In his book, Against All Gods, A.C Grayling proposes that the word “atheism” be changed to “naturalist” for reasons of clarification.  His point is well taken.  An atheist is not necessarily a person that is reacting to theism, but rather a person that is not connected to theism at all.  He writes, “The term [atheism] already sells a pass to theists, because it invites debate on their ground.”  When this point is taken into consideration, the point of atheism becomes much clearer: it is a viewpoint not based on theism but on 1) the acceptance that life and the universe can be explained naturally, and 2) that morality is not dependent on any theistic belief.  All that being said I would have to consider myself a naturalist who is also an anti-theist.

            Grayling points out that as a naturalist, the theist then becomes a ‘super naturalist’, which is the case: the theist believes that there are explanations for life and the universe that supersede the natural explanations that we get from science and intellectual probing.  In adhering to the term “naturalist” rather than “atheist” the naturalist is no longer defining his belief in terms of theism, but rather in terms of natural explanations derived from skeptical and rational as well as intelligent enquiry.  Grayling also writes, “Supernaturalists are fond of claiming that some irreligious people turn to prayer when in mortal danger, but naturalists can reply that supernaturalists typically repose great faith in science when they find themselves in (say) a hospital or an aeroplane- and with far greater frequency.”  By claiming that irreligious people “turn to prayer” the religious person is trying to undermine claimed natural explanation by the naturalist, but is simply relying on yet another misrepresentation of the truth.  By the same token,  as a naturalist I can claim that the difference is that naturalists have human hope and fear while supernaturalists have limited, unwarranted faith. 

            I wrote earlier that I would consider myself a naturalist, but also an anti-theist.  I don’t know if this word is in use anywhere, or if anyone would claim such a title other than myself. There are, of course, those naturalists that have been given names by theists that are at least comparable.   I myself have been alluded to as being the “anti-christ”, but this is a theistic term that assumes the existence of Christ and God so it won’t do for the same reasons that Grayling points out that “atheist” falls short.  I have also been alluded to by some as being possibly the minion of satan: a devil as it were.  But again, the allusion is theistic.  Atheism is defined as “without theism”, and while there are many that are without theistic belief, as Grayling points out, this falls short of the full measure of truth in regard to atheism.  An anti-theist, or anti-theism, would entail atheism but would go farther and claim that they are against the acceptance of theistic belief.  This, I must concur, is closer to the truthful viewpoint of many atheists, including myself.

           Let me clarify.  First, I am not opposed to the right of anyone believing anything that they want to believe, meaning that if there are those who continue to believe in a God than they have the right to do so.  Secondly, as a naturalist, I have a certain level of warrant that backs up my claim that natural explanation is enough to explain the existence of the universe.  Natural explanations come in the form of scientific theories, and as such must adhere to a stringent form of warrant.  I am opposed to anyone claiming that their explanation has just as much warrant without justifying that claim.  If theists desire to be taken seriously, then they must be willing to put up or shut-up.  Thirdly, to claim that I am an anti-theist is to claim that I am against theism just as a person might be against the death penalty: for moral grounds.

           My reasons for claiming anti-theism is based on a few basic reasons.  First, given the historic record of religion, it seems clear that it is not above deception and fear-mongering.  Secondly, it is clear that religion is able to justify heinous and outright despicable acts.  And lastly, religion enables people to live in ignorance while at the same time claiming intelligence. Throughout history religion has used deception to stifle human intelligence.  The medieval ages, while many theists claim that catholic monks were scientifically active, are a testament to the lengths that religion will go to keep people ignorant.  The claim that monks during the time were scientifically active is a strawman: they were working not in the name of science, but in the interest of discovering “God”.  Modern-day religious pundits continue to spew their fear by promising end-days and coming to “certain” conclusions about Armageddon and happily awaiting the destruction of the world at the same time.

           Fear-mongering is not the end of the religious insanity.  The acts of terrorists are not politically motivated as much as they are religious by nature.  No one in their right mind would kill bystanders by blowing themselves up, flying planes into buildings, disallowing medical treatment to sick children, burn men and women under the auspice of witchcraft, claim that homosexuality is the cause of earthquakes, accepting global warming as “God’s will” etc…  The list, unfortunately goes on and on.  Also unfortunate is the continued and consistent religious acceptance and justification of such acts.  While one religion claims that these acts are not its own, it is not a single religion that is the problem.  It is religion itself.

           Perhaps the most heinous act of all is the all-out attack on rational enquiry by religion.  Society has fought against religion tooth and nail for the opportunity to better itself through education.  Even today, religion tries to pry intelligent skepticism from modern education.  It is ignorance that fuels that fire of religion, and it is ignorance that religion relies and even fights over.  From the time when European peasants were put to death if found with a bible written in their own language, to today’s pathetic and so-called “controversy” concerning evolution, religion continues to claim that an ignorant public is a happy (and religious) public.

            Anti-theism is synonymous with anti-fear, anti-immorality and anti-stupidity.  Perhaps Grayling has a point when he claims that the term “atheism” falls short in portraying the true nature of disbelief.  The disbelief is only the beginning, and a non-plus beginning at that.  The atheist is really a person who relies on sound evidence, valid justification, and logical inference rather than fear, power, and stupidity for explanations. I am an anti-theist not because I dislike faith and hope but because I have faith and hope, not in religion or religious thought, but in the ability of humanity to finally shed itself of antiquated and often times dangerous modes of thought such as religion.