ChatterBank0 min ago
How does one become an atheist?
138 Answers
Tweaker asked this in the thread on JWs
Personally I grew up in a familly that wasn't particularly religious, and it slowly grew on me.
I certainly remember at the age of 12 the Headmaster doing a role call of who was Christian, Jewish etc. and then asked "any others" - I put up my hand and said I was an atheist.
There then followed much consternation and d bluster before he said rather arrogantly "Well I hope you find a religion one day"
I guess that was when I first identified myself as an atheist.
How about the rest of you? Do you remember when you first identified yourselves as atheists?
Personally I grew up in a familly that wasn't particularly religious, and it slowly grew on me.
I certainly remember at the age of 12 the Headmaster doing a role call of who was Christian, Jewish etc. and then asked "any others" - I put up my hand and said I was an atheist.
There then followed much consternation and d bluster before he said rather arrogantly "Well I hope you find a religion one day"
I guess that was when I first identified myself as an atheist.
How about the rest of you? Do you remember when you first identified yourselves as atheists?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@LG, I have asked Ab Editor. several times if we could have these posts numbered to make it easier on these long threads to know to what posting someone is referring to. I have never said //there is a neurological difference between "artists" and "scientists" caused by lack of right brain development //. What I said was, in answer to the question (teasingly), that perhaps an atheist has an underdeveloped right side of their brain. I later gave an example of a scientist (Prof. Tony Ryan) who is without doubt, blasting away with both barrels. The work of Good scientists like that of good artists needs to be Dionysian as much as Apolline.
@ Khandro - unyet you still continue to espouse this nonsense that creativity = spirituality, and that scientists cannot truly appreciate the profound.
You go on to further cement this view - you need to know god in order to play Bach, or words to that effect?
Its bilge, Khandro, and annoying bilge at that. I am a scientist. I read poetry. I can play Bach well enough to make you weep - with not a religious bone in my body.
Its this notion that somehow belief in a deity confers an appreciation of the wonders of the universe around us, and that those who do not believe are lacking in such sensitivity that I find both highly irritating, and if I am being honest, offensively smug.
You go on to further cement this view - you need to know god in order to play Bach, or words to that effect?
Its bilge, Khandro, and annoying bilge at that. I am a scientist. I read poetry. I can play Bach well enough to make you weep - with not a religious bone in my body.
Its this notion that somehow belief in a deity confers an appreciation of the wonders of the universe around us, and that those who do not believe are lacking in such sensitivity that I find both highly irritating, and if I am being honest, offensively smug.
Keyplus, I haven't given up, I'm just looking in a different place to you, a much bigger place and I'm not looking for god. I learned a long time ago to see through the glib cliches that priests and preachers use to make people feel inadequate and/or guilt ridden. Just be a bit more self-reliant and think for yourself, you don't need a self appointed 'scholar' to define your moral code.
Khandro - “... by your own definition, that [disbelief] would require cognitive ability...”
Of course it doesn't. Disbelief does not require any form of cognitive ability whatsoever. Disbelief is the absence of belief – not the understanding of the absence of belief. There is a quite distinct difference.
You are (like many others before you) trying to redefine words to suit your own purpose.
Of course it doesn't. Disbelief does not require any form of cognitive ability whatsoever. Disbelief is the absence of belief – not the understanding of the absence of belief. There is a quite distinct difference.
You are (like many others before you) trying to redefine words to suit your own purpose.
Just the null hypothesis I suppose, when people talked about religion I just went cold and wondered how on earth they could work all that out from everything we see around us. Since then (almost 50 years later) I have not changed one bit on religion, but suspect there may be a universal force of consciousness not from any teachings but my own observations. But it is a part of us and not interested in being worshipped or served in any way, no more than we would worship ourselves. But something more akin to the unified field sought in science. Next time you start seeing weird synchronicities all the time ask yourself how it can be possible. Not a few times, but a few hundred or more, then you won't be able to relate it to normal science, and possibly quantum physics, which seems to be bridging the realm of 3D reality and infinite awareness and knowledge and could explain at least some of the phenomena many others as well as me are well aware of. Just by seeing them happen to someone else appears to attract them in your own lives.
@Khandro There was New AB optional for a while with all the flashy features, but it was so unreliable it had to be dumped, the last remnant I think being our photos but can't remember if we've always had them. But a post count is not flashy and something even I could probably have knocked up in a few minutes in Basic let alone the simple code they have nowadays. It's no different to clicking the page count option in word and would really help, although as each page is 20 posts long then we can do page number and then count the rest, and just take your socks off if it becomes too hard to track ;)
You either believe in god or you do'nt,simple as . If you do'nt then you are an athiests. You do not just become an athiest, it is drummed into from an early age. I wanted my son to be brought up catholic, and he is until now,.he is of an age to make his own mind up.He is still a catholic and still wants to be.
@Fredkins - As I am sure you will see from some of the posts here, it is not so simple as that. We all come into the world, by default, as atheists. We only develop religiosity as a consequence of exposure to it, and indoctrination by our parents and our society. The fervour of our belief is in a large part dictated by the fervour and zeal of our parents and teachers.
This all happens as the baby / child is growing up, and for many, they have absolutely no choice in the matter at all, no freedom to choose. Indeed, for many parents, virtually the most important part of family life is the right to instill their faith into their kids - witness the comments of Rick Santorum, one of the current crop of Republican candidates battling to face off against Obama over in the US.
Should you be born of parents who are atheist, or who have no profound faith, or who refrain from imposing any religious belief, to give the child freedom to choose at an age when they have the intellectual capacity to do so, then it is far less likely that you will choose to adopt a faith based lifestyle.
So, its not so much atheism that is "drummed into them from an early age" fred, but religion - Indeed, as you say yourself in your own post - "you" wanted your son brought up catholic - he had no choice in the matter - and once indoctrinated, it is hardly surprising he might elect to remain so.
This all happens as the baby / child is growing up, and for many, they have absolutely no choice in the matter at all, no freedom to choose. Indeed, for many parents, virtually the most important part of family life is the right to instill their faith into their kids - witness the comments of Rick Santorum, one of the current crop of Republican candidates battling to face off against Obama over in the US.
Should you be born of parents who are atheist, or who have no profound faith, or who refrain from imposing any religious belief, to give the child freedom to choose at an age when they have the intellectual capacity to do so, then it is far less likely that you will choose to adopt a faith based lifestyle.
So, its not so much atheism that is "drummed into them from an early age" fred, but religion - Indeed, as you say yourself in your own post - "you" wanted your son brought up catholic - he had no choice in the matter - and once indoctrinated, it is hardly surprising he might elect to remain so.
Khandro, thanks for the advice, but I hope you won’t be offended if I ignore it. An art teacher claiming he is aware of his many students’ in depth views on religion rather suggests he is neglecting his duties somewhat. By the way, I do a mean Beethoven. ;o)
Keyplus, //When you can't find answer to something or you are not good enough to find it, or you are not bothered to find it then it is a lot easier to stop believing in it or give it up.//
You shouldn’t take so much notice of your teachers, you know. They’re misinforming you. Apart from the fact that, in the case of Islam, they have no more information at their disposal than you have – should you be bothered to read it - they have the wrong end of the stick completely. The reason most people stop believing is that they’ve taken the trouble to seek answers and have often gone to great lengths to find them. Therefore forsaking a concept that is so very clearly erroneous is simply a matter of common sense.
Fred, if you read the posts, you'll find that atheism wasn't drummed into anyone here from an early age - but religion was.
Keyplus, //When you can't find answer to something or you are not good enough to find it, or you are not bothered to find it then it is a lot easier to stop believing in it or give it up.//
You shouldn’t take so much notice of your teachers, you know. They’re misinforming you. Apart from the fact that, in the case of Islam, they have no more information at their disposal than you have – should you be bothered to read it - they have the wrong end of the stick completely. The reason most people stop believing is that they’ve taken the trouble to seek answers and have often gone to great lengths to find them. Therefore forsaking a concept that is so very clearly erroneous is simply a matter of common sense.
Fred, if you read the posts, you'll find that atheism wasn't drummed into anyone here from an early age - but religion was.
Scientists as not appreciating art...Hmmm
Well Einstein was famously quite an accomplished violinist nice little article on Einstein and music here:
http://www.pha.jhu.ed...ff/einstein&music.pdf
There is quite a lot of evidence for mathematicians being good musicans
Personally I haven't a note in my head but I do frequent art galleries and know a Picasso from a pissarro.
In my personal experience though I think Khandro might have a point not so much with Scientists but with Engineers and technologists - I have found them to be quite art-averse.
As for the "baby atheist" debate - I'd tend to characterise an atheist as someone who understands what they are rejecting the notion of.
I'd say a baby was "not knowing" - an agnostic
We have two sorts of agnostic:
- "Weak" agnosticism where people are if you like undecided
- and Huxley's "Strong" agnosticism which contends it's not possible to know
Perhaps we need a third where someone lacks the cognitive ability to hold a position
Well Einstein was famously quite an accomplished violinist nice little article on Einstein and music here:
http://www.pha.jhu.ed...ff/einstein&music.pdf
There is quite a lot of evidence for mathematicians being good musicans
Personally I haven't a note in my head but I do frequent art galleries and know a Picasso from a pissarro.
In my personal experience though I think Khandro might have a point not so much with Scientists but with Engineers and technologists - I have found them to be quite art-averse.
As for the "baby atheist" debate - I'd tend to characterise an atheist as someone who understands what they are rejecting the notion of.
I'd say a baby was "not knowing" - an agnostic
We have two sorts of agnostic:
- "Weak" agnosticism where people are if you like undecided
- and Huxley's "Strong" agnosticism which contends it's not possible to know
Perhaps we need a third where someone lacks the cognitive ability to hold a position
@JtP- I would imagine many engineers and technologists might take offence at your stereotyping of them as lacking in artistic appreciation. It might well be that those that follow a path of engineering/ science / technology have a more abiding interest in the rational or logical, but that does not automatically exclude their appreciation of art, or poetry or their ability to be creative or musical, or whatever. This binary exclusion is facile.
I object to what I see as lazy stereotyping, based upon nothing more than personal bias and anecdote. I think both you and khandro are indulging in it.
The most inclusive definition of atheism is, simply, a lack of belief in a deity. By that definition, newborns fall into that criteria. All you are doing by adding these grades of atheism is muddying the waters.
You can arrive at an atheistic standpoint by any one of a number of routes, and being born is one of them.
I object to what I see as lazy stereotyping, based upon nothing more than personal bias and anecdote. I think both you and khandro are indulging in it.
The most inclusive definition of atheism is, simply, a lack of belief in a deity. By that definition, newborns fall into that criteria. All you are doing by adding these grades of atheism is muddying the waters.
You can arrive at an atheistic standpoint by any one of a number of routes, and being born is one of them.
