where are the differences between Anti-theistic and Atheistic

[Sha'irullah]

Sure. In order:

1. He takes for granted that Dawkins and Harris are both wrong and unfair in criticizing the existence of religion itself.

2. He states outright that there is such a thing as "New Atheism" and that it is significantly different from (traditional?) atheism and not representative of the later.

3. He conflates theism with religion itself (ironically, the one thing he has in common with Dawkins and perhaps Harris).

4. He decrees, out of nowhere, that anti-theism will use force "if necessary".

5. He also decrees, incredibly, that anti-theism is "relatively new".

6. He overstates the case for diversity of forms of atheism.

7. Oddly, he presents atheism as a "positive worldview" and a "self-contained belief system" in some of its supposed forms. That despite earlier conflating religion with Theism, no less.

8. He then implicitly claims that religion is necessary for society to exist in harmony.

9. Immediately after that, he decides that the Enlightenment had no interest in religious reform, only in political change.

10. He seems to be confusing state atheism with anti-theism.

11. He claims, surprisingly, that the World Wars of the 20th century "punctured the promises of secular nationalism in the West", despite the one secular regime of those conflicts having actually won WW 2 and become that much stronger for that.

12. He misrepresents (again) anti-theism as both being irrational and extremist and as being the same thing as "New Atheism".

13. He has a weird description of this supposed "New Atheism" then, to which I will pay no attention. He is delusional at this point.

All in all, not a very commendable little text from Reza Aslan. I must wonder what his agenda is now.

I always picked up on Reza confused arguments. I couldn't tell if he was lying or just doesn't understand what an atheist is. Lately I am assuming he is lying although earlier I assumed he was ignorant.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Something I should add to this old thread here is the nature of Anti-theism.

Anti-theism is broad and is only relevant with the nature of an atheist. It is best described as a quality or reasoning behind an action. An Anti-theist is an atheist but not all atheist are anti-theist which is something people should know from the get go. There is no line that separates the two.
Anti-theism only designates the attitude of an atheist. Some atheist are Apatheists which means they hold no regard for even discussing gods and other mythological characters. Then you have the flip to this which is an Anti-theist who make a positive claim and set of assertions (or actions). These people are much like Evangelicals in that all Evangelicals are Christians but not all Christians are Evangelicals. Evangelicals make it their duty to support a religion or positive claim while an Anti-theist makes it his duty to destroy a positive claim.
This also means that Anti-theism can result in positive assertions or negatives. It is quite loose in what is the basis for opposition towards theism.







Another thing to take note of is that only men can be Anti-theist because women lack the intellect to attack theism....

...SYKE!

 

[Willamena]

Then you have the flip to this which is an Anti-theist who make a positive claim and set of assertions (or actions)...

Evangelicals make it their duty to support a religion or positive claim while an Anti-theist makes it his duty to destroy a positive claim.

What positive claim?

This also means that Anti-theism can result in positive assertions or negatives.

What is a positive negative?

 

[LuisDantas]

Some atheist are Apatheists which means they hold no regard for even discussing gods and other mythological characters. Then you have the flip to this which is an Anti-theist who make a positive claim and set of assertions (or actions).

So it is not possible to be both an anti-theist and an apatheist? As in opposing the practice of belief in deities, while not personally caring whether they exist?

Sounds reasonable, but I'm not quite sure that is right yet. I guess I am suspect.

These people are much like Evangelicals in that all Evangelicals are Christians but not all Christians are Evangelicals. Evangelicals make it their duty to support a religion or positive claim while an Anti-theist makes it his duty to destroy a positive claim.

Destroy, or challenge? Ultimately it is the claimant who can destroy his own claim. No one else.

This also means that Anti-theism can result in positive assertions or negatives. It is quite loose in what is the basis for opposition towards theism.

I had not considered that. I assume there are a handful of typical sustentations, though. One of them must be belief that theism is unhealthy.

 

[devshift]

Anti-theism is just the stance of disagreeing with the concept of Religions. Just like anti-anything is the counter argument of anything.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

You can either be both or just Atheist, since it doesn't make sense to disagree with the concept of Region and be Religious at the same time. That is, unless you disagree with your own views, which in that case you might be a little crazy.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Anti-theism is just the stance of disagreeing with Religions. Just like anti-anything is the counter argument of anything.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

Wrong wrong wrong

Anti-theism is the stance against theism. Anti-religion is the stance against religion

And Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods.

 

[devshift]

Wrong wrong wrong

Anti-theism is the stance against theism. Anti-religion is the stance against religion

And Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods.

Sorry I meant theism, I was using theism interchangeably with Religion, which is wrong. My mistake.

edit: ignore that removed part, I was wrong lol

 

[Sha'irullah]

Sorry I meant theism, I was using theism interchangeably with Religion, which is wrong. My mistake.

edit: ignore that removed part, I was wrong lol

In general most people do this. It is still debated on the necessity of religion and theism. Religions like Buddhism don't have the required belief in a god yet are called religions. Some people don't consider Buddhism a religion because of this.

This is why anti-theism is often conflated with anti-religion. I understand how you feel though because a religion without a god is pretty much just a social club