roachboy

i dont know about that, pan: i have heard the claim that atheism is a type of religious committment before and figure that, if that is true, it would only be so in particular cases:

a hypothetical...

say someone at 18 or so decided that he or she no longer believed---but that person grew up in a family/community/environment where a judeo-xtian mode of belief was part of the frame of reference, that is part of the ambient assumptions that shape how phenomena are grouped/processed and that a child growing up in such an environment would necessarily internalize as an aspect of their being-in-the-world--- it would follow that non-belief would initially result in an inversion of the religious dispositions because they functioned as given, that is as part of that person's frame of reference, and so would shape thewhole matter of belief, in a kind of negative way. in which case you'd be right.

but that inversion characterizes a phase--while some can get stuck there--it is not necessary that anyone would---if you think about it--if you grow up through it, say---you can leave this inversion behind-----and maybe begin thinking about matters that had previously been routed through religion in entirely different ways, grouping them differently, thinking about them differently--in which case, the characterization of atheism as a type fo religious disposition is false.

the tedious public face of atheism--madeline murray o'hare for example--is among the folk who seems permanently stuck in a space of inversion. but that is her choice, and not a function atheism. then again, she was obviously stuck in the space of inversion as a marketing choice--and she seems to have managed pretty well in using that to operate within an entirely xtian logic as the "face of the Other". but outside that entirely xtian frame of reference, she is no more relevant than any number of other uninteresting folk whose belief systems as outlined on websites constittues a significant dimension of the debris field that is the internet.

religion in the judeo-christian sense of the term can become quite irrelevant even to someone who grew up in a religious environment.
the only people who are shocked by this--or even surprised by it--tend to themselves work within a judeo-christian frame----and the surprise is a function of their inability to imagine that anyone would think fundamentally differently than they do.

underpinning this is the numbing arrogance of many xtians---and many many demoninations----concerning their own beliefs. this arrogance follows from the assumption that their beliefs are True and so all others are not only False but Primitive or Dangerous. the assumption about the Truth of these religious committments is the precondition for the intertwining of xtanity with all kinds of colonialism, and from there with violence on a huge scale. look at thie history of colonialism--the entire ideology of the "white man's burden" follows from nothing else than this assumption about the Truth of xtianity. that ideology was basic to the whole of colonialism---from there is made sense that one could see destroying entire cultures followed from some goofy desire to save people.

nothing more problematic than intertwining a notion of Absolute Truth with the missionary position.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite