Apparently some posters think "Anti Theist" is not a legitimate term. In fact, it is a recognized concept and many of the "New" Atheists describe themselves as exactly that.

Some notable examples are the late Christopher Hitchens and the often referenced P Z Myers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

Hmmm. I don't understand why anyone would think "anti theist" was not a legitimate term, although I'm sure one could object, in specific cases, to applying it to specific people or specific positions. Merely arguing that God does not exist, or arguing that certain theistic belief systems include factually wrong beliefs (young-earth) is not anti-theistic. Merely saying that one doesn't believe in any gods is certainly not anti-theistic.

Arguing that belief in gods, and religion, is detrimental to individuals and society, and publicly advocating for people to change their beliefs, could properly be called anti-theistic. However, there is nothing wrong with that - we all have the right, and some would say the moral obligation, to work to change what we think needs to be changed, as as long as our methods are defensible. I am anti-war, anti-slavery, anti-subjugation of women, etc. - all worthy causes, in my opinion. Being "anti" by itself is not a negative thing.

Then one would wonder why when I used the term it was suggested that was an example of bigotry.

But of course being "anti" is not necessarily a negative thing, but it can be. How about being Anti Catholic or Anti Jewish?

Are those negative things? They are both forms of Anti Theism. My own view is that arguing that religion in general is detrimental to individuals and society is a form of bigotry.

Wikipedia defines bigot as " a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs." That is different than merely being anti-something.

I am anti-war. I believe that war is not good for the world, and in the vast majority of cases is a far worse course of action than others we might take. However, I am not "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". I realize that this is a difficult and complex subject, that my feelings can vary over a wide spectrum depending on circumstances, and the good and rational people can disagree with me. I also do not have animosity towards people who don't believe as I do, or exhibit intolerance towards them. I am anti-war, but not a bigot.

So believing that theism is wrong - that God does not exist, arguing for that position, and even arguing that individuals and society would be better off if they un-adopted many or all of their religious beliefs, is in and of itself, not bigotry.

I was not talking about a belief that theism is wrong, which I believe is wrong in itself, but Anti Theism.

The problem is that the Anti Theists definitely exhibit intolerance and animosity towards theists, per the defintion of bigot that you provide...Hitchens was a great example, as is P Z Myers.

My point is that anti-theism and bigotry are not synonymous: one can be an anti-theist and not be bigoted about it, although of course one can be anti-theistic and also be a bigot. Those who are bigoted anti-theists (or a bigoted anything) are a subset of those who are anti-theistic.

My main point is that one can be actively against something without being bigoted about it.

Another point: the fact that arguments against something are made by a bigot doesn't invalidate the arguments. To be more specific, I think there are aspects of both Myers and Dawkins behavior that are bigoted, but I also think they are right about a lot of things. I am capable of separated the arguments someone makes from their personality and/or character.

If the arguments of the Bigot of Choice take the from or criticizing a group based on the actions of some, then the Bigots arguments are, in fact, invalid.

Not quite sure what you're saying here (or what the Bigots of Choice are), but here's a response to what I think you are saying: if the arguments made by a bigot are basically ad hominem arguments - dismissing the arguments of others just because they are the target of the bigotry, then yes, those arguments are invalid. But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about arguments based on logic, facts, and chosen principles, not ad hominem arguments.

Here's an example to make this clear:

1. God doesn't exist because those stupid, irrational Christians act just as badly as anyone else, worse in ways.

2. God doesn't exist because there is not any conclusive empirical evidence of supernatural activity in the world.

The first is not a valid argument: it is an ad hominem argument based on a bigoted opinion of Christians

The second is a valid argument (irrespective of its truth) because it is based on arguable facts, not on irrelevant characteristics of the persons holding the opposite position.

Jack, the first argument is of course an outright ad hominem attack, and is inaccurate anyway.

The second argument is a legitimate way or arguing, but it is invalid as to content; moreover, given a presumption of Philosophical Naturalism, there is No Proof that would ever...even in principle...be acceptable as "conclusive".

Mike, I didn't mean to offer argument 2. as something we should discuss right now. I was just trying to respond to your statement that "If the arguments of the Bigot of Choice take the from or criticizing a group based on the actions of some, then the Bigots arguments are, in fact, invalid."

I agree with you: if one arguments take the form of arguing against a position based on the actions of some of the people who hold that position, then those arguments are invalid. That is different than making arguments about the actual issue separate from the behavior of those who hold the opposite. That's the point I was trying to make.

Your use of the word "supernatural" has you so far into religion/philosophy there is no way that can be a "valid argument" arguable by facts. You created a category outside of science for what your stereotypical anti theist beliefs call "God" just so you can say there is no empirical evidence for this entity you yourself dreamed-up. Assuming "God" must be a supernatural entity is from your religious belief and scientific method, certainly not mine.

In other replies you showed to even have their sex all figured out, it's a "he". Can I see your empirical evidence for that please?

If it was me you are referring to, then I will simply say you are wrong that I suggested that was an example of bigotry. Anti-theist is a perfectly good word, but you use it as pejorative to broad brush many people who may or may not actually fall into that camp. Its your standard "non-insult." You use it to imply that the people on this board with whom you are arguing are not just hostile to the specific tenets and actions of specific religions and peoples, but hostile to religion in general.

And we all know what you think about them...
So when you call others "anti-theist" you imply they are bigots (whether you mean to or not).

In the Bishop thread, Brian remarked about "idiots" who inject religion into public high science classrooms and specifically differentiated these "fundies" from avg church goers (who are ambivalent about such things). He called out a specific subset based on their specific actions, but you angrily called him a bigot. Was Brian's remark an ad hom? Yes. Bigotry? No. And I don't think what you are doing (broad brushing atheists and non-believers as anti-theist) is outright bigotry either, its just poisoning the well.

So you are saying Brian was Poisoning The Well, then?

Now that Mr Krebs has schooled Mike about what a "bigot" really is, I think it's time we address this term "fundie". Maybe I'll start a thread about it. How does that sound Mike?

If you feel you need to give more examples of bigotry, that is your problem.