Atheists and anti-theists

We are back on subject today, mostly because I need to find a nice template first before remodeling everything here.
Theists and fake theists are covered. It's obvious that theists are great and that you wouldn't have an issue with them if you are sane, but that they are so rare that they might soon become a myth.

In the atheist corner we got a similar division, atheists and anti-theists. One group is sane, tolerant and kind towards their opposite polarity, while the other, very similar to fake theists is hardly bearable even for those that would agree with them. So, lets get cracking!

~Atheists differ from theists only in the way that they don't believe in a higher power of any form and because of that often don't follow strict dogmas. They can still be spiritual and can follow some teachings, but still without the need to have a higher being that is going toreward them or punish them for their acts. They don't care if you are a theists or an atheist because they don't have to present their stance as the only right one. Like proper theists, they enjoy their view of the world and also let others develope their own separate views. Speciments of this group, while rare, can be encountered.
For me, talking with a proper atheist that spends his/hers fare share of time pondering about the nature of the universe is always a time well spent.

~Anti-theists on the other hand are a group that defines them self more on what they are against then what they are for. This is why they won't be able to explain to you what they are for but will jump on the subject on how silly it is to believe in a higher being. They are the modern inquisition that uses scientific "facts" as their weapons that, in my opinion, dishonors the greatness of science. Members of this group are the same as fake theist in everything but name and idea of a higher power.
I have always thought that people that define them self or their purpose via the idea of being against something rather then for something detend more on the institutions they oppose then those that arein those institutions. This is why they need their "enemy" and this is why they arm them self with "facts" that they build up like a tower on the sand.

Perfect example for this would be Richard Dawkins.
When you see him in a debate with fellow scientists or when he is talking for a show or a documentary, he is polite, mannered and has a great way of using beautiful metaphors to explain very important issues that influence us all.
On the other hand, when talking with... Well actually, against the members of any thing that isn't backed by facts, he desides to abandon his dignity and the sharpness of mind and starts tossing spageti all over the place. Ok... We get it... Now stop that childish behaviour, you bloody genius!

Also, judging by the comments, I think I will need to cover the ideas of gnosticism and agnosticism as well as my favorite starting point for almost any chat/talk - ignosticism.

Hope you enjoyed this so far.

Be well