Page 1 of 2 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Natty_Boh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Dec 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 756
Location: Baltimore County

15 Jan 2011, 9:58 pm

...so why is it so frequently pointed out here that it's the default/passive/unconscious position, held by babies and comatose patients alike? Am I atheist when asleep, but Catholic when I wake up? Would you consider a lifelong Christian, in the last stages of Alzheimer's and far past rationality of any kind, to have become atheist?

Is that claim, of atheism as an unthinking default mode, any sort of compliment to the thought you've presumably put into your position?



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

16 Jan 2011, 1:39 am

Positive atheism is the active belief that there is no god. Negative atheism is the lack of belief at all in this regard; someone could be in an irreligious culture or brought up in an environment where religious wasn't terribly important. A baby could be thought to be negatively atheist in this regard, but Christianity usually baptizes them as infants and begins socializing them into the religion as early as possible, Also, one can be atheist in relation to some gods and not others (atheist towards Apollo but not towards Yahweh, for example); still another dimension of atheism is confidence in the belief's truth: One can be absolutely convinced of the truth of theism at one extreme, an agnostic in the middle, and an absolute atheist at the other extreme.

In conditions where normal mental processes have temporarily or permanently eroded while the physical body remains mostly intact (the progressed stages of Alzheimer's, in your example), a more generall question of identity is raised. From the outside in, society would say the Alzheimer's patient retained their premorbid religious or nonreligious identity.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

16 Jan 2011, 1:55 am

NeantHumain wrote:
Positive atheism is the active belief that there is no god. Negative atheism is the lack of belief at all in this regard; someone could be in an irreligious culture or brought up in an environment where religious wasn't terribly important. A baby could be thought to be negatively atheist in this regard, but Christianity usually baptizes them as infants and begins socializing them into the religion as early as possible, Also, one can be atheist in relation to some gods and not others (atheist towards Apollo but not towards Yahweh, for example); still another dimension of atheism is confidence in the belief's truth: One can be absolutely convinced of the truth of theism at one extreme, an agnostic in the middle, and an absolute atheist at the other extreme.

In conditions where normal mental processes have temporarily or permanently eroded while the physical body remains mostly intact (the progressed stages of Alzheimer's, in your example), a more generall question of identity is raised. From the outside in, society would say the Alzheimer's patient retained their premorbid religious or nonreligious identity.


Who is this "society" an where does he or she live and where does he or she get this authority?



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

16 Jan 2011, 2:34 am

@NeantHumain

Positive and negative atheism are not universally recognized terms, even among atheists. As to your idea that someone is an atheist towards the gods they do not believe in; I tend to think that this idea is absurd. It is kind of like arguing that due to the fact I do not eat lamb (I just don't enjoy the texture) that I am a vegitarian in relation to lamb. I also dislike your tacit contention that bringing up a child within a religious belief system is child abuse, I find this concept quite totalitarian.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


PanoramaIsland
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 110
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

16 Jan 2011, 3:49 am

An atheist position can be come to as a result of a philosophical outlook favoring "pure reason" in all things, but it may be arrived at for emotional reasons as well - and frequently is.


_________________
"Bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonneronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk." - James Joyce


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

16 Jan 2011, 4:36 am

[quote="91"]@NeantHumain

Positive and negative atheism are not universally recognized terms, even among atheists. As to your idea that someone is an atheist towards the gods they do not believe in; I tend to think that this idea is absurd. It is kind of like arguing that due to the fact I do not eat lamb (I just don't enjoy the texture) that I am a vegitarian in relation to lamb. I also dislike your tacit contention that bringing up a child within a religious belief system is child abuse, I find this concept quite totalitarian.[/quote

Whereas I find inculcating a child with unreasonable religious dogma before the child has acquired the ability to sensibly evaluate it is very totalitarian.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

16 Jan 2011, 4:41 am

^^^^

I would not agree that it is necessarily totalitarian, there certainly are people who run their families like the worst dictators run states. However, the comparison of a choice within a family to the fundamental reshaping of the power between person and state the banning of teaching religion to children would require, is not delt with in your comparison.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

16 Jan 2011, 5:23 am

91 wrote:
^^^^

I would not agree that it is necessarily totalitarian, there certainly are people who run their families like the worst dictators run states. However, the comparison of a choice within a family to the fundamental reshaping of the power between person and state the banning of teaching religion to children would require, is not delt with in your comparison.


There are obvious simple yet puzzling questions that formal religion presents and that children frequently voice and average adults simply cannot answer. And when a child persists it is usually told to accept it without question or be somehow punished. This is not unusual and I have heard this many times. I consider that training in totalitarianism to accept without question and it destroys something vital in a curious and active mind.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

16 Jan 2011, 8:32 am

PanoramaIsland wrote:
An atheist position can be come to as a result of a philosophical outlook favoring "pure reason" in all things, but it may be arrived at for emotional reasons as well - and frequently is.

Yes, and that is what I see the most around here. At best, men can only deny when they cannot truly know, and that often seems their emotional preference.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


WorldsEdge
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 458
Location: Massachusetts

16 Jan 2011, 9:11 am

NeantHumain wrote:
In conditions where normal mental processes have temporarily or permanently eroded while the physical body remains mostly intact (the progressed stages of Alzheimer's, in your example), a more generall question of identity is raised. From the outside in, society would say the Alzheimer's patient retained their premorbid religious or nonreligious identity.


Actually this example interests me not for the reasons you give, but where exactly anyone who posits the existence of a human soul puts the soul under these conditions. Since it is theoretically separate* from the brain or anything else material, what qualities can be assigned to it that render the loss of mind immaterial (pardon the pun)? I've never gotten an answer that made sense, where you have a brain that's defunct but a soul that keeps on truckin'. Just don't get it.

* - Or is it? I think the Stoics claimed it was material, but certainly the Christian tradition puts it beyond the bounds of the material world, if present in it during someone's lifetime.


_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell


y-pod
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,676
Location: Canada

16 Jan 2011, 9:35 am

I'm sure most people are still aware of their religion even when they're sleeping. As for babies or people with non-functioning brains, I think they're just non-religious. They're just not aware of any religions or deities, that's very different from people who can think and reason and choose to believe or not believe something.



MasterJedi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,160
Location: in an open field west of a white house

16 Jan 2011, 10:07 am

because children have to be taught things. If a child isn't taught to believe in make-believe, imaginary creatures and beings, they won't.

As a catholic, you lack reason and thus, had to ask this question. Hopefully you will become enlightened enough to think for yourself, answer your own questions and stop talking to yourself at night. Questions are the beginning of wisdom. If you can answer your own questions, do so. Otherwise ask them.


_________________
That is my spot, in an ever changing world, it is a single point of consistency. If my life were expressed as a function on a four dimensional Cartesian coordinate system, that spot, from the moment I first sat on it, would be 0-0-0-0.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 Jan 2011, 10:34 am

91 wrote:
@NeantHumain

Positive and negative atheism are not universally recognized terms, even among atheists. As to your idea that someone is an atheist towards the gods they do not believe in; I tend to think that this idea is absurd. It is kind of like arguing that due to the fact I do not eat lamb (I just don't enjoy the texture) that I am a vegitarian in relation to lamb. I also dislike your tacit contention that bringing up a child within a religious belief system is child abuse, I find this concept quite totalitarian.

I am not sure that Neanthumain's use of positive and negative atheism is really that detrimental. The terms are not hidden either, and they are not entirely questionable as terms go.

That being said, I agree with you on the vegetarian comparison to a great extent.

By tacit contention, you mean that NeantHumain points out that Christianity inducts children as early as possible? I am not sure this is totalitarian if you would also agree that the Death Cult of Ptultzek is also questionable on its efforts to induct children. If you think children can literally be taught any set of beliefs and it is ok and what freedom means, then disagreement will obviously be seen as totalitarian. However, if you think that teaching children literally everything is problematic in a world where children don't get to choose their foundation and where certain foundations can stunt their growth as individuals, then extending this dislike to a large number of Christian sects(on the previously mentioned grounds) is not that strange and does not seem so totalitarian.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

16 Jan 2011, 10:47 am

leejosepho wrote:
PanoramaIsland wrote:
An atheist position can be come to as a result of a philosophical outlook favoring "pure reason" in all things, but it may be arrived at for emotional reasons as well - and frequently is.

Yes, and that is what I see the most around here. At best, men can only deny when they cannot truly know, and that often seems their emotional preference.


I find that reasoning quite amusing. You are claiming it is emotional to not accept something unknowable. If it is unknowable a person would have to be a total fool to accept it.



Last edited by Sand on 16 Jan 2011, 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

16 Jan 2011, 12:30 pm

91 wrote:
Positive and negative atheism are not universally recognized terms, even among atheists.

They are not, but some philosophical works use them as terms to distinguish active and passive belief; this says nothing about the belief itself being good ("positive") or bad ("negative").
91 wrote:
As to your idea that someone is an atheist towards the gods they do not believe in; I tend to think that this idea is absurd. It is kind of like arguing that due to the fact I do not eat lamb (I just don't enjoy the texture) that I am a vegitarian in relation to lamb.

Well, the word vegetarian obviously implies vegetables; the term atheist means a- (not, without) theist (god-belief); the term does not necessarily have to imply all gods although this is the more common definition, certainly. Anyway, again, this is not an idea I personally originated.
91 wrote:
I also dislike your tacit contention that bringing up a child within a religious belief system is child abuse, I find this concept quite totalitarian.

I never implied raising a child within a religious framework is automatically child abuse, and I don't know what might have caused you to read that.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 Jan 2011, 12:35 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
I never implied raising a child within a religious framework is automatically child abuse, and I don't know what might have caused you to read that.

You are right, it really isn't there. In fact, all I did was I took a stab at what *could be* interpreted negatively.

I do agree with you that you are not originating anything, but of course, that does not mean that you cannot be criticized for what you pass along.