my coming out as an atheist

[jdoe4822]

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.

I haven't read what others have been writing but just wanted to say "good for you" to the OP. My (almost simultaneous) decisions to walk away from both religion and admit and label mysyelf an atheist, as well as my finally being comfortable saying I'm gay together were the two most liberating decisions I have ever made. Enjoy your newfound freedom.

 

[TX-Beau]

Dogma is doctrine, the rules of your faith.

 

[TX-Beau]

Sure it is, your doctrine describes how and what you believe.

 

[seven_sins]

I tend to be an objectivist when it comes to religion. A good discussion of the objectivist view of God is at:

Does God Exist?

 

[wooffy]

I tend to be an objectivist when it comes to religion. A good discussion of the objectivist view of God is at:

Does God Exist?

Thanks for posting that, its was a fascinating read. It tends to jive with my world-view: that any beliefs, religious or otherwise, must pass rational examination.

 

[XLeatherX]

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.

If you're a gay man why does it say that you're bisexual?

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

From the Anti-Bible:

“You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the [STRIKE]LORD[/STRIKE] ATHEOS your anti-God, am a jealous anti-God...” Anti-Exodus 20:4-5

 

[BigBulgeLover85]

Okay, this has been an interesting debate.

Here are my thoughts:

Words are variables, they are not constants. God is just a word, so it can mean anything you want it to mean. One reason why not everybody agrees whether God exists is because not everybody agrees on the definition of God.

Since God has essentially become a "bridge" word that encompasses so many different meanings, I usually discard the word God to describe what I believe in, and instead, I choose to use terms like "Universe", "Source", and "Collective Consciousness."

First of all, why do people assume that you live only once, and that when you die, that is it? Why do people assume that they don't have past lives, or experience of some kind of existence or subjective reality prior to having been conceived? Most people do not remember being born, but... if you can't remember something, does that mean that you didn't experience it?

People think that when you die, there is nothing. Well, wherever there is nothing... isn't there space for an INFINITY of possibilities?

And what is reality, anyway? Does subjective reality exist independently of objective reality?

Think of a person who has Alzheimer's. They do not remember from moment to moment. They do not remember something that happened five minutes ago. They have hallucinations and delusions. Their subjective reality is more real to them than the objective reality that is shared by people with properly working brains. Their hold and perception of objective reality is seriously impaired because of the deterioration of their brain..

My theory is that, when your body dies, you probably lose all connection with objective reality and the objective universe. But... as an observer, a perceiver, you still continue to experience some kind of subjective reality. Perhaps at some point, you even come to experience objective reality again, if not this objective reality, then a whole other objective reality shared with others.

Anyway, that's my theory on life after death.

As for God, whatever your definition, if it can't be perceived or measured in objective reality, than it doesn't exist in objective reality. If Yahweh spoke to Moses in objective reality, then Yahweh would have to be a god that exists objectively. If Yahweh spoke to Moses in his subjective reality, then Moses is crazy. But so far, there is no evidence that suggests that the story of Yahweh speaking to Moses is true or that Yahweh exists objectively.

 

[bankside]

Congratulations on having the courage to admit your atheism. And to those who want to ask why I am an atheist, here is a sample of things on the list:

My mother died needlessly and painfully.
My brother was murdered while out for a walk with his fiance.
Many of my friends have died agonizing deaths from cancer.
The Westboro Baptist Church exists.
I have seen too much elder abuse.
My sister's life was destroyed by epilepsy.
People are slaughtered around the world every day in the name of religion.

And "god" did not or does not intervene in any of these. Unless of course you hold to the theory that "god has his reasons for these trials to be placed on us" or " we cannot grasp god's reasons for these things" or "it is not up to us to question why god permits these things."

I do not believe in god. For those of you who do, that's wonderful. For you.

...very good reasons for not believing in the existence of a just and compassionate god, but I don't see a reason to believe in any kind of god...

 

[sokker]

I just wanted to say that I'm a proud atheist.

I don't believe in God, I never have. I don't know why I don't believe in a God, I just don't.

And I think my life has been easier because of that. I can do whatever I want, without a book telling me it's wrong or right. I can make my own decisions. I always say that I don't believe in a God, I believe in humanity. I believe that people are strong enough to live without a God and still be able to make the right decisions.

 

[subobj]

If you're a gay man why does it say that you're bisexual?

I go back and forth on the sexual orientation labels thing. I'm mostly interested in men, but I can be interested in women too, at least once in awhile. I don't know what to call myself in that regard.

I usually publicly identify as gay because that tells the rest of the world the majority of what there is to know about my sexual orientation, even if the details are more nuanced. I don't recall why I stated my orientation as bisexual in my profile -- perhaps I was in a particularly bi mood that day.

Not sure what this has to do with the atheist/etc discussion, other than that there are politically-charged labels involved in both situations.

 

[jwa007]

We are all atheists. We all have rejected gods other people respect. I guess I'm a radical atheist. I do not think we need some god figure to explain our presence or the presence of the earth or solar system or anything.

Funny thing about science is its limitations. It is not possible for man to know everything about everything. But damnit, science is going to keep trying. And more power to them. What irks me are those people who want to interject the supernatural or a supreme being in the gaps of our knowledge. Relax, chill, let the gaps be gaps for now.

Maybe, someday, we will figure this stuff out. Let's not stop trying, but let's admit that there are things we don't know and without the addition of a supreme being who does know all.

 

[kallipolis]

We are all atheists. We all have rejected gods other people respect. I guess I'm a radical atheist. I do not think we need some god figure to explain our presence or the presence of the earth or solar system or anything.

Funny thing about science is its limitations. It is not possible for man to know everything about everything. But damnit, science is going to keep trying. And more power to them. What irks me are those people who want to interject the supernatural or a supreme being in the gaps of our knowledge. Relax, chill, let the gaps be gaps for now.

Maybe, someday, we will figure this stuff out. Let's not stop trying, but let's admit that there are things we don't know and without the addition of a supreme being who does know all.

I'm not. I can only speak for myself.

 

[TX-Beau]

Science will always hit a solid brick wall when it comes to God and his Origins...

Actually, science is still waiting for any single one of you to present some real evidence. With no evidence, there is no brick wall, there is nothing to consider at all.

We just have some unsubstantiated stories you've told, and as any scientist can tell you, something is not true just because you insist it is.

After two thousand years, surely there is something you can present to the rest of us that doesn't boil down to "I told you so."

Rather say science will hit a brick wall with believers, who will insist on believing the irrational, who are happy to dismiss other religious people as irrational, because they believe in obviously false gods. That's just silly right, everyone knows there's no evidence of Shiva, obviously there was no virgin birth involved with that.

Why is it that Catholicism is true, but Hinduism isn't? When it come to Hindus, you're an atheist.

 

[bankside]

Do any of you know Parliamentary traditions of the Westminster system? Perhaps the universe is like the House of Commons, and God is forbidden to enter, having to send the Gentleman Angel of the Black Rod to come fetch us. If that is the case, we could surely visit the House of Lords for the occasional throne speech and then report back here, convinced of what we saw, maybe even having broadcast the whole thing on BBC for all the world to know with their own eyes.

Theists are being reduced to that: God is undetectable not because he is unreal and imaginary, but because he simply isn't here. But, he is somewhere else! But we can't go there, which is why there's no proof here. But he can interact with us here, which leaves no trace (proof). And yet we don't share some part in some other plane, where he is. But don't ask why. But if you click your heels together three times....

Pfff.

You can't make god more likely by stuffing him in another dimension. Either that dimension would be accessible to us (and thus susceptible to yielding evidence upon which science might act) or it would be immaterial to us, utterly irrelevant due to its inherent, immutable inaccessibility, or in other words, non-existent.

Or in other words, I'm sure many different kinds of gods exist in many discontinuous, inaccessible dimensions or realities or whatever else one might posit along with the proviso that it makes no difference to this universe. That and a partridge in a pear tree.

Okay, also, a work-a-day definition of non-sequitur:
Atheists don't believe in a higher power. I enjoy pancakes for breakfast.

 

[FirmaFan]

I'm not. I can only speak for myself.

Unless you believe in every single god ever worshiped in the history of mankind (I think there have been historically documented accounts of over 2800 different deities worshiped), you are an atheist with respect to at least one of those gods.

 

[TX-Beau]

An Atheist believes in no higher power of any kind...

Actually an atheist disputes your claim that there is a higher power. Belief is completely irrelevant.

I've known atheists who categorically reject the whole idea, and atheists who have no opinion on higher powers save that they see no evidence of one, the basic commonality among all atheists is that they don't believe you, just because you say so.

Atheists, don't believe in you....

Think how important that makes you, without the religious, there would be no atheists.

 

[bankside]

Actually an atheist disputes your claim that there is a higher power. Belief is completely irrelevant.

I've known atheists who categorically reject the whole idea, and atheists who have no opinion on higher powers save that they see no evidence of one, the basic commonality among all atheists is that they don't believe you just because you say so.

Think how important that makes you, without the religious, there would be no atheists.

Yep; there are even what might be called "antitheists" such as Christopher Hitchens. He is an atheist, because he doesn't think there is any god. But he is also an anti-theist, arguing that there ought not to be a god; that it would be a very bad, immoral idea to have one.

The first position - atheism - is his observation, which I share. The second position - antitheism - is his argument to make, where I reserve judgment. But I'm interested.

 

[kallipolis]

An Atheist believes in no higher power of any kind, therefore I am not an atheist. I believe in the God of all the prophets of Judaism, Abraham, Issac and Jacob, etc, and His Son Jesus Christ who is both God and Man, who sent forth the Holy Spirit upon the Church to guide it to this day.

The crusading, evangelical atheist shares much in common with the religious fanatic, when attempting to de-construct the belief structure of the theist, by appearing to present the superior theoretical argument in favour of the atheist belief structure. A mirror image, no less, of those theists whom the atheist must defeat any any cost, when measuring their word skills against those who dare to harbour theistic faith.

Mikey - You may like to consider reading the following, written by Count Leo Tolstoy, a Russian author celebrated for his practical application of his Christian faith.:

http://www.biblicalproportions.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=56


Saluti, Alekos

 

[FirmaFan]

The crusading, evangelical atheist shares much in common with the religious fanatic, when attempting to de-construct the belief structure of the theist, by appearing to present the superior theoretical argument in favour of the atheist belief structure. A mirror image, no less, of those theists whom the atheist must defeat any any cost, when measuring their word skills against those who dare to harbour theistic faith.

Now what we have here is the extremely prevalent misconception about what "atheism" actually is. Somehow, atheism has become a counter belief system to that of a religious belief system, prompting you to claim that the arguments "for" atheism and the arguments for religion are operating on near equal footing, and are operating under the same principles of belief, the only difference being the belief itself. Similar arguments incite statements such as "it takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does to believe in god."

This is fundamentally inaccurate. Atheism is nothing more than a skeptical response to the claim of the existence of god. To say things like "atheist belief structure" is as flawed as saying "the hobby of not collecting stamps". Atheism is not a system of belief or a world view. It is merely the doubt one has when someone else makes a religious claim.

If you actually understand the arguments made by atheists when discussing god's existence, you will note that none of them are conceptually original arguments to attempt to demonstrate that god doesn't exist. They are actually responses to the claims of god that have been made by others. The arguments made are not "appearing to present the superior theoretical argument in favour of the atheist belief structure", but are actually presenting reasons why the claims made by the religious provide insufficient logical reasoning for believing those claims to be fact.

Atheists do not argue for the non-existence of any particular idea of god. A person who does not believe in a god is, in actuality not believing in the claims of god made by others. It takes the believer to define and present an idea of god before a skeptic can decide not to believe in it. The skeptic can then present the various reasons why the particular claim does not warrant belief. The skeptic is not presenting an argument for why he doesn't believe in his own rejected idea of god, he presents an argument for the reasons why he does not believe in the god claimed by the believer. Atheists are never arguing in favor of a belief structure, they are arguing against the belief structure claimed by the believer, who, by definition, shall always be plagued by the burden of proof.

So, the next time you converse with an atheist, think: are they really trying to convince you to believe a particular belief system, or are they just rejecting YOUR belief system because you have not met the burden of proof by providing sufficient evidence why a person should believe as you do?