pachomius2000

What do you say, Yahzi, that you are an emotional atheist as compared to a non-emotional one?

An emotional atheist is one that does something about his atheism just like an environmentalist that is emotionally involved doing something about environmentalism.

Doing something like what? Like writing the message reproduced above, like hosting this IIDB -- although I understand that the founders of this forum has at least one member William A. Schultz among them who makes a distinction of being pro atheism but not against religion.

No, no, don't get me wrong. I think emotional atheists are doing a great job for the advancement of secular humanism. Just that I seem to feel every so often that atheists might be more effective in their emotional involvement if they cultivate as second nature in their words and actions the ultimate gentle habits of politeness and friendliness, like some very devout Christians I have had to privilege to come across and dealt with.

What about myself? A traveler in the quest for knowledge, a curious student of all kinds of systems of thought and act, an observer for intellectual pleasure of human cerebral and choler-al behaviors.

At the risk of incurring some unpleasant response from less self-disciplined comarades here, I describe myself as a postgraduate Catholic, i.e., an ultra self-liberalized Catholic, so that what remains of Catholicism is the culture of like Christmas, All Saints Day, church wedding, religious burial.

Oh yes, I still pray, and talk to God, but I can be an atheist, an agnostic, a deist, whatever, but not an anti-religionist, and remaining all the time a theist in culture. How's that? Impossible? Very possible, as possible as not being a member of any campus fraternity.

Anyway, I believe that an emotional atheist should be more approrpiately described as anti-theist, just like there is a diference between an a-religionist and an anti-religionist. It's all in the attitude.

Pachomius

John A. Broussard

I hope you won't classify this as an unpleasant response, but you do seem to me to be a very, very confused person.

David B

Now, what's wrong with your argument, Pachomius?

I think it lies here. 'Just that I seem to feel every so often that atheists might be more effective in their emotional involvement if they cultivate as second nature in their words and actions the ultimate gentle habits of politeness and friendliness, like some very devout Christians I have had to privilege to come across and dealt with'

There seems to be some implicit idea here, that showing politeness and friendliness is a more effective way of getting ideas across, and that whether these attributes exist in someone depends on them being a devout Christian.

Now, I will concede that that you are not actually making a claim that devout Christians are more polite and friendly than atheists, and such a claim is not actually logically implied by your post.

What is your actual claim? As far as I can see it is that some devout Christians cultivate politeness and friendliness. I don't find that contentious, myself. I've met a few of them. However, I've also met, if I may be excused the expression, devout atheists who cultivate the same thing, and devout Christians who are sons of bitches. And lots of both, in between.

So what? That some (few, IMV) christians cultivate good habits doesn't count for much, again IMV, when weighed against the bad habits of many of the others.

David B (seems to detect some subtle sort of defense of religion, that dosn't really work)

Hedshaker

And who could possibly top that? Please enlighten us some more about ourselves O wise one :notworthy

Orbit, also a postgraduate Catholic, who ditched catholicism for the utter stupidity that it is

Orbit

pachomius2000

Touche (with the acute accent on the ending e).

Thanks for your insights, everyone taking the trouble to react to my thread.

Sincerely, I confess that I have obtained very useful knowledge of myself and my cognitive premises.

Thanks a lot, again.


Yes, I am less confused now than before.

And more objective with my own acquaintance of myself.


About the emotional atheist and the non-emotional one, what do you think, is that a valid observation?

Pachomius

John A. Broussard

Unfortunately, I've heard so many variants on that theme--the strong atheist, the weak atheist, the moderate atheist, the parboiled atheist and now the emotional atheist and the non-emotional atheist that I'm as confused as you were in your original post.

I just don't see how there can be so many variants on a simple theme as non-belief.

FarmMama

Moving to GRD.

FM

MadPhatCat

Like Data in Star Trek the Next Generation (the tv show, not the movies) I have no emotions. I would elaborate on that, but it would disrupt the space-time continuum. So I have no emotions. But I also tell people why atheism makes sense and their religious beliefs do not.

According to the OP I would be an "emotional atheist" who is incapable of having any emotion. Perhaps a much better adjective than "emotional" can be used?

funinspace

So what's a non-emotional atheist? Everyone has emotion, and reacts to others attitudes and comments. Should it be "emotional" or activist? Personally I enjoy seeing how others think culturally/sociologically within this world. What they want to believe in is their thing.

Can the non-theist put the label anti-realist or anti-naturalist on the theist then? And why not? One can even be reasonably tolerant of religious views, and still be annoyed with the social pressures to conform and live with constant religious dogma being spouted out across the land. Things like the 10 Commandments being hoisted upon new locations across various Govt properties, pressure to teach ID as if it was a scientific theory vice philosophy, bigots who hide under the cloak of religion being tolerated by the Christian majority, et.al.

As to your own views, they sound rather odd, but whatever. I can understand the participation of cultural/social things, but praying and talking to a God one claims not to believe in :huh:

EverLastingGodStopper

Aren't people without emotions called "sociopaths"?