I Am An Atheist But...

[Scarlett]

I'm an atheist butt.

 

This made me laugh.

 

 

As for the question, I'm an Atheist, but nothing. I agree with Richard Dawkins about religion, personally I think the world would be much better without it (particularly Christianity and Islam) and I do hope someday that will be the case.

[Lycorth]

I'm an Atheist with a butt fetish. Women only

[oddbird1963]

At first I voted "I am an atheist but religion is here to stay." but then I read the article and changed it to " . . . but nothing."

 

But I still think that religion is here to stay in some form or another. It will rise and fall with the challenges that face society. I'm not gleeful about it - more like resigned. I wish people would follow reason,maintain a healthy skepticism, follow where the evidence leads and seek to know more and more of what science has to offer.

 

If more people would do that, I don't think it would matter what kind of woo they let into their lives for whatever reason.

[badpuppy]

hmmm I think (and this is responding to the original article) that it's a little condescending to think that if people just had more education or all the facts they wouldn't be religious, some people ARE fundamentally wired for some sort of spirituality and as much as I think it's wrong to torment people with Christianity (I was mentally tormented with it), I think it's equally wrong to cause people distress by forcibly trying to remove it. After I left Christianity I tried many different paths, I even TRIED to be atheist for awhile. I was as miserable and anxious as an atheist as I was as a Christian. Eventually I found Buddhism and that seems to work very well for me. But I do need some sort of spiritual path to be happy. Everybody is different. People can think whatever they want to think about that, but it's important to understand that trying to force or pressure non-belief is just as bad as trying to force or pressure belief. Either way you're controlling someone's ability to find their own way in life. It's patronizing and condescending and violates individuality. My husband has no need for any beliefs. He's never really gotten sucked into Christianity. He's never really found a need for any belief. He's not a rabid atheist and understands that I'm different from him in my needs, but he's fundamentally not wired for any religion/spirituality. And that's fine. I think a big mistake we often make as humans is in assuming the way we feel in a situation is how someone else would feel or that what is best for us is somehow best for other people, but unless you are that person, i don't think you get to make the call. It seems to me that mocking, deriding, getting in people's faces, etc. for any spiritual belief is just as bad as what Christians often do. I'd rather we all moved to a more live and let live culture. Religion existing isn't any more harmful than it not existing because people are assholes either way much of the time. If a god isn't blamed for bad behavior, it'll be something else.

[badpuppy]

 

To ask people to abandon religion is to ask them to forfeit their language system. How hard is that to persuade someone to do? Wouldn’t they need some compelling reason to learn another language? Those who leave religious groups are really doing so because that groups language system doesn’t work for them. They will usually fall back on their native tongue when they can’t express themselves adequately with the new adopted tongue. Typically, that native tongue is the language they grew up with at home.

 

Those who don’t leave religion are getting their needs met by that language system. If their personality is content with the limits of that language, they have little reason to leave it. Even though they might be able to acknowledge they know that Jesus never really walked on water, the symbol of this in their language system gives them something of value for them to see the world they live in and to relate to others with that same language.

 

What I see as the core issue is this: Multiculturalism. Where I disagree with Dawkins is that I don’t see getting rid of religion as being the fix. Something needs to change, yes, but telling immigrants to quit speaking their native tongue and abandon their cultural identities in favor of a favored language and culture to supplant all other languages, is both unrealistic, doomed for failure, and borders on arrogance. The exact same thing applies any religion wanting the world of science and academia, or other religions to abandon their languages in favor of their myth symbols.

 

To be frankly honest about it, when any human language dies, many things become lost forever into the abyss that could never be truly understood or appreciated outside that language system itself. I see that as a loss to humanity. Our identity as a race is diminished when we loose something like this.

 

My suggestion would be to continue to educate people, and if they find compelling enough reasons to adopt new ways of looking at things, they will. At the same time, each culture needs to respect and appreciate the value of other cultures and language systems, honoring the dignity of the people that are part of them. Whatever language evolves in an open and free society is the one that will ultimately address the needs of the people who adopt it. To consciously and deliberately drive any language system out of existence is contrary to the natural evolution of society and an offense to humanity.

 

Yes. This. Exactly this. In discussing this issue with my husband, while he respects my right to believe as I do, doesn't harass me about it or try to convince me otherwise or treat me like I'm a moron, he doesn't "get it". It's so outside his experience and needs. I told him he had an atheist brain, I have a buddhist brain and my mom has a crazy brain (christian). But the thing is... it's not crazy for her. For her it works fine and she's perfectly mentally well-adjusted. (i.e. as irrational and crazy as I personally find her belief system, by any outside empirical professional standard she'd be judged a bastion of mental health.)

 

But Christianity was borderline manufactured schizophrenia for me. One of the best things about deconverting was getting to pee in privacy. (You know... because God was always watching. It wasn't that I thought God had nothing better to do than watch me pee, it was that I was told God was EVERYWHERE all the time, so where would he go?) Christians now don't understand why I like Buddhism without a personal god. I like the privacy. But there are also certain ways I see reality that may be illogical for an atheist. But I tried that system and it didn't work for me. I know when something doesn't make sense the atheist reply is: "We don't have all the answers now but some day we might, it doesn't mean god did it". .. and I agree, but by the same token, that sounds suspiciously to me like: "I don't really understand it but god's ways are higher than our ways." Neither language worked for me. One of them made me a basketcase... well nevermind... both of them made me a basketcase but atheism was definitely an improvement over Christianity. It just still wasn't the idea fit for me. It was like a shoe that just slightly doesn't fit. Wear it long enough and you're going to get blisters, even if that same size would work for someone else just fine.

 

Everybody has a different way they conceptualize their world. I think some of those languages cause a lot of harm... especially when someone is saying it's the "ONLY TRUTH!" but it's not the right one for you and is causing you harm. I feel like we need greater understanding and acceptance. If we could move away from exclusivity and one true wayism (including with the evangelical atheist types who think it would be all puppies and rainbows if everybody was an atheist), then I think it would solve a lot more problems than everybody adopting the same way of viewing the world just to conform to one more consensus reality. Is the consensus reality we have not enough? Can we not at least have our unique interpretations of it?

[ConureDelSol]

Religion is bad. It damages people and their minds. Many times it kills people. Will religion itself ever go away? Probably not. Will we ever uproot religion from government? Considering government won't function with it since it prevents any and all advancement of society now, we have to.

 

Still though, I answered Atheist...but nothing.

[JayL]

I was an agnostic. But then I became a born again Christian.

[JayL]

<< You and I, of course, are much too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, the Orwellian proles, the Huxleian Deltas and Epsilon semi-morons, need religion. Well, I want to cultivate more respect for people than that. I suspect that the only reason many cling to religion is that they have been let down by our educational system and don't understand the options on offer. >>

 

 

Wow. Only a guy who lives inside the ivory tower will make an assumption like this. My advise to Mr. Dawkins is to get a job outside the academia. When he no longer lords over teenagers with skull full of mush but when he has to deal with real live adults, It may open up the real world for him.

[bornagainathiest]

I was an agnostic. But then I became a born again Christian.

 

LIAR!

[bornagainathiest]

<< You and I, of course, are much too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, the Orwellian proles, the Huxleian Deltas and Epsilon semi-morons, need religion. Well, I want to cultivate more respect for people than that. I suspect that the only reason many cling to religion is that they have been let down by our educational system and don't understand the options on offer. >>

 

 

Wow. Only a guy who lives inside the ivory tower will make an assumption like this. My advise to Mr. Dawkins is to get a job outside the academia. When he no longer lords over teenagers with skull full of mush but when he has to deal with real live adults, It may open up the real world for him.

 

No Jay!

 

You are not much too intelligent.

You are pretending and failing (miserably) to look intelligent.

 

Here's the proof.

 

1.

You wrote...

"...the ivory tower..." treating the image in the singular, as if there were only ONE ivory tower. Sorry, but that's not correct.

http://www.wordorigi...ts/ivory_tower/

Each person has their own metaphorical ivory tower, so what you should have written (if you had the brains to understand this) is, "Only a guy who lives in AN ivory tower will make a claim like this." Capiche?

 

2.

"Wow. Only a guy who lives inside the ivory tower will make an assumption like this. My advise to Mr. Dawkins is to get a job outside the academia. When he no longer lords over teenagers with skull full of mush but when he has to deal with real live adults, It may open up the real world for him."

 

Your advise to Mr.Dawkins? Your what? Advise?

 

Tsk! Tsk! That's a grade-school error.

You can advise someone or you can give someone your advice but you can't give your advise to them. That's just plain wrong.

 

3.

"When he no longer lords [it] over teenagers with skull[skulls, because teenagers is a plural, so they must possess more than one skull. Therefore - skulls] full of mush but when he has to deal with real live adults, It [no need to capitalize the letter i in it, you aren't starting a new sentence here] may open up the real world for him."

 

Highly intelligent people don't make such glaring typos.

Nor do qualified Physicists.

 

Jingle your bells, fool!

 

BAA.

[JayL]

W

<< You and I, of course, are much too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, the Orwellian proles, the Huxleian Deltas and Epsilon semi-morons, need religion. Well, I want to cultivate more respect for people than that. I suspect that the only reason many cling to religion is that they have been let down by our educational system and don't understand the options on offer. >>

 

 

Wow. Only a guy who lives inside the ivory tower will make an assumption like this. My advise to Mr. Dawkins is to get a job outside the academia. When he no longer lords over teenagers with skull full of mush but when he has to deal with real live adults, It may open up the real world for him.

 

No Jay!

 

You are not much too intelligent.

You are pretending and failing (miserably) to look intelligent.

 

Here's the proof.

 

1.

You wrote...

"...the ivory tower..." treating the image in the singular, as if there were only ONE ivory tower. Sorry, but that's not correct.

http://www.wordorigi...ts/ivory_tower/

Each person has their own metaphorical ivory tower, so what you should have written (if you had the brains to understand this) is, "Only a guy who lives in AN ivory tower will make a claim like this." Capiche?

 

2.

"Wow. Only a guy who lives inside the ivory tower will make an assumption like this. My advise to Mr. Dawkins is to get a job outside the academia. When he no longer lords over teenagers with skull full of mush but when he has to deal with real live adults, It may open up the real world for him."

 

Your advise to Mr.Dawkins? Your what? Advise?

 

Tsk! Tsk! That's a grade-school error.

You can advise someone or you can give someone your advice but you can't give your advise to them. That's just plain wrong.

 

3.

"When he no longer lords [it] over teenagers with skull[skulls, because teenagers is a plural, so they must possess more than one skull. Therefore - skulls] full of mush but when he has to deal with real live adults, It [no need to capitalize the letter i in it, you aren't starting a new sentence here] may open up the real world for him."

 

Highly intelligent people don't make such glaring typos.

Nor do qualified Physicists.

 

Jingle your bells, fool!

 

BAA.

 

 

Well, thanks for correcting my grammar. I will try to be more careful.

[JayL]

I was an agnostic. But then I became a born again Christian.

 

LIAR!

 

 

Really? What do you mean??

[Jessie]

I was an agnostic. But then I became a born again Christian.

 

I was a Christian like you once.

But then I took an arrow in the knee. (Ah, memes)

 

So what convinced you to become a Christian, instead of believing that we are just the collective dream of an alien race, put to sleep by their god, Roz0r, the creator of their universe, who is actually just the dream of a very large rat who has been and always will be? Do you have something against sleeping, infinite rats? Or did Christianity just get to you first? Personally, I think the rat story is more convincing. Maybe you're being a little too hasty when picking which myth to adopt as truth.

 

Then again, maybe not. Tell me, kind sir, what makes you believe that Christianity is the way, and not any other religions? Perhaps the rat did not impress you. But what of Buddhism (not just our watered down western Zen Buddhism, but the other forms as well)? Hinduism? Jainism? Shinto? Daoism? Wicca? Confucianism? Voodoo? Santeria? Did you read up on philosophy? How deep did your search go? Did you bother fact-checking? Did you read the Bible *before* converting? How much of it?

 

Do you believe the Bible is literal and entirely true?

 

But the biggest question of all is, why would you believe such a fanciful tale as Christianity without evidence to back it up? How is that logical?

[bornagainathiest]

I was an agnostic. But then I became a born again Christian.

 

LIAR!

 

 

Really? What do you mean??

 

Jay,

 

What I mean by a Born-Again Christian and what you mean by a Born Again Christian are most likely, two different things. So, why don't you tell us what you think being Born Again means and then I'll respond. Deal?

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

W

<< You and I, of course, are much too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, the Orwellian proles, the Huxleian Deltas and Epsilon semi-morons, need religion. Well, I want to cultivate more respect for people than that. I suspect that the only reason many cling to religion is that they have been let down by our educational system and don't understand the options on offer. >>

 

 

Wow. Only a guy who lives inside the ivory tower will make an assumption like this. My advise to Mr. Dawkins is to get a job outside the academia. When he no longer lords over teenagers with skull full of mush but when he has to deal with real live adults, It may open up the real world for him.

 

No Jay!

 

You are not much too intelligent.

You are pretending and failing (miserably) to look intelligent.

 

Here's the proof.

 

1.

You wrote...

"...the ivory tower..." treating the image in the singular, as if there were only ONE ivory tower. Sorry, but that's not correct.

http://www.wordorigi...ts/ivory_tower/

Each person has their own metaphorical ivory tower, so what you should have written (if you had the brains to understand this) is, "Only a guy who lives in AN ivory tower will make a claim like this." Capiche?

 

2.

"Wow. Only a guy who lives inside the ivory tower will make an assumption like this. My advise to Mr. Dawkins is to get a job outside the academia. When he no longer lords over teenagers with skull full of mush but when he has to deal with real live adults, It may open up the real world for him."

 

Your advise to Mr.Dawkins? Your what? Advise?

 

Tsk! Tsk! That's a grade-school error.

You can advise someone or you can give someone your advice but you can't give your advise to them. That's just plain wrong.

 

3.

"When he no longer lords [it] over teenagers with skull[skulls, because teenagers is a plural, so they must possess more than one skull. Therefore - skulls] full of mush but when he has to deal with real live adults, It [no need to capitalize the letter i in it, you aren't starting a new sentence here] may open up the real world for him."

 

Highly intelligent people don't make such glaring typos.

Nor do qualified Physicists.

 

Jingle your bells, fool!

 

BAA.

 

 

Well, thanks for correcting my grammar. I will try to be more careful.

 

Please don't bother yourself.

 

If you are older than me (which I very much doubt), then further schooling will probably be a waste of time. Just jingle on!

 

BAA.

[JayL]

I was an agnostic. But then I became a born again Christian.

 

LIAR!

 

 

Really? What do you mean??

 

Jay,

 

What I mean by a Born-Again Christian and what you mean by a Born Again Christian are most likely, two different things. So, why don't you tell us what you think being Born Again means and then I'll respond. Deal?

 

BAA.

 

 

Oh, I see. You do not believe in 'born again' experience. Anyhow, now my posts are displaying this obscene avatar 'award' by the host. So I am assuming I am no longer welcome here despite my personal contribution to the site.

 

So it may be the time to bid Goodbye to all.

 

 

God bless you. And have a Merry Christmas!!!

[Cracked]

JayL, get over yourself. What kind of expectations did you have coming to ExChristian? I believe that you knew/know exactly what you were getting into. BTW, that avatar (head up butt) is an accurate description of Christians in general, but you already knew that.

[Cracked]

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. If you want the truth, stick around. You may be able to get your head out.

[Jessie]

Oh, I see. You do not believe in 'born again' experience. Anyhow, now my posts are displaying this obscene avatar 'award' by the host. So I am assuming I am no longer welcome here despite my personal contribution to the site.

 

So it may be the time to bid Goodbye to all.

 

 

God bless you. And have a Merry Christmas!!!

 

Your "contribution" to the site seemed to be trolling, from what I could tell. If it wasn't, you should probably work on your approach and how you present yourself.

 

I think if you weren't welcome to stay, you'd have been banned. But if you can't stand the heat, time to get out of the kitchen, broseph.

[SoftIce]

I'm an agnostic theist, but I'd like to comment.

 

I doubt religion is going anywhere. Since humans have first formed cultures, religion has been formed along with them. In fact, I'm not sure I know if an ancient culture that did not have some sort of deity. (Does anyone know of one? I'm curious to see if one existed.) Of course, ancient cultures often used deities as a way to explain the way the world worked (eg: why the sun would rise each morning and set at night, why there was stormy weather, etc.)

 

Now that we have answers to the more basic questions on why things are the way that they are, I think religion has shifted its purpose. I think that the main function of religion, currently, is to act as one of the methods that humans use to feel as if they are connected to 'something bigger than themselves'. Also, the idea of not really losing your loved ones and the concept of existing forever, most likely appeal to many people. I think many are also afraid of the idea of non existence, and religion placates these fears.

 

I think humans intrinsically try to connect to something larger than their own self. I could be wrong, but I think it's one of the reasons why we're naturally a social species. We want to feel like we're not alone.

 

Religion gives one method of gaining that feeling of being more than just yourself, and I think a lot of people feel comforted by that idea.

 

Of course, religion isn't the only method people can use to feel that they are connected to something and not just adrift all alone. People also often will utilize more than one method to achieve this. But, I think religion the most prevalent.

 

So in the end, I think it's these basic urges that many people have, to feel connected to something larger than just themselves, to not lose their loved ones, to not cease to exist, that will keep religion from fading away.