Is being an Atheist the equivalent of being Gay to a Fundamentalist?

[The Sushi Bandit]

I have spent my life surrounded by people who believe in a Christian or Jewish god.

Too many people make the assumption that I feel the same way they do. Through the years when they ask me what church I go to. I have responded in various ways…

That I keep my church in my heart (a white lie)
That I have a higher power in my life (my AA answer)
That I am Agnostic
That I worship the Devil (reserved for Jehovah witnesses at the door)
That I am a Scientific Pantheist (closer to the truth)
That your god doesn’t exist (leave me alone)

You’re not a Christian?? You know you won’t go to heaven unless you accept blah, blah, blah, blah. Do you want to go to Hell? blah, blah, blah, blah.

My response is “I’m happy for you that you have found what works for you, but it doesn’t work for me.” With that said, I have found that I become ostracized from their circle. The treat me like I am a “sinner”. Like I am a “fornicator”. Like I’m gay.

Hey, I’m not at all gay. I REALY like sex with ladies and I do like gay people too, but not for sex. I think spending years being a sinner in those Christian eyes has helped me relate to what gays go through living in a judgmental straight world.

From my experience being an atheist is the equivalent of being gay to a fundamentalist. But I don’t mind it that much. Gays are great company!

[Mojambo]

1. You're either with them or against them. n/t

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

2. Makes you a target

To be saved.

[Democrats_win]

3. Technically they aren't supposed to judge those they witness to.

It's somewhere in the Sermon on the Mount: Judge not lest ye be judged. Anyway, that's what the Jehovah's Witnesses would say. They don't believe in hell and they honestly say that they don't know who will in fact be resurrected or saved but they tend to believe that being a Jehovah's Witness is a good move.

[beam me up scottie]

4. Yes.

Try living and working where I do.

[SPKrazy]

5. Liberal Christians May Not Be Any Better In Their Eyes

since many fundies don't think liberal christians are "really christians" (and sometimes I admit I think the same about fundies) then to a fundie, I may be the equivalent of an atheist to them. Don't know how I compare as to their views of being gay.

I've opened my mouth about my beliefs in front of people who I didn't think of being particularly fundamentalistic and their collective jaws dropped when I told them that my beliefs are that God is, and is in everything and everyone, and that "no one is more spiritual than I am" nor is anyone less spiritual than I am since God is and is in everything and everyone.

Peace

[Jo March]

71. Yep. Liberal Christian = nonChristian

We are not "pure" enough or good enough or we are just faking it or lying or something.

To some, a liberal Christian or a Democrat who is a Christian aren't considered much higher on the sin totem pole than atheists.

I actually had a guy tell me that he most certainly believed that he was "better" than other people and God would agree. x(

[metamorph]

6. I think you're hanging with the wrong crowd.

I'm an atheist as well, and I can't remember the last time somebody asked me what church I went to or tried to proselytize me.

[beam me up scottie]

10. It's not a crowd.

At least, not in my area, it's the norm.

It's risky to come out of either closet here.

[Jo March]

73. BMUS, get thee to Asheville, NC ASAP!

That city is one of the most beautiful, accepting, liberal - and did I mention beautiful? - cities in the country.

Pure bliss = watching the Indigo Girls perform on the South Lawn on the Biltmore Estate as the sun set over the NC mountains...

Pure bliss #2 = watching Over the Rhine perform at Stella Blue's after walking around downtown Asheville and meeting with the Vets for Peace group on the square...

Sigh. I love Asheville. :loveya:

[beam me up scottie]

77. It sounds wonderful.

I may use that as my back up plan, but, more than likely, my next locale will be either Vermont (1st choice, my home), upstate New York, the Pacific northwest, or, if things continue the way they have been, Canada.

Your atheist friend who moved out of the country may just be part of a trend, if repukes continue to control all three branches, I predict life for American atheists will go from uncomfortable to unbearable fairly quickly.

[Jo March]

84. I hated that he left

The thing with my friend is that he is very smart and he could have "blended" in when all of the roundups started. ;)

[salvorhardin]

11. I live in upstate NY

Not exactly an area known for religious fundamentalism yet "What church do you go to" is a pretty typical question in this area. Proselytizers are generally regarded as annoyances but there are enough of them to be a pretty regular annoyance. If you live almost anywhere outside of a mid to large size urban center religion is just a part of life and those who aren't religious face at least mild social alienation.

[eallen]

7. No, being an atheist is worse, in their eyes.

Here, I'm speaking of the right-wing Christian, not the liberal Christian. Someone who is gay is merely someone who suffers a particular temptation, perhaps sometimes succombing to it. Many right-wing Christians view that as no worse than someone who is a drunk, or a thief, or really, any other sinner. Providing that the sinner at least recognizes what they do as sin.

An atheist has consciously rejected the very assumptions behind the Christian's worldview. There really is no one worse in their eyes. Gay activists also fall into this category, not because they are gay, and even if they are not gay. See, it's not the gayness, but the acceptance of it, that is much, much worse to the right-wing Christian.

[cosmik debris]

8. Fundys hate/fear everything that is different

And there is a lot of that out there. My experience is similar to yours. So I can understand your outlook.

[evlbstrd]

9. Worse.

When I was a Catholic. They really hated Catholics.
I also get "You're a veteran. How can you not be Republican?"
Dipshits.

[OwnedByFerrets]

12. Yeah, that one

"your a veteran, how can you not be a republican" is one that really pisses me off.

[evlbstrd]

13. Maybe more than the religious bigotry.

[beam me up scottie]

14. Yep, they hate liberal veterans.

It totally destroys the meme that liberal pinko commies hate and want to destroy our country.

I was told that I shouldn't criticize * and that I had to respect his office by a coworker.

When I asked him how long he served, since he so obviously loved his country, he changed the subject.

[evlbstrd]

16. Whatcha might call an inconvenient truth.

[Jo March]

72. I get that, too! I HATE it!

When I marched in DC last September, a dear friend asked, "But I thought that you were in the Army. How can you be anti-war?"

Um, `cuz war kills soliders dead, perhaps? :eyes:

[ShrewdLiberal]

15. I'm an evolutionary theist with scientific pantheism at the core...

What does that make me in a Christian fundamentalist's mind?

Although I was baptized Roman Catholic, I don't believe in Christian mysticism. I also don't believe in coherence theory, i.e. idealism, as a whole. I'm a strict Aristotelian meta-physician, an externalistic consequentialist who believes in the reliability of sense perception. I don't believe we need reasons for beliefs, because if that were the case, then the reasons for beliefs would need reasons and those would need reasons, and we'd be off on an infinite regression of reasons, which no human being could ever have the memorial knowledge capacities to remember nor comprehend. All we need is a correspondence of facts (truthmakers), which obtain in time and space, with true propositions (truthbearers), which are the content bearers for true acts of assertion (statements) and true beliefs (judgments). The mental supervenes on the physical, relationally.

Yet, I believe in a first cause of the universe. Because it's logically necessary that modus tollens holds...

Modus ponens: p > q, q, therefore p. (The ">" represents a horseshoe in symbolic logic. I can't find a proper symbol.)

Modus tollens: negation Q (the universe), therefore negation P (a cause of the universe), it's antecedent. It's presupposed that Q exists, or I wouldn't be able to type this; therefore P must also. Why? Because without P there is no Q. Modus tollens must hold in bivalence. If you don't believe in the inscrutability of reference, then you'll agree with me. Otherwise, we're trapped in an argument of semantics. I'd rather argue facts (physically existing objects). Just because I don't know that all the stars in the universe are an even or odd number as a whole, doesn't mean it isn't one or the other.

Something caused Q. Every effect must be caused. That doesn't mean a Christian God did it, however. Maybe the universe was caused when two parallel universes collided in a plasma in the eleventh dimension and that smacking together caused the Big Bang. Who knows what the cause is? But it seems obvious it was caused, if logic means anything.

Just because something hasn't been proven true, doesn't mean it it false. And just because something hasn't been proven false, doesn't mean it is true. That's a Fallacy of Relevance known as "argument from ignorance (ad ignorantiam)". It's been proven the universe exists. LOL.

I remain agnostic about what caused the universe, but I believe it was caused because of modus tollens and bivalence. I have obvious doubts about the notion of a Christian God, though.

George Santayana, a famous idealist philosopher, once said, "Knowledge is faith mediated by symbols." I agree we must have an "animal faith" to form our beliefs, but we must also not put that faith in mystical unverifiable terms. We should ground them in science, where the inferences can be confirmed and the conclusions made valid through observation. Our memorial knowledge, intuition, testimonial knowledge, introspection, and sense perception should be the input and output mechanisms to make those groundings valid, not a book written by a bunch of mystics about two millenniums ago.

To be looked down upon for being logical about my beliefs, basing them upon valid syllogisms, seems repugnant to me. I'm an evolutionary theist. Unlike Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, W. V. Quine and other great thinkers, I believe in a first cause. Yet Christians want to lump me in with atheists because my first cause isn't exactly like they're first cause. They're whole argument is engulfed in fallacies: accident, converse accident, irrelevant conclusion, false cause, appeal to emotion, ad hominem, and begging the question.

If anyone can prove to me that the universe doesn't exist, I'll abandon my faith in bivalence, and then become a full-blown skeptic.

[squarepants]

19. The answer to that question is

yes, as far as a fundamentalist is concerned. But that really isn't saying much. I mean, those people have a very narrow view of God, the bible, and they are certainly sticklers when it comes to "tradition." Anybody who isn't exactly like them or thinks like them is just as bad as an atheist or homosexual. I believe in the same God that they do, but not in the same way (I have liberal viewpoints and respect all religions), so according to them, even just going under the banner of liberalism makes me "hellbound" and a "tool of satan". LOL, and yes, apparently to them that makes me just as bad as an atheist or homosexual. Kind of cool, though. Lol, if they hate me, then I must be doing something right. :woohoo:

[mdpod]

25. But what caused P? It exists.

[Random_Australian]

83. Wanna argue that everything must be caused?

Though I prefer evidence rather than logic - I am afraid I have never met many of the terms you used.

However, a number of things happen without cause. Vacuum energy and the virtual particles spring to mind.

:)

[okasha]

17. No. Get back to me when

A President of the United States opines that God sent a certain disease for the specific purpose of wiping out atheists;

A young atheist is tied to a split rail fence and pistol whipped to death or beaten to death with a baseball bat in his barracks;

Fred Phelps and his spawn show up at the funeral to harrass his devastated parents;

The Congress proposes an amendment to the federal Constitution denying atheists the right to marry or form legal partnerships and a number of states follow suit;

Atheists are denied the privilege of military service, even when they have a skill vital to national defense.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

[The Sushi Bandit]

18. All are very valid points

I get your picture

[OwnedByFerrets]

20. Ding, Ding, Ding,

we have a winna!!

[martymar64]

67. Here in TX, I can't serve on a jury

Because I'm an atheist. In Arkansas, I wouldn't be able to hold a public office because I'm an atheist.

[The Sushi Bandit]

70. is it law ?

or implied?

[trotsky]

74. Not just law...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm

The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
...
This form of religious intolerance is not limited to Texas. Seven other states (AR, MA, MD, NC, PA, SC and TN) all have similar exclusionary language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions.

[The Sushi Bandit]

82. I think you should start a thread on this subject !!

I never knew this and i am sure many others are in the same boat. This is archaic and must be changed

[okasha]

86. It was overturned 45 years ago

in Torcaso v Watkins (1961).

http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/b_l_TorcasoWatkins.htm

[trotsky]

88. Did Brown v. Board end racism, okasha? n/t

[okasha]

89. The question was not one of prejudice. It was one of legal restrictions.

There are no legal restrictions on atheists serving in positions of public trust in Texas, or any of the other states commonly cited. The Supreme Court struck them down.

[trotsky]

91. Did you forget the OP, okasha?

Is being an Atheist the equivalent of being Gay to a Fundamentalist?

Sorry, it was a question of prejudice, NOT one of legal restrictions. Try again, won't you?

[okasha]

92. I was replying to your post, specifically, not the OP's.

That's what those little lines and numbers are for.

I'd already replied to the OP.

[trotsky]

93. I was trying to stick to the topic of the thread.

Examples that show Christian prejudice against atheists - and the existence of those passages in constitutions, and laws are clearly evidence of such. Wake me when you have a point.

[okasha]

94. The point is that you were presenting misinformation.

I'f you'd been awake enough to scroll down the very same page you cited, you'd have noticed that those anti-atheist provisions had been overturned. Sort of like referencing the Jim Crow laws--without mentioning the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

[beam me up scottie]

95. We need to reference the Civil Rights Act when citing racist legislation?

Do tell.

The discrimination written into state constitutions is still there, okasha.

It didn't go away just because we can challenge it in court.

[trotsky]

96. Those sections are still in those states' constitutions, are they not?

Their initial creation and continued existence, despite their illegality, speak to the intolerance of atheists by Christians.

It's also illegal to beat someone to death, so does that mean you were presenting misinformation with one of your examples?

[okasha]

103. One more time.

The laws and constitutional provisions were overturned by SCOTUS. They are unenforceable, regardless of whether they have been removed from the state documents. As it happens, I know several atheists who are in "positions of public trust" in Texas, so I know for a stone fact that the overturned Constitutional provision is not being implemented. Any governmental entity that receives federal funds of any kind must also adhere to a non-discrimination policy.

It's also illegal to beat someone to death, so does that mean you were presenting misinformation with one of your examples?

My goodnes, you are desperate, aren't you? I would be presenting misinformation only if I had claimed it was legal to beat someone to death on the basis of an antiquated and overturned law. You're slipping, trotsky.

[trotsky]

104. Oooh, SO close...

But still no banana. Root issue: showing examples of prejudice against gays and atheists.

Prejudice toward atheists: existence of passages in state constitutions prohibiting atheists from holding public office. Sure, they're illegal, but the fact they're still there proves prejudice.

Prejudice toward homosexuals: existence of beatings for the sole fact of being homosexual. Sure, it's illegal, but the fact they still happen proves prejudice.

Keep going, okasha. I'd love to see you look even more silly. (Or would that be "slippy"?)

[okasha]

106. So where's your civil rights movement?

The atheist Selma, or Stonewall, or Pine Ridge Uprising? Why are you bitching and moaning on a message board instead of getting out on the street and doing something useful?

[beam me up scottie]

107. trotsky was answering the op, you're the one who's "bitching and moaning".

Speaking of useful, do you have any other hobbies besides lurking in here waiting for atheists to post?

All you've done in this thread is try to one-up trotsky and belittle the fact that atheists do face very real discrimination from religious bigots.

[okasha]

85. Untrue

Here are the qualifications for jury service in Texas, with no mention of atheism or religion in any form:

Qualifications

To serve as a juror, you must meet certain qualifications, you must:

Be a United States citizen.

Be at least 18 years of age.

Be a resident of Tarrant County.

Be qualified under the constitution and laws to vote in the county in which one is to serve as a juror.

Be of sound mind and good moral character.

Be able to read and write the English language.

Have not served as a petit juror for six days during the preceding six months in a district court or during the preceding three months in a county court.

Have never been convicted of a felony.

Have never been convicted of misdemeanor theft.

These qualifications are established under the Texas Criminal Code. The only one that is not general is residency in Tarrant County. (A prospective juror must be a resident of the County where the Court sits.)

From Tarrant County's website at http://www.tarrantcounty.com/ejury/site/default.asp

[trotsky]

97. "good moral character"?

What does that mean?

You do realize that you wouldn't have much difficulty finding a Texan (or any American, for that matter) who would say an atheist does not have a "good moral character," right?

[beam me up scottie]

98. okasha's victim-hood trumps that of atheists, trotsky.

You should know that by now.

She won't acknowledge the discrimination because atheists haven't suffered enough.

[trotsky]

99. In a way, it reminds me of the Louis Farrakhans of the world.

The establishment is oh-too-happy to see members of one traditionally despised minority group hating members of another. okasha seems to be playing right into that trap, perhaps unaware or unwilling to acknowledge that both atheists and homosexuals are hated by Christians in large numbers. Remind me again, what are the two groups of people banned from the Boy Scouts?

[beam me up scottie]

100. Gays and atheists. But atheism is a choice, remember?

Plus we can "pretend" to believe, so we're not unduly inconvenienced.

I've heard those claims more times on DU than I care to remember.

Who needs invading freepers, a few of our "allies" do enough damage on their own.

[trotsky]

101. Oh that's right - how could I forget?

1) People who aren't atheists, tell us atheism is a choice, and we're supposed to accept that judgment.

2) People who aren't gay, tell homosexuals that their orientation is a choice, and they should accept that judgment.

Strange just how many DUers who are just fine with #1 would react fiercely to someone spouting #2.

[beam me up scottie]

102. Some people have issues with atheists.

They frequently use these threads to take pot shots at us.

Of course, I'm sure that's just because we're so rude and offensive.

After all, Whackjob Atheists only get what we deserve from the religious right.

Some would even say we should be purged from the party.

[goddess40]

76. You win

but being ostracized for any reason is bad - they just have more reasons for gays but when it comes right down to it they only need one.

Bush did say that all atheists should be deported or not given citizenship, I can't remember which and some states won't allow atheists to hold an elected office.

When my son was in 3rd grade his best friends dad was a rabbi and when he found out we were atheist his son no longer was able to play with my son. Which was very heartbreaking for my son, as his other two friends had just moved out of state.

[okasha]

87. See above, Torcaso v Watkins.

Bush is an idiot and the son of an idiot (the guilty party here.) Fortunately, their opinions aren't law.

[Akim]

21. I only know that they would really hate a gay atheist. n/t

[neebob]

22. Ask me again when you can do so

without adding that you're not gay.

[mdpod]

23. I second that sentiment.

I think we need our own support group. Great post!

[beam me up scottie]

26. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

I've suggested we start an atheist underground for people who live in the bible belt.

[varkam]

28. Welcome to DU, mdpod!

I hate to sound like a salesman, but if you give DU some hard-earned money, you can access the Atheists/Agnostics group - which is about as close to a support group as you're going to get here.

Welcome to DU! :toast:

[Akim]

24. They would also agree that both gay and atheist could be "converted." n/t

[beam me up scottie]

27. Some DUers think both are a "choice".

Like picking your favorite Ben and Jerry's flavour.

[SPKrazy]

29. Now I'm Asking A Serious Question

I believe that homosexuality is 99% of the time not a choice, it is something that the person just is. (Like blonde, or brunette, or tall, or short etc.-yes you could dye your hair but that wouldn't change the roots)

Now I'm asking seriously, are you saying that atheism (or theism for that matter) aren't choices?

If you are please explain that one to me. Are you referring to the possibility that some people have a gene that allows them to more easily believe in the spiritual?

I am skeptical about such a gene, but I imagine it would be something akin to how someone might inherit for instance, alcoholism (not comparing alcoholism to atheism so bear with me)

One does not come out of the womb craving alcohol, they have to use it before they can become addicted.

I think that belief, or non-belief is a function of social learning, but I'm open to other ideas as well.

[beam me up scottie]

30. I didn't choose to not believe, I can't. Choice had nothing to do with it.

See, this is where the dreaded *anta analogy comes in handy. You can't suddenly choose to believe he exists, can you?

Because thinking a fat man in a red suit driving a sleigh pulled by eight flying reindeer delivers presents to every kid in the world at midnight on Christmas eve flies in the face of everything you've learned about science, right?

That's where I am when it comes to gods.





edit: I'm NOT NOT NOT claiming christians believe in fairy tales, so the rest of you don't even start...

It's simply the only thing I can compare belief in gods to, I have no other reference I can use. I never believed in them so I can't see it from a believer's point of view. By using that analogy, I'm hoping they can see it from mine.

Maybe someone else can find another analogy, one that's less offensive?

[SPKrazy]

33. Okay, I Do Believe

in a higher power

and I believe in science

and I don't know when I started believing in one (HP)originally, but I lost faith, or really was indifferent to it for a long time.

Then I was in a position where it was helpful to believe in one and developed a belief.

I don't know if there is an analogy to belief in God that is accurate. It isn't Santa, or faerie tales, or magic, or..... I just don't know what it would be.

I understand that you were never exposed to belief and it seems to be an impossibility for you even IF YOU WANTED TO believe.

That may be true.

[beam me up scottie]

63. Yes, I understand.

The reason I compare religious faith to childhood beliefs is because that's all I have to compare God to, I realize that there is much more to it than that.

I appreciate your effort to see through my eyes, and I hope you realize I'm trying to do the same, even though I can't quite get there.

The fact that we're trying is enough.:)

[cosmik debris]

41. Maybe this analogy would work, you decide

I see a haystack. Some people tell me that there is a needle in that haystack. I have spent my entire life picking up straws, looking at them and saying, “that’s not a needle”. Every indication I have tells me that the next thing I pick up will not be a needle. There is absolutely no reason for me to believe that I will ever find a needle in that haystack. When I look at a haystack I see no reason to expect a needle to be there. Needles are found in sewing boxes, not haystacks.

Now some people believe that there is a needle in that haystack. That is their choice to believe in the existence of that needle. The choice is not made on the basis of experience in picking up straws and examining them. It is not made on the reasonable expectation of finding needles where they don’t belong. It is made for reasons that I will not characterize here, but it is a decision that they made.

And that is the analogy I try to use. Atheists say, “I don’t see a needle, I don’t expect to see a needle, and if I wanted to see a needle, I wouldn’t look here.”

Theists say, “I know the needle is there even if I can’t see it or find it or prove it. That’s not necessary for my belief.”

Feel free to adapt this to any kind of use that suits you.

[neebob]

42. Make it a magic needle in a haystack and I'm good. nt

[cosmik debris]

43. Isn't that sort of understood?

How do needles get into haystacks if not by magic? Oh well, I knew I left out some thing, but I also knew that it would be less inflammatory than the tooth fairy analogy.

[neebob]

44. I was thinking a normal needle

that fell out of someone's pocket or something. A farmer's wife could have left it in his overalls, and that's how it got into the haystack.

In order to be like a god, the needle needs to have extraordinary powers, like talking (in which case it could easily call attention to itself) or sewing by itself or something like that. How about an intelligent needle? And people tell different stories about its history and think it can do different extraordinary things.

Oh, and it's reported to stab people it doesn't like and dive back into the haystack, without being seen.

[cosmik debris]

45. Well, that is a problem with analogies

They only go so far. Then they fall to pieces completely. So use it if it is useful and ignore it if it is not.

[neebob]

46. Oh, come on.

It's a brilliant analogy. I'm just fine-tuning it, and it's not offensive if you say it's an intelligent needle instead of a magic one - although I expect someone will come along and say it is.

[cosmik debris]

47. Well, I wouldn't say brilliant.

But I hope it is useful. And I appreciate your fine tuning. That is the real value of forums like this. My seed germinates and you fertilize and prune, and before you know it we have fruit! (I love analogies) Thanks for your help.

[SPKrazy]

50. Aw, It's Not The Needle That Is Intelligent

it's the placer of the needle, and the light that illuminates the haystack that show the intelligence

now it may be a heck of a lot more intelligent to go look in a sewing box for a needle, so let's just leave intelligence out of it now that I think about it.

[SPKrazy]

49. I Would Say That I See Glimpses Of The Needle From Time To Time

and I even think I saw the needle once, or it's shadow.

I do like this analogy you have presented though

[beam me up scottie]

61. No, sorry. I never looked for needles. Didn't know I was supposed to.

When I say I was raised without religion, I mean without religion.

By the time I was given a crash course on Jesus by a childhood friend, I was already old enough to know the idea of God was even sillier than the idea of a kindly old man who delivered presents to children by way of reindeer and chimneys (I am being honest here, about what I thought as a child, my explanation is in no way meant to demean people who have religious beliefs).

At the time, I was angry because I felt my friend had insulted my intelligence by expecting me to believe her.



Your analogy is a good one, though, for people who were taught to believe the needle exists, it reminds me of the Five Lights essay that I posted in here not too long ago.

[neebob]

66. Not everyone is looking for the needle

or at least I didn't think so. And if you make it an intelligent needle, some refuse to look for it because they know it's impossible and a waste of time. Maybe they never heard of the needle until today. Others go, "Eh, I'll believe there's a needle in there when someone finds it." The rest look for it because (a) they believe there's an intelligent needle and they will be rewarded for finding or just looking for it, (b) the needle might exist and punish them for not looking, (c) their parents told them to, or (d) they're trying to prove there's no needle of any kind in the haystack.

I like it.

Edit for embellishment.

[goddess40]

78. I'm with you, I just never could bring my self to buy in to it

My mother tried, but the catholic stuff just never took hold.

My mother by the way is now a non-believer.

[beam me up scottie]

79. The idea that "believing in gods" is a choice is begging the question.

How can that, which was never on the table, be considered and rejected?




My dad walked out of church when he was a young child, he never believed.

And I suspect the catholic stuff never took hold in a few of my friends, either.

[goddess40]

80. Most can't escape it because it becomes part of their person

It becomes part of their family and their social self - I find that the hardest part of being a non-believer is the shunning that happens when people find out. The feeling is always below the surface because it's hard to know how people will react. Some come right out and push you away while others just drop you from their list.

I suspect the nutty rev. phelps doesn't bother with atheist because most of the country is thinking the same way he is.

[beam me up scottie]

81. I think that's accurate.

People who see four lights are few and far between.


I always thought Phelps left us alone because he is obsessed with gay sex.

We don't turn him on, iow.

And the drawings of stick man atheists on his protest signs would bore his audience.

[zonmoy]

110. I stopped believing because the religion I was raised in didn't make any

sense. neither did any other religion. I have long suspected that there was something good in my basic makeup that made it so that I can actually admit what doesn't make sense and stop believing it.

[varkam]

31. I think you might be oversimplifying the notions of choice

I mean that in a respectful tone - it is easy to oversimplify (as I'm sure I can't do it justice, either).

I think atheism is a choice, but not in the sense most people would take "choice" to mean. It's not as though I "chose" to become an atheist in the same fashion that I "chose" to wear black slacks today. The fact of the matter is that, in my past, I have chosen to read widely. I have chosen to go to college and I have chosen to study psychology and philosophy. I chose to take classes in human nature, the philosophy of death and dying, and theology. I chose innumerable other things as well, all of which have bearing, I'm sure.

At the end of all those choices (which were conscious decisions on my part), the end result, the sum of those results, was my current stance. Had I chosen to not go to college or I had chosen to only read the bible, I'm sure my stance would be much different (that, by the way, is not to imply that theists aren't well educated and haven't read much). To maintain my intellectual honesty, based upon information that I have come across, is to adopt materialism. In other words, I can't choose to believe in God any more than I can choose to grow wings out of my back and fly - it just won't work. I've seen too much convincing information and heard too many convincing arguments to the contrary to just up and "choose" to believe again. So, in that sense, atheism is most certainly not a choice.

Notice though, that the choices that led me to where I am weren't really "free" choices - at least not totally. For example, my father has always stressed to me the importance of education. Had he not cared about education, perhaps I would not of gone to college (or perhaps I still would have gone). Regardless, that respect for education was something that influenced my decision to pursue higher education. If something influences you into making a decision one way or the other, the decision is not really "free", is it? Ditto for all the other choices that I have made in my life.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing determinism - just pointing out the obvious.

[SPKrazy]

34. See, It Is Interesting

That I read a lot, always have
went to college
went to graduate school
studied psychology, sociology, sciences (biology mainly)
certainly am not a bible thumper (not one that reads the bible all the time either as I read other books about a wide diversity of beliefs, cultures, spirituality.

My conclusions were different than yours. Does that make you smarter than me? Does that make me smarter than you?

I don't know the answer. I think we are just two different people with different ideas about God or lack of God.

My pastor is a Yale educated seminarian, much better read than I am, a philosophy teacher at a local university as well. Is he smarter than me? Perhaps. (since I know he is very bright and interesting I can accept that possibility. Is he a different type of thinker than I am? Definitely. He is a philosophy instructor and thinks through the lens of a philosphy instructor. Logic, strained and strained ideas, parsed word by word, kind of thinking.)

Is he smarter than you? I have no idea. You are a well written, intelligent sounding person, who is able to write your ideas thoughtfully and logically.

Now I don't know why I'm picking out intelligence, other than I am not sure that intelligence is necessarily a measure of belief vs non belief (nor do I think I read that you thought it was either)
I do believe that there are very intelligent people in the world who believe in a God. I also believe that there are very intelligent people in the world who don't believe.

Is it a choice? It is interesting how intelligent people look at the same data and conclude different things isn't it.

Just another one of the great mysteries of human nature, which makes us all the more interesting in my opinion.

[varkam]

36. Even very intelligent individuals...

can be wrong. If they are wise as well as intelligent, they will be the first to tell you that. I didn't mean to drag my college experiences into this as a way of being pedantic. There are many, many, many people who are much smarter than I ever will be. Of that group of people, I would assume that there are those who believe in God. As I said in my previous post, I don't mean to imply that theists, by definition, are not intelligent people.

I don't think it's a question of intelligence, but a question of information exposure and experiences. I don't know what you mean by "the same set of data", as the "set of data" that has led to my philosophical position has been my life, and not yours. I have no reason to believe that if I had your genes, your family, and your experiences that I would be much different from you.

For me, believing in God is like believing in little pink elephants. I can't "choose" to believe in the latter any more than I can the former. I must have reasons and evidence for such a belief. In other words, I can't just take it in faith that God exists. It is an impossibility for me.

[SPKrazy]

38. Myself, I Have Experiences

that have convinced me of the existence of something greater than myself, a force that is and is in everything (perhaps like the theory of quantum fields?) whatever that is (and I have chosen to call it God, and looking for people that have similar ideas have sought out a liberal church) and while I can't show this to you, I can tell you that I don't believe that I could have made changes in my life without it (I tried my best to do without, believe me)

So for me to not believe, is about as difficult as believing that there are little pink elephants.

as far as the "same set of data" I was referring to more general things such as the universe and it's creation or beginning.

I don't claim to know what the higher power really is, when I try to claim to know, I really know less than when I realize that I have no idea. I like to hear others tell their stories of finding awareness of a higher power.

I'm also interested in hearing those who's view is completely different than mine as I find it fascinating.

Peace

[neebob]

32. Where'd you get all that?

All BMUS said was some DUers think that both are choices, following on the statement that fundamentalists think both can be converted. I read what she said and thought, "Wow, there are people on DU who think homosexuality is a choice?"

Because I can see how atheism is a choice. I feel like I chose it, based on evidence. I guess if you'd never been led to believe in God, it would be a choice, but I didn't think of that until BMUS said she couldn't choose it and Varkam said his bit.

You read an awful lot into BMUS' statement - guessed, really, and just happened to be right.

[SPKrazy]

35. I Don't Think It Was A Guess

I've read BMUS for some time and have some ideas where she's coming from.

She's a good debater, and kicks my ass most of the time. (don't tell her that)

I also know that she seems to have a good heart (as much as one can tell from reading posts) and so I read what I did into BMUS statement and got what I did.

Not guessing. Past experience, information passed along, and I happened to be right.

I haven't come across people on DU who think homosexuality is a choice, but I don't doubt that BMUS has - nevertheless that does surprise me.

I also find you to be an interesting person given your experiences with Mormonism and choosing atheism instead. I don't know how to say this other than to say it: If I had Mormonism as my model for religion and spirituality, I might be an atheist as well. Now I know that is my own little hypocrisy, and issue.

Peace

[neebob]

37. Okay, miss my point.

You read a lot in. And I'm incredibly interesting, for a lot more reasons than Mormonism or atheism. I'm also pretty sure I'd be an atheist, or at least an agnostic, given a different set of life experiences. That wasn't condescending or dismissive or anything.

[SPKrazy]

39. I'm Sure You Are Incredibly Interesting

for lots of reasons Neebob

the Mormonism is just one that I related to growing up in Utah being a non-Mormon.

It's impossible to know what any of us would be in different circumstances as we are who we are because of our life experiences, genetics, and our own uniqueness.

I haven't taken anything as condescending, or dismissive here.

I was just explaining how it is that I might read a lot in-given that there is a history of experiences and interactions with BMUS, and also with you.

The hardest part of relating to people in message forums, or even in e-mails, is that we humans do much better relating to each other face to face where we see the nuances, and demeanor, and all the other material that is usually paid attention to unconsciously.

Even phone calls are better ways to communicate opinions and feelings, etc.

Peace

[neebob]

40. Thank you

for acknowledging my incredible interestingness. I think if I'm the same person with the same genetics, starting at the point of being born but subsequent events producing a different set of life experiences, it's a pretty safe bet that at some point I'm still sitting around going, "Male personage in another dimension/invisible force that's all around me/other actively intelligent entity that shapes my destiny or even gives a crap whether I'm here or what happens to me? Nah."

Referring to one of your other posts, I do see that there's something greater than me. I would even go as far as to say it's in everything. That would be what's commonly called nature.

[SPKrazy]

48. See, You Still Are Fascinating!

I don't believe in "male personage in another dimension" either.

I do believe in "invisible force" because apparently unified field theory would say that this is true.

Eastern thought on the subject might focus on the energy in the void, and the condensing of "matter" within the field.

Nature is IMO what I would say God is, as I would say God is, and is in everthing and everybody.

Now just because we agree or disagree on anything is not the standard by which I find you interesting.

I find you interesting because you are.

[The Sushi Bandit]

51. Some of us think of it as "Do you feel it or not"

is feeling or not feeling a god a choice??

look at this.. I feel gay, I don't feel gay... is different than choosing to be gay. My youngest daughter choose to be gay, it turned out to be a lifestyle choice. I never felt that she was truly gay or wired as gay. After a few years of experimenting with her choice she decided to become heterosexual.

I don't "Feel" there is a god of the christians choosing in this world.

[SPKrazy]

54. Okay

:shrug:

were you responding to me?

I see the same post responding to the OP so the one I'm responding to may be a dupe.

[neebob]

55. Thanks for clarifying that

It helps me understand your issue with the intelligent needle. So this invisible force you believe in - it has active intelligence and shapes your destiny and gives a crap and everything? Having been raised on man-god, I'll admit I don't quite get the everywhere/in-everything god concept. I understand about energy and unified theory and what have you, and I can accept an invisible force in the form of energy, but how it's god and what that means are mysteries to me.

[Random_Australian]

56. It was a choice for me! But my psyche is a *little* abnormal.

Mostly, even if it is not genetic, one can simply develop - what I will for a lack of a better word call skepticism - to such a point that one could not force oneself to believe something that is against that nature.

For me, I can believe what I want. There are LONG reasons behind this, but feel free to ask!

[neebob]

57. I agree that skepticism can develop

and be developed. And if I learned anything from the experience that helped me develop my skepticism, it's that people believe what they want to.

[Random_Australian]

58. Though normally, what they want is more subconscious than conscious.

For me, unluckily, that is not so. (Long story - and no I am not bieng arrogant, I have a good explanation)

But on the whole, yes, people believe what they want to believe.

[neebob]

60. Why do you say that?

And I mean why do you say normally? Gimme an example. I would say sometimes.

[Random_Australian]

68. I was basing it on a thread where I asked people why they chose their

belief system - many answered that it chose them.

[neebob]

69. I see what you mean.

Hardly anyone copped to choosing, including me. I'm willing to say it now, though: I chose atheism. I'll even go as far as to say everything I believe for which I'm aware of an alternative, I choose - maybe not with full consciousness, but it's still a choice if you're aware of an alternative.

What's the issue, I wonder? Someone should start a thread about that.

Anyway I was thinking in much broader terms than just religious when I said people believe what they want to. That's why I was surprised when you said normally.

[The Sushi Bandit]

59. .

[beam me up scottie]

62. .

[The Sushi Bandit]

52. Some of us think of it as "Do you feel it or not"

is feeling or not feeling a god a choice??

look at this.. I feel gay, I don't feel gay... is different than choosing to be gay. My youngest daughter choose to be gay, it turned out to be a lifestyle choice. I never felt that she was truly gay or wired as gay. After a few years of experimenting with her choice she decided to become heterosexual.

I don't "Feel" there is a god of the christians choosing in this world.

[Tyo]

53. Being both gay AND an atheist I must really annoy them n/t

[Jo March]

75. I used to want to tell my fundie dad that I was gay, atheist & (drum roll)

dating a black, Jewish woman! He would have flipped out and probably had a stroke on the spot so I never said anything like that. (My dad hated everyone except for white Christians, BTW.)

Still, when he got to talking about how great Reagan was, it sure was tempting...

[NAO]

64. Gays, Atheists, Good Husbands/Fathers, Wife Beaters, Murderers, Nice

people are all the same to Fundamentalists. They are all "lost" and if they "die in their sins" they are going to burn in the Lake of Fire (aka Hell) for ever and ever.

Fundamentalists believe that God is SO HOLY that he cannot see the difference between Mother Teresa and Charles Manson. They are all "filthy sinners" in his sight, and excite his Eternal Wrath and condemnation.

He is very pissed, and He wants BLOOD. He is so angry that he made himself into a person (Jesus) and came to earth just so he could get nailed to a cross and killed (suicidal?). He NEEDED blood to be appeased, and LOTS of it. Infinite amounts of it. So killing himself, an infinite being, was a brilliant solution to his anger problem and mankind's sin problem.

He did not have to give up his NEED for blood, and he did not have to send EVERYONE to Hell (even though they deserved it).

In the Old Testament God did specify that gays should be killed, but He also specified that if someone gathered firewood on the Sabbath to keep their wife and kids warm, they should be killed. If your wife suggested that you worship differently, God told you to kill her, etc, etc.

But in the New Testament, it does not matter what sins you commit, if only you will accept Jesus. But the stakes are raised. If you sinned against God in the Old Testament, he would have you killed and that was that. But in the New Testament, if you don't take God's special present of sticky, dripping, cleansing blood, he will burn you with Fire and Brimstone forever and ever.

The most beautiful story ever told!

[trotsky]

65. You make an important point.

It's absolutely critical to the fundie religious viewpoint that people choose to sin. Their little minds would explode if they had to consider that it's possible things like homosexuality and atheism aren't choices but just part of how our minds are wired. Interestingly, even quite liberal believers emphasize this aspect of having "free will" to "choose" to love or be with their god. Sort of the kindler, gentler side of the same stance.

[dattaswamI]

90. Atheism

Atheism

The atheists believe in logical conclusions based on practical experience and in things present before the naked eye (perception). The real spiritual knowledge can satisfy all these requirements. The human incarnation of God is right before the eyes; in flesh-and-blood. All the bonds with family and wealth are before the eyes and liberation from such bonds, which is called salvation, is also before the eyes. One can experience God through the human incarnation in this world itself and in this very life itself. Infinite love and bliss derived from the special divine knowledge preached by the human incarnation are enjoyed here itself. Enjoyment of love and bliss is the goal of any worldly bond. This is called Jeevanmukti, which means ‘salvation while living’; right here. What ever one achieves while living, that alone continues with the soul after death. Thus perception is the basis for even the invisible future.

At Thy Lotus Feet His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace
[e-mail]

[The Sushi Bandit]

105. Sorry but i could only follow your first sentence.

Or I just don't get it!

[beam me up scottie]

108. Ahem.

http://www.mundoblaineo.com/sentence.html">Conclusions

The flavored hell living with some tabloid conquers some tuba player about a graduated cylinder. A grain of sand about a cough syrup feverishly derives perverse satisfaction from a briar patch. The flavored hell defined by the warranty lazily recognizes a demon living with an inferiority complex, and a cargo bay reaches an understanding with the mean-spirited polar bear. An inferiority complex living with a power drill secretly derives perverse satisfaction from some bullfrog toward a polar bear. Sometimes a pompous ball bearing dies, but the polygon always buys an expensive gift for a formless void for a short order cook!

[The Sushi Bandit]

109. Now i get it!

How could I have not seen it?

Mahalo!