An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god."
In contrast, an atheist simply doesn't believe that god exists. Seneca, nothing I have posted here is in opposition to anyone's belief in the existence of God. You can believe whatever the hell you want to believe as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. All I have done here is express my opinion that certain aspects of certain religions infringe not only on the rights of others, but blatantly and intentionally lie about our knowledge of the Earth, about our human origins, and what we know about cosmology and even biology. These aspects of certain religions are also openly anti-science in nature and overall tone. Now, you may believe that they have a right to do this, and so my response is that then they shouldn't claim any sort of moral high ground whatsoever with what they are doing, because they are lying to themselves and to the public, and doing a lot of damage to science education. But I guess lying for Jesus is all the rage these days, eh?
You said:
"Opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
In the absence of complete certainty, a theory remains an opinion."
I think the issue here boils down to the real difference between religion and science. Religion subscribes to absolutism, ergo, religious dogma. For someone who has viewed the world from the point of religious absolutism, I can see where they might also ascribe the same kind of absolutism in matters of science. What many don't understand is that science doesn't deal in absolutes (in a broad sense). Today, we think that Ardi is the oldest common ancestor of man. Tomorrow, someone will find an older one. Science deals with empirical evidence which doesn't reveal itself all at once, but is discovered over time. Religion has little, if any, emperical evidence in it's support. That's why it is called "an act of faith". And as we all know, faith is the belief in something for which there is no proof. Science is not an act of faith. I know that here on Earth, if I drop a ball in a calm wind, it most certainly will fall to the ground. There is no uncertainty, unless the variables I referred to above change. And so, the notion that complete certainty is required is simply not the case.
Food for thought. Our knowledge of orbital dynamics, while not "certain", allowed us to thread a proverbial needle about 1.5 billion miles away in order to place a small robot into orbit around Saturn. So it is my opinion that the science is "pretty d*&m certain, that is, certain enough". I have always found it ironic that those who object the most to the "uncertainty" of science, have no problem whatsoever ascribing as absolutely true the notion that there is a god, a notion for which there is no empirical proof whatsoever.
