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

As an atheist, I have to agree that atheist identitarianism (all that red A shit) is annoying.

edited 16th Apr '11 12:31:47 AM by MRDA1981

I still maintain that his Why I Am Not A Christian should be a compulsory read in Sunday Schools, by the way: you cannot really understand much about religion unless you are at least somewhat familiar with the arguments of its opponents, and Russell is probably the best introduction to atheism around.

You know what? Scratch that, that essay should be a compulsory read in all schools.

edited 16th Apr '11 12:36:39 AM by Carciofus

Agreed, its why I like him .

I can see sunday schools teaching it. Know thy enemy.

@Pykrete: Interesting link, I know in the U.K. and to a degree the U.S. mid west Catholics have a long history on being pissed on. It was actually joked at the time when kennedy came in into office he was planing to hand over 10% of the U.S.A. to the pope.

When I was growing up I never had a problem. Although I went to a Catholic school when I was very young, I never believed in God.

Most people I knew during school were atheists, or at least non-religious. In real life it's never come up much. The only place I've seen the "lol, u athist r goin 2 hell!" sentiment is on the internet.

I've certainly been argued against by one of my Christian friends and two jehovahs witnessess who came to the door, but its more in the spirit of debate more than "your bound to hell".

Being a non-practising Irish Catholic I obviously never encountered any problems at home (as this is the religious stance of the vast number of people here).

However, I have been flamed on the internet before for expressing my moral beliefs. See, I'd consider myself ethnically Catholic more than anything else, by which I mean that although I don't necessarily believe in God; I believe the Bible has a lot of wisdom in it. If you're looking for a moral code, it's not a bad place to start.

Of course, when I say that on the internet I usually get Leviticus thrown in my face, so allow me to clarify: I am not saying every damn thing the Bible says is factually correct. I guess maybe people on the internet are just more aggressive about their atheism?

It gives them a place that they can be angry without their parents telling them they are going to hell. Leastwise thats what I assume.

And I would argue against that conception, the bible might not be the BEST place to start, its a useful tool, but it needs to be looked at with a critical eye.

^^ I am more than a little uncomfortable with the concept of "ethnically Catholic" - after all, it's a religion whose universal ambitions are so marked that they were put in the very name.

But I guess it comes from the history of Ireland...

edited 16th Apr '11 1:18:22 AM by Carciofus

Well yeah, I should also point out that "not a bad place to start" in no way translates as "LOL BIBLE IS BEST MORAL CODE EVAR".

Also please have regard to the fact that; having been raised in a predominantly Catholic society, I'm probably going to be slightly more inclined to defend it than most. Doesn't mean that I agree with everything the Church says.

It's very hard to explain if you're not Irish. But religion is very much tied up in the national identity for many people, certainly historically, what with Protestantism being forced on people and all.

edited 16th Apr '11 1:20:02 AM by DanEile

The link between religion and ethnic identity is just one more reason why atheism is such a flame magnet on the internet. Ireland and Catholicism is a great example. In the UK, in the last census 70-ish per cent responded to a question on religion by claiming to be Christian. Believe me, you won't see most of them in church much - it's more of an "I am English/Scottish/Welsh/British"-thing.

Personally, I have no problem with atheists who don't regard everyone who disagrees with them as some kind of moron. And it should cut both ways.

Agreed. I don't mind what a person's religious stance is so long as they're not trying to convert me or imply I'm some kind of idiot.

edited 16th Apr '11 1:41:48 AM by DanEile

With the whole misunderstanding of "atheism=no morals," I just ask Christians where they get their morals from. Of course, many will answer from the Bible, but there are some pretty horrendous things in there. Reading some of the things Yahweh/Jehovah/Whatever name he's being called at the moment allowed people to do morally outrages me.

Pykrete: Violence against religious people does indeed happen. How much of it, do you think, is perpetuated by other religious people?

re: Adopting an identity as an atheist...I only feel the need to do it as a response to cultural reactions against atheists, i.e. intimidating◊ billboards◊, atheists losing their jobs on being outed, Bush Sr. making comments to the effect that atheists can't be real American citizens, etc. Frankly, if I don't think you have any problems with atheists or atheism, I'm not going to bring it up. It's the same reason I feel Gay Pride parades are more important in cities that have seen hate crimes against homosexuals recently.

One of the more vocal atheist bloggers gives his argument for accepting an atheist identity.

My thoughts reading the thread.

First, Atheism and Agnosticism are on different spectrum. Myself, I'm an atheist agnostic. The reason for that is that it's impossible to completely disprove certain things, and the existence of a deity is one of those things. So is the existence of faeries. But I think the two things are about equally likely to exist (that is, very very very minute).

The Agnostic/Gnostic debate is actually much more interesting and important on the theist side, although we don't talk about it that much. It's one of the core differences between people who think that their religion is absolute versus people who think their religion is one of many paths.

As well, to be honest, often all it takes to be a "militant atheist" is to simply say "God (probably) does not exist". Everything else is gravy. Quite frankly, this is about the equivalent in terms of dickishness to "Thou shalt have no god before me".

Dawkins isn't a "dick" for no reason. The primary reason why he's "political" now was the concern about religion getting in the way of a proper science education for children. It's grown past that now, of course. You might disagree with the idea or that's happening, or you might think it's a good thing. But a reason is still a reason.

@Dan The argument you're getting there, is well, why do you reject Leviticus? Because it comes across as something primitive, morally speaking. At that point, it's that lens that you're using to reject it, and not the Bible that is your moral code. And why would people have a problem with you saying that it is?

In atheist circles, here's what I write. In fact, I'll copy and paste it directly from the blog I posted it on. Some background: There's a conflict going on in the atheist internet community. Between so-called "Gnu Atheists" and "Acommadationists". Basically, the latter think that atheists should play nice with religious people and not offend them to slowly move them in the correct direction while Gnu Atheists think that while we can work with religious people, they need to learn to respect our criticism or religion.

Anyway. Here's my post that explains my view on atheism and religion:

The problem is the privilege. I think most atheists/seculars/whatever agree with this. The problem I have with these groups, is that their actions reinforce said privilege. By labeling themselves as “faith”, or “religious”, or whatever, when they do good things..and I really have no doubt that they want to do good things!…when they do good things they put money in the United Bank of Privilege. Money which is withdrawn by not-well meaning people to do bad things like hate gays and control women and promote the “noble poor” and all those other mean nasty things that religions do in our society.

Gnu atheists, among others, work very hard to empty that Bank of Privilege. And yet people don’t like it when we try to. At the end of the day, religious individuals LIKE “glory”, generally that’s what drives Western religion. And it’s the need for glory which drives them to carry the water for the bad people. But the privilege in the end is simply too important to them to change.

I'm not sure where the idea of "militant atheist Dawkins" comes from. To my knowledge, the worst he's done is vocally criticise religious/superstitious ideas.

Whatever, though. I'd be more inclined to shake his hand then I would be to punch him, I know that much.

I think it's mostly that vocal critics of religion/Christianity are almost reflexively labeled assholes.

I guess we are just two different people. You admire the man's additions to science, and I like to wail on people who annoy me

edited 16th Apr '11 6:22:46 AM by joeyjojo

He published a book called the god delusion. Why not just call it Your beliefs are dumb and you're an idiot?

edited 16th Apr '11 6:45:09 AM by joeyjojo

Most people I've talked to seem to think that Dennett's tone is more reasonable than Dawkins's, actually.

I don't think anyone likes Captain Foot-In-His-Mouth*

An attack on someone's beliefs is not the same thing as an attack on someone's person.

Still there are ways not to sound like a self righteous asshole and that wasn't it.

edited 16th Apr '11 6:50:03 AM by joeyjojo

Beliefs tend to be tied up with identity.

Also, can someone alter the title? The typo is annoying me.