Outdated?

Originally Posted by Altair

There are usually two definitions of atheism, 1) a lack of belief in god(s), usually referring to personal deities, 2) a lack of belief in spirituality and the afterlife..

I think you'll find many people here who could be classified as atheists if we go by the first definition, but few people if we use the second definition..

Which one do you think is a taboo subject on these boards? Would love to hear your thoughts on it..

I think ''tolerance'' in our time usually means ''..allowing others to believe or do what they want provided they don't bother me with it..''
As a quick example, ''acceptance'' of homosexuality or transgenderism usually works on that premise. Of course it's just a refusal of conversation, which leads to a very narrow view on ''tolerance''. This attitude is more likely to bring more segregation and bottling things up..

The same could perhaps be said of atheism. People ''accept'' that others are atheist, but does that lead to an acceptance of potential conversation..?

.

For my own beliefs I don't have any about God/Gods/gods, I don't believe they exist but neither do I believe they don't; existence or not can't be proven. Atheism by any definition seems to be taboo although I think your second definition s bordering on nihilism rather than atheism but then that's just quibbling on semantics. I'm not sure nihilists would frequent these hallowed boards anyway.

In the past atheism has attracted some very bad press and being honest I've shied away from such conversations because people would rather stick with their misconceptions and throw stones rather than discuss atheism with an atheist. Being honest, much of it borders on veiled discrimination and often there's only dialogue between theists on atheism. So, no acceptance of conversation between the theists and the atheists - who do God's work I might add. However, things change but I'm not holding my breath while I await the pleasant surprise.

I can understand the difficulty with the conversation on homosexuality or transgenderism if there is no baseline of personal experience, because it's difficult to have an honest conversation based on what you've heard or read. It just becomes the conversation on opinion without any objectivity. I've had those conversations but I'll admit they were difficult for me to understand, not having gone through it myself. What it does so though is give at least some understanding of how the person might be the way they are, being discriminated because of being different can cross the barriers of differences.