done in the name thereof.

Anti-theism is not required to dispel any particular notion of God.

Like it's been said earlier, that depends on the definition of anti-theism that you're using. If the definition is 'the positive claim of the non-existence of a theistic proposition' (e.g. God doesn't exist) then there's a burden of proof other than those you've stated.

That's not anti-theism... That's Gnostic/Strong atheism, the belief no gods exist. Anti-theism is the opposition to belief/god concept and not the assertion that god can't exist. I'm mostly an agnostic atheist and I'm an anti-theist.

(August 15, 2014 at 2:20 pm)Blackout Wrote:

(August 15, 2014 at 11:34 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Like it's been said earlier, that depends on the definition of anti-theism that you're using. If the definition is 'the positive claim of the non-existence of a theistic proposition' (e.g. God doesn't exist) then there's a burden of proof other than those you've stated.

That's not anti-theism... That's Gnostic/Strong atheism, the belief no gods exist. Anti-theism is the opposition to belief/god concept and not the assertion that god can't exist. I'm mostly an agnostic atheist and I'm an anti-theist.

I'm an anti-theist and I'm not even sure I'm opposed to God as a concept. In fact, it most certainly is the logical extension of conceptions that we can only experience in terms of contingency and so long as God is an ideal that serves as the basis for our systematic unity from which we perceive the world, fine.

But that's not to say that God as an idea can be said to exist in experience. Any dogmatic claim to that should be opposed, especially when coupled with notions of God not sufficiently supported by reason, as we find in all religions. The statement "Man created God in his own image" appears to be, in fact, the case.

That's where I think anti-theism stands in the correct.

(August 15, 2014 at 2:50 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(August 15, 2014 at 2:20 pm)Blackout Wrote: That's not anti-theism... That's Gnostic/Strong atheism, the belief no gods exist. Anti-theism is the opposition to belief/god concept and not the assertion that god can't exist. I'm mostly an agnostic atheist and I'm an anti-theist.

I'm an anti-theist and I'm not even sure I'm opposed to God as a concept. In fact, it most certainly is the logical extension of conceptions that we can only experience in terms of contingency and so long as God is an ideal that serves as the basis for our systematic unity from which we perceive the world, fine.

But that's not to say that God as an idea can be said to exist in experience. Any dogmatic claim to that should be opposed, especially when coupled with notions of God not sufficiently supported by reason, as we find in all religions. The statement "Man created God in his own image" appears to be, in fact, the case.

That's where I think anti-theism stands in the correct.

Sure, there isn't just one definition of anti-theism, check my reply on the previous pages (probably the second one) where I explain the 3 typical meanings attributed to anti-theism. I'm deducing that in your case you are more opposed to people believing in god, specially when they claim god exists, and not against the god concept per se, whereas in my case I'm more opposed to the idea of god (man made) than to people believing, even though I don't think being a believer is good either.

My point was to assert that believing no gods exist doesn't correlate with anti-theism, but with gnostic atheism. If I make the claim that gods don't exist with 100% certainty, I have the burden of proof and my assertion is a positive one, I possess knowledge (or at least claim so), therefore I'm a gnostic atheist. But that doesn't make me an anti-theist, like Rhythm pointed out, I could be a theist if I knew god existed, and still be an anti-theist because I thought god was evil and felt like rebelling against him

A gnostic theist is one who knows that gods do not exist. Thus it is a claim of knowledge, not a claim of 100% certainty. Knowledge is typically defined as justified true belief. In the absence of certainty, a belief is held to be true if it is justified, so we'll ignore the 'true' part of this definition. Belief is easily satisfied. All that is left is to produce adequate justification for that belief, and one has satisfied the requirements for knowledge. One way to justify disbelief in gods is to show the improbability of their existence. However, a better way to justify it is with an argument to the most likely explanation for god claims. If it can be shown that fraud, imagination, or error account for god claims better than the actual existence of a god, then one has justified discounting that god claim. This is especially potent when coupled with arguments about the multiplicity of incompatible claims, and the geographical dispersion of god claims. In this way, one eliminates all common god claims and justifies disbelief in all of them. Remember, knowledge is justified true belief, and the belief that all god claims are unsubstantiated has been justified in this manner, justifies belief that no god exists.

(August 15, 2014 at 2:20 pm)Blackout Wrote: That's not anti-theism... That's Gnostic/Strong atheism, the belief no gods exist. Anti-theism is the opposition to belief/god concept and not the assertion that god can't exist. I'm mostly an agnostic atheist and I'm an anti-theist.

You're focussing on only one definition of anti-theism here, the one which represents your position but there's another definition which is missing from your other 3 (earlier in the thread). Broadly and literally, the term represents any position which opposes a theistic proposition; either the religion/organisation and/or the deity. Stating 'there is no <insert deity>' is an anti-theistic position. The term 'gnostic atheist' is used to mean the same thing although it's a slight misuse: it literally means 'knowledge of an absence of theism' (i.e. having knowledge that one's an atheist). That's why I prefer the term 'anti-theist' when I state a claim in the non-existence of a deity. That's just my personal choice. As I said before, common use definitions of 'gnostic atheist' mean the same thing.

Quote:My point was to assert that believing no gods exist doesn't correlate with anti-theism, but with gnostic atheism

To keep being pedantic, it correlates more literally with anti-theism than with gnostic atheism