Atheist vs. Intentional Atheist

Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Atheist vs. Intentional Atheist

I am presently in Boston. Whether I flew here, drove here, or have lived here all my life is of no consequence to the fact that I am in Boston. There is no difference between the way in which I am in Boston that arises from the different paths I may have taken to arrive here or whether or not I have ever been anywhere else. To say that I am in Boston via 747 or via birth is a distinction without a difference as it pertains to my being in Boston.

As you may have guessed by the title, this thread is to discuss the distinction that is sometimes made between the intentional atheist and the atheist 'au natural', if you will. Does the means at which one arrives at having no belief in any god or gods have any bearing on their state as an atheist?

Let's look at it this way:

Where would one be able to draw the distinction between one who has no god belief due to never seeing a reason to form a god belief and one who has no god belief due to looking at all possible god beliefs and rationally deciding that any god belief was unreasonable? Is there an actual difference between the two individuals lack of belief or is the difference only in the vehicle by which they arrived at lacking belief?

The reason I ask is because people often employ this intentional atheist category as a means of what I can only see as justification for atheistic apologetics. When one finds one's self desiring a criteria by which to distinguish one's self from an atheist who may have become a theist (educated or not) or may be an atheist for what one may consider less than intellectual reasons, and thus place one's self on a (self righteous?) higher plane of belief lacking, they often resort to this type of classification. Personally, I feel as if this type of distinction drawing is very similar if not identical to the type employed by theists when wanting to distance themselves from less than desirable ideological neighbors and consider the lack of any quantiative difference between the actuality of the two positions to make the distinction misleading if not dishonest.

Thoughts?

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
I would have to say that

I would have to say that you are an atheist if you fit the definition, regardless of your previous experiences or any potential future experiences.  If you suddenly believe in god, then you a theist.  If you don't believe in god, you are an atheist. 

I have a feeling some try to make a distinction as a way to make themselves appear intellectually superior to everyone else, atheist or theist. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Does the means at

Quote:
Does the means at which one arrives at having no belief in any god or gods have any bearing on their state as an atheist?

It can. If you are au-natural, you may have never thought about the nature of existence. This might make you more susceptible to religious indoctrination than someone who has examined religion from the inside and seen first hand how absurd it is.

This is why I think critical thinking ought to be taught starting in kindergarten.

Quote:
Where would one be able to draw the distinction between one who has no god belief due to never seeing a reason to form a god belief and one who has no god belief due to looking at all possible god beliefs and rationally deciding that any god belief was unreasonable?

I don't know anyone who's looked at all possible gods individually. That would take more than a lifetime. Atheist is atheist at any given moment. Au natural and deconverted atheists both exist in the same state of non-god-belief. The difference is in the potential for conversion or reconversion in the future.

Quote:
Is there an actual difference between the two individuals lack of belief or is the difference only in the vehicle by which they arrived at lacking belief?

One is necessarily a more informed position, so you could say that the deconverted atheist has more information supporting his position. This is neither good nor bad. It just is. The non belief in god is the same at any given instant though.

Quote:
When one finds one's self desiring a criteria by which to distinguish one's self from an atheist who may have become a theist (educated or not) or may be an atheist for what one may consider less than intellectual reasons, and thus place one's self on a (self righteous?) higher plane of belief lacking, they often resort to this type of classification.

It's a tight rope for sure. If the goal is the spread of atheism, then those with more intellectual backing might have a case for their own superiority with regard to their own goal. Of course, that's like saying that football players are much better suited to play football than non football players. It only has value if you believe it to have value.

Quote:
Personally, I feel as if this type of distinction drawing is very similar if not identical to the type employed by theists when wanting to distance themselves from less than desirable ideological neighbors and consider the lack of any quantiative difference between the actuality of the two positions to make the distinction misleading if not dishonest.

I agree with you. Atheists often cringe when other atheists believe in non-god woo woo, or when they express reservations about active or militant atheism. My goal is for religion to lose virtually all of its hold on politics and personal lives. I don't care if someone is atheist by birth, indifference, or education. If they don't support religion, I'm a happy camper.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote:   I

pariahjane wrote:

 

I have a feeling some try to make a distinction as a way to make themselves appear intellectually superior to everyone else, atheist or theist. 

I have a feeling you are right. It has the feel of being more of a tribalistic type exclusionary tactic than anything relevant. People often seem to like subdivide and limit the amount of accepted group members as much as possible to make the group they identify with seem special in some particular way.

What it also seems to do though is draw into question the validity of the statement that atheism is simply a lack of a belief as opposed to a belief in the negative position. If there is no evidence for any god or gods then lacking a belief because you have never heard of any god concept or never found one believable are in all relevant ways identical positions. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: What it also seems

Quote:
What it also seems to do though is draw into question the validity of the statement that atheism is simply a lack of a belief as opposed to a belief in the negative position.

Give the man a prize!

Atheists don't like to hear this, but it's true.  Atheists are nearly as bad as theists about portraying atheism as something it isn't.

If there's ANYTHING other than non-belief required, then you're right.  It's something more (or less) than atheism.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
I think a lot of the

I think a lot of the subdividing is competition.  Everyone wants to feel special, after all.

vessel wrote:
 also seems to do though is draw into question the validity of the statement that atheism is simply a lack of a belief as opposed to a belief in the negative position. If there is no evidence for any god or gods then lacking a belief because you have never heard of any god concept or never found one believable are in all relevant ways identical positions. 

Agreed.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: It can.

Hambydammit wrote:

It can. If you are au-natural, you may have never thought about the nature of existence. This might make you more susceptible to religious indoctrination than someone who has examined religion from the inside and seen first hand how absurd it is.

This is why I think critical thinking ought to be taught starting in kindergarten.

This seems reasonable thought the idea is somewhat alien to me. Never having been 'inside' the theistic group I can not speak for how my thought processes might have been different were I to have arrived at my position differently. It seems to me though that my criteria for forming a belief, whatever mind function may be involved there, is what it is and that were I to encounter evidence that warranted a theistic belief I would have one. If not, I would not.

 

Quote:
I don't know anyone who's looked at all possible gods individually. That would take more than a lifetime. Atheist is atheist at any given moment. Au natural and deconverted atheists both exist in the same state of non-god-belief. The difference is in the potential for conversion or reconversion in the future.

This is sort of the context by which the topic started festering in my bean. It was in another thread where people were No True Scotsmanning atheists who had 'gone over' to the mind disordered side. Of course, it seems to me that there is nothing to say that they weren't true atheists, or any means to determine that they were or weren't intentional atheists or au natural atheists, just because they converted or deverted or, perhaps, perverted, as the case may be.

Still whether or not I am informed of the problems with the possibility of existence for certtain deity concepts or not does not seem to me to really affect that criteria that would be required to cause me to form a belief in a deity, if that is even possible, which I have to assume it might be.

Quote:
One is necessarily a more informed position, so you could say that the deconverted atheist has more information supporting his position. This is neither good nor bad. It just is. The non belief in god is the same at any given instant though.

Yes. That seems to be true. The lack of belief is the same mind property, or lack of, whatever term applies, no matter the avenue by which it came to be, or not be. Smiling

Quote:
Its a tight rope for sure. If the goal is the spread of atheism, then those with more intellectual backing might have a case for their own superiority with regard to their own goal. Of course, that's like saying that football players are much better suited to play football than non football players. It only has value if you believe it to have value.

And here I can definitely agree that one who has introspected (you just have to pretend some of these are real words) sufficiently to understand from whence their atheism was born is more prepared to discuss their position. 

Quote:
I agree with you. Atheists often cringe when other atheists believe in non-god woo woo, or when they express reservations about active or militant atheism. My goal is for religion to lose virtually all of its hold on politics and personal lives. I don't care if someone is atheist by birth, indifference, or education. If they don't support religion, I'm a happy camper.

I actual would prefer to see the theistic mindset of faith as a value and dogmatic adherence to any set of tenants being globaly replaced by rational thinking and empirically discovered reality (or I could just hit the powerball). Of course the entire time I argue for these things there is always the chance that I'm wrong. That however does not have any effect on the fact that I presently think I'm right and can not at the moment see that changing anytime in the near future. I realize the theist often believes they are right too, whether they were ever an atheist, intentional or otherwise, or not, and they are equally convinced about their position. This, of course, should not at all dampen my desire to see them come over to my (right) side.

 

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: I think

pariahjane wrote:

I think a lot of the subdividing is competition.  Everyone wants to feel special, after all.

vessel wrote:
 also seems to do though is draw into question the validity of the statement that atheism is simply a lack of a belief as opposed to a belief in the negative position. If there is no evidence for any god or gods then lacking a belief because you have never heard of any god concept or never found one believable are in all relevant ways identical positions. 

Agreed.

I love it when people with glasses agree with me. Makes me feel more smarter. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: pariahjane

Vessel wrote:
pariahjane wrote:

I think a lot of the subdividing is competition.  Everyone wants to feel special, after all.

vessel wrote:
 also seems to do though is draw into question the validity of the statement that atheism is simply a lack of a belief as opposed to a belief in the negative position. If there is no evidence for any god or gods then lacking a belief because you have never heard of any god concept or never found one believable are in all relevant ways identical positions. 

Agreed.

I love it when people with glasses agree with me. Makes me feel more smarter. 

lol.  Thanks!  You know, I think I feel the same way you do because I also was never really introduced to religion. 

I always took the defintion of atheism quite literally.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm in thread-hijack mode

I'm in thread-hijack mode right now, so I'll do it here, too.  I have a friend who is an atheist.  You ask him, point blank, "Do you believe in any god or gods?" and he'll give you an unqualified "No, I don't."

Thing is, he will not call himself an atheist.  He thinks if he does that, he's saying that there isn't a possibility of something that could be called a god.

No matter how much I explain to him that this has nothing to do with atheism, he can't see it because his definition of atheism is so ingrained culturally.

This cultural steretype is being promoted by atheists, too!  We're going along with what the theists say about us, precisely because of the segregation you're talking about.

An atheist is an atheist is an atheist, whether they have the most logical atheist position or not.  You can be a very irrational person and still not believe in god.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Oh, and I wear glasses,

Oh, and I wear glasses, too.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I'm in

Hambydammit wrote:

I'm in thread-hijack mode right now, so I'll do it here, too.  I have a friend who is an atheist.  You ask him, point blank, "Do you believe in any god or gods?" and he'll give you an unqualified "No, I don't."

Thing is, he will not call himself an atheist.  He thinks if he does that, he's saying that there isn't a possibility of something that could be called a god.

No matter how much I explain to him that this has nothing to do with atheism, he can't see it because his definition of atheism is so ingrained culturally.

This cultural steretype is being promoted by atheists, too!  We're going along with what the theists say about us, precisely because of the segregation you're talking about.

An atheist is an atheist is an atheist, whether they have the most logical atheist position or not.  You can be a very irrational person and still not believe in god.

I know people like this too.  The way I figure is that I'm an atheist until I believe in a god.  It's not written in stone. 

Also, I think some people don't like to consider a person who isn't of high intelligence a real atheist.  I honestly don't think it takes a doctorate to realize that there is no god overseeing us. It just takes a little logical thinking. 

Ok, sorry, I seem to be perpetuating hijacking links today.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I'm in

Hambydammit wrote:

I'm in thread-hijack mode right now, so I'll do it here, too.  I have a friend who is an atheist.  You ask him, point blank, "Do you believe in any god or gods?" and he'll give you an unqualified "No, I don't."

Thing is, he will not call himself an atheist.  He thinks if he does that, he's saying that there isn't a possibility of something that could be called a god.

The funny thing is, I will say that I am certain that there is no possibility of anything that would fit the common definition of a god existing with the full knowledge that it is possible I could be wrong. Just because I might be wrong about my claim that something is impossible does not mean I need to consider it possible. I am not infallible and realize this, but that in no way makes me consider things I think impossible to be any more possible. So I am an atheist even though I know I could be wrong in my definite knowledge that it is impossible for a god to exist, and your friend is actually an atheist in his knowledge that he can not say it is impossible that a god exists but he sees no reason to believe one does. In the final analysis our widely different positions have identical outcomes. We both lack a god belief.

Quote:
No matter how much I explain to him that this has nothing to do with atheism, he can't see it because his definition of atheism is so ingrained culturally.

Yes. I consider atheist a label that only has meaning in contrast to a position, theism, and therefor to mean only one who is not of that position. But it seems we have allowed those who wish to make atheism seem evil or absurd to push their definitions onto the label.   

Quote:
This cultural steretype is being promoted by atheists, too!  We're going along with what the theists say about us, precisely because of the segregation you're talking about.

Bad atheists!

Quote:
An atheist is an atheist is an atheist, whether they have the most logical atheist position or not.  You can be a very irrational person and still not believe in god.

Absolutely. And I'm an atheist because the omniscient unicorn told me to be.

 

No highjack. It all seemed right on topic to me. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Oh, and

Hambydammit wrote:

Oh, and I wear glasses, too.

 

Well that does it. I'm getting a pair tonight whether I need them or not.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: I know

pariahjane wrote:
I know people like this too.  The way I figure is that I'm an atheist until I believe in a god.  It's not written in stone.
 

 

And I would agree with this totally even though I have never heard of a god whose existence I consider possible or even grounded in an actual coherent concept.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
I feel obligated to post a

I feel obligated to post a response in this topic since I did use the term "intentional atheism" recently, and I'm sure the posting of this topic had something to do with that.

First of all, I agree that a mere lack of belief is all you really need to be an atheist. To prove I'm not just changing my story, you can refer to my introduction post. Feelings of superiority or believing that true atheists must be intellectuals had nothing to do with my use of the word.

I used it in the topic where we were asked for opinions on why allegedly former atheists might have converted or why certain theists sometimes make that claim.

As was touched on above, I was making a distinction between people who have never been indoctrinated and people who have deconverted. My use of the term depended very much on context though. I didn't mean to imply that one type was necessarily better or more justified than the other.

I was offering an opinion on why I think Kirk Cameron might claim that he was once an atheist who converted. I proposed that he probably holds the common stereotype that atheists are some kind of immoral creatures. And it was here that I drew the distinction, because I believe that there are theists (like Cameron) who perceive a distinction whether or not there truly is one. For them, there is a difference between someone who has simply never considered God and someone who has slammed the door in his face, so to speak. (I will be the first to admit that this is pure speculation).

I think when Cameron says that he used to be an atheist, he is going for the more extreme position because he wants his conversion to be admirable. Dramatic. Sparkly.

So when I claim that he doesn't understand "intentional atheism", I'm mostly accusing him of stereotyping. I have no way of knowing if this is true, but opinions were asked for.

 

I agree that simply not having a belief is good enough to be called an atheist, and I wouldn't dream of trying to divide atheism into layers or of telling anyone they're "not a real atheist" because they don't know certain things. If I were to do that, I'd be one of the first people to get my ass kicked out of this place, because there are a lot of people here who know a hell of a lot more than I do, and I'll be the first to admit it. If I said that some were better or more intelligent than others, I'd basically be calling myself a really shitty atheist.

So I agree that all atheists are the same in that they share a lack of belief (or a doubt) in god, and I agree that it's really only the vehicle that differs.

But I think that to a fundamentalist, that vehicle would make a difference, and that's where my usage came from. I'm sorry if anyone thought I was claiming some kind of superiority. I don't want to give a bad impression of myself when I haven't even been here a week yet.

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote: I feel

Archeopteryx wrote:

I feel obligated to post a response in this topic since I did use the term "intentional atheism" recently, and I'm sure the posting of this topic had something to do with that.

First of all, I agree that a mere lack of belief is all you really need to be an atheist. To prove I'm not just changing my story, you can refer to my introduction post. Feelings of superiority or believing that true atheists must be intellectuals had nothing to do with my use of the word.

I used it in the topic where we were asked for opinions on why allegedly former atheists might have converted or why certain theists sometimes make that claim.

As was touched on above, I was making a distinction between people who have never been indoctrinated and people who have deconverted. My use of the term depended very much on context though. I didn't mean to imply that one type was necessarily better or more justified than the other.

I was offering an opinion on why I think Kirk Cameron might claim that he was once an atheist who converted. I proposed that he probably holds the common stereotype that atheists are some kind of immoral creatures. And it was here that I drew the distinction, because I believe that there are theists (like Cameron) who perceive a distinction whether or not there truly is one. For them, there is a difference between someone who has simply never considered God and someone who has slammed the door in his face, so to speak. (I will be the first to admit that this is pure speculation).

I think when Cameron says that he used to be an atheist, he is going for the more extreme position because he wants his conversion to be admirable. Dramatic. Sparkly.

So when I claim that he doesn't understand "intentional atheism", I'm mostly accusing him of stereotyping. I have no way of knowing if this is true, but opinions were asked for.

 

I agree that simply not having a belief is good enough to be called an atheist, and I wouldn't dream of trying to divide atheism into layers or of telling anyone they're "not a real atheist" because they don't know certain things. If I were to do that, I'd be one of the first people to get my ass kicked out of this place, because there are a lot of people here who know a hell of a lot more than I do, and I'll be the first to admit it. If I said that some were better or more intelligent than others, I'd basically be calling myself a really shitty atheist.

So I agree that all atheists are the same in that they share a lack of belief (or a doubt) in god, and I agree that it's really only the vehicle that differs.

But I think that to a fundamentalist, that vehicle would make a difference, and that's where my usage came from. I'm sorry if anyone thought I was claiming some kind of superiority. I don't want to give a bad impression of myself when I haven't even been here a week yet.

 

I did borrow the term from your post but it was other posts both here and other places where I have had these type of discussions that prompted the topic. There was really nothing in your post that I had a particular problem with. The fact that others in the thread were basically employing the No True Scotsman Fallacy in an attempt to distance their atheism from that of any atheist who might actually comit the blasphemy of becoming a theist was the main catalysts.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
I am one of those who

I am one of those who claimed a distinction between 'intentional' atheists and other atheists so I suppost I shoudl defend my position.

I would acually rather use a term like 'conscious' atheist since taken quite literally I myself would be in the unintentional category even though I believe I think in the same way as the 'intentional' atheists. I was born an atheist and by the time the concept of religion was intorduced I had lived long enough as an atheist that I didn't fall for it. I never chose to leave religion, just decided not to join it.

I'd say I'm a 'conscious' atheist because I'm aware of my atheism. I think about it, question it and debate it. I have firm logical reasons for my atheism. This is an entirely different state of mind to my atheism as a child. I was an atheist but I didn't think about it, sure I was aware that I didn't believe in god (I'd ofcourse heard other talk about god but fortunately never someone I considered to be a source to reliable information, like my parents, so I was aware that I didn't believe what some others believed) but I didn't have reasons for it. I hadn't tested that lack of belief.

Yes both of these states are athiesm, one isn't true atheism and the other false atheism. one isn't good atheism and the other bad atheism. However there is a difference in the state of mind and I think it's important to distinguish between the two. Not to say one is better than the other or to distance myself from the other type of atheist but to facillitate discussion. If there isn't a linguistic way to distinguish between two different things there is no way to discuss them.

For the purposes of that other topic I felt that the distinction was important to the discussion because while I don't think it is impossible for a conscious atheist to give up their rationality I think it is much easier for someone with a more childlike atheism.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

I'd say I'm a 'conscious' atheist because I'm aware of my atheism. I think about it, question it and debate it. I have firm logical reasons for my atheism. This is an entirely different state of mind to my atheism as a child. I was an atheist but I didn't think about it, sure I was aware that I didn't believe in god (I'd ofcourse heard other talk about god but fortunately never someone I considered to be a source to reliable information, like my parents, so I was aware that I didn't believe what some others believed) but I didn't have reasons for it. I hadn't tested that lack of belief.

I cautiously agree with you in regards to using the 'conscious' when distinguishing between atheists. The reason I say this is because, while I never ever had a god belief, I didn't consider myself an atheist until I was in my late teens and early twenties. Essentially, at that time I dabbled in various religions and really only ended up convincing myself what I already had suspected.

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Yes both of these states are athiesm, one isn't true atheism and the other false atheism. one isn't good atheism and the other bad atheism. However there is a difference in the state of mind and I think it's important to distinguish between the two. Not to say one is better than the other or to distance myself from the other type of atheist but to facillitate discussion. If there isn't a linguistic way to distinguish between two different things there is no way to discuss them.

In the other thread, I got the sense that some people were equating 'true' atheism with intelligence. That's why I took issue with the distinction. Whether a person has high intelligence or not, regardless of whether that person is conscious of it or not, if he or she does not believe in a god then that person is an atheist. As Hamby said, an atheist is an atheist is an atheist.

{Edit - spelling} 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
WARNING: Hijacking in

WARNING: Hijacking in progress

Vessel wrote:
I love it when people with glasses agree with me. Makes me feel more smarter.

Hambydammit wrote:

Oh, and I wear glasses, too.

I wear prescription reading glasses. Does that count?

If not, I have a hat with glasses on it.


Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
I think from my personal

I think from my personal perspective is how severe the change of mind is for ex-theist atheists.

 When you grow up literally shaking over the fear of hell and then get to a point where you not only are confident enough to risk the threat of hell for yourself, but feel absolutely no fear over risking your children to hell for teaching them the potentially "wrong" thing(I.E. there is no god)...

 Well that's a pretty hardcore, hard headed belief.

You doubt yourself a LOT in a lot of aspects.  But as far as religion goes, it doesn't really take that much rationalizing to completely dispell it.  The big thing is how intrinsically you were indoctrinated from birth.

Even though everyone that ever cared, raised, loved you said religion was truth, you suddenly say  "Bullshit".

That's freaking groundbreaking.  That floors you.

You have to feel a tiny bit of accomplishment for coming to such a conclusion.  So for a dipshit that was not indoctrinated in religion one way or the other to claim that they "used" to be an atheist and have now 'seen the light' is horribly insulting to someone who has overcome such mind control.

 Unintentional and naive but still horribly insulting.

 Freeing yourself from indoctrination is not near the same effort from being indoctrinated for the first time.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: I think

Watcher wrote:

I think from my personal perspective is how severe the change of mind is for ex-theist atheists.

When you grow up literally shaking over the fear of hell and then get to a point where you not only are confident enough to risk the threat of hell for yourself, but feel absolutely no fear over risking your children to hell for teaching them the potentially "wrong" thing(I.E. there is no god)...

Well that's a pretty hardcore, hard headed belief.

You doubt yourself a LOT in a lot of aspects. But as far as religion goes, it doesn't really take that much rationalizing to completely dispell it. The big thing is how intrinsically you were indoctrinated from birth.

Even though everyone that ever cared, raised, loved you said religion was truth, you suddenly say "Bullshit".

That's freaking groundbreaking. That floors you.

You have to feel a tiny bit of accomplishment for coming to such a conclusion. So for a dipshit that was not indoctrinated in religion one way or the other to claim that they "used" to be an atheist and have now 'seen the light' is horribly insulting to someone who has overcome such mind control.

Unintentional and naive but still horribly insulting.

Freeing yourself from indoctrination is not near the same effort from being indoctrinated for the first time.

 

You know, I do kind of feel that way, now that you mention it. Like I've overcome a stumbling block. When I first started going atheist, there was a sort of resentment since I felt like I had been deceived by so many people, and a sort of annoyance at myself for not being able to see the absurdity of it. There is a sort of pride when you find you're able to risk disappointing your family in order to choose the truth. You've overcome the internal battle of convincing yourself to accept the reality. And finally, you're able to find it in yourself to not hold it against anyone for indoctrinating you.

The deconversion process is a long road to travel, and so I suppose I do find it a little insulting that someone would claim to have done the same simply to score political points with their fan base, especially when I feel sure that they actually didn't.

I do have a sort of pride in my atheism just because I feel like I've overcome something big. It comes with all the usual dangers of pride, but it's hard not to be boastful sometimes. I could definitely understand why some deconverted atheists would seem proud/arrogant. 

 

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: I think

Watcher wrote:

I think from my personal perspective is how severe the change of mind is for ex-theist atheists.

 When you grow up literally shaking over the fear of hell and then get to a point where you not only are confident enough to risk the threat of hell for yourself, but feel absolutely no fear over risking your children to hell for teaching them the potentially "wrong" thing(I.E. there is no god)...

 Well that's a pretty hardcore, hard headed belief.

You doubt yourself a LOT in a lot of aspects.  But as far as religion goes, it doesn't really take that much rationalizing to completely dispell it.  The big thing is how intrinsically you were indoctrinated from birth.

Even though everyone that ever cared, raised, loved you said religion was truth, you suddenly say  "Bullshit".

That's freaking groundbreaking.  That floors you.

You have to feel a tiny bit of accomplishment for coming to such a conclusion.  So for a dipshit that was not indoctrinated in religion one way or the other to claim that they "used" to be an atheist and have now 'seen the light' is horribly insulting to someone who has overcome such mind control.

 Unintentional and naive but still horribly insulting.

 Freeing yourself from indoctrination is not near the same effort from being indoctrinated for the first time.

After reading this I can see where the misunderstanding might arise between what we might call the intentional atheist and the atheist 'au natural'. From my perspective atheism is not something I feel a sense of accomplishment about or am necessarily proud of, it simply is the way I am and have always been. A lack of belief is hardly something to mention. The only reason I feel the need is because there are those whose worldviews I consider inherently dangerous due to an apparent inability to distinguish between observable reality and fiction. This is to say I don't care about arguing people into atheism, but instead aim to argue people out of theism.

The whole idea of having spent time scared that one might be wrong, and a hell actually exist, is something that I have no reference point for. I've never seen any way in which such a thing was an actual possibility and therefor something to fear.

It seems there is a lot of emotional baggage and maybe even a feeling of a need to justify to themselves why they have left theism and gone through that ordeal while others may be taking the opposite course (aside from the obvious not all people will always agree). While from my perspective, I simply see those taking the opposite course as falling into a false belief system, possibly for emotional reasons) and not necessarily that they were never really atheists or that they are dullards. (This is not a defense Cameron. He is, of course, an obvious idiot. Others such as Francis Collins and Anthony Flew, however, are obviously intelligent individuals who have gone from atheist, whether intentional or not, to theists.) Though I am certain that no god or gods exist as the whole premise is based in what I could only call a ghost or shell of a concept, I still have no basis for sayiong that I could never go over to the other side. Hell, I could get a barin tumor or something.  

In paranoid agnostics post above he writes:

 

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
I'd say I'm a 'conscious' atheist because I'm aware of my atheism. I think about it, question it and debate it. I have firm logical reasons for my atheism. This is an entirely different state of mind to my atheism as a child.

From the perspective of this atheist au natural this is very close to considering atheism, or at least intentional atheism, a belief. Having logical reasons for one's atheism would be like pouring a foundation for your lack of a house. There are logical arguments against theism but it seems to me to be misidentifying the cause, or misapplying them, to call them logical reasons for atheism. Probably semantics but often it seems that when there is a semantic difference it is due to a fundamental difference in the way we approach the concepts behind the terms we use.

 

 

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: After

Vessel wrote:

After reading this I can see where the misunderstanding might arise between what we might call the intentional atheist and the atheist 'au natural'. From my perspective atheism is not something I feel a sense of accomplishment about or am necessarily proud of, it simply is the way I am and have always been. A lack of belief is hardly something to mention. The only reason I feel the need is because there are those whose worldviews I consider inherently dangerous due to an apparent inability to distinguish between observable reality and fiction. This is to say I don't care about arguing people into atheism, but instead aim to argue people out of theism.

The whole idea of having spent time scared that one might be wrong, and a hell actually exist, is something that I have no reference point for. I've never seen any way in which such a thing was an actual possibility and therefor something to fear.

It seems there is a lot of emotional baggage and maybe even a feeling of a need to justify to themselves why they have left theism and gone through that ordeal while others may be taking the opposite course (aside from the obvious not all people will always agree). While from my perspective, I simply see those taking the opposite course as falling into a false belief system, possibly for emotional reasons) and not necessarily that they were never really atheists or that they are dullards. (This is not a defense Cameron. He is, of course, an obvious idiot. Others such as Francis Collins and Anthony Flew, however, are obviously intelligent individuals who have gone from atheist, whether intentional or not, to theists.) Though I am certain that no god or gods exist as the whole premise is based in what I could only call a ghost or shell of a concept, I still have no basis for sayiong that I could never go over to the other side. Hell, I could get a barin tumor or something.  

Well put, Vessel.  I agree.  I view atheism in a very simple context.  I've simply never believed.  I didn't have to go through what theists had to go through. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: From the

Vessel wrote:

From the perspective of this atheist au natural this is very close to considering atheism, or at least intentional atheism, a belief. Having logical reasons for one's atheism would be like pouring a foundation for your lack of a house. There are logical arguments against theism but it seems to me to be misidentifying the cause, or misapplying them, to call them logical reasons for atheism. Probably semantics but often it seems that when there is a semantic difference it is due to a fundamental difference in the way we approach the concepts behind the terms we use.  

What is wrong with the concept of having logical reasons for non-belief? The total lack of evidence is a logical reason to not believe in God. The self-contradictory nature of the christian god is a logical reason to not believe in him. The fact that I know scientology was made up by a drug addicted science fiction author with a tendency to tell huge lies is a logical reason to not believe it.

  Who is more likely to become a scientologist... Someone who knows nothing about it, until they are convinced to do one of their free stress tests, or someone who knows about the origins, dangers and shady practices of scientology? Both lack a belief in scientology but the reasons are different, for the first it is ignorance, for the second it is knowledge.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

What is wrong with the concept of having logical reasons for non-belief?

I don't think 'wrong' necessarily applies. There is nothing wrong with having logical reasons for non-belief. It seems to demonstrate a difference in the way two people might consider their lack of belief, however.

 

Quote:
The total lack of evidence is a logical reason to not believe in God. The self-contradictory nature of the christian god is a logical reason to not believe in him. The fact that I know scientology was made up by a drug addicted science fiction author with a tendency to tell huge lies is a logical reason to not believe it.

Yes, these are all logical reasons for disbelief in the proposition "God exists" or "The Christian god exists" or "Tom Cruise is sane", but they have nothing to do with lacking a belief in any god or gods. "I have no belief in anything that could reasonably be said to be a god or gods," is not a position that one needs to, or really can, argue for. One can argue "Your god belief is incorrect, Mr. Theist" or "My disbelief in your god is correct" but one can't argue "My lack of god belief is correct". 

It seems to me as if we almost validate the theistic side as an actual position backed by solid points when we say that we need reasons, or have reasons, for not having a god belief. That we may have arguments that show certain god concepts incompatible with logic or reality seems to be arguing against god X not arguing for ~god. I never feel the need to defend atheism as it isn't something one can defend. When one argues their position it isn't in defense of atheism but in an attack of theism.

 

Quote:
Who is more likely to become a scientologist... Someone who knows nothing about it, until they are convinced to do one of their free stress tests, or someone who knows about the origins, dangers and shady practices of scientology?

I would truly think this had more to do with the individual persons character than with their knowledge of Scientology. I am sure many Scientologists have read about the history of Scientology and yet they seem to still be Scientologists.

 

 

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
I first admitted to myself

I first admitted to myself that I didn't believe in the bible anymore three years ago.

Two months ago I came across RRS Blasphemy Challenge and started watching people deny the holy spirit on You Tube.

I started to breath quickly. 

And I knew what was going on inside of me.  Fight or flight reaction.  Adrenaline was started to be injected into my body.

If I don't believe in it anymore why was my body reacting so strongly to people talking into a webcam?  It was the indoctrination.  It's a virus.  Insidious filth.

Those atheists that freed themselves from the shackles of religion will understand why I reacted so strongly with no explanation.  Those atheists that were never shackled will simply be puzzled by it.

It's still ripping me up inside.  Still squirming around and torturing me even as I convince myself over and over and over that it is patently false.  I peer at it from every angle, I drag together every scrap of thought I can just to convince myself it isn't, can't be true.

I'll probably never know peace from religion.  So I'll always be fighting it.  I will be a militant atheist forever because I am branded by religious lies.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: It seems to

Vessel wrote:

It seems to me as if we almost validate the theistic side as an actual position backed by solid points when we say that we need reasons, or have reasons, for not having a god belief. That we may have arguments that show certain god concepts incompatible with logic or reality seems to be arguing against god X not arguing for ~god. I never feel the need to defend atheism as it isn't something one can defend. When one argues their position it isn't in defense of atheism but in an attack of theism.

 An attack on theism is a defence of atheism. If a theistsic position is presented then you either defend non-belief or accept belief. I don't consider this a false dichotomy as running away with your fingers in your ears singing "la la la I can't hear you" is a theist tactic.

In an ideal world god would be rejected without a thought like fairies and unicorns but this is not an ideal world. People are insisting we share their ridiculous beliefs and when they fail they insist we atleast live by the rules of their religion. If we can't defend the position of non-belief then how do we stop them?

 However all this is irrelivant because this discussion was about the existence of different states of atheism not the validity of them. The fact remains that the state of atheism that we are born with is different to the state of one who has considered religion and rejected it. Discussion of whether it is even worthwhile considering the possiblility of god or whether that gives religion more credibility than it deserves are not part of this argument although I will ask why are you a member of this site? Doesn't the existence of this site, by your argument, validate the theist position?

Quote:
 

I would truly think this had more to do with the individual persons character than with their knowledge of Scientology. I am sure many Scientologists have read about the history of Scientology and yet they seem to still be Scientologists.

I'm not certain of the official position of the church of scientology on the life of hubbard but I doubt they are open about his drug use (especially since ther are against drugs) and probably not his lies either. I do know that scientology is very quick to persue legal action or seriously harrass anyone who publicly points out their nonsense. Scientology is very secretive, the totally ridiculous nature of their beliefs are not presented until the individual is already too deep into the cult to reject them.

So back to the comparison 

I'm aware of the faults of hubbard and the laughable beliefs that are saved until initial indoctrination is complete.

Compare that to someone who has never heard of hubbard or scientology. They get presented with this wonderful system of self-help and the stories of the great man who developed it. 

Do you really think that I am just as likely to fall for the bullshit as the second person?

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

In an ideal world god would be rejected without a thought like fairies and unicorns but this is not an ideal world. People are insisting we share their ridiculous beliefs and when they fail they insist we atleast live by the rules of their religion. If we can't defend the position of non-belief then how do we stop them?

 However all this is irrelivant because this discussion was about the existence of different states of atheism not the validity of them. The fact remains that the state of atheism that we are born with is different to the state of one who has considered religion and rejected it. Discussion of whether it is even worthwhile considering the possiblility of god or whether that gives religion more credibility than it deserves are not part of this argument although I will ask why are you a member of this site? Doesn't the existence of this site, by your argument, validate the theist position?

Compare that to someone who has never heard of hubbard or scientology. They get presented with this wonderful system of self-help and the stories of the great man who developed it. 

Do you really think that I am just as likely to fall for the bullshit as the second person?

You are making a lot of sense, you infidel.  I agree with your viewpoints on this completely.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
 An attack on theism is a defence of atheism.

No, as I have stated it is not. An attack on theism is simply an attack on theism. It is impossible to defend a lack of belief. 

 

Quote:
If a theistsic position is presented then you either defend non-belief or accept belief. I don't consider this a false dichotomy as running away with your fingers in your ears singing "la la la I can't hear you" is a theist tactic.

We are talking about atheism and theism in general, not a specific theistic position. Atheism is not the lack of belief in a specific theistic position.

Quote:
In an ideal world god would be rejected without a thought like fairies and unicorns but this is not an ideal world. People are insisting we share their ridiculous beliefs and when they fail they insist we atleast live by the rules of their religion. If we can't defend the position of non-belief then how do we stop them?

By attacking the position of holding beliefs that are unwarranted, unevidenced, illogical, irrational, incoherent, what have you.

I think you are misunderstanding the distinction I am drawing. Perhaps it is even a distinction that lacks any difference, though I think it does have a difference in the way the individual views their atheism and therefor the way they view theism.

I think this has something to do with the fundamental difference, not between atheism au natural and intentional atheism, but between active disbelief and lack of belief. Active disbelief seems to give the opposing position a higher status than a simple lack of belief. It says that one has an actual coherent position I can either believe or disbelieve in. Lack of belief does not grant theism this status.

 

Quote:
However all this is irrelivant because this discussion was about the existence of different states of atheism not the validity of them.

Yes, but that seems settled. Lack of belief is lack of belief. There is no fundamental difference between the intentional atheists lack of belief and the atheist au naturals lack of belief. If there is some difference then no one has pointed it out. The only differences seems to be in how they arrived at it or how they support it or justify it if they, like you seem to do, feel the need to.

And of course there is also a difference between lack of a belief and an active disbelief in some position, but it seems as if it is very hard to have an active disbelief in theism as this requires that you know what it is you are disbelieving in, which requires theism is based in a coherent concept and that you actively disbelieve in all possible variants of theism.

Quote:
The fact remains that the state of atheism that we are born with is different to the state of one who has considered religion and rejected it.

I have not seen anyone show this. The reasoning behind it may be different, the support may be different, the foundation may be different, but I have not seen anyone show an actual difference in the state of the lack of belief (which is the actual atheism if you accept the often trumpeted definition as I do) itself. This was my point with this thread.

Being as that there is no difference between the actual state of a lack of belief, when atheism is defined as simply a lack of belief in any god or gods, then it is inappropriate to attempt to distance one's self from others who lack a belief by classifying them as something other than real atheists simply because they may have become a theist, be an idiot, or perhaps never even considered a god. 

 

Quote:
Discussion of whether it is even worthwhile considering the possiblility of god or whether that gives religion more credibility than it deserves are not part of this argument although I will ask why are you a member of this site?

Because theism is a fundamentally dangerous mindset which should be discouraged. Anytime people believe their eternal fate lies in the hands of the ruler of existence and the maker of all things moral then any action can be justified. This mindset is more dangerous than any other I could possibly imagine any individual entity holding and should be discouraged at every opportunity. 

Quote:
Doesn't the existence of this site, by your argument, validate the theist position?
 

Not if you unbderstand what it is I am saying.

Quote:
I'm not certain of the official position of the church of scientology on the life of hubbard but I doubt they are open about his drug use (especially since ther are against drugs) and probably not his lies either. I do know that scientology is very quick to persue legal action or seriously harrass anyone who publicly points out their nonsense. Scientology is very secretive, the totally ridiculous nature of their beliefs are not presented until the individual is already too deep into the cult to reject them.

So back to the comparison 

I'm aware of the faults of hubbard and the laughable beliefs that are saved until initial indoctrination is complete.

Compare that to someone who has never heard of hubbard or scientology. They get presented with this wonderful system of self-help and the stories of the great man who developed it. 

Do you really think that I am just as likely to fall for the bullshit as the second person?

Well, I think it is somewhat far fetched to think that, if you know the history of Scientology, that there aren't plenty of people who become Scientologists that know it as well unless you have access to some information that is not available to others.

As far as who is more susceptible to the bullshit, I would say that depends on several factors both emotional and intellectual. I don't think we can simply assume that knowledge of Hubbard leads to non-acceptance of Scientology or that non-knowledge of Hubbard lends itself to acceptance.

I for one have spent my entire life as an athiest and most of it knowing nothing of the arguments against any particular god 'concept'. This however did not at all make the god concepts I was presented with throughout my first thirty years in small town Texas, or the last several years in several other places, any more reasonable. I guess I was born immune to the proverbial bullshit. The fact that I need an actual concept to believe in before I even have the capability of considering the proposition may have much to do with this. But I'm straying...

The point is that lack of a belief is simply lack of a belief. Anything more than this is, as Hamby said, something more than atheism. For this reason it would be incorrect to state that one who lacks a belief in a god or gods is not an atheist simply because one does not approve of their intellectual prowess or any other tacked on criteria.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: The only

Vessel wrote:

The only differences seems to be in how they arrived at it or how they support it or justify it if they, like you seem to do, feel the need to.

 That is the difference. Whether it is internally justified. Whether the atheist has real reasons for not believing. 

There are atleast two ways to exist as an atheist (ignoring the path you took to become one) Disbelief by default - someone has never deeply considered the question of the existence of a god or gods and simply dont believe because they weren't raised to believe, of Disbelief by logic - someone has considered the question of the existence of god and concluded that there is no reason to believe.

Neither believe so both are athiests in the truest sense of the word. Hoever the reasons for disbelief will alter the way the atheist reacts when the question of belief is raised. The atheist by logic will be familiar with the question, having already answered it. They are expereinced with the faulty logic used in theistic arguments, they have defences pre-built. The atheist by default, if they are a thinking person, should be able to develop those defences when confronted with the arguments but they do not have them ready, they are inexperienced with the thought processes. If thet get through this without being converted then they move into the category of atheist by logic. Their disbelief has not changed but the foundation is stronger... and God help the next theist who tries to convert them. 

There is probably a continuum (there almost always is) between the completely default and completely logical positions. But I think that the default-logic idea is relevant to the discussion of why some atheists fall to theism. There are other factors (emotion being a huge one that has on occasion nearly converted me) however I believe that the level of consiousness in a persons atheism is a big one.  

Quote:
 

And of course there is also a difference between lack of a belief and an active disbelief in some position, but it seems as if it is very hard to have an active disbelief in theism as this requires that you know what it is you are disbelieving in, which requires theism is based in a coherent concept and that you actively disbelieve in all possible variants of theism.

 What about the atheists who are not aware that it's an icoherent concept? the understanding that the concept of god is incoherent is a reason for atheism.

Quote:

 

Being as that there is no difference between the actual state of a lack of belief, when atheism is defined as simply a lack of belief in any god or gods, then it is inappropriate to attempt to distance one's self from others who lack a belief by classifying them as something other than real atheists simply because they may have become a theist, be an idiot, or perhaps never even considered a god.

 I'm not trying to distance myself from anyone. I'm not trying to insult the intelligence of anyone. I'm not trying to claim that someone isn't a true atheist. I'm simply offering a distinction within the concept of atheism that I feel is important to explain the thought processes of those to convert.

A case could possibly me made that the default position is superior. That they have never wasted their time thinking about such nonsense. I'm not interested in claiming superiority over anyone so I won't argue it.

To discuss things we need ways to identify things. I don't undertand these people who get all upset about labelling people. We need to classify things in order to discuss them. I'm suggesting a distinction within atheism. one group is not more truely atheist than the other, any more than a chimpanzee is more truely a mamal than an elephant, but I believe there is a difference. 

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
 That is the difference. Whether it is internally justified. Whether the atheist has real reasons for not believing. 

Never having considered the existence of a god is not a justification for a disbelief in any god, this is true and it would be silly to deny that. But it is a reason to lack a god belief. This lack of a god belief is no different than anyone elses lack of a god belief. I think we agree on this. It probably seems like an inconsequentrial statement to you, which may be why you think I am attempting to claim more than what I am, but I have tried to state why I think it is not an inconsequential statement.

Quote:
There are atleast two ways to exist as an atheist (ignoring the path you took to become one) Disbelief by default - someone has never deeply considered the question of the existence of a god or gods and simply dont believe because they weren't raised to believe, of Disbelief by logic - someone has considered the question of the existence of god and concluded that there is no reason to believe.

Yes, those are two different paths. Both end up lacking a belief, at the least.

Quote:
Neither believe so both are athiests in the truest sense of the word.

Yes. 

 

Quote:
Hoever the reasons for disbelief will alter the way the atheist reacts when the question of belief is raised.

Possibly. Many objections against theistic arguments are fairly self evident and should be easy enough to realize on one's own when considering the theists statements. 

 

Quote:
The atheist by logic will be familiar with the question, having already answered it. They are expereinced with the faulty logic used in theistic arguments, they have defences pre-built.

Yes, one who has pre-considered a particular position already knows why they reject said position. There of course had to be a point at which they first considered the position, however, and if they weren't swayed into theism then what reason do they have to think the atheist au natural is more likely to be. Logic is always accessible to everybody with a normally functioning brain.

And of course I disagree with your use of the word defenses as defenses are only needed by those who have something to defend. Atheism is nothing and therefor not defensible.  

 

Quote:
The atheist by default, if they are a thinking person, should be able to develop those defences when confronted with the arguments but they do not have them ready, they are inexperienced with the thought processes.

I wouldn't say they are inexperienced with the thought process as they may use the same thought processin aspects of their lives but I know what it is you are trying to say. The theist who has encountered theiststic concepts has a ready arsenal of objections.  

Quote:
If thet get through this without being converted then they move into the category of atheist by logic. Their disbelief has not changed but the foundation is stronger... and God help the next theist who tries to convert them. 

Exactly what my point was. That their lack of belief is not what is changed.

Quote:
There is probably a continuum (there almost always is) between the completely default and completely logical positions. But I think that the default-logic idea is relevant to the discussion of why some atheists fall to theism.

Of course, the lack of belief in any god or gods is always logical so the logic-default distinction seems like inapproipriate wording but I know what you are saying. The intentional or natural as I have been terming them. And yes, I believe that it is relevant to why some may become theists although I don't think that either side is immune from becoming a theist.

Quote:
There are other factors (emotion being a huge one that has on occasion nearly converted me) however I believe that the level of consiousness in a persons atheism is a big one.  
 

Yes. I am sure it plays a large role being as that all are born atheist and most become theists.

 

Quote:

 What about the atheists who are not aware that it's an icoherent concept? the understanding that the concept of god is incoherent is a reason for atheism.

They are atheists if they lack a belief whether they think the god term to be incoherent or not. In order to hold an active disbelief, however, it seems as if one would have to consider the concept coherent.

And what you term a reason for atheism I would term a reason why one cannot reasonably hold any theistic belief with which I am familiar.

Quote:
I'm not trying to distance myself from anyone.

But the thread you are discussing in was started on this topic. 

 

Quote:
I'm not trying to insult the intelligence of anyone.

I didn't say you were. And even if you were, if their intelligence was deserving of insult, I would say go for it. 

 

Quote:
I'm not trying to claim that someone isn't a true atheist.

But others have and that is from whence this thread be born. 

 

Quote:
I'm simply offering a distinction within the concept of atheism that I feel is important to explain the thought processes of those to convert.

It probably is, though I feel those who reach adulthood, where their brains are fully formed, and have never accepted theism are unlikely to become theists whether they are familiar with objections or not. I might even question whether or not there was any significant difference between the percentage of those familiar with the arguments against theism who convert and those who aren't familiar that convert, in adulthood.

Quote:
A case could possibly me made that the default position is superior. That they have never wasted their time thinking about such nonsense. I'm not interested in claiming superiority over anyone so I won't argue it.

I'm not sure by what criteria superiority could even be decided.

Quote:
To discuss things we need ways to identify things. I don't undertand these people who get all upset about labelling people.

Yes. Labels are useful.

 

Quote:
We need to classify things in order to discuss them. I'm suggesting a distinction within atheism. one group is not more truely atheist than the other, any more than a chimpanzee is more truely a mamal than an elephant, but I believe there is a difference. 

I think the places where we disagree may be much smaller than you think. I may start a thread about defending atheism as opposed to attacking theism now though as I find this an interesting subject where there again seems to be a subtle difference in thinking that may prove interesting. Well, interesting to me which is often not the same as what may be interesting for any other human being. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
The way I see it, it DOES

The way I see it, it DOES matter how you got to Boston.

If you were born there and someone asks you why you are there no reason is needed for why you are there.  The question is why should you be anywhere else.  If you were born in Chicago and then moved to Boston you will have a reason why you now live there.

So it really matters on the context.  I being raised by a religious family and community have to have a reason for not believing in that God any more.  To assume that I don't have to have a reason for not believing any more is far different than simply never believing.  My opinions changed.  I have to a have a reason for why those opinions changed.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: The way I

Watcher wrote:

The way I see it, it DOES matter how you got to Boston.

If you were born there and someone asks you why you are there no reason is needed for why you are there.  The question is why should you be anywhere else.  If you were born in Chicago and then moved to Boston you will have a reason why you now live there.

So it really matters on the context.  I being raised by a religious family and community have to have a reason for not believing in that God any more.  To assume that I don't have to have a reason for not believing any more is far different than simply never believing.  My opinions changed.  I have to a have a reason for why those opinions changed.

I acknowledge that it is different to de-convert from a religion to atheism than to always have been an atheist.  But somewhere along the line, I still had to make a conscious decision to be atheist.  There was certainly a time when I questioned my lack of belief.  I know others have posted similar situations on this forum. While I did not perhaps study or research as much as an ex-theist did, I still had to look into it. 

I can't understand what it is like to lose your belief.  I can only relate so far.  I'll openly admit that I didn't need a ton of evidence to confirm my disbelief, whereas I imagine many of you did.  It just strikes me that some de-converts feel they have 'earned' their atheism, while those of us who always were atheist have not.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
I think that's true.  We

I think that's true.  We do feel like we earned our atheism.  *shrugs*

I don't guess it really matters.  I just feel like other ex-theists are battle tested troops.

Does this mean we need to start different denominations of atheists?  hehe

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Watcher

pariahjane wrote:
Watcher wrote:

The way I see it, it DOES matter how you got to Boston.

If you were born there and someone asks you why you are there no reason is needed for why you are there. The question is why should you be anywhere else. If you were born in Chicago and then moved to Boston you will have a reason why you now live there.

So it really matters on the context. I being raised by a religious family and community have to have a reason for not believing in that God any more. To assume that I don't have to have a reason for not believing any more is far different than simply never believing. My opinions changed. I have to a have a reason for why those opinions changed.

I acknowledge that it is different to de-convert from a religion to atheism than to always have been an atheist. But somewhere along the line, I still had to make a conscious decision to be atheist. There was certainly a time when I questioned my lack of belief. I know others have posted similar situations on this forum. While I did not perhaps study or research as much as an ex-theist did, I still had to look into it.

I can't understand what it is like to lose your belief. I can only relate so far. I'll openly admit that I didn't need a ton of evidence to confirm my disbelief, whereas I imagine many of you did. It just strikes me that some de-converts feel they have 'earned' their atheism, while those of us who always were atheist have not.

 

I sort of agree with that. It is a feeling of accomplishment for me. But even though I consider it an accomplishment, I don't necessarily consider myself "a better atheist" in any sense. Having deconverted and knowing that you, on the other hand, never had to deconvert, I wouldn't say to you, "Well, I'm more atheist than you."  That's just kind of silly. I mean... essentially... that's like holding an empty glass next to an empty glass and saying one is more empty than the other. They're both just empty.

 

I am willing to go out on a limb and wager that recent deconverts probably have the "I'm more atheist" attitude moreso than atheists who deconverted a long time ago. It's sort of a thrill, I think, to see the world in a new way. I can't say that for sure though.

 

At best, I think that among those who actually see a distinction, some see it as more black and white than others. (Does that make sense to anyone but me?)

 

Hmm... could we refer to such a person as a "holier-than-thou-art" atheist?

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote: I sort

Archeopteryx wrote:

I sort of agree with that. It is a feeling of accomplishment for me. But even though I consider it an accomplishment, I don't necessarily consider myself "a better atheist" in any sense. Having deconverted and knowing that you, on the other hand, never had to deconvert, I wouldn't say to you, "Well, I'm more atheist than you."  That's just kind of silly. I mean... essentially... that's like holding an empty glass next to an empty glass and saying one is more empty than the other. They're both just empty.

I agree with you.  I imagine it must be very liberating to release yourself from the confines of religion.  Just as you say, an atheist is an atheist, regardless.

 

Archeopteryx wrote:
I am willing to go out on a limb and wager that recent deconverts probably have the "I'm more atheist" attitude moreso than atheists who deconverted a long time ago. It's sort of a thrill, I think, to see the world in a new way. I can't say that for sure though.

At best, I think that among those who actually see a distinction, some see it as more black and white than others. (Does that make sense to anyone but me?)

Hmm... could we refer to such a person as a "holier-than-thou-art" atheist?

I'm sure there are those that are a bit 'holier-than-thou' about atheism.  In fact, I know there are. lol.  I still don't think it matters how one became an atheist. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Reality Fan
Reality Fan's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-08-14
User is offlineOffline
I am an atheist, as I was

I am an atheist, as I was born and how I hope to die. 

Is this thread an example of tribalism rearing its head?  While I'm reading many assertions that one type of atheism is not better than another, one is not superior to the other, I'm also reading statements like:

"If you are au-natural, you may have never thought about the nature of existence. This might make you more susceptible to religious indoctrination than someone who has examined religion from the inside and seen first hand how absurd it is."

"Au natural and deconverted atheists both exist in the same state of non-god-belief. The difference is in the potential for conversion or reconversion in the future."

"One is necessarily a more informed position, so you could say that the deconverted atheist has more information supporting his position." 

"while I don't think it is impossible for a conscious atheist to give up their rationality I think it is much easier for someone with a more childlike atheism."

What exactly are these assertions based on?  If they're simply suspicions based on internal musings, please know that some of us may find them rather insulting and baseless.

Sorry, I couldn't get the quote function to cooperate.

Susan


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Reality Fan wrote: I am an

Reality Fan wrote:

I am an atheist, as I was born and how I hope to die.

Is this thread an example of tribalism rearing its head? While I'm reading many assertions that one type of atheism is not better than another, one is not superior to the other, I'm also reading statements like:

"If you are au-natural, you may have never thought about the nature of existence. This might make you more susceptible to religious indoctrination than someone who has examined religion from the inside and seen first hand how absurd it is."

"Au natural and deconverted atheists both exist in the same state of non-god-belief. The difference is in the potential for conversion or reconversion in the future."

"One is necessarily a more informed position, so you could say that the deconverted atheist has more information supporting his position."

"while I don't think it is impossible for a conscious atheist to give up their rationality I think it is much easier for someone with a more childlike atheism."

What exactly are these assertions based on? If they're simply suspicions based on internal musings, please know that some of us may find them rather insulting and baseless.

Sorry, I couldn't get the quote function to cooperate.

 

Well, I think we've more or less established that they're more than baseless assumptions. Part of the reason the topic was formed was because people were saying these kinds of tribalistic things from time to time in other threads

Also, we know it's not entirely baseless since we've had at least two au-naturals and at least two deconverts agree in some degree to what is being said about either side.

 

And I don't think the point of the thread is to argue whether or not "tribalism" exists. I'm pretty sure we all agree that it's out there. The discussion here is about how much sense it makes.

 

Am I wrong? Anyone? 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
In preface my comments here

In preface my comments here are regarding how non-believers are treated in America.

 

Watcher wrote:

I think that's true. We do feel like we earned our atheism. *shrugs*

Wrong. Anyone who has thought about the man-made concepts of god and decided to reject them has 'earned' their atheism.

People who were non-believers their whole life have had to deal with the stigma of being a godless heathen their whole life.

People who were theistic and now reject god have had to deal with the loss of that part of their life.

Neither is more worthy, you are kind of being an asshole with your statements regarding 'earning' it.

 

Watcher wrote:
I don't guess it really matters. I just feel like other ex-theists are battle tested troops.

...and like I already said, those who have spent their whole life not believing have had to deal with basically being an outcast. At least you had a period of time in your life where you sat at the table with the group, a lifetime atheist has been excluded and misrepresented their whole life.

Neither is better than the other, and both are justified in their atheism.

 

Watcher wrote:
Does this mean we need to start different denominations of atheists? hehe

Not funny. 

 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx

Archeopteryx wrote:
Reality Fan wrote:

I am an atheist, as I was born and how I hope to die.

Is this thread an example of tribalism rearing its head? While I'm reading many assertions that one type of atheism is not better than another, one is not superior to the other, I'm also reading statements like:

"If you are au-natural, you may have never thought about the nature of existence. This might make you more susceptible to religious indoctrination than someone who has examined religion from the inside and seen first hand how absurd it is."

"Au natural and deconverted atheists both exist in the same state of non-god-belief. The difference is in the potential for conversion or reconversion in the future."

"One is necessarily a more informed position, so you could say that the deconverted atheist has more information supporting his position."

"while I don't think it is impossible for a conscious atheist to give up their rationality I think it is much easier for someone with a more childlike atheism."

What exactly are these assertions based on? If they're simply suspicions based on internal musings, please know that some of us may find them rather insulting and baseless.

Sorry, I couldn't get the quote function to cooperate.

Well, I think we've more or less established that they're more than baseless assumptions. Part of the reason the topic was formed was because people were saying these kinds of tribalistic things from time to time in other threads

Also, we know it's not entirely baseless since we've had at least two au-naturals and at least two deconverts agree in some degree to what is being said about either side.

And I don't think the point of the thread is to argue whether or not "tribalism" exists. I'm pretty sure we all agree that it's out there. The discussion here is about how much sense it makes.

Am I wrong? Anyone? 

My basic stance is that an atheist is simply a person who lacks a belief in a god of any sort. 

I personally don't think there is a 'good' atheist or a 'bad' atheist in terms of how one became an atheist.  My understanding of what some of the de-converts are trying to say in this thread is that it would be more difficult for them to adopt theism again because of what they went through in order to reject it in the first place.   I tend to think that some people believe this indeed makes them 'true' or 'better' atheists than the atheists whose position is default.  Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting every ex-theist feels this way, nor am I pointing any fingers.

As far as this forum is considered, I would say our differing arrivals to our current positions are moot, since we are all in the same boat.  All of us are trying to learn and further ourselves and everyone is here because they care in some way what happens in this world with regard to religion.

That being said, I'm sure there are many atheists, default or de-converted who simply do not believe in god and therefore consider the matter of religion to be closed.  It doesn't matter to them.  There is no effort on their part to understand why they believe the way they do nor are they particularly concerned with the state of religion today.  Yet, they are still atheists, albeit apathetic ones. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Reality Fan
Reality Fan's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-08-14
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx

Archeopteryx wrote:
Reality Fan wrote:

I am an atheist, as I was born and how I hope to die.

Is this thread an example of tribalism rearing its head? While I'm reading many assertions that one type of atheism is not better than another, one is not superior to the other, I'm also reading statements like:

"If you are au-natural, you may have never thought about the nature of existence. This might make you more susceptible to religious indoctrination than someone who has examined religion from the inside and seen first hand how absurd it is."

"Au natural and deconverted atheists both exist in the same state of non-god-belief. The difference is in the potential for conversion or reconversion in the future."

"One is necessarily a more informed position, so you could say that the deconverted atheist has more information supporting his position."

"while I don't think it is impossible for a conscious atheist to give up their rationality I think it is much easier for someone with a more childlike atheism."

What exactly are these assertions based on? If they're simply suspicions based on internal musings, please know that some of us may find them rather insulting and baseless.

Sorry, I couldn't get the quote function to cooperate.

 

Well, I think we've more or less established that they're more than baseless assumptions. Part of the reason the topic was formed was because people were saying these kinds of tribalistic things from time to time in other threads

Also, we know it's not entirely baseless since we've had at least two au-naturals and at least two deconverts agree in some degree to what is being said about either side.

And millions of people believe Jesus was a real guy.  Doesn't make it true.  Again, what is the basis of the assertion?

Archeopteryx wrote:
And I don't think the point of the thread is to argue whether or not "tribalism" exists. I'm pretty sure we all agree that it's out there. The discussion here is about how much sense it makes.

Am I wrong? Anyone? 

The point of my post is not to question whether or not tribalism exists.

I thought I was fairly clear in making the point that no, it doesn't make sense since the claims have so far not been shown to have any basis in fact.  Furthermore, it's counter productive in that the particular assertions are insulting to some of us.  Apparently I need to get more of what's in my brain into my posts.  My apologies for being unclear.

I speak only for myself, of course when I say the following: 

The fact that I was never indoctrinated personally does not mean my "au natural" atheism is born of ignorance, lack of exposure or lack of thought.  That's an assumption, and it's an incorrect one.  I am simply asking people to recognize and examine their assumptions.

Susan


Reality Fan
Reality Fan's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-08-14
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx

Sorry about the double post.  I keep getting error messages.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: In preface my

BGH wrote:

In preface my comments here are regarding how non-believers are treated in America.

 

Watcher wrote:

I think that's true. We do feel like we earned our atheism. *shrugs*

Wrong. Anyone who has thought about the man-made concepts of god and decided to reject them has 'earned' their atheism.

People who were non-believers their whole life have had to deal with the stigma of being a godless heathen their whole life.

People who were theistic and now reject god have had to deal with the loss of that part of their life.

Neither is more worthy, you are kind of being an asshole with your statements regarding 'earning' it.

 

Watcher wrote:
I don't guess it really matters. I just feel like other ex-theists are battle tested troops.

...and like I already said, those who have spent their whole life not believing have had to deal with basically being an outcast. At least you had a period of time in your life where you sat at the table with the group, a lifetime atheist has been excluded and misrepresented their whole life.

Neither is better than the other, and both are justified in their atheism.

 

Watcher wrote:
Does this mean we need to start different denominations of atheists? hehe

Not funny. 

 

I'm wrong when I say that I feel that I've earned my atheism?  Ok, then you tell me how I feel.  I do feel like I earned it.  If I'm being an asshole for feeling like I've earned my atheism then I guess I'm just an asshole. 

I never said that au-atheists haven't earned their atheism.  They have earned it by not falling into a religion.  I never said otherwise.

Would you agree that children of atheists usually stay atheist?  Would you also agree that children of religious believers usually stay religious?  If you think its bad being an 'outcast' to society in general, think about being an 'outcast' to your parents, siblings, cousins, etc.  I don't know of a single atheist relative I have except for my children.  I had to grow my own.

I think I touched a nerve here.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Reality Fan wrote: The

Reality Fan wrote:

The fact that I was never indoctrinated personally does not mean my "au natural" atheism is born of ignorance, lack of exposure or lack of thought.  That's an assumption, and it's an incorrect one.  I am simply asking people to recognize and examine their assumptions.

Thank you, Realty Fan.  You said it far better than I could have!

If god takes life he's an indian giver


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: I'm wrong

Watcher wrote:
I'm wrong when I say that I feel that I've earned my atheism? Ok, then you tell me how I feel. I do feel like I earned it. If I'm being an asshole for feeling like I've earned my atheism then I guess I'm just an asshole.

I never said that au-atheists haven't earned their atheism. They have earned it by not falling into a religion. I never said otherwise.

Would you agree that children of atheists usually stay atheist? Would you also agree that children of religious believers usually stay religious? If you think its bad being an 'outcast' to society in general, think about being an 'outcast' to your parents, siblings, cousins, etc. I don't know of a single atheist relative I have except for my children. I had to grow my own.

I think I touched a nerve here.

I can't speak for BGH, but I did not get the impression a nerve was touched.  Your post came across as arrogant by assuming that life-long atheists are the same as life-long theists.  It implies that they haven't considered other possibilites when, in fact, nearly all have.  You haven't earned your atheism any more than you have earned your skin color.   


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Actually now I'm curious. 

Actually now I'm curious.  Deconverts all have their story for how they became atheist.  But you never really hear any stories about how au-atheists have kept their atheism.

Certainly there are stories from those that were swayed at some point by a religion but chose not to accept.  Something like a friend or relative trying to convert you?  Has their ever been any emotional turmoil in this?  Any stories to speak of?  I think it would help deconverts help understand life-long atheists if you guys could relate a story of your own so we can better understand.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:

Watcher wrote:

I'm wrong when I say that I feel that I've earned my atheism? Ok, then you tell me how I feel. I do feel like I earned it. If I'm being an asshole for feeling like I've earned my atheism then I guess I'm just an asshole.

I never said you didn't earn it, I said you didn't earn it more than anyone else. I said neither is more worthy of wearing the atheism badge. Grow up and quit crying like you are the only one who has experienced hardship.

By the way, I am an ex theist and know what it is like but I can also empathize with the life long atheists who had to deal with being 'shunned' by their friends parents because they didn't go to church.

Watcher wrote:
I never said that au-atheists haven't earned their atheism. They have earned it by not falling into a religion. I never said otherwise.

No, you just said you earned yours a 'little' bit more.

Watcher wrote:
Would you agree that children of atheists usually stay atheist? Would you also agree that children of religious believers usually stay religious? If you think its bad being an 'outcast' to society in general, think about being an 'outcast' to your parents, siblings, cousins, etc. I don't know of a single atheist relative I have except for my children. I had to grow my own.

I also know what this is like, but it does not make my atheism anymore 'earned' than anyone else.

I think you just don't like being told your atheism is no more special than anyone else's.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: Actually

Watcher wrote:

Actually now I'm curious.  Deconverts all have their story for how they became atheist.  But you never really hear any stories about how au-atheists have kept their atheism.

Certainly there are stories from those that were swayed at some point by a religion but chose not to accept.  Something like a friend or relative trying to convert you?  Has their ever been any emotional turmoil in this?  Any stories to speak of?  I think it would help deconverts help understand life-long atheists if you guys could relate a story of your own so we can better understand.

As I've said before, religion was simply a non-issue in my household.  We had some family members who were religious.  I remember my uncle (by marriage) told my cousins not to play with my brother and I because we were unclean trash. 

If I asked about religion my mother would just tell me that some people believe there is a god and that some people don't.  We were supposed to respect their beliefs.  In retrospect, I think that advice should have been directed at the theists who were rude to us.

There were instances as a kid that were affected by the fact that my family did not go to church.  I was terrified the first time some little kid told me I was going to hell.  I was so upset because I didn't know what I had done wrong.  There were kids I was not allowed to play with. 

I was punished in school for not saying the pledge.  I stood and saluted but still got a detention for not saying it.  Oh, and I got demoted from Varsity field hockey when they hired a new coach who was very religious.  At the first game she had a prayer circle and I wouldn't join in.  The next day I was told I was going back to JV because of my 'attitude'.  I ended up not playing my senior year, which sucked.  I had my car vandalized because of my Darwin stickers as a teen. 

I also tried out different religions, mainly as a teenager.  Tried Judaism, Wicca and some new age stuff.  All that really did was end up getting me fascinated with different cultures and different religions.  I honestly don't think I ever considered ANY religion to be anything more than just mythology.

Well, there's a bit of my boring history.  I still say it doesn't matter, an atheist is an atheist. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:

Watcher wrote:

Actually now I'm curious. Deconverts all have their story for how they became atheist. But you never really hear any stories about how au-atheists have kept their atheism.

Certainly there are stories from those that were swayed at some point by a religion but chose not to accept. Something like a friend or relative trying to convert you? Has their ever been any emotional turmoil in this? Any stories to speak of? I think it would help deconverts help understand life-long atheists if you guys could relate a story of your own so we can better understand.

Because he is too young to post this himself (he is 12) I will share with you a story regarding my son. His uncle is pretty set on making sure he gets confirmed. This is something neither my ex nor I want, but my ex-brother-in-law is his 'godparent' and now feels it is his right to do this. My son is extremely upset about this since he has gotten the impression that his own family will not like him anymore if he doesn't get confirmed. I sincerely doubt that they came right out and said this to him, but at 12 he has a pretty good grasp of undercurrents in conversations. All in all, it has make him uncomfortable to be around the family. HE IS 12 FOR FUCKS SAKE!

We chose to get him baptized when he was born because neither of us had spent much time exploring religion and it's effects. Over the years each of us has learned and although I am a bit more outspoken than my ex on the subject, both of us have agreed not to indoctrinate our children. We both came from theistic families who have remained theistic. This is a problem for my children who would be considered au-athiests. I do not want to force him to reject religion or embrace it but to think about it and research it before making a decision. Unfortunately, my ex's family is forcing my son to take a stance either way. I have instructed him to explain to them that he is not ready but will consider the information when he is older.

What do you think Watcher? You think he will 'earn' his atheism? Even if he does the research and comes to the conclusion that he does not believe, he would only be confirming what he already knows. Why would he make an issue of it then? It doesn't make for as great of a story does it? Perhaps that is why au-atheists don't often share their experiences. I am an ex-theist and my story isn't all that earth-shattering - have I not earned my atheism? (Shoot! I just got the t-shirt - do I have to give it back? LOL)


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: I never said you

BGH wrote:
I never said you didn't earn it, I said you didn't earn it more than anyone else. I said neither is more worthy of wearing the atheism badge. Grow up and quit crying like you are the only one who has experienced hardship.

By the way, I am an ex theist and know what it is like but I can also empathize with the life long atheists who had to deal with being 'shunned' by their friends parents because they didn't go to church.

Oh, I'm 'crying' now and need to grow up.  Thanks for using the patented asshat language for anyone who mentions anything that might have been difficult.  Which, by the way, just about everyone in this thread has, yourself included.  Damn few atheists talk about their atheism and the world's theism without doing so.

I agree that being an atheist either way can be difficult if it is known to those around you.  I suppose that's why a lot of atheists simply tell people that they "aren't very religious" instead of dropping the A bomb around theists.

BGH wrote:
No, you just said you earned yours a 'little' bit more.

BGH wrote:
I think you just don't like being told your atheism is no more special than anyone else's.

If we talk about the belief system of not believing in a god as being atheist then you're right at simply being an atheist.  However, deconverting yourself is a difficult process that ex-theists first have to go through to get to just "being an atheist".  Like someone who was born free and someone that had to fight for their freedom. 

Freedom is freedom, but if you had to struggle for it, then it means more to you.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci