My Problem With Dawkins

Strong Atheism is a term which only encourages confusion regarding the stance of atheists. "Strong Atheism" asserts a god does not exist. Whilst Atheism simply disbelieves the claim that a god does exist. So, though I would agree all Strong Atheists are atheists, I wouldn't agree all atheists are Strong Atheists. The two are not synonymous. But they share the same label, and admittedly, strong only implies they really don't believe the claims of a theistic god's existence. It doesn't actually imply they claim the opposite.

And so, "Strong Atheism" fails as a descriptor for those that claim a god does not exist.

So I propose the use of the term "Anti-Theism." Anti meaning against or opposing. If you make claims against theism, you are claiming the opposite of theism. You have transcended beyond simply not accepting claims, to the level of actively making claims of your own.

I could mention that to claim absolute certainty on anything is a logical fallacy, but right now it's more important to simply re-label a non-working definition.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Richard
• Dawkins
• Scale
• of
• Belief
• The
• God
• Delusion
• Atheism
• Theism
• Jesus
• Muhammud

[magicmartin18]

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.

[ThinkAbout1t]

@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.

[handplanty]

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.

[ThinkAbout1t]

@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.

[Astwat]

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.

[mistereveready]

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.

[lagurash]

@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.

[NimbusDX]

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.

[theclewis]

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.

[Kimiko127]

I only make it to a 6 on the Dawkins scale only because I do not know everything in the world.

[GodFree27]

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.

[purgruv]

What about 'adeist' as a term whilst were at it?

[ManuelPagami]

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..

[supersmash43]

@Elune137 dhorpatan is a strong atheist (he said it in one of his videos) so there you have it.