Atheist or Anti-Theist?

**Loki** · 04-18-2015, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Thana

I think there could be a genetic predisposition to believing in religion or not. It's like that blue/black dress argument - impossible to understand each other's case.

I'm not sure. In my case it certainly isn't so - my family are religious. I used to be religious. But logic and reasoning can make one see the light.

**drgnclbr** · 06-23-2015, 08:31 AM

It's a tricky one and depends entirely on the type of theism faced.

**Petros Agapetos** · 11-29-2016, 02:07 PM

If by Anti-theist you mean Gnostic Atheist, then yes, I do consider myself such about some religions, whose God concepts are falsified. And for those that are not falsifiable, I am an Agnostic Atheist.

Gnostic atheism is the positive belief that no god exists.

**Petros Agapetos** · 11-29-2016, 02:08 PM

Arguments for gnostic atheism, also called, "strong atheism"

It is often said that one cannot prove a negative. However, this is not really correct, and understanding this hinges on understanding the difference between two kinds of truth: contingent and logical. A contingent truth is one whose validity is contingent on other facts which may or may not be true or known. Scientific truth falls in this category. A logical truth is one whose validity depends only on logic, on the definitions and properties of concepts we ourselves define. An example is whether 2 + 2 can equal 5. It follows from the definitions of 2, 4, 5, +, and = that 2 + 2 can only equal 4, not 5. It is not necessary for a reasonable, fair, and open-minded person to remain agnostic on that question. There is nothing contingent or unknown about it.

A strong atheist would argue that the idea of a god is logically contradictory and therefore cannot exist as most theists define the word. The Christian god is defined as an omniscient, omnipotent, intelligent, aware being which created and was responsible for the universe. The problem of evil is one example of a logical impossibility that comes from believing that the god is also omnibenevolent, this can be avoided by relaxing the requirements on God's qualities.

Since its inception, science has followed an empirical method, a combination of theory and observation. We construct our understanding by working from the simple to the complex. We understand atoms in terms of elementary particles and their forces, such as quarks, leptons, gluons, and photons. We understand molecules and chemistry in terms of atoms and their interactions. We understand biology in terms of the underlying chemistry and its emergent properties. We understand intelligence in terms of the complex interactions of the underlying neurological or electronic substrate.

Of all the things we know of in the universe, the most complex is intelligence. To posit an intelligence as the creator and driving force of everything else makes no sense, since it would itself require explanation in terms of simpler underlying entities. It makes no more sense than 2 + 2 = 5. It is not incumbent upon a reasonable, fair, open-minded person to remain agnostic on that point.

If there were in fact a deity delivering the divinely inspired word of the one true religion to the human race then it would be expected that all religions would converge on the same answers, yet that is not what we see. There are so many different religions with vastly different beliefs that one should question whether there really is an intelligence behind it all. Since religions diverge rather than converge, this should count as evidence against the proposition of a Theistic deity.

**Petros Agapetos** · 11-29-2016, 02:10 PM

There is also another sense in which one can be an anti-theist, in a Hitchens sense: that is, being against religion, and not just against the religion, but also the religious. Under this definition, I am also an anti-theist.