Richard Dawkins announced as 2012 recipient for ‘Services to Humanism’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36289711]yes and the opposite of a theist, according to the term anti, would be an atheist, or anti theist as they are without a belief in god.[/QUOTE] Which is when multiple definitions come into play. Antitheist could mean both "opposite of theist" or "against theist". That's why the prefix a- is used, it is unambiguous and concise. So depending on how you USE the word antitheist, it could be a synonym of atheist, or it could mean something completely different.

What Sanius has done is implied some sort of dogmatic criteria for atheism, and attempted to re-label Richard Dawkins as something else. He's implying a fucking religious schism in an areligious label. That isn't how fucking atheism works. You can't kick someone out of that particular club because you feel superior to them.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36289736]You're continuing a point laid out by Sanius. If you aren't arguing his point, what are you arguing?[/QUOTE] I'm saying I like the term antitheist in lieu of militant atheist because it doesn't imply violence.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36289760]I'm saying I like the term antitheist in lieu of militant atheist because it doesn't imply violence.[/QUOTE] Then read the fucking thread before arguing endlessly asinine semantics.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36289744] So depending on how you USE the word antitheist, it could be a synonym of atheist, or it could mean something completely different.[/QUOTE] a newborn baby is an atheist because they are not theists. an angry nerd on /r/atheism is an antitheist because they're actively opposed to theism

[QUOTE=Lankist;36289759]What Sanius has done is implied some sort of dogmatic criteria for atheism, and attempted to re-label Richard Dawkins as something else. He's implying a fucking religious schism in an areligious label. That isn't how fucking atheism works.[/QUOTE] There isn't dogmatic criteria, there is ideological difference between atheists. Some atheists believe in activism and "conversion/deconversion/whatever". Some atheists are apathetic and believe in live and let live. Separate terms to distinguish between these groups can be useful.

[QUOTE=Sanius;36289775]a newborn baby is an atheist because they are not theists. an angry nerd on /r/atheism is an antitheist because they're actively opposed to theism[/QUOTE] No-True-Scotsman bullshit. "I am an atheist and I don't like Richard Dawkins, therefore Richard Dawkins is not an atheist." Stop inciting a schism. It isn't a religion. You can't kick people out of atheism.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36289774]Then read the fucking thread before arguing endlessly asinine semantics.[/QUOTE] I've been active in this thread, I've read through it.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36289787]No-True-Scotsman bullshit. [/QUOTE] a- is neutral, anti- is opposed

[QUOTE=Sanius;36289806]a- is neutral, anti- is opposed[/QUOTE] No it isn't. Even assuming your dumbass recontextualization of atheism is the case, that makes Richard Dawkins an atheist [I]and[/I] an "antitheist" both. [B]Stop it with the condescending No-True-Scotsman bullshit.[/B]

[QUOTE=Sanius;36289806]a- is neutral, anti- is opposed[/QUOTE] Not exactly, agnostic is neutral, atheist is opposed.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36289818]No it isn't. Even assuming your dumbass recontextualization of atheism is the case, that makes Richard Dawkins an atheist [I]and[/I] an "antitheist" both. [B]Stop it with the condescending No-True-Scotsman bullshit.[/B][/QUOTE] That would be correct, at least from my viewpoint. You generally can't be an antitheist without being an atheist. The term doesn't separate atheists from each other, the term distinguishes between different ideologies within the atheist population.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36289828]Not exactly, agnostic is neutral, atheist is opposed.[/QUOTE] No. Gnosticism in a religious context means you think that God is a testable hypothesis (in layman's terms, that God is knowable). Agnosticism means you think that it is not. There are both agnostic and gnostic atheists. Dawkins is a gnostic atheist. There isn't just an "agnostic" in the context. The label of agnosticism addresses a completely different question than "do you believe in God?" [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36289840]That would be correct, at least from my viewpoint. You generally can't be an antitheist without being an atheist. The term doesn't separate atheists from each other, the term distinguishes between different ideologies within the atheist population.[/QUOTE] which is not what Sanius said: [QUOTE=Sanius;36287699]he's an antitheist, not an atheist. antitheists are assholes[/QUOTE] He's not trying to make a contextual point, he's playing No-True-Scotsman bullshit games because he thinks he owns atheism and anyone who feels differently can't be an atheist.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36289854] which is not what Sanius said: He's not trying to make a contextual point, he's playing No-True-Scotsman bullshit games because he thinks he owns atheism and anyone who feels differently can't be an atheist.[/QUOTE] I'm speaking for myself.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36288134]I do. He seems to have a problem that so many people have, where they think that if a problem isn't as bad as a problem elsewhere then it somehow isn't a problem. It's pretty retarded.[/QUOTE] excerpt her "problem" was an unwanted advance, to which she said no and never saw the guy ever again...

Wait, aren't so called "anti-theists" also automatically atheists? It seems silly to thing that someone who violently opposes religion, isn't an atheist himself.

Did you all really just spend 3 whole pages arguing about the difference between "a-" and "anti-"?

Hold on, my point has already been made, this thread has become kind of a cluttered mess

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36289828]Not exactly, agnostic is neutral, atheist is opposed.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the words themselves not ideologies

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36290377]Did you all really just spend 3 whole pages arguing about the difference between "a-" and "anti-"?[/QUOTE] There isn't anything else to discuss.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;36288676]A feminist respects someone's right to their personal space and empathises with their desire not to feel threatened. Don't ask people out when they're trapped in a box with you. It's usually awkward at most for guys (and probably barely ever happens), but can be threatening to women (and there's a much higher chance of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger]triggering a woman[/url], considering [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/14/1-in-5-women-report-sexual-assault]nearly 1 in 5 women[/url] have suffered rape or attempted rape. I don't think Dawkins knew this, but he also did the whole "people elsewhere have it much worse, so you should shut up" schtick, which flies with barely anyone in other situations (starving african kids is not an argument here etc.)[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure everyone agrees it was dumb on the man's part, mostly because it was sorta creepy and out of place, but it is not an example of sexism in a hypothetical world where sexism is 100% destroyed, there will still be unwanted or awkward advances, and that will never change

[QUOTE=Sanius;36290487]I'm talking about the words themselves not ideologies[/QUOTE] You're also dodging. Stop responding to the peanut gallery and respond to me.

This anti shit is lame. I'm atheist. I'm against religion. The American conservative movement uses religion as their only tool and I fucking hate conservatives. No that doesn't mean I burn down churches, try to take away rights, act like a dick to religious people, etc. If I did do that that'd make me an extremest, terrorist, wacko, what have you. Cut it with the Antitheist shit there's no reason to make shit up because you're mad at Dawkins. If I got infront of a camera and criticized religious people I'd still be an atheist. I guess we should create special worlds for religious people now. No youre not thiest youre anti-atheist, supertheist, herp, derp

[QUOTE=judgeofdeath;36290376]Wait, aren't so called "anti-theists" also automatically atheists? It seems silly to thing that someone who violently opposes religion, isn't an atheist himself.[/QUOTE] Anti-theists could be deists,pantheists,spiritualists as well.

[QUOTE=znk666;36298450]Anti-theists could be deists,pantheists,spiritualists as well.[/QUOTE] And none of those apply to Richard Dawkins, who apparently according to Sanius, is not an atheist.

Man, Sanius is getting reamed in this thread. [QUOTE=Raidyr;36289072]Militant atheism isn't a thing. The quickest way to see when someone is wrong in a religious debate is if they use the words "militant atheist" "militant" atheists call Christians dumb over the internet militant theists blow themselves up in market places, firebomb abortion clinics, and throw acid in women's faces.[/QUOTE] Oddly enough I don't think I've seen a widely reported thing of Athiest violence. I feel it would've had to have happened but after searching I only found various Christian blogs with no real evidence of anything. I generally don't believe any group is free of crap like this, so I'm kinda weirded out.

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;36298514]Man, Sanius is getting reamed in this thread. Oddly enough I don't think I've seen a widely reported thing of Athiest violence. I feel it would've had to have happened but after searching I only found various Christian blogs with no real evidence of anything. I generally don't believe any group is free of crap like this, so I'm kinda weirded out.[/QUOTE] So far,atheists are apparently ''shit free''.

Richard Dawkins FTW!! :downs: [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Gimmick" - Craptasket))[/highlight]