Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Being an atheist is not passive, it requires an active stance
May 21, 2015 at 5:17 am (This post was last modified: May 21, 2015 at 6:32 am by Ben Davis.)
(May 20, 2015 at 4:47 pm)Dystopia Wrote:
There is a belief circulating in atheist circles and between atheist thinkers that atheism is a neutral, passive position and thus the "standard", it's how we are born. I'd like to question this for a number of reasons.
First of all, we live in a society (all of us, no exceptions) heavily influenced by religion, whether it's Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. Our conception of morality is influenced by religion, our daily talks are influenced by religion ("Oh my god!"), our politics is influenced by religion, the majority of people in most societies believe in god (at least in some sort of higher force, no exceptions) - We are constantly challenged by TV shows telling us that if we feel depressed we should go to church to get better, we come across all sorts of believers in the supernatural, we see these large buildings called churches and pictures of a bearded hippie Jew that we will eventually know who is even if we are raised non-religious. You may not notice religion's effect clearly but there are no 100% secular societies, all of us have an ancestry heavily influenced by a religion that, by itself, shaped our culture, values, morality, etc.
Secondly, I think some people are naturally more predisposed to believing in god. Putting it simply, why should really smart scientists believe there is a god? Does it make sense? It does make to them. According to Neil Degrasse Tyson 7% of elite scientists believe in a personal god, so I think (as he argues) that there is something in their brain stopping them from believing.
Thirdly - We can make the case that atheism precedes theism but it's a complicated case. What did the first primitive humans believe in? What we know is that, from a very early time, we started believing in higher forces to explain natural events and give us a sense of comfort (afterlives, etc.). Even very primitive human beings that didn't hold conscious belief in gods or had religions probably had delusions and silly beliefs (we all have them, no exceptions).
For these reasons - Mostly the extreme impact religion has on our culture, countries and lives - As well as the fact people who believe have existed for ages, I think being an atheist is not neutral or standard, and it may even be the most active position - Being religious means you are the norm, specially if you are the majority's religion, but being an atheist makes you an exception, someone who doesn't fit the norm, and that may cause problems and changes in your social life. Being an atheist requires you to think and imagine the probability and say "no, I don't think/believe in a god". It's not something that happens by magic and it's not the standard even if you are raised by frivolent anti-theists. You could be raised without even being introduced to the idea of god but eventually you would figure out what it is and your brain would formulate an active stance on the issue.
I don't think this changes anything, it's just my opinion on a problem with little importance, but I still find the need to discuss it. Is atheism the standard? If you can find me someone who was never introduced to the god concept and grew up in a society that is/was always 100% free from any religion or belief in god, I will agree. Since the majority of people believe and religion has (and had) such a tremendous impact - No, it's not the standard, quite the opposite, it requires questioning and critical thinking.
I'm not trying to change the definition of atheism as a lack of belief in gods - It's not about that, it's merely to express my opinion about the topic of atheism being the "standard", "passive" and "neutral" position.
I have to disagree and my reasoning is based on the definitions of the word and the common conflation with anti-theism. 'An absence of theism' is passive. It can be nothing else. An absence of something can do nothing. The moment one takes an active stance or performs a function 'in opposition' to theism, you're behaving anti-theistically. The reason this conflation, of 'a' with 'anti', is common is because of millennia of misrepresentation of atheists by theists. It was useful, historically, for certain (most/all?) religions to target & attack unbelievers and straw-manning atheists' lack of belief seemed to be a preferred method. It seems you've fallen for a simple theistic ruse.
