you sounded like me and my opinions years ago. My atheism has been a long road, with many twists and turns, and I did go through a stage where I was fascinated with stories of the near death experiences and ghosts and other supernatural things. Fascination did not mean belief, but I did get that hair-raising feeling when I heard someone talk about it who was convinced of the truth of it.

I have been around long enough to have seen these stories shown to be lies time and time again, and I now have no question that they are all bunk.

Now we get to that last statement. I think that you are talking more about the difference between agnostic and atheist. An atheist will state that I believe that god does not exist. And agnostic will say that it is not knowable. An antitheist would just be someone who is more active in their opposition to religion. An atheist can also be an antitheist, but doesn't have to be. Your definition seems to force every atheist into the "antitheist" mold, and that is not fair.

I guess there is such a thing as a passive atheist as well. It might be better to call them theistically indifferent.

One thing I DO believe, is that whether or not any god, gods, or goddesses do exists, I am quite certain that the Bible is not divinely inspired, or the word of god. That, I believe, I can say with every confidence of being right.

I would suggest that most of them are not. Every closet atheist is a passive atheist, and there are a lot of them as well.

I agree with you about the Bible, although, as with everything, I have no scientific evidence that the Bible is not divine.

That what is reported in the Bible isn't true.

So could it be a divine lie.

The parts in the Bible that are not true are just parables and moral tales. They were not supposed to be taken as, um, gospel.

... is all the internal inconsistencies and contradictions. Those plus the many factual errors add up to something very fallible, and obviously man made.

..... its stylistic similarities to all literature in the relevant periods and places of its writing. And it's similarities to other "divine" texts that were unaware of anything going on in the Middle East at the time(s) and have zero to do it.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I get what you are saying.
Antitheist being the opposite of a theist.

However, the term anti can also mean against as well as opposite and in the case of the word anti-theist has been established as someone who is against religion/theism. Of course, it's important to note that an anti-theist is a person against theism and not necessary theists.

I think a better term to use would be contra-theist (or if you hate mixing greek and latin contra-deist) to describe a person who actively believes there is no god.

Officially though, the terms are implicit vs explicit (or weak vs strong or agnostic vs gnostic) atheist. Implicit/weak/agnostic atheists simply don't have a belief regarding the existence or nonexistence of gods period. Explicit/strong/gnostic atheists are the ones believe that gods do not exist.[/font]

Well, one or two anyway.
I would never describe myself as agnostic, nor would I say I know for certain. I clearly describe myself as an atheist. There is no evidence of a God, so what other conclusion is there?
I love the Beatles and feel sorry for those who don't. I don't hate them, I just feel they are missing out.
It takes all kinds of people to make the world interesting, therefore I do not hate theists, or even dislike them.
It is organized religion I despise. Once somebody writes a set of parameters about the way things are, without a shred of evidence, they have crossed the line with me.
So the word anti-theist doesn't fit, and the term anti-organized religion doesn't work for me. I am still waiting for the right description of who I am.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] "...I do not hate theists, or even dislike them. It is organized religion I despise," that was kinda the distinction I was trying to make when I said:[/font]

I, personally, tend toward strong anti-religion views. I suppose there might be some kind of "cosmic consciousness" that could be called "god" in one sense or another. Who knows. Certainly not I. But organized religion is, and has always been, a force for great evil in this world. (Some worse than others, and some bordering on benign, but even the kindly, benign ones (some sects of Buddhism, for example) end up as the target of some other religion's hatred, and indirectly bring about more evil than good, even thought they are not directly to blame.)

But the problem there, as concerns religions, is that is not a definition of "god". That character is not in the book.

And now you have to define "consciousness"....which is a bitch.

And since there is as much evidence for "CC" as there is for "god"....it too is simply not worth worrying about.

I find anything "supernatural" to be profoundly unsatisfying and unimaginative compared to the real things science shows us. I mean, who doesn't like a good ghost story? But to consider ghosts real is ridiculous. I just reject the supernatural.... because if it exists in this universe, and we can detect it somehow.... it is natural. If we cannot detect it somehow.... see it, feel it, see its reaction on something else.... then what good is it? I mean, if it's not "there"...it's not there.

and not science, and also why I do not "believe" in it.

I simply enjoy speculation on a wide range of topics. I wonder, for example, if Earth has ever been visited by extraterrestrial intelligences. I do not "believe" this to be true, I simply enjoy speculating about it. I don't believe that ghosts are real, but I'm open to speculating about the subject, because it entertains me to do so, and as long as I don't take it seriously, it's a harmless diversion. Is it unproductive as well? Maybe. Maybe not. How productive is playing golf or working jigsaw puzzles?

As for "supernatural". I believe that's an oxymoron. If something happens then it happens within the framework of natural law. That said, I'm sure there are things about natural law that we don't yet understand. It's fun to speculate about what those things might be.

In the spirit of objectivity, I stand ready and willing to be convinced that I am wrong about any of those subjects. However, it will take an extraordinary amount of strong evidence to convince me, which is exactly why I do not believe in those things.

I didn't think you did.

I was trying to get across that made up stuff is usually lame compared to what we know from science.

atheist lack belief in any gods, they are "without gods".

antitheists are opposed to religion or to belief in gods, or as noted below, to belief in a specific god.

Wiki:
Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

Note that it is possible to believe in god and be opposed to organized religion, or to believe in this god but be opposed to belief in that god. Antitheists need not be atheists.

I do not believe in any god or goddess.

I do believe that organized religion is, on balance, more harmful than good, but I do not actively campaign against it.

I do not believe in ghost, UFOs, reincarnation, Tarot cards, dragons or "The Force".

I do enjoy reading science fiction, fantasy, mythology, ghost stories, occult fiction. I also enjoy speculating about those things that I do not believe in.

I also enjoy reading in astronomy, physics, mathematics. I also enjoy speculating on what the boundaries and limits of science are, and what shape future science will take.

I also enjoy reading history, modern and ancient. I also enjoy speculating on what would have happened if Hitler had been assassinated, or if the British Parliament hadn't been so pig-headedly conservative in the face of the Irish potato famine.

What I never lose sight of while speculating is that I do not not believe in ghosts, Odin was not real, Bilbo didn't have a magic ring, Luke Skywalker was not strong in the "the force", I cannot go back in time and alter history, and UFOs are almost certainly mis-identified natural phenomena.

Still, fool that I am, and both feet firmly planted in reality, I enjoy speculating about things that might have been, and things that might yet be, including the possibility that aliens will land at the United Nations, mental telepathy will be harnessed for practical applications, and some day, time travel will be accomplished. These are, to repeat my self yet again, speculative, not factual, and certainly not article of faith. They are a form of mental diversion for entertainment.

I don't believe there isn't a god, I reject the hypothesis put forth that there is a god, because it's been soundly defeated at every term. Now the only "proof" there is a god is because you can't prove there isn't one, which, as we all know, is no proof at all.

Lightening rods, evolution, plate tectonics, all discoveries that have disproved stuff we formerly knew about god. Sure now most of them claim that they are with it, but at the time it shook theistic foundations, so it still counts.

I don't like the term anti-theist, it's used to make it sound like you're against theists instead of against religion, and we see that applied all the time in other groups.

Dated, but still a very good read.

It would seem that you can not separate the two.

They are two separate things. After repeating over and over how and why I consider those two to be two separate things, you say "It would seem that you can not separate the two." Huh? Which part of "They are [font size=4]separate[/font] things" did you not read in my posts?

And If I said "The sky is blue." would your reply "No it's not. It's blue."

Oh, and in case you didn't get it the first time around: "I consider science and philosophical speculation to be two entirely different things. Science has high standards of evidence whose goal is tangible, verifiable, accurate predictions based on rigorous (usually mathematical) theories and models. Philosophical speculation is more or less just for fun." See. I can and do separate the two, and have right from my very first post in this thread. (Pay attention now. There will be a quiz later.)

As for remedial reading, may I recommend:
Philosophy of Science: A New Introduction
by Gillian Barker and Philip Kitcher
(ISBN-13: 978-0195366198)

From Amazon:

Lets look at Mathematics

The search for foundations was blown out of the water. Yet it's power and beauty remain. It is just different than many suspect. There are different lines of mathematical philosophy and people still struggle with this reality.

Why would you say they are different and then point to a Philosophy of Science book?

Tell yourself you won this debate.

but, not very satisfying