You're Not Agnostic, You're An Atheist

[drmeow]

148. Well, I've been around DU

since 2007 (can't remember how long I lurked before I registered but I registered in August) so I'm used to the screaming in the wind. I don't spend any time in this group because, as I largely said in other posts in this thread, belief in god(s) is not something I feel the need to examine too closely and I work at a center that studies religion (and conflict . The last thing I usually want to do is talk about religion and theology in my off time! I spend my time in greatest threads and occasionally latest threads which (I think) is where I saw this one originally. I also don't post much cause except for the most innocuous posts, it seems like pretty much anything can trigger a derisive/defensive/argumentative response ... and I decided that most of the time it isn't worth it. I learn a lot from DU and it has, at times, really changed my view on something but (although I forget this regularly and then regret it) I really feel that the only safe posts for me to make are those which either provide factual information or ask questions to get information rather than those that state my opinion.

As for the fury - one theory would be that when you challenge someone's core beliefs you tend to induce fury. I suspect that for many of the "there can only be theists and atheists" crowd, their personal processing of this question has made it a core belief (regardless of what side they sit on, the theist or the atheist side) - for any number of reasons. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that but by saying "there can be other categories besides those two" we are, in essence, saying to those people "one of your core beliefs - one of the foundational pieces of your world view - is WRONG" and, because it is a core belief, that can have all sorts of threatening implications.

On the other side - the "there are more than two groups" side - the fury can come from a different place. The very fact that we accept that uncertainty can part of this construct makes it virtually impossible for it to be a core belief. That doesn't mean that being told we are wrong doesn't infuriate us. It is not challenging a foundation part of our world view but we are never-the-less feeling attacked. From our perspective, we're saying "I accept your labels and allow you to retain your label but I have a 3rd label for myself" and their counter is "you must conform to my label." We feel that they are saying "I know you better than you know yourself - you are actually deluding yourself with your agnostic label and you just won't admit that you are theist/atheist." There is an implication of lack of maturity and an explicit accusation of delusional thinking which contains within it an implication of mental illness (from Wikipedia:

"A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.

Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression&quot

So for us it comes down to "I don't accept your label" being countered with "there is something wrong with you." (Case in point, we call their position dogma, not delusion.)

So, in summary, it comes down to challenging who some is as a person vs challenging someone's mental state. Both can be pretty fury inducing.