S/O: When your spouse is no longer part of your faith

[marbel]

 

 

I'd guess most atheists in your life don't mock and ridicule you to your face. Those who do leave an unpleasant impression, but that stereotype is not only inaccurate, it contributes to a feeling of fear and loathing of "them." We speak out when people do this with regard to race, why not with regard to religion?

 

Perhaps not most, but many. However I do not have a fear and loathing of "them."  I do have friends and family members who are atheists, agnostics, etc., and we manage kind, respectful, loving relationships.    I do not fear or loathe you or other atheists on this board with whom I have no other relationship.  What is there for me to fear and loathe?

 

Most atheists I know  want to be left alone to believe or not believe as they wish.  They want people to try to stop converting them.   Yet in my experience some also work very hard at trying to convert people of faith and most of the arguments I have been subjected are basically, when you get down to the essence, "you people are stupid."

 

Of course I can only speak for myself and do not claim to be representative of all people of faith.  Don't bother sending me links proving that people of faith fear and loathe atheists.  I'm sure some do, just as I'm sure some atheists fear and loathe Christians and other people of faith.

[albeto.]

Perhaps not most, but many. However I do not have a fear and loathing of "them."  I do have friends and family members who are atheists, agnostics, etc., and we manage kind, respectful, loving relationships.    I do not fear or loathe you or other atheists on this board with whom I have no other relationship.  What is there for me to fear and loathe?

 

I'm suggesting people stop perpetuating one of the ideas that supports fear and loathing - that atheists mock and ridicule theists. It's a stereotype born from logical fallacies and appeal to emotions. If a homeschooler wouldn't tolerate the idea that homeschoolers are fundy whack jobs even though there are homeschoolers who seem to meet that criteria, then she shouldn't promote the idea that atheists mock and ridicule, even though there are atheists who meet that criteria. This thread suggests to me this to be a knee-jerk reaction to atheism, which I find to be particularly problematic because it comes from a community that identifies itself as educators. Stereotypes, opinions, and facts shouldn't be a matter of confusion here.

 

Most atheists I know  want to be left alone to believe or not believe as they wish.  They want people to try to stop converting them.   Yet in my experience some also work very hard at trying to convert people of faith and most of the arguments I have been subjected are basically, when you get down to the essence, "you people are stupid."

 

In my experience I've seen people confuse correction of misunderstanding as subtle attacks of character. I don't mean to suggest atheists don't mock and belittle theists, but that stereotype is just that, a stereotype, and not an accurate reflection of most atheists. To make this the first, most important, or knee-jerk identity is to perpetuate it.

 

Of course I can only speak for myself and do not claim to be representative of all people of faith.

 

Then perhaps you can agree with my appeal to stop using unpleasant atheists as representative of all atheists, even if it is an indirectly assumed representation.

 

Don't bother sending me links proving that people of faith fear and loathe atheists.  I'm sure some do, just as I'm sure some atheists fear and loathe Christians and other people of faith.

 

I share links to support my claim, to give evidence to the credibility of what I say. In other words, you don't have to trust me. I don't know why that would be uncomfortable, or what would inspire this request. 

[marbel]

I'm suggesting people stop perpetuating one of the ideas that supports fear and loathing - that atheists mock and ridicule theists. It's a stereotype born from logical fallacies and appeal to emotions. If a homeschooler wouldn't tolerate the idea that homeschoolers are fundy whack jobs even though there are homeschoolers who seem to meet that criteria, then she shouldn't promote the idea that atheists mock and ridicule, even though there are atheists who meet that criteria. This thread suggests to me this to be a knee-jerk reaction to atheism, which I find to be particularly problematic because it comes from a community that identifies itself as educators. Stereotypes, opinions, and facts shouldn't be a matter of confusion here.

 

 

In my experience I've seen people confuse correction of misunderstanding as subtle attacks of character. I don't mean to suggest atheists don't mock and belittle theists, but that stereotype is just that, a stereotype, and not an accurate reflection of most atheists. To make this the first, most important, or knee-jerk identity is to perpetuate it.

 

 

Then perhaps you can agree with my appeal to stop using unpleasant atheists as representative of all atheists, even if it is an indirectly assumed representation.

 

 

I share links to support my claim, to give evidence to the credibility of what I say. In other words, you don't have to trust me. I don't know why that would be uncomfortable, or what would inspire this request. 

 

 

I don't recall "using unpleasant atheists as representative of all atheists."  I am pretty sure I've always said "many," "in my experience," "people I know," etc.   I am not claiming that all atheists are mocking, ridiculing, nasty people. In fact I am pretty sure I've said I know atheists who are not those things just as I do some some folks who do mock and ridicule - and yet, I still invite them out for coffee and into my home.  You have brought up "fear and loathing" several times and I have said that I have no fear and loathing.  I can't help it if other people fear and loathe. 

 

What else do you want me to do?   

[Reefgazer]

My DH and go to different churches, but we have sharp faith differences (he is Catholic and I am Protestant); we've always been this way and married knowing that was the case.  I accept him for who he is and vice versa; we go to separate churches on Sunday and the kids choose where they wish to go (they usually come along with me).  It doesn't cause us any mental anguish; it's just a bit odd to go to different churches, although we both attend special events at the other's church.

[Reefgazer]

I know that atheists aren't universally ridiculing, but in my social circle and among the atheists I know, they are universally ridiculing of my faith.  My best friend is an atheist, and he makes fun of Christians, argues with me as to why I believe as I do, and point blank told me my version of God was invalid.  This isn't unique; most of my social circle are atheists and they are very disrespecting of faith in general.  People's impression of a particular belief system (atheists and theists) is based on their experiences with those around them. 

 

I fully understand that you are now asking yourself why I am even friends with this person, but I can assure you, he is am amazing human being; he just has serious religious prejudices.  But that's quite common in our society, I find, and is no measure of the complete person.

I'm suggesting people stop perpetuating one of the ideas that supports fear and loathing - that atheists mock and ridicule theists. It's a stereotype born from logical fallacies and appeal to emotions. If a homeschooler wouldn't tolerate the idea that homeschoolers are fundy whack jobs even though there are homeschoolers who seem to meet that criteria, then she shouldn't promote the idea that atheists mock and ridicule, even though there are atheists who meet that criteria. This thread suggests to me this to be a knee-jerk reaction to atheism, which I find to be particularly problematic because it comes from a community that identifies itself as educators. Stereotypes, opinions, and facts shouldn't be a matter of confusion here.
 

In my experience I've seen people confuse correction of misunderstanding as subtle attacks of character. I don't mean to suggest atheists don't mock and belittle theists, but that stereotype is just that, a stereotype, and not an accurate reflection of most atheists. To make this the first, most important, or knee-jerk identity is to perpetuate it.
 

 

Then perhaps you can agree with my appeal to stop using unpleasant atheists as representative of all atheists, even if it is an indirectly assumed representation.
 

 

I share links to support my claim, to give evidence to the credibility of what I say. In other words, you don't have to trust me. I don't know why that would be uncomfortable, or what would inspire this request. 

 

[Aelwydd]

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, "He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness." 1 Corinthians 3:19

 

"He who trusts in his own heart is a fool...." Proverbs 28:26

"...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14-15

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'  Psalm 53:1

"Fools mock at sin, but among the upright there is favor." Proverbs 14:9

"A fool has no delight in understanding, but in expressing his own heart."  Proverbs 18:2

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools..." Romans 1:20-22

"The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning,
But the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise than for a man to hear the song of fools.
For like the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool.
This also is vanity."  Ecclesiastes 7:4-6

"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he who heeds counsel is wise."  Proverbs 12:15

"He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will be destroyed." Proverbs 13:20

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.'

      "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?       

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 1 Corinthians 1:18-25

"...God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;" 1 Corinthians 1:27

 

 

Are there non-believers out there who scorn believers?  Oh yeah.  I met them.  I experienced the sharp tongue of more than one of them when I was a believer. But the thing is, I was raised to disdain unbelievers.  I was succored on these attitudes from birth.  Not in so many words--but what I heard quoted from the pulpit, the lessons I learned about in Sunday School about not esteeming "man's opinion" over God's. Nothing is more incontrovertible, nothing that holds the weight of opinion the way that God-ordained Scripture has its MANY judgments.

 

You can argue context and interpretation--but the theme of God hating non-believers is extant throughout the Bible.  And having heard more than one preacher mockingly talk about, "And folks....people out there are in for a BIG SURPRISE at the end of this life!" among many other such comments, only ingrained that superiority even more so.

 

IMO, a lot of apostates are scornful because they are defensive.  They are defensive because, having been previously inculcated with the doctrines of their faith, they are quite, quite familiar with the "official" position on their newfound atheism/agnosticism/conversion to a different faith.

 

At the end of the day, you have a scornful asshole of an atheist--but at least that person only answers for him or herself.  There is no proclaimed leader of atheism out there, nor a uniform school of thought that represents them all as a whole. 

A scornful Christian, though?  He's got the weight of God, Himself, underlining his disdain of the unbelieving fool.

 

 

 

[felicity]

I keep coming back to this thread because I'm learning so much, both about myself and about how I need to make sure I'm treating and thinking of my dh. Some conversations are difficult to have together because we are so close and neither of us wants to hurt the other. 

 

 

It's funny, for a people that 'love the sinner, hate the sin', it seems so difficult to understand that an atheist could 'not respect the religion, respect the religious person.'

 

I don't respect religion. That's OK> I can still respect the right of my friend to have a religion, to live her personal life around the tenets of a religion, to have religion be important to her.

 

There's nothing smug about that stance. What I do think is smug is expecting everyone in the world to go around respecting the religion you just happened to be born into/married into/adopted because it's YOURS.

 

There are aspects of religion I respect - OK, not many, but some. I respect the the questioning or God-dialoguing aspect of Jewish philosophers. I respect the Christ inspired social justice work of many nuns. But it's hubris to think or require that a person of no faith should politely respect the whole kit and caboodle.

 

 

That's what's taken me at least a year to understand. I don't walk around thinking my husband is a fool or anything like that. I know what it's taken for him to leave the church and while it pains me, I have to respect him for that. Because it's not about me, it's about him. I do expect some respect for my religion, but mostly because it's part of me, his wife. But I understand why that's probably hard for him to respect the LDS church since he does know a lot about it, both the good and bad. 

[Melinda in VT]

I keep coming back to this thread because I'm learning so much, both about myself and about how I need to make sure I'm treating and thinking of my dh. Some conversations are difficult to have together because we are so close and neither of us wants to hurt the other.

 

 

 

 

That's what's taken me at least a year to understand. I don't walk around thinking my husband is a fool or anything like that. I know what it's taken for him to leave the church and while it pains me, I have to respect him for that. Because it's not about me, it's about him. I do expect some respect for my religion, but mostly because it's part of me, his wife. But I understand why that's probably hard for him to respect the LDS church since he does know a lot about it, both the good and bad.

Felicity, I so appreciate your contributions to this thread. Your comment about your previous attitude to non-Mormons reminded me of myself before my deconversion (and I have a non-Mormon dad!).

 

And some of your comments about your husband have reinforced my commitment to struggling against those moments when I feel judgemental towards those whose religious beliefs feel less enlightened than mine.

 

Thank you.

[Murphy101]

I was Catholic, very much so. My husband was raised Catholic but rejected that faith by the time he'd reached high school. When we married I was not a believer. I became one [long story short] his opinions on the matters of the faith were not inspired by maintaining the faith, but inspired by thinking skeptically and reasonably. In other words, he didn't just let the "burden" go, but would take it to its logical conclusion.

 

 

 

And yet for me, someone raised without faith, my opinions were also not formed to maintain faith, but by thinking skeptically and reasonably and doing so is what eventually led me to the Roman Catholic Church

 

 

I can understand wanting to be treated decently. I think we all do. On a separate but related note, there's a reason some people choose this kind of humor. People invested in a particular belief system often have a cognitive bias that prevents them from recognizing reasons to think skeptically about the belief system. That's not a dig on religion, this is part of human nature.

 

They choose it because they think they are being witty and they are actually just being jerks who don't want to be called out on their jerkiness. I grew up with that constantly and it's total bull that they are doing it out of some misguided kindness to some poor schmuck who just can't help the fact they are so mentally deluded that they are prevented from thinking the way the person mocking them does.

 

Yes. It most certainly is a dig no matter what shovel you use.

 

Because if I said the reason Christians mock atheist is because *insert excuse you gave* - I'm pretty sure most atheist would find it rather insulting even if I said it's just because they are humans so invested in their non-belief that they can't be reasoned with about religion.

 

 

Humor has a way of chipping through these emotional defenses and exposing those negative elements an adherent to the belief may not otherwise recognize. More importantly, I think, it also serves to expose these negative elements to others in an undeniable, quick, and memorable way.

 

That people find it offensive isn't a testament to the rudeness of those raising the point, but the discomfort of seeing a belief not getting the expected and desired respect, imo.

 

No it doesn't. It's insulting and most people stop listening when they feel insulted, so it completely undermines that goal, if one even agrees with you about that goal. Yes, it's a testament to rudeness. Because yeah, most people find it very rude to not be respected and to be mocked.

[unsinkable]

It's been really interesting to read your perspective Felicity! You've added a lot to my understanding of how it would be on the other side of things.

 

~

 

I thought that perhaps some of the people who have posted here about the superior and smug atheists they know might get a sense of the offense they cause if we did this.

 

Instead of atheist..."I know not all Jews are like this, but the Jews I know are (insert stereotype here).

 

OR

 

"I know all Muslims aren't like this, but the ones I know are (insert stereotype here).

 

OR

 

" I know all gays aren't like this, but the ones I know (insert stereotype here)

 

OR EVEN

 

"I know all blacks aren't like this, but the ones I know (insert stereotype here).

 

Now do you see why some of your fellow board members might find it worrisome to hear, more than once in this thread

 

"I know all atheists aren't like this, but the ones I know (insert stereotype here) ?

 

~

 

I'm pretty sure that in the clamour for religious respect, no-one is going to examine their unconscious bigotry towards atheists, but oh well.

People don't choose to be gay or black, so those examples don't work.

 

Atheist and religious people choose to be that way. And if someone chooses to act unkind in the name of their atheism and religion, that is on them, not their victims.

[albeto.]

And yet for me, someone raised without faith, my opinions were also not formed to maintain faith, but by thinking skeptically and reasonably and doing so is what eventually led me to the Roman Catholic Church

 

Heh, that's just what I thought, too.

 

They choose it because they think they are being witty

 

It's extremely witty, when you remove the emotional attachment. Both are creation myths, neither have a shred of evidence, both require faith, both are implausible scientifically, both inspire rituals that respected within the community but not so much from the outside. It doesn't matter about the meaning of either religion when you consider both have meaning only inside the community of believers. If a member of the Church of the FSM came to your public school district meetings dressed in full pirate regalia and tried to convince the school board the importance of using their creation myth as a scientific lesson, you might think they were nuts. Ultimately though, you'd be right to think their creation story should have nothing to do with the free and appropriate education granted to citizens in a secular nation. That's not just an appropriate analogy to make, it's totally unexpected and quite humorous. It really is witty.

 

and they are actually just being jerks who don't want to be called out on their jerkiness.

 

I would argue that if anyone deserves to be accused with indecent behavior, it is the ones working to instal religious conditioning in an educational system funded by a secular government that guarantees no promotion or obstruction of religion as a government. Public schools are agents of the government. If you want to open up the name calling, it's those who work to undermine scientific education to promote one religious belief who are more worthy of the title "jerk" than those exposing it.

 

I grew up with that constantly and it's total bull that they are doing it out of some misguided kindness to some poor schmuck who just can't help the fact they are so mentally deluded that they are prevented from thinking the way the person mocking them does.

 

Mocking people isn't the most reliable way to help someone see the delusion that has a hold on their thinking patterns. I can work, it did for me. I eventually became too embarrassed to be associated with "those Christians" and couldn't help but see awkward claims in my own faith. But mostly, I think it serves as part warning, and part letting off steam.

 

Yes. It most certainly is a dig no matter what shovel you use.

 

Arguably, a witty dig.

 

Because if I said the reason Christians mock atheist is because *insert excuse you gave* - I'm pretty sure most atheist would find it rather insulting even if I said it's just because they are humans so invested in their non-belief that they can't be reasoned with about religion.

 

Christians mock atheists all the time. Humor is a common tactic to use in communication. It is insulting, but mostly because it's thinly veiled ad hominem attacks, as there's no credible substance to address (link to recent example). There's no substance that can be addressed simply because religion requires faith to maintain, and evidence is not only irrelevant, it's nonexistent.

 

No it doesn't. It's insulting and most people stop listening when they feel insulted, so it completely undermines that goal, if one even agrees with you about that goal. Yes, it's a testament to rudeness. Because yeah, most people find it very rude to not be respected and to be mocked.

 

But others are listening. 

 

 

[albeto.]

People don't choose to be gay or black, so those examples don't work.

 

Atheist and religious people choose to be that way. And if someone chooses to act unkind in the name of their atheism and religion, that is on them, not their victims.

 

The point isn't identifying who has a choice (arguably, we have a limited choice due to environment and neurology). The point is in promoting a negative stereotype after giving the qualification that one has a friend in this group, so it's okay. 

[AlmiraGulch]

People don't choose to be gay or black, so those examples don't work.

 

Atheist and religious people choose to be that way. And if someone chooses to act unkind in the name of their atheism and religion, that is on them, not their victims.

 

No, that is simply not true.  I do not choose to not believe in something.  I simply do not believe in it.  

 

People do choose to be religious, but in most cases are not choosing to believe in their god.  They simply do.  

[Lavandula]

perhaps you can explain to me the difference between "lack of belief in God" and "believing there is no God". I'm honestly confused. 

I have a lack of belief in god, and I identify as agnostic. I believe that's different from atheist because I don't solidly believe there is no god - I think I have no way of really knowing. If I thought there was a 100% chance that there's no god then I would call myself atheist. I just think humans, at least at this point in time, can't know. That's not to say I have a problem with people believing, it's just how I view religion. So I think agnosticism is believing we have no way of knowing. Sorry if this didn't help, that's the only way I know how to explain it.

[Joker]

People don't choose to be gay or black, so those examples don't work.

 

Atheist and religious people choose to be that way. And if someone chooses to act unkind in the name of their atheism and religion, that is on them, not their victims.

 

The bolded isn't true, though. My dh has always wanted to believe and doesn't. He isn't choosing to not believe. He just does not.

 

I also do not feel that I am choosing to believe. I always have believed and that hasn't changed no matter what has been thrown my way. My belief and faith just seem to have always been a part of me. I don't think I could choose not to believe. I guess I could choose not to follow, but the belief in God would always be there.

[Murphy101]

It's extremely witty, when you remove the emotional attachment.

Humor at someone else's expense is not humor. There's other words for it, but witty isn't the one I would choose.

 

 

I would argue that if anyone deserves to be accused with indecent behavior, it is the ones working to instal religious conditioning

Blahblahblah. Basicly you're argument for an atheist being a mocking jerk is that it's okay because you think Christians are worse. The old erroneous two wrongs make it right theory.

 

Mocking people isn't the most reliable way to help someone see the delusion that has a hold on their thinking patterns. I can work, it did for me. I eventually became too embarrassed to be associated with "those Christians" and couldn't help but see awkward claims in my own faith. But mostly, I think it serves as part warning, and part letting off steam.

Right. You caved to age old peer pressure humiliation tactics. It's no different than the bully who mocks and ridicules a kid's best friend until they are too embarrassed to be seen at the lunch table with that friend. I get it. Nothing new there.

 

As for serving as a warning... Warning of what? Are you okay with atheist threatening religious people now too? If one is okay with bully tactics, I suppose that would be the next logical step, but I don't agree with either.

 

Christians mock atheists all the time. Humor is a common tactic to use in communication. It is insulting, but mostly because it's thinly veiled ad hominem attacks, as there's no credible substance to address (link to recent example). There's no substance that can be addressed simply because religion requires faith to maintain, and evidence is not only irrelevant, it's nonexistent.

One, I wouldn't be okay with Christians mocking atheist either and I don't think I've ever participated in doing so. It would make me very uncomfortable to listen to another do it too and I'm confident I'd call them on it fairly quickly. It's unkind and I've never heard of a heart or a mind converted because of being mocked. (Though it seems by your example it's a great way to make an atheist.)

 

Two, obviously, billions of people do think their religion has substance and evidence of some sort that satisfies them. They don't have to meet your criteria for it to be credible to them.

 

Three, humor, at least in my opinion, is only humor when both parties walk away laughing. When it only aims to belittle, ridicule, shame, and mock someone - that's not humor. It's sure something alright. But humor and wit is not it.

[mamajag]

Are you kidding me ? I didn't choose to be an atheist either. I just am. Trust me, I wouldn't have struggled for years and years to kindle a faith if I was just making a choice to be atheist.

 

I'm sorry, but yes, belief systems or the lack of one is a choice. You weren't born an atheist any more than I was born Catholic. I say that as a former atheist. I chose that for years.

 

I didn't know until I converted how hateful and uncharitable I was in an attempt to insulate myself from religion. It took members of this board I considered friends completely turning on me and vilifying me for me to understand it. I take full responsibility for it now.

[Rosie_0801]

I'm sorry, but yes, belief systems or the lack of one is a choice. You weren't born an atheist any more than I was born Catholic. I say that as a former atheist. I chose that for years.

 

From my extended eavesdropping around here, I would postulate that it is a choice for some and not for others.

[Lavandula]

Perhaps (some) people choose to label themselves something based on their beliefs or lack of, but do not choose to have those beliefs or lack of. As an agnostic there have been many times where I really wish I could convince myself to believe in god - but I can't. I have tried, but it is just not who I am. Do I choose to call myself agnostic? Yes. I could easily call myself nothing at all, or anything I want. But I do not think I choose to be agnostic. I do not choose to have the lack of belief. I do not choose to identify with agnosticism. 

[Lavandula]

C'mon Lavandula, you know you just need a little vilification from a friend :)

Oh, obviously I agree that people should vilify me for my beliefs! I would prefer it from a very close friend, as that is the best way to experience hate. As someone who is normally very quiet about my lack of religion, married a catholic, and has a muslim daughter, I consider myself very intolerant of religion and maybe even people in general. I am probably the epitome of hatefulness and uncharitableness.  :001_rolleyes:

[Rosie_0801]

Oh, obviously I agree that people should vilify me for my beliefs! I would prefer it from a very close friend, as that is the best way to experience hate. As someone who is normally very quiet about my lack of religion, married a catholic, and has a muslim daughter, I consider myself very intolerant of religion and maybe even people in general. I am probably the epitome of hatefulness and uncharitableness.  :001_rolleyes:

 

Wow. You put me off the scent with this Lavender-ish user name. I was imagining you to be all relaxed and offering people comfortable cushions to sit on. I will require much meditation and Gingernut Ripple Cake to realign my life to reality.

[Aelwydd]

I'm sorry, but yes, belief systems or the lack of one is a choice. You weren't born an atheist any more than I was born Catholic. I say that as a former atheist. I chose that for years.

 

I didn't know until I converted how hateful and uncharitable I was in an attempt to insulate myself from religion. It took members of this board I considered friends completely turning on me and vilifying me for me to understand it. I take full responsibility for it now.

 

 

I disagree. If children are born theists, then why do they require catechism? 

 

It is innate for children to form expectations of how the world operates through observation of natural phenomena. Belief in deities contradicts  that programming, and it requires children to learn the survival skill of compartmentalizing mutually exclusive concepts, where they can house "what is normal, expected reality--the natural, observable world" and "what defies any rationality and is 'magical' or supernatural--the invisible, intangible world where reality is suspended to maintain belief." 

 

Throughout maturation, the tensions between these two compelling forces--the on-board genetic and racial programming that is default setting in child's physical hardware, and the information being downloaded by outside influences--are often increasingly difficult to balance. Like trying to run MAC OS on a PC.  And thus, we have noted the typical rebellion of older teens and adults as they reach full reasoning capabilities.  They often express anger at this constant discrepancy between the evidence of the physical world around them, and what their senses perceive, and what they have been taught as overriding authority.  They get tired of being told to trust this outside authority, which offers no proof of its claim to authority, besides unverifiable claims, that are flatly impossible and happened so far back in history, as to be inscrutable.

 

Now, some of them will ultimately reject what they perceive as unstable and dysfunctional programming--and will uninstall and reject that software, and revert back to default on board programming, and begin to rebuild their understanding of the cosmos from the tools they were endowed with at birth--namely, their ability to observe with their senses, recognize patterns, and deconstruct the natural world into their logically arranged pieces.

 

Some of them will experience traumatic or difficult life events that force them to recognize the frailty of human life, and of the uncertainty of the future, and be motivated by their fear or pain or other emotion, to re-embrace belief in the divine, because of the comfort it brings them that something out there is superior to the natural universe.  Others will be moved by an appeal to the aesthetic or the transcendent quality of religious belief, and come back into the fold to explore that aspect of their psyche.

 

But that dichotomy between what we are born knowing and what we are taught to believe, is never fully satisfied unless one chooses one view to the detriment of the other. 

 

The Bible, itself, attests to this--it often speaks of what the "spiritual man" knows versus the "flesh," and that these two are opposed.  In Christian parlance, that is exactly the same thing--acknowledgement that the spiritual claims and "wisdom" of the spiritual world are in conflict with what natural senses perceive, and natural reason. Furthermore, it is full of stories and testaments of characters whose faith in the unseen was pitted directly against the mocking disbelief of others who did not share the same spiritual experience.  Again, natural reason versus God-ordained truth. The Bible makes it clear that the "natural man" cannot understand what the "spiritual man" does--because belief in the divine does not conform to any natural, innate reasoning that any and all of us are born with.  Belief in the divine is always and only something superimposed upon the mind's default understanding.

 

 

Therefore, children, who are born atheists, no more choose that condition than they choose to be born without clothes.  Just because it is the societal norm for many adult humans to endorse an invisible, untouchable, unobservable God or gods, does not change the natural condition they were born into. It does not erase the original default setting--it overrides it.  Sometimes for life, sometimes not.  But, when someone can no longer maintain that precarious balance between the observable evidence and the unobservable assertions, and is forced to acknowledge that belief in a god or gods is no longer possible, it's not so much a choice as it is an instinctual move to preserve one's psyche from further trauma due to the irreconcilable. 

 

If these people were diesel powered automobiles, no amount of "choice" would make it possible for them to function on unleaded gasoline instead.  They are functioning as they were designed to--biologically, through eons of natural selection. And it is not natural for human babies to be born with an innate belief in a deity.  That is so far outside the realm of an infant's understanding as to be absurd.  Babies are born with the instinct to eat, and so they cry for their mothers. They are born with the need to be protected, and so they have senses like smell to detect when their parents are near. They are born as social animals, and require close contact and the need to held and to be shown affection, to prevent failure to thrive.  A baby left alone long enough will cry for comfort.

 

I have never heard or seen a baby equipped with some type of alarm to indicate he or she is in spiritual distress and needs a God to pacify him or her. They are not born looking to connect with God; they aren't born with a drive to pray or perform acts of contrition to appease God.  Babies aren't born with a driving instinct to go to Mass or to be baptized or any other such religious compulsion. Those are all requirements that have nothing to do with the natural state of a baby's needs, physical or emotional.  Ergo, atheism, not theism, is the natural state of infant humans.  It takes an active choice, an act of will, to change that state--usually on part of the parents, but eventually, on part of the individual to maintain that belief.

 

 

Finally, if you were hateful as an atheist, you still have that capability as a theist.  You are who you are as a person, and whether you believe in God or not, your innate empathy for other humans should inform you as to what is healthy and what is not.  It is a cop out to say that belief or non-belief drives one to behave poorly.  Whether you are an atheist or not, you can perceive what pain is, and that to deliberately cause others pain is a form of predatory social behavior and detrimental to your social relations with other people. That is not due to any esoteric understanding, but perfectly observable knowledge of human social interactions, starting in early childhood. 

[eternalsummer]

I disagree that people are naturally, biologically atheist and must learn religion or spirituality or magic or whatever.  If it were natural (evolutionarily selected for) to be atheist, practically all of human civilization up to this point wouldn't have had some superstitious/religious/mythical belief system.

 

I'd say there's a lot more evidence that belief in god or gods or spirits is natural, in fact.

 

 

Secondly, I think of belief/unbelief in various religious and spiritual propositions as a series of live and dead hypotheses (I get this from The Will to Believe by William James).  So for me, the literal god-in-the-sky is a dead hypothesis.  Hindu gods/goddesses are dead hypotheses, too.  Lots of things are dead hypotheses.  These are just things I can't believe in - there is no choice in the matter.

 

There are other things that are, for me, live hypotheses.  An underlying order to the universe, the existence of things/forces I might not be able to see or understand, essential, fundamental morality - these are live hypotheses for me.  I could choose to reject them, I think (although the rejection of some of them has become a dead hypothesis over time), but I can (and do) also choose to accept them.

 

So theism or atheism can be a choice, sure - if a hypothesis is live, and it's inverse is not completely dead, you can choose belief or unbelief.  But for most people, most possibilities are moot, and those are not choices.  I could neither choose atheism nor catholicism.

[ktgrok]

Ok, first, Alberto, if I'm reading you right, you were mocked by your husband for your religion to the point that you eventually lost that faith. That's awful, and I'm sorry. 

 

Second, as for religion being something ilogical and irrational and learned, that's not my take AT ALL. C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity presents excellent arguments that are purely rational, for the existence of God, and why we feel the way we do about right and wrong. I'd highly advise it as a great read. 

 

Finally, I've got a stomach virus, and the screen flickering is making me want to vomit, so I'm out of this conversation. 

[Murphy101]

People really need to accept that it's OK for some of us not to think religion is rational. it's not a threat to your faith...is it really that hard just to think 'Oh, religion just doesn't make sense for an atheist. That's OK.'

I can accept that what I do in my life might not make sense to someone else.

 

It is one thing to say, "that does not make sense to me".

 

It is another to say, "the only reason that makes sense to you is bc you are delusional and entrenched in it, so you feel you have to maintain it, and if someone were to mock you and ridicule it as the stupid thing it is, eventually you might see it as just as unreasonable as I do."

 

It bothers me bc I don't think I ever did that prior to conversion and I sure wouldn't take to it now. If for no other reason than I tend to think if someone presents their argument in that matter, then their argument must be rather pathetic and I'm not much interested in further discussion with them.

[AlmiraGulch]

I'm sorry, but yes, belief systems or the lack of one is a choice. You weren't born an atheist any more than I was born Catholic. I say that as a former atheist. I chose that for years.

 

I didn't know until I converted how hateful and uncharitable I was in an attempt to insulate myself from religion. It took members of this board I considered friends completely turning on me and vilifying me for me to understand it. I take full responsibility for it now.

 

I choose not to practice any religion.   

 

I do not choose not to believe in any god.  I simply do not believe in any god.  There is no effort involved.  It just is (or, is not, I suppose I should say).

 

You may have been hateful and uncharitable, but that's your experience to own.  

[ktgrok]

People really need to accept that it's OK for some of us not to think religion is rational. it's not a threat to your faith...is it really that hard just to think 'Oh, religion just doesn't make sense for an atheist. That's OK.'

 

Saying that it doesn't make sense to an athiest is fine. Saying that all people are born atheists and have to learn to be theists, and then going further to say that the idea of religion is so far fetched that it causes great stress as one ages, and applying that to everyone, that was what I was objecting to.

[livetoread]

I have a lack of belief in god, and I identify as agnostic. I believe that's different from atheist because I don't solidly believe there is no god - I think I have no way of really knowing. If I thought there was a 100% chance that there's no god then I would call myself atheist. I just think humans, at least at this point in time, can't know. That's not to say I have a problem with people believing, it's just how I view religion. So I think agnosticism is believing we have no way of knowing. Sorry if this didn't help, that's the only way I know how to explain it.

Many of us identify as both. I'm atheist because I don't believe in any gods. I lack the belief. I'm agnostic because I don't think we can know for sure if any gods exist. I think it's possible one or more exist, but I don't think so. I do think some gods as described are more likely than others.

 

I find it much easier to tell people I'm a nonbeliever or I'm agnostic because of their assumptions about what atheism means. People seem to think it means you think you can prove there is no god or that you are 100% sure there are no gods. In reality it just means you don't believe in any - which means most agnostics are also atheists. I have no idea whether there are gods or not, but I do know at this point I don't think there are. If I did, I'd be believing!

[marbel]

People really need to accept that it's OK for some of us not to think religion is rational. it's not a threat to your faith...is it really that hard just to think 'Oh, religion just doesn't make sense for an atheist. That's OK.'

 

I assume that's how most people think.  Am I wrong? I assume people with no religious faith find it irrational.   I also don't expect people of any other faith, or no faith, to understand my faith. Why would I expect that? 

 

I also admit I don't understand a lack of faith in God.  Is that a horrible thing to say?    I am not saying I object to it*, just that I don't get it. 

 

Sort of like I don't understand people who spend a lot of money on fine cars.  I don't care if they buy a Lexus or whatever super expensive car.  I just don't understand it.  To me it is not rational to spend a lot of money on a car.

 

(I'm not equating faith with cars. Just saying that there are a lot of things about people I don't understand and I don't think it really matters that I don't understand them.)

 

*I suppose some might say I'm supposed to object to it.  Of course I would love it if everyone found the peace and help and joy my faith brings me.  But that's not how the world works. 

 

Of course I do expect people not to be snarky about matters of faith. 

[Dana]

I assume that's how most people think. Am I wrong? I assume people with no religious faith find it irrational. I also don't expect people of any other faith, or no faith, to understand my faith. Why would I expect that?

 

I also admit I don't understand a lack of faith in God. Is that a horrible thing to say? I am not saying I object to it*, just that I don't get it.

 

My folks are ministers. I was 5 when Mom started seminary. I learned the Greek alphabet along with her. I grew up seriously in the church. I'm sure by high school I could have given a decent sermon given all I'd heard.

I've read the Bible many times and have had theological discussions with my parents as I grew up. We talked about different translations, interpretations, and contradictions.

Knowing history of the Bible makes literalism seem incredibly ignorant to me.

 

My sister and I are both agnostic or atheist.

 

I'm moving more strongly towards atheism.

 

My parents are good people overall.

I can respect their faith. They do put their money where their mouth is.

 

And yet...over the years as I see where this country is heading with the voices I hear representing Christianity in the mainstream media, I have a hard time not seeing religion as an active evil.

 

It's a bit of a contradiction to me since I do know a number of excellent Christians who I respect.

I also see the hypocrisy in many people (my folks say that's really just human nature) and so many people who claim to represent the church don't seem to have a clue about what Jesus actually said according to the Bible. They certainly don't live a life of love.

 

I do understand what you mean about just not getting the opposing view.

That's fine to me too. I just get really tired about other people's religious views being foisted on me..and the amazing ignorance of some people really gets on my last nerve (I'm thinking here along the lines of people who complain about Xmas not knowing that the X is from Greek and IS a symbol of Christianity rather than taking Christ out of Christmas).

[Onceuponatime]

I don't see how anyone can be anything but an a-theist at birth. Sure, as a person grows and increases in experience of the world around her, she may come to various personal conclusions about the essential nature of physical existence and whether or not the supernatural exists. This is certainly part of  human nature.  However, unless taught specific concepts by family and society, each person's conclusions would have no guarantee of any similarity to any other person's conclusions. We are products of our time and place. 

[Rosie_0801]

 I assume people with no religious faith find it irrational. 

 

I also admit I don't understand a lack of faith in God.  Is that a horrible thing to say?   

 

1. I find a lot of things people do irrational. Being irrational is part of the human condition. I don't think humanity is meant to be curable so I think we're stuck with it.

 

2. No it isn't. It is a statement of fact and not even a very wordy one. :p

[marbel]

<snip>

 

I do understand what you mean about just not getting the opposing view.

That's fine to me too. I just get really tired about other people's religious views being foisted on me..and the amazing ignorance of some people really gets on my last nerve (I'm thinking here along the lines of people who complain about Xmas not knowing that the X is from Greek and IS a symbol of Christianity rather than taking Christ out of Christmas).

 

I think that is something everyone can agree on, particularly if you remove "religious" and just say "other people's views being foisted on me."    :001_smile:

 

[Onceuponatime]

I think that is something everyone can agree on, particularly if you remove "religious" and just say "other people's views being foisted on me."    :001_smile:

 

 

This is where the negative version of the Golden Rule comes in handy: Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you.

[Dana]

I think that is something everyone can agree on, particularly if you remove "religious" and just say "other people's views being foisted on me." :001_smile:

 

Except I disagree with that :)

 

Other people's views are going to be put on me because I live in a community. I may think certain laws are stupid, but they're part of our society. I accept that.

 

I really don't want religious views of ANY religion being part of our laws...and yet it's happening and political discourse makes it feel like it's happening more and more.

 

So that makes me very frustrated as well.

[Lavandula]

Many of us identify as both. I'm atheist because I don't believe in any gods. I lack the belief. I'm agnostic because I don't think we can know for sure if any gods exist. I think it's possible one or more exist, but I don't think so. I do think some gods as described are more likely than others.

 

I find it much easier to tell people I'm a nonbeliever or I'm agnostic because of their assumptions about what atheism means. People seem to think it means you think you can prove there is no god or that you are 100% sure there are no gods. In reality it just means you don't believe in any - which means most agnostics are also atheists. I have no idea whether there are gods or not, but I do know at this point I don't think there are. If I did, I'd be believing!

I wasn't actually aware people identified as both, sorry! I've never really looked at atheism that way, that is interesting.

[ktgrok]

I wasn't actually aware people identified as both, sorry! I've never really looked at atheism that way, that is interesting.

 

That's because in modern society that isn't the way they are defined. This is from dictionary.com - 

 

 An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe andrefrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.

 

And this is from Merriam Webster: 

Full Definition of ATHEIST

:  one who believes that there is no deity

 

According to these definitions, which are the  ones most in use that I know of, an atheist believes there is no God. I think some of the confusion on this thread is that most people use that definition, whereas some on this thread were  a direct translation of the words. 

[Lavandula]

That's because in modern society that isn't the way they are defined. This is from dictionary.com - 

 

 An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe andrefrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.

 

And this is from Merriam Webster: 

Full Definition of ATHEIST

:  one who believes that there is no deity

 

According to these definitions, which are the  ones most in use that I know of, an atheist believes there is no God. I think some of the confusion on this thread is that most people use that definition, whereas some on this thread were  a direct translation of the words. 

Most people I know don't live their life by dictionary definitions of everything, but by interpretations. Both of the definitions she used have been used by other people I've spoken to before. I don't think everything can really be that simple. Also, it's quite possible that my headache and sleepiness are interfering with my reading skills, but she seems to fit both of those definitions anyway. 

 

Ultimately I don't think it's my business how anyone chooses to label themselves. This goes for sexuality, gender, religion, and whatever else. All these things have so many possibilities that I think it's just hard to narrow them down to a sentence or two. 

[ktgrok]

Most people I know don't live their life by dictionary definitions of everything, but by interpretations. Both of the definitions she used have been used by other people I've spoken to before. I don't think everything can really be that simple. Also, it's quite possible that my headache and sleepiness are interfering with my reading skills, but she seems to fit both of those definitions anyway. 

 

Ultimately I don't think it's my business how anyone chooses to label themselves. This goes for sexuality, gender, religion, and whatever else. All these things have so many possibilities that I think it's just hard to narrow them down to a sentence or two. 

 

I wasn't saying they were wrong to use the words differntly, just pointing out that a lot of the disagreement in the thread might have to do with differing definitions. 

[unsinkable]

Bunch of crap. How the hell would you know?

Feel better, dearie?

 

There, there. Get all that nasty hostility out on a theist.

[unsinkable]

Uncalled for.

 

Listen, I don't want this thread locked, and it will be if it gets spammed with stuff like the above.

 

It's interesting to discuss, even if that discussion is robust.

Defending myself from a personal, vulgar attack is not "spamming."

[fraidycat]

I disagree that people are naturally, biologically atheist and must learn religion or spirituality or magic or whatever. If it were natural (evolutionarily selected for) to be atheist, practically all of human civilization up to this point wouldn't have had some superstitious/religious/mythical belief system.

 

I'd say there's a lot more evidence that belief in god or gods or spirits is natural, in fact.

.

Disagree.

 

It is Human Nature to want an answer for every question. A reason for everything. Trying to rationalize that which we do no understand. An explanation for why things work, happen, exist. Trying to figure out how the world works and rules to co-exist.

 

Therefore, it is only natural in the sense that we tend to "fill in the gaps" of our knowledge with supposition based on personal observation, hearsay, and "respecting the 'wisdom' of our elders".

[Rosie_0801]

So, to steer things away from the point scoring and personal insults, what I'd really like to hear is the argument for why religion should be respected particularly, accepting that the right of anyone to practice a religion in their home and place of worship  is a given.

 

There seems to be some thoughts around public discussion of atheism and by atheists being somehow disrespectful to religion. Yea ? Nay ? Yes, and it doesn't matter ? Yes, and it does matter ?

 

 

Well I really hate it when people say "All the atheists I know are rabid, scary freakazoids." It makes me want to say "Eh? What am I? A dog's breakfast?"

 

And with that profound comment, I shall go pull a few more weeds out of the garden. I'm sure I shall be back soon. :D

[unfrumpable.]

I suppose I could choose to pretend I believe.  There is always that.  Not quite the same as actually believing though.

 

I would hazard to guess that there are plenty of people in church every Sunday pretending as well or just giving lip service.

[marbel]

Ah, I agreed with you right to the end. Why is it that matters of faith, as opposed to the person with that faith, should have automatic respect ?

 

 

Sorry, I don't understand your question.  I'm not sure how preferring that people not be nasty to each other = expecting automatic respect?  I just generally don't see any reason for people to be snarky and rude to one another.  

 

 

[Murphy101]

So, to steer things away from the point scoring and personal insults, what I'd really like to hear is the argument for why religion should be respected particularly, accepting that the right of anyone to practice a religion in their home and place of worship  is a given.

How is that respectful? Would you feel it is respectful to say you can be atheist as long as you don't publicly discuss it or act like it outside your home or club meetings? Of course not. It's a lie to call that respect for their beliefs or lack there of.

 

This is a fundamental flaw in how an atheist defines respecting someone, religiously or not, then.

 

Saying I respect you, but only if you don't talk to me about it, show it to me, or actually live it is not actually giving any rights to practice their religion or any other beliefs they have. Whether it be God or that the sky is falling.

[Rosie_0801]

Sorry, I don't understand your question.  I'm not sure how preferring that people not be nasty to each other = expecting automatic respect?  I just generally don't see any reason for people to be snarky and rude to one another.  

 

I believe she is talking about the difference between treating a person with respect and treating a deity and all it says with respect.

 

For example, I might think Ares' evil twin is a nasty piece of work who does not deserve one iota of respect, even if I did believe in him. I would treat his followers politely but I would still think badly of him and whatever unpleasantness his followers do in his service. I respect the *people* and their right to life as they see fit (within the boundaries of the law) but I would have no respect at all for the deity or the religion itself. 

 

I have seen it claimed by followers of other gods that I should respect the religion and the deity, even when it is mandating things I find abhorrent, and "merely" respecting the people and their right to follow the religion is not good enough. I ought to behave as though I am perfectly ok with their horrible rituals, the horrible reasons behind their horrible rituals.

 

 

Not sure that is clear enough, but it's the best I can do for now. These sort of ideas make me feel much the way I felt when I was reprimanded by someone for not being appropriately patriotic towards America, when obviously, as an Australian, I have no allegiance to America at all.

[Catwoman]

Finally, I've got a stomach virus, and the screen flickering is making me want to vomit, so I'm out of this conversation.

 

I hope you feel better soon, Katie. Stomach viruses are awful!!! :grouphug:

[marbel]

Sure. Some people here - not you - have equated an atheist saying aloud something along the line that 'religion seems nuts to me' is disrespectful/snarky, when actually it's just a statement of how someone genuinely feels.

 

I don't think I should be able to go  around calling my friends idiots for being religious either. But I do think I should be able to say what I think about religion - which isn't always flattering - without that being seen as snark or personally nasty.

 

It's the difference between calling a person a fool - nasty - and calling an idea foolish. I think it's very dangerous when we impose social niceties on the discussion of ideas in order to squash them.

 

"Religion seems nuts to me" is pretty mild compared to some things that have been said to me. :lol:

 

But you know, I probably wouldn't say "atheism seems nuts to me."  I would (and have) said I don't understand it, and maybe it seems like the same thing, but it is a little different to me.   

 

I probably would not be offended if you said "religion seems nuts to me" if we were actually talking face to face.  Maybe it would depend on your tone of voice, etc. I don't find it very offensive but I don't think I am easy to offend.

[Murphy101]

Sure. Some people here - not you - have equated an atheist saying aloud something along the line that 'religion seems nuts to me' is disrespectful/snarky, when actually it's just a statement of how someone genuinely feels.

 

I don't think I should be able to go around calling my friends idiots for being religious either. But I do think I should be able to say what I think about religion - which isn't always flattering - without that being seen as snark or personally nasty.

 

It's the difference between calling a person a fool - nasty - and calling an idea foolish. I think it's very dangerous when we impose social niceties on the discussion of ideas in order to squash them.

I think you can call anyone or any idea they have stupid as all get out if you want. I don't think it is very effective at making yourself seem to have anything smarter to say about your opposing view, but it's your right to speak and write mostly freely. There's no clause in the right to freedom of speech that says it must be nicely worded.

 

There is no law that we must respect people. (Except a few minorities. Which is an entirely other topic.)

 

There is a difference between respect and rights. You want to picket the RCC? Or an abortion clinic bc you don't respect them? Okay. You want to call them stupid whatsits? Okay. (I don't know what the point of it would be other than bullying, but for all our whining about it, bully behavior is a well entrenched accepted behavior in our society. Again, an entirely other topic.)

 

However, no, to say people are only free to practice and live their faith privately is terribly wrong. That is a gross distortion of what freedom and rights are supposed to be in the states.