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

[eternalsummer]

As far as believing in religion being a choice, I think that for some people it is. I know the exact same information as my dh does. I've done the same research and in some cases more. But as I said before, I do believe. I don't work without that belief, I am not the Felicity that I know. 

 

 

Is the definite absence of god a dead hypothesis for you or a live one?  (that is, if you wanted to, could you believe that there is no god?)

 

Think of a dead hypothesis as something like Zeus (at least for me, Zeus is a dead hypothesis).  

[eternalsummer]

Perceived, yes. Actual regression ? I'm not so sure. I don't think it is helpful to prime someone facing this situation with the idea that there will be moral regression either.

 

Well, if the couple believes before, for instance, that taking the lord's name in vain is a sin, and one of them becomes an atheist and (presumably) no longer cares about taking the lord's name in vain, then that person has actually regressed according to the still-religious spouse (and according to the morals of the previously religious spouse when s/he was religious), even though according to the newly non-religious spouse there has been no regression.

 

I agree that predicting it is not all that helpful, but if that's the experience of people who have been through it, who I am to say it's wrong?

[felicity]

Is the definite absence of god a dead hypothesis for you or a live one?  (that is, if you wanted to, could you believe that there is no god?)

 

Think of a dead hypothesis as something like Zeus (at least for me, Zeus is a dead hypothesis).  

 

 

Yes. I believe that there is a God and all of the attending beliefs in God and Jesus Christ as described by the LDS Church. At this point in my life I do not see that changing. I can say that with some certainty for various reasons, most of which are too personal to talk about on this board. I have spent a lot of time thinking and praying about this subject. And while I understand that when I say "praying" I am skewing the results that I'm likely to get, I'm okay with that. 

[eternalsummer]

Or, I just thought of a more general one.

 

Christianity has a kind of turn-the-cheek moral code for a lot of things, right?  There's a belief in the goodness of humility, grace, compassion, giving, modesty, submission, etc.  (at least, this is my perception of some of the religion, re: the sermon on the mount)

 

So I can see that if I had been raised Christian, but my personality wasn't inherently submissive or modest or humble, etc., and I only behaved those ways because I truly believed they were morally right, I might change somewhat when I let go of the religion.  For me, there wouldn't be a moral decline - I would just feel free to be less submissive, maybe, or turn the other cheek less, but my still-Christian spouse would likely see this as a decline from the Christian moral ideal, right?

 

(this is a lot of speculating for someone outside the religion, I know, but it is an interesting thought)

[felicity]

Well, if the couple believes before, for instance, that taking the lord's name in vain is a sin, and one of them becomes an atheist and (presumably) no longer cares about taking the lord's name in vain, then that person has actually regressed according to the still-religious spouse (and according to the morals of the previously religious spouse when s/he was religious), even though according to the newly non-religious spouse there has been no regression.

 

I agree that predicting it is not all that helpful, but if that's the experience of people who have been through it, who I am to say it's wrong?

 

To use your example, my dh sees nothing wrong with using a non-existent deities name in his regular language. I have a negative visceral reaction when I hear it, especially in my home, but I don't think he's any less moral for it. He's not bound by the same morality and rules that I am. 

 

If he decided to start sleeping with women, then yes, his morality would have changed, but I'm not sure that would have been because he is an atheist, I would have to assume that something else was wrong. Seriously wrong since that would never happen. 

[eternalsummer]

So for you, you couldn't choose to be an atheist.  You couldn't believe there was no god at all, nothing other than what we can see and measure.  You can choose a certain kind of Christianity over another, maybe, or even a certain level of dedication to/belief in the LDS tenets, but atheism is not a possibility (in the way that belief in god is not a possibility for your husband).

 

 

Here is a gross over-generalization in a thread that has been full of them anyway:  in my experience, Mormons are much more graceful about their religious beliefs and other people who may or may not share those beliefs than any other Christians I've met.  It must be something within the culture (but then, I've only had interactions with Mormon women, so it might be something just within the female culture, hard to say.)

[eternalsummer]

I think someone said ages ago that if the person was the kind of person who considered the feelings of their spouse before, not believing in God won't stop them considering the feelings of their spouse later.

 

I imagine any nice person, religious or not, won't be likely to engage in behaviour their spouse finds distressing. if they do, it's a relationship problem. not a lack of religion problem.

 

That's true, but if having the same religion (and thus many of the same expected behaviors and moral codes) was something that brought/kept the couple together in the first place, it would be difficult to have the foundation of that moral code removed from half of the relationship.

 

For instance, if I married someone who, when we got married, believed sincerely in monogamy, then 20 years later decided he wanted a second, third, fourth wife, it would put a strain on our relationship.  He would not necessarily want the wives because he was a suddenly bad person, or because there was something wrong with our relationship - in many cultures, multiple wives are normal and not an indication of any trouble in the first marriage.  However, I'd be devastated - because part of the underlying presumption of our marriage, when we got married, would have been monogamy.

 

Even if he cared enough and was a nice person and all, so he didn't go get the extra wives because that would upset me, the sincere wanting of the other wives would be distressing.

[felicity]

Or, I just thought of a more general one.

 

Christianity has a kind of turn-the-cheek moral code for a lot of things, right?  There's a belief in the goodness of humility, grace, compassion, giving, modesty, submission, etc.  (at least, this is my perception of some of the religion, re: the sermon on the mount)

 

So I can see that if I had been raised Christian, but my personality wasn't inherently submissive or modest or humble, etc., and I only behaved those ways because I truly believed they were morally right, I might change somewhat when I let go of the religion.  For me, there wouldn't be a moral decline - I would just feel free to be less submissive, maybe, or turn the other cheek less, but my still-Christian spouse would likely see this as a decline from the Christian moral ideal, right?

 

(this is a lot of speculating for someone outside the religion, I know, but it is an interesting thought)

 

And I think that's kind of what I'm saying too. My dh's core didn't change when he stopped believing. He's still moral, he still comes home to me at the end of the day, he still treats our kids as our kids. But he has shed things like saying "god" that no longer matter to him. 

 

The difference is how we as the spouses see those that become atheist or whatever. If we expect their entire core to change, then we will see that. If we expect that our marriages will be irrevocably broken, then most likely they will be.

 

But since we're all different people, our reactions are going to be different. Reactions will differ based on so many things, it doesn't make sense to list them all. I know that my reactions have differed over time. Where I might sound very calm and accepting now, I've already said that my first reaction was to divorce my dh. But that was twelve years ago. I've grown and so has he and thankfully we've grown together. I'm part of a group of people whose spouses have left the LDS church and even within that group, we're all different. 

[eternalsummer]

You would think it has a turn-the-cheek moral code :)

 

I see what you mean but I still think you're arguing for a perception of moral regression, not moral regression itself.

 

You don't need to hear this I'm sure, but atheists can also be humble, graceful, compassionate, giving, modest etc. Not claiming I am :) But there are some very lovely non-religious people out there who can give Christians a run for their money when it comes to moral behaviour.

 

Yes, I am not Christian, so I agree that it is a vehicle for morality but not the source.

 

What is the difference in this case between the perception of moral regression and moral regression itself?

 

Are you saying that there is some ultimate morality, it's just not Christian morality necessarily, so only certain things would qualify as actual moral regression but they are determined in some other way than religion?

 

If so, you're just (I think) substituting your beliefs of absolute morality for the still-religious spouse's.

[eternalsummer]

There are days when I think an extra wife would be a hugely useful addition.

[felicity]

So for you, you couldn't choose to be an atheist.  You couldn't believe there was no god at all, nothing other than what we can see and measure.  You can choose a certain kind of Christianity over another, maybe, or even a certain level of dedication to/belief in the LDS tenets, but atheism is not a possibility (in the way that belief in god is not a possibility for your husband).

 

 

Here is a gross over-generalization in a thread that has been full of them anyway:  in my experience, Mormons are much more graceful about their religious beliefs and other people who may or may not share those beliefs than any other Christians I've met.  It must be something within the culture (but then, I've only had interactions with Mormon women, so it might be something just within the female culture, hard to say.)

 

 

Thanks. I like to think we're a pretty nice group. We have our moments, but hey, I'm willing to take a compliment.  :thumbup1:

 

That's true, but if having the same religion (and thus many of the same expected behaviors and moral codes) was something that brought/kept the couple together in the first place, it would be difficult to have the foundation of that moral code removed from half of the relationship.

 

For instance, if I married someone who, when we got married, believed sincerely in monogamy, then 20 years later decided he wanted a second, third, fourth wife, it would put a strain on our relationship.  He would not necessarily want the wives because he was a suddenly bad person, or because there was something wrong with our relationship - in many cultures, multiple wives are normal and not an indication of any trouble in the first marriage.  However, I'd be devastated - because part of the underlying presumption of our marriage, when we got married, would have been monogamy.

 

Even if he cared enough and was a nice person and all, so he didn't go get the extra wives because that would upset me, the sincere wanting of the other wives would be distressing.

 

That's the thing, I'm not pretending this is easy. Without going into my personal history too much, again, we were married in the LDS Temple almost 17 years ago. We planned to raise our kids in the LDS Church and go on a couples mission when we retired. None of those plans will happen. I take our kids to church each Sunday without his help and knowing that he wishes that I wouldn't. It is incredibly painful, sometimes a punch in the gut pain to live like this. But we have figured it out and continue to figure out what it means to be married. We have made a point to talk, not about religion because those discussions never end well, but about everything else. We have four kids in common, a whole host of ideas and thoughts in common, we like to spend time with each other, and hey, he's pretty hot. So it is possible, even with the difficulties to have a happy marriage where something major changes.

[felicity]

I don't know, an extra wife sounds good to me...

 

I know, that was flippant. I'm at the end of the day here and my brain probably isn't working fast. Or even at all.

 

So Mormonism isn't really off the table?

 

(I'm totally and completely kidding. I know my own religion and it's history.)

[felicity]

Thanks for sharing your experiences in this thread, it's been very eye opening. I really hope you don't think I'm minimising the upheaval you - or anyone else - must go through. You sound like a lovely wife, and I admire you for being true to yourself but accepting your husband as himself as well. Bravo!

 

 

Thank you. I'm not really as nice as I'm making myself sound. For instance, I accidentally killed a kitten with an apostrophe.

 

It's been interesting to think about these things in a calm manner and with people that aren't really affected by what's going on in my house. It removes some of the emotion that I feel in my day-to-day life. I also don't think I've thought of morality this much since college (at BYU). It's been interesting and I don't feel like anything has been minimized. For that, I say thank you to all of you.

 

I'm always willing to answer questions or think about things, but I think it's really going to have to wait until tomorrow since I'm really going to bed this time. 

[Laura Corin]

 

I could choose to pretend to be Christian, or I can be openly atheist, but I can't make a choice to be Christian, kwim ?  

 

I've spent a lot of time sitting in churches, listening to sermons and singing religious music.  My best friend at school was Christian and we talked a lot about her faith.  I went to religious schools from age 5 to 18.  

 

I don't seem to have a spiritual bone in my body.  It's not that I am choosing to be an atheist -there's no spark there to deny.  I don't miss it - maybe it's great, but as I haven't experienced it, there's nothing to miss.

 

L

[Laura Corin]

Well, if the couple believes before, for instance, that taking the lord's name in vain is a sin, and one of them becomes an atheist and (presumably) no longer cares about taking the lord's name in vain, then that person has actually regressed according to the still-religious spouse (and according to the morals of the previously religious spouse when s/he was religious), even though according to the newly non-religious spouse there has been no regression.

 

I agree that predicting it is not all that helpful, but if that's the experience of people who have been through it, who I am to say it's wrong?

 

That assumes that the atheist spouse becomes insensitive to the religious spouse's needs.  I'm sure that this can happen, but it's not inevitable.  I am very careful not to use language around religious people that might offend them.  It's common courtesy.  I would, of course, do the same if my spouse were religious.

 

L

[ktgrok]

Goodness me, let's take a dictionary over the lived experience of the people you're in dialogue with, shall we ?  Where's that respect you're so keen religious folk get ? Do you want to prove a point, or actually discuss something ?

 

 

I brought it up not to bash anyone with a dictionary, but to point out that the standard definition of the word isn't what a few (two?) people were using. Not to say they were wrong, but to clarify so that maybe it would keep us from talking past each other. If we are arguing about atheism, and it comes out that I had a totally different understanding of the word than the other person, it helps to know that. I was a religion major in college (secular college...not Bible college or what not) and had a very specific idea in my head of what atheism means. That colored my conversation. Having Alberto and others clarify that they meant something different by the word helped me to better understand them. So I thought maybe me clarifying what I meant might help them better understand me. Defining terms is always helpful when trying to understand each other. I fail to see how it is disrespectful to do so. 

[ktgrok]

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

 

I was going to say that, but already got yelled at once for giving the definition of a word...wasn't risking it again :)

[ktgrok]

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.

 

Saying, 'I don't agree" or "I just can't see that myself" or whatever is not disrespectufl. 

 

Saying someone's most dearly held beliefs are "nuts" is rude and disrespectful. It implies they are nuts, which is also rude and disrespectful. 

 

REally, it's that simple. I don't say that not believing in God is naive, because that would be rude. I will say, "oh, well...I can't not believe" and leave it at that. 

[ktgrok]

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

 

Thanks. Feeling better...quickest 4 pounds I ever lost :)

[TracyP]

We are a Christian family, and I have a child who was born an atheist. He doesn't label himself that way - I don't know if he even knows the word - but he doesn't believe. He started asking questions when he was 3. I know that lots of kids ask questions, but for him, the answers made no sense. I tried and tried to change him. Several times I was hopeful as I watched him participate in church, yet again and again he would come to me and say, "I don't understand..." "That doesn't make sense..." "But why would God...." "I still don't understand....." This kid has not made a choice, he simply cannot believe.

 

In the meantime, I began to question my faith.  I did not choose that, in fact I fought it as hard as I could. I  prayed every day that God would help me believe. I pored over my Bible looking for comfort and walked away disgusted with myself because I only found more questions. I posted C.S. Lewis quotes around the kitchen to remind myself to Keep Trying. I sat in church every Sunday hoping that today that belief that used to be so strong would return. Choice pffft. Now, I have chosen to accept myself. I will own that choice. I'm not fighting myself anymore and that is a huge relief!

 

 

 

[livetoread]

We are a Christian family, and I have a child who was born an atheist. He doesn't label himself that way - I don't know if he even knows the word - but he doesn't believe. He started asking questions when he was 3. I know that lots of kids ask questions, but for him, the answers made no sense. I tried and tried to change him. Several times I was hopeful as I watched him participate in church, yet again and again he would come to me and say, "I don't understand..." "That doesn't make sense..." "But why would God...." "I still don't understand....." This kid has not made a choice, he simply cannot believe.

 

In the meantime, I began to question my faith. I did not choose that, in fact I fought it as hard as I could. I prayed every day that God would help me believe. I pored over my Bible looking for comfort and walked away disgusted with myself because I only found more questions. I posted C.S. Lewis quotes around the kitchen to remind myself to Keep Trying. I sat in church every Sunday hoping that today that belief that used to be so strong would return. Choice pffft. Now, I have chosen to accept myself. I will own that choice. I'm not fighting myself anymore and that is a huge relief!

Boy can I relate to that. When my dh and I still believed, I immersed my young kids in faith. We had worship every morning, we prayed, went to a great church, etc. My son never believed. His personality is compliant, rule-oriented, and wanting to please, so it was very hard on him. I tried to not put any pressure on him, but I remember once asking him why he didn't want to pray (he was about 9). His eyes just filled with tears and he choked out that he was so sorry but he just didn't think anything was there and he felt ridiculous. He is now 15 and is no more inclined to believing than he was before. His sister found belief to be a little easier, but not much, and ended up not believing either, even when I still did. Personality-wise though, she is less rule-bound and more adventuresome and philosophical in her thinking, so that didn't surprise me as much.

 

There were hundreds of reasons for why I lost my faith, but that was one right there. For awhile I wanted to punch anyone who told me if you seek God, you will find him, and that God loves everyone and wants a relationship with them. Tell that to my sobbing boy. If this deity wanted to hide from me that's fine, I can handle it. But do that to my boy? Nope, not ok.

 

I ended up reading deconversion stories and learned how common it was for people to grow up in a church but never quite feel like it took. They tried, but for whatever reason, it didn't happen. I find that very interesting.

[LucyStoner]

For me, being in the church or leaving the church was a choice. No longer believing just happened. I didn't think "I won't believe this", I thought "I don't believe this. Uh, that's very strange because this has been a huge part of my life. Well, what am I supposed to do now."

 

My son was not yet 4 when he said "that can not possibly be true" when I explained the basic precepts of Christianity to him. He hadn't been steered anyway - and we were active in a church (tho not a Catholic one anymore) from, uh, basically his whole life. Kids certainly aren't born believing. They either accept or not whatever they are learning about faith from mom and dad.

[Elisabet1]

Rational thought includes facts and logical analysis. Religion, by definition, requires belief by faith. Belief by faith is the opposite from belief by facts. That's why you might hear people refer to it as irrational. It's helpful to remember that religion isn't the only irrational belief - belief by faith as opposed to fact - that we have. Human cognition includes irrational beliefs, regardless of one's religious background. Here's a list of some cognitive biases that are likely to affect us: http://www.businessinsider.com/cognitive-biases-2014-6?op=1.

 

 

I don't think that's a horrible thing to say. It's natural to believe there's an agent behind seemingly unrelated events. Humans have evolved with this thinking. Here's a summary I find helpful in explaining the mechanics of belief (don't let the title throw you!)

 

 

Actually, most things in life are belief by faith. Do we really know the Civil War happened? No, someone wrote about it. A lot of people wrote about it. And we believe it. We have faith that humanity is not so crooked that they would make it up. Even science. We read the science books and assume that what we read is true. We read a book on human anatomy and I have faith my heart is where it says it is. I don't cut myself open and look for myself. There is very little any of us have personal knowledge of. And if we do not have personal knowledge, then we have faith that what we know is true, what we read or were told about are true. Heck, I take it on faith that my parents are my parents (I was there when I was born, but I don't remember it) and my siblings really are my siblings, and so on.

[Elisabet1]

Boy can I relate to that. When my dh and I still believed, I immersed my young kids in faith. We had worship every morning, we prayed, went to a great church, etc. My son never believed. His personality is compliant, rule-oriented, and wanting to please, so it was very hard on him. I tried to not put any pressure on him, but I remember once asking him why he didn't want to pray (he was about 9). His eyes just filled with tears and he choked out that he was so sorry but he just didn't think anything was there and he felt ridiculous. He is now 15 and is no more inclined to believing than he was before. His sister found belief to be a little easier, but not much, and ended up not believing either, even when I still did. Personality-wise though, she is less rule-bound and more adventuresome and philosophical in her thinking, so that didn't surprise me as much.

 

There were hundreds of reasons for why I lost my faith, but that was one right there. For awhile I wanted to punch anyone who told me if you seek God, you will find him, and that God loves everyone and wants a relationship with them. Tell that to my sobbing boy. If this deity wanted to hide from me that's fine, I can handle it. But do that to my boy? Nope, not ok.

 

I ended up reading deconversion stories and learned how common it was for people to grow up in a church but never quite feel like it took. They tried, but for whatever reason, it didn't happen. I find that very interesting.

But just as common are people who did not grow up in a church and felt God in their hearts anyway. The deconversion books are about proselytizing atheism just as much as someone of any religion might try to proselytizing their religion.

[livetoread]

But just as common are people who did not grow up in a church and felt God in their hearts anyway. The deconversion books are about proselytizing atheism just as much as someone of any religion might try to proselytizing their religion.

Well, I disagree about the proselytizing characterization. I think it's people telling their stories. The consensus among most Christians (Calvinists aside) is that God loves everyone and wants everyone to believe and be saved. If you don't believe, that means you have chosen not to and/or have rejected a God who really wants you to choose otherwise. When your experience contradicts that, it is very confusing. You blame yourself, you pray more earnestly, you listen to those telling you God would never reject you (and the unstated implication is that instead you've rejected God), and you try harder. But when ultimately none of that worked, I was left feeling alone and ashamed, like I had failed at something that seemed to come easily for others. It was so helpful for me to read the stories of those who had experienced something similar. They weren't trying to convert me to anything, they were just sharing their stories so I and others wouldn't feel so alone in a sea of people telling us we had done something tragically wrong.

 

But I agree that there are also people who feel pulled to religion or belief, even though that wasn't what they were exposed to. Personally I chalk that up to a complex mixture of personality, life experiences, and culture. I realize others explain it differently.

[Murphy101]

Religious beliefs aren't exempt from humoring those who don't share them, even if religious people really really don't like their beliefs to be laughed at.

What are you even talking about? You've reached the point where you just start sputtering nonsense. I never said religion should be exempt from being laughed at. Who else do you think should be laughed at as a form of "educating" them about facts from your perspective? Fat people? Poor people? Polish people? Indians? Or just religious people?

 

I never said that the religious should be exempt. I said the nature of supposed humor that shames, debases, humiliates is wrong and says something negative about those who use it.

 

There's nothing wrong with exposing erroneous content in education. If it's done in a clever, humorous, lighthearted way, it gets the message across well. Arguably, it gets the message across better than a reasonable discussion, especially when reason is considered of secondary value to belief. It's short, sweet, gets right to the point, and is memorable. FSM icons can be found just about everywhere religious icons can be seen, thus spreading the message even more. A picture speaks a thousand words after all.

One, I didn't say discussing opinion on errors of thought is wrong. (Education or otherwise. Not sure why you are suddenly hyper focused on education either, but whatever.)

 

Two, again, no it doesn't get the message across. What is memorable is being insulted and thinking someone is a jerk who can't rationally discuss a topic without laughing at the expense of another.

 

Threatening with what? Promoting facts to be taught in public schools some more?!? Holding a government agency to accountable to stop promoting a religious belief as guaranteed by the First Amendment?!? Or what exactly, people will continue to laugh at what strikes them as ridiculous?

You were the one spouting off about giving warnings. A warning implies a threat. It's not that complicated a concept.

 

I see ad hominem attacks are okay with you. According to you, atheists are "mocking jerks," "bullies," and apparently something so... harsh? you won't or can't articulate it here.

Oh what bull chips. I said ANYONE (Christian, atheist, or whatever) who hides behind so called "humor" to shame, make fun of, humiliate and belittle someone else are mocking jerks and bullies and that I do not consider that to be humorous at all. I made that very clear numerous times. You are the atheist claiming it's okay to be like that.

 

Irrelevant. Belief isn't evidence. Belief in opposition to evidence gets called out, regardless of the community who believes. This isn't limited to religion in education, but astrology, numerology, kabbalah, chi, dream-catchers, and really any belief system confused with education.

It's not irrelevant bc no one is accountable to give you or anyone else evidence that what they believe is acceptable.

 

But that isn't the only aim, and it isn't really the important aim. The aim is to expose the unreliability of creation stories as sources of objective scientific information.

But humiliation and shame and belittling is the aim. And I find that in and of itself disqualifies it's communication value as a whole.

 

If I want to have a reasoned discussion with someone and actually want them to listen to the validity of my points, starting off with ridicule is probably not the best way to do that. Even if it works, it's a lost endeavor bc someone bullied into acceptance will always have resentment and anger over it.

[Free]

I brought it up not to bash anyone with a dictionary, but to point out that the standard definition of the word isn't what a few (two?) people were using. Not to say they were wrong, but to clarify so that maybe it would keep us from talking past each other. If we are arguing about atheism, and it comes out that I had a totally different understanding of the word than the other person, it helps to know that. I was a religion major in college (secular college...not Bible college or what not) and had a very specific idea in my head of what atheism means. That colored my conversation. Having Alberto and others clarify that they meant something different by the word helped me to better understand them. So I thought maybe me clarifying what I meant might help them better understand me. Defining terms is always helpful when trying to understand each other. I fail to see how it is disrespectful to do so. 

 

I don't think the definitions you posted are completely incorrect, because the most colloquial, popular usage of the word atheist is "one who does not believe in the existence of god(s)". It is also possible that many self identified atheists hold on to this view. But from a strictly evidential point of view, a rational atheist must also be an agnostic, otherwise her atheism is simply a belief based on personal opinion.

 

As an agnostic, a person simply states that one does not know whether gods exist or not. As an atheist she does not make her lack of belief contingent on the 100% certainty of the lack of existence of gods. This is the reason entities like Bigfoot, or Santa Claus, or Invisible pink unicorns, or his holiness the FSM will find themselves invoked in conversations like these. Granted one has no evidence for the existence of these beings, but then, what evidence does one have for the lack of existence of these? Why is one not an agnostic about the Bigfoot? Why is one firmly in the atheist camp when it comes to unicorns?

 

I need some evidence or even some statistical probability for a belief before I can even label myself an agnostic. That is the reason atheists who have wrestled with these ideas will carefully qualify themselves as simply "lacking belief(s) in god(s)". Even atheist poster boy Richard Dawkins will not boldly claim that "no gods exist" but will say something like "I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low".

 

I myself will describe my beliefs as threefold:

1. Given the current status of human knowledge, I will probably never know during my lifetime whether an external, all powerful sentient being exists or not.

2. Even if such a being is found to exist, I find it extremely unlikely that this entity has any interest in the affairs of whales, humans, ants or bacteria on a tiny speck called Earth existing for a tiny blip in the scale of time.

3. Lacking any objective evidence whatsoever, I will not assign a "special status" to the belief in god or hold off my lack of belief until it can be proven that god does not exist (a negative proof). I am however willing to change my mind if positive evidence is found.

[Dory]

I'm a little late to all this but I'm gonna add my two cents worth anyway. My dh goes to a Baptist church and all our kids go with him. I encourage them to go. I like that the kids have a sense of connection there and enjoy the people. That's great. I also don't want them to ever feel like they are being pulled between where I'm at and where my dh is at. It bugs my dh that I don't go, but I refuse to go to church when I can't agree with the basic teaching. Dh seems to believe very little but was raised in the church and it seems to be a habit of sorts. I have never seen anything else from him that would seem that he has some relationship with God.

 

I haven't really chosen how I believe, I just can't seem to find a fit anywhere. I honestly, really, really do want to have a relationship with God and have a church that feels like I belong, but I have come to the conclusion that it's just not for me. I feel worse forcing myself to go then I do if I just skip it all. One can only push ones self for so long before it gets tiring and hard.

 

It really shouldn't bother me so much, I've never fit anywhere with anyone else anyway.

[ktgrok]

You don't need two great posts of dictionary quotes to define your terms. You said you thought it was a belief, albeto explained that it isn't a belief system and that's what the oh so few of us were talking about by saying that atheism isn't a belief. You could have graciously left it there if your sole motivation was to understand.

 

 

no, that doesn't clarify it at all. 

 

I have no way to explain to you what my purpose was if you don't think that clarifying terms is a vital part of a discourse. 

[ktgrok]

You are deliberately misunderstanding me, for what purpose I don't know, so I don't think there's much point in continuing to discuss this.

 

You were upset that I pasted definitions for atheism and agnosticism. You felt that was offensive. I was not trying to be offensive, I was trying to show where some of the misunderstandings were coming from. When I clarified you got more upset with me. Not sure how I'm misunderstanding anything. 

[albeto.]

Actually, most things in life are belief by faith. Do we really know the Civil War happened? No, someone wrote about it. A lot of people wrote about it. And we believe it. We have faith that humanity is not so crooked that they would make it up. Even science. We read the science books and assume that what we read is true. We read a book on human anatomy and I have faith my heart is where it says it is. I don't cut myself open and look for myself. There is very little any of us have personal knowledge of. And if we do not have personal knowledge, then we have faith that what we know is true, what we read or were told about are true. Heck, I take it on faith that my parents are my parents (I was there when I was born, but I don't remember it) and my siblings really are my siblings, and so on.

 

What I hear from you is that evidence is of no value because if it confirms your experience, it is the experience itself that is the proof. If evidence conflicts with your experience, it doesn't count as your experience is more valid with regard to explaining the natural world. This is a most awkward, and factually incorrect explanation of knowledge. In other words, you believe that unless you experience something for yourself, you must accept a claim on faith. 

 

This is exactly what I mean about reason being considered of secondary value to belief. This argument is an irrational one, by definition.  

 

Interestingly, although this epistemology was largely dismissed with the advent of the Enlightenment, it is advocated by religious apologists even today. It suggests to me the appearance of religious people being simply afraid to allow facts to be accepted as such, almost like the fragility of faith is recognized on some level, but that fear is ignored by the mental sleight-of-hand "mountaintop experience." Some people draw this line right at the edge of fact/opinion, as you're doing here, others draw way on the other end of the spectrum and speculate information we can never verify might actually conflict with our knowledge (such as the expectation of an afterlife, or some cosmic mental unity). In any case, there's no point in discussing with you information, as you and I do not share the exact same experiences, and objective information is suspect to you. 

 

It does present a good example, I think, why some atheists refuse to pay lip-service respect to religious beliefs. It certainly inspires me to speak up in a public forum where people can see what home educators think and how they teach children. I want the record to show this kind of argument isn't universal among home educators. 

[albeto.]

 

 

 

I never said religion should be exempt from being laughed at. Who else do you think should be laughed at as a form of "educating" them about facts from your perspective? Fat people? Poor people? Polish people? Indians? Or just religious people?

 

No, of course you didn't say that. I didn't reply to that. You said, "Humor at someone else's expense is not humor." To which I replied, "Religious beliefs aren't exempt from humoring those who don't share them, even if religious people really really don't like their beliefs to be laughed at." There's nothing in this exchange about religion being exempt from being laughed at. In answer to your question, in my opinion, if fat, poor, Polish, or Indian communities imposed unverifiable, faith-based beliefs into the educational system and were unwilling or unable to have a rational, reasonable discourse, I can imagine humor might be an effective and satisfying tool to use. 

 

I never said that the religious should be exempt. I said the nature of supposed humor that shames, debases, humiliates is wrong

 

An idea cannot be shamed, debased, or humiliated.

 

 

You were the one spouting off about giving warnings. A warning implies a threat. It's not that complicated a concept.

 

A warning to others that religious beliefs are being used as educational facts. Not a warning of impending threats, but a heads-up.

 

But humiliation and shame and belittling is the aim. And I find that in and of itself disqualifies it's communication value as a whole.

 

If I want to have a reasoned discussion with someone and actually want them to listen to the validity of my points, starting off with ridicule is probably not the best way to do that. Even if it works, it's a lost endeavor bc someone bullied into acceptance will always have resentment and anger over it.

 

This is precisely why I think humor works as a warning to others. Reasoned discourse doesn't always work. Read Elisabet1's post about information being reliant on personal experience and trust in authority to get an understanding about the natural world. Catholics refer to the Catholic bible and a kind of informally agreed upon formal oral tradition (capital "T" "Tradition" in Catholic vernacular) to understand the natural world, including the nature of chemistry (wheat and yeast make bread, wheat and yeast and specific Latin words spoken over the wheat and yeast by a man specifically appointed for the task make the body of a god/man). This isn't based on reasoned information but on faith and trust that certain stories are true, and the assurance that certain personal experiences validate that truth even when objective facts contradict them. The school board of the state of Kansas couldn't be persuaded by reasoned discourse, and when their policy became a source of public ridicule, the message spread like internet wildfire: our kids are being fed religious teachings in public schools, and it's bad policy. Your comments here suggest to me you're not going to be persuaded by reasoned discourse beyond a certain, protected parameter. My replies are more for those who are reading along. I don't expect much more from you than another round of name calling and hollow rebukes like "sputtering nonsense" and "bull chips." 

[Murphy101]

No, of course you didn't say that. I didn't reply to that. You said, "Humor at someone else's expense is not humor." To which I replied, "Religious beliefs aren't exempt from humoring those who don't share them, even if religious people really really don't like their beliefs to be laughed at." There's nothing in this exchange about religion being exempt from being laughed at. In answer to your question, in my opinion, if fat, poor, Polish, or Indian communities imposed unverifiable, faith-based beliefs into the educational system and were unwilling or unable to have a rational, reasonable discourse, I can imagine humor might be an effective and satisfying tool to use.

I see. Because in education, so-called "humor" at a others expense is okay. Not elsewhere, but in education.

 

 

An idea cannot be shamed, debased, or humiliated.

Oh geez. Whatever. That's ridiculous. You didn't say your husband embarrassed the idea. You said YOU were so embarrassed that YOU didn't want to be associated with those groups. Really this is nonsense. By that convoluted logic fat people shouldn't be offended because people are just making fun of their fat, not them. And as we all know fat doesn't have feelings. You can be okay with that attitude, but I sure am not and I sure will call it what it is - playground bully tactics that don't garner respect for anyone or their ideas.

 

Your comments here suggest to me you're not going to be persuaded by reasoned discourse beyond a certain, protected parameter.

That's right. I will not be reasoned or persuaded by insults. Nor will I use them to try to do so. Nor will I stand by in the crowd and watch someone else do it. Because it's wrong. I don't expect you to think it is wrong bc obviously you think it is okay. Take comfort. By your logic I'm not name calling you, just this idea of yours that it's okay to insult, embarrass and humiliate people if you think they are too stupid to be reasoned with rationally. Your tactics don't feel anything. So it's unreasonable to use them and then feign outrage when called out for it.

[albeto.]

I see. Because in education, so-called "humor" at a others expense is okay. Not elsewhere, but in education.

 

 

Oh geez. Whatever. That's ridiculous. You didn't say your husband embarrassed the idea. You said YOU were so embarrassed that YOU didn't want to be associated with those groups. Really this is nonsense. By that convoluted logic fat people shouldn't be offended because people are just making fun of their fat, not them. And as we all know fat doesn't have feelings. You can be okay with that attitude, but I sure am not and I sure will call it what it is - playground bully tactics that don't garner respect for anyone or their ideas.

 

That's right. I will not be reasoned or persuaded by insults. Nor will I use them to try to do so. Nor will I stand by in the crowd and watch someone else do it. Because it's wrong. I don't expect you to think it is wrong bc obviously you think it is okay. Take comfort. By your logic I'm not name calling you, just this idea of yours that it's okay to insult, embarrass and humiliate people if you think they are too stupid to be reasoned with rationally. Your tactics don't feel anything. So it's unreasonable to use them and then feign outrage when called out for it.

 

I became increasingly embarrassed to be defending what I began to recognize to be an embarrassing idea. I felt increasingly ridiculous to be promoting what I began to recognize as ridiculous beliefs. I saw them as ridiculous in part when I saw them compared with other, equally ridiculous claims. I'm not advocating ridicule as the only or even best means of getting a point across, so I won't comment on your continued analogy with fat people. I'm talking specifically about how the FSM is a tool that gets a point across, an effective tool, even if it annoys you. 

[trulycrabby]

DH and I were not reliious when we married over 20 years ago, but the last year or so I have been attending church with my mom and ds10. I don't expect DH to go, ever, although it would be nice if he went once because everyone assumes I am a single mom, divorced, or widowed. One man keeps winking at me and coming over to shake my hand during the greeting. :o I wear my wedding set, but with no man at my side, apparently I am fair game. :o