Lack of belief (yet again)

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can understand why the historicity of Jesus would be a charged topic. Much the same can be said of the various manifestations of the evolution versus creationism debate. But what is there about the 'meaning' of atheism that invites such intense interest?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Interest from whom?

 

[Yerda]

I can understand why the historicity of Jesus would be a charged topic. Much the same can be said of the various manifestations of the evolution versus creationism debate. But what is there about the 'meaning' of atheism that invites such intense interest?

For me it's only an issue when uncharitable atheists use the "lack of" position to grant them a priveleged "default position" from where they can demand everyone else overcomes the "burden of proof".

It might be more of an annoyance at continually reading people argue in buzzwords more than a real quibble about the definition.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can understand why the historicity of Jesus would be a charged topic. Much the same can be said of the various manifestations of the evolution versus creationism debate. But what is there about the 'meaning' of atheism that invites such intense interest?

Part of it is the need to break the atrocious expectation that we should justify atheism.

Another is the ill ease of many people when faced with the very existence of atheism.

 

[LuisDantas]

For me it's only an issue when uncharitable atheists use the "lack of" position to grant them a priveleged "default position" from where they can demand everyone else overcomes the "burden of proof".

Why is that at all a problem?

 

[Yerda]

Why is that at all a problem?

Poor form. Lack of good faith. Boring as hell. Along those lines.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Poor form. Lack of good faith. Boring as hell. Along those lines.

Yep. I was on a forum which pretty much ground to a halt because in every discussion about deity(s) and in every religious section (the equivalent of DIRs) the atheist members were derailing every thread with their incessant demands for evidence that said deities existed - even if the thread wasn't aimed at them in the first place.

It pushed quite a lot of theist members to stop posting because, frankly, there really wasn't any point in posting.

 

[Mindmaster]

I can understand why the historicity of Jesus would be a charged topic. Much the same can be said of the various manifestations of the evolution versus creationism debate. But what is there about the 'meaning' of atheism that invites such intense interest?

Mostly, it's the power to troll everyone else that has a religion... Which comprises about 80% of the planet...

 

[LuisDantas]

Poor form. Lack of good faith. Boring as hell. Along those lines.

I am sorry, but I can't find it in me to agree.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I assume that many if not most people here have a "lack of belief" in the Daoine Sidhe -- some because they know what it means and others because they don't. Do you think that these two positions are equivalent?

 

[YmirGF]

I assume that many if not most people here have a "lack of belief" in the Daoine Sidhe -- some because they know what it means and others because they don't. Do you think that these two positions are equivalent?

In some ways they are equivalent. I do not subscribe to either a belief in god(s) or magical nymphs. I suppose the difference is that there are not legions of human animals telling me about their direct experience of said wood nymphs or that they know what said nymphs want from human animals, nor do we hear tales of these creatures inspiring or authoring written works billions adhere to.

So, similar, but from far different orders of probability.

Side note: My granny literally saw "little people" out of the corner of her eye due to an advanced eye disorder I cannot spell. She didn't believe they were real, but could describe them in considerable detail. They entertained her as she approached blindness.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In some ways they are equivalent.

That strikes me as oxymoronic, but thanks for the response.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My granny literally saw "little people" out of the corner of her eye due to an advanced eye disorder I cannot spell. She didn't believe they were real, but could describe them in considerable detail. They entertained her as she approached blindness.

She may well have been far ahead of the rest of us.

 

[Nakosis]

Yep. I was on a forum which pretty much ground to a halt because in every discussion about deity(s) and in every religious section (the equivalent of DIRs) the atheist members were grinding every thread to a halt with their incessant demands for evidence that said deities existed - even if the thread wasn't aimed at them in the first place.

It pushed quite a lot of theist members to stop posting because, frankly, there really wasn't any point in posting.

Kind of the wrong reason if that was indeed their reason for being an atheist. So you can troll others about their beliefs.

Ok, well sometimes I troll others about their beliefs, but it's not the reason I'm an atheist. You can be a Christian or a Muslim and troll folks about their beliefs.

 

[icehorse]

If religious people did all of their religious stuff in their own homes and didn't indoctrinate kids into their religion I wouldn't care. But many religious folks use their beliefs to abuse others or gain special privileges.

Who really thinks that in 2017, the best practices of child-rearing should include corporal punishment? Mostly religious people.

Who believes that honest criticism should sometimes be a capital offense? Mostly religious people.

Who relies on the products of science everyday but thinks faith claims should hold as much sway as scientific claims? The religious.

Who thinks that anyone born into their club cannot leave, upon pain of death. Religious people.

And so on.

Of course not every religious group holds all of these opinions, but religion in large inflicts this sort of nonsense on society.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I can understand why the historicity of Jesus would be a charged topic. Much the same can be said of the various manifestations of the evolution versus creationism debate. But what is there about the 'meaning' of atheism that invites such intense interest?

I think its a result of ignorance of people who do not believe in God, which can arise for various reasons but usually from listening to lots of intense speeches about the evils of the outside and from not interacting with people outside one's own religious group. As a youth I had a morbid curiosity about how people must deal with a supposed vacuum in their hearts created by them not having Jesus in their hearts. I wrote some dark poetry about what it must be like to think that we are all 'Just animals' and how pointless that must make the world seem. Viewing everyone not in my religion as being lost and confused with a hole in their heart, I wondered how they survived without believing in God. It was actually an expression of compassion, because who wouldn't feel compassion for someone who appeared lost and empty?

Please no comments or jokes.

 

[Kapalika]

It reeks of semantics and somewhat underhanded. I have no problem with atheist arguments so long as they make an actual argument (I'll probably agree with them on more points than not).

It's basically a non-argument to say you lack belief in a way to mean your position doesn't need an explanation but others' positions do. To me atheism is a conclusion one makes, not a default position anymore than theism might be considered a default position.

I don't see why it's so hard to say why one doesn't believe in something. Something as simpel as "I've never been convinced" is an answer as they can at least explain why nothing ever convinced them if asked, hence them coming to the conclusion that no gods exist.

I don't think this moves the burden of proof it just means both have some skin in the game. Theists still need to justify their position. Even if an atheist argument is defeated it doesn't prove theism or disprove atheism and vice versa. It just disproves that specific argument.

 

[Erebus]

I can understand why the historicity of Jesus would be a charged topic. Much the same can be said of the various manifestations of the evolution versus creationism debate. But what is there about the 'meaning' of atheism that invites such intense interest?

I suspect it's mostly because a lot of people would like to take an easy route in debates.

Some theists would like for every atheist to be a strong atheist, as it makes criticism easier.

Some strong atheists would rather argue semantics than back up their views on gods/religion.

 

[PureX]

I assume that many if not most people here have a "lack of belief" in the Daoine Sidhe -- some because they know what it means and others because they don't. Do you think that these two positions are equivalent?

No one "has a lack" of anything. It's not logically possible.

 

[Kapalika]

No one "has a lack" of anything. It's not logically possible.

This is interesting, could you explain why by chance? If not here I'd at least like to hear in PM.

I don't want anyone to turn this into a debate, I'm actually curious as I feel I might be inclined to agree.