So, why is atheism such a flame magnet anyway (in genaral)?

^^^ *shrug* I don't see much difference functionally. Does an a-bigfoot-ist says he lack a belief in bigfoot or does he say he doesn't believe in bigfoot, and practically speaking, what difference does it make.

edited 15th Apr '11 10:52:05 PM by nightwyrm_zero

@Rott: the claim is more akin to "atheists arent inherently devil worshipping sin engines who rape children for lulz just because they don't believe in hell"

edited 15th Apr '11 10:53:51 PM by Midgetsnowman

Because of all those militant atheists going around killing people who don't believe as they do.

Huh, going by those definitions I'm an agnostic misotheist. I'm not completely sure God exists, but I pretty much believe. However, I'm not entirely sure that that's a good thing for all of us.

I used to believe that man was naturally a moral animal and didn't need oppressive religious institutions to keep himself in line.

Now a days I am not so sure.

edited 15th Apr '11 10:55:07 PM by joeyjojo

Sometimes quite a bit actually, especially when it comes to the more militant types some of whom even feel obligated to lead others to stop believing.

^^ There are a gazillion different moral systems, and divine law is only one of them. Try on Utilitarianism for size, or Kantianism. *

but it's so neat and tidy

^^^ Why does only religious people get a pass for trying to convert others to their belief system?

I admit, I'm biased. My most frequent contact with religious people is my mom who every time she calls will tell me to pray for everything and tells me she prays for me. When I visit home, she'll tell me that I haven't found my way back to god because I haven't looked hard enough, as if I had come by my religious view just coz I'm too lazy.

edited 15th Apr '11 11:02:22 PM by nightwyrm_zero

@feo: Kant as an alternative to theism in ethics?

1. The summum bonum (Highest Good) is where moral virtue and happiness coincide.
2. We are rationally obliged to attain the summum bonum.
3. What we are obliged to attain, it must be possible for us to attain.
4. If there is no God or afterlife, it is not possible to attain the summum bonum.
5. God (or the afterlife) must exist.

Why not just follow the Golden Rule and be done with it?

EDIT: We don't have a page for that? really?

edited 15th Apr '11 11:06:00 PM by thatguythere47

edit: nm

edited 15th Apr '11 11:10:48 PM by nightwyrm_zero

nightwyrm zero, I don't give them a pass, it's just not the subject of this thread, FWIW, I consider proselytizing of all stripes to be quite high on the annoyance potential.

My preference is believe what you want to believe, just don't bother me with them, or bother me about mine.

There are a gazillion different moral systems, and divine law is only one of them. Utilitarianism for size.

True, but talk about negative and positive rights and the net happiness lack the same impact as 'watch it or God is going to fucking kill you'.

I'm not familiar with Kantianism, links please.

Kant was religious, but Kantianism itself doesn't require it—the system only mandates that you can't do things that would have negative consequences if everyone did them. As I like to think of it, it's the system where when you Kant, you simply Kant, you filthy Kant. (I think the whole thing's stupid myself—we'd have a shortage of corn if everyone ate it, and the same goes for wheat and barley and every other food, but there'd also be bad consequences if nobody ever ate.)

Eh. I got a bad impression of Kant when I had to read his Categorical Imperative stuff in a German History class, and the very next thing we read from him was a 12-page cartoonishly racist dissertation that wasn't even logically self-consistent.

I'll take militant atheists who are being impolite jackasses over militant theists any day.

@Rott: I'm not seeing how steps 3 and 4 follow. But I'm not a Kantian, if that makes a difference.

Why is that? A militant jackass trying to force their beliefs on others is just as obnoxious regardless of what their particular belief is.

@ OP

Short answer: Because some people take their religion, or lack thereof, seriously. Sometimes, I would argue, too seriously.

Long answer: Nah, the short answer pretty much covered it.

edited 15th Apr '11 11:48:35 PM by deathjavu

Jackasses are loud and annoying. I've yet to see Dawkins issue put a price on a preacher's head or call for the curtailing of civil rights.

"loud and annoying"

"Dawkins"

...problems are going to start from here I believe. Oh dear... TO THE BUNKER.

I like Dawkins. The Ancestor's Tale was a great book.

His more "theological" works, however, suffer a little from the fact that he has no philosophical or theological training whatsoever.

Bertrand Russell was a great atheism advocate, as was Voltaire; Dawkins... is not.

edited 16th Apr '11 12:08:34 AM by Carciofus

Violence against religious people indeed happens.

soo, can I just ask a question that's come up.

The way people about atheism in general, they seem to have this tone that perpeuates that anyone claiming to be atheist is a part of a group, like a religion or w/e.

where do people get this idea?

I like Bertrand Russel! He was friends with John Maynard Keynes you know.