to state his convictions for all to hear. For many of us that simply is an imprudent thing to do, even if we do question at times God’s existence or his ability to effect the lives of humankind. What if he does exist? We all will know this for sure after we die when, of course, if we lived our lives as atheists, it’s a little too late. Or is it? Would God forgive the atheist? Would he look at him and say, “look here old fellow, I know its difficult to believe in me but, there you are, some have the brains to see me and some don’t. I won’t hold it against you for being a stupid sod, come on in and sit by the fire and tell me what you think now!” Well, of course, I don’t have that answer and neither do you- Christopher does but, he’s not talking- how about you?
Earlier definitions of anti-theism include that of the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain (1953), for whom it is "an active struggle against everything that reminds us of God," and that of Robert Flint (1877), a Professor of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh. Flint's Lecture for 1877 was entitled Anti-Theistic Theories. He used it as a very general umbrella term for all opposition to his own form of theism, which he defined as the "belief that the heavens and the earth and all that they contain owe their existence and continuance to the wisdom and will of a supreme, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient, righteous, and benevolent Being, who is distinct from, and independent of, what He has created." This clear statement is one we unreservedly agree with!
He wrote: “In dealing with theories which have nothing in common except that they are antagonistic to theism, it is necessary to have a general term to designate them. Anti-theism appears to be the appropriate word. It is, of course, much more comprehensive in meaning than the term atheism. It applies to all systems which are opposed to theism. It includes, therefore, atheism.” But short of atheism there are anti-theistic theories. Polytheism is not atheism, for it does not deny that there is a Deity; but it is anti-theistic, since it denies that there is only one.
Pantheism is also not atheism, for it admits that there is a God; but it is anti-theism, for it denies that God is a being distinct from creation and possession of such attributes as wisdom, and holiness, and love. Every theory which refuses to ascribe to God an attribute which is essential to a worthy conception of His character is therefore anti-theistic. Only those theories which refuse to acknowledge that there is evidence even for the existence of a God are atheistic.
However, Flint also acknowledges that anti-theism is typically understood differently from how he defines it. In particular, he notes that the word has been used as a sub-category of atheism, descriptive of the view that theism has been disproven, rather than as the more general term that Flint prefers. He rejects non-theistic as an alternative, "not merely because of its hybrid origin and character, but also because it is far too comprehensive. Theories of physical and mental science are non-theistic, even when in no degree, directly or indirectly, antagonistic to theism."
Opposition to God is frequently referred to as dystheism (which means "belief in a deity that is not benevolent") or misotheism (strictly speaking, this means "hatred of God"). Examples of belief systems founded on the principle of opposition to God include Satanism and maltheism. It’s our opinion that those who subscribe in a serious way to such convoluted and malevolent beliefs are, if God exists, plainly and simply put doomed!
Another use of the term anti-theism was coined by Christopher New in a thought experiment published in 1993. In this article, he imagines what arguments for the existence of an evil God would look like: "Antitheists, like theists, would have believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal creator; but whereas theists in fact believe that the Supreme Being is also perfectly good, antitheists would have believed that he was perfectly evil.” Perhaps, this is what Salmon Rushdie meant when he wrote The Satanic Verses a volume that earned him a lifetime death threat by the whacko murderous head cultist in Iran?
Of course, the devil himself well fits the characteristics of the perfectly evil god. In fact, many believe that he was the fallen angel, precursor to all evil (the devil himself) cast by God from Heaven to make his kingdom on earth, who was whispering into Mohammed’s ear out there in the barren and windy desert. One must admit, that over the last 1500 years, despite the most vigorous and devout protestations of its billion ardent believers, all Islam has managed to deliver its sad adherents is a most perfect ‘hell on earth.’ Interesting?
There is an un-original and growing number of self-appointed young ‘nerds’ who believe that Atheistic views are, all at once, something novel, interesting and most importantly, based on the less scientific sciences such as Climatology and Astronomy. These self-confessed ignorant fools seemingly fail to grasp that their science is not, and cannot ever be, a serious counterpoint to a discussion of a God or relevant to any serious critique of religion.
Furthermore, they envision everyone standing across from them as slack-jawed Jesus freaks, back woods, bible- thumping, stump-jumping, jackasses, playing with snakes and talking in tongues. If this were the case, I’d not be writing this book, would I? These pathetic idiots are often encouraged in their limited views by someone with an advanced degree of some kind using their “unassailable” and “oh so perfect” logic based on what, the scientific method? Christopher Hitchens’ anti-theism aside, he only could offer no more than his opinion. No matter how learned and how intelligent one is, and Chris was both, no one on this earth can prove with any demonstrable evidence that God does not exist. In fact, the abundant evidence of God’s existence surrounds each and every one of us every day!
The belief system of the committed ant-theist is, if indeed, they are capable of more then ‘superficial inquiry, which most are not, based on their perception of and understanding of man’s law and the sciences coalesced within a rather unspectacular mind, which can be successfully likened to the inside of a vacuum cleaner bag…a vast desert of dust particles blocking their vision, such that these sad empty souls will not and indeed, can not see the marvelous wonders of life and the universe. How infinitely sad! Most, in fact, deny even that they have a soul, which of course, is the beginning of any inquiry into the realm of faith. It is my finding that almost all of these pathetic lost souls have only a rudimentary knowledge of religion, few have ever attended church and fewer still have read or even own a bible. They know not of what they speak! How profoundly sad!
Let us pause for a moment and go back to the “self-appointed nerd” part.
Since the word ‘nerd’ is now ‘cool,’ you can’t really call yourself one without appearing as one whom needs a group name to identify with. And, why are you a nerd, because you play video games, write Python, watch (maybe even read) science fiction and fantasy movies and subscribe to pathetic and empty beliefs held in consensus by your peers? Good grief!
Many individuals professing no belief in God are and can be perceived at best, as tedious. The first time I met a group of them I had been invited to an “occupy” party. They were indeed weird. Besides being atheists, what are your other hobbies, beating up old people, breaking windows and telling 5 year olds that Santa Claus is a bullshit story? You’re one brave warrior! Of course, few of them had jobs (ever) and most lived in their parents basements. All were playing with their I pads and I phones all night. All were “twitter” fanatics and all seemed overtly nervous, hyper and unsettled- actually unhappy lost souls with poor complexions. None of them had ever as kids attended Sunday School or church and none had ever read the bible- none had any conception of what the church taught so, in denying God, they actually had no idea what they were talking about.
Further, their collective beliefs, verbal traditions (arguments and terms) sound a lot like some kind of religion- which presumably forms an ironic raison d’être for opposition to a belief in our Creator. “I’m an atheist” is their “Allah Akbar.” We all need traditions and rituals to keep us feeling like there’s some continuity and safety in things. However, coming from a group that seems to hate this kind of thing, it’s a little confusing.
