Why I am an Atheist

[The Drunk Guy]

OK, I'm too drunk now to post a full thread, but the thought has crossed my mind to talk openly about our religious choices. I know not everyone is atheist here, but I still want to know how and why you have chosen your belief system.

For me, it's been a myriad of factors. I would like to go into them thoroughly, but now isn't the time. ;) I will, however, go into one anecdote about my "disbelief" system.

I live in a small town in Kentucky. Richmond is about 30 minutes south of Lexington and is home to Eastern Kentucky University. The town's population is around 30,000.

Lately, a fellow has decided to take it upon himself to "save" the town of Richmond. His method is unique and very, umm, ineffective. He has elected to hold a sign at a busy intersection. All day. Every day. He even turns it as the light changes for "maximum visibility."

The sign reads:
Jesus will come this year! Repent! Do not perish!

First of all, not just anybody has the time to hold a sign all day long. My guess is that he has a "disability" and receives Social Security benefits. However, he could simply be unemployed and reaping the benefits of that status. Either way, he has a lot of free time on his hands, which is uncommon, even in rural Kentucky.

Second, he holds a look of adamant resolution throughout the entire day. That not only amazes me, but tells me that he has to be mad. Zealots do not take themselves and their beliefs so seriously that they can't laugh at a passing comment. Also, zealots often realize that, when one method is ineffective, another method could be more successful. This man seems to disagree.

Third, how does he know the rapture will happen this year? Why is proof such a "blasphemy?" What's wrong with a little rationality when discussing the end of the world?

Fourth, my real problem is that he "fires up" other Christians in the area. Strength in belief is one thing, but being "fired up" is a totally different animal. Take this for example...
you know i think its real low how people treat other people in this town. Its almost rediculas, seriously! I am no christian and neither do I go to church, but I do believe in the lord and I do know he is coming soon, very soon! who knows he could come tomorrow and all the people on here dissin this guy will be the fool! Hes doin for a reason and personally I think hes helpin others out. those who doubt this man and down him are the ones who are not ready! THE BIBLE HAS ALREADY FULLFILLED ITSELF, READ IT! "REVOLUTAIONS" WERE AT THE END, QUIT WORRIEIN ABOUT THE WORK HES DOIN FOR THE LORD AND JOPIN'EM. HE'LL BE REWARDED RATHER HES CRAZY OR NOT!
Idiocy is not a requirement for faith, but it definitely ushers along the effort. This, ultimately, is why I sought answers elsewhere when I had a spiritual crisis over a decade ago and makes my atheism all the more finite today.

So, what "fires you up?"

[Greendruid]

For me, I'd have to say that the imaginary sky god of Christianity failed to answer me so many times as a kid that I got angry and nothing happened. That seemed kind of lame to me. So, I became an atheist for a long time. I started looking into the history of my ancestors, the Celts specifically, and what they believed in. This is where I found out about a belief system that I had always held along with my Catholic upbringing but never had a word for - paganism. I suppose my interpretation of that word is not quite the historical one and isn't even common amongst the majority of my fellow pagans. The balance of the universe and its constant changes that complement each other through these massive, larger-than-human-life forces are what get me fired up. Looking at all the things in the world and in the universe that are just so much bigger, older and more beautiful than a human life is what puts me in awe. None of it requires a "maker". Naming any of these as gods/goddesses or aspects of gods/goddesses is what we do to explain them and the realities of living our very short human lives to our children. The religious experience for me comes from being in awe of the natural world and its super-human goings on that are all around us every day. We are so capable a species but there isn't anything that we can do that even comes close to a sunset or a hurricane or a tiny seed with a whole set of instructions to make a perfect plant inside of it. I am in awe of the natural world and its "bigness" in so many ways!

[Multiplum]

E: ^ This is kind of like.

The need we have to be in the center of the universe pisses me off. Sure, there are things we cannot explain, but we shouldn't expect to be able to explain everything anyway. We're here because our ancestors "worked", and the world as we see it is just the product of the selection of traits successful for surviving on earth. We can only know so much, as we are very limited to the "middle sized world". Dualism is a natural part of our species, as that, undoubtedly, is part of our success (success meaning "we're still here"). We project human characteristics to things, animals, diseases. To invent higher beings who share our characteristics to make sense of things is part of our nature. And it has to be all about us.

Christianity is the main religion here, and it is very bad in this respect. It's all about god and man. I see homo sapiens as a product of nature, like all other organisms on the planet. I would argue that we are not nature's success story, and that if something like a god or creator of life were to exist, everything points to that he'd care jack shit about us. All religions have creation stories and their own beliefs, and they're all equally worthless in my eyes.

[Dominick]

I'd like to say something about the word atheist first. It's been corrupted in the US. It's now being used in the meaning of anti-theist and that's not its meaning.

Allow me to demonstrate by means of propositional logic:

A theist says 'There is a god'. This phrase will be represented by A.
So,
A


An anti-theist will say 'There is no god'.

!A


An agnost will say 'There might be a god, we don't and can't know'

A ^ !A


But what an atheist says is this:





That's right, nothing. It is the absence of the assumption of A.

[The Drunk Guy]

I'd like to say something about the word atheist first. It's been corrupted in the US. It's now being used in the meaning of anti-theist and that's not its meaning.

Allow me to demonstrate by means of propositional logic:

A theist says 'There is a god'. This phrase will be represented by A.
So,

An anti-theist will say 'There is no god'.


An agnost will say 'There might be a god, we don't and can't know'


But what an atheist says is this:


That's right, nothing. It is the absence of the assumption of A.
Math logic. Gross. Reminds me of college.

I have read that "atheism" means "against theism," and is, by definition, "anti-theism." I can handle that. ;)

[Multiplum]

Math logic. Gross. Reminds me of college.

I have read that "atheism" means "against theism," and is, by definition, "anti-theism." I can handle that. ;)

I can't get my head around math stuff either.

I call myself an atheist because I think there's most likely, probably, no such thing as a god/gods. And I'm not buying any religion I'm offered.

[drgoodtrips]

I'd like to say something about the word atheist first. It's been corrupted in the US. It's now being used in the meaning of anti-theist and that's not its meaning.

Allow me to demonstrate by means of propositional logic:

A theist says 'There is a god'. This phrase will be represented by A.
So,

An anti-theist will say 'There is no god'.


An agnost will say 'There might be a god, we don't and can't know'


But what an atheist says is this:


That's right, nothing. It is the absence of the assumption of A.

That last "statement" isn't in the set. If you're dealing in binary logic, there is no "empty" proposition, except in uncompleted Math 300 homeworks ;)

And, I would argue that the agonstic says that E(God) is undecidable. Binary logic is probably not a good language for this.

[aaronssongs]

OK, I'm too drunk now to post a full thread, but the thought has crossed my mind to talk openly about our religious choices. I know not everyone is atheist here, but I still want to know how and why you have chosen your belief system.

For me, it's been a myriad of factors. I would like to go into them thoroughly, but now isn't the time. ;) I will, however, go into one anecdote about my "disbelief" system.

I live in a small town in Kentucky. Richmond is about 30 minutes south of Lexington and is home to Eastern Kentucky University. The town's population is around 30,000.

Lately, a fellow has decided to take it upon himself to "save" the town of Richmond. His method is unique and very, umm, ineffective. He has elected to hold a sign at a busy intersection. All day. Every day. He even turns it as the light changes for "maximum visibility."

The sign reads:


First of all, not just anybody has the time to hold a sign all day long. My guess is that he has a "disability" and receives Social Security benefits. However, he could simply be unemployed and reaping the benefits of that status. Either way, he has a lot of free time on his hands, which is uncommon, even in rural Kentucky.

Second, he holds a look of adamant resolution throughout the entire day. That not only amazes me, but tells me that he has to be mad. Zealots do not take themselves and their beliefs so seriously that they can't laugh at a passing comment. Also, zealots often realize that, when one method is ineffective, another method could be more successful. This man seems to disagree.

Third, how does he know the rapture will happen this year? Why is proof such a "blasphemy?" What's wrong with a little rationality when discussing the end of the world?

Fourth, my real problem is that he "fires up" other Christians in the area. Strength in belief is one thing, but being "fired up" is a totally different animal. Take this for example...

Idiocy is not a requirement for faith, but it definitely ushers along the effort. This, ultimately, is why I sought answers elsewhere when I had a spiritual crisis over a decade ago and makes my atheism all the more finite today.

So, what "fires you up?"


Well, quite frankly, in all truth, I shouldn't even be here, alive and relatively well. My life has been spared too many times for me to assume that it was luck or good fortune. I grew up in the church. Went to an Episcopal boys choir school, in Chicago, for 3 years, where we sang Mass, usually 6 days out of 7. During high school and college, I became estranged from God and church, as I warred with my homosexuality. Finally coming to the conclusion in my 30's that, I was made perfectly well, and that God loved me despite my humanness. Losing my mother in '89, caused me to spiral downward into addiction and self-pity, lasting more 10 years. I couldn't have rescued myself. God did for me what I could not do. Proof positive for me. He/She/It is everywhere and in everything...a flower, a bird, a mountain, the sea. In you and me.

[Dominick]

That last "statement" isn't in the set. If you're dealing in binary logic, there is no "empty" proposition, except in uncompleted Math 300 homeworks ;)
That's the whole point; it's indeed not in the set. Atheists don't make any statement at all regarding existence of deities, which sets them quite apart from those that declaratively state !A. This is precisely the usurpation that theists manage when they force everyone into a set that must make a statement about A, whether it's A or !A or a combination thereof. It's a false dichotomy, or trichotomy, or quadrochotomy if you want.
What word would you use for someone that doesn't even contemplate the assumption A ? Who couldn't care less about it ? Because that describes 80% of Western Europeans. Do we call everyone that doesn't know or care about relativity an anti-relativist or even a arelativist ?


And, I would argue that the agonstic says that E(God) is undecidable. Binary logic is probably not a good language for this.
Perhaps, but "E(God) is undecidable" is a meta-statement nevertheless :)

[drgoodtrips]

That's the whole point; it's indeed not in the set. Atheists don't make any statement at all regarding existence of deities, which sets them quite apart from those that declaratively state !A. This is precisely the usurpation that theists manage when they force everyone into a set that must make a statement about A, whether it's A or !A or a combination thereof. It's a false dichotomy, or trichotomy, or quadrochotomy if you want.
What word would you use for someone that doesn't even contemplate the assumption A ? Who couldn't care less about it ? Because that describes 80% of Western Europeans. Do we call everyone that doesn't know or care about relativity an anti-relativist or even a arelativist ?


Perhaps, but "E(God) is undecidable" is a meta-statement nevertheless :)

My point is more along the lines that either A or ~A is true (tautologically). Whether or not someone considers it in the mathematical framework is irrelevant. And, in reality, as soon as someone mentions it to you, you have considered it. So, your thoughts aren't the empty set on the matter, but rather your public thoughts on the matter are the empty set.

I know which of those logical propositions you would pick, if pressed beyond the empty set ;)

And, by the way, not knowing about something and not caring about it are completely different in the logical framework. If I'm unaware of the idea of A, then that empty set is valid. In I am aware of it, then not so much.

[The Drunk Guy]

Well, quite frankly, in all truth, I shouldn't even be here, alive and relatively well. My life has been spared too many times for me to assume that it was luck or good fortune. I grew up in the church. Went to an Episcopal boys choir school, in Chicago, for 3 years, where we sang Mass, usually 6 days out of 7. During high school and college, I became estranged from God and church, as I warred with my homosexuality. Finally coming to the conclusion in my 30's that, I was made perfectly well, and that God loved me despite my humanness. Losing my mother in '89, caused me to spiral downward into addiction and self-pity, lasting more 10 years. I couldn't have rescued myself. God did for me what I could not do. Proof positive for me. He/She/It is everywhere and in everything...a flower, a bird, a mountain, the sea. In you and me.
My evolution took many years. Doubts came after the slow, painful deaths of three "God-fearing" grandparents. What god punishes such devout followers? I began searching the other religions, then. If so many people believe so differently, then what does it say about pain? I thought. They said the same as Christianity: its a test of faith and resolution.

So, this begs the question: What god challenges those who already have faith? A selfish god. It says so in the Bible. If I want to believe in a selfish god, then I am that god.

I moved from "religions" to deism for a long time. "God is among us and within us," reads the Gospel of Thomas. I pictured God as, not necessarily "The Great Watchmaker," but as the watch itself. God as nature.

Then, a year or so ago, it just hit me....why fool myself? Who am I trying to impress? Why call Nature and Science "God?" That's insulting to Nature and Science.

[aaronssongs]

My evolution took many years. Doubts came after the slow, painful deaths of three "God-fearing" grandparents. What god punishes such devout followers? I began searching the other religions, then. If so many people believe so differently, then what does it say about pain? I thought. They said the same as Christianity: its a test of faith and resolution.

So, this begs the question: What god challenges those who already have faith? A selfish god. It says so in the Bible. If I want to believe in a selfish god, then I am that god.

I moved from "religions" to deism for a long time. "God is among us and within us," reads the Gospel of Thomas. I pictured God as, not necessarily "The Great Watchmaker," but as the watch itself. God as nature.

Then, a year or so ago, it just hit me....why fool myself? Who am I trying to impress? Why call Nature and Science "God?" That's insulting to Nature and Science.


I don't subscribe to all of this as an accident.
God is the author of the universe, and all that therein is, IMHO.
God's vastness is too much for human comprehension. The questions are no longer how? and why? But from within, what? and when?

[Michael]

God's vastness is too much for human comprehension.

FWIW, I've made this precise argument many times as it is integral to my 'epistemological' defense of religion.

I argue that as long as the religious folks keep that rule in mind, there is no theoretical conflict between religion and modern philosophy.

[Michael]

I can't imagine that it will be a surprise to anyone to find out that I'm an atheist. :D

In reply to the thread question, I must say that the number one reason that I'm not religious is probably because I was never taught to be religious when I was young.

My father I would describe was entirely 'non-religious' - he didn't oppose it but tended to avoid it entirely. My mother was what I might call a typical middle-class 'social Christian' - she always went to church and insisted on bringing all her children to Sunday School on a regular basis, probably because 'that's what people are supposed to do'. My mother was never one to rock the boat (except when getting in or out of one!). Now I don't really know if my mother is a casual or ardent believer, but I've never heard her utter any kind of religious feeling or expression in my whole life. I might add that both of my older siblings are also in the same boat as I am - we are non-believers because no one really taught us to become believers. For example, at Easter, Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner, it is a bit of a running joke in my family for someone to announce that it was time to "say grace" before eating and several of us would all shout out "grace!" and then we all laugh and eat dinner.

Since I had no basic belief in God to begin with (even as a small child) Church and Sunday School didn't do nothing for me. It was running joke to my mother and sisters (and even the local minister) that I knew precisely how many bricks on each side wall of the inside of the church, the number of ceiling panels and the number of burnt out light bulbs or candles burning in the Church at any given time. As long as I sat silently in Sunday School and didn't ask any questions, they were happy. I asked a question once or twice, but that didn't work out too well for those who tried a response. Anyway, this was all before the age of 10 or 11. After that I started to really object to going to Church as it was insanely boring and gradually my mother relented and let me skip Church on Sunday mornings.

I definitely also remember talking about religion and God with some of my friends when I was a teenager (14-16 years old) and finding it odd that about half my friends believed in God, the other half didn't know or didn't care. I was the only one who was 'atheist'.

And that's about when I started to get into reading about Ancient Greece which was the real beginning of my lifelong educational journey. Over the years, I've learned to be able to construct good arguments to rationally justify my philosophical positions, but that has come long after my initial state of 'non-religious' was established.

I'd like to add that at no time have I ever been motivated by 'anti-religion'. Quite the contrary. I've always found the concept deeply fascinating and have invested a lot of effort to study the topic over the years. I continue to find further enlightenment in public discussions of the topic.

Some may find it odd that I am an 'avowed' atheist, and yet I am also an ardent defender of religion's place in civil society and a proponent of separation of church and state. I don't see any contradiction here at all. It is all compatible with classical liberalism and rational skepticism. :)

[Dominick]

I'm a non-theist (:)) simply because there's no reason to assume otherwise.

[phungus420]

Grew up as a Quaker, but was an athiest by 4 or maybe 5 years old. I remember exactly when I totally converted to being anti theist, the story of Noah's Ark. Made no sense, anyone who believed this nonsense was being fooled by those in power was all I could figure. I had been having issues with faith since I had become concious really, and was constantly asking questions, and basically arguing with my sunday school teacher, but it was Noah's Ark that put the nail in the coffin.

After that I was one of those anit religious people taking every opportunity to attack the absurdity of faith until my late teens. At which point for some reason I came to the conclusion it just doesn't really matter what one believes, and as far as I could tell some people even fulfill some psychological need from religion. I haven't really changed my general outlook since. I suppose the reason I was so anti religious as a child was because people were constantly throwing religion in my face, and I thought the whole concept was absurd and foolish, and was just insulted people were trying to trick me into believing such nonsense. But as I grew older this happened less and less, and I became less hostile toward it to where by the time I had graduated high school I was just ambivalent to the whole subject.

[Americano]

My absence of a formal belief system is pretty standard. Mandatory church attendance until about age 12 when my unanswered 'why' questions became unpleasant enough to be released from attendance. A history major college roommate literally shredded (IMO) the Christian bible during drinking/smoking sessions to a point where it became boring to me. I normally refrain from forum religious discussions as I find religious proponent arguments inevitably circular in nature, beginning and ending on faith.

[partofme]

I had a friend that was an atheist and at some point I considered what it could possibly be like and tried to think like one to understand it. Slowly over time it made more and more sense and at some point I starting wondering how I ever believed in a god in the first place. I was raised in a Church of Christ which makes Southern Baptists look like Unitarians.

One thing that has shocked me in the 12 years or so since I believed in a god is how much attention atheism has started to get in the last few years especially. A decade ago if I told somebody it seemed crazy and most people had said I was the only atheist they had ever met. Now it is definitely not excepted by most people but it's getting quite a bit more main stream attention in the media both through news organizations and even in television shows and movies. It will be a long time before it's viewed as being part of the mainstream in American but things are changing at a faster paced than I would have expected only a couple years ago. That being said in a recent study more Americans said they would vote for all minorities and homosexuals than non-believers in a political election. Muslims where the only group that ranked lower. Also you can't generally go around telling people you are a non-believer and not expect to end up in a heated argument pretty quick.

[Evangeline]

Grew up as a Quaker, but was an athiest by 4 or maybe 5 years old. I remember exactly when I totally converted to being anti theist, the story of Noah's Ark. Made no sense, anyone who believed this nonsense was being fooled by those in power was all I could figure. .

Wow, smart little kid! I grew up a Methodist. I totally believed in Jesus. I thought I was special because I was born on Christmas, just like Him. I wanted to be good. I prayed and prayed for forgiveness because I was hanging around with the "bad" kids in highschool. By then my mother was making us go to Evangelical, born again church. But the people were speaking in tongues and holding up their arms and praying out loud. I wasn't comfortable joining in so I just stood there. I thought I felt the presence of God.

I was raised in a Church of Christ which makes Southern Baptists look like Unitarians.



Yup, sounds like we went to a similar church.

Well, I kept believing, I saw miracles all around. Once I was late getting out of the house, drove down the road and there was an accident that had just happened. I thought, that would have been me, God saved me from being in that accident by delaying me. I've never looked for a job. every job I've had came to me, at the exact right time. I thought that was God taking care of me. Now though, I think it's screwed me, because if I ever do need to go get a job, I have no experience to do so. It's a little scary.

I kept believing up until the Bush administration and the Christian right came to power. Bush saying God told him to invade Iraq made me double take. WHAT??? Right winger Mrs M on USPOL with her attacks on me for saying religion is a fairy tale made me think twice about Christians and their nastiness. At that time I was testing the waters of non-belief. The Christian right of America pushed me right out the church door. If that's Christianity, I want NO PART of it. I've been calling myself an agnostic ever since.

I really don't think anyone knows what's out there. I'm either an agnostic, or if I'm in the mood too choose a religion, I choose to be a deist. I think god is in us, if he's anywhere. We, the earth, the stars, the universe, we are god. And when we're gone, god is other things, whatever's left. Other universes, other beings.

The main point is, no one really knows. And maybe we'll find out when we die. Maybe not. Seriously, no one knows. Except god, if she's out there, or in here.

[SMadsen]

Excellent thread. And a superb opening post :)

I don't remember ever having chosen anything. Like Dominick, it never really occurred to me to assume A.

Although, thinking back, what must have been attempts to impose a Christian faith weren't particularly trivial. For example, I had a very religious Faroese teacher in the younger grades. We started each day in school with a psalm. He also managed to get me to sign up for Sunday school, although, as I remember it, it was the rumors of free fruit and candy that was the sentiment. I think I went once or twice. Guess the rumors did meet my expectations.

We've also always had religious classes on the curriculum in school. Depending on political flavors through time, they've gone from dealing with Christianity only to dealing with religion as a broad concept and back again a few times. Yet, the kids back then seemed to correspond with present days distribution of religious affiliation in this country. In fact, I only remember a single kid that I definitely know was religious, or, rather, his folks were religious. I saw the stripes on his back myself. They were Jehova's Witnesses.

During the older grades, I remember becoming very interested in past times and, in particular, religious sentiments of past times. I read alot about the Middle East at the time of the various myths, including the Bible and an equally heavy book on Biblical interpretations. But I also read about Norse and other mythologies. So it was never about my own beliefs but about history. What made and still makes some people tick in certain circumstances.

Then I became interested in becoming a doctor and acquired a whole new "library". And from there to yet new pasture fields. And so on. However, I still find it fascinating what makes people so extremely dedicated to a single train of thought without regard of other trains of thoughts, whether or not it's of a political kind or a religious one. I guess that's pretty much why I keep coming back to various discussion fora.

[Michael]

I think is helpful to know the religious status of the parents of the atheists.

According to all studies on the topic, religion is the easiest of all socio-cultural factors to predict based on parental information. The corelation between the religion of parents and children is very, very high (even higher than political affiliations).

In the USA, these corelations are well above 85%.

Non-religious parents may account for the fact that many of us grow up without being 'taught' to make the assumption of "A" when we were very young.

I also note that none of the self-admissions here includes an actually religious person turning into an atheist.

[The Drunk Guy]

I think is helpful to know the religious status of the parents of the atheists.

According to all studies on the topic, religion is the easiest of all socio-cultural factors to predict based on parental information. The corelation between the religion of parents and children is very, very high (even higher than political affiliations).

In the USA, these corelations are well above 85%.

Non-religious parents may account for the fact that many of us grow up without being 'taught' to make the assumption of "A" when we were very young.

I also note that none of the self-admissions here includes an actually religious person turning into an atheist.An excellent point...

I spent the first three or four years of my life going to the Baptist church that my grandfather ministered at. (I remember, vaguely, that I liked going because the pews made excellent surfaces for Hot Wheel chases. :D) It was a very old-timey-type church: women wore dresses for service, everyone sang these old, country hymnals, and everyone shook hands at the end of very calm and relaxed service. My dad rarely, if ever, attended, even though it was his father's church.

After my grandfather was asked to step down for being too calm and relaxed, we stopped going. Since I was the youngest sibling, my mom decided to drag me to her sister's church, a little Catholic chapel. I was intrigued with the ceremony of Latin phrase exchanges between the father and the parishioners as well as the Eucharist. The largest reason I enjoyed the services there was because they ALWAYS had a nice potluck after mass. And the best cooks were Catholic. :) My mom and I went, off and on, for nearly five years.

This brings me to the age of 11. Mom was only dragging me to the holiday services and she herself rarely attended Sunday mass. Dad hadn't been in church since I was four. My siblings, who are much older than me, had moved away.

My brother decided to find a church and he chose a Church of Christ. His visits home were focused around getting to a Church of Christ on Sundays. Finally, he found the church for him. The pastor there was a very charismatic character. My brother was sucked into everything they had to offer. Being a kid, I would try to be "cool" to my brother, so I demonstrate my talented usage of foul language only to be chastised and prayed for. So, in an attempt to get my brother's attention, I went to Sunday school with him. Between the wailing and the tongues, the pew walking seemed tame.

The biggest impact of that trip, however, was the looks my parents had on their faces when I got home. You know the look someone has on their face when they've just pulled a well-placed prank on you? That was the look my parents had. They knew what happened there and found it amusing! It was then that I realized my parent's belief system had a much different mask than I first thought and I began to question all the stories told in churches.

Years later, after all my grandfather had passed, my dad and I were talking about religion. I expressed my confusion for the painful death of his father and asking why God could put us through such pain if we were as devout as my grandfather. He then told me a story of how his little sister died when she was young. At the funeral, dad overheard two women from their church making the comment, "God punishes the family for the sins of the father." Then, he said, "Since that moment, I haven't been to a church for my own good. If it wasn't for your mother, I wouldn't have ever went back."

Over the decade since that conversation, my father and I haven't directly addressed questions of faith. I have gathered that he is agnostic (he's made a few references to "If god exists..."), but he has a strong disdain for the works of churches and Christian Fundamentalism. My mom has wished strongly for me to go to church, but not because of her own faith. Her mid-life crisis was fearing I would have no moral code. :D But I have calmed down and she seems content with my lack of faith. My brother is an assistant minister at a Pentecostal church, which is good for plenty of jokes between my parents and I at his expense. My sister, who is very impressionable, has fallen in with some cult-like fundie church and judges everyone. Luckily, we all take turns putting her in her place, keeping her humble. ;)

[Americano]

I think is helpful to know the religious status of the parents of the atheists.

According to all studies on the topic, religion is the easiest of all socio-cultural factors to predict based on parental information. The corelation between the religion of parents and children is very, very high (even higher than political affiliations).

In the USA, these corelations are well above 85%.

Non-religious parents may account for the fact that many of us grow up without being 'taught' to make the assumption of "A" when we were very young.

I also note that none of the self-admissions here includes an actually religious person turning into an atheist.

Or the opposite. On some of the large forums this thread would have been
instantly bombarded with endless scriptural quotes, first-hand experiences with miracles, testimony and damnation.

[partofme]

I think is helpful to know the religious status of the parents of the atheists.

According to all studies on the topic, religion is the easiest of all socio-cultural factors to predict based on parental information. The corelation between the religion of parents and children is very, very high (even higher than political affiliations).

In the USA, these corelations are well above 85%.

Non-religious parents may account for the fact that many of us grow up without being 'taught' to make the assumption of "A" when we were very young.

I also note that none of the self-admissions here includes an actually religious person turning into an atheist.

I was a believer up until early high school.

[Michael]

I was a believer up until early high school.
Is that because your parents were actively religious?

[partofme]

Is that because your parents were actively religious?



My mom was and still is. My dad wasn't but he is now.

[Non Sequitur]

OK, I'm too drunk now to post a full thread, but the thought has crossed my mind to talk openly about our religious choices. I know not everyone is atheist here, but I still want to know how and why you have chosen your belief system.

For me, it's been a myriad of factors. I would like to go into them thoroughly, but now isn't the time. ;) I will, however, go into one anecdote about my "disbelief" system.

I live in a small town in Kentucky. Richmond is about 30 minutes south of Lexington and is home to Eastern Kentucky University. The town's population is around 30,000.

Lately, a fellow has decided to take it upon himself to "save" the town of Richmond. His method is unique and very, umm, ineffective. He has elected to hold a sign at a busy intersection. All day. Every day. He even turns it as the light changes for "maximum visibility."

The sign reads:


First of all, not just anybody has the time to hold a sign all day long. My guess is that he has a "disability" and receives Social Security benefits. However, he could simply be unemployed and reaping the benefits of that status. Either way, he has a lot of free time on his hands, which is uncommon, even in rural Kentucky.

Second, he holds a look of adamant resolution throughout the entire day. That not only amazes me, but tells me that he has to be mad. Zealots do not take themselves and their beliefs so seriously that they can't laugh at a passing comment. Also, zealots often realize that, when one method is ineffective, another method could be more successful. This man seems to disagree.

Third, how does he know the rapture will happen this year? Why is proof such a "blasphemy?" What's wrong with a little rationality when discussing the end of the world?

Fourth, my real problem is that he "fires up" other Christians in the area. Strength in belief is one thing, but being "fired up" is a totally different animal. Take this for example...

Idiocy is not a requirement for faith, but it definitely ushers along the effort. This, ultimately, is why I sought answers elsewhere when I had a spiritual crisis over a decade ago and makes my atheism all the more finite today.

So, what "fires you up?"

Well, I was raised in my belief system (parents both Christians mom is a pastor). I ended up really choosing in it freshmen year of college (and don't interpret that as a "born again" thing).

by the way the guy you are talking about is spouting total nonsense from a Biblical perspective. There is next to zero Biblical evidence for the rapture.

[partofme]

Well, I was raised in my belief system (parents both Christians mom is a pastor). I ended up really choosing in it freshmen year of college (and don't interpret that as a "born again" thing).

by the way the guy you are talking about is spouting total nonsense from a Biblical perspective. There is next to zero Biblical evidence for the rapture.

Didn't the rapture idea come about in the 19th century as a way to avoid having Christians go through the days described in Revelation?

[Non Sequitur]

Didn't the rapture idea come about in the 19th century as a way to avoid having Christians go through the days described in Revelation?

it first gets articulated first in the 1600's and then comes to us in the form we see to today in the 19th century. There are a lot of things like that in theology though. Biblical literalism doesn't come about till the same time period. People had been arguing that stuff like Genesis was figurative for millennia before.

[The Drunk Guy]

by the way the guy you are talking about is spouting total nonsense from a Biblical perspective. There is next to zero Biblical evidence for the rapture.
That's a typical insinuation here in the Buckle of the Bible Belt. To quote a favorite comedian: "Jesus is coming back...and he's pissed off!" :lol:

Scare tactics (fire and brimstone) are common things here. Everyone from here is familiar with Christianity, has grown up with it, and can easily be scared or guilted back into the fold. Pretty sleazy way to keep them in the pews, if you ask me.

[Americano]

That's a typical insinuation here in the Buckle of the Bible Belt. To quote a favorite comedian: "Jesus is coming back...and he's pissed off!" :lol:

Scare tactics (fire and brimstone) are common things here. Everyone from here is familiar with Christianity, has grown up with it, and can easily be scared or guilted back into the fold. Pretty sleazy way to keep them in the pews, if you ask me.


The stick and carrot form of Christianity has long been its primary control factor.

[Dominick]

I didn't realize it at the time but the four possible answers I gave by means of propositional logic are the same as would be given by the Buddhist logic of catu.sko.ti developed by Nagaryuna (http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew26566.htm).

This is philosophical rather than mathematical so it may be clearer. The four answers are thus :

Yes
No
Yes and No
Neither Yes, Nor No

The fourth answer would be that of the a-theist as I defined him. It's the answer one would give to a question such as "Do all deepsea ants have bigger bicycles than red?". It's a meta-answer towards 'Yes' and 'No' just as the Nietzschian concept of Beyond Good and Evil is towards the the concepts 'Good' and 'Evil'. An a-theist thus says that he or she is Beyond the question of the existence of God. (Actually Nietzsche's original 'Jenseits' much better expresses this than 'beyond' but there you go).
So, no Drgoodtrips, I would not pick answer 2 :)

[Michael]

With regard to the word itself, and indeed, one of the points that I think Dominick is getting at with his posts, is that the word 'atheist' doesn't match up precisely with its commonly understood meaning.

For example, if we are going to use strict technical terms according to the precise meaning of a word's origins, I must say that "I am NOT an atheist". This is because I do in fact support institutional religion and have often defended institutional religion in principle as part of civil society. I do not oppose institutional religion.

The term of atheism originates as a slur against people who opposed the institutional forms of religion. Anyone who opposes the physical trappings of the Christian church, but still believes in the Christian God is technically speaking, an atheist. :D

This is very similar to the original greek as the definition, an 'atheist' is one who is opposed to (or rejects) theism, which is the doctrines of religion.

Using exact terminology according to word meanings, I'm actually an 'adeist' since I reject the principle of 'godhood' itself.

Bottom line is that there is often some deep confusion about what these words mean given their common usage otherwise. Indeed, this becomes a question of epistemology and the philosophy of the English language! And in all consistency, I would argue for the modern common mutation to be the one we ought to use. Thus, I accept the label of 'atheist' (even though one can emphatically argue that I am not in fact, an 'atheist'). :D

[Dominick]

To add further to the confusion, there are a number of both unequivocally atheistic and adeistic religions :) One of the earlier branches of Buddhism, Hinayana, was quite explicit in that respect.

[SMadsen]

I didn't realize it at the time but the four possible answers I gave by means of propositional logic are the same as would be given by the Buddhist logic of catu.sko.ti developed by Nagaryuna (http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew26566.htm).



This is philosophical rather than mathematical so it may be clearer. The four answers are thus :
Yes
No
Yes and No
Neither Yes, Nor No
The fourth answer would be that of the a-theist as I defined him. It's the answer one would give to a question such as "Do all deepsea ants have bigger bicycles than red?". It's a meta-answer towards 'Yes' and 'No' just as the Nietzschian concept of Beyond Good and Evil is towards the the concepts 'Good' and 'Evil'. An a-theist thus says that he or she is Beyond the question of the existence of God. (Actually Nietzsche's original 'Jenseits' much better expresses this than 'beyond' but there you go).
So, no Drgoodtrips, I would not pick answer 2 :)
I can easily see a 5th answer that reads "Yes or No". This translates to "Whatever", i.e., not caring way or another about theism. That's the atheism I know (or, at least, knew before being exposed to the religionist distortion).

With regard to the word itself, and indeed, one of the points that I think Dominick is getting at with his posts, is that the word 'atheist' doesn't match up precisely with its commonly understood meaning.

For example, if we are going to use strict technical terms according to the precise meaning of a word's origins, I must say that "I am NOT an atheist". This is because I do in fact support institutional religion and have often defended institutional religion in principle as part of civil society. I do not oppose institutional religion.

The term of atheism originates as a slur against people who opposed the institutional forms of religion. Anyone who opposes the physical trappings of the Christian church, but still believes in the Christian God is technically speaking, an atheist. :D

This is very similar to the original greek as the definition, an 'atheist' is one who is opposed to (or rejects) theism, which is the doctrines of religion.

Using exact terminology according to word meanings, I'm actually an 'adeist' since I reject the principle of 'godhood' itself.

Bottom line is that there is often some deep confusion about what these words mean given their common usage otherwise. Indeed, this becomes a question of epistemology and the philosophy of the English language! And in all consistency, I would argue for the modern common mutation to be the one we ought to use. Thus, I accept the label of 'atheist' (even though one can emphatically argue that I am not in fact, an 'atheist'). :D
First, this requires that you define theism as institutional religion. Second, it requires that you define institutional religion as a term that can be distinguished from non-institutional religion. I don't think the latter exists. All religions based on scriptural or oral traditions are institutional in the sense that they are externally established sets of doctrines.

If I hold to the definition of theism as belief in a creating and controlling god (or gods) then atheism is simply absence of that belief. There are no oppositions to be met. Nor other extra criteria.

Likewise, adeism has no other criteria than absence of deist beliefs. And "apantheist", if such a word existed, would simply be the absence of pantheist beliefs. Since theists seem to have far the most problems with fellow mankind (there's that controlling deity), atheism is the only term that gets to be an issue. Indeed, no one these days seems to be pantheist and even if many adhere to deist beliefs, adeism seems not to be an issue.

[Michael]

First, this requires that you define theism as institutional religion. Second, it requires that you define institutional religion as a term that can be distinguished from non-institutional religion. I don't think the latter exists. All religions based on scriptural or oral traditions are institutional in the sense that they are externally established sets of doctrines.
I don't think that is necessary. The very introduction of the word "atheism" originates with the religious folks attacking those who opposed the worldly trappings of religion specifically. That is the actual context of the word's origin in modern usage. That the original targets were in fact 'deists' and the accusers were 'religious' ought to illustrate the real meaning of the word.

As for 'adeism' (a short form of "anti-deism"), I dropped that term when I stumbled upon its usage as a specific critique against the Deists since I don't agree with that critique (again, the critique originates with the religious types). I used to label myself as an "adeist" previously, but that label carries too much 'religious' baggage for me to use with a clean conscience. I don't reject deism because it is insufficiently respectful to the Church.

[SMadsen]

Michael, I fundamentally disagree with you about the meaning of the prefix "a-". It denotes the absence of the concept being prefixed, not some sort of active rejection.

That being said, yes, I agree that atheism doesn't exist without theisms (read: wouldn't be a distinctive concept without theisms) and that adherent to theisms have put and still put anything of convenience into the concept. As such, its origin and also traditional context from the theist point of view is quite clear. However, my point of view is very different.

I will maintain that atheism means absence of theism regardless of theists' point of view. The reasons are many: It's grammatically correct, absence of belief in theisms exists and it need not in any way be predicated on active rejection even when it's inconceivable to bible thumbers, religions have hogged enough of pejorative terms to describe differently thinking people etc etc.

[Michael]

I sympathize with your viewpoint, but the fact is these words do not come absractly from their original greek forms to us unvarnished.

You can argue what the greek term means until you are blue in the face - the fact remains that word - in reality - is used differently. Indeed, the 'popular or common' usage of the term has been quite consistent for several centuries now.

Your pedantic definition of the term (technically correct to ancient greek it might be) is entirely obscure and outside the norm.

In other words, I'm perfectly aware of what these words mean in their original /ancient greek form and I'm also perfectly aware of how these terms have been politically redefined over the last few centuries.

Asserting that the archaic one 'trumps' the common one just defies reality. It is not a matter of what one "likes" or doesn't like about it. It just is.

[Michael]

Please note that the order of the last few posts in this thread have been scrambled by the server's time setting error.

[Greendruid]

I sympathize with your viewpoint, but the fact is these words do not come absractly from their original greek forms to us unvarnished.

You can argue what the greek term means until you are blue in the face - the fact remains that word - in reality - is used differently. Indeed, the 'popular or common' usage of the term has been quite consistent for several centuries now.

Your pedantic definition of the term (technically correct to ancient greek it might be) is entirely obscure and outside the norm.

In other words, I'm perfectly aware of what these words mean in their original /ancient greek form and I'm also perfectly aware of how these terms have been politically redefined over the last few centuries.

Asserting that the archaic one 'trumps' the common one just defies reality. It is not a matter of what one "likes" or doesn't like about it. It just is.

As one who is about as much of a supporter of archaic words and their definitions, I have to agree that the organic nature of language trumps the "original" meanings of any words. This is a lesson the Académie has yet to learn. The Québecois have seemingly inherited this annoying trait. Language cannot be controlled.

[SMadsen]

Well, I will argue till I'm blue in the face that the word atheism denotes absence of theistic belief :)

Religious people never take into account what it actually means when they throw around words to decribe people who don't share their faith. The only purpose of such words is to describe, to them, undesirable situations and therefore, without regard for circumstance other than their own, the words become derogatory. This is of course inherent to religionism and will never change. It rather seems like a tribal mechanism. Much like a sports fan phenomenon.

However, it also means that more neutrals word such as nontheist will never get any attention, while terms that describe an opinion and an aim, such as anti-theist, anti-god, bright or even apatheist, as I've heard someone suggest, will get flung around with no mercy.

Atheist is therefore the only word that fits the bill of a person, to whom theistic belief is simply absent for no other reason than it can also be present.

[Dominick]

Well, I will argue till I'm blue in the face that the word atheism denotes absence of theistic belief :)
Dutch, French, German, Italian and ancient Greek dictionaries all agree with you. This is just another transatlantic difference of culture.

[Michael]

Well, I will argue till I'm blue in the face that the word atheism denotes absence of theistic belief :)

Religious people never take into account what it actually means when they throw around words to decribe people who don't share their faith. The only purpose of such words is to describe, to them, undesirable situations and therefore, without regard for circumstance other than their own, the words become derogatory. This is of course inherent to religionism and will never change. It rather seems like a tribal mechanism. Much like a sports fan phenomenon.

However, it also means that more neutrals word such as nontheist will never get any attention, while terms that describe an opinion and an aim, such as anti-theist, anti-god, bright or even apatheist, as I've heard someone suggest, will get flung around with no mercy.

Atheist is therefore the only word that fits the bill of a person, to whom theistic belief is simply absent for no other reason than it can also be present.

Dutch, French, German, Italian and ancient Greek dictionaries all agree with you. This is just another transatlantic difference of culture.

In no way shape or form am I denying that atheism, as defined by atheists, represents an 'absence' of belief.

The discussion I was addressing is how the word is actually used in reality by non-atheists.

And Dominick, the 'common' or 'modern' usage of term of atheism originates in Europe 18th century.

[Margot]

Why I'm an atheist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvPJ-_sjogo)

[Greendruid]

Why I'm an atheist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvPJ-_sjogo)

Fucking Priceless! "You shouldn't do that, you might get run over by a unicorn" has got to be one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. This guy is hilarious. I noticed that he only has 5,000 views on this video so far - WTF? He is brilliant!

[Lasher]

OK, I'm too drunk now to post a full thread, but the thought has crossed my mind to talk openly about our religious choices. I know not everyone is atheist here, but I still want to know how and why you have chosen your belief system.

For me, it's been a myriad of factors. I would like to go into them thoroughly, but now isn't the time. ;) I will, however, go into one anecdote about my "disbelief" system.

I live in a small town in Kentucky. Richmond is about 30 minutes south of Lexington and is home to Eastern Kentucky University. The town's population is around 30,000.

Lately, a fellow has decided to take it upon himself to "save" the town of Richmond. His method is unique and very, umm, ineffective. He has elected to hold a sign at a busy intersection. All day. Every day. He even turns it as the light changes for "maximum visibility."

The sign reads:


First of all, not just anybody has the time to hold a sign all day long. My guess is that he has a "disability" and receives Social Security benefits. However, he could simply be unemployed and reaping the benefits of that status. Either way, he has a lot of free time on his hands, which is uncommon, even in rural Kentucky.

Second, he holds a look of adamant resolution throughout the entire day. That not only amazes me, but tells me that he has to be mad. Zealots do not take themselves and their beliefs so seriously that they can't laugh at a passing comment. Also, zealots often realize that, when one method is ineffective, another method could be more successful. This man seems to disagree.

Third, how does he know the rapture will happen this year? Why is proof such a "blasphemy?" What's wrong with a little rationality when discussing the end of the world?

Fourth, my real problem is that he "fires up" other Christians in the area. Strength in belief is one thing, but being "fired up" is a totally different animal. Take this for example...

Idiocy is not a requirement for faith, but it definitely ushers along the effort. This, ultimately, is why I sought answers elsewhere when I had a spiritual crisis over a decade ago and makes my atheism all the more finite today.

So, what "fires you up?"
Drunk guy, Lasher is more concerned about why you are a drunk than why you are an atheist.

[The Drunk Guy]

Drunk guy, Lasher is more concerned about why you are a drunk than why you are an atheist.
Because I'm The Drunk Guy, numbnuts. :wtf:

[Lasher]

Because I'm The Drunk Guy, numbnuts. :wtf:
Lasher is ashamed that he didn't see that.