Hey Anti-Theists! Prove Your Claim

[Dystopia]

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.

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

I disagree, anti-theism means being against theism, it doesn't mean theism is wrong, you could be a theist and an anti-theist. An anti-theist opposes god, the god idea or the belief in gods, the denial of the god proposition doesn't make you an anti-theist, or at least I don't consider the expression to be correctly used. If I simply denied the idea that god exists but didn't oppose it, then I would be just an atheist. Following your line of thought, we would have to assert theists who believe or claim a god exists are all anti-atheists, and we all know not all are.

If I claim a god doesn't exist, it means I possess knowledge to make the conclusion, it's a gnostic proposition. In my case, I'm a gnostic when it comes to some gods, agnostic when it comes to others harder to disprove (eg the deistic god)

[Mudhammam]

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.

You could easily demonstrate the absurdity of belief in the God concept as it relates to any specific claim about supernatural beings who act within our natural experience. However, I'm not so sure one can justify disbelief in God as an intelligible First Cause, the whatever-you-want-to-call it from which the Universe has its origin, an origin that principles of reason seem to cohere with the notion of an infinite, necessary, and free existence.

[Dystopia]

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.

Ok I didn't know that, but it makes sense, thanks for the enlightening. That probably means I'm a strong/gnostic atheists to most gods, except the ones who are impossible to disprove.

[Ben Davis]

I disagree, anti-theism means being against theism, it doesn't mean theism is wrong, you could be a theist and an anti-theist.

It literally means 'in opposition to theism'. If you claim that 'theism is wrong' that's in opposition to a theistic proposition therefore inherently anti-theistic. Also, theists do tend to be anti-theistic regarding gods in which they don't believe.

An anti-theist opposes god, the god idea or the belief in gods, the denial of the god proposition doesn't make you an anti-theist...

It does if that denial is in opposition to a theistic proposition.

If I simply denied the idea that god exists but didn't oppose it, then I would be just an atheist.

Exactly but if your denial takes an opposing form, it's anti-theistic.

Following your line of thought, we would have to assert theists who believe or claim a god exists are all anti-atheists, and we all know not all are.

That would be true under the broad definition I'm using. Given the more tailored definition that you're using, it wouldn't. You need to keep in mind the different uses of the prefix 'anti' and how that changes with context.

If I claim a god doesn't exist, it means I possess knowledge to make the conclusion, it's a gnostic proposition.

Yes. It's also an anti-theistic proposition. The claim of non-existence is in direct opposition to the theistic claim of existence; anti-theistic. To use the latin form, it is also the contradiction of the propositon; contra-deistic. Modern use is layered over the original use: deism now o'days means something different to theism but etymologically, they mean exactly the same thing. I like the flexibility of language.

In my case, I'm a gnostic when it comes to some gods, agnostic when it comes to others harder to disprove (eg the deistic god)

Me too. I put it in these terms: my anti-theism is manifest when presented with some theistic propositions but not with others.

[Dystopia]

It literally means 'in opposition to theism'. If you claim that 'theism is wrong' that's in opposition to a theistic proposition therefore inherently anti-theistic. Also, theists do tend to be anti-theistic regarding gods in which they don't believe.

No, if I claim theism is wrong that only means I think theism is wrong. I could be a gnostic atheist and think the belief in gods had positive effects, I could abstain from opposing it and even incentive people to believe because I thought it brought them benefits. Anti-theism means being against theism. Theism is the belief god or gods exist (or the positive claim), therefore anti-theism means being against theism, even if god does exist. Saying solely 'god doesn't exist' doesn't make me an anti-theist, it just makes me a gnostic atheist. And yes some theists are anti-theists, but not all, EG Liberal theists and some liberal Christians or Muslims

It does if that denial is in opposition to a theistic proposition.

Of course I agree, I'm saying if you solely claim god doesn't exist without opposing positively to people believing in it.

Exactly but if your denial takes an opposing form, it's anti-theistic.

In my case, yes, but there could be gnostic atheists out there that don't oppose theism, they just think it's wrong. I can think something is wrong and not oppose it, don't take it harsh but you saying I can't do it is an offence to my intellectual faculties.

That would be true under the broad definition I'm using. Given the more tailored definition that you're using, it wouldn't. You need to keep in mind the different uses of the prefix 'anti' and how that changes with context.

Yes but I'm sticking with the 'classical' definition of anti-theism, making it bigger isn't of many use.

Yes. It's also an anti-theistic proposition. The claim of non-existence is in direct opposition to the theistic claim of existence; anti-theistic. To use the latin form, it is also the contradiction of the propositon; contra-deistic. Modern use is layered over the original use: deism now o'days means something different to theism but etymologically, they mean exactly the same thing. I like the flexibility of language.

It's not anti, I'm not positively against the theistic proposition, I'm merely saying it's wrong. Let's put it simple:
If I say 'god doesn't exist, and believing in god is bullshit, people should stop doing it' OR 'god doesn't exist, and the god concept is idiotic' I'm probably an anti-theist

If I merely say 'god doesn't exist' I'm just saying I don't think god exists, I'm not obligated to be opposed to the concept of god or people believing in it. After all, I'm not 100% sure and people have the right to disagree with me. I don't think considering something wrong means being 'anti-that' immediately. For instance, I think adultery is wrong, but I'm not anti-adultery.

Me too. I put it in these terms: my anti-theism is manifest when presented with some theistic propositions but not with others.

It's valid if you chose to interpret the etymology of the expression this way, but keep in mind some people might not know exactly what you mean, since anti-theism is attributed to a direct opposition either to the god concept/religion or to people believing in god.

[The Grand Nudger]

Can I spend the next 8 pages telling atheists (of whatever stripe) what their position is? What atheism means? Oooh, ooh, I just, can't, wait - to see that response.

This has been a facepalm thread from the word "go".

(PS, gimme just three more kudos on my first post in this thread and I'll sacrifice a goat to whatever god y'all want)

[Neo-Scholastic]

Rae, the idea behind knowledge as "justified true belief" distinguishes between deduced concepts, of which someone can be certain, and empirical judgments, of which someone cannot be fully certain. Your examples seem to lean toward the more empirical, primarily because they address specific instances. That approach gives you a justified opinion, but not actual knowledge. I think you recognize this, because you set aside from the 'true' part in your post.

[The Grand Nudger]

A deduced concept can only be said to be "truthful" when the deduction leverages what can be said to be sound. I doubt that you'll be able to separate "empirical judgement" from any deduced concept and maintain it's "truth" or any claim of certainty.

Garbage in, garbage out Chad.

[MJ the Skeptical]

Sorry I couldn't resist making fun of the inane "Hey Atheists..." titled threads. Anyway...

For those of you that self-describe as anti-theists, you face the same burden of proof as believers. So, please share the compelling proof or evidence that you believe disproves the existence of a god or gods.

Oh look, another that theists keep pretending is relevant.

This idea that an Anti-theist must disprove gods if they think the idea of God is not only false like an atheist but go further and think it's a bad idea for society as well. This is just you desperately trying to shift the burden of proof onto the Anti-theist.

[ComradeMeow]

I myself profess to be anti-theistic at times. I am an anti-theist towards particular gods such as a yahweh or Allah considering the evidence for these gods refutes their existence.
In certain cases I know that particular gods do not exist at all.

Now on a broad sense, what the fuck is a god even anyways? How can I or anyone accept something as vague as a god. I can be anti-theistic for the mere fact that all concepts of god are gibberish, deceitful and rely upon nothing. People use fallacy after fallacy to posit the existence of a god and try claiming that "god is love" or "god is the universe". All of these are mere wordplay and I can be anti-theistic purely because of the incoherency of god.

...Meow