How did you become an Atheist? [Archive]

ВАЛТЕР

9th March 2012, 09:25

I had parents that never bothered to indoctrinate me into anything and always encouraged school and knowledge over anything else. Also, I had the terrible misfortune of spending a large portion of my time in a very uberchristian, reactionary state in the US, that alone probably made me see what religion can do to an otherwise rational human being. SO I was as far as I can remember always an atheist.

In high school I dated a girl whose father was a priest. At that point I was already piecing together my political views and I saw how he lived in a beautiful and large home, and went on vacations constantly, while my family lived in a small duplex and never got a chance to go anywhere together because of my father constantly working. It disgusted me. The priest always thanked God for his success. I looked at him as a scam artist not even having the decency to be thankful for the people he manages to swindle.

I stick with my beliefs that priests, imams, rabbis, patriarchs, popes, etc. are nothing but criminals. They are a fucking mafia in and of themseleves. I always say "If Al Capone was smart he would have opened up a church."

This video made me hate them all even more.

zqNLMuijRyU

http://www.executedtoday.com/images/Sacred_Heart_Christ_statue_executed.jpg

Kronsteen

9th March 2012, 09:30

Christopher Hitchens used to say that people don't usually become atheists - rather, they realise at some point that they've never believed.

He goes on to say that some (most?) people have a deep psychological need for some mystery in their lives, and a feeling that they have a definite place in an unquestionable authority structure. Whereas others need to understand, and can cope easily without someone to tell them what to do.

Atheists of course are the second group.

GPDP

9th March 2012, 09:40

I kinda just... did. My family is technically catholic, but we never really practiced other than on a few key occasions, so I was never indoctrinated past an attempt to get me ready for my First Communion, but that went nowhere because we moved away from Mexico into the US.

Eventually I came to see myself as more of a deist, as in I believed in God but believed he pretty much just left us to our own devices, so none of the Christian scripture really applied.

Once I got into college and started learning about socialism and materialism and such, I pretty much just up and decided one day that I didn't believe in God. My deism prior to that was mostly just me being too afraid to let go of having some kind of higher being responsible for things. So in the end, it pretty much was a case of me never believing, but being too much of a coward to take such feelings to their logical conclusion.

Deicide

9th March 2012, 09:44

people don't usually become atheists - rather, they realise at some point that they've never believed

That's more of an accurate description.

CommunityBeliever

9th March 2012, 09:48

Once I reached the age of reason I realised that all supernatural god concepts were ridiculous and I switched over to pantheism. After reading the God Delusion (2006) I realised that I didn't really believe, I was just misusing the word god to refer to nature. I have been an atheist ever since.

Igor

9th March 2012, 09:48

I never was anything else. I've never believed in god, never really even thought I'd be a Christian. My family wasn't religious and not believing in God was all I knew, thank God for that.

dodger

9th March 2012, 10:17

I used to get giggling fits in church(C of E). Ma was the same, out in India, Africa, Hong Kong....all the religious ceremonies drove her into tears of laughter. Babble-babble-babble.I suppose we are just happy people. Also dad was very stingy, the thought of giving money to some lazy priest was anathema. St James, a very fine Wren Church, Piccadilly, only allowed 6 members of the poor to attend worship. The rest were driven back by vergers with stout poles. They had their bench up in the rafters where incense burners were strategically placed to mask the stench. The church never bothered us and I have always returned the compliment.:sleep:

Ned Kelly

9th March 2012, 10:37

Got bored as shit in church and started playing my game boy

Buitraker

9th March 2012, 11:05

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francoism

RedAtheist

9th March 2012, 11:21

I was never raised religious, but I was raised in a culture that praised faith (not just religious faith, but believe without evidence in general) as a virtue, especially in children. If you watch enough children's films you will notice faith being associated with 'innocence' and 'childhood', whereas scepticism is portrayed as something 'mean', 'nasty' 'grown-ups' are into. Growing up in this sort of culture, I thought there was something virtuous about believing in God. I'm not sure whether I genuinely believed or not. I suppose I did, since I was kid and as a kid I did not look at evidence but simply believed ideas that sounded reasonable and made logical sense (at the time the God idea seemed to make logical sense)

Then I watched 'The Root of all Evil' and it let me that there was nothing wrong with failing to accept things based on faith. Too many people think belief is a choice, but for me it is not. I cannot will myself to believe things which do not make sense to my mind. It has never been something I was good at. I am sick of being told that I lack some kind of important virtue, because I cannot force myself to believe things. 'Root of All Evil' encouraged me to question society's assumption that faith=goodness and realise that there is nothing virtuous about believing things which are rationally supported.

Yefim Zverev

9th March 2012, 11:23

reading lots of philosophy especially bertrand russell... (also lots of history.. how religions existed.. reason behind them.. how priest class existed... how religions took different shapes during different periods etc.), finally examining life and combining all together and make an assumption.

The action... "to believe" itself is so flawed.. To believe or to acknowledge... there are thousands of religions in front of me to believe. Which one should I choose ? Do I really then believe if I need to decide ? Isn't it that I just try to make myself adopt to that religion ?

In order to believe you need thousand excuses for the points that contradict against the fact of life.. You need to ignore a lot. First as a believer you ignore %99 of other religions which also claim to hold truth. Also you ignore science and philosophy. Don't tell me belief and science or philosophy can work together. Only for hypocrites... Religions are dogmatic as hell where science and phil can not be.

Thirsty Crow

9th March 2012, 11:38

Yefim Zverev

9th March 2012, 11:42

I stick with my beliefs that priests, imams, rabbis, patriarchs, popes, etc. are nothing but criminals. They are a fucking mafia in and of themseleves. I always say "If Al Capone was smart he would have opened up a church."

So true... epic comment. I ll use this somewhere if you give me copyright

Bandito

9th March 2012, 12:21

Good question.

I don't know the answer, I just did. I remember thinking in a religious manner back in elementary school, but i rejected the whole idea before I had any political knowledge or any hip motivation to do so.

Dunno, probably just used my brain and found the whole thing fishy, than stupid, as far as I remember.

Искра

9th March 2012, 12:38

I grew up in a family were religion didn't matter at all, but wasn't actively discouraged from it. My parents decided that I was to attend religious education in primary school since they didn't want me to be left out (religious education, AKA catholic education, was and still is part of the school curriculum but isn't mandatory). So I went there and 'caused some trouble by being the inquisitive and curious child that I was.
This....

...but then there's a whole story behind that. So, I asked my nun a question: why should I pray to God for daily bread when my mother buys it? I was 8 years old. Fucking nun slaped me. Now, my mother told me that if I want to survive I have to make a revange, so that people don't fuck with me, and I'vv punched nun. Well... that was basicaly it... and I got funny nickname because of it.

It was fucked up.

Anyhow, when I think of my primary school I have to say that I was in "c class" which was organised for children of commies, Albanians, Serbs etc. So I understand why did my parents told me to go to religious class. It were the 90's in Croatia and I lived on frontline... I remember how fucked up whole school was thowards one girl from my class who was jehovah witness, so she didn't want to stand up when they played national anthem. Also, while other kids were having religious school the rest of us were locked in one empty room and we didn't have noone to take care of us. We were basicaly writing homeworks, listening to music...

btw. I was in love for whole primary school in that jehovah witness girl and her fucking parents with their shit religion have broke my heart...

l'EnfermÃ©

9th March 2012, 12:41

Eh, I just never bought it. I didn't buy Santa either. No one tried to force it on me either, my parents were Soviet-educated, so religion just never stuck on me. Then as I grew up and studied this stuff I came to despise it. Now, whenever someone asks me about religion I usually wave my hands and say "Fuck this stupid shit let's not talk about it".

Guy Incognito

9th March 2012, 13:01

Around the same time as Santa Claus. Just didn't make sense after that. That and my grandfather kept getting me in trouble in church, so I stopped taking it seriously. He and my parents helped raise me to be open minded.

"Watch this lush, watch him. He's gonna wipe that wine goblet out and suck on the napkin."- I miss him, he was a riot.

Thirsty Crow

9th March 2012, 13:01

...but then there's a whole story behind that. So, I asked my nun a question: why should I pray to God for daily bread when my mother buys it? I was 8 years old. Fucking nun slaped me. Now, my mother told me that if I want to survive I have to make a revange, so that people don't fuck with me, and I'vv punched nun. Well... that was basicaly it... and I got funny nickname because of it. Funny thing, my mother too used to tell me to get payback if someone fucks with me. Worked well in school, though I didn't track that asshole of a priest and punch him :laugh:

Anyhow, when I think of my primary school I have to say that I was in "c class" which was organised for children of commies, Albanians, Serbs etc. So I understand why did my parents told me to go to religious class. It were the 90's in Croatia and I lived on frontline... I remember how fucked up whole school was thowards one girl from my class who was jehovah witness, so she didn't want to stand up when they played national anthem. Also, while other kids were having religious school the rest of us were locked in one empty room and we didn't have noone to take care of us. We were basicaly writing homeworks, listening to music... It was a hell of a difference where exactly you lived back then. They didn't do any of that classification in my hometown, though the few kids who didn't attend religious education have gotten some shit for that. Hell, those kids were even free to do what they want (during "higher" years) when we had our indoctrination.

Искра

9th March 2012, 13:12

It was a hell of a difference where exactly you lived back then. They didn't do any of that classification in my hometown, though the few kids who didn't attend religious education have gotten some shit for that. Hell, those kids were even free to do what they want (during "higher" years) when we had our indoctrination.
This was not official classification. I've just realised that in 8th grade... In "A class" there were kids of war veterans and rich Croats and in "B class" there were kids of war veterans and poor Croats... etc.

Anyhow, I've decided maybe to contact that girl and I've started to read for the first time about Jehovah's Witnesses... and they are fucking lunatics. I've now realised why did her parents told me to fuck off... because they tought that I'm Satanists, because I'm non-Witness... Good thing that they only saw me when I was like 10-11... I was "normal" then. If they have saw me in my punk phase they would tought that I'm Satain himself (I used to wear make up and hair spray my hair hahaha)

daft punk

9th March 2012, 13:32

My parents took me to church every week. My dad is a lay preacher. However he was also interested in geology. We did a lot of hill walking, and I collected rocks and fossils. My parents were very conservative, but I was the opposite of all that, except the geology thing which I went to uni aged 17 to study. I never became an atheist because atheism makes no sense and is not Marxist. But I never really believed, and stopped going to church as soon as I could ie about the age of 16.

No, Marx was not an atheist. Yes that is correct.

Here is one article that explains

http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/atheism.htm

Why Marx was not an Atheist

Deicide

9th March 2012, 13:36

How does Atheism make no sense? Does Aunicornism and Aleprechaunism make no sense either?

Saviorself

9th March 2012, 15:07

I was born without a belief in any god(s). Learning about the various religions and the blatant bullshit they teach only solidified my position on the matter.

thriller

9th March 2012, 15:12

I went to a really liberal church as a kid. Then when I was about 10 my parents stopped taking me and said I could decide for myself. I got interested in Hinduism and was kind of Hindu for a while. Once I was about 16 or 17 I started to use more reason in interpreting the world and reality. After reading more on Hindu and Buddhist beliefs, I gave it up because it became self-defeating in my mind. I never got into Christianity, prolly because my mom went to Catholic school for 12 years, and after that, she didn't have many nice things to say about Jesus :D My dad is kinda just apathetic when it comes to religion.

thriller

9th March 2012, 15:15

My parents took me to church every week. My dad is a lay preacher. However he was also interested in geology. We did a lot of hill walking, and I collected rocks and fossils. My parents were very conservative, but I was the opposite of all that, except the geology thing which I went to uni aged 17 to study. I never became an atheist because atheism makes no sense and is not Marxist. But I never really believed, and stopped going to church as soon as I could ie about the age of 16.

Science is not reactionary, it's liberating.
How can atheism be Marxist or not Marxist? One is a religious belief and the other is a politcal belief. Kind of like saying you can't be a liberal Muslim or a conservative Hindu.

Deicide

9th March 2012, 15:24

Can atheism be really defined as a 'religious' belief? The Atheist position is the subtraction of religious belief, it's a lack of belief, it's precisely contradictory to religious belief. In order to be an atheist, there is no dogma you must subscribe to; the only relation between atheists is the lack of belief in a deity or deities.

zoot_allures

9th March 2012, 15:26

I've always been atheist. I haven't always identified that way (just because I wasn't always aware of the term), but I've never believed in any deities. What's more, I'm not agnostic about it. I'd say I know there's no God.

I was raised in a largely non-religious household - religion only really came up during Christmas, Easter, etc. My dad's an atheist and my mum's an atheist who sometimes calls herself Christian because she "believes in belief": she thinks religion is a positive thing and likes the community aspects of it. At my primary school I was exposed to religion quite a lot more, especially Christianity. They brought in Christian speakers, we had to sing Christian songs, Christian stories were occasionally taught as facts, etc. I never took any of it seriously, though - it didn't make any sense relative to my worldview, and when I asked for clarifications the responses muddied the waters further, so pretty shortly I just lost interest in trying to understand it and focused on more engaging topics.

It's maybe quite odd that my primary school was so religious (we were taught pretty much literal creationism for the first few years - if I remember correctly, we had about two lessons on evolution, and only in the final year), because I'm only 20, and I live in a fairly liberal, areligious area (and in the UK, where I thought schools were supposed to be secular). However, I found out a while ago that there's a small group of hardcore fundie types around here and many of them have a big influence in the school.

Anyway, I've never been remotely tempted towards any religion. Given my upbringing, the only candidate is Christianty, and it always struck me as ridiculous. When I was a kid I used to read books and watch tv programs about space, dinosaurs, ancient history, etc, and I didn't see Christianity as compatible with what I learnt from that stuff. The answers given by Christianity, the way it approaches problems, the kinds of requirements it places on people, etc, just didn't at all gel with my dispositions. That's still the case, and those points generalize to almost all religions.

I used to be pretty hardcore with my atheism, but I've mellowed a hell of lot as I've gotten older, and I pretty much have a kind of hippie outlook these days. In the past, I used to think that religion was a deeply negative force in society... but (1) I realized that I disagreed with atheists just as often as I did with religious people, (2) I've come to direct my complaints to the actions of real people rather than the abstract ideas they have, and (3) religion is really just too broad a topic to make such sweeping generalizations about.

I'm not a fan of the dogmatic/fundamentalist approaches - I'm not really a fan of those in anything. I'm also not a fan of people trying to spread hatred & intolerance, or trying to outlaw consensual activities like prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, drug use, etc etc, on the basis of their religious views. I don't believe that anybody has found the "One True Way" or the "absolute truth" or anything like that, since in my view there is no such thing. So with those qualifications in mind, I'm totally respectful of, and open-minded towards, pretty much all beliefs, including Christianity. It still seems like total nonsense to me, though.

Saviorself

9th March 2012, 15:44

Left Leanings

9th March 2012, 15:55

For some reason, my mum took me and my kid brother to church as she felt it was the right thing to do. Dad never went, so we were aware that there was a different way of doing things. My brother hated church from the word go, and had to be dragged there. I was the same, until I discovered the magic of the theatre of it all: hymns, candles, incense, taking tea with well-meaning old biddies in the church hall after the service was over.

For many years I wanted to be a vicar in the Church of England, and used to be an altar boy, both acolyte ( a candle-bearer) and later Master of Ceremonies. I did Religious Education right throughout my school days, and religion was one half of my degree at university.

When I got to be 16, I gave up my place on the altar, and stopped attending church regularly. Education, experience, humanity and common sense, made me question a lot of the utter shite that the religious spew out.

I discovered the National Secular Society, and am strongly of the opinion that our morality is social in origin. Collectivisation and group protection is the best way forward. We are social creatures, and therefore survive.

'God' is merely a Father Christmas figure for adults. People may as well have faith in the tooth fairy, sprites and goblins, as a deity haha :D

Guy Incognito

9th March 2012, 15:57

I have often heard the argument, and it is one that I agree with, that the term "atheist" shouldn't even exist because all it is, is lack of belief. There is no word to describe people who don't believe in astrology, unicorns, faeries, ghosts, bigfoot or any other fantastical creatures.

This I would agree with normally, but there are those who make it a point of pride to vocally be an Athiest. Should they be? I'm not vocally aunicornist, and don't know any who are... Those people (organized atheists) can be extremely vocal, and even evangelical in their non-faith, almost to the point of religious fervor. Which is where a lot of the confusion comes from.

Deicide

9th March 2012, 16:04

This I would agree with normally, but there are those who make it a point of pride to vocally be an Athiest. Should they be? I'm not vocally aunicornist, and don't know any who are... Those people (organized atheists) can be extremely vocal, and even evangelical in their non-faith, almost to the point of religious fervor. Which is where a lot of the confusion comes from.

This is a metaphorical description/similarity, in the same sense that football fans, Justin Bieber fans (or fans of any celebrity), communists (the M-L/Stalinist variety, etc) etc, etc, can act in similar fashion to religious fundamentalists. So, yes, I concede that, in some cases, there's a metaphorical relation between the two. So there's this abstract, metaphorical relation, but the relation ends there.

Saviorself

9th March 2012, 16:11

Being an outspoken atheist is a reaction to all the people who are outspoken theists. It is a declaration that we exist in large numbers and will no longer put up with oppression from the religious the masses. We do not believe in their imaginary sky-daddy and we don't like being held to the standards that those who do believe in the aforementioned imaginary sky-daddy are expected to uphold. Religious belief has no business dictating government policy and it has no business being in the public sector. Keep your god(s) to yourself or don't be surprised when I vehemently mock you at every term. In that last sentence, "your" and "you" were used in the general sense and I was not speaking directly to the poster above me in that respect.

Revolution starts with U

9th March 2012, 17:27

I was raised in a Catholic school, by a Catholic family, in a Catholic church. My grandparents, the ones spearheading the whole religion thing, were self righteous hypocrites. And I liked to read, question, and understand things. End of story.

Part 2; I'm no longer an "atheist" per se. As I read more I came to understand that God can neither be proved nor disproved because the term itself is nonsense (ty Rosa!). That, tho God is a crutch some people need, God is entirely irrelevant to class struggle and my happiness. So now I'm a noncognitibist. I have no problems using the word, or even discussing the space wizard's supposed nature. But I have no belief, as such.

My beliefs in short: all that has ever existed, in any meaningful way, is me right now. The past is a memory, physically non existent now, the future a possibility. I, the concept, is an illusion designed for self preservation, that tricks my mind and disconnects me from seeing I'm just a cog in a wheel. All I have ever done, and ever could do is change my right now. So it is in my interests to grab hold of this change and steer it towards betterment. And in do doing I have changed the world. The revolution starts with me.

Ostrinski

9th March 2012, 17:34

Born one. I was raised in a secular home, went to a public school, had nothing post-moderately religious family. Therefore religion was always foreign to me. I never hated religion or felt the need to politicize my atheist views, but I suppose this is because religion was never forced on me in the first place.

Ostrinski

9th March 2012, 17:35

Seems as though there are large numbers of catholic turned atheists.

Decommissioner

9th March 2012, 17:48

I never believed to begin with. As a child I always knew in the back of my head it was all fake and that people weren't sincere when they said they believed in god.

My family is technically religious, though growing up they never talked about it and we rarely went to church. I also pieced together at a very young age that to be proactively religious in my area usually meant you were a conservative, and coming from a pretty liberal family I just learned to not want to be anything like that.

Landsharks eat metal

9th March 2012, 17:54

I was raised Christian (by a Catholic and an ex-Mormon turned Methodist), went to a Christian preschool, asked Jesus into my heart when I was 4 years old, had to go to church every Sunday because my mom was the accompanist and a Sunday school teacher, went to college, stopped going to church, got depressed and had to come home, now everyone is convinced I just need to put my faith in God and things will get better. Now I have to go to church every Sunday, but I think my mother has figured out I don't really believe any more. I figured out that if the God I was told about for 18 years actually exists, he's an asshole and I want nothing to do with him, so I choose to believe there is no God rather than one who makes people suffer for His own personal satisfaction.

9th March 2012, 17:54

I actually cant even remember. All I remember is that it was when I was like nine years old.

Decommissioner

9th March 2012, 18:23

This I would agree with normally, but there are those who make it a point of pride to vocally be an Athiest. Should they be? I'm not vocally aunicornist, and don't know any who are... Those people (organized atheists) can be extremely vocal, and even evangelical in their non-faith, almost to the point of religious fervor. Which is where a lot of the confusion comes from.

But this still doesn't make atheism religious. This is more of a political stance in reaction to the fact that belief in god is status quo and affects public decisions. To be an atheist implies nothing more than lack of belief. That's why you can have leftist atheists, rightist atheists, religiously tolerant atheists and intolerant atheists. It always floors me when people presumptuously start debating atheists on things like evolution and and the big bang theory, as if to be atheist immediately means you have to believe in those things, or anything for that matter.

TheGodlessUtopian

9th March 2012, 18:47

I don't think I became one, rather, I never believed and thought that the concept of God was an absurd concept to take literally as a way of life.I always preferred proof and hard facts, not mysticism about the origin of life.

hatzel

9th March 2012, 18:52

Born into a wholly irreligious family and as such never had to 'become' an atheist. Nor, in fact, did an 'atheist' become of me...

daft punk

9th March 2012, 18:56

How does Atheism make no sense? Does Aunicornism and Aleprechaunism make no sense either?

See the above link or this one

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/t.htm#atheism

"Marx rejected Feuerbach’s atheism however. “The criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism” [Introduction to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm)]. Religion (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/r/e.htm#religion) was a belief which was central to how billions of people had lived throughout history. To prove simply that it was wrong and that it was a fraud, missed the whole point, and in fact, could only replace religion with just another unprovable, irrational belief."

It's a pretty complex subject and I haven't studied it in detail. Marx did say he didn't like the label atheist in a letter:

"Finally, I desired that, if there is to be talk about philosophy, there should be less trifling with the label “atheism” (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people. Voilà tout."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1842/letters/42_11_30.htm

and here

"Since the real existence of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man – a question which implies the admission of the unreality of nature and of man – has become impossible in practice. Atheism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/t.htm#atheism), as the denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. It proceeds from the theoretically and practically sensuous consciousness of man and of nature as the essence."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

Pretty fuckin' hard to read, Karl!

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2380454#post2380454)
"My parents took me to church every week. My dad is a lay preacher. However he was also interested in geology. We did a lot of hill walking, and I collected rocks and fossils. My parents were very conservative, but I was the opposite of all that, except the geology thing which I went to uni aged 17 to study. I never became an atheist because atheism makes no sense and is not Marxist. But I never really believed, and stopped going to church as soon as I could ie about the age of 16. "

Science is not reactionary, it's liberating.
How can atheism be Marxist or not Marxist? One is a religious belief and the other is a politcal belief. Kind of like saying you can't be a liberal Muslim or a conservative Hindu.

I didn't say science is reactionary. Far from it. Dunno where you got that from.

As from atheism, all I am saying is the popular conception is that Marx was atheist, but he actually rejected the title, as insufficient. I would not like to try to analyse his views in depth because they are hard to understand and have been debated for over 100 years already.

His view was far more than simply wanting to prove there is no god.

Guy Incognito

9th March 2012, 19:51

But this still doesn't make atheism religious. This is more of a political stance in reaction to the fact that belief in god is status quo and affects public decisions. To be an atheist implies nothing more than lack of belief. That's why you can have leftist atheists, rightist atheists, religiously tolerant atheists and intolerant atheists. It always floors me when people presumptuously start debating atheists on things like evolution and and the big bang theory, as if to be atheist immediately means you have to believe in those things, or anything for that matter.

Don't misunderstand, I completely agree with you. My issue is not with atheism (I am an atheist). I'm referring to people who are loudly broadcasting it, and using it to push atheism as if it were some kind of religion on others (Richard Dawkins & his followers). Not only do the deride and mock proclaimed theists, but have declared anyone who is open minded, such as self proclaimed agnostics to be morons for not picking sides (again, Dawkins & co.). This in my eyes makes them just as bad as the evangelical theists. Secularism is winning the war (in the west) anyway, and this crap is NOT helping. Frankly, I think it just gives the theists an excuse to tighten their grip.

smellincoffee

10th March 2012, 04:56

I grew up in a cultish sect of Christianity known as Oneness Pentecostalism. For me, people speaking in tongues and running into walls was a normal occurrence, as were claims of miracles happening. This sect was highly emotionalistic, so I (something of a stoic) always experienced a disconnect between what I believed and what I practiced. I embraced the dogma I'd grown up in, but it never connected to my life. Being socially isolated, I tended to rely on the church and its promises for my happiness. Thus, I spent adolesence angry and depressed, but relentlessly hiding this because acknowledging it was "just playing into the Devil's hand." That changed when I started working in a factory.

Though I was twenty when I started working there, I was still very much a kid. Working in the factory forced me to grow up. For the first time I was under the authority of adults who didn't give a damn about me -- all other authority figures in my life, like my parents and teachers, had, or at least were supposed to. I learned I had to watch out for myself, and I learned that the boss wasn't my friend. I didn't need to read Marx to realize workers were getting the short end of the stick. Having money for the first time, and learning to stand on my own feet made me more assertive. I started questioning authority more, and the money made it possible for me to get out from under my parents' thumb. By this point the promises of Pentecostalism had proven empty, and the constant threat of Hell had made me callous. So at some point in late 2005, I said, "Fuck this". I said to myself I didn't need a god and a religion that treats people worse than they treat themselves.

In early 2006, I found a forum for ex-Pentecostals and discovered two terms that directed the future course of my thinking: Freethought and humanism. I embraced freethought as a principle and realized humanism was more in line with my core values. I soon realized that the only reason I'd ever believed in Pentecostalism was because I'd been raised in it, and at that moment it lost all power and credibility with me. It's like I'd discovered that the imposing fortress of religion was just a flimsy facade, that I'd walked around back of it and exposed it for just a set piece.

In March 2006, while running the soundroom at church -- I was still having to go -- I thought to myself, "What if there is no god?". What if the entire concept was just made up, and I'd believed in it for the same reason I'd believed in Christianity? And just like that, at the mere moment of conception, the god idea came tumbling down.

I can only credit my training in history and my refusal to let emotions run my life.

Zav

10th March 2012, 05:52

I used to be Christian, but after I spent a month reading the Bible and praying to God to make me straight, I decided he probably didn't exist. I was an Atheist by default until I discovered Wicca. I explored that for a couple years but my interest waned when I started questioning magick and the fierce gender binary the religion embodied. I became an Ásatrúar after that, but never really believed in the various deities as literal beings or the mythologies as history. I looked into Druidry once, and had several flirtations with Satanism (the LaVeyan and Setian sorts), but eventually decided it was too individualistic and short-sighted. Today I still follow Ásatrú as a philosophy, and am a firm Atheist.

A Revolutionary Tool

10th March 2012, 06:22

I read all the books except the Bible in my house and wanted to read more books. Thought I might as well read the book my faith was supposed to be based on and I was bored. Everything I read just left me going :rolleyes: but I still believed kind of, just rationalized it by saying it was a metaphor or something like that. Then I got to parts that made me go :confused: :cursing:(All of those laws, so fucking backwards) and I said fuck that, my skepticism was after that downright disbelief. Still read the rest of it though.

MustCrushCapitalism

10th March 2012, 06:40

I just kind of remember, from a very young age, not really believing in these kinds of things. I thought of "god" as some kind of fairy tale like the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

I was pretty intelligent from a young age, I'd like to think...

CommunityBeliever

10th March 2012, 10:44

Don't misunderstand, I completely agree with you. My issue is not with atheism (I am an atheist). I'm referring to people who are loudly broadcasting it, and using it to push atheism as if it were some kind of religion on others (Richard Dawkins & his followers). Not only do the deride and mock proclaimed theists, but have declared anyone who is open minded, such as self proclaimed agnostics to be morons for not picking sides (again, Dawkins & co.).

The are several things wrong with that statement. First of all in a previous thread you mentioned the "newfound religion of science" and now you are saying that we scientists "push atheism as if it were some kind of religion." Science is not a new thing, it outdates superstition. Superstitions were originally created to explain phenomena that primitive scientists couldn't, and then these superstitions were transformed into organised religions by class society.

As such, the scientific process isn't a new thing, the only thing that is new is that scientific advancements like On the Origin of Species (1859) have improved science to the point that superstitions are a completely obsolete means of explaining phenomena. The god concept no longer has any explanative power; rather, the existence of god requires such a significant explanation in itself that god most certainly doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, there are billions of people who still cling to primitive superstitions despite their complete obsolescence. These superstitions are dangerous and they can lead to anti-scientific effects, for example, superstitious people have actively worked to effect our education system with such nonsense as creationism and intelligent design. As such, it is absolutely necessary to have people like Richard Dawkins who are "loudly broudcasting" the fact that superstitions are completely unnecessary in light of all of the scientific discoveries of the past two centuries.

Those of us in the "Richard Dawkins & co" group are completely open minded. We are open minded to the idea that gods exist, for example, Richard Dawkins said that he is a 6.9 on a scale of 1 to 7 of atheism, so he admitted that he is weakly agnostic. However, we estimate that there is at most a 0.00001% certainty that god exists. Similarly, we are open minded to the idea that unicorns, the flying tea pot, and the flying spaghetti monster exist, but we estimate that there is no more then a 0.01% chance that they exist.

thriller

10th March 2012, 16:18

My parents were very conservative, but I was the opposite of all that, except the geology thing which I went to uni aged 17 to study.

O_o? You were the complete opposite of your parents conservative ideas, EXCEPT geology. So geology is conservative?

Bostana

10th March 2012, 16:25

I honestly don't think there should be any type of religion.

I mean I am more of an agnostic Atheist but I do not support the way organized Atheists react to everything that is religious.
I mean if an Atheist put's up a billboard that says God is a myth, it's okay. But when a Christian puts up a nativity scene it's evil and must be destroyed.

Again I only see hypocrisy in such Atheist organizations

zoot_allures

10th March 2012, 16:47

superstitious people have actively worked to effect our education system with such nonsense as creationism and intelligent design.
Re the evolution/creationism debate: I strongly agree with the idea of teaching lots of viewpoints; what bothers me is that creationists are pushing for creationism to be taught as part of science. If an idea is nearly unanimously rejected by the scientific community, it's ridiculous for pupils to learn about it in the science classroom. They can learn about it elsewhere - say, in a 'religion' course, or in an 'alternative theories' course, or something. If a school has enough kids who want to learn about creationism and the right staff to teach it, I say go ahead.

I oppose compulsory education. In my view, nobody should be forced to learn about mainstream science, so to me it's understandable that some people have grievances about the status of science in the current education system. If somebody's only interested in learning fringe theories like creationism, that's absolutely fine with me. What's not fine with me is students being deeply misinformed about the topics they've chosen (or, as the case may be, unfortunately, been forced) to learn, and that's what would happen if we taught creationism as science. It'd be like teaching quantum physics as part of Jewish theology.

I sympathize with creationists, but I wish they'd start directing their attacks towards the more fundamental assumptions on which our education system is built, rather than spread absurd misrepresentations of science.

Maybe someday they'll have a positive role. Right now they seem like a bunch of lunatics.

However, we estimate that there is at most a 0.00001% certainty that god exists. Similarly, we are open minded to the idea that unicorns, the flying tea pot, and the flying spaghetti monster exist, but we estimate that there is no more then a 0.01% chance that they exist.
Haha - how did you get those numbers? Also, I doubt everybody in the "Richard Dawkins & co" crowd would agree with you there.

hatzel

10th March 2012, 20:45

It'd be like teaching quantum physics as part of Jewish theology.

Waaaaay ahead of you (http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/kabbalah-worldwide/what-the-bleep) :lol:

CommunityBeliever

10th March 2012, 23:41

I oppose compulsory education. In my view, nobody should be forced to learn about mainstream science, so to me it's understandable that some people have grievances about the status of science in the current education system.

I disagree with this point. I support compulsory education up to adolescence. I think in middle school everyone should learn critical thinking, the scientific method, and basic scientific facts such as evolution by natural selection, the fact that all matter in the universe is reducible to a few elements in the periodic table, that there are eight planets in our solar system, etc.

After graduating from middle school, rather then going to high school, students will be given complete autonomy and they will be encouraged to explore their creativity. We will have education tools far more advanced then anything we have today in order to aid in this process.

If somebody's only interested in learning fringe theories like creationism, that's absolutely fine with me. What's not fine with me is students being deeply misinformed about the topics they've chosen (or, as the case may be, unfortunately, been forced) to learn, and that's what would happen if we taught creationism as science.

I agree that we should teach ideas such as creationism and intelligent design but as myths rather then science. We could also teach students about fiction books like Harry Potter and the bible.

Haha - how did you get those numbers? The actual probability that a god exists is much lower then 0.00001%. In fact, it is so low it would require the use of scientific notation to express it here, so out of convenience I just put at most 0.00001% to demonstrate how improbable god is. The reason that god is so improbable is that god contradicts the scientific principles of evolution.

zoot_allures

11th March 2012, 00:04

The actual probability that a god exists is much lower then 0.00001%. In fact, it is so low it would require the use of scientific notation to express it here, so out of convenience I just put at most 0.00001% to demonstrate how improbable god is. The reason that god is so improbable is that god contradicts the scientific principles of evolution.
I'd like to know what the actual probabilities are in your view (I know that message boards have limitations, but it's not too difficult to express scientific notation: you can use "^" rather than the superscript, e.g. "4.32 x 10^-9"), but what really interests me is how you arrived at those numbers. You haven't explained that yet. It's one thing to say "it seems to me that unicorns, FSM, Russell's teapot, etc, are improbable, and god is more improbable", but you've assigned very specific probabilities, and I'd like to know where you got those from.

In what way does god "contradict the scientific principles of evolution"?

marl

11th March 2012, 00:05

I went to a Jewish preschool (JCC) and someone, at some point, asked me what religion I was. I thought about it for a minute and said "I don't believe in God" - and it begun.

bcbm

11th March 2012, 00:50

was raised christian thought about and was basically agnostic for most of my teens then went all the way

11th March 2012, 03:32

I went to a Jewish preschool (JCC) and someone, at some point, asked me what religion I was. I thought about it for a minute and said "I don't believe in God" - and it begun.

I remember once when I was eight or nine years old, I was talking to a friend in class, and I don't remember the specifics of our conversation, but I said "oh my god" about something, and some little christian kid overheard me and proceeded to scold me for using gods name in vain, to which I responded, "I'm Jewish, we don't believe in god". :lol:

Revolution starts with U

11th March 2012, 21:32

Interestingly enough, a minister once told me "God damnit" is not taking the name in vain, because you're using it for a purpose. "Omg" is tho, because you're just saying it for saying it.

Zukunftsmusik

11th March 2012, 21:47

Interestingly enough, a minister once told me "God damnit" is not taking the name in vain, because you're using it for a purpose. "Omg" is tho, because you're just saying it for saying it.

haha, what the fuck

I was religious - or maybe I just wanted to be? - when I was a child. I remember praying in church and that I really meant it. But my family never brought me up in this or that fashion, and eventually when I reached 10 or something I started believing in elves (that was never really serious though). I think I became more or less atheist somewhere between 10 and 13.

Revolution starts with U

11th March 2012, 23:29

haha, what the fuck

I was religious - or maybe I just wanted to be? - when I was a child. I remember praying in church and that I really meant it. But my family never brought me up in this or that fashion, and eventually when I reached 10 or something I started believing in elves (that was never really serious though). I think I became more or less atheist somewhere between 10 and 13.

I guess the thing is that you're asking God to do something. Whereas in omega you're just saying God for no reason, and you're saying "my" God.

...idol, not a believer so I couldn't tell you

Althusser

11th March 2012, 23:49

I started thinking about it.

Pretty Flaco

11th March 2012, 23:53

Some annoying as fuck atheist kid would always rant about religion and one day some of the shit he said made sense to me. I don't say that I'm an atheist, mostly because it can set people off, I usually just say I don't give a fuck.

Franz Fanonipants

12th March 2012, 03:31

i did a lot of drugs and realized that divine breath animates my worthless bones

shit wait

Vyacheslav Brolotov

12th March 2012, 04:02

I became an atheist at age 11, when I lost my vision. I lost my vision because I got a ptosis repair. They put slings, or whatever you call them, into my eyelids to keep them from drooping. The doctor made a mistake, so I got a corneal infection and started to rapidly lose my vision. My parents constantly told me that God was going to fix my eyes, but He never did. All I did was lay on a bed in my parents' dark room for 2 whole months, slowly and painfully losing my eyesight. God never came to the rescue and He never fully improved my eyes, even though I got 4 more surgeries to reverse the ptosis repair and prevent further corneal damage. The only reason I am able to write all this now is because of continual painful surgeries and invasive treatments. Do you know how hard school is for me? Apparently, God is too amazing and important to care for one of His own creations. So, after I noticed that my prayers were not doing anything, I spit on the idea of God and became a rebelious materialist. My materialism led me to d'Holbach and eventually Marx and Lenin. That is how I freed myself from the chains of religion. It was hard and painful, but worth it.

Kitty_Paine

12th March 2012, 04:14

dodger

12th March 2012, 08:37

The amount of elitism and sense of superiority I see in some of these posts is a little disturbing... at least to me. And I know, "but the theists think they're better than us and act all elitist too!" I know, I know children, calm down... :p

But, I honestly don't recall fully how I became atheist... :rolleyes:

What is clear from these posts is that there are many roads to Atheism. Society here there is very little scope for escaping religion. Not for a child.Catholics have taken hold of schools and colleges with a firm grip. My daughter brought up in a strongly protestant environment expressed to me doubts about God et al. I saw the signs....Suffocating. No escape. Home ...college even the local Mall has sermons blasting out. I try to be good humoured about it, but it is not my culture to suffer in total silence. I do not think anything I may have said impacted on her, beyond jokes and teasing about relatives. Good deal of hypocrisy to aim my barbs, but basically good people, they in turn pity me.

I think BOREDOM was the killer punch. Overdosed, if you like. It would only add to her boredom if I was to give lectures. I said signs..yes...on Sundays we go to Wifey's sister, they worship in the house. SING THEIR HEARTS OUT, long sermons from older relatives. Me I sit outside in Nippa hut and drink my coffee. Belly rumbling I went to look through the small window to see how they were progressing. Caught sight of the girl fanning herself , head going to one side, with a vacant look. Her uncles, all strong drinkers, were smacking lips and shifting in their seats. She was fighting a brave but hopeless battle, the 'Spanish'fan was now on turbo. The eyelids drooping. Disgusting, yuck!! She started to dribble. Not an attractive look. Must have been 15yrs ago I last saw her like that.

She slipped mercifully into semi-coma. A release.:sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep
:crying::crying::crying::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Guy Incognito

12th March 2012, 19:31

The are several things wrong with that statement. First of all in a previous thread you mentioned the "newfound religion of science" and now you are saying that we scientists "push atheism as if it were some kind of religion." Science is not a new thing, it outdates superstition. Superstitions were originally created to explain phenomena that primitive scientists couldn't, and then these superstitions were transformed into organised religions by class society.

When I say "newfound religion of science" it's meant to mock those who act as if current soft-science (quantum physics and the like) is the only explaination possible for many mysteries of the world, and that any other possibility is to be attacked. It is not me mocking actual scientists*. I fully support scientific discovery and the scientific method. However, I do not demand everything be pre-proven by the scientific method before discussing even vague possibilities.

*Carl Sagan & Stephen Hawking are brilliant, Richard Dawkins is a self-important douchebag with a cult-like following of evangelical anti-theists.

As such, the scientific process isn't a new thing, the only thing that is new is that scientific advancements like On the Origin of Species (1859) have improved science to the point that superstitions are a completely obsolete means of explaining phenomena. The god concept no longer has any explanative power; rather, the existence of god requires such a significant explanation in itself that god most certainly doesn't exist.

The judeo-christian god in all probability does not exist. I certainly don't believe in it, but I refuse to attack those who do out of an evangelical desire to force my beliefs on others.

Unfortunately, there are billions of people who still cling to primitive superstitions despite their complete obsolescence. These superstitions are dangerous and they can lead to anti-scientific effects, for example, superstitious people have actively worked to effect our education system with such nonsense as creationism and intelligent design. As such, it is absolutely necessary to have people like Richard Dawkins who are "loudly broudcasting" the fact that superstitions are completely unnecessary in light of all of the scientific discoveries of the past two centuries.

Obselete to whom? For you it would seem the case, but for many proletariat in the world, it is the only hope they cling to. The world as it is, is a terrible and cold place, where no help is coming. Unless you can give them socialism NOW, taking away what comforting beliefs they have would only make them suicidal (look at chinese factory workers...). Science does not currently relieve the suffering of the masses, or give them hope. Instead, it's been bastardized by the Bourgeoisie to increase the suffering of the proletariat by the elimination of actual medical research (symptom only research for guaranteed future profits) and even worse, Patented genetics and seeds built with terminator genes, so that Monsanto and those like it can strangle the world's food supply. The scientific community needs to break free from their corporate masters before attempting to appear as a replacement for religion.

As to the degradation of the education system, I completely agree. Those organizations who do so, should be stopped, their work debunked (easy) and ignored by society at large (they are). And U.S. Society already does this. Hell, the pansy liberals ALL fight this. But is this the aim of Dawkins & co.? No. Instead, you have the anti-theists attacking the proletariats who believe. Mocking, sneering and doing everything in their power to belittle the very people who WE (as socialists) should be fighting for. So no, we don't need Dawkins setting the U.S. against atheists as a whole (because he paints the average non-believer as an anti-theist fanatic, who's sole purpose is to destroy their beliefs), because our society is coming around anyway.

Those of us in the "Richard Dawkins & co" group are completely open minded. We are open minded to the idea that gods exist, for example, Richard Dawkins said that he is a 6.9 on a scale of 1 to 7 of atheism, so he admitted that he is weakly agnostic. However, we estimate that there is at most a 0.00001% certainty that god exists. Similarly, we are open minded to the idea that unicorns, the flying tea pot, and the flying spaghetti monster exist, but we estimate that there is no more then a 0.01% chance that they exist.

Equating any sort of theory, or even hypothetical possibility of ANYTHING regarding the creation of the universe that doesn't coincide with CURRENT scientific consensus (just math folks, no actual physical data) with "faries in the garden" is nothing more than shamelessly derisive. It sure as hell isn't "Open minded". He even goes so far as to call anyone who is agnostic by principle, as pathetic, week kneed and reedy. Or, in other words, anyone who is open minded.

TLDR version: Fuck Richard Dawkins, he's making things worse for normal atheists.

Pretty Flaco

12th March 2012, 21:00

"Militant" atheists annoy the fuck out of me.

hatzel

12th March 2012, 21:00

The amount of elitism and sense of superiority I see in some of these posts is a little disturbing... at least to me. And I know, "but the theists think they're better than us and act all elitist too!" I know, I know children, calm down... :p

Well yeeeah but the difference is that when the theists do it they're just being honest oooh BURRRRRNNN :lol:

But seriously you're right. Though the atheists always like to play the 'b-b-b-but they think they're better than us!' and 'w-w-w-well they never stop preaching at us!' cards, I can only assume that's either a subjectively-accentuated feeling of victimisation or we live in very different worlds. I've only ever had two people come knocking on my door to tell me the Good News, and neither stuck around any longer than was necessary to apologise for disturbing me once it was clear I was far from a suitable target...whilst I'm certainly familiar with the idea of catching sight of atheists out of the corner of my eye, dashing across pavements like a leopard chasing a gazelle, so that they can thrust their literature in my peyot-framed face. And it's always something crappy like 'evolution is real!!!' to which I'm just '...no fucking shit! I mean I did go to school you know, you condescending little prick.' Not to mention those who casually drop bombs like 'but...you went to university...' or 'I'm actually quite surprised; I didn't think you'd like contemporary art' :confused:

The point here being that one is inevitably biased (and I'm not claiming to be any different) inasmuch as the 'group' to which one belongs not only influences one's opinion of those within said group and in opposing groups - 'they (who are not we) are terribly annoying, whilst we (who are not they) certainly aren't' - and shapes how one interprets their actions, but also determines whether or not one is even 'subject' to said actions, and - if so - how exactly one will experience them, what there is to experience and what meaning is ascribed to this experience...

CommunityBeliever

13th March 2012, 11:06

Obselete to whom? For you it would seem the case, but for many proletariat in the world, it is the only hope they cling to. The world as it is, is a terrible and cold place, where no help is coming. Unless you can give them socialism NOW, taking away what comforting beliefs they have would only make them suicidal (look at chinese factory workers...).

I think it is advantageous to stop speculating about what might happen after death and start focusing on making the real world a better place through socialist construction.

Instead, it's been bastardized by the Bourgeoisie to increase the suffering of the proletariat by the elimination of actual medical research (symptom only research for guaranteed future profits) and even worse, Patented genetics and seeds built with terminator genes, so that Monsanto and those like it can strangle the world's food supply. The scientific community needs to break free from their corporate masters before attempting to appear as a replacement for religion.

Science and mathematics are not dependent upon productive conditions or the whims of the ruling class. On the other hand, technology is direct result of the mode of production which is why there are destructive technologies like those which are being pushed by Monsanto.

Computer technology is also considerably effected by our productive conditions, which is why I mentioned in my rebel against pseudo-science post that in modern society "computer science" isn't really science at all. Rather, computer science is the study of how to work with the poorly designed computer architectures available in the current global capitalist epoch.

Equating any sort of theory, or even hypothetical possibility of ANYTHING regarding the creation of the universe that doesn't coincide with CURRENT scientific consensus (just math folks, no actual physical data) with "faries in the garden" is nothing more than shamelessly derisive.

Where does Richard Dawkins say that any theory that goes aganist the mainstream scientific viewpoint is comparable to the claim that faires exist? I don't think Dawkins ever said that, in fact I recall him mentioning on more then one occasion the story of an individual who had believed something for decades and then when the scientific community proved that they were wrong he readily admitted it. That is an example of the scientific viewpoint, we scientists are open to all opposing opinions and we will be the first to admit it if we are wrong.

Guy Incognito

13th March 2012, 13:59

I think it is advantageous to stop speculating about what might happen after death and start focusing on making the real world a better place through socialist construction

I think we have plenty of time to do both. Surely, with all the time we spend screwing around arguing we could be doing either.

Science and mathematics are not dependent upon productive conditions or the whims of the ruling class. On the other hand, technology is direct result of the mode of production which is why there are destructive technologies like those which are being pushed by Monsanto.

Are you really saying that genetic research (both medical and botanical) is not science, but technology? It is being repurposed. Medical research that leads to cures to diseases is buried by the corporations who own the scientists.

Computer technology is also considerably effected by our productive conditions, which is why I mentioned in my rebel against pseudo-science post that in modern society "computer science" isn't really science at all. Rather, computer science is the study of how to work with the poorly designed computer architectures available in the current global capitalist epoch.

I agree.

Where does Richard Dawkins say that any theory that goes aganist the mainstream scientific viewpoint is comparable to the claim that faires exist? I don't think Dawkins ever said that, in fact I recall him mentioning on more then one occasion the story of an individual who had believed something for decades and then when the scientific community proved that they were wrong he readily admitted it. That is an example of the scientific viewpoint, we scientists are open to all opposing opinions and we will be the first to admit it if we are wrong.

He does not specify "mainstream", in his self-important books, but he may as well. It's the tone. As for the"faries in the garden" statement, it was in his "There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?" statement. It was meant to be obnoxious.

Brosip Tito

13th March 2012, 14:07

Well, long story short, I spent most of my childhood going to pentecostal Sunday school/church. Stopped going shortly before my parents divorced. Mother used to go to church, father never went.

Still believed in god and defended my beliefs, but didn't go to church or anything. Around 14-16 I found out my brother and some of my friends were "agnostic". I wasn't sure about it, and I was tempted to call myself agnostic to seem cooler, but didn't.

At 16ish I kinds just accepted agnosticism, but for actual reasons besides seeming cool. I was in serious question of belief, and I didn't hold the belief there was no god, but nor did I believe there was one, I "didn't know".

Around 18 after I just decided to call myself an atheist, I ddon't believe in god, but still assert that we can't know.

Basically it was a withering away of my beliefs as a pentecostal christian over a few years. Blame it on the liberal -> progressive -> socialist -> Marxist brainwashing of my late teens.

Devrim

13th March 2012, 14:11

I never believed. Neither did my parents.

Devrim

zoot_allures

14th March 2012, 00:30

CommunityBeliever, did you catch my last reply to you? The one that starts "I'd like to know what the actual probabilities are in your view..." Cool if you don't want to talk about it anymore, but I'm genuinely interested in your response. Those questions weren't rhetorical.

Ele'ill

14th March 2012, 02:47

Those are spam posts Comrade Commistar. Don't do that please (unless you add sufficient padding to the posts to make an actual post that adds to the punch line because it's still on topic and other users can relate to it.)

Ele'ill

14th March 2012, 02:50

I never suddenly became an atheist. I'm not sure that I am an atheist.

Vyacheslav Brolotov

14th March 2012, 03:00

MotherCossack

14th March 2012, 03:48

it just became obvious that god was just wishful thinking and no more believable than fairies, goblins and for that matter mount olympus and the happy family of greek gods.
none of it makes sense, no evidence of any act of god exists and anyway if there was a god who created us ... s/he would have to be considered a pretty reckless and clumsy idiot and one who has clearly no sense of responsibility so has long since departed to seek fun elsewhere.

Franz Fanonipants

14th March 2012, 15:55

i feel the same way about method and reason.

NGNM85

14th March 2012, 23:08

There was no; 'Eureka!' moment for me. It was a gradual process. I hardly even noticed it. I'd been slowly drifting away from Roman Catholicism. I briefly flirted with New Age nonsense, then that petered out. One day it just kind of dawned on me. I realized I didn't believe, anymore. The more I tried to look at the beliefs I'd been raised with, critically, the more absurd they appeared. Then I started reading Emma Goldman, and that was it.

NGNM85

14th March 2012, 23:10

i feel the same way about method and reason.

Then you should stop using electricity, medicine, etc. You should, also, absolutely, abandon Socialism.

The Machine

15th March 2012, 03:17

I guess this is cliche but its true, I stopped believing in God around the same time I found out that Santa and the tooth fairy werent real.

Elysian

15th March 2012, 03:23

Thanks to revleft (and Buddhism, lol), I became an agnostic.

God is just a figment of our imagination, a projection of fears and nothing more. If we never had to experience sorrow or fear, if life were totally perfect without a single problem, then would these so-called religious ppl ever step inside a church/mosque or temple? Of course not, god exists as long as our fears and desires do. Once we become free and happy, religion would become redundant.

Besides, the so-called happiness that god gives is nothing compared to the happiness that comes from LSD.

Revolution starts with U

15th March 2012, 04:41

Besides, the so-called happiness that god gives is nothing compared to the happiness that comes from LSD.

The real question is if there's a difference.

Franz Fanonipants

15th March 2012, 22:41

Then you should stop using electricity, medicine, etc. You should, also, absolutely, abandon Socialism.

lol no bro im a chicano i live a negotiated existence i don't have white privilege to have it all ways or none.

NGNM85

16th March 2012, 00:09

Besides, the so-called happiness that god gives is nothing compared to the happiness that comes from LSD.

Word.

Franz Fanonipants

16th March 2012, 04:23

Word.

that would explain why you think being a leftist is actually a competition about being the better milquetoast democrat you fucking liberal

bcbm

18th March 2012, 06:40

Besides, the so-called happiness that god gives is nothing compared to the happiness that comes from LSD.

not to mention the fear.

but really i was probably happier when i believed an omnipotent sky warlord had my back then my current condition as a drug addled insignificant product of chance on a backwater planet in an infinitely large and complex universe.

Franz Fanonipants

18th March 2012, 19:53

not to mention the fear.

but really i was probably happier when i believed an omnipotent sky warlord had my back then my current condition as a drug addled insignificant product of chance on a backwater planet in an infinitely large and complex universe.

sky warlord owns bro

bcbm

20th March 2012, 07:47

at genocide:(

∞

20th March 2012, 08:52

I was 7.
I was thinking "What the fuck is this god shit? I don't see him."
My family was like "Tum khudda ko nai manthe, Qaffir!"
I told them to disown me if they were going to be assholes to me.
Everything is dandy.

Franz Fanonipants

20th March 2012, 15:22

at genocide:(

i mean basically ungodly types so

Franz Fanonipants

20th March 2012, 15:52

I was 7.
I was thinking "What the fuck is this god shit? I don't see him."

yeah thats how i felt about capitalism. since i can't see it welp

thriller

20th March 2012, 20:38

I've been talking about this thread with friends lately (and atheism in general) and the more I discuss my non-belief the more liberated I feel. I know people who think that when they get depressed, it's god being mad at them. And when they have medical problems, it's their god/spirit thingy wanting them to cleanse or something. I also knew people who were CERTAIN that jesus would come back before they died and that the world would end. I just look at all of them and think "Fuck, it's so great being able to explain shit and know I have complete autonomy over myself." Basically the more 'atheist' I seem to become, the happier and more enthusiastic about life I am.

Brosa Luxemburg

20th March 2012, 20:42

Personally, I read the bible and several other religious texts. I was brought up in quite the orthodox catholic family too. So, ''becoming'' an atheist was a natural conclusion ;)

Forced to read the bible by fundamentalist christian parents. I remember my dad calling me and my brothers into the living room to tell us we were living in the "end times" because the show Family Guy made a harmless joke about Jesus and Christianity. My dad said the Bible (that horrible, oppressive book) said that the end times would be present when the "savior" was made fun of. So, obviously, I would throw this complete bullshit off me and THINK!

Also, I watched the movies Religilous and The God Who Wasn't There. They basically dispel the myth of god and especially Christianity.

Franz Fanonipants

20th March 2012, 21:38

My dad said the Bible (that horrible, oppressive book) said that the end times would be present when the "savior" was made fun of. So, obviously, I would throw this complete bullshit off me and THINK!

did you have real problems thinking before

p.s. new testament owns

black magick hustla

20th March 2012, 21:50

the kids in sunday school were really mean and beat me up. also, the teachers were dumb soccer moms, i asked if atheist people could be good and they told me of course not. beyond that, my family wasn't very religious, my mom was fake catholic and my dad was fake muslim and i wasn't baptized as a kid. the only reason why i did religious shit when i was a kid is because all my friends did and i asked my mom if i could do it. but my household in general was pretty modern, and both my parents had kinda intellectual leanings, and had weird left wing pasts, and there are polls and stuff etc. that correlate how many books u read with how religious u are so there u go

black magick hustla

20th March 2012, 21:53

lol no bro im a chicano i live a negotiated existence i don't have white privilege to have it all ways or none.

callese pinche guero

Franz Fanonipants

20th March 2012, 21:57

but u r a blondie

wouldn't that just make my existence even more negotiated?

Franz Fanonipants

20th March 2012, 21:58

callese pinche guero

guero culero was my nickname in mexico

white mojado was my nickname in the us

basically you can't win whatever way you try and go

thriller

21st March 2012, 14:13

Left Leanings

21st March 2012, 14:55

I don't know if anyone knows about this but you can buy a debaptised certificate :lol:

"The certficate declares:
I ________ having been subjected to the Rite of Christian Baptism in infancy (before reaching an age of consent), hereby publicly revoke any implications of that Rite and renounce the Church that carried it out. In the name of human reason, I reject all its Creeds and all other such superstition in particular, the perfidious belief that any baby needs to be cleansed by Baptism of alleged ORIGINAL SIN, and the evil power of supposed demons. I wish to be excluded henceforth from enhanced claims of church membership numbers based on past baptismal statistics used, for example, for the purpose of securing legislative privilege."

http://www.secularism.org.uk/debaptise-yourself.html

Buuuuttt, they still make you pay

Nice one. I have heard of these before, and am glad they are available.

Interestingly, the Church of England (into which I was baptised and later confirmed - a family decision, not mine) is mad keen on baptising people as infants (when obviously they cannot make up their own minds). Yet, there is no official procedure/ceremony for those who later wish to seek renunciation. Which just goes to show how much Mother Church likes to hold onto her own, wherever possible.

Revolution starts with U

21st March 2012, 18:29

If I don't think the baptism did anything, why would I undo it? Lulz

thriller

21st March 2012, 18:38

If I don't think the baptism did anything, why would I undo it? Lulz

Lol thats a really good point. I just think its good to have the option to undo things you had no choice over. But then again, why pay for that when many baptisms are free.

Ostrinski

21st March 2012, 18:51

Paying for unbaptism.. that's the biggest fucking scam ever

Franz Fanonipants

22nd March 2012, 00:32

Paying for unbaptism.. that's the biggest fucking scam ever

dear atheists pls do this more so you guys can have a split over it and there will be mainline secularists and the unbaptized it is going to own

∞

22nd March 2012, 03:50

Paying for unbaptism.. that's the biggest fucking scam ever

Just get a golden-shower.

Or go to a Shrine of Talos.

Decommissioner

23rd March 2012, 08:41

Well yeeeah but the difference is that when the theists do it they're just being honest oooh BURRRRRNNN :lol:

But seriously you're right. Though the atheists always like to play the 'b-b-b-but they think they're better than us!' and 'w-w-w-well they never stop preaching at us!' cards, I can only assume that's either a subjectively-accentuated feeling of victimisation or we live in very different worlds. I've only ever had two people come knocking on my door to tell me the Good News, and neither stuck around any longer than was necessary to apologise for disturbing me once it was clear I was far from a suitable target...whilst I'm certainly familiar with the idea of catching sight of atheists out of the corner of my eye, dashing across pavements like a leopard chasing a gazelle, so that they can thrust their literature in my peyot-framed face. And it's always something crappy like 'evolution is real!!!' to which I'm just '...no fucking shit! I mean I did go to school you know, you condescending little prick.' Not to mention those who casually drop bombs like 'but...you went to university...' or 'I'm actually quite surprised; I didn't think you'd like contemporary art' :confused:

The point here being that one is inevitably biased (and I'm not claiming to be any different) inasmuch as the 'group' to which one belongs not only influences one's opinion of those within said group and in opposing groups - 'they (who are not we) are terribly annoying, whilst we (who are not they) certainly aren't' - and shapes how one interprets their actions, but also determines whether or not one is even 'subject' to said actions, and - if so - how exactly one will experience them, what there is to experience and what meaning is ascribed to this experience...

While I agree there is obviously no real systematic oppression or subjugation of atheist in modern times in first world countries, the "hey man, have you heard of this dude jesus?" line is a very common occurrence where I live. I have had people try to get me to pray with them in public (maybe I look like a heathen? I don't know) and people stop me on the street. It is not uncommon if you work a job that deals with the public to get pamphlets. I even got a pamphlet from a very fire and brimstone sect that believed women should have no rights. Shit is pretty disgusting.

Religion is a little more in your face here, there is almost literally a church on every corner. While I am not an asshole atheist, churches that work with poor communities do a lot of good, I also do think it is kind of ridiculous. These churches are tax exempt, and most exist just to make money. Also god forbid you let someone you just met know your an atheist. People around here want nothing to do with it. Oklahomans are nice people, but they can be pretty discriminatory and judgmental.

Crux

23rd March 2012, 09:01

At some point very early, can't remember when I disowned the christian god, I left the church I, as the last generation to be so I think, was born into at 12 because it didn't occur to me earlier, since after all I am not baptized. Neither of my parents are religious. I was fascinated with both occidental and oriental mysticism for a while, but I would hardly call that belief. I am a lapsed discordian though.

NGNM85

24th March 2012, 17:19

But seriously you're right. Though the atheists always like to play the 'b-b-b-but they think they're better than us!' and 'w-w-w-well they never stop preaching at us!' cards, I can only assume that's either a subjectively-accentuated feeling of victimisation or we live in very different worlds.

First of all, it bears reminding that atheists are the most despised minority group in the United States. (http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/fil...he%20other.pdf (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/atheist%20as%20the%20other.pdf)) Also; unlike atheists, theists are constantly trying to force the rest of society to comply with the dictates of their dogma; there’s the constant battle over teaching evolution in public schools, there’s the resistance to covering oral contraceptives for women, or they’re putting the Ten Commandments in courthouses, etc., etc. As far as a large percentage of American Christians are concerned; the Establishment Clause doesn’t exist. They simply refuse to recognize it. Furthermore; the epidemic of homophobia, and the Pro-Life movement (Both of which have long histories of violence.) are religious phenomena, specifically, Christian phenomena.

I've only ever had two people come knocking on my door to tell me the Good News, and neither stuck around any longer than was necessary to apologise for disturbing me once it was clear I was far from a suitable target...whilst I'm certainly familiar with the idea of catching sight of atheists out of the corner of my eye, dashing across pavements like a leopard chasing a gazelle, so that they can thrust their literature in my peyot-framed face. And it's always something crappy like 'evolution is real!!!' to which I'm just '...no fucking shit! I mean I did go to school you know, you condescending little prick.' Not to mention those who casually drop bombs like 'but...you went to university...' or 'I'm actually quite surprised; I didn't think you'd like contemporary art'

The point here being that one is inevitably biased (and I'm not claiming to be any different) inasmuch as the 'group' to which one belongs not only influences one's opinion of those within said group and in opposing groups - 'they (who are not we) are terribly annoying, whilst we (who are not they) certainly aren't' - and shapes how one interprets their actions, but also determines whether or not one is even 'subject' to said actions, and - if so - how exactly one will experience them, what there is to experience and what meaning is ascribed to this experience...

Well experience certainly does make a significant difference. I don’t mean to imply that I think you’re being disingenuous, but the claim that you’ve only been approached by evangelists twice, borders on incomprehensible. This has happened to me dozens of times. Perhaps as much as a hundred, I don’t keep count. Several weeks ago I was actually approached at work, if you can believe it. I’ve been approached at home, in every apartment I’ve ever lived in, even the one with signs prominently displayed, bearing the heading; ‘No Soliciting Allowed!’ I’ve had pamphlets shoved in my face. I’ve had them stuck under my windsheild wipers. None of these people apologized to me, at any point in our, usually, short, exchanges. However; several of them were nice enough to inform me that I am destined to burn in hell, forever.

I’ve never been approached by an atheist, in this context. Although; I can’t say I’d really mind.

So, obviously, experiences shape peoples attitudes. However; not to belabor the point, but there are no atheist contingents erecting banners proclaiming; ‘There is no God’, in courthouses, there are no packs of atheists dragging Christian teenagers to death behind pickup trucks, and there are no atheist cadres going around bombing churches. There’s a difference.

hatzel

24th March 2012, 18:05

MaximMK

24th March 2012, 18:16

I was raised in a religion-free family tho my mother took me to church and she still goes because of following tradition and maybe some small superstition. My father on the other hand doesn't like priests and churches at all. He was always evading the priest spraying with water on the entry and went in only because we did to stick together. I never really believed in those stuff and i don't like going to church at all now, but i do sometimes on school excursions etc. out of historical reasons.

Elysian

25th March 2012, 05:11

Revolutionary_Marxist

25th March 2012, 06:13

Well I became an atheist by reading the bible (The Torah largely, since I came from a Jewish family), and learning of the barbourous genocides commited in the name of religion.

NGNM85

25th March 2012, 21:28

Not usually one to engage in shameless ad homs but meh just this once:

a) somebody who is restricted for their anti-abortion position could be advised not to get on their high horse about...ah...the 'specifically Christian phenomenon' that is the anti-abortion position. Little tip there, as it opens you up to criticism.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m Pro-Choice.

b) as luck would have it you often make a point of your absolute support for free speech even if that means letting stupid people say stupid things so I don't see how you run around crying about some Christian saying something mean to you. What's the problem here exactly?

I don’t ‘run around crying about it.’ I was simply responding to a subject you raised. It’s perfectly legal to be a Christian evangelist, with the minor exception of the instance where soliciting was prohibited. It’s just irritating as all hell. My point was simply that there are some perfectly good reasons why American atheists might be a little ticked off.