What is anti-theism? – How is anti-theism different from atheism?


This site is a welcome place for anyone who has an interest in religion, religious debates or anything to do with existence in general.   This site however, is representing the atheist view, and especially the anti-theist view.

Do NOT be afraid to have conviction and say what you think!  Are you against religion?  Do not let the religious silence you with the unspoken threat “that offends me”.

What is an anti-theist?  How is it different from being an atheist?

Well let’s talk about atheism, anti-theism and deism.

Atheism definition:
Atheism is the view that there is no God.

Anti-theism is the view that religion is harmful to humanity.  While an atheist may say “there is no God, but I have no problem with religion”  An anti-theist may say “Religion is detrimental to humanity, and is counter-active to love, understanding, tolerance and in some cases, is even directly responsible for genocides, hatred and even the spread of certain diseases.” yet the anti theist may also believe that there is/may be a creator, but that creator has not made themselves known and is not part of any religion.  The belief is that all known religions are false and man made.

It is therefore possible, to be both an anti-theist AND a deist.

Deist definition:
The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct.

How can you not be interested in the biggest questions of all?!

“How are we here?  What created us?  Why do we exist?  Just what is existence?”

It is humbling to consider that while we understand molecules, galaxies, physics and chemistry we can barely comprehend existence…….

Virtually all religions claim to provide the answer to these questions, or at least dismiss the need to ask them.

“God did it”  “It is all beyond our comprehension”

Science fills in some of the gaps and maintains, for the most part, that:

It is better to have questions that cannot be answered, than answers that cannot be questioned.

Yet for the most part religion doesn’t adhere to a specific point of argument and so it makes it far trickier to talk with them as they change their stance between several incompatible (but this gets ignored) theories as is needed.  Which in itself says that believers don’t have all the answers either.

For example:
Christian: Homosexuality isn’t natural.
Atheist:  Yes it is, it’s present in other species too.
 Yes we all have homosexual tendencies to some degree but we have to control them!

This is a rough example of how weak their reasoning is and the believer’s tendency to change their theory at will to prove a point, even though the theories are incompatible….. Such as saying homosexuality isn’t natural then saying we all have homosexual inclinations to some degree which can, and should be controlled.  Which would mean the believer is saying that homosexuality is natural, but they don’t want to admit that because of the corollary arguments the atheist could make from this.

Another example, Christians will change their arguments from the earth is 4000 years old, to it’s 6000 or 16,000 years old and that the speed of light has sped up so our perceived 4.5 million years is the same as 16,000 years.  They will eventually resort to “God doesn’t have a magic wand, the bible isn’t literal!  Of course the earth is 4.5 million years old and God made it that way, how else?”

The problem with this is that you need several counter arguments at the ready and if you can’t properly disprove one then that is the standpoint they will hold as true.  Despite having this very point shattered at a later date and just switching to another theory that the new opponent can’t disprove.  It can very quickly become frustrating talking to someone who won’t acknowledge evidence and logic even if it is being explained to them in it’s simplest forms.

This sort of fluidity in logic is only possible if you have absolute faith….  In any other area of debate this fluidity means you don’t know, however we allow believers this luxury for one of several reasons:

  • We are wary of offending them.
  • The non believer in the conversation isn’t aware of how to handle the “burden of proof” concept….. mainly because nobody ever believes in anything else without evidence so there is rarely any need to be aware of this concept.
  • The non believer knows they can’t fully disprove God so they don’t push their point, not realising that the believer making the huge claims of a divine creator needs convincing evidence and that “you can’t disprove God” does not constitute evidence.


Thank you for taking the time to read this.  Feel free to send me your thoughts, ideas and even arguments if you have any to admin@anti-theist.net
Remember you don’t need to be super articulate and have a posh English accent to have a valid point.  I love hearing other people’s thoughts and ideas.