Why and how did you become an atheist?

[scheherazade]

Originally posted by aaqucnaona

Then you are technically an apatheist - someone who doesn't think or care about religion, but doesn't subscribe to religious beliefs, a pragmatic/practical atheist.

Why is it that people feel compelled to attach a label to everything?

While I do not subscribe to religious beliefs nor devote much time to the pondering thereof, I endeavor to be respectful of the need to believe that others may have.

Please do not attach ANY label to me.

Much like some of the products in our store, I am of a NO NAME BRAND.

Besides which, I may take a notion to dance around the campfire, scantily clad, once warm weather returns and share my fortified beverage with the fire gods in a toast to absent members.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Why is it that people feel compelled to attach a label to everything?

While I do not subscribe to religious beliefs nor devote much time to the pondering thereof, I endeavor to be respectful of the need to believe that others may have.

Please do not attach ANY label to me.

Much like some of the products in our store, I am of a NO NAME BRAND.

Besides which, I may take a notion to dance around the campfire, scantily clad, once warm weather returns and share my fortified beverage with the fire gods in a toast to absent members.

Readers are now mentally removing all of your labels. Wrangler? Polo? Fruit of the Loom? Ahh..Atheist! There we go! Get that out of here!

 

[aaqucnaona]

Why is it that people feel compelled to attach a label to everything?

While I do not subscribe to religious beliefs nor devote much time to the pondering thereof, I endeavor to be respectful of the need to believe that others may have.

Please do not attach ANY label to me.

Much like some of the products in our store, I am of a NO NAME BRAND.

Besides which, I may take a notion to dance around the campfire, scantily clad, once warm weather returns and share my fortified beverage with the fire gods in a toast to absent members.

Ok, thou pagan of the carnal fire dance rituals, I shall not call thee of any label in the name of all that is Holy and beautiful, by the Father, the son and the holy ghost. Thou art not of any name - thou description has been stripped from thou just like thou campfire maties strip their clothers and have freakish "rituals" like the satan worshiping secret orders. Thou art hereby free of any name, label or description in relation to all that is religious and holy. May the Lord our God have mercy on thy soul.

LOL. Ok, no labels. May I ask why, though?

 

[scheherazade]

Readers are now mentally removing all of your labels. Wrangler? Polo? Fruit of the Loom? Ahh..Atheist! There we go! Get that out of here!

Funny fellow, LOL....

 

[scheherazade]

Ok, thou pagan of the carnal fire dance rituals, I shall not call thee of any label in the name of all that is Holy and beautiful, by the Father, the son and the holy ghost. Thou art not of any name - thou description has been stripped from thou just like thou campfire maties strip their clothers and have freakish "rituals" like the satan worshiping secret orders. Thou art hereby free of any name, label or description in relation to all that is religious and holy. May the Lord our God have mercy on thy soul.

LOL. Ok, no labels. May I ask why, though?

I perceive labels to be limiting. We define them with words, and then the words that we use to define them need to be defined etc. and so they are ever imprecise.

Every minute of every day we are able to observe change, everywhere we look.

Why, then, impose the limits of labels?

Others choose to label us, so that we fit into their personal paradigm of understanding.

I prefer to observe and contemplate the evidence as it becomes known.

 

[aaqucnaona]

@schez. Ok. Some fixed or semi-permanent labels are ok? Humanist, secularist, etc? Or do you consider ALL labels to fail in their inability to describe details with precision?

 

[wynn]

There is the discussion of a term; and then there is the discussion of a person to whom that term may apply or who desires to be referred to with said term.

The first is an abstract task that doesn't draw much interest from the general population; the latter tends to draw more interest from the general population than can be handled.

 

[Aqueous Id]

There is the discussion of a term; and then there is the discussion of a person to whom that term may apply or who desires to be referred to with said term.

The first is an abstract task that doesn't draw much interest from the general population; the latter tends to draw more interest from the general population than can be handled.

I encounter the reverse. I wish to use terms (generally) in their plain sense, with as little abstraction as possible, although perhaps to discuss ideas that may require various amount of abstraction. Then the person enters the scheme, with a personality that injects unexpected abstractions upon the supposedly solid ground that was supporting dialogue. At that point, I find myself lost in the quixotic (remember?) pursuit of ideas running away as fast as can chase them, having dissolved from mere abstractions into a matrix of ideas, multiplied by this personality that...(I was going to say "disassembles")..."reorganizes" them.

It doesn't mean the dialogue necessarily breaks down, it just may take on a bizarre nature. Some folks respond in weird ways, but I think it's a fairly consistent and frequent phenomenon.

Certainly each person can only handle so much. But then again we are testing our limits every time we open our virtual mouths here, so who knows? Maybe that boundary will expand continuously. That would be cool.

 

[scheherazade]

@schez. Ok. Some fixed or semi-permanent labels are ok? Humanist, secularist, etc? Or do you consider ALL labels to fail in their inability to describe details with precision?

All who read my posts will form their own opinions and affix their own labels.

I am merely suggesting to you that I do not describe myself by means of a label nor do I contemplate others even by the labels they themselves proclaim, for sometimes their words are at variance with the labels they suggest.

For that reason, I seldom participate once a discussion has become polarized.

I am content to observe and contemplate the perspectives of others and ruminate further on ideas that may resonate with me.

 

[river]

when I knew god was a ..... well some can't go there

otherwise , when god , its self , was more important than Humanity

 

[Aqueous Id]

when I knew god was a ..... well some can't go there

otherwise , when god , its self , was more important than Humanity

 

[ScaryMonster]

I can't say I ever believed much in Christianity, except at a very low grade level, like a child believes in Santa Claus.
Was I supposed to swallow the notion that a fat man can slide down all the chimneys in that world in one night in to adulthood? I think not.

But except as fact the idea of a talking snake, as a mature educated adult?
People grow up or if they don't they sorely need to.

The fact that there are people out there in positions of power who based their notions of reality on mythological virgins, aquatic pedestrians, prophets who can split the moon and people risings from the dead. (Zombies I guess?)
Would be funny if it wasn't so frightening.

But the main bone of contention with theism is faith. Faith is actually a dirty word, not a virtue. It makes a virtue out of not thinking, not questioning and its an imaginary crutch for fearful ignorant people.

In Christianity, Islam and Judaism why are the faithful blessed and the questioning damned? It seems to me that the only thing the faithful are blessed with is ignorance, self-righteousness and all sorts of excuses to do unspeakable things in the name of faith.

"I believe even though is all sounds absolutely insane and imposable." Is that a virtue? A statement like that would when not applied to a theism get someone sectioned in a basket weaving ward.

And then there's the old chestnut that religion makes people behave nicely, well yes it can. But in a sense its just being a policeman, you have to question someone who behaves a certain way just because they're a Christian or whatever?

Doesn't it imply that they would behave badly if they were not a Christian? And are the being nice because its the correct sort of way to be or because the fear punishment or exclusion from heaven or perhaps eternal torture in the pits hell?
So in effect this behaviour is based on fear and avarice not genuine regard for fellow human beings. Are they phoneys?

 

[aaqucnaona]

All who read my posts will form their own opinions and affix their own labels.

I am merely suggesting to you that I do not describe myself by means of a label nor do I contemplate others even by the labels they themselves proclaim, for sometimes their words are at variance with the labels they suggest.

For that reason, I seldom participate once a discussion has become polarized.

I am content to observe and contemplate the perspectives of others and ruminate further on ideas that may resonate with me.

Thats a very good, almost monastic idea. But dont you think you can understand others better if you take a side, any side - just for the argument and actually debate the other person? Its a better way to know other since their responses will be specific to your own questions you may have.

 

[scheherazade]

Thats a very good, almost monastic idea. But dont you think you can understand others better if you take a side, any side - just for the argument and actually debate the other person? Its a better way to know other since their responses will be specific to your own questions you may have.

Precisely.

Their answer will be specific to my question and depending on how I tailor my question they may seek to answer in a manner that will either appease or aggravate me, depending on their nature.

This is a virtual world, devoid of body language, although a degree of tone and inflection can be discerned through vocabulary and grammar.

I ask questions when it is of interest to me, either on the forum or very rarely by PM. In three years of being on public forums, I have met three parties that exchange seasonal greetings with this household by snail mail.

For all that many disparage it, I consider the exchange of snail mail to be the ultimate display of trust, for it is actual ground truthing and requires an actual physical effort and modest financial investment in another.

I was rather disgusted when businesses began to send unsolicited, personalized promotional mail. Uninvited, they waste resources and my time. :bugeye:

As to your question regarding debates, when the topics are historically unresolvable, I see little reason to invest more than a modicum of time or energy.

The outcomes to date have been entirely predictable.

"Just for the argument?"

I would far rather find unarguable evidence......about anything.....to assist me in making my day-to-day decisions.

 

[Aqueous Id]

"Just for the argument?"

For some reason I flashed back to your horses doing uncanny poses, and made a connection to another sense of religion, the feeling of awe from nature, and especially when animals interact with us, though the interaction you are getting is even on a higher level than most folks experience.

In a completely neutral stance...depending on the intensity of awe, I would not even hesitate to call it a religious experience.

Neither the subject of God nor of conventional religion would ever cross my mind, nor the sense of any polemic. Just a wash of positive feelings.

I would be chilled out and mellow. Must be nice.

 

[wynn]

"Just for the argument?"

Philosophical(ly inclined) discussions are generally boring to lay people and often seem inappropriate to them.

If you would go to college, you would be expected to produce large amounts of reasoning "just for the sake of the argument."

 

[wynn]

Thats a very good, almost monastic idea. But dont you think you can understand others better if you take a side, any side - just for the argument and actually debate the other person? Its a better way to know other since their responses will be specific to your own questions you may have.

In online discussion forums like this, getting to know others is secondary, or not a concern at all.
The primary aim of such forums is to discuss ideas, not to get to know people.


I imagine these forums primarily as an extension of the college debate club.


Of course, many people don't think so, so there's tension ...

 

[aaqucnaona]

In online discussion forums like this, getting to know others is secondary, or not a concern at all.
The primary aim of such forums is to discuss ideas, not to get to know people.


I imagine these forums primarily as an extension of the college debate club.


Of course, many people don't think so, so there's tension ...

Of course the primary objective is not to know people but to discuss and understand, and one of the things to discuss and understand is other people and their ideologies and thinking.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Precisely.

Their answer will be specific to my question and depending on how I tailor my question they may seek to answer in a manner that will either appease or aggravate me, depending on their nature.

This is a virtual world, devoid of body language, although a degree of tone and inflection can be discerned through vocabulary and grammar.

I ask questions when it is of interest to me, either on the forum or very rarely by PM. In three years of being on public forums, I have met three parties that exchange seasonal greetings with this household by snail mail.

For all that many disparage it, I consider the exchange of snail mail to be the ultimate display of trust, for it is actual ground truthing and requires an actual physical effort and modest financial investment in another.

I was rather disgusted when businesses began to send unsolicited, personalized promotional mail. Uninvited, they waste resources and my time. :bugeye:

As to your question regarding debates, when the topics are historically unresolvable, I see little reason to invest more than a modicum of time or energy.

The outcomes to date have been entirely predictable.

"Just for the argument?"

I would far rather find unarguable evidence......about anything.....to assist me in making my day-to-day decisions.

But schez, the point of the debates on this forum is not to resolve, but to understand - though these debates would almost certainly never resolve the great undecided questions, they allow us to understand our and other people's thoughts about them, to dig deep into our minds and into the subject of deliberation - a worthy goal, no?

 

[universaldistress]

I didn't BECOME an atheist. I was born an atheist. I never swallowed the controlling BS of religion.

Of course one could say I became an atheist at conception I suppose . . .

Anyway, old argument.

What choice do we have but to be atheist (agnostic atheist)? Anything else is just believing something unproven.