philosophy, semanticsIf there were an Atheist themed conference or weekend get-together, which theism related issues are likely to be the most hotly debated and/or to cause the most heated arguments?
Accommodationism may be a large issue. There is a spectrum of opinions on this point, ranging from "be nice and get along" to "loud and in your face".
http://www.edge.org/discourse/accomodationism.html has a list of articles with dissenting views on whether faith is compatible with science.
Hell, most atheists I know can’t even agree on a definition for atheism, much less anything else.
I think the abortion issue, stem cell usage, euthanasia and genetically modified objects (GMO).
For Atheists as participants in a school of thought, there would be no major controversy. There may be differences in how to refute the claim of theism, however as a null set of beliefs there would be nothing to debate.
For Atheists as participants in a cultural movement, there would be controversies. However, these would all be relative to their cultural identity. These would range from where they derive the basis for moral and ethical answers to questions (specifics might include abortion, but more interestingly and less partisanly extend to civic duties and their position as secular members of society), to what standing atheistic thought should have in the imposed context of religious thought.
I’ll go with the psyche of the believer, and the path of least resistance to a secular society.
Many of the well known authors seem to hold their hat on the natural science as being the best motivating cause to non-belief. Many atheists seem to feel that even though these books raise points and are factually correct, the best way to free a believer from the thralls of conviction is by not mentioning facts but instead the morality of the system of belief. Or, to establish a better community that he/she can join.
What is a better take with regards to dispelling Christianity: to prove the Bible is maligned? That god is an indefensible hypothesis? That the life of a non-believer can be just as fulfilling? Or, that science is a better method of discovering what is real? This seems like the biggest disagreement to me. How do you most successfully confront a random non-theists in such a fashion as to move them toward your own method of thinking?
A big schism among atheists is the monism/dualism split:
I agree with Smotricz, but I would characterize dualism differently, and I would also bet that there would be some lively arguments around idealism at the conference as well. I could imagine the great David Hume, an atheist, at the conference arguing with the materialists whether physical objects are nothing more than constructs of (non-physical) sense data. I could imagine a follower of Spinoza at the conference that a person’s body and a person’s mind are two aspects of the same underlying reality, but that neither can be reduced to the other.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.