An anti-theist is one who, essentially, takes exception to theistic exceptionalism.

The anti-theist is (often vehemently) vociferous about and antagonistic towards theistic demands that, say, churches/clergy should not pay taxes, or the criticism of religious tenets is necessarily "racist"/ "intolerant"...

The anti-theist is critical of the fact that theists demand and expect that exceptions to law / social conventions / constraints be permitted for them.

muso wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:


Most theists have a barrow to push as well.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 9:24am:

And sometimes the "declared" atheist simply wants to extricate those who "disbelieve the proposition that god exists" from the theistic religious agenda.

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 6:09pm:


Well "existence" is problematic when applied to supernatural entities. Existence is generally accepted to be a property of the natural world that we experience- something that's made out of atoms or energy or neutrinos or dark matter or something that can be measured or experienced in some way.

Now I don't know what is implied by the phrase "the existence of God" - Does that mean that God exists in Space time?   

The problem with the use of "exist" is that some theists don't actually believe that God or gods exist as part of the natural universe. They believe in God (or gods) as being somehow outside the natural universe (except for Deists of course). So a person who doesn't believe that God exists with respect to atoms and energy etc, could very well be a theist.   

I usually get by with the definition that an Atheist is a person who doesn't believe in Gods (without all the messy "existence"). In other words, the concept of Gods has no relevence to their life.

An Agnostic (Greek: ἀ- a-, without + γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a fence sitter. He doesn't really know if God exists or not, but may or may not choose to believe in God through faith. The Latin root is. The position of belief is not relevent to an Agnostic. The central property of an agnostic is "knowledge". Hence, we can have Agnostic theists and Agnostic atheists.   

A theist is a person who believes in God (without all the messy "existence") 

It all becomes a problem of semantics. The Deist God (basically nature) is totally different from the Jewish God with respect  to existence, and that's why the concept appeals to me.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 9:54pm:





Time and the universe.

I personally find it difficult to conceptualise that there could have been a start to time, or, that there could be [one 'day' be] an end to time.

Does that mean that there can never be an end to time ???

And man is unsure if the universe has a 'boundary', or if the universe is unending, and limitless.

And how can any man know these things, for certain ???

At the moment, surely no man can know if there will be an end to time, or if the universe is limitless.




The existence of 'God'.

Quote:



Question.

On what basis, in knowledge, can an atheist presume to 'know' or even 'believe', that there is no God ???

Are men, are atheists, omniscient ???

Dictionary;
omniscient = = knowing everything.

No, we are not.

So, not being omniscient, for any man to categorically state that they believe that there is no God, isn't that proposition [in logic] wildly presumptuous ???

Dictionary;
presumptuous = = failing to observe the limits of what is permitted or appropriate.



+++

Because an atheist has had no experience of a spiritual realm, does that [the lack of that experience] negate all possibility of the existence of a spiritual realm?

And would atheists require that other community members must accept, only their own [the atheists] perceptions of what 'reality' 'is' ?

And, to an atheist, is the differing experience of another person always invalid,
...because the atheist has not shared such an experience?


+++

Take the example of radio waves;

500 years ago, radio waves effectively did not exist [within the human experience].

Why?

Because we humans can not see 'invisible' radio waves.

But today, a human being of average intelligence, would not dream of claiming that radio waves do not exist.

Even today [in this technological age], there must be the real possibility that there are many real phenomena [even within 'nature'] which our human senses [and our present technology] cannot perceive.

Only an arrogant personality would deny such a possibility, such a,   ...'reality'.

OR CONTRAWISE, are atheists suggesting, that only the experience of the majority of mankind, defines our reality, absolutely?

And are atheists suggesting that because our human senses [still] cannot perceive as yet, undiscovered 'phenomena', or that because we have not yet created a machine which can sense them, that we should dismiss any possibility of the existence of those 'things' which as yet, remain undiscovered and that are as yet, unknown to the understanding of the common man?

+++

It is very threatening to some, to have their perception of reality challenged.

And those who challenge our [or, 'the'] common perception of reality, often experience the ridicule and open hostility of 'society', and of the 'common' man.

Some people choose, to live within a very small 'reality', within a very, very, small universe.




+++

Quote:

Firefly - Objects in Space
Joss Whedon

The Moslems will do to the French
What the Germans did to the Jews
And then both Jew and Moslem will Unite
and get those bloody Italians.


Jesus said: "Wait till me little brother Hitler gets yas!" as he hung from the Cross and looked down upon his Jewish people beneath him (all eating Chocolate Eggs and Bunny Rabbis)

Atheists: Because they love to Read & Write so Religiously upon Forums.

the real question is 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'.

that question is at least as important in most of the silly musing much of you are going on about.