In my youth, I believed in my mom's god (Catholic) who was portrayed as a protector. But my sister's god (Baptist), who was portayed as a punisher, seemed really strange along with the people in her youth group; the lone exception was the teenage girl with big breasts who probably attracted a lot young males like me. Keep in mind I was about 9 but always thought it was wierd that people would go up to the front of the stage and give their life over to Jesus. It seemed like bullshit to me then.

paarsurrey wrote:

FedUpWithFaith wrote:the bloodthirsty atheist.

Hi friends

That shows that the Atheists are not peaceful. Is it that you want to show?

[non-serious analogy]Hitler had a mustache.

That shows that people with mustaches are Evil bastards. [/non-serious analogy]


Atheists are everyone who is not a theist, a god-believer. Just like theists they can be peaceful, violent or anything in between.


And (I hope) you know full well that this was a joke in response to you repeatedly declaring yourself a peaceful Muslim.
Which is actually interesting as it strongly implies that you think that for the most part Muslims are NOT peaceful. Why declare yourself to be a peaceful Muslim if not because most Muslims aren't, to differentiate yourself from the norm?

ElDiablo wrote:In my youth, I believed in my mom's god (Catholic) who was portrayed as a protector. But my sister's god (Baptist), who was portayed as a punisher, seemed really strange along with the people in her youth group; the lone exception was the teenage girl with big breasts who probably attracted a lot young males like me. Keep in mind I was about 9 but always thought it was wierd that people would go up to the front of the stage and give their life over to Jesus. It seemed like bullshit to me then.

Imagine that with a Zionist father in the background and a school full of nuns telling you about hell and purgatory, and you have the stuff of nightmares. the only obvious solution was to throw all the nonsense into the trash.

I think if you're a "good" child who believes what their parents say, AND you live in a country with more or less one God, which your parents believe in, then you're quite likely to believe in that God. For a while.

That's my excuse anyway !!

I suppose if you're brought up in, say, India where there's a large variety of Gods and you have any inclination to questioning, then the unreasonableness of it will hit you sooner.

twistor59 wrote:I think if you're a "good" child who believes what their parents say, AND you live in a country with more or less one God, which your parents believe in, then you're quite likely to believe in that God. For a while.

Also the relatively harnlessness of the religion isn't really harming you. So you go along with it, it becomes a problem when it's used as a way to control you.

I suppose if you're brought up in, say, India where there's a large variety of Gods and you have any inclination to questioning, then the unreasonableness of it will hit you sooner.

Or in a country where other religions are tolerated but criticised by the people in authority. I guess my dismissal of religion had more to do with the idiocy of the authority figures in my life. My dad and his constant longing to live somewhere else based on a dream of "the Holy Land" which to me was just a bloody desert full of people who dressed funny on the one hand and the nuns and their genuflecting and talking to a figure on a cross on the wall made me very suspicious of authority figures and then of course the horrors that were dished out by the Nats to the indigenous people in the country confirmed it, ie. that just because you're in authority, it doesn't mean you're better, more intelligent or more worthy of respect.

I think this thread brings up an interesting problem concerning levels of atheism.

I am fully prepared to assume that people who say they were atheists were, at some level, people who didn't believe in God. I know of many atheists who were rejected from a church-- say, for incompatible lifestyles, like homosexuality-- who pursue atheism not because they find theism intrisincly irrational, but because theism hates them.

I have sometimes heard people like that express a wish to return to the church, or some kind of extremely liberal version of the church they were rejected from. These people are atheists or agnostics, but given a coincidence interpreted as a miracle or a major life event, could easily "jump ship" and believe once again.

There are also people who hold an even less well substantiated view because that was their view as a younger person. They were default atheists. My crazy old now deceased grandfather, I believe a default atheist for most of his life, became a preaching theist a few years before his death. This could have been senility, but I'm sure he's not the only person who "found faith" after years of not having any.

Here's the thing: We talk about a lot about atheism not being a belief but I have a controversial argument about this. Although having no belief cannot be considered a belief, certainly, I think there is a kind of idea underway that these "default" atheists who then switch back or to theism weren't really atheists.

Assuming that I agree with that stance, being a person of little imagination, perhaps we should make a distinction between atheists who have made a definite effort to come to "know" atheism the same way we might research a religion vs. those people who simply have "no religion"?

The way see it, assuming that there are people around who do hold this "you weren't really an atheist" stance (and they aren't referring to the person outright lying about their history to gain converts) and there are really people who were "of no religion" who did convert-- can we really have it both ways? Either atheists agree to lose some of their number through default or disaffected atheists switching back or to religion, or "we" define atheists as something more stringent.

This may make no sense.

Teshi wrote:Here's the thing: We talk about a lot about atheism not being a belief but I have a controversial argument about this. Although having no belief cannot be considered a belief, certainly, I think there is a kind of idea underway that these "default" atheists who then switch back or to theism weren't really atheists.

I know what you mean, but I think in many cases it is the manifest dishonesty in other parts of the theist's discourse that makes the claim "I used to be an atheist too" dubious.

It is such a hoary and discredited debate tactic, to try to pretend both sympathy for their opponents' position and also having access to information that has resulted in their having moved beyond it, that it is rightly treated with distrust.

As stated earlier, since I have no particular reason to doubt that they might well have been an atheist, albeit an irrational one (unless they can demonstrate rationality generally otherwise), I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. It makes no difference to their current level of gibberish-claims of gods' existance, and we don't want to start "denying True Scotsmen".

Also, there are people who are believers but who pretend to be atheists because by calling themselves atheists on a forum such as this, they are accepted, and their religious beliefs aren't questioned, particularly if they find that they are rejected on theist websites for their high intellect or education. I don't know if I'm wording this properly, I guess what I'm saying is what is to stop say a medical professional or someone with some other specialisation, joining an atheist website solely for the purpose of talking about their favourite subject but, in order to not be harrassed about their religion, they claim to be an atheist.

katja z wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

FedUpWithFaith wrote:the bloodthirsty atheist.

Hi friends

That shows that the Atheists are not peaceful. Is it that you want to show?

Thanks

Paarsurrey, that was what is technically called "a joke". It shows that the person making it has what we call "a sense of humour".

Who said I was joking? Actually, I've developed quite a taste for peaceful Muslims. The warlike ones are tastier but they're harder to dismember.

Agrippina wrote:Imagine that with a Zionist father in the background and a school full of nuns telling you about hell and purgatory, and you have the stuff of nightmares. the only obvious solution was to throw all the nonsense into the trash.

Hard to imagine. My parents thought the church was greedy and full of hypocrites and kept us away from it. My mom cherry picked the humanist aspects of it rather then the hell and damnation so we never got were tortured with it. To this day my parents say "we know you don't beleive but we will pray for god to protect you." I won't fault them one bit for that. They just mean well.

Agrippina wrote:...particularly if they find that they are rejected on theist websites for their high intellect or education.

I seriously doubt that happens to any degree worth mentioning. Unless you're using "high intellect or education" as code for "political differences".

Loren Michael wrote:

Agrippina wrote:...particularly if they find that they are rejected on theist websites for their high intellect or education.

I seriously doubt that happens to any degree worth mentioning. Unless you're using "high intellect or education" as code for "political differences".

No, nothing at all to do with politics. I actually mean people who are well-educated but religious and they profess to be atheist in order to not be questioned by atheists for their religious beliefs so that they are able to discuss whatever their discipline is without their religion being called into question. Atheists can be bullies as much as believers can. I 've actually seen posts where someone who lets it be known that they belong to some religious group being questioned about their religion while they are discussing science. Hiding behind a pretence of atheism when the subject you want to discuss is not religion, is a good way to avoid the religion questions.

I'm probably going to regret even replying to this thread, but here goes:

when I was little my mom had me acolyting at an episcopal church. I hated it. The priest yelled at me and sometimes when he said prayers he'd kneel down and something like, "yeah right." It was really confusing to me. My dad, so far as I know, has always been atheist. My mom finally got po'd enough at the church to stop going (some squabble with another lady there). After that she raised me more or less atheist. Even when she took me to church she'd tell me it wasn't true and there wasn't some magic man and so on.

She ended up sending me to confirmation, and when I'd get home she'd tell me what a lot of bollocks it was. I more or less grew up hating Christianity and thinking it was all very silly. I still don't understand why she even bothered sending me to confirmation, though. (That happened while I was in middle school).

I didn't go to church after confirmation, and I didn't go at all during high school. I got to college, and both my parents told me to stay away from religious groups because they thought they were all fundamentalists and crazy.

When I was a sophomore, I started wanting to go to a church. I went to a few fundamentalist services, but those were all way too crazy for me. I tried Krishna for a while, but I didn't really get into it. I was enrolled in an intro to evolution class, and the first week was spent debunking creationism, so I was aware of the ridiculous "arguments" they have against evolution and why they're wrong. Probably a big reason I can't possibly take the Bible literally.

Anyhow, towards the end of the semester I started going to an Episcopal church. I thought the whole bit about Jesus being the son of God was fantastically hard to believe. After a while I came to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter to me if the Bible is true or not. I mean, what difference does it make? I like the New Testament and I consciously decided that I wanted to believe that God exists. Again, it really doesn't matter to me if it's true or not, but it does make me feel happy.

This fall I started converting to Catholicism because of their emphasis on the saints, their belief in transubstantiation, and the reverence they have for Mary. (And a few other reasons...)

Also, I became a theist because of personal experiences I actively choose to believe were spiritual. You might just say I have an overactive imagination.

So I'm not trying to pull the "I used to be an atheist" canard, but really, I did consider myself an atheist. I actively choose to be Christian; I wasn't really raised to be a theist, and I didn't grow up with indoctrinated beliefs.

Call me silly if you like

I never considered myself an atheist cause atheism is stupid.

Ciarin wrote:I never considered myself an atheist cause atheism is stupid.

What makes you say that?

Agrippina wrote:

Ciarin wrote:I never considered myself an atheist cause atheism is stupid.

What makes you say that?

I'm just messin around. And cause atheism is wicked stupid.

ModusPonens wrote:So I'm not trying to pull the "I used to be an atheist" canard, but really, I did consider myself an atheist. I actively choose to be Christian; I wasn't really raised to be a theist, and I didn't grow up with indoctrinated beliefs.

Call me silly if you like

Actually, I think that's a really helpful comment, and one which might help us understand why some of the other claims of "I used to be an atheist" might be said with totally honest commitment and yet ring hollow to atheists here.

Thanks

rJD wrote:

ModusPonens wrote:So I'm not trying to pull the "I used to be an atheist" canard, but really, I did consider myself an atheist. I actively choose to be Christian; I wasn't really raised to be a theist, and I didn't grow up with indoctrinated beliefs.

Call me silly if you like

Actually, I think that's a really helpful comment, and one which might help us understand why some of the other claims of "I used to be an atheist" might be said with totally honest commitment and yet ring hollow to atheists here.

Thanks

I've spoken before about the man I know who became a minister of religion when he became a Christian. I can't totally disbelieve that he was 'deconverted' but I have to admit that he is the kindest man, a really great person who is extremely knowledgeable about the bible and bible history and even though his belief is biased, he's always happy to discuss atheism without making nasty comments about it. He's also an evolution-denier which leads to some good-natured arguing but I'm as polite which his belief in mythology as he is prepared to hear my denial of the validity of the mythology. So we have an excellent relationship, probably because he is a truly good person who I see as a nice guy rather than as being delusional.

FedUpWithFaith wrote:

katja z wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

FedUpWithFaith wrote:the bloodthirsty atheist.

Hi friends

That shows that the Atheists are not peaceful. Is it that you want to show?

Thanks

Paarsurrey, that was what is technically called "a joke". It shows that the person making it has what we call "a sense of humour".

Who said I was joking? Actually, I've developed quite a taste for peaceful Muslims. The warlike ones are tastier but they're harder to dismember.

Not to mention that they can give you a bad case of the Shi-ites, too.

paarsurrey wrote:

FedUpWithFaith wrote:the bloodthirsty atheist.

Hi friends

That shows that the Atheists are not peaceful. Is it that you want to show?

No it doesn't. It shows that he has an ironic sense of humour.

But, even working from the assumption that it wasn't humour:

"the bloodthirsty atheist"

Singular. As in one. As in not representative. As in such an unusual trait that he feels that it alone differentiates him from virtually all other atheists.

Like if your sig were to say "THE Armandhammer peaceful Muslim" rather than "A Armandhammer peaceful Muslim".