Is Atheism a Neurological disorder? Possible prenatal test

[Napkiraly]

Is atheism a neurological disorder? Perhaps, but theism is the greater neurological disorder then.

[Arcadiom]

Yesterday I had the chance to reread Psychological Types by Carl Jung, and the view of reality based only on the object, which is the description of extremized extroverted types, fits a lot with this "Atheist school of thought".
Contrasted with introverted types who focus more on the subject, who's doing the looking, than the object which is being looked at.
Just something which came to mind while reading what you wrote.

I don't think I'm quite getting your point. Are you saying that I was only focusing on the thread's subject, and not the point of view of others? If so, you're right. The point I was making was not so much about perspective, It was about logic. A+B=C and all that. That's how to prevent arguments from being redundant. If I had told things from my point of view, I could have been far more impolite and most likely unjustified.

[The Liberated Territories]

As much fun as fascistic fantasies are, no we shouldn't have prenatal tests for atheism. What would you even do after you found out someone had a tendency for atheism, abort them?

[Napkiraly]

As much fun as fascistic fantasies are, no we shouldn't have prenatal tests for atheism. What would you even do after you found out someone had a tendency for atheism, abort them?

Baby Jesus hates abortions unless it's an atheist baby.

[Alvecia]

As much fun as fascistic fantasies are, no we shouldn't have prenatal tests for atheism. What would you even do after you found out someone had a tendency for atheism, abort them?

I believe that is exactly what the OP is suggesting.

I personally would as if there is even the slightest chance that a neurological disorder could send my Child to hell, I don't think I could live my self knowing, that my and my wife brought them into the world to suffer such a fate.

[Ad Nihilo]

Well the thing about "dude, chill, God will sort everything out when he comes down and judges everything" is that it does have the upshot that you don't get to be a dick either.

So yeah, you do get (indifferent) benevolence, and humbleness and you don't get to throw stones in glass houses.

But I will have to insist that saying "rich people are not as likely to get into Heaven" is not in any way shape or form progressive. It fixes nothing. And it does not encourage anybody to fix anything either.

The fundamental thing I am getting at is that Jesus's "philosophical" message is not a moral message you can underpin a good life, or a good society on. The message is basically, lay down and wait for God to fix everything. That will simply not do. It is not exalted, wise, or useful in any way shape or form. Nor is it good, whatever you want to take "good" to mean.

I don't think he said that and I also don't get that from his teachings. On the contrary, he basically said that "if you guys follow these moral teachings I gave you and also believe in me and my pop, you have a good chance of entering the Kingdom of Heaven. But I warn you that the road won't be easy, your faith and way of life will be tested every single day and mostly hardships will find you altruists in this selfish world" (very true and valid -selfish people always tend to be the majority).

I will not comment the "throw stones in glass houses" part because I think (hope) you are joking. This is clearly not what he meant by that.

You also left out the part for rich people that also says about giving stuff to the poor. How about that. More altruistic teachings from that Jewish fellow.....

As for your last comment, I disagree for the reasons I stated above. And how do you define "good" when you accuse these teachings of not be. Helpful? Practical? Ethical?

Not next to. But if you were to put them on a spectrum:

Charles Manson: psychopath, murderer and low-life sadist
Jesus of Nazareth: well-intentioned zealot who (unintentionally) got himself and droves of his followers killed for no obvious social gain for the poor and disempowered, or anyone really. If everyone followed his message we'd be living in caves and we'd have a Great Disappointment every year instead of Easter: https://www.gci.org/history/disappointment
Mother Thereza / Pope Francis: well-meaning and successful at being good people, preach a good message, live a good life, and if everyone followed their message the world would be a better place.

I tend to rate intentions very low. Good intentions are cheap. Everyone has good intentions. The world is still a hell-hole because most people with good intentions think that good intentions are sufficient. I rate people who produce actual positive results and do make the world a better place much more highly.

I am glad you agree that Charles Manson has nothing to do with Jesus as a person.
And no. Good intentions aren't "cheap". I assure you that not many people truely have good intentions for others. I will agree though that action is so much needed as good intentions, for them alone don't say much. But, again, they aren't cheap.

Fundamentally, I think our disagreement is based on how we respectively interpret the whole "life and deeds" of the Jesus fellow.

I am of the opinion that a lot of the "good morals" are read into the text by subsequent readers. Jesus was "obviously a good guy" therefore look at all the good stuff he said and done.

If you remove the culturally ingrained presumption that he was just the best hippie ever and let the Biblical account speak for itself you get very much less than a "wise moral teacher", and much more of a millenarian nut-job with happy flavour on top (as opposed to the millenarian nut-job with sad flavour on top that was Charles Manson). That is why I drew the comparison between them. Quite obviously they have different moral valences. But they are the same kind of nut-job.

As for our disagreement over good intentions, I think the disagreement is over objective good intentions and subjective good intentions. You are correct to say that really objectively good intentions are rare amongst humans. I should have said more precisely that everyone thinks their intentions are good. Well, for the most part. But Hitler seems to have been pretty convinced that the Holocaust was a good thing (for the German people).

That is why I am not interested in people's good intentions. Do things that make life better for those around you and you are cool. You can stay. Otherwise, spare me your good intentions.

Jesus was all intentions. The emphasis he and his philosophy puts on good conscience and judgements by invisible dudes in the sky is, as far as I am concerned, at least useless, and in some cases demonstrably counter-productive. And to the extent to which it does get in the way of people working for a better, more just society (as it has often done in history, when the Church has insisted that even the most desperately oppressed people have to "render onto Caesar"), I have no time for it.

[Ifreann]

As much fun as fascistic fantasies are, no we shouldn't have prenatal tests for atheism. What would you even do after you found out someone had a tendency for atheism, abort them?

That is very much the implication, yes.

[The Tirol Region]

If Atheism is a neurological disorder then it's not a negative one it just shows that they are more logical, I am atheist as I see no evidence for religion.

[Arcadiom]

As much fun as fascistic fantasies are, no we shouldn't have prenatal tests for atheism. What would you even do after you found out someone had a tendency for atheism, abort them?

I believe that is exactly what the OP is suggesting.

I personally would as if there is even the slightest chance that a neurological disorder could send my Child to hell, I don't think I could live my self knowing, that my and my wife brought them into the world to suffer such a fate.

Check, and mate.

[Neutraligon]

As much fun as fascistic fantasies are, no we shouldn't have prenatal tests for atheism. What would you even do after you found out someone had a tendency for atheism, abort them?

I believe that is exactly what the OP is suggesting.

I personally would as if there is even the slightest chance that a neurological disorder could send my Child to hell, I don't think I could live my self knowing, that my and my wife brought them into the world to suffer such a fate.

So the OP is pro-life? Or are they pro-abortion (first one I have ever met if so)?

[Alvecia]

I believe that is exactly what the OP is suggesting.

So the OP is pro-life? Or are they pro-abortion (first one I have ever met if so)?

Well to be fair, if we were to strictly read what the OP is saying rather than trying to read what he is implying, then the solution he is proposing seems to be for the parents of atheist babies to commit suicide.

I don't think I could live my self

[Neutraligon]

So the OP is pro-life? Or are they pro-abortion (first one I have ever met if so)?

Well to be fair, if we were to strictly read what the OP is saying rather than trying to read what he is implying, then the solution he is proposing seems to be for the parents of atheist babies to commit suicide.

I don't think I could live my self

I thought committing suicide was a sin. I mean following certain Christian doctrines to the letter, pro-abortion makes sense. After all the greatest gift a parent can give to their child (assuming hell and heaven are real and that children below a certain age go to heaven automatically) is to ensure they do not live beyond that age, and thus risk hell. After all,heaven and hell are for eternity, while this life is rather short and unimportant.

[Ifreann]

I believe that is exactly what the OP is suggesting.

So the OP is pro-life? Or are they pro-abortion (first one I have ever met if so)?

It'd certainly be interesting to hear the OP explain why he believes God would make people who were inescapably doomed to Hell because a neurological disorder prevented them from believing in God. Sounds pretty cruel to make someone who can't help but be an atheist and then send them to Hell for being an atheist.

[Alvecia]

Well to be fair, if we were to strictly read what the OP is saying rather than trying to read what he is implying, then the solution he is proposing seems to be for the parents of atheist babies to commit suicide.

I thought committing suicide was a sin.

Ah the age old "Would you rather" question. Suicide or baby atheist.
I guess the answer depends on which circle of hell each sin gets you sent to.

[The Huskar Social Union]

...

No.

[Neutraligon]

So the OP is pro-life? Or are they pro-abortion (first one I have ever met if so)?

It'd certainly be interesting to hear the OP explain why he believes God would make people who were inescapably doomed to Hell because a neurological disorder prevented them from believing in God. Sounds pretty cruel to make someone who can't help but be an atheist and then send them to Hell for being an atheist.

I really don't get it, each time a religious extremist makes comments on their god, it just makes me less and less likely to worship them, even if they were real. I mean each comment seems to make their particular god seem like more of a douche, an asshole, a bigot, a...well in this particular case I think Dawkins' quote is rather apt.

[Lost Memories]

"Atheism is a school of thought that for the most part promotes skepticism and an evidence based reality, much like science, "

Yesterday I had the chance to reread Psychological Types by Carl Jung, and the view of reality based only on the object, which is the description of extremized extroverted types, fits a lot with this "Atheist school of thought".
Contrasted with introverted types who focus more on the subject, who's doing the looking, than the object which is being looked at.
Just something which came to mind while reading what you wrote.

I don't think I'm quite getting your point. Are you saying that I was only focusing on the thread's subject, and not the point of view of others?

No, the thread has nothing to do with this, it was only about your definition of atheism.

Jung divides perception between the "subject" and the "object" (which are specular to "subjective" and "objective" view), the subject is the one doing the observation, that means the person, and the object is the thing which is being looked at. Extroverts prioritize the informations they can get from the objects, while introverts prioritize the informations coming from the subject, that is to say themselves, and the reaction they get from the object.

When you said atheists promote evidence based on reality, where reality=object, it made me think about the description of extroverts.

If so, you're right. The point I was making was not so much about perspective, It was about logic. A+B=C and all that. That's how to prevent arguments from being redundant. If I had told things from my point of view, I could have been far more impolite and most likely unjustified.

In that case, I think using or not your "point of view" would fall more into a "Thinking"/"Feeling" dichotomy, not one about extraversion/introversion.

---
I'm assuming you're familiar with the psychological types formulated by Carl Jung.

[Neutraligon]

I don't think I'm quite getting your point. Are you saying that I was only focusing on the thread's subject, and not the point of view of others?

No, the thread has nothing to do with this, it was only about your definition of atheism.

Jung divides perception between the "subject" and the "object" (which are specular to "subjective" and "objective" view), the subject is the one doing the observation, that means the person, and the object is the thing which is being looked at. Extroverts prioritize the informations they can get from the objects, while introverts prioritize the informations coming from the subject, that is to say themselves, and the reaction they get from the object.

When you said atheists promote evidence based on reality, where reality=object, it made me think about the description of extroverts.

If so, you're right. The point I was making was not so much about perspective, It was about logic. A+B=C and all that. That's how to prevent arguments from being redundant. If I had told things from my point of view, I could have been far more impolite and most likely unjustified.

In that case, I think using or not your "point of view" would fall more into a "Thinking"/"Feeling" dichotomy, not one about extraversion/introversion.

Funny I always viewed myself as an introvert, and yet am an atheist.

[Lost Memories]

Funny I always viewed myself as an introvert, and yet am an atheist.

The world is not black and white.

But since we moved on this, do you think there may be a stronger correlation of extroverts among atheists than people following any religion?
I'm wondering that.

[Neutraligon]

Funny I always viewed myself as an introvert, and yet am an atheist.

The world is not black and white.

But since we moved on this, do you think there may be a stronger correlation of extroverts among atheists than people following any religion?
I'm wondering that.

Not really sure on that, especially since there are a large number of atheists who were once strongly religious. You also have to consider that there are different types of atheism.

You have atheists who are sure there are no gods
You have atheists who do not believe because there is no definition of god
You have atheists who say there is a lack of compelling evidence for a god
You have atheists who are unable to understand the concept of god
You have atheists who have never heard of a god
You have atheists who were raised in atheistic religions.
etc.

There are so many different forms of atheism that having that one thing occur across all of them is unlikely.

[Noraika]

As an animist, who believes in a polytheistic spirituality, you what mate?
No, atheism is not a product of some form of mental disorder. It is not really even seeing oneself as being the greatest being, since we are so insignificant in the great scheme of society, and then in nature, and then in the galaxy, and then the universe as well, and a great deal of atheists I've seen recognize their insignificance better than other groups. All atheism is, in essence, is not seeing anything, or any reason, for them to believe in any form of existing spirituality or religious institution. That also is without going into the difference between agnostic and gnostic atheism.

Atheists are just like the followers of any other religion than Christianity, which is to say normal people.

And if so, would it be possible that in future we may see a prenatal test for Atheism? And if so would you support it? I personally would as if there is even the slightest chance that a neurological disorder could send my Child to hell, I don't think I could live my self knowing, that my and my wife brought them into the world to suffer such a fate. Calvinism, and predestination spring to mind...

So playing God is all fair and good, so long as you don't like what God has in mind for your child. If God creates a person, or group of people, who are beyond redemption from birth, at no fault of their own fruition, as it would be IF atheism was a mental disorder, then we can logically conclude that salvation is not for all people, and the very fact that something like that would exist would prove it to be the will of God, since otherwise such a thing would fly in the face of Christian theology.

IF athism was a neurological disorder, the consequences such a thing would have would be more of a detriment to modern Christianity than it would be to atheism.

[New Benian Republic]

Then so is beleif in in a magical man who lives in the sky.

[Gurori]

I'm an atheist. So what
It's not any form of problem whatsoever. Believing something doesn't mean you have a neurological or psychological problem.
I'm not even going to vote since the OP rigs the poll.

@OP: Atheism ≠ Neurological Problems

Atheism is not a Neurological Problem, its a belief.

[Risottia]

Is atheism a neurological disorder? Perhaps, but theism is the greater neurological disorder then.

Considering the amount of perfectly normal people who happen to be either atheist or theist, I'd say that neither is a disorder.

[Risottia]

Atheism is not a Neurological Problem, its a belief.

Wrong.

It's a lack of belief in any amount of deities.