Why and how did you become an atheist?

[Aqueous Id]

Ah, anything to make oneself feel good!

I think it only relegates sadness, since an honest person presumably can not also be a narcissist.

 

[universaldistress]

It could depend a lot on different ways of looking at things. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Is a brain that seems to tune into god stuff the mere result of chance, reinforced by evolution or is it purposefully there for supernatural communication. I lean strongly toward the former and tend to agree with scientists like Carl Sagan.

Someone sent me a link to a Joe Rogan video interview of Graham Hancock. It's a long one, and I was less skeptical about the lost civilizations than the significance of DMT produced in the body and from plant sources. (It's an hallucinogen.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygWxXphYRos

Now that I'm on this thread, I'll let you'll know that I'm agnostic, so technically can't answer the question. One idea that reinforced my belief status is that out of the billions of personalized human belief systems none of them are probably right. Also, I've come to conclude that belief is an involuntary function of the brain that depends on personality, upbringing, experiences, and information.

I am going to generalise:

I think propensity to believe in god/something bigger started as a social advantage which has subsequently (possibly) fedback these tendencies into the gene pool. A kind of artificial/natural selection. Those who group stand more chance of passing on genes. This does not however mean all people are necessarily (under this scheme) going to display god-belief tendencies. Far from it. Though I do believe it isn't all necessarily about genes from birth: Some genes become active in later life. But also, I think finding god can be a reaction to an inherent weakness in the body/mind, where people feel set upon by the world to the point where religion/belief offers a relief from the stress/adrenaline of worry about the plan, future, or indeed end of their lives.

I think those who choose to go it alone without unproven beliefs are ultimately stronger individuals. Despite the fact this might be a more stressful existence, one who chooses not to believe in an unproven will ultimately find a way of life that is robust and adaptable (along with any cons this may endow) ready to move with the times, technology and indeed anything the world can throw at them, with EYES OPEN.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I am going to generalise: I think propensity to believe in god/something bigger started as a social advantage which has subsequently (possibly) fedback these tendencies into the gene pool. A kind of artificial/natural selection...

It does seem that the thing that persists so long (even though it's just a blink in geologic time) and which is so widespread might be genetic.

I would even trace it to primal fear. I wonder what the early American pueblo and mesa dwellers were afraid of, or the people who built Machu Picchu. Were they protecting against marauding humans, animals, had they been in a flood?

Many ancient writings seem to worry about the weather, so I can't help thinking how lightning and thunder might have affected them. Many animals we commonly think of will panic in a storm, and to some extent may even seek shelter. There seems to be a genetic basis for this.

A bright flash such as a stun grenade will reset the brain. Is this a genetic cause, to anesthetize the startle response to the ensuing thunderclap?

After the adrenaline faded, and they got their fires restarted, who knows what they may have concluded in their stories about the great power in the sky.

But to even get those stories started, to have the basis for them, it does seem to me that genetics had already begun to affect the outcome.

 

[universaldistress]

It does seem that the thing that persists so long (even though it's just a blink in geologic time) and which is so widespread might be genetic.

I would even trace it to primal fear. I wonder what the early American pueblo and mesa dwellers were afraid of, or the people who built Machu Picchu. Were they protecting against marauding humans, animals, had they been in a flood?

Many ancient writings seem to worry about the weather, so I can't help thinking how lightning and thunder might have affected them. Many animals we commonly think of will panic in a storm, and to some extent may even seek shelter. There seems to be a genetic basis for this.

A bright flash such as a stun grenade will reset the brain. Is this a genetic cause, to anesthetize the startle response to the ensuing thunderclap?

After the adrenaline faded, and they got their fires restarted, who knows what they may have concluded in their stories about the great power in the sky.

But to even get those stories started, to have the basis for them, it does seem to me that genetics had already begun to affect the outcome.

Of course complex groups have the mental tools built in, and fear of nature; I agree. More specifically, I suppose I am talking about the reinforcement of traits genetically, over time.

Groups with a common belief are superior militarily to say an equal amount of people without common belief binding their group into a complete whole.

The feedback then comes when a godfearing group selects out certain characters/characteristics and foster others with traits towards commonality of belief/impressionables. Sheep activity/herding instinct is favoured.

What do you then get over a suprisingly few amount of generations? People with stronger tendencies towards religion. A kind of embellishment of the mental tools in place in the direction of, shall I say, theistic epiquany more likely to be expressed phenotypically given the right lifetime cues. . .

 

[river]

when god inslaves Humanity

for gods own purposes and good

but not Humanities good

 

[Aqueous Id]

when god inslaves Humanity

for gods own purposes and good

but not Humanities good

Or: when humans enslave themselves and their descendants to a superstitious sense of reality, it does them no good.

 

[Liebling]

Why do you ask this?
I will tell anyone that asks that I don't believe in god, including coworkers.
In fact, I regularly discuss religion and atheism with some coworkers (the ones that are interested in the topic of course) during lunch-break.

It must be nice to live in a country where you can do that. It's not the same in America by my experience. Some equate my atheism to being anti-patriotic, some see my lack of religion as a flaw, some think I'm a sinner and could not possibly be moral without God... either way, anytime anyone in my workplace has found out about my atheism, I become an outsider. A deviant.

I don't mind being labelled as a deviant, mind you, but it doesn't work really well for workplace socialization. It's as if a lightning bolt will strike me at any moment and I don't doubt that some believe it will.

As for my atheism, I have always been a non-believer even from a young age despite my parents attempt at indoctrination. I questioned Sunday School teachers, the nuns at the Catholic school, and every pastor/preacher anyone made me speak to. I have too many logical questions that religion simply cannot answer. Besides which, most religious texts are just social tools used by people in power to keep what they believe the social order should be intact. Religion poisons great minds, and makes people biased, illogical and irrational. Religion has caused more wars, genocides and conflicts than any other force in known history.

 

[HectorDecimal]

My answer isn't in the poll.

I tried several different religions including atheism, non-theism, pantheism, etcetera, but always found some little scientific miracle, usually having to do with color seeming out of place, left for man to tend to, that brought me back to theism. I tried Wiccan, Bhudism, Druidism (by heritage I think) and read some of the Koran, found it to be a plagiarism of the Bible condensed, but found in all, save for the Bible begun by Moses, many fallacies and fundamental misinterpretations overwriting the original fallacies. I believe in YHWY and Jeshua (God and Jesus), but not His followers.

I find the Bible alligned with Australian Aboriginal practices. There is a shamanism within it, yet it relies upon the 5th Dimension to explain. Once we understand even a cursory degree of hyperspace theory, the Bible falls into place. All the pieces of the puzzle are there. Jesus is my shaman. He is my inspiration. I tend to think He gave Michael Faraday a multiples mind, but I've never read about Faraday's religious beliefs or lack thereof, I simply know that had he not been given such an inspired, multiplex mind, we wouldn't be typing on these machines right now and possibly time for this generation might run out before we could catch up to where his vision has taken us.

It is because God gave me a mind and set of eyes and hands capable of painting your portrait or sewing you back together in a pinch, or coding a math engine, or writing a thesis, or building a flying machine or building a boat or a house or an oscillator or JK flip-flop or even a car or a spacesuit or rocket (any of those things you could put me to the test in the real world... on your pursestrings... I'd do any of that or you can strangle me ). That is why I believe in Him and His correctly chronological book. If he can inspire me to do all that, Faraday to do enough of that to bring us these machines and an internet, then He surely could have inspired Moses to write His biography.

 

[Liebling]

Atheism is not a religion. If you are practising it, you are doing it wrong.

 

[HectorDecimal]

Atheism is not a religion. If you are practising it, you are doing it wrong.

I disagree. Atheism is the belief that theism is errant. Theism is the belief that atheism is errant.

We can believe in belief or in disbelief.

Religion = something we believe in.

Atheism and theism are merely opposing beliefs.

Science originally meant knowledge and included religion in that knowledge. Science cannot stand alone. It needs a host, such as religion or sickness or building or curiosity, etcetera. Science is at its best with math, but pure math has no need of science. It often uses science to exemplify, but truly we can count bananas all day without knowing what a banana truly is.

 

[Liebling]

I disagree. Atheism is the belief that theism is errant. Theism is the belief that atheism is errant.

We can believe in belief or in disbelief.

Religion = something we believe in.

Atheism and theism are merely opposing beliefs.

Science originally meant knowledge and included religion in that knowledge. Science cannot stand alone. It needs a host, such as religion or sickness or building or curiosity, etcetera. Science is at its best with math, but pure math has no need of science. It often uses science to exemplify, but truly we can count bananas all day without knowing what a banana truly is.

No. No and No.

Atheism is a lack of belief. I don't care what your beliefs are, or any other theist or agnostic. Atheism is a lack of belief in a God or Gods. It is not a religion.

And Theism is a belief in a God or Gods. It has no relationship to atheism.

There is no opposition there. They are not competing against one another. It is not a war to be won or lost, it simply is.

Your idea is why there is a problem. Because you believe atheism is errant. I don't believe theism is errant.

Science doesn't need anything to prop itself up. It certainly can stand alone, and has for billions of years. Way before your God and/or Gods even existed.

Science is NOT a religion either. It does not use a single book or theory to define itself, it is an ever evolving way of understanding the world around us using empirical evidence to explain things that are not previously known. It doesn't claim to be a factual account of anything, only a series of theories, ideas and the research done to come to those conclusions. The theories are not held by one governing body, nor are they controlled by any group or particular interest, and does not involve itself with it's subjects as a way of indoctrinating them. It does not rely on dogma or belief.

 

[spidergoat]

My answer isn't in the poll.

I tried several different religions including atheism, non-theism, pantheism, etcetera, but always found some little scientific miracle, usually having to do with color seeming out of place, left for man to tend to, that brought me back to theism.

There are no "scientific" miracles. What phenomenon caused you to give up reason and embrace irrationality?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Liebling,

Science is NOT a religion either.

Quite right. But for some it takes the place of religion, and is depended on
as much as one would depend on their religion.

Religion is about action.

And Theism is a belief in a God or Gods. It has no relationship to atheism.

Isn't atheism the opposite of theism?

Science doesn't need anything to prop itself up. It certainly can stand alone, and has for billions of years. Way before your God and/or Gods even existed.

All praise science, it was here before the God.

jan.

 

[Liebling]

All praise science, it was here before the God.

jan.

It is religions claim that our earth is much younger and created much sooner than science has empirically proven that it really is. It is your religion/s that wrote it that way.

Fossil record and carbon dating be damned, is that it?

And atheism is not the opposite of theism. They are alternative viewpoints, not opposites.

 

[wynn]

I have too many logical questions that religion simply cannot answer.

Awww.

Besides which, most religious texts are just social tools used by people in power to keep what they believe the social order should be intact. Religion poisons great minds, and makes people biased, illogical and irrational. Religion has caused more wars, genocides and conflicts than any other force in known history.

Like I always say: being enlightened is tough!

 

[wynn]

It is religions claim that our earth is much younger and created much sooner than science has empirically proven that it really is. It is your religion/s that wrote it that way.

Fossil record and carbon dating be damned, is that it?

Do you even know what Jan's religion is?

 

[HectorDecimal]

No. No and No.

Atheism is a lack of belief. I don't care what your beliefs are, or any other theist or agnostic. Atheism is a lack of belief in a God or Gods. It is not a religion.

And Theism is a belief in a God or Gods. It has no relationship to atheism.

There is no opposition there. They are not competing against one another. It is not a war to be won or lost, it simply is.

Your idea is why there is a problem. Because you believe atheism is errant. I don't believe theism is errant.

Science doesn't need anything to prop itself up. It certainly can stand alone, and has for billions of years. Way before your God and/or Gods even existed.

Science is NOT a religion either. It does not use a single book or theory to define itself, it is an ever evolving way of understanding the world around us using empirical evidence to explain things that are not previously known. It doesn't claim to be a factual account of anything, only a series of theories, ideas and the research done to come to those conclusions. The theories are not held by one governing body, nor are they controlled by any group or particular interest, and does not involve itself with it's subjects as a way of indoctrinating them. It does not rely on dogma or belief.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language - Senior Edition defines Atheism As (drum roll) "The BELIEF that there is no God."

And, Yes, it specifies God with a capital G.

Same dictionary:

Religion
3. any specific system of BELIEF, worship, etc. (It mentions that it involves a code of ethics. Atheism would have a code of ethics that dismisses theism. Often it can be found that atheists worship themselves...)

 

[spidergoat]

Do you even know what Jan's religion is?

I don't think Jan knows what Jan's religion is.

 

[wynn]

Oh, I know what Jan's religion is, and I know Jan knows too. And he said it in open forums, too.

 

[Balerion]

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language - Senior Edition defines Atheism As (drum roll) "The BELIEF that there is no God."

And, Yes, it specifies God with a capital G.

Same dictionary:

Religion
3. any specific system of BELIEF, worship, etc. (It mentions that it involves a code of ethics. Atheism would have a code of ethics that dismisses theism. Often it can be found that atheists worship themselves...)

Atheism is not a religion. Atheists base their belief that there is no god on evidence and reason, not faith. Therefore it is not a religion.

I can't believe this still needs to be explained to people. The atheism=religion thing has been debunked since the first time the vile idea was puked onto the interwebs.

Anyway, to the OP:

I did not vote, because my answer was not there. I served as an altar boy for a time while I attended a Catholic middle school, and my mother is very spiritual (loves angel iconography, believes in Jesus and heaven, etc..), so I grew up in a household with believers. I was confirmed, took communion, all that jazz.

But I never believed. Not even then, as an 11-year-old holding up a giant bible for Father so-and-so (I honestly can't remember his name; it was something Italian) during mass. I would pray when we were told to but when I closed my eyes, I didn't see anything. I never felt a presence, never heard a voice. I'm just not wired that way.

I didn't self-identify as an atheist until much later, though. I used to think that I was perhaps an agnostic, but after I learned about all the sinister crap that's actually in the book, and how the biblical Jesus differs from the version that is taught and widely believed in, there was no point in pretending that this could have been anything but a human invention.

I came to know and appreciate the great modern atheists only a few years ago, actually. I was instantly hooked by Hitchens, who become something of an intellectual hero of mine (I'm currently reading his Arguably, and I recommend it to everyone, even theists, as it covers a wide range of subjects), but I've since come to Dawkins and, to a much lesser degree, Sam Harris. Had I known of these guys ten years ago, I likely wouldn't have wasted time as an agnostic.