Why and how did you become an atheist?

[HectorDecimal]

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.

Sooo... if I reject Webster's Dictionary I can be a scientist? Do I have to be an atheist to be a scientist too, assuming I buy the Flunk and Wagtail's New Refined Dictionary and learn it well?

When I turn atheisteen do I get to vote?

Let's see... how long is that in hexadecimal?...

 

[Liebling]

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...)

The dictionary is wrong and biased. A belief is an action. I do not actively believe that God exists. I simply don't care at all if he/she/they/it does and do not spend any time considering it because I have other things to occupy my time. My atheism is not an action or a belief, it is the lack of action or belief.

Are you asserting that all atheists have a defining code of ethics? A governing body? A system? I assure you that we do not. Some atheists may subscribe to a body who advocates atheism as a viewpoint, but many do not.

You simply don't grasp the concept that as an individual, I do not have any belief in a diety system. I don't need to follow others, I have no hive nor hive mind.

Here is from your Websters more recent attribution;
athe·ism noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of ATHEISM
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

 

[spidergoat]

Please not this again. Atheism can be a lack of belief or an active disbelief.

 

[Liebling]

Sorry spidergoat. =) Just had to clarify that it is not a religion.

 

[gmilam]

It's like a game of whack-a-mole. Every now and then a new mole pops it's head up and it starts all over again.

 

[Liebling]

Indeed.

 

[aaqucnaona]

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

You dont know Jan is a She?

 

[aaqucnaona]

It's like a game of whack-a-mole. Every now and then a new mole pops it's head up and it starts all over again.

Agreed. I told him that these arguments were like the fish in the barrels we have been waiting for - the geniune, intellectual arguments of theists like wynn and Jan are the kinda stuff with which you can actually run a debate or conversation - and thats fun.

But we have a break, cause we have got fundamentalist, creationist and psuedoscientific ideas pouring in at about 40 a day, which does two things -
First, the good - the guy's enthusiastic. But the bad - it shows that the ideas are not particularly powerful and easy to tackle, hence the need for numbers to make up for lack of substance.

Watch this space, this is gonna be interesting. I think, and this is my personal opinion only, that you guys seem to be missing a good thing about this - its nice to have, um, a bit of unconventionality from time to time - warm up our fight muscles against old arguments, get insights into people who are measurably different that us [scientists, hobbyists, atheists and theists - we all seem to be in the same view, and this guys seems a little different]. If nothing, this is still a good opportunity for observation and learning about the populace "out there", beyound this corner of cyberspace.

 

[HectorDecimal]

The dictionary is wrong and biased. A belief is an action. I do not actively believe that God exists. I simply don't care at all if he/she/they/it does and do not spend any time considering it because I have other things to occupy my time. My atheism is not an action or a belief, it is the lack of action or belief.

Are you asserting that all atheists have a defining code of ethics? A governing body? A system? I assure you that we do not. Some atheists may subscribe to a body who advocates atheism as a viewpoint, but many do not.

You simply don't grasp the concept that as an individual, I do not have any belief in a diety system. I don't need to follow others, I have no hive nor hive mind.

Here is from your Websters more recent attribution;
athe·ism noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of ATHEISM
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

I tend to agree with SpiderGoat. And this is the first time on the merry-go-round for me. Doctrine = teachings of a religion... same book (It sits on my desk) Now disbelief means "the refusal to believe" so I'll give you that. You don't seem ungodly...

Also note you cite from MERRIAM- Webster's, not Webster's.

Let's analyze your atheism:

Is your atheism ethnocentric, universally abiogenetic or something else you would describe as a concatenated cosmopolitan? Do you believe in a biological cosmogony or sequential cosmogony?

In short, how do you think life got from time unit one to Earth as we know it today?

 

[HectorDecimal]

It's like a game of whack-a-mole. Every now and then a new mole pops it's head up and it starts all over again.

I play wack-a-troll

 

[Balerion]

I play wack-a-troll

Given that you are a troll, I don't see how that's possible.

 

[Liebling]

I tend to agree with SpiderGoat. And this is the first time on the merry-go-round for me. Doctrine = teachings of a religion... same book (It sits on my desk) Now disbelief means "the refusal to believe" so I'll give you that. You don't seem ungodly...

Also note you cite from MERRIAM- Webster's, not Webster's.

Let's analyze your atheism:

Is your atheism ethnocentric, universally abiogenetic or something else you would describe as a concatenated cosmopolitan? Do you believe in a biological cosmogony or sequential cosmogony?

In short, how do you think life got from time unit one to Earth as we know it today?

A dictionary is a dictionary. What makes yours better than mine?

And for the third time, my atheism is a fact, a noun, not a verb. It is not active and doesn't not effect my other theories and/or viewpoints. It just is and I am not going to classify or define it. I simply have a disbelief in a god or gods.

And evolution got us to this point. The rest is still unknown and may never be fully known. When you consider that the earths life is like a clock up until this very moment, human life was born a mere three minutes before this midnight. There is no way we can fully understand the other 23 hours and 57 minutes yet. We are a young species, mere blips on this pale blue dot in a larger universe too vast to measure. There doesn't have to be a cause to that which we grasp and understand. It's far too massive for full understanding by our relatively immature minds. There doesn't need to be a purpose, or a reason or a force behind it. I'll just wait to see what we can discover, I am a patient woman who doesn't need to comfort herself with religion to make up for what we don't know. I am godless, I am also wicked.

 

[HectorDecimal]

Given that you are a troll, I don't see how that's possible.

Why thank you. I've lived for the moment that ignorance would mislabel me as a troll. Now I can die satiated.

 

[HectorDecimal]

1. A dictionary is a dictionary. What makes yours better than mine?

And for the third time, my atheism is a fact, a noun, not a verb.

2. It is not active and doesn't not effect my other theories and/or viewpoints. It just is and I am not going to classify or define it. I simply have a disbelief in a god or gods.

And evolution got us to this point. The rest is still unknown and may never be fully known. When you consider that the earths life is like a clock up until this very moment,

3. human life was born a mere three minutes before this midnight. There is no way we can fully understand the other 23 hours and 57 minutes yet. We are a young species, mere blips on this pale blue dot in a larger universe too vast to measure. There doesn't have to be a cause to that which we grasp and understand. It's far too massive for full understanding by our relatively immature minds. There doesn't need to be a purpose, or a reason or a force behind it.

4. I'll just wait to see what we can discover, I am a patient woman who doesn't need to comfort herself with religion to make up for what we don't know. I am godless, I am also wicked.

Fascinating.

1. Now I could say the same thing. It seems, though, that we define your doctrine as adamant refusal to believe. I haven't condemned you have I? I usually tell people that everyone takes an advanced algebra, then an advanced calculus exam on judgement day. Passing those, if you can fix the hypodrive, your into a mansion. If not, well you may have a couple more choices.

2. Are you bating me with the double negative? Grammar isn't important. Bating might be. Not biting.

You can believe there is no God if you like. You can enjoy whatever dictionary suits your belief and define it conventionally or unconventionally. One day you and I will both know what was, is and will be considered right and wrong.

3. I understand what you mean. The Hubble can only see so far, thus we really can't be certain how old it is. We might have been created a second to midnight, but just can't see that far yet. Assuming you are correct, how much better do species created at 6 or 9 minutes or 20 minutes to midnight stack up to us? Would they be as advanced as we are or perhaps the same? Have we learned just about all there is to learn? If there needs be no purpose, then why does anyone bother to learn anything? If there is nothing beyond being another brick in the wall, then why bother? To be a slave to money? To humanity's progress? Just to do that and die with the possibility of being remembered? Don't you think that sounds like a joke? A rip off?

4. What comforts do you need? Lots of Godless people die and are remembered. A lot more die and are forgotten. Now wicked might be a different story. Are you wicked like Casey Anthony is considered to be or wicked like Lady Gaga is demonstrated to be?

These are just questions to see your deeper point of view. You may also get to know me as an understanding, albeit unorthodox, man. Although I can't see where you are that unique, I can see you are reasonably articulate.

 

[HectorDecimal]

The one thing I see about this poll/thread is it is in the wrong category. The poll is basically "Atheists Only!" oriented.
1. By the nature of the general posts, it is not a discussion of religion.
2. It is a discussion of what has been blatantly defined as NOT religion, thus it cannot be compared against another religion.
3. A religious person cannot participate in the poll, so it is totally partisan.
4. It is flame bate and by that token especially, supported by the others, it should be moved to the cesspool.
5. It is intended to keep the top post as an off topic discussion to block posts properly defined as a religious comparison. That qualifies it as trolling. The rules reward trolling and trolling threads with various degrees of discipline.

I'll only ask the mods to move it to a more appropriate category. It would be nice to continue discussing religions that can be compared, even they are innovative religions cmpared against traditional or fundamental religions.

 

[Balerion]

The one thing I see about this poll/thread is it is in the wrong category. The poll is basically "Atheists Only!" oriented.
1. By the nature of the general posts, it is not a discussion of religion.
2. It is a discussion of what has been blatantly defined as NOT religion, thus it cannot be compared against another religion.
3. A religious person cannot participate in the poll, so it is totally partisan.
4. It is flame bate and by that token especially, supported by the others, it should be moved to the cesspool.
5. It is intended to keep the top post as an off topic discussion to block posts properly defined as a religious comparison. That qualifies it as trolling. The rules reward trolling and trolling threads with various degrees of discipline.

I'll only ask the mods to move it to a more appropriate category. It would be nice to continue discussing religions that can be compared, even they are innovative religions cmpared against traditional or fundamental religions.

You never tire of the trolling.

I only wish we had moderators up to the task.

 

[spidergoat]

The one thing I see about this poll/thread is it is in the wrong category. The poll is basically "Atheists Only!" oriented.
1. By the nature of the general posts, it is not a discussion of religion.
2. It is a discussion of what has been blatantly defined as NOT religion, thus it cannot be compared against another religion.
3. A religious person cannot participate in the poll, so it is totally partisan.
4. It is flame bate and by that token especially, supported by the others, it should be moved to the cesspool.
5. It is intended to keep the top post as an off topic discussion to block posts properly defined as a religious comparison. That qualifies it as trolling. The rules reward trolling and trolling threads with various degrees of discipline.

I'll only ask the mods to move it to a more appropriate category. It would be nice to continue discussing religions that can be compared, even they are innovative religions cmpared against traditional or fundamental religions.

I'm sorry you are not correct. Issues of religiosity and non-religiosity are properly placed in this category. You are welcome to create your own threads and polls. This particular poll is atheist oriented, because that's the subject of this thread. It's not blocking any other thread, and it's not intended to be inflammatory. You can try to complain to the mods but I'm telling you, you will get nowhere by advocating censorship of this kind.

 

[Liebling]

Fascinating.

1. Now I could say the same thing. It seems, though, that we define your doctrine as adamant refusal to believe. I haven't condemned you have I? I usually tell people that everyone takes an advanced algebra, then an advanced calculus exam on judgement day. Passing those, if you can fix the hypodrive, your into a mansion. If not, well you may have a couple more choices.

I am not refusing to believe. I don't give it much thought at all.

2. Are you bating me with the double negative? Grammar isn't important. Bating might be. Not biting.

I'm not baiting anyone. In fact, I am not sure why you feel that way.

You can believe there is no God if you like. You can enjoy whatever dictionary suits your belief and define it conventionally or unconventionally. One day you and I will both know what was, is and will be considered right and wrong.

I will never know. I will die, and that will be it. Time will stop, all things will cease.

3. I understand what you mean. The Hubble can only see so far, thus we really can't be certain how old it is. We might have been created a second to midnight, but just can't see that far yet. Assuming you are correct, how much better do species created at 6 or 9 minutes or 20 minutes to midnight stack up to us? Would they be as advanced as we are or perhaps the same? Have we learned just about all there is to learn? If there needs be no purpose, then why does anyone bother to learn anything? If there is nothing beyond being another brick in the wall, then why bother? To be a slave to money? To humanity's progress? Just to do that and die with the possibility of being remembered? Don't you think that sounds like a joke? A rip off?

I bother to learn because that is my place in humanity. That is my impact. I choose that impact to be as giving and reasonable as I can be. To love passionately, to give of myself all that I can to make others lives easier, and to raise two wonderful adults who are filled with the kind of humanity that makes up for it in the lack of humanity of others. To inspire people with writing and art, to help people understand others around them by keeping a very wide worldview, and to smile at strangers. What I do know about humanity is that each one of us effects everyone we touch, and it is up to us to decide how we touch other people. It doesn't matter if people remember me. What matters to me is to make peoples lives easier now, in the moment I can. Not for the sake of glory or remembrance, but because they are part of my community and it's my responsibility to be a good community member. There is no magic to it, there is just open-hearted love. Everyone needs kindness, we are all too busy in our lives to notice sometimes. It is important that people do not feel alone, or like outsiders and it doesn't take much to touch them. And I don't have to get anything back at all, that's not what it's about.

4. What comforts do you need? Lots of Godless people die and are remembered. A lot more die and are forgotten. Now wicked might be a different story. Are you wicked like Casey Anthony is considered to be or wicked like Lady Gaga is demonstrated to be?

These are just questions to see your deeper point of view. You may also get to know me as an understanding, albeit unorthodox, man. Although I can't see where you are that unique, I can see you are reasonably articulate.

I am not unique. I am aware. That is enough for me. I am not sure you really are unorthodox, your responses seem very predictable to me. And that's not baiting, I am simply stating what I see from this side of my screen.

I can only judge what I can see. I am not going to judge the wickedness of Casey Anthony because I do not know her. As for Lady Gaga, she is an interesting entertainer and I enjoy pieces of her music. Her impact on people who are a little deviant or different to make them feel less alone is amazing and not wicked at all. She has a very open heart and mind, and is a good example of giving some of that back to her community by empowering that community by making individuals feel less alone. For that, she is beautiful because no one should ever feel alone. Everyone is capable of being wicked, but it depends on action and intent in my book.

 

[Jan Ardena]

JDawg,

Atheists base their belief that there is no god on evidence...

Such as?

and reason, not faith.

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.

Debunked, only by your own particular reasoning.

Also, the type of atheist that Liebling is, appears similar to the modern atheist zeal, but IS different. So I contend that ''modern atheism'' is religious by it's nature, although holding that God does NOT exist.

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

Oh, you mean the guy who vehemently maintained to his followers, that if it became known that he prayed to God on his deathbed, it must unders no circumstances be believed.

IOW, if there is a God or not, you should NOT believe in Him.

jan.

 

[Enmos]

I do not have a belief that there is no god. Neither do I have a believe that there is a god.
However, I believe the chance that a god exists to be so small that it is insignificant.
I won't say the chance is zero because that would require extraordinary knowledge.
However, there is absolutely no indication anywhere in nature, that I am aware of, that a god exists.
I have never heard or come across even one good reason of why I should believe in a god.
Atheism, in it's core, is not a belief. It is absence of belief.