Neither polytheism nor pantheism, as I understand them, are anti-theistic; rather, they are thematic variations on theism. At most, they're anti-MONOtheistic; but monotheism is only one branch among many of that old burning bush, and very much an almighty-come-lately in the history of divine conceptions. — 180 Proof

Well now I agree with you. Good point.

:cool:

Well I still disagree with that other thing you said lol

Neither polytheism nor pantheism, as I understand them, are anti-theistic; rather, they are thematic variations on theism. At most, they're anti-MONOtheistic; but monotheism is only one branch among many theistic branches that make up that old-time "burning bush", and very much, besides, an "almighty"-come-lately in the history of divine conceptions. — 180 Proof

:ok:

I think you got yourself a good point for once (:wink: ) — DingoJones

:grin:

???

I waa referencing my first post that disagreed an anti theist must be an atheist as well. Then you made a second post to Fool which I agreed with but those were to separate points. Sorry, I could have made that clearer.

I previously addressed your objection finding it unphilosophical. Do you disagree with my reply? Do tell.

I didnt see that, did you add it after the initial post to Fool? i didnt get an alert to that one.
Ok, so yes I disagree. First, anti-theism is not always hatred. It was just one example of an anti-theist (just to be clear). Second, even if hatred was definitive of anti-theism that hatred doesnt only take the form of satanism and therefore cannot be classified as “faith” (which Im not sure satanism even requires).
No sir, I think that one can have perfectly philosophical reasons for hatred and other negative feelings towards theism.
Also, even if I conceded your point above it still wouldn't refute what I originally said about an anti-theist not being an atheist. It would just be a separate point about the philosophical validity of hating something.

Well, our disagreements remain.

Right, we are discussing where we disagree. I directly addressed what you said and then pointed out how your rebuttals failed. If I got something wrong, then tell me how.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "anti-theism", DJ, especially when you say it doesn't entail atheism. What are the grounds, or reasons, a "theist" would have for rejecting "theism" (or her 'theistic deity' ... rather than some other 'theistic deity', which would be atheism with respect to that particular 'theistic deity').

I dont know if we are talking past each other or what...lets start from the beginning.
Atheism is about whether or not god exists, anti-theism is about opposing religion or believers/theistic beliefs about god.
Do you accept that distinction?

I dont know if we are talking past each other or what...lets start from the beginning.
Atheism is about whether or not god exists, anti-theism is about opposing religion or believers/theistic beliefs about god.
Do you accept that distinction? — DingoJones

Not quite: I use both terms conceptually (not colloquially) as second-order (meta) statements in which each, one general and the other specific, addresses - tests - first-order (object) statements about g/G (re: theism):

Anti-theism "opposes theistic beliefs" only insofar as it's demonstrated that theism is not true.

A-theism claims that (some or all) specific 'deity exists' claims of theism are not true.


(NB: "opposing religion" = irreligion)

"Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism ." — Baden

My experience indicates that anyone and everyone who uses the word "atheist" to describe him/herself...REGARDLESS OF HOW IT IS DEFINED IN SOME DICTIONARIES...either "believes" that there are no gods or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

The notion that "atheism" is simply "the absence of belief" is an absurdity...a fraud atheists attempt to perpetrate on everyone else in an attempt to pretend their "atheism" is not the product of BELIEF.

Both religion and atheism have "belief" (guesses about the unknown) at their core.

Well those are idiosyncratic definitions of anti-theism and irreligion, but ok.
So “anti-theism” is only opposed to theistic beliefs when its “atheism”? That seems to be the consequence of your usage described above.
So what do you call someone who is not an atheist, but opposes religion?

So what do you call someone who is not an atheist, but opposes religion? — DingoJones

Irreligious.

“irreligious” includes opposing religion, not knowing religion and not choosing a religion. Its not specific to opposing religion, the same way the word “human” isn't specific to what we call a human that practices medicine. That would be a doctor. If you want to be specific about a person opposing religion, anti-theist is the word youre looking for.

You're mistaken. E.g. (JCI) monotheists are atheists with respect to "other gods" (e.g. Olympian Pantheon, Nordic Sagas, Hindu Vedas, Indigenous tribal totems, etc). — 180 Proof

Yeah, I realize this. I should have said can apply across the board.

No. Holding 'simultaneously' that both theism and anti-theism are 'true' is contradictory. As Wolfman & Wayfarer point out (above), the 'apparent inconsistency' (of (e.g.) Daoist pandeism (or pantheism?) combined with worship of local deities + ancester veneration) is only apparent and quite pragmatic, or non-binary - different 'objects of hope' for addressing different 'modes of fear' - in terms of cultural (traditional) context. — 180 Proof

I took their posts to just refer to behavior, which doesn’t necessarily correlate to belief. What concept(s) of God they worship, pray to, revere, etc. can be different than the one that they actually believe in. This is similar to Atheists celebrating Christmas. Either way, holding both beliefs “simultaneously” is what I meant.

Neither polytheism nor pantheism, as I understand them, are anti-theistic — 180 Proof

But, a Polytheist or Pantheist could be an Antitheist if they disagreed with the Theistic conception of God and had some animosity towards Theism in general, right?

No, polytheist and pantheist are types of theism so that wouldnt make any sense. Im not sure, but I would guess there are words for animosity towards specific types of theism aimed from others theisms. Like, Anti-Christian or anti-pantheist.

So you disagree with this?

It seems it's possible to be a theist and yet an antitheist for the latter is defined as an active opposition to god. An atheist being an antitheist is natural evolution doing its thing but a theist who is an antitheist is someone who must hold that god does more harm than good, something not too outlandish if one looks at all the atrocious acts being committed in his name. — TheMadFool

What does that have to do with what I said?

If you’re claiming that polytheists and pantheists are incapable of being antitheists because they are types of Theism, then you’re disagreeing with the first sentence in Fool’s quote above.

I get that, but so what? Whats the relevance of whether I agree with the first sentence in someone else's post? I actually think there are a lot off errors in that quote from Fool, but I would bring that up with him not you, right? I was disagreeing with the statement you made

But, a Polytheist or Pantheist could be an Antitheist if they disagreed with the Theistic conception of God and had some animosity towards Theism in general, right? — Pinprick

Sorry, I should have used the quote feature in that post. I assumed it would be clear since it was the very next post made on the thread.

“irreligious” includes opposing religion, not knowing religion and not choosing a religion. Its not specific to opposing religion ... — DingoJones

Well, if it "includes opposing religion, irreligious is good enough for me.

As for "not knowing religion", that's just ignorance (in a social context which contains religion/s). And "not choosing a religion" is nothing but natality - almost every human being, certaintly in the last 40-50 centuries, was born into a religion s/he didn't "choose a religion". I don't see irreligious, DJ, being so uselessly broad ...

Perhaps a more precise term, more explicitly ideological, such as Anarchic (or anarchistic) a motto of which being "No Gods, No Masters" referring to abolition - not just mere "separation" (thereby mystifying 'the inseparable duopoly' - of Church ("altar" / sacred hierarchy) & State ("throne" / sovereign force)? :smirk:

Well its a broad term that you are incorrectly using specifically. Like in my human/doctor analogy.
Anyway, you’ve jumped to the word irreligious now, and that bit at the end. What does any of that have to do with this? You lost me.

I get that, but so what? Whats the relevance of whether I agree with the first sentence in someone else's post? I actually think there are a lot off errors in that quote from Fool, but I would bring that up with him not you, right? I was disagreeing with the statement you made — DingoJones

Because I’m making the same argument as him, only more specific. His post was in reference to Theism in general, whereas mine was referring to particular types of Theism (Polytheism and Pantheism).

Ok, but Im not going to argue with Fool with you as a proxy. I'm talking to you about what you said.

Well, I’m not asking you to, but ok. Could you explain why a Pantheist or a Polytheist couldn’t also be an Antitheist? I don’t see why either one couldn’t believe their respective conceptions of God and come to the conclusion that God, as they define him/it, is bad and should be opposed.