The Atheist Druid

[DJ Droood]

Children are literalists. .

That's true. I made a decision when my children were born always to tell them the truth when asked. I told them that Father Christmas was a game; and I thought they believed me until one day my daughter asked me who was Father Christmas really. I told her that it was me who brought her her presents. I found out a couple of years later that she thought I meant that I was Father Christmas and that I flew round the world delivering all the presents to all the children!

I think what can be emotionally confusing for children is when they discover that "Santa" is fictional and a cute game parents play, but their parents insist their other imaginary friend(s) is very real indeed...and also usually very cross, and watches them closely.....why not just admit the whole thing is a game...then everyone can have fun with it together. Do we still need a "god" to frighten children into compliance? Can't we just tell them we've installed webcams in their playroom....at least then they will get a healthy fear of what authority really is and does.

[cursuswalker]

If you've never heard of the concept of 'God' you can't have an opinion either way. You can only be a-theist if you understand what theism is. Disbelief is a positive decision so pedantically a baby cannot be atheist any more than it can be theist. It's just a blank slate.

I think a distinction has to be drawn between passive atheism and active atheism. For example I am fond of pointing out to christians that they are athorists (people who have no belief in Thor). Until I point that out to them they are passive athorists and the label has no practical use. However once their athorism is brought into consciousness it is a different matter. For example a certain type of christian will say to themselves "It isn't so much that I don't think Thor exists than that I think he is actually Satan"

[Mountainheart]

For example a certain type of christian will say to themselves "It isn't so much that I don't think Thor exists than that I think he is actually Satan"

True. There are some Christians who think that pretty much *all* the followers of other religions worship Satan: including Muslims. The latter is especially ironic given that the Qur'an contains much that is in the Bible and also that Allah is basically a version of the Aramaic word for God, alaha: which is what Jesus would have used.

Of course all druids are also devil worshippers

[DJ Droood]

The latter is especially ironic given that the Qur'an contains much that is in the Bible and also that Allah is basically a version of the Aramaic word for God, alaha: which is what Jesus would have used.

Sounds like a clear case of plagiarism copyright infringement to me.

[Dendrias]

The basic mistake You're doing, DJ Droood, is this one:
The thora is JHWH's text, as far as I understood the kabbalah.
The bible is inspired by God, word by word.
The quran was dictated to Mohammed - by Gabriel, I think.

Do You really think that god would sue himself of violating his own copyright?

[cursuswalker]

The basic mistake You're doing, DJ Droood, is this one:
The thora is JHWH's text, as far as I understood the kabbalah.
The bible is inspired by God, word by word.
The quran was dictated to Mohammed - by Gabriel, I think.

Do You really think that god would sue himself of violating his own copyright?

Ah, but Yahweh, God and Allah are three in one. They can breach contract at any time.

[DJ Droood]

The basic mistake You're doing, DJ Droood, is this one:
The thora is JHWH's text, as far as I understood the kabbalah.
The bible is inspired by God, word by word.
The quran was dictated to Mohammed - by Gabriel, I think.

Do You really think that god would sue himself of violating his own copyright?

Ah, but Yahweh, God and Allah are three in one. They can breach contract at any time.

like Paul McCartney, releasing the same album over and over again under different band names....

[cursuswalker]

The basic mistake You're doing, DJ Droood, is this one:
The thora is JHWH's text, as far as I understood the kabbalah.
The bible is inspired by God, word by word.
The quran was dictated to Mohammed - by Gabriel, I think.

Do You really think that god would sue himself of violating his own copyright?

Ah, but Yahweh, God and Allah are three in one. They can breach contract at any time.

like Paul McCartney, releasing the same album over and over again under different band names....

HERETIC!!!

[treegod]

While strictly spealking we are all born atheists

Are you saying that we all come into this world disbelieving in the existence of gods? Weird, and there was I assuming that we came into this world without any beliefs/disbeliefs/opinions whatsoever.

I'm not sure what DISbelieving actually means.

Let's put it another way, are you saying we all come into this world believing that gods don't exist?

Let's recap quickly:
Atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

(BTW "disbelief in" is active in that it can be replaced easily with "rejection of", which is certainly active)

So "strictly speaking" we are born into this world:
- with the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
- and/or the disbelief in [i.e. rejection of] the existence of a supreme being or beings?

To my understanding atheism is the rejection of the existence of god/s. On the other hand, theism is the acceptation of the existence of god/s. Both these, rejection and acceptation of god/s, are cognitive processes that new born babies are incapable of achieving.

Thus they remain in a pre-atheistic as much as a pre-theistic state, being pre-cognitive in their development.

[Jake]

Atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

(BTW "disbelief in" is active in that it can be replaced easily with "rejection of", which is certainly active)

The problem can be solved by using a different dictionary:

•the doctrine or belief that there is no God
•a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
(http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism)

Interesting discussion of the various dictionary definitions of atheism here:
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitiono ... andard.htm

[Dendrias]

So "strictly speaking" we are born into this world:
- with the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
- and/or the disbelief in [i.e. rejection of] the existence of a supreme being or beings?

To my understanding atheism is the rejection of the existence of god/s. On the other hand, theism is the acceptation of the existence of god/s. Both these, rejection and acceptation of god/s, are cognitive processes that new born babies are incapable of achieving.

Thus they remain in a pre-atheistic as much as a pre-theistic state, being pre-cognitive in their development.

Someone mentiones the "empty slate" metaphor earlier.
I'm no professional in this field, but there is the theory in the field of linguistics, that children are of course not born with a certain grammar in mind, but have the ability to adopt every grammar that is presented to them, or produce a grammar when nothing systematic is presented to them (this way pidgin becomes creol). Children can't do without a fixed grammar, but, on the other hand, children make certain mistakes when "learning" their mother-tongue - mistakes they shouldn't be able to make, because they have not heard things like this before. I'm not sure about English speaking babies, but German ones use the incorrect negation, for example, although noone presented it to them.

Strictly speakting, there is an empty slate, not belief or disbelief (my theory). Now, you could look for things children develop automatically, as a mistake or, in a short period of time, in contrast to their environment. If nobody talks about any god to children and one day they ask: "Who made all these mountains?" they might express the thought, that everything was made by someone - not necessary a god.

[cursuswalker]

Atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

(BTW "disbelief in" is active in that it can be replaced easily with "rejection of", which is certainly active)

The problem can be solved by using a different dictionary:

•the doctrine or belief that there is no God
•a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
(http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism)

Interesting discussion of the various dictionary definitions of atheism here:
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitiono ... andard.htm

That's a far better definition. The first one descibes Strong Atheism. The second Weak Atheism.

[DaRC]

The latter is especially ironic given that the Qur'an contains much that is in the Bible and also that Allah is basically a version of the Aramaic word for God, alaha: which is what Jesus would have used.

Sounds like a clear case of plagiarism copyright infringement to me.

Yep I bet Gilgamesh is mighty annoyed at that Abraham geezer.
It's worth also reading the Shahnameh, aka The Epic of the Kings, which is the 'historical' take from a 10th Century Persian perspective.

[treegod]

Thanks Jake for the example. (Dammit, you hit one of my battleships! lol)

Lack of belief would certainly describe a baby's stance on theism. Though I don't think that that could be their official stance lol.

I think a distinction has to be drawn between passive atheism and active atheism.

An interesting and clever distinction. Though, imo, it may show some atheistic bias.

In an atheistic (strong atheism) worldview it follows logically that the default setting for a person is "atheist". We come in to this world without the conception of god and a complete lack of belief (in anything, not just gods).

By the same logic, in a theistic worldview the default setting for a person is theistic. A monotheist could argue that there is a "passive theism" inherent in all of us just waiting to believe in God. We come into this world "with God" in a passive sense because, supposedly, it is built into our nature. We lack belief (weak/passive atheism), but at the same time it is latent within us (passive theism) when we are born.

What say you?

[cursuswalker]

Thanks Jake for the example. (Dammit, you hit one of my battleships! lol)

Lack of belief would certainly describe a baby's stance on theism. Though I don't think that that could be their official stance lol.

I think a distinction has to be drawn between passive atheism and active atheism.

An interesting and clever distinction. Though, imo, it may show some atheistic bias.

In an atheistic (strong atheism) worldview it follows logically that the default setting for a person is "atheist". We come in to this world without the conception of god and a complete lack of belief (in anything, not just gods).

By the same logic, in a theistic worldview the default setting for a person is theistic. A monotheist could argue that there is a "passive theism" inherent in all of us just waiting to believe in God. We come into this world "with God" in a passive sense because, supposedly, it is built into our nature. We lack belief (weak/passive atheism), but at the same time it is latent within us (passive theism) when we are born.

What say you?

Ah but which of the two actually proposes a phenomenon? Only the concept of passive theism. Passive atheism os simply an absense of wjat is alleged by passive theism.

The onlt evidence either way is that children seem to be natural dualists. That is to say they very easily assume that mind and body are separate. But it is some distance from that to actual theism.

[treegod]

Ah but which of the two actually proposes a phenomenon? Only the concept of passive theism. Passive atheism os simply an absense of wjat is alleged by passive theism.

The onlt evidence either way is that children seem to be natural dualists. That is to say they very easily assume that mind and body are separate. But it is some distance from that to actual theism.

I'm a bit lost with your explanation. Could you describe the importance of phenomenon in this case? And how do you mean that children easily assume that body and mind are separate and the significance of that in relation to "actual theism" (by which I suppose you mean a sort of "strong theism")?

My comment was on the language used, it's easy for a theist to say we are "all created to believe in God", i.e. "passive theism", even if we don't believe, and just as easy for an atheist to rely on words like "passive atheism" to describe the default setting of any being.

In other words, neither of these ideas ("passive" theism/atheism) are neutral having (probably) sprung from the minds of their "strong" counterparts.

[cursuswalker]

Ah but which of the two actually proposes a phenomenon? Only the concept of passive theism. Passive atheism os simply an absense of wjat is alleged by passive theism.

The onlt evidence either way is that children seem to be natural dualists. That is to say they very easily assume that mind and body are separate. But it is some distance from that to actual theism.

I'm a bit lost with your explanation. Could you describe the importance of phenomenon in this case? And how do you mean that children easily assume that body and mind are separate and the significance of that in relation to "actual theism" (by which I suppose you mean a sort of "strong theism")?

My comment was on the language used, it's easy for a theist to say we are "all created to believe in God", i.e. "passive theism", even if we don't believe, and just as easy for an atheist to rely on words like "passive atheism" to describe the default setting of any being.

In other words, neither of these ideas ("passive" theism/atheism) are neutral having (probably) sprung from the minds of their "strong" counterparts.

The importance of whether a phenomenon is proposed is that the burden of proof lies with someone who does allege one. Passive atheism (simply lacking belief) proposes nothing. In the same way that a Christian who does not believe Thor exists proposes nothing with regard to Thor. They simply lack that belief.

Active atheism is a different matter, as it is more about coming to realise that what you thought was evidence is not.

[treegod]

The importance of whether a phenomenon is proposed is that the burden of proof lies with someone who does allege one.

Indeed. Isn't it because you can't prove a negative?

With the "burden of proof" in the other camp (theism) it makes sense, since proving negatives is more than difficult! lol Passive atheism becomes a good technical description in this way.

Passive atheism (simply lacking belief) proposes nothing.

Passive atheism itself, yes, but a strong/active atheist talking about weak/passive atheism could be proposing something (or promoting something). It can be in the best interests of many atheists to promote their own ideas and language, just as it is for theists to promote their language and ideas. The language, though objective and logical, may not have a neutral intention behind it, especially for strong atheists. This quote describes it well...

"If words are symbols or metaphors, then our speaking is never neutral. Whenever we speak, we select linguistic symbols in order to evoke those particular meanings that will communicate our view or sense of reality. This nonneutrality of speech is what in in a broad sense characterizes its rhetorical quality." Andy Fisher

I think it's well established here that "passive atheism" has a good objective basis (burden of proof on positive - god exists, not negative - god doesn't exist, which is convenient for atheists). The objectivity of the term is the not the issue, it's the possible strong atheist rhetoric that could lie behind it.

In the same way that a Christian who does not believe Thor exists proposes nothing with regard to Thor. They simply lack that belief.

Makes sense. But when they use phrases like "one true god", and describing their belief system as monotheism, that's proposing something about Thor, even if they don't know him.

Active atheism is a different matter, as it is more about coming to realise that what you thought was evidence is not.

Yes, or not finding sufficient reason to believe.

Personally I found the lack of evidence of intention in nature convincing, but I don't consider it the prime basis for my atheism. What undermined my own view of theism was more the diversity of theisms in the world. I took them all seriously, giving them all a fair try, until in the end taking them all literally became superfluous. It was interesting but largely unnecessary to live my life.

It's not that I didn't find sufficient evidence (objective) to believe but I just didn't find sufficient reason (subjective) to believe.

[cursuswalker]

It is also worth realising that even active atheism does not really propose anything. Nothing is offered "in place" of god, only the means to determine what is and what is not.

[Mountainheart]

It is also worth realising that even active atheism does not really propose anything. Nothing is offered "in place" of god, only the means to determine what is and what is not.

Is there room for another category that is atheist but does propose *something* however vague? I am an active a-theist in that I have come to a point where I don't believe in a theistic God(s) / Goddess(es): but I do believe in an emergent pantheistic 'je ne sais quoi'.

Thx
David