I'm An Ex-Christian Atheist Anti-Theist Rationalist Materialist Humanist Naturalist Skeptic, How About You?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I'm an ex-christian atheist anti-theist rationalist materialist humanist naturalist skeptic.

 

Of course, it is possible to be an ex-christian without being any of those other things.  And people who identify that way are welcome here.  

 

It is almost my one year anniversary of deconversion. Thanks everyone for helping me through the last year.  Freedom rocks, doesn't it?

 

In this thread, I thought I'd define what each of the things in the title means for me, and if you want to provide your definitions or comments on it, we could have an interesting discussion.

 

Ex-christian

Self explanatory.  I became an ex-xian when I stopped believing god was real.

 

Atheist

I don't believe in gods.  I don't say there are no gods (that would be the gnostic position, I am an agnostic atheist).  And I'm only agnostic for the purpose of being technically correct in my use of the term.  By that I mean, I am confident that the god described in the xian bible is laughably improbable. The overwhelming consensus of archaelogists, anthropologists, historians and scientists is that biblegod is humanmade.

 

Anti-theist

I oppose theism.  I do not oppose theists.  I do not say there are no gods.  The reason I oppose theism is because of the great harm that most theistic beliefs have done and continue to do in the world.  People have done all kinds of barbaric things in the name of their theistic beliefs.  I am proud to join the growing community of anti-theists around the world who are standing up to this dangerous nonsense.

 

Rationalist

I try to use logic whenever I am interpreting information or making a decision.  I try to minimise the biases that we all have, and I try to avoid using emotion where logic is more reliable and better suited to the task.  One example of the use of rationalism is that I care whether what I believe is true or not.  It was developing this awareness that led me to deconvert from xianity.

 

Materialist

I believe in the material world, in what can be detected and measured.  I don't believe in undetectable energies, forces, or spirits.  I don't believe the universe is anything more than a collection of substances and other things that I would be able to identify if I had a better understanding of physics, lol.  As far as I'm concerned, the universe happens to exist.  We are incredibly lucky to be here on this favourable planet.

 

Humanist

Humanism provides a moral framework that guides my decision making about things that affect humans and animals.  I see no need for religion to provide a moral framework and I have yet to see a religion that provides one that is satisfactory.  

 

Naturalist

I believe in the natural world, and see no need for a supernatural world, which cannot be detected or measured.  The supernatural world that some people speak of looks exactly like a non-existent world would look like: non-existent.

 

Skeptic

My favourite characteristic from this list.  I try to approach  everything with skepticism, particularly supernatural claims, miracle claims, souls, pseudoscience, "spirituality", paranormal, aliens, UFO sightings, a lunar effect on human behaviour, anti-vaxxer claims, anti-GMO claims, alternative "medicine", homeopathy, chiropractic, astrology, everything happens for a reason, bad things come in threes, the rainbow bridge, and reincarnation.  A skeptic's work is never done.

 

.

.

 

How about you? Do you share some or all of these characteristics? If so, why, and if not, why not?

[Fweethawt]

I'm a non-labelists. That, too, is self explanatory. And I just now made it up so, how's that for simple?

[mymistake]

It's a small world NZ.  Me too.

[florduh]

I'm with ya, sister!

[TrueFreedom]

I suppose that I'm all of those things minus the materialism, and also a Postmodernist Deconstructionist Relativist.

[Storm]

I'm a one-eyed, one-armed, flying, purple, people eater!

 

 

Joking aside, I believe that I am all the things you listed for the most part. Maybe with some slight variations.

 

But I think the most important thing you are is FTNZ!

[NoOne]

I'd say I'm everything on this list with the exception of anti-theist, rationalist, materialist, and naturalist.

I wouldn't say that I'm an anti-theist because, being someone who lives in a very religious area and family, I have seen the good things theism can do. Even if it's just false hope or moral system that I think is messed up, if it helps people keep themselves in check or gives them hope for the future, as long as you're not hurting anyone else or imposing it on others, I don't care. While that does take out a lot of theists, there are some left. I'm only a rationalist if I need to be as analytical and logical as possible, like in a debate or if I'm planning out my future. Also when looking at religion, I become very practical. Other than that, I'm pretty emotional, like when I'm writing songs or creating art. I try to play Devil's Advocate a lot in order to sympathize with or better understand others. I'm not a materialist since I still believe in a higher spirit or force and I'm not a naturalist because I do believe in something similar to the afterlife where instead of getting rewarded/punished for what we believed, we interact with others and see what we could've done better, what we did right, etc.

Great topic, I liked thinking about this ❤️❤️❤️

[Penguin]

I suppose that makes me an agnostic atheist rationalist skeptic. Wait a second, that acronym is AARS, which sounds a lot like arse.

 

*Shrugs*

 

Slide.

[Orbit]

While I am anti-fundamentalist, I am not anti-theist.

I am atheist with respect to all mythic/literal gods.

I am a panentheist. I believe "God" is consciousness itself.

I like the ideas in Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism.

[violetbutterfly]

I identify with a lot of what you said, but I keep an open mind about health and alternative medicine (not homeopathy though, that's just ridiculous). I've had ulcerative colitis for 26 years and in that time I have seen ideas and treatments go from "crazy" to accepted to mainstream. In my experience there used to be a lot of focus on treating the symptoms, not the cause. There was also a lot of eye rolling by doctors in the past if I mentioned that changes in my diet have helped control my flares. They'd rather prescribe steroids and suggest surgery. The belief used to be that diet had nothing to do with UC. Now there is acknowledgment (and validation) that certain foods cannot be digested properly and can cause inflammation. And that eating a diet consisting of processed food, high fructose corn syrup, additives and a bunch of unpronounceable ingredients might actually not be healthy for you or beneficial to the organs trying to process it. In the last few years I've been controlling my disease exclusively with diet. 20 years ago I would have been laughed out of the doctor's office for saying that. Today I'm laughed at the on internet when I say I'm gluten and corn free (because, you know, it's trendy). Laugh away, I'm the one who has figured out how to heal my body without medicine (and dropped a bunch of excess weight I could never lose in the meantime). Sometimes it takes time for an idea to become accepted. So while I have a healthy dose of skepticism, I keep an open mind as well...that just because an idea is still emerging doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

 

Out of curiosity, where do you stand on the discovery of the MTHFR gene mutation? Science? Pseudoscience? Sometimes the lines are so blurred it's hard for me to even determine the difference.

 

 

And "Everything happens for a reason" is fucking bullshit. That's up there with "It's all part of God's plan."

[disillusioned]

I'm a rationalist and a skeptic. Those are the only two from your list that I claim for myself. Some of the others are true of me, but I think that any label which has more to do with what I do not believe that with what I do is pointless. My experience has been that claiming such labels is counterproductive, as it can give the impression that I think I have found The Answer, when really all that I have are questions.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I identify with a lot of what you said, but I keep an open mind about health and alternative medicine (not homeopathy though, that's just ridiculous). I've had ulcerative colitis for 26 years and in that time I have seen ideas and treatments go from "crazy" to accepted to mainstream. In my experience there used to be a lot of focus on treating the symptoms, not the cause. There was also a lot of eye rolling by doctors in the past if I mentioned that changes in my diet have helped control my flares. They'd rather prescribe steroids and suggest surgery. The belief used to be that diet had nothing to do with UC. Now there is acknowledgment (and validation) that certain foods cannot be digested properly and can cause inflammation. And that eating a diet consisting of processed food, high fructose corn syrup, additives and a bunch of unpronounceable ingredients might actually not be healthy for you or beneficial to the organs trying to process it. In the last few years I've been controlling my disease exclusively with diet. 20 years ago I would have been laughed out of the doctor's office for saying that. Today I'm laughed at the on internet when I say I'm gluten and corn free (because, you know, it's trendy). Laugh away, I'm the one who has figured out how to heal my body without medicine (and dropped a bunch of excess weight I could never lose in the meantime). Sometimes it takes time for an idea to become accepted. So while I have a healthy dose of skepticism, I keep an open mind as well...that just because an idea is still emerging doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

 

Out of curiosity, where do you stand on the discovery of the MTHFR gene mutation? Science? Pseudoscience? Sometimes the lines are so blurred it's hard for me to even determine the difference.

 

 

And "Everything happens for a reason" is fucking bullshit. That's up there with "It's all part of God's plan."

 

IMO ulcerative colitis is a condition that can be helped with dietary changes, unlike most of what is claimed by the alt med industry.  What you describe is exactly what should happen when a treatment becomes recognised as effective, it shifts from being alt med into medicine.  

 

An example of an alt med practice that doesn't fit into the category of "an idea that is still emerging" and therefore is not necessarily wrong, is acupuncture.  It has been extensively studied, with no evidence of effectiveness, and substantial safety concerns due to many practitioners not using proper infection control practices.  So I don't feel a need to keep an open mind about it, unless a distinctly new acupuncture technique emerges, which will then need to be studied.  

 

Keeping an open mind is at the heart of the scientific method, so IMO those doctors who laughed at your hypothesis weren't practising science based medicine anyway.

 

MTHFR gene mutation 

I did a search for this term on sciencebasedmedicine.org and found 2 articles/comments that mentioned it:

 

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/naturopathy-vs-science-prenatal-vitamins/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/personalized-medicine-bait-and-switch/

 

A quote from the first article (written by a pharmacist, with peer review from a group of physicians): 

 

 

While there is some preliminary evidence suggesting that MTHFR deficiency in the mother may increase the risk of NTDs, there isn’t any published evidence suggesting 5-methyl tetra hydrofolate is superior to folic acid in the prevention of NTDs. All of the large trials establishing the benefits of folate supplementation have used folic acid, so folic acid remains the preferred, evidence-based version of folate that should be used for the prevention of NTDs.

 

The second article referred to research showing no correlation between the mutation and dementia in the elderly.

 

So, based on the arguments and sources shown at that website, I'm calling claims about people with the MTHFR mutation needing certain folate supplements pseudoscience, at least for the time being.

 

My open mind awaits the appropriate studies.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I'm a rationalist and a skeptic. Those are the only two from your list that I claim for myself. Some of the others are true of me, but I think that any label which has more to do with what I do not believe that with what I do is pointless. My experience has been that claiming such labels is counterproductive, as it can give the impression that I think I have found The Answer, when really all that I have are questions.

 

Good points.  If I had to narrow down to only two labels, they would be rationalist and skeptic.  Without those characteristics, you have no reliable way of sorting fact from fiction, and everything else flows from that.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

... In the last few years I've been controlling my disease exclusively with diet.

Excellent! I'm encouraged when I hear that.

 

And "Everything happens for a reason" is fucking bullshit. That's up there with "It's all part of God's plan."

Amen! I forgot to comment on that. I'm glad you mentioned it.

 

 

The principle of controlling disease with diet has potential to be effective and safe, as long as it is applied carefully to those conditions and individuals where it's appropriate.  If care is not taken, people can eschew effective, safe treatments that control disease and prevent harm.  Even if it is argued that people are free to make those choices, they should not be free to make them on behalf of children, or adults with diminished capacity, who are often harmed because of the anti-medicine choices of their caregivers.

 

There are many examples of conditions that are often not amenable to diet aline, and I would venture to guess that most conditions are not.  Type 2 diabetes and hypertension are good examples, they are very prevalent, and I have experience with both.  Unless the condition is at an early, very mild stage, medication is indicated.  I take meds for both because diet alone did not control them.  The risk of not taking medications in my case is ultimately the development of kidney failure, blindness, and leg amputation.  I happily take my pills and am grateful to science for developing them.  

 

In the face of anti-vaxxers and anti-medicine campaigners calling for the poorly named new buzzword of "health freedom", many of us want to promote the understanding and acceptance of science based medicine, which has been shown to lead to better health outcomes and lower costs to society.  As a humanist, I want to save those kids and vulnerable adults too.

[Ellinas]

Using the same list (and this is only a review of how I see myself in relation to that list, not a statement of how I would label myself):

 

Ex-christian

Yep.

 

Atheist

No.  Though my concept of deity is nothing that my Christian acquaintances would recognize.  I suppose "the source of life"

 

Anti-theist

No.  Anti dogmatism - anti claiming that I know better or have some greater understanding than others.  Accepting the concept of deity is not the same as saying that I'm necessarily right and others must agree with me.

 

Rationalist

Yes - in the sense that I see reason as the only way to evaluate experience and circumstance.  I also consider that it is rational to accept the limits of one own's rationality - the fact I don't understand something does not invalidate it.  "I don't know" is a perfectly legitimate position

 

Materialist

I see this as pretty well the same as "naturalist"; different emphasis maybe, but not far off synonymous.  I do not "believe" in the material world; it is what is in front of me and may be entirely illusory.  It's just what I have to negotiate each day and, as a matter of convenience, I assume it is what it seems to be.  I believe that the fact something is undetected does not prevent it existing - after all, stars undetectable to the naked eye did not suddenly commence their existence the moment a sufficiently powerful telescope was used to detect them.  Therefore, I have no problem accepting that things may be even though science has yet to explain them.

 

Humanist

Not really.  I do not accept the concept of morality as such; therefore I am uninterested in finding such a framework.  

 

Naturalist

See above.  I would say however that I do not believe in the "supernatural" as opposed to the "unexplained"..

 

Skeptic

I'd rather stick with the "rationalist" label above.  Again, they strike me as two pretty much of a kind.  The word "sceptical" has its' root in a verb meaning "to think" or "to ponder".  I have no problem with that - provided it is a process that reaches rather than commences with the conclusion that something is nonsense.  I have no intention of being an habitual debunker; rather I'm an enquirer who reaches only temporary conclusions.

[Castiel233]

agnostic, (boring answer, but accurate)