• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why I am an atheist

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
Hmm, the quoting function appears to be dysfunctional.
Anyway...

A well-written exposition of your point of view!
It's interesting that what you learned in Sunday School about the "Good News" aka Jesus aka the New Testament was different from what you read in the Old Testament.
I read the Bible from the beginning through all the Old Testament and then read the New Testament. I never the New Testament before going back and reading the Old Testament. So I have a very different view.
The Books of Moses were inspirational. The Psalms were inspirational. The Proverbs were inspirational. Some of the prophets were inspirational. But a lot of the Old Testament is not inspirational. By the time you get to the last book of the Old Testament it seemed like trudging through a lot of pain, trouble, tribulation, and exhaustively uninspired yuck.
The New Testament is a breath of fresh air to that long journey. After the main books of the New Testament, the spirit of it seems to wane. It's still there through Acts, but once it gets to the letters Paul wrote the feeling is different again.
It seems to me that how you view what the Bible is has a big effect on the conclusions that you draw.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Premium Member
And sex! Don’t even get me started on the religious view (at least the Christian one I grew up with) of sex. (Yet, as a science reader I knew that sexual reproduction was only one of the options god had open to him. Nature, however, needed sexual reproduction as the surest route to evolution and the continuation of life through changing conditions.)

I'd be most grateful, if you could elaborate a little further on this element of your essay: with respect to the religious/Christian attitude to "sex" and how it may have factored into your developing convictions as an atheist.

Only if you feel so inclined though, I understand if you don't want to expand upon your original point in the OP! :)
 

Suave

Simulated character
Why I Am an Atheist

This post is written from the perspective of someone brought up in a Christian world, and all arguments will therefore reflect that. It will also be in more than one part, due to post length restrictions on RF.

“But how can you be an atheist?” That’s the question I am most often asked when I’m discussing my non-religious views with religious acquaintances. This is usually followed up with some variation on, “how do you know right from wrong if you don’t believe in god?” Another frequent question is, “where do you go for help when it’s all too much?”

And yet, to answer the question, “why am I an atheist,” seems to presuppose that I had some choice in the matter. That, for the record, is simply not true. William James and Pascal’s Wager aside, one cannot really will oneself to believe. One either does or one does not. Certainly one can pretend (lots of church-goers do that), but at the core of one’s being, what one believes about god does not feel as if it’s a matter dependent upon the will. Not if one is honest.

So the real answer, the only one that actually answers the question “why am I an atheist,” seems to be, “because that’s the way I’m made.” This is hardly a satisfying answer, of course, and doesn’t seem to answer the question that is so often asked. The intent of that question, if I understand it correctly, is rather more “how is it possible you gave up god?”

I Did Not Give Up God

I cannot recall a time, ever in my life, when I believed in a god, a soul that survived my body, or a “spirit realm” called either heaven or hell. I was certainly told about all of those things, of course – along with Santa and the Tooth Fairy – but I simply and quite honestly thought it all equally silly nonsense for kids. The Tooth Fairy and Santa didn’t take long to dispense with, as I’m sure it doesn’t for most kids, but it seems as if, somehow, I just applied the same kind of thinking to god.

I went to Sunday school and heard the Bible stories specially prepared for children. I was told that “Jesus loves me,” though nobody else at the time seemed to, and that “god sees the little sparrow fall.” I noticed, though, that god didn’t hold out a single deified digit to prevent that fall. Then I checked out those Sunday school stories – I read the book (yes, that book, the Bible), from beginning to end, before I was 11 years old.

What horrors I found there! And what nonsense!

Now, as it happens, I was also a big fan of National Geographic (the only place I could see naked bodies back then), and everything I could find on dinosaurs and as much science as I could understand. Even as a little kid, I was happier with books and quiet time than on the playing fields. Peaceful walks in natural surroundings, hours with a magnifying glass (and later microscope) examining the wonders of the pond, under rocks, around the roots of trees – these were the things that occupied my mind.

The Bible didn’t come close to being as believable as any of my other reading material. The god I found there was not, most assuredly not, the god I heard about in Sunday school.

What Did Other People Believe

And then, I discovered (perhaps I should say intuited) quite early on that most of the people around me who thought of themselves as believers – and who were supposed to be my role models in religious belief – didn’t seem to believe much either. Or rather, I should say that they may (I couldn’t tell) have held some belief about the existence of god, but they most assuredly did not give much evidence of believing any of the Christian dogma that I was learning about.

“What an astonishing statement,” I hear you say. “How can you possibly know what somebody believes or doesn’t believe?”

Well, I know that people “believe in” gravity when I see them step back from the edge of the precipice, or that fire burns as they quickly draw their hand back from the little explosion in the fireplace. Their actions give them away. I know that people believe that they actually have a chance at winning the lottery, else they wouldn’t buy a ticket, which given the actual odds is pretty much exactly like tossing your two dollars over that precipice. Beliefs inform actions. Where the action is inconsistent with a stated belief, I must assume that the action is informed by some other belief, unknown to me and perhaps even to the person performing the action. But what I do know is that the claimed belief cannot be strongly held internally, or it would prevent the action that is inconsistent with it.

Let me provide a couple of examples.

There is wildly inconsistent use of Bible texts. Leviticus is used to label gay people as sinners worthy of death (or at least hell, perhaps), but seems remarkably ineffective in getting its message about the evils of pork chops, bacon and shrimp out to the masses. I for one (and I knew I was gay before I was ten) couldn’t see why one verse was dutifully adhered to, to my cost, while others right around it were studiously ignored. That seemed to have a whole lot less to do with believing anything at all about god, and was more reflective of personal tastes. In other words, hypocrisy.

And I was told that faith, not good works, was needed to please god. Except, of course, when it was good works, not faith. I decided early on that good works couldn’t be what people believed guaranteed entry into heaven, because those works were in remarkably short supply. And, of course, it doesn’t take much actual observation of people to see how routinely the commandments are broken. I saw a graven image in practically every church I was in, but if you’re going to flout a commandment, I suppose church is the place to do it.

Every believer seems more concerned about his own soul, its disposition after death, then about the condition of his fellow humans who are still alive. The Bible is chock-a-block with prohibitions and "though-shalt-nots," but how much better than “don’t get your hands dirty” might be the enjoinder to soil them dreadfully helping those in need?

And sex! Don’t even get me started on the religious view (at least the Christian one I grew up with) of sex. (Yet, as a science reader I knew that sexual reproduction was only one of the options god had open to him. Nature, however, needed sexual reproduction as the surest route to evolution and the continuation of life through changing conditions.)

It Started with My Upbringing

I was a battered child. Through all the torture of my growing up, I bore the pain and scars. Those who inflicted them went scot-free. I paraphrase Epicurus in saying, if god could have prevented my pain but didn’t, then he shares the blame. If he wanted to help me, but couldn’t, then he was weaker than those who were hurting me, so I’d be better off bowing down before them than god. It was certainly clear to me that god was not simultaneously interested in and capable of my protection, or else I would not have been so horribly hurt.

And nothing I found, either in the Bible or in church, answered my questions about why that should be so.

And then I began to see that the world – supposedly the work and pride and joy of a loving god – while often beautiful, awe-inspiring, grand and mysterious, was also a world of unspeakable horror, visited without rhyme or reason upon the just and unjust alike, as were all its many pleasures. And I wondered how it was possible to lay all of the beauty – yet none of the horror – to god’s account. And there were no answers.

Ah, but then I was told about Satan! The Devil, eager to cart everybody’s soul off to Hell, which would be permitted for eternity for quite finite (often mild) indiscretions. Poppycock! Balderdash! Rubbish!

If god is omnipotent, then Satan must be nothing by comparison. Infinity is infinitely greater than anything finite. Therefore, Satan could hold no sway – there cannot be two omnipotent entities in a single universe – by definition – since both would be unable to best the other – a clear failure in the definition of omnipotence. Thus, if god exists and moves in the world, then he’s responsible for it all, including how ludicrously unfair it is.

Such a god, when I thought about it, was completely unacceptable to me.

(To be continued...)

If Earth-bound human beings are the most intelligent beings of the universe, then what a pathetically sad and lonely place this is.

 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
@Vouthon, thank you, I have now read through your first two-part response to my OP, and I want to ask you just one question.

But before I ask that question, I want to draw attention to the real topic of the OP, which is “Why I am an atheist,” and in particular, why I am what we might term a “Christian atheist,” as it was an essentially Christian world in which I grew up. I also want to point out that, although it’s true that I’m gay, that is not really a very big part of my life – I’m a lot of other things, as well.

So my question is this: how many Christians would have the kind of depth of theological or historical knowledge that you focus on in your response? Further, how many would get even a smattering of that from the pulpit, from which they are taught to take their spiritual guidance? I expect not many, actually.

And Bishop John Shelby Spong even mentions something about this in his book (I think, I’m going from memory) “Re-claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World”), when he suggests that many very learned priests and bishops actually hide much of what they’ve learned about theology from their congregations. (And in many Christian denominations, a lot "reverends" learn very little theology anyway.)

Even such an erudite theologian as then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI), in his “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of the Homosexual Person,” (Oct 1, 1986), a screed that I loathe to this day, claimed that homosexual acts are “inherently disordered, and able in no case to be approved of.” He went further and claimed that, “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

So what do you suppose the world around me was like, during my formative years? Homosexuality, everywhere on this planet, was illegal, and as some parts of the world struggled to bring gay people into the fold of the rest of society, it was the churches that fought hardest against – and in a lot of cases, it still is. What message do you think that I, or any other gay person – or any other straight person, for that matter – got from the church on the subject?

Remember, this thread is not about theology – it’s about what I believe (or don’t), and why.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You know, it's easy to believe in electricity, whales, Abe Lincoln, coz they are believable.

Something g that doesn't require faith, ya got that?
Nope, because God wants our faith, and what an omnipotent God wants, He gets (at least from some of us).
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
First of all, let me just say that reading what you wrote on several posts here accomplished two things that I was already aware of with you: 1.you are very thoughtful, and 2.that it's impossible for me to disagree with the vast majority of what you wrote.

But I have a question for ya: What about the more "naturalistic" approach taken by Spinoza, Einstein, and myself [notice how I conveniently put myself in there with those geniuses :D]? Not that there's really any proof of what we are inclined to believe in along these lines, but as a hypothesis?
To be entirely honest, Metis, I simply do not see the need even for more "naturalistic" approaches to belief. I am content in assuming that the world is natural and in no need of anything that would resemble a deity. It is true that we don't know everything about that world yet, for example whether it always existed, came from nothing, or what have you. But I do not find inventing an unlikely solution to explain what we don't yet know is reasonable. I am content to say, "I don't know, but I hope the geniuses find something soon while I'm still here to learn about it."
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Nope, because God wants our faith, and what an omnipotent God wants He gets.
I want people to have a certain amount of faith in me, too, as an honest and decent person. And in order to achieve that, it is up to me to establish my own bona fides through my own actions.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Jesus said also to the one who had invited him, “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you"

(Luke 14:12-14)
------------------------------------------------------------------​
Therefore, with all due respect, I'm not sure where you're coming from here - unless the Bible you're familiar with is a special, edited edition limited only to the Pentateuch (the Five Books of Moses) in the Old Testament!
You are trying to present to me some sort of "perfect church" or "perfected relgion," but again, I ask you: how many people, each and every day, follow Luke 14:12-14? Are they inviting only the poor, crippled, lame and blind to their banquets, brunches and dinners? Or are they inviting their friends, family and people they'd like to have in their network?

My beliefs are the result of living in the real world, the world I was born into and grew up in. And nothing in that world ever convinced me of the existence of a deity -- and even more importantly, never convinced me that most of the people around me who claimed to be believers actually were.

Remember what I said in my OP: your beliefs inform your actions. And if you claim to follow every word of the Gospels, and then act otherwise, what do you think I'm going to believe about you?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I want people to have a certain amount of faith in me, too, as an honest and decent person. And in order to achieve that, it is up to me to establish my own bona fides through my own actions.
We cannot know of God's actions because God's actions are unknowable. All we can know about God and God's Will for us comes through the Messengers of God. By having faith in them we have faith in God.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
We cannot know of God's actions because God's actions are unknowable. All we can know about God and God's Will for us comes through the Messengers of God. By having faith in them we have faith in God.
And I am sorry, but I can't help but find that ludicrous. How many people, throughout history, have claimed to be "messengers of God?" And how many of them have been accepted by this group, or that, here or there? And all on the basis of their own say-so.

Why should I believe one, or two or three, and not a thousand others? Why should I not have believed, just in my lifetime alone, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Bagwan Shree Rajneesh, or Charles Manson? Lots of other people did -- believed strongly enough to die for them.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
And I am sorry, but I can't help but find that ludicrous. How many people, throughout history, have claimed to be "messengers of God?" And how many of them have been accepted by this group, or that, here or there? And all on the basis of their own say-so.

Why should I believe one, or two or three, and not a thousand others? Why should I not have believed, just in my lifetime alone, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Bagwan Shree Rajneesh, or Charles Manson? Lots of other people did -- believed strongly enough to die for them.
Below is a post I sent to an atheist with whom I conversed on Delphi forums for about six years. He claimed that all alleged messengers represent imaginary gods (in other words, they were false prophets).

Atheist said:
Also, every imaginary god ever believed in did as well as to have at least one alleged messenger. These messengers also had their gullible followers who thought their messenger was the real deal, and also fantasized that they had evidence of their messenger being the real deal. So a god having a messenger thought to be the real deal doesn't mean ####.

I said:
A God having a Messenger thought to be the real deal does mean something if He was really a Messenger of God, but you will never know that because you assume without even looking at the Messenger that He cannot represent a real God.

Here, let’s go over this again:

That is true that the world is full of men who claim to speak for God, but logically speaking that does not mean that there were not one or more Messengers who did speak for God.

There are two logical possibilities: A = true Messenger; B = false Messenger.

There have been many false messengers, (a) ones who thought they got a message from God (psychotics) or (b) ones that were lying (con-men), but logically speaking that does not mean that there were never any true Messengers of God.

It is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization to assume that just because many or most messengers were false all messengers were false.

The only reason anyone should believe that Baha’u’llah was a true Messenger of God is because of the evidence that indicates that. It is completely irrelevant how many false messengers there have been. It is also completely irrelevant that God could communicate directly if He wanted to. That is a red herring because it is unrelated to this argument about Messengers.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
Hasty generalization - Wikipedia

You are making a hasty conclusion without any evidence (since you never researched the claim of Baha’u’llah) that Baha’u’llah represents an imaginary god. Thus, you have based your conclusion on “insufficient evidence,” essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables. There is no way you can wriggle out of this unless you can prove that Baha’u’llah was a false messenger.

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:
  1. messenger a represented an imaginary god
  2. messenger b represented an imaginary god
  3. messenger c represented an imaginary god
  4. messenger d represented an imaginary god
Therefore, messenger d (in this case Baha’u’llah) represented an imaginary god.
 
Top