Antitheism

[Mister Agenda]

I think you're just dumb, since you seem to think antitheism and antitheist aren't words describing the same state of mind.

Atheism is a state of mind, the state of not holding any belief that a proposed or conceived deity is actually real. Antitheism is active opposition to theism. Active opposition to theism is doing more to dissent against theism than merely passively supporting it (like agreeing with dissent against theism on the internet).
Ones actions can be consistent with antitheism without being motivated by antitheism. For example, if you are a political secularist, you can be for changing the motto on US money back to E Pluribus Unum and still be a Christian. If I would rather 'God' be taken out of the Pledge and say so on the internet, that is not the same thing as actively opposing it being in the Pledge, and if my motivation is a love for freedom of religion, my doing so doesn't make me an antitheist in any sense.

[paulpablo]

I don't oppose the belief in God in itself.
If someone tells me they believe in god I don't have much to oppose that argument with, I don't believe you can prove God exists or doesn't exist.  I can't disprove that I'm God.  
What I oppose is the arguments that usually follow on relating to the belief in God.  Numerology, miracles and so on.
For example I believe in God because the Quran is perfect, numerology, I saw God when I took acid once, The bible is nice and so on.

Actually, you don't know whether you have something to oppose that argument with or not, as prior to getting an unambiguous definition of God you don't know whether it's a falsiable claim or not that is about to be made.

Yes that's correct. I suppose if someone was to say they believe in a God that I should be able to see and he walks around clearly seen then I would be opposed to that, but if we're talking about God as most people definite it then it's pretty much whittled away to nothing that you can prove or disprove.

[Mister Agenda]

I never assume what the other person thinks and I never commit ad hominems against them looking for public approval. I always address the argument first. I engage in rational conversation. A lot of people here, including you, start attacking, smearing and misrepresenting me in the middle of the conversation, instead of continuing to have a discussion.

They're not wrong because they're stupid, they're stupid because you can't get them to agree with you no matter how sure you are that you've proven yourself right.

It's true that that is not an ad hominem fallacy. It's just being a garden-variety asshole.

[Excited Penguin]

Actually, you don't know whether you have something to oppose that argument with or not, as prior to getting an unambiguous definition of God you don't know whether it's a falsiable claim or not that is about to be made.

Yes that's correct.  I suppose if someone was to say they believe in a God that I should be able to see and he walks around clearly seen then I would be opposed to that, but if we're talking about God as most people definite it then it's pretty much whittled away to nothing that you can prove or disprove.

What do you mean by most people, and how do most people define it?

[LastPoet]

EP, Have you resumed making friends again? You know that you should not seek friends, they will find you!

[Ravenshire]

(You're blocked, Mr Agenda. Just thought you should know in case you keep replying to me.)

Removing dissenting views from your perception does not make you right, just petulant.

[LastPoet]

(You're blocked, Mr Agenda. Just thought you should know in case you keep replying to me.)

Removing dissenting views from your perception does not make you right, just petulant.

Seriously? Mister Agenda, one of the most polite atheists around? Dude needs meds.

[LadyForCamus]

You can make false definitions all you want, but don't you dare blatantly fucking lie and not expect to be called out on it.

Google those definitions. I didn't lie.

I already pointed out to you exactly where in the definition of religion you are getting hung up on (or refusing to acknowledge).

"The belief in, AND WORSHIP of..."

If I tell you I believe in Santa, all that constitutes is my personal, internal, private belief. If I tell you I believe in, and WORSHIP Santa, then you can ask me, "how do you worship Santa?"

And I might reply that I pray to him 5 times a day, I recite my "Santa is awesome" chant, I take Tuesdays off in his honor, and I make a yearly trek to the North Pole to pay homage. -THIS- you may call a religion.

My belief alone is not. And same goes for God, because I don't make exceptions for any one type of imaginary friend. If you know one, you know them all.

[drfuzzy]

Google those definitions. I didn't lie.

I already pointed out to you exactly where in the definition of religion you are getting hung up on (or refusing to acknowledge).  

"The belief in, AND WORSHIP of..."

If I tell you I believe in Santa, all that constitutes is my personal, internal, private belief.  If I tell you I believe in, and WORSHIP Santa, then you can ask me, "how do you worship Santa?"  

And I might reply that I pray to him 5 times a day, I recite my "Santa is awesome" chant, I take Tuesdays off in his honor, and I make a yearly trek to the North Pole to pay homage.  -THIS- you may call a religion.

My belief alone is not.  And same goes for God, because I don't make exceptions for any one type of imaginary friend. If you know one, you know them all.

It's not only the worship . . . it can be private.  My objection would be trying to force those actions on anyone else.

[LadyForCamus]

I agree; worship can be as private as the belief itself, but I don't think you can equate the belief in a particular supernatural being with "religion" without that ritualistic worship, private or otherwise. And yeah, forcing it down other people's throats is nasty icing on an already disgusting cake. [emoji13]