Hey Anti-Theists! Prove Your Claim

[Mister Agenda]

Brakeman:"3. Religion is a psychological con game, where the religious hierarchy lie to gain the workers pay. Evidence of this is by my personal observation. Additional evidence could be easily verified by the IRS."



Hmm. What about Unitarian Universalism? They don't even require a tithe, they pretty much just hope you'll give enough to keep the building open and pay the pastor less than $40K.

[Bibliofagus]

I'm just an atheist. There is no need for me to be 'gnostic' or 'agnostic' about supernatural claims. They are just claims.

[Dystopia]

Rhythm explained it very well, but I'll go a little further on this:

1 - Anti-theism and atheism are two different positions. Atheism is typically the lack of belief in gods or the belief no gods exist, while anti-theism is the opposition to
1.1 - People believing in god (not really my case, but I don't support belief in god either)
1.2 - The god concept/idea (this is my case)
1.3 - An opposition to god if he happened to exist (this would also be my case if god was proven to be true, at least if it was the abrahamic god type)

Personally I am both an atheist and an anti-theist, but I could be a deist or a theist and still be an anti-theist, the two propositions are not mutually exclusive. Anti-theism is NOT enough to justify my atheism, the reasons I'm an atheist are different from the reasons that brought me to be an anti-theist.

As for your burden of proof, anti-theism is not a claim, but merely an opposition, I don't need evidence for it. And even if I considered that anti-theism needed evidence, seeing the stupidity behind the god concept and the harm religion does is enough to justify it. For dummy theists, what I mean is - Lack of critical thinking, rationality/reason, discrimination of certain categories of people (EG Homosexuals, women, people who practice different religions, atheists, apostates, etc.), wishful thinking, severe indoctrination, fear of death, lack of scientific knowledge and culture, do I need to continue?

I hope that satisfied your curiosity.

[ShaMan]

Anti-theist, to me, means being against theists, and not holding the belief that god doesn't exist (which can't be proven any more that proving god does exist). There are theists everywhere, and I can prove they exist - I'm just anti-whatever they say and believe regarding their faith ect, and therefore I am anti-theist. I hope this helps

[Dystopia]

Anti-theist, to me, means being against theists, and not holding the belief that god doesn't exist (which can't be proven any more that proving god does exist). There are theists everywhere, and I can prove they exist - I'm just anti-whatever they say and believe, and therefore I am anti-theist. I hope this helps

To correct, anti-theism is not being against theist, merely against the god concept and the belief in god. You can hate the belief, but not the believer, you put it wrongly mate.

[ShaMan]

You can hate the belief, but not the believer, you put it wrongly mate.

Thanks friend. I know what "anti-theist" means, but I relate differently (and perhaps more personally) to the term.

That's why I started my post with "Anti-theist, to me, means...."

Cheers

[Neo-Scholastic]

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of 'gnostic atheism', a metaphysical claim. I suppose that puts anti-theism into the basic "I'm against anything related to theistic belief" catagory, for any number of reasons, even though the existence of a god or gods cannot be formally disproven.

[Ryantology]

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of 'gnostic atheism', a metaphysical claim. I suppose that puts anti-theism into the basic "I'm against anything related to theistic belief" catagory, for any number of reasons, even though the existence of a god or gods cannot be formally disproven.

Why do you think this burden doesn't apply to you? You believe in a single, specific god and your belief system explicitly excludes all other possible belief systems and gods as being false. If we have to prove that all gods don't exist, you are just as burdened with proving that all other gods don't exist, and that's just in addition to all the things about your god you have the burden of positively proving. Your burden of proof is always going to be greater than even the most convinced strong atheist, and there's nothing you can do about it except satisfy that burden. That being the case, perhaps you should stop trying to shift the burden. You've more than got your work cut out for you.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of 'gnostic atheism', a metaphysical claim. I suppose that puts anti-theism into the basic "I'm against anything related to theistic belief" catagory, for any number of reasons, even though the existence of a god or gods cannot be formally disproven.

Why do you think this burden doesn't apply to you? You believe in a single, specific god and your belief system explicitly excludes all other possible belief systems and gods as being false. If we have to prove that all gods don't exist, you are just as burdened with proving that all other gods don't exist, and that's just in addition to all the things about your god you have the burden of positively proving. Your burden of proof is always going to be greater than even the most convinced strong atheist, and there's nothing you can do about it except satisfy that burden. That being the case, perhaps you should stop trying to shift the burden. You've more than got your work cut out for you.

The burden of proof has been satisfied long ago in pagan philosophy with Plotinus and later in Christendom when Aquinas developed these into an overall satisfying natural theology. Since you apparently do not accept these proofs, I can only conclude that you are either ignorant of them or are swayed by modern mis-characterizations of these arguments

Since my belief is based primarily on reason applied to common experience, I can accept there may be other supernatural agents below the fundamental level. I look to first principles and do not find intermediate and contingent agents of much interest. Even with regards to a pantheon, even the Pre-Socratic philosophers recognized the need for an overarching principle.

[Zen Badger]

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of 'gnostic atheism', a metaphysical claim. I suppose that puts anti-theism into the basic "I'm against anything related to theistic belief" catagory, for any number of reasons, even though the existence of a god or gods cannot be formally disproven.

For that matter, neither can unicorns.

Shall we then start believing in unicorns?