my coming out as an atheist

[subobj]

So I'm sure I'm going to draw some flack for this, but I want to share something with this online community -- a community that's meant surprisingly more to me over the past few years than I could have possibly anticipated when I first signed-up.

I am an atheist. Stating that feels every bit as good and liberating as it did when I said "I am a gay man" many years ago. The coming-out process is remarkably similar -- first, a silent admission to myself, then a powerful sense of self-acceptance stemming from that admission, then a desire to share that sense of acceptance and joy with others, despite its potentially contentious ramifications. Also in common with my gay coming-out: it's been a long, circuitous, painful, confusing, but ultimately liberating process.

Perhaps this is the wrong way and the wrong forum to make this declaration and perhaps the declaration doesn't even need to be made. But, again, this forum has meant something to me over the years. I don't know what else to say other than thank you for the conversations, and thank you for hearing me out.

 

[AlmondMilk]

No flack. Just don't go bashing on others for their beliefs. My uncle was super religious and praised everything Catholic. Everyone else was going to Hell. Ugh! When my aunt went to talk to him about her husband's religion, which was Hinduism, he just knocked it down and completely disrespected my other uncle's beliefs. It's one thing to share beliefs, but it's another thing to start lecturing. I, also, would like to know why you chose atheism. It's nice to know where people come from in terms of beliefs. For me, I was brought up Catholic, but I'm not....the best person out there lol I should read the Bible one of these days just for the sake of reading it lol

 

[subobj]

Thanks for the kind responses, all!

In short: I realized that I already didn't believe. It was tough to admit that, because there's a lot of social stigma around the term "atheist", and because I felt I was "betraying" an aspect of my own background/upbringing. But I finally just realized that if I didn't actually believe, why not just admit to myself and others?

What blew me away is how similar this process was to coming out as gay (which happened a long, long time ago). When I was in the closet, attempting to convince myself I could still become straight, I was afraid of exactly the same things: social taboo, and a sense of betraying who I and others thought I was. But just like I eventually realized there was no longer any good reason to deny the fact that I'm gay, I also realized there was no longer any good reason to deny my lack of belief in any sort of deity.

Please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from -- I'm not in any sense attempting to say that gay people should be atheists. I'm just talking about how the process worked for me, personally.

 

[FirmaFan]

Here's the thing about atheism. It is not an alternative to religion, or an entirely different mindset, and, above all else, is not faith based. Atheism is a skeptical approach to the claim of a god (actually, to the claim of any and all gods).

Mikey asked an interesting question: why atheism? While I can not speak for every atheist, I can tell you my reason for atheism. My reason is a statement of fact, plain and simple. Many will argue that this fact is incorrect, but I can tell you now that it is not incorrect. Why am I an atheist: there is absolutely no independently verifiable objective evidence that supports the claim for the existence of any god worshiped....past and present.

I am unable to understand why the vast majority of human beings insist in believing in the affirmative when it comes to religion, yet will take positions of skepticism when broached with nearly every other supernatural claim. Why is the default position to believe when told about god? Why isn't skepticism the default position. Skeptical approaches to claims is how we come to understand what is actually true and what isn't. Here's a fun little example. In 1989, a chemist by the name of Martin Fleischmann reported that he had achieved cold fusion in his laboratory. Fusion, combining the nuclei of two elements into heavier ones, is a source of great energy (it's what powers the sun). This energy, however, comes at great expense, since the temperatures needed to achieve fusion are incredibly high. However, cold fusion stated that fusion could be achieved at close to room temperature. When the claim of cold fusion was made, did everyone immediately believe it to be true? You already know the answer to that question, and instead, scientists ran back to their own laboratories to try to recreate the conditions which would allow for cold fusion. Well, turns out, cold fusion was all but a farce, and what was reported to be cold fusion was, in fact, not. Cold fusion is considered by most a dead topic, but some research continues to be done with little positive results. The point I am trying to make is that nearly every claim made must be supported by evidence before it is accepted as fact. What makes the existence of god so unique that accepting it as fact does not warrant our instinctual skeptical scrutiny?

One such reason may exist within the nature of the claim itself. Cold fusion was an okay example, but it differed from the claim of god in one single respect: it was falsifiable. Experiments could be done by independent parties to produce objective data that showed cold fusion to be false. There is no experiment or argument that can objectively show their to be no god. I can not devise a test that would produce objective, independently verifiable data to demonstrate that god does not exist. It is this one characteristic of the nature of the claim of god that allows so many to derive a sense of validity to the claim. Mikey himself has challenged at least once "prove that there is no god". Well, the great answer to that challenge is that I can not, and I freely admit that. I can not disprove god. The existence of god is, by its very nature, unfalsifiable. This, however, does not give the claim of god any validity. There are literally an infinite number of concepts which I can devise that carry the same characteristic of unfalsifiable. Famous example used to demonstrate how unfalsifiable does not automatically afford a sense of probability: ever heard of the flying spaghetti monster? Probably - and you know what, you can not disprove the flying spaghetti monster.

The universe is incredibly mysterious. There is no telling what the investigation of its origins will lead to. But when you simply believe that the origin of the universe is "god did it" while at the same time asking for no evidence to support said claim, you are effectively eliminating the motivation to investigate the true origins of the universe. And it is not just the origins of the universe that have suffered at the hands of the "god did it" claim. Evolution, the most important concept to come along in the field of biology and has produced everything from the development of vaccines to the ability to write digital data to discs with lasers (yes...the study of the evolution of the eye of a moth lead to the development of CDs). Yet, evolution is continually the subject of controversy, is still battled with in school boards and even federal courts, because people have taken the affirmative to the claim that "god did it", without even the slightest bit of objective evidence that shows those claims to be true, even in the face of the extraordinary amount of evidence that evolution is indeed true (there is more evidence in support of evolution than there is for the existence of gravity).

When asking "why atheism", ask yourself this question: why "your" god? There are thousands of gods, past and present, that have been worshiped. The reasons for people's differing religions are extremely subjective. Most of the time it is simply the religion that their parents followed. At the heart of all religions is the existence of a deity that is responsible for the creation of all. This is a claim that holds two possibilities: either it's true or it's not. However, when have you ever known any explanation for real world observations (such as the existence of the universe) to be dependent upon personal creed? There are hundreds of different religions...they can not all be right, but they can all be wrong, and, as of present, no evidence has been presented to verify the validity of one religion versus another. So, why "your" god? I am not trying to be rude or mean to people who believe in god, I am simply trying to ascertain the reason for the belief. I have gone through great detail to explain my atheistic position to the claim of the existence of god, and the questions I have posed here are to help those who do believe understand that it is because of these questions that have yet to be effectively answered that I will always take the skeptical position to the existence of god.

 

[DJ1990]

I would be an atheist except I don't know everything about life so I'll stick to being agnostic.

 

[FirmaFan]

I stopped after you said something about proof, science, cold fusion. How insane!

If you stopped reading it 1/3 of the way though, you have no merit to call it insane, or give any opinion about it whatsoever. Next time read the whole thing then label it insane if you want to, at least then I can acknowledge it as a valid opinion.

I was never religious and was an atheist all throughout high school. I believe in God now, I think, but I am not religious.

Most who like to defend their belief in god claim to have been atheists in the past. Just an observation.

I have my own idea what God is. And I can't describe it to you, nor expect you to convert. Nor do I care to.

The concept of god is extremely personal...I said so myself in my previous post that you didn't read. With that being said, the claim of god is always a claim of a universal constant...he is the creator of all, the alpha and the omega, etc. How can such a thing be when, by your own admission, the concept is dependent upon personal creed that, more often than not, is extremely contradictory to other people's beliefs. He can't be a universal causal agent without also being objectively true, which, by your own admission, he is not.

But I don't like the atheist argument of "no proof" because you're arguing on the wrong plain.

God isn't scientific. All of the scientific-minded atheists as well as the people who try and prove dates in the Bible miss the point. God is about faith- that's why they call it faith. If you can take a picture of God with a Polaroid, then it isn't God- that's the whole point. God is a concept that is completely beyond our mental reach, our scientific reach. It's something that is buried in our soul, in our spirit. It has nothing to do with crazy dogma or feeling guilty. It has nothing to do with a bearded guy granting you wishes. If there was such a concept of God, in any way, the best we can do is feel it. We can't comprehend it. Hence, you have to have faith in the unknown.

To claim that god isn't scientific is a cop-out. You said that god exists. Well, this is either true or it's not...sounds pretty scientific to me. Whether we will ever have the ability to test this claim is irrelevant to the fact that it can either be right or wrong. I am not doubting your belief, or attempting to show that your belief does not exist, I am fully convinced that you are sincere in your belief, but you must admit that until evidence to support your belief can be demonstrated, the entity with which you believe in may or may not actually exist.

Some people don't have this faith or feeling. That's fine. They aren't wrong, different or bad. But why on earth would people try to turn GOD into a scientific debate?

God is a fantastical claim made by people. The method by which we determine the accuracy of any claim is through scientific means. And until such accuracy is established, belief that the claim is true is illogical at best, and detrimental to humanity at worst. I take it you didn't read the part of my post where I elaborated upon that facet as well.

As far as religion- ultimately, it's a starting point.

Starting point for what?

So many religious people get swept up in the same traps, the rituals, forcing other people to be like them.

I think that is the majority, actually.

But religion has some good things about it. There is something beautiful about a quiet church. And those hymns!

Yes, some of the concepts derived from religious doctrine are indeed beautiful. I myself am fond of the image of the crucifix. The image of Jesus dying on the cross, even when violently depicted, always seems to carry a sense of beauty. But is a belief that it actually happened required for that beauty to be appreciated? I find the image of the crucifixion beautiful, but it is nothing more than a piece of literary fiction written decades after the supposed event by people who where not even alive when it is said to have occurred.

Each person has to find their own path, create their own personal idea of God, soul, spirit.

No, a person does not "have" to do this at all.

It's supposed to be something beautiful, something mysterious- in short- about the meaning of life.

It is human nature to attribute purpose to everything. Life must have a purpose, why else would we be here? Well, I ask, why does life have to have an objective purpose? Is the purpose of human life in this universe any more meaningful than a comet speeding through the galaxy? Don't think I am giving you ammunition to denounce atheism as a method of thinking that devalues the worth of human life...I'll make exactly the opposite point in a second, that is, if you are still reading.

You can't break down human existence into strictly science and reason. I mean, you can- but for that matter, let's all mate with females then kill ourselves.

The idea that without god, human existence is rendered meaningless, and that without god, there is no inhibition or reason not to just regress to the basic mechanics of eat, sleep, fuck, die is, to use your words, insane. There is purpose to life, but I can not tell you what that is, because it is different for everyone. Each person decides what to do with the life they have been afforded. I need no validation from a fantastical creator to understand that my life has meaning and value and purpose. I value my life, and understand that I am more than just someone who should have sex with a girl and then kill myself. My existence is important because of one fact: I am me. It may be true that I am just a random collection of atoms that is ultimately completely insignificant and purposeless in this universe, but that doesn't matter to me one single bit, because life is not about establishing purpose in the universe. My life is important and valuable because it is mine. And that is enough for me. For those that think it isn't enough, and instead require validation from a supernatural being, well, draw your own conclusions about their ideas of self-worth.

So God is a struggle for me. It's hard when I say I believe in God, because I think people get the wrong notion. But I think God is a feeling that permeates all around us. it's a presence, but it isn't some guy lording over us.

Your outlook on god seems more like the Einstein version than say the Joel Osteen version. Einstein did not believe in god (no matter what argument-from-authority you might come across). Einstein, however, would refer to god in the sense of the universal laws of physics that are, to the best of our evidence-based understanding, the reason for all that is. If god is a kind of universal constant, then, fine, but understand that it IS a scientific concept, one worthy of scientific scrutiny.

Listen to music by Bach. A lot of it has to do with the Bible. There is absolutely no way such music could be made by a nonbeliever.

I have no doubt that he is a believer, probably even in the god-hears-our-prayers-and-intervenes-in-our-lives kind of way.

His music is like the sound of God, it's an affirmation as to why we live, love, fear, hate, etc.

Love, fear, hate, etc have been long studied and documented chemical reactions taking place in various centers of our brain. That does not diminish the value or importance of those emotions, it simply means they do not have supernatural origin. As far as an affirmation to why we live, well, as I said before, I am my affirmation to why I live.

I thoroughly read your post and responded to the arguments you have presented. I really do enjoy these kinds of discussions, and I would hope that if you choose to continue discussing these topics, you will read the topics I have presented, instead of just zooming in on key words like "science" or "cold fusion" and then labeling my arguments as insane.

 

[FirmaFan]

I would be an atheist except I don't know everything about life so I'll stick to being agnostic.

You will be hard pressed to find someone who will identify themselves as atheist but would not better be defined as an agnostic. Even Richard Dawkins will admit to the possibility of god...as a scientist, how can he not? He is a little bit more militaristic about the non-existence of god than what could actually be labeled as scientific objectivity, but still, he has and will probably continue to admit to the possibility of god, but will also continue to argue against it due to the non-existence of supporting evidence and the illogical probability of it.

 

[cornholio]

I always confuse the terms atheist and agnostic, but I'm one or the other. I find it highly unlikely for there to be a god, I can't rule it out, but I'm not going to spend any time dedicated to something so vague. I do believe in love, aswell as interaction between people that is unconscious. Some connection between people (and to some extend between animals) and I wouldn't mind calling it god. But I wouldn't pray "to" that. I'd just make sure to stay positive around people, give and take.

Also I don't believe in the immortality of the soul, because to me the soul is some aspect of the pesonality, something that can be tracked down to genetics + upbringing + perception of our environment etc. Something that will die as soon as a person dies. So I won't spend time worrying about any afterlife, I'll just try to make sure to make the best of the lives I'm certain of - mine and the ones of people who surround me.

What am I now? Agnostic? Because, as FirmaFan says, I don't rule out the possibility of some sort of god? Still not sure.

Anyways, congrats on coming out! Good for you.

(Weird, how I played a game with a couple of friends recently, where you would anonymously answer yes/no questions, and 11 out of 12 people said they didn't believe in any god. All lovely people by the way. But it seems to be true, around here you would probably suffer more stigma if you came out as a believer...)

 

[poolerboy]

I would be an atheist except I don't know everything about life so I'll stick to being agnostic.

Agnosticism is about knowledge not belief. Saying you're not an atheist but rather an agnostic makes absolutely no sense since agnosticism is an epistemological term (coined by Thomas Huxley) and thus falls into an entirely difference category; if I ask you whether or not you believe in god(s) and you answer "I'm an agnostic" you've essentially dodged the question. I, for example, am an agnostic atheist. There can also be agnostic theists (those who say they don't know whether a god or gods exist but believe in one nonetheless).

 

[bankside]

Most "atheists" who later profess faith will never give a crack at answering what changed their minds. 'Cept maybe C.S. Lewis, and I contend he was an atheist in Anglican clothing anyway.

Most former "atheists" and indeed most theists in general will eventually come down to the "I just know it by faith, and you can't know unless you know, nor should you."

Of course this just seems like self-delusion to anyone who examines the fact that two theists of different backgrounds are likely to give completely contradictory responses about the nature of faith, the consequences of faith, the nature of the universe, etc., even while they both stubbornly maintain that "they just know and it is a gift of faith."

Faith can't deliver coherent information about anything. Faith is just the abandonment of doubt without actually having one's feet anywhere near the ground. It is the act of declaring the ground to be real because one hopes or wishes or desires or needs it to be so. Abandonment without either patience or a sense of responsibility for discovery.

Faith is just a rush to judgement, and it is merely bad science.

And atheists can sing beautiful music. Atheists can build beautiful buildings. Atheists can show goodwill toward humanity. In fact they do these things all the time, just not usually in the name of atheism. The atheist would rather see beautiful things appreciated in their own right rather than turn them into commercials for atheism.

I do think people of faith are wrong, and different, though not necessarily bad. I also find it highly suspect that so many so-called believers think they have hit upon some important truth about the nature of existence, and they're all very blasé about sharing it with the rest of us. Where's the compassion in that? At least Fred Phelps has the courage of his convictions.

Anyway, welcome aboard, subobj, I hope you will find all the richness and envigorating beauty of the universe a great challenge and a great joy. And if you ever change your mind, please do explain why.

 

[FirmaFan]

No, it isn't. God is not scientific. God is about faith. This is why you can't prove there is a God. How on Earth would you do this? How could you prove something that is and forever will be beyond our grasp? And if it is not beyond our science, it isn't God. I just don't get why people would sit around trying to prove God exists. It's insane beyond belief. The purpose of God is not to prove whether or not he exists, it's about BELIEVING. Not necessarily believing in something that CREATED the world. But simply believing there is a God. If you don't believe in it, who cares? Move on.

I have already addressed the characteristic of god as an unfalsifiable claim in the post you didn't read.

But you have no scientific facts for these things: these are you beliefs and feelings. Oops, I meant these are your chemical and electrical reactions.

Chemical and electrical reactions which have ample scientific evidence.

As much as you'd like to, you can't apply science and logic to everything in the human world. You can't. Impossible.

I accept your challenge.

Art is an example of this- you can't apply science to art, it falls apart.

Art deals mostly with the subject of personal opinion. It neither claims to be scientific not attempts to describe objective facts. Art is by its very nature subjective, and you are quite correct to compare art to the belief in god. No one would look at a piece of art and think that their opinion applies to everyone, yet that is exactly what they do when they think about god. The nature of god is entirely dependent upon the person, but this fact is either not realized, or ignored, for if it wasn't, religion simply would not exist. You are okay with me not believing in god, but you believe that your god applies as much to me as it does to you, regardless of my disbelief, because your god is what you believe in. If you are to attempt to project your beliefs upon others (not forcing them to get others to believe what you do - that is different, and is not what I am talking about) you are creating a claim of objectivity, and it is that kind of claim that necessitates people to respond with requests for proof. You have stated that (quoting verbatim): "I think God is a feeling that permeates all around us. it's a presence". This is a claim of objectivity, it is said to apply to me as much as it does you. Objective facts do not require belief to be true, they are just true. This statement of objectivity that you have proposed however is dependent upon subjective belief, which is an illogical irrationality. You are right, I can not apply science to it, because it is illogical and irrational.

Just like art in the field of science is virtually useless. You can't sit there and go "This piece by Beethoven makes me cry because of chemical reactions!" That's tragic if you think that, and utterly worthless.

Um, you absolutely can attribute emotional reactions to chemical and electrical interactions in the brain. They even have textbooks for it. It is not tragic, nor does it diminish the value of it. Emotional responses are incredibly powerful and important to people. Chemical reactions are usually associated with intimate fluids in beakers sitting over bunsen burners. To think about the fact that emotions, so important and meaningful, are just like those bunsen burner beakers is, for most, demeaning and degrading. It is the association of something as powerful as emotions with the banality of chemical reactions that people take offense with. Doesn't change the fact that emotions really are chemical and electrical reactions in the brain. And even if people do realize that fact (like me), do you honestly think that it would effect the importance of the emotions we feel (it certainly doesn't for me). Simply because you understand the origins of something, that does not lessen the significance of it.

Oh, and as far as thinking about crying as chemical reactions is utterly worthless, the study of emotions as chemical reactions in the brain have lead to some very significant discoveries, allowing for the development of such things as psycho-pharmacology (regardless of what Tom Cruise says) which has helped countless people. But yeah, utterly worthless.

Again, God is about belief. It's not about science.

Then you can never talk about god in any context other than yourself, nor can you attribute god to anything observable by others, including your emotions or feelings, because everyone has those, and their origin is not dependent upon personal creed. The instant you discuss god as anything other than a fantastical thought you have, you give others every right to ask for evidence.

You can't argue the two on the same plane, and I'm including this for the "God made the world!" argument.

You definitely can not include the "god mad the world" argument. This demands evidence. The world exists...that is an objective fact that holds true no matter what you believe in. To say that "god made the world" is to make a very specific claim. This god no doubt has a single identity and fashioned the world in a very precise manner. The mechanism by which this one god designed the world must apply to all, in as much as gravity and electromagnetism do. To claim that "god created the world" is a statement of purely scientific consequence. It requires evidence...the creation of this earth has nothing to do with personal belief.

I believe in evolution, I believe in dinosaur bones.

I don't believe in evolution. I don't believe in dinosaur bones either. Evolution is a scientific theory supported by vast amounts of evidence that have time and time again been independently verified. No belief if required. The same for dinosaur bones, belief not needed.

And I don't need God for validation or whatever it is you're talking about. That's not why I believe in God.

You'd probably be greatly saddened to find how many people do believe in god for just that reason. It's definitely a depressing thought.

And why is your existence important anyway? Why is life important? Logically explain to me why life is important. Use science, facts. Go ahead, please.

I guess that would depend upon the parameters of your question. In the scope of the entire universe, life is probably pretty meaningless. Human life exists on average of about 80 or so years (I'm being quite generous). To a 14 billion year old universe, that's quite insignificant. But talking about life in reference to the organism in question, life is very important. It is in our evolutionary nature to have a sense of self preservation. This ensures our ability to pass along our genetic makeup to the next generation. Evolutionarily speaking, that is the entire purpose of life...propagation of the species. The emotions that I referenced earlier, when seen in this context, make perfect evolutionary sense. Love, for example, especially for our offspring, is incredibly evolutionarily advantageous. Again, its about ensuring the propagation of the species. To think of the value of life in these terms will again lead some to feel this is degrading to the value of life, but again, why does simply understanding the origins of our feelings and emotions diminish their value?

Yeah, that sounded pretty logical and scientific.

Since this is a gay message board, you may be wondering if the purpose of life is to just procreate and pass along our genetic information, where the hell do gay people like me fit into that? Don't really want to start getting into that, but there are plenty of studies about that topic as well. Google "natural selection favors homosexuality", I'm sure you'll find something.

But do whatever you want, I'm kicking myself for getting into a boring religious debate right now.

Then don't respond further to my posts. This is a great source of intellectual amusement for me, and I'll respond to any further arguments you feel like engaging in.

The flying spaghetti monster has to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Who made that, some clever 16 year old?

OOOHHH, WOULD YOU BELIEVE IN A FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER? HAW HAW HAW!

"God is not scientific. God is about faith. This is why you can't prove there is a God. How on Earth would you do this? How could you prove something that is and forever will be beyond our grasp? And if it is not beyond our science, it isn't God. I just don't get why people would sit around trying to prove God exists. It's insane beyond belief. The purpose of God is not to prove whether or not he exists, it's about BELIEVING. Not necessarily believing in something that CREATED the world. But simply believing there is a God. If you don't believe in it, who cares? Move on."

"The flying spaghetti monster is not scientific. The flying spaghetti monster is about faith. This is why you can't prove there is a flying spaghetti monster. How on Earth would you do this? How could you prove something that is and forever will be beyond our grasp? And if it is not beyond our science, it isn't The flying spaghetti monster. I just don't get why people would sit around trying to prove The flying spaghetti monster exists. It's insane beyond belief. The purpose of The flying spaghetti monster is not to prove whether or not he exists, it's about BELIEVING. Not necessarily believing in something that CREATED the world. But simply believing there is a The flying spaghetti monster. If you don't believe in it, who cares? Move on."

Can you see a logical difference between the two statements?

 

[barnbuddy]

hey subobj - congrats! There is considerable debate on atheist boards about which is more difficult: coming out as an atheist or as gay. We're all on a journey of personal discovery, and I wish you well.

Now, for all those who seem contemptuous of those "chemical reactions" explanations of our emotions. I imagine that folks suffering from bi-polar and other mental disorders are grateful for exploration in this area. Now they can be treated for chemical imbalance. I'm sure before science came up with factual answers, I'm sure people used to pray for them. For all the good that did.

The scientific method produces results (azt anyone?) because there are no orthodoxies that cannot be overturned. No one doubts Newton's brilliance or his contributions to physics, but many of his theories have been overturned because of new data. Not a hunch. Not a gut feeling, but observable data.

Faith, beyond the personal, just presents problems. Any dissenters are the enemy and must be silenced to preserve the faith. And of course that sort of thought keeps expanding and, before you know it, God and Satan are playing risk with the nations of the earth.

 

[WanderingGoogol]

FirmaFan: Marry me.

 

[WillMc88]

Wel478, why do you have faith in something that has no evidence to even support its existence?

 

[wooffy]

I'm not gonna give you any flack, and I just want to ask, Why Atheism, and what motivated you to become an atheist?

Seeing that this thread had been resurrected (and hoping it does not become a fight again), I want to answer the above even though it was not directed at me.

I come from a Catholic family. I think I was in grade 8 when I declared my disbelief in God. My family had a harder time with that than when I came out many years later.

I never "became" an atheist, rather I realised I was. Up until then I went through the motions of religion because it was expected of me, all the while assuming that everyone else also went through the motions because it was expected. It was like doing your bed in the morning, it was expected but had no deeper meaning.

I don't know what specifically clued me in that some people did believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful God, but I do remember actually being shocked that anyone believed any of it. To me it was like the tooth fairy or Santa Clause, I was shocked that any adult would still believe in religion. No aspect of monotheism, then or now, has ever struck me as in any way possible or believable. I can no more conceive of someone believing in "God" than a deeply religious person can understand my so-called "lack" of faith. With the arrogance of adolescence I even went though a period of equating religious belief with mental illness.

Of course as a child I was only exposed to the Judeo-Christian god. I could be described as somewhat agnostic to the idea of "high powers", but belief in a creator-god etc. of the Judeo-Christian type still strikes me as completely unfathomable.

 

[WillMc88]

Because that's the definition of faith. It's the opposite of evidence.

Again, I don't believe in the conventional idea of God. I don't believe in a bearded man. It's complicated and evolving all the time.

So why have faith then? Why would it be a good thing to believe something like that without evidence?

 

[WillMc88]

is it faith to say perhaps "that without a glass of water" your body will not know what to drink?

or that without gasoline in your car , your vehicle will not contain a tank to fill or leave empty"?

see that's the problem with scientists,

you can tell me what you consider to be the answer is
till you are blue in the face
but you cannot change the fact that I will have to learn and experience the answer for myself.


Theist

Run out of gas. Go to an auto shop and ask them to show you that your tank is still there.

What are you even saying?

 

[WillMc88]

Well if you have to ask I guess you will never know.


Theist

Next.

If you're not going to bother explaining what you say, then we're not gonna get anywhere.

 

[wooffy]

Because that's the definition of faith. It's the opposite of evidence.

Again something I don't get (see a pattern?). Since what has that been the "definition" of faith? Faith is belief without proof, yes, but faith does not require belief without evidence. In fact most religions use evidence to justify their faith - be that evidence alleged miracles, writings, oral history/folklore, etc. In fact I would argue that most or all religions use faith based on evidence - through often not evidence accepted by others.

I have faith in a great many things - when the evidence exists to support that faith.

 

[wooffy]

But if you don't have this kind of personal feeling, who cares? Why show proof? I don't need to show proof and I have absolutely no desire to try and make anyone understand how I feel.

Some of us try to understand others, particularly when that other is so alien to our way of thinking. I can either call you delusional, or try to understand. More importantly religion and spirituality are often strong guiding forces in an individual's decisions making process, which in turn affects how that individual contributes to society - so it is in our best interest as a species to understand this stuff ASAP.

Most religions use evidence because ALL religions are full of SHIT. Huge piles of it. Religion is a racket. Religion prays on people's faith for it's own gain. It's like the government.

I assume you are equating "religion" with "organised religion/church"? And that you exclude your beliefs from the term "religion"?

Faith has nothing to do with evidence other than the evidence gathered from your own feeling and intuition. it's a spiritual thing.

Circular argument - faith has nothing to do with evidence, except for your personal evidence. Oh, I get what you mean - faith is a personal thing, and has no objective description. I reject that. I find it fascinating, and disturbing, that in one sphere (religion/spirituality) society recognises some validity to the personal beliefs, yet in any other case would label these beliefs delusional.

It is like trying to explain fetishism - do you know how hard it can be to explain, for example, a rubber fetish to someone with no interest in it? I don't expect to ever fully understand the religious/spiritual views of theists (and they will likely never understand mine). Perhaps some day psychologists and anthropologists will arrive at a comprehensive explanation.