To be fair, it's not Dawkin's fault. This is how these terms are defined, he didn't define them. But I do agree that they should be changed so people don't assume that we're all strong atheists.
I disagree about the anti-theism part. I'd use that more for people who are vocal about their disbelief in gods and find the belief in imaginary creatures harmful. I remember hearing a rant from Adam Carola about some shit where he knows there is no god because he knows how the universe works or some nonsense. So not only does he not believe, he claimed to know. Gnostic-Atheism. Which fits #7 fine. #7 doesn't necessarily mean they are against theism either. As not believing and against !=same.
@ThinkAbout1t Deism is technically still a subcategory of theism, as it is a belief in a god.
I don't see why the "strong atheism" can't be just considered naturalism. The belief in only natural laws and forces excludes the possibility of any god (as the "god" term refers to a supernatural entity). Thus, one could be both a naturalist and an atheist without too much of a problem, or just one of the two.
Distinguished, accurate (far as I can tell), and doesn't limit one from having atheist views.
Hm. The only problem with using "anti-theist" as a name for someone who is 100% sure that no gods exist is that "anti-theist" already has a meaning. It means someone who is outspoken against or ideologically opposed to religion and theism.
Dawkins admits this when he describes the scale in The God Delusion... which I wish you mentioned. I like the terms you have given for these positions though.
Sorry, anti- theism is an existing term. Christopher Hitchens identifies himself as an anti-theist not because he is 100% certain there is no god, but because he is glad that no god exists. Anti-theism is the celebration that there is no immovable celestial dictator who surveys you from birth to death and can convict you of thought-crime. It is not 100% certainty about the non-existence of a god.
you missed the point of the scale.. it isnt based on dictionary terms per-say.. he took the concept of agnosticism, theism, and atheism and created 7 terms to represent the 7 levels of atheism.. i dont think that anyone is a 1 or a 7.. im a 6, and i identify myself as an agnostic.. the scale does what its supposed to.. it represents the levels of not believing in god(s)..
soon there will probably be "anti-atheists" as well..
AFAIK Anti-theism doesn't concern whether god exists or not but whether religion is good or not. I might be wrong but I consider myself to be both a deist and a Anti-Theist. Perhaps I'm using the wrong term but I don't think so. Anyway, nice vid and have a nice day.
Dawkins is NOT nr. 7, he says, he is 6, leaning towards 7 (a god very, very improbable).
I cannot take any one serious, who is a 1 or 7, because that means, that person thinks he/ she can't be wrong (and that's potentially dangerous, see 9/11). There are a lot of people, being category 1 (often fundamentalists). I don't know anyone, who is category 7.
TBH sometimes I don't even want to use the term Atheist because it has an anti-theist connotation. Sometimes I'd rather call my self Adogmatic or Anti-dogmatic, y'know?
I mean, theism just doesn't seem very relevant. People say they're Christian, church going, etc. Not that they believe in God.
Sorry ThinkAbout1t, but Dawkins' number 7 is perfectly acceptable. Your proposed term 'Anti-Theism' is an existing term, meaning to rebel against a God or Gods, or, a direct opposition to the belief in Gods.
In ancient Greece, antitheism was practised by not worshiping the Gods as a way of rebelling against them. Antitheism can thus mean someone who does believe in God/Gods but rebels or is opposed against them, or to be an atheist and against the idea of theism.
@magicmartin18 "or to be an atheist and against the idea of theism."
Simply taking the basic definitions of word prefixes, anti describes against, so absolutely. But is stating "there is no god" not against theism? atheists are without theism, not against it. Anti-theists, whether they believe a god exists and simply are against worshipping it, or propose a god does not exist, are still anti-theistic.
While I can see the utility of such a scale as Dawkins proposes to help facilitate understanding in the layman of the subjects of Atheism, Theism, and Agnosticism; the philosophical basis for such a scale is flawed. These three categories are not shades of each other, and are in fact quite different philosophical stanceses concerning the existence of a supreme being.
I don't completely agree with the idea of trading strong atheism with anti-theism. I'm fine with the parts about agnostic theism and agnostic atheism applying to weak theist/atheist, mainly because it highlights the fact that "agnostic" isn't necessarily a strictly neutral position.
A strong atheist still carries no belief in a god, so it still qualifies as atheism. Anti-theism, IMO, is about being opposed to theistic beliefs which doesn't necessarily say where you personally stand on the scale.
If I were to describe where I fit on the scale, I'm probably about a 6.9. I can say that there is definitely no god insofar as a god precisely as described in any extant or even dead mythology. Nonetheless, even with all the knowledge in the world, I couldn't say that there is no chance for a being or collective to exist outside our apprehension. However, I'm still an anti-theist in the sense that I feel it is both illogical and intrinsically harmful for people to have theistic beliefs
Dawkins does not represent all atheists. I am a 7. The scale is not new, but he did modify it. There are no gods. Weare non-theist, not anti-theist. Anti-theist is someone that is agaisnt theism. Gnostic atheist might make you happer. Gnostic is about knowledge and a/theist is about belief.
Idon't think the scale is sacred or anything, but I think you are going to muddle the waters further if people use the word anti-thiest as you sugest.
The term "Anti-theism" already exists and denotes something else. As Christopher Hitchens says: He is an atheist because he thinks a god does not exist, and an anti-theist because he thinks that it's good that a god does not exist (someone could not believe in a god and wish that one did exist).
But in your last video you said atheism is simply lacking theism. If you assert that Gods actually do not exist, you still lack theism, thus splitting atheism into branches where the top is a belief that all hold, while subgroup(s) hold other beliefs, on the condition that none of those beliefs entail the existence of a deity.
@handplanty Yes, and I said the definition Strong Atheist still works, but it confuses regarding the weaker atheisms. Because a strong atheist makes an irrefutable claim, whilst opposing another. An agnostic atheist only disbelieves an irrefutable claim, and makes none of their own.
The two aren't in the same category. For the same reason there's a definition difference for theism and deism, I feel there should be one for atheism and "strong" atheism.
Dawkins put level 7 on the scale as an opposite to level 1, but says he does not know anyone who would be a 7. "I'd be surprised to meet people in catergory 7, but I include it for symmetry with caegory 1, which is well populated"
Yeah, while we are all agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, or batshit crazy, I simply drop the "agnostic" part. I don't believe in gods, that makes me an atheist, not just because no evidence for god, but that evidence points away from god. As long as we speak about theistic god, not deistic.
Besides, you're in error in the claim that atheists don't make claims about gods. We don't HAVE to make any claims in order to be atheists, but we're not prohibited from doing so either. In effect "strong atheists" are also "atheists" by the given definitions, so relabeling them as "anti-theists" serves no purpose whatsoever that I can fathom.
@Cafeeine Which is why I said Strong atheism DOES work, but the position is completely different from the opposite of the spectrum. The difference between Strong Theism and Weak Theism is only the level of belief. But the difference between Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism is that one is making a claim the other isn't. And why I said in the vid desc. I would agree all strong atheists are atheists, but not all atheists are strong atheists.
Your problem isn't with Dawkins, but with the historical use of the term "atheism". The reason Dawkins and others coined the label "strong atheist" is that the definition hoisted on "atheism" by theists for centuries was "the doctrine that no god exists" or similar. I'll ignore the fact that 'anti-theism' also has an accepted definition that differs from yours.
@Cafeeine This video is clearly out to change the meaning of a word to it's base construction. I recognize this. And I also dispute anti-theism, since anti-theism is in fact, anti-religion.
@kevinanity agnostic atheism does incorporate the uncertainty factor. To be agnostic atheist is to not believe in theisms, as well as live with the assumption that a god doesn't exist, but without claiming one doesn't exist.
I define strong atheism just as dawkins does and anti-theism as being actively opposed to the concept of religion, ie I fight against religion. Even if a god were proved to exist I'd still hate religion. Strong atheism as a subcategory of atheism is no different than creationism being a subset of christianity, a broad category will have more specific subsets.
@ThinkAbout1t theism n. Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
As opposed to deism, the believe in a non-personal creator god who doesn't give a shit what we do.
I'm against theism, the very concept of a personal, tyrannical god, and its trappings, including, but not limited to, religions. Religion is just the worst and most obvious symptom of theism.
Assertive/positive claims of non-existence are one form of non-belief, hence a form of atheism. Not only do I lack a belief in gods I actively hold a belief they don't exist and I oppose the entertaining of the possibility they might exist.
Absolute, bet my life (and everyone else's on it) couldn't be more sure of a rock in my hand, you betcha, there ain't no such beast, as a matter of fact I'm an 8. The entire idea is utter nonsense and contrary to the very laws of nature, not to mention logic. There have never been, are not currently, nor ever will be, gods or any shape or size.
agree :) i'm an agnostic atheist myself.. but lately I've found that describing one's ethical position (i.e. secular humanist) is more informative than one's belief system since there are many very liberal theists out there.. as well as many radical atheists.
To be fair, it's not Dawkin's fault. This is how these terms are defined, he didn't define them. But I do agree that they should be changed so people don't assume that we're all strong atheists.
Astwat 8 months ago
I disagree about the anti-theism part. I'd use that more for people who are vocal about their disbelief in gods and find the belief in imaginary creatures harmful. I remember hearing a rant from Adam Carola about some shit where he knows there is no god because he knows how the universe works or some nonsense. So not only does he not believe, he claimed to know. Gnostic-Atheism. Which fits #7 fine. #7 doesn't necessarily mean they are against theism either. As not believing and against !=same.
mistereveready 8 months ago
@ThinkAbout1t Deism is technically still a subcategory of theism, as it is a belief in a god.
I don't see why the "strong atheism" can't be just considered naturalism. The belief in only natural laws and forces excludes the possibility of any god (as the "god" term refers to a supernatural entity). Thus, one could be both a naturalist and an atheist without too much of a problem, or just one of the two.
Distinguished, accurate (far as I can tell), and doesn't limit one from having atheist views.
lagurash 10 months ago
Hm. The only problem with using "anti-theist" as a name for someone who is 100% sure that no gods exist is that "anti-theist" already has a meaning. It means someone who is outspoken against or ideologically opposed to religion and theism.
NimbusDX 10 months ago
Dawkins admits this when he describes the scale in The God Delusion... which I wish you mentioned. I like the terms you have given for these positions though.
theclewis 10 months ago
I only make it to a 6 on the Dawkins scale only because I do not know everything in the world.
Kimiko127 11 months ago
Sorry, anti- theism is an existing term. Christopher Hitchens identifies himself as an anti-theist not because he is 100% certain there is no god, but because he is glad that no god exists. Anti-theism is the celebration that there is no immovable celestial dictator who surveys you from birth to death and can convict you of thought-crime. It is not 100% certainty about the non-existence of a god.
GodFree27 1 year ago
What about 'adeist' as a term whilst were at it?
purgruv 1 year ago
you missed the point of the scale.. it isnt based on dictionary terms per-say.. he took the concept of agnosticism, theism, and atheism and created 7 terms to represent the 7 levels of atheism.. i dont think that anyone is a 1 or a 7.. im a 6, and i identify myself as an agnostic.. the scale does what its supposed to.. it represents the levels of not believing in god(s)..
soon there will probably be "anti-atheists" as well..
ManuelPagami 1 year ago
AFAIK Anti-theism doesn't concern whether god exists or not but whether religion is good or not. I might be wrong but I consider myself to be both a deist and a Anti-Theist. Perhaps I'm using the wrong term but I don't think so. Anyway, nice vid and have a nice day.
ForYeensSake 1 year ago
Dawkins is NOT nr. 7, he says, he is 6, leaning towards 7 (a god very, very improbable).
I cannot take any one serious, who is a 1 or 7, because that means, that person thinks he/ she can't be wrong (and that's potentially dangerous, see 9/11). There are a lot of people, being category 1 (often fundamentalists). I don't know anyone, who is category 7.
Elune137 1 year ago
@Elune137 dhorpatan is a strong atheist (he said it in one of his videos) so there you have it.
supersmash43 1 year ago
I agree with you.
TBH sometimes I don't even want to use the term Atheist because it has an anti-theist connotation. Sometimes I'd rather call my self Adogmatic or Anti-dogmatic, y'know?
I mean, theism just doesn't seem very relevant. People say they're Christian, church going, etc. Not that they believe in God.
Thank you for making this video :).
EMZ=]
GeekTeen 1 year ago
Sorry ThinkAbout1t, but Dawkins' number 7 is perfectly acceptable. Your proposed term 'Anti-Theism' is an existing term, meaning to rebel against a God or Gods, or, a direct opposition to the belief in Gods.
In ancient Greece, antitheism was practised by not worshiping the Gods as a way of rebelling against them. Antitheism can thus mean someone who does believe in God/Gods but rebels or is opposed against them, or to be an atheist and against the idea of theism.
magicmartin18 1 year ago
@magicmartin18 "or to be an atheist and against the idea of theism."
Simply taking the basic definitions of word prefixes, anti describes against, so absolutely. But is stating "there is no god" not against theism? atheists are without theism, not against it. Anti-theists, whether they believe a god exists and simply are against worshipping it, or propose a god does not exist, are still anti-theistic.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
While I can see the utility of such a scale as Dawkins proposes to help facilitate understanding in the layman of the subjects of Atheism, Theism, and Agnosticism; the philosophical basis for such a scale is flawed. These three categories are not shades of each other, and are in fact quite different philosophical stanceses concerning the existence of a supreme being.
jjaggers 1 year ago
Dawkins is actually only a number six on the scale. In "The God Delusion", he deems level 7 to be unreasonable. I'm a level 5.
corr14 1 year ago
I don't completely agree with the idea of trading strong atheism with anti-theism. I'm fine with the parts about agnostic theism and agnostic atheism applying to weak theist/atheist, mainly because it highlights the fact that "agnostic" isn't necessarily a strictly neutral position.
A strong atheist still carries no belief in a god, so it still qualifies as atheism. Anti-theism, IMO, is about being opposed to theistic beliefs which doesn't necessarily say where you personally stand on the scale.
ShootMyMonkey 1 year ago
...cont'd
If I were to describe where I fit on the scale, I'm probably about a 6.9. I can say that there is definitely no god insofar as a god precisely as described in any extant or even dead mythology. Nonetheless, even with all the knowledge in the world, I couldn't say that there is no chance for a being or collective to exist outside our apprehension. However, I'm still an anti-theist in the sense that I feel it is both illogical and intrinsically harmful for people to have theistic beliefs
ShootMyMonkey 1 year ago
Dawkins does not represent all atheists. I am a 7. The scale is not new, but he did modify it. There are no gods. Weare non-theist, not anti-theist. Anti-theist is someone that is agaisnt theism. Gnostic atheist might make you happer. Gnostic is about knowledge and a/theist is about belief.
matthewtaylorbrown 1 year ago
gnostic atheism already works
sambudwiser 1 year ago 2
Idon't think the scale is sacred or anything, but I think you are going to muddle the waters further if people use the word anti-thiest as you sugest.
clawdfrawg 1 year ago
The term "Anti-theism" already exists and denotes something else. As Christopher Hitchens says: He is an atheist because he thinks a god does not exist, and an anti-theist because he thinks that it's good that a god does not exist (someone could not believe in a god and wish that one did exist).
SilentMike0 1 year ago
But in your last video you said atheism is simply lacking theism. If you assert that Gods actually do not exist, you still lack theism, thus splitting atheism into branches where the top is a belief that all hold, while subgroup(s) hold other beliefs, on the condition that none of those beliefs entail the existence of a deity.
handplanty 1 year ago
@handplanty Yes, and I said the definition Strong Atheist still works, but it confuses regarding the weaker atheisms. Because a strong atheist makes an irrefutable claim, whilst opposing another. An agnostic atheist only disbelieves an irrefutable claim, and makes none of their own.
The two aren't in the same category. For the same reason there's a definition difference for theism and deism, I feel there should be one for atheism and "strong" atheism.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
Dawkins put level 7 on the scale as an opposite to level 1, but says he does not know anyone who would be a 7. "I'd be surprised to meet people in catergory 7, but I include it for symmetry with caegory 1, which is well populated"
zimgirfreak 1 year ago
@zimgirfreak We exist.
matthewtaylorbrown 1 year ago
Disbelief is strong in this one. :)
Yeah, while we are all agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, or batshit crazy, I simply drop the "agnostic" part. I don't believe in gods, that makes me an atheist, not just because no evidence for god, but that evidence points away from god. As long as we speak about theistic god, not deistic.
Saukko31 1 year ago
How about we keep the word Atheism and you keep the word "asshole"
1rishShaman 1 year ago
Ah, precision of language.. clarity.. I have missed you..
Agreed, atheism is disbelief only.. a negation, lacking any positive content.
It is compatible, of course, with all non-contradictory positions/descriptors.
Still, anything further, above and beyond disbelief.. not an apt part of the definition.
Whuppee 1 year ago
Besides, you're in error in the claim that atheists don't make claims about gods. We don't HAVE to make any claims in order to be atheists, but we're not prohibited from doing so either. In effect "strong atheists" are also "atheists" by the given definitions, so relabeling them as "anti-theists" serves no purpose whatsoever that I can fathom.
Cafeeine 1 year ago
@Cafeeine Which is why I said Strong atheism DOES work, but the position is completely different from the opposite of the spectrum. The difference between Strong Theism and Weak Theism is only the level of belief. But the difference between Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism is that one is making a claim the other isn't. And why I said in the vid desc. I would agree all strong atheists are atheists, but not all atheists are strong atheists.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
I refuse to think about largely useless and pedantic labels that only seek to pigeonhole entire belief systems.
SpeakMouthWords 1 year ago
Your problem isn't with Dawkins, but with the historical use of the term "atheism". The reason Dawkins and others coined the label "strong atheist" is that the definition hoisted on "atheism" by theists for centuries was "the doctrine that no god exists" or similar. I'll ignore the fact that 'anti-theism' also has an accepted definition that differs from yours.
Cafeeine 1 year ago
@Cafeeine This video is clearly out to change the meaning of a word to it's base construction. I recognize this. And I also dispute anti-theism, since anti-theism is in fact, anti-religion.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
I second that!
opaldragon75 1 year ago
@kevinanity agnostic atheism does incorporate the uncertainty factor. To be agnostic atheist is to not believe in theisms, as well as live with the assumption that a god doesn't exist, but without claiming one doesn't exist.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
How about we keep "atheism" and you guys go with "pussy atheism"?
Sounds like a better deal =P
edmanrapperu 1 year ago
What about a category for people who cannot make up their mind if they should oppose theism or not. Agnosto-aniti-theists.
yookayman 1 year ago
I define strong atheism just as dawkins does and anti-theism as being actively opposed to the concept of religion, ie I fight against religion. Even if a god were proved to exist I'd still hate religion. Strong atheism as a subcategory of atheism is no different than creationism being a subset of christianity, a broad category will have more specific subsets.
FlyingFree333 1 year ago
@FlyingFree333 being opposed to religion should be anti-religion. Not anti-theism.
Theism isn't religion.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
@ThinkAbout1t theism n. Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
As opposed to deism, the believe in a non-personal creator god who doesn't give a shit what we do.
I'm against theism, the very concept of a personal, tyrannical god, and its trappings, including, but not limited to, religions. Religion is just the worst and most obvious symptom of theism.
Hence anti-theist.
FlyingFree333 1 year ago
@ThinkAbout1t
Assertive/positive claims of non-existence are one form of non-belief, hence a form of atheism. Not only do I lack a belief in gods I actively hold a belief they don't exist and I oppose the entertaining of the possibility they might exist.
FlyingFree333 1 year ago
@FlyingFree333 But would you claim absolute certainty. If not, you're not a 7, you're a 6, like me, like Dawkins etc...
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
@ThinkAbout1t
Absolute, bet my life (and everyone else's on it) couldn't be more sure of a rock in my hand, you betcha, there ain't no such beast, as a matter of fact I'm an 8. The entire idea is utter nonsense and contrary to the very laws of nature, not to mention logic. There have never been, are not currently, nor ever will be, gods or any shape or size.
FlyingFree333 1 year ago
@ThinkAbout1t There are no gods. They are all dismissable as are all myths. It is not a matter of science.
matthewtaylorbrown 1 year ago
agree :) i'm an agnostic atheist myself.. but lately I've found that describing one's ethical position (i.e. secular humanist) is more informative than one's belief system since there are many very liberal theists out there.. as well as many radical atheists.
mykeBC 1 year ago
first
Overlord9344 1 year ago