RootsBooster Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 Using Hitchens, theism is the belief that God(s) not only exists, but takes an active role in controling and directing human life. He uses the term deism to be a belief that God exists. Thomas Paine was a deist. (The Age of Reason) Okay, but you were talking about ant-theism. So by Hitchens' definition of theism, his definition of anti-theism (the one which you gave earlier) would apply better to anti-deism. Am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 Yes i guessed that So your response was purely militant then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 You're equating sceptics with hate filled preachers with the statement, just like you are equating atheists with terrorists when you use the term "militant atheist". No I'm not. I've said that sceptics are sometimes verbally violent. You've taken 'violence' to be at the same level as that displayed by fundamentalist religious ranting nutters Verbal violence can be quite mild, taking the form of, for example, needless counter-productive insults and goading, of the variety used by some sceptics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 his definition of anti-theism would apply better to anti-deism. Am I wrong? Deism has work to do to prove that God exists. Theism has work to do to prove that God cares for us and takes a role in our lives. Anti-theism is opposed to the idea that God takes a role in our lives. Atheism is not believing in God, and thus not believing that a God takes a role in our lives. Adeism is not believing that God exists, and is thus atheism at the same time by proxy. I may be wrong. This is my understanding of the ways in which Hitchens uses the terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 Anti-theist, as I understand it from Hitchens, is that even if it was proven that God did exist, they'd oppose them. They wouldn't worship them anyway. It's not a positive statement that "God doesn't exist". Am I wrong? In part Chris. As I understand it antitheism is about being against the privileges of religiosity and the effects it has on people and society in general so, in principle, you could be a theist antitheist (ie; believe in a deity but also believe that the effects of religion on people society are harmful and should be criticised). http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheiststheism/a/AntiTheism.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 As I understand it antitheism is about being against the privileges of religiosity and the effects it has on people and society in general so, in principle, you could be a theist antitheist Of course, I understand that. That was Paine's belief, and he got persecuted for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 I dunno, gnostic atheist suggests that they know there is no God. Yes, by saying 'there is no god' you're making a positive claim about some knowledge you have.....therefore you're a gnostic atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 Yes, by saying 'there is no god' you're making a positive claim about some knowledge you have.....therefore you're a gnostic atheist. Then under what label would somebody fall if they only believed there was no God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) No, he said 'atheist' not 'gnostic atheist': by your terms, he got it just plain wrong. I know he got it wrong which is why I'm calling him a gnostic atheist. http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/agnostic-smagnostic.html Edited September 30, 2012 by six45ive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 I know he got it wrong which is why I'm calling him a gnostic atheist. I know 'you know he got it wrong which is why you're calling him a gnostic atheist': I've not said otherwise I was simply pointing it out as an example of a sceptic who, like most of the general public, consider atheism to mean "belief that God does not exist". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts