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

Oops, I forgot to check the timestamps.

Edit: Well that was the most pointless page-topper ever. :/

edited 16th Apr '11 7:25:53 PM by ForoneAndWon

Incidentally, thoughts on this? I was going to post it in the other religion topic, but it would seem rather off-topic there.

Tangentally related: it might provoke some ire from atheists that some that religious people can, in cases, be above the law because of their beliefs: citation. In short, a church in New Mexico was permitted to take hoasco tea *

^{which contains the illegal hallucinogenic dimethyltryptamine}

because, er, it apparently enhances their understanding of God. This is despite the fact that the American Congress had previously found that the drug had high potential for abuse, was unsafe even under medical supervision and violates an international treaty when imported or distributed.

Although I don't feel like hunting for a case again, do note that although cannabis eases the nausea and discomfort of cancer sufferers undergoing treatment, the Supreme Court ruled that if you took cannabis for medicinal purposes, you were liable for federal prosecution.

*

^{If this seems familiar, check Page 44 of The God Delusion}

edited 17th Apr '11 5:05:00 AM by AllanAssiduity

"I've noticed that Atheism seems to be really controversial. Tell me, what is so bad about it? Its not belief, its lack of belief."

At the risk of creating yet more controversy, I disagree! Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. After all, if a "lack of belief" was all that was required, rocks and trees would be atheists. What's more, it is often (and should be) accompanied by auxiliary beliefs, like:

- Atheism is rational

- It is irrational to believe in God because God fails some epistemological criteria

- The scientific method entails atheism

- If God existed, the world would be different from how it is

- God is relevantly similar to a teapot

- Theology fails to establish the existence of God

- God is impossible/unlikely because he is supernatural

(Don't get me wrong; I realize that atheism is not some monolithic organization with a set creed, these are only examples.)

My answer is that atheism is controversial because these points, and others like them, are controversial. I wouldn't have it any other way, myself.

edited 22nd Apr '11 9:53:46 AM by Arthur

It can be a belief that there is no God, or it can just be the lack of belief. The word applies to both.

"It can be a belief that there is no God, or it can just be the lack of belief. The word applies to both."

If that's how you use the word, fair enough; I've little interest in quibbling over terminology. However, it's worth noticing that the dictionary does claim that atheism is a belief.

This also leaves my "rocks and trees" problem intact. If a lack of belief qualifies one as an atheist, why aren't rocks and trees atheists?

edited 22nd Apr '11 5:44:37 AM by Arthur

The same reason you wouldn't call rocks, trees or animals apolitical. The word is meaningless when applied to them.

The definition of the word varies depending on which dictionary you're using. (As with lots of words) My dictionary lists one of the definitions as, "the lack of belief in God(s)"

edited 22nd Apr '11 5:52:32 AM by Talby

As I said on the first page, I agree, it is specifically the disbelief in God(s), it would be better to use another word for the other meaning, namely lacking a belief. I just can't quite remember what the other word I saw used was...

Agnosticism?

No, Agnosticism is more believing that there is no proof, or even that no proof is possible, not simple lack of belief.

Nontheism?

Apatheism!

edited 22nd Apr '11 2:51:03 PM by AllanAssiduity

I say, excellent pun, sir!

I like how nontheism is listed under atheism.

But yeah, I will disagree with you there. Atheist is a perfectly good term for someone who lacks belief in a god or gods.

I don't, because it groups people with significantly different opinions on the subject together, and I think it just leads to confusion.

It's like the difference between disliking carrots and indifference to them. They aren't the same thing, and putting them in the same category can be misleading.

edited 23rd Apr '11 5:27:41 PM by blueharp

Disclaimer: agnostic atheist misotheist. "If God exists and has the properties of the Christian God, which I find highly unlikely, then God Is Evil" is a good summary of my personal beliefs.

In my experience, at least in America, it isn't militant asshole atheists who draw fire, but atheists in general. I think this is partly because of political correctness (anti-Semitism, for instance, has been seriously taboo since 1945, but there's never been a mass movement in favor of atheist rights), and partly because people who identify deeply with their faith simply don't understand atheism. "They worship a different way" is a lot easier to get, for religious people, than "they don't believe at all." And as I think we all know, people tend to react very negatively to people they don't understand.

Also, it seems a lot easier to proselytize to atheists than to other religions. Bringing Jews up again since I know this better, it's currently seen as very bad form by most Christian denominations to try to convert Jews, but almost every Christian denomination sees it as a duty to save atheists from hell. And unlike Mormon missionaries and Jehovah's Witnesses, most impromptu witnesses to atheists don't have the training to know when to shut up, and tend to take it personally when they're told to shut up and leave us alone.

edited 23rd Apr '11 2:15:08 PM by Ramidel

What's controversial about converting Jewish people? Some of the people I look up to were Jews who converted to Christianity.

edited 23rd Apr '11 4:27:32 PM by Cojuanco

Carrying over what I said in the "Being offended" topic, I'm going to take a guess and say the problem with monotheistic religions and atheism is that they're absolutes to one another.

People get upset over absolutes because they assume it to be absolutely true or absolutely false, and so telling them that it's opposite can make people a little angry. A christian say God is perfect goodness, someone else says God is evil, flame ensues because there's no middle ground for them to remotely agree on because absolutes do not move or allow for wiggle room.

The truth tends to be that way. One side is right, or not.

Truth is also not necessarily related to morals, or at all because morals are subjective. You can objective facts like statistics and such, but that still won't tell you whether or not something is morally good or morally wrong.

edited 23rd Apr '11 5:15:50 PM by Usht

That carrot analogy is pretty sketchy; lack of belief isn't indifference. And really, by that logic, isn't it dumb to label people as "Christians" when there are so many different denominations?

Whether you actively disbelieve in gods or don't believe in gods, the two groups still share the important similarity that they, you know, don't believe in gods.

@Usht

Atheist and theists both see themselves as stating facts. All the other things (values, etc) are secondary. Either there is a god, or there isn't; both sides really can't be right.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply they were identical, just trying to give an analogy to show an opinion can be different, I'll go back and try to clarify the point of the analogy.

Also, we do have names for several dozens different denominations of Christians.

And while there is a similarity, I consider the distinction between disbelief and lack of belief to be as important as between disbelief and belief.

edited 23rd Apr '11 5:29:16 PM by blueharp

@Aca

I'd like for either side then to prove or disprove that which is stated to be unobservable and so doing the metaphorical equivalent of trying to break down a brick wall using only their forehead. Until then, they're making absolute guesses as to what is happening.

edited 23rd Apr '11 5:29:30 PM by Usht

Right, but those distinctions aren't typically used in normal conversation; saying "I'm Christian" seems to be enough to give you an idea of what their beliefs are. I think "atheist" is as good a term as "Christian" in that regard.

I've heard plenty of people describe themselves with their specific denomination, but very rarely does anybody simply call themselves Christian on an individual basis. Now some inclusive organizations may do so, but everybody I know calls themselves a Baptist, or a Presbyterian, or Lutheran, or what have you.

And really, I find the distinction between lack and disbelief to be so much that I believe the precision is even more important, because they are quite distinct, even more so than the "Christian" one...which itself is part of a category or two. Besides, this isn't exactly a normal conversation, it's a case where I do think precision is necessary, what with somebody asking why atheism is such a flame magnet.

If anybody's started flaming somebody who says "I just don't believe anything" then...it would probably not be a result of the person who just has no beliefs.

edited 23rd Apr '11 5:54:56 PM by blueharp