So I've been thinking.. It's likely that I am an atheist as I don't truly believe in a god per se. But I've noticed that I have this underlying fear of saying I am one. I think it was ingrained in me from a young age, not just by the cult by society as a whole.

Society being mostly religious worldwide (esp. in our country where it's at close to 80 percent!), of course those of us who are non religious and esp. atheist fear coming out about it, maybe because history has shown us what religious fanatics are capable of.

Religious people seem to fear those who are not, esp. those who do not believe in a god? Why is this?

I think that they think that without a god (or fear of one, esp. fear of punishment in the next life), people would do all kinds of terrible things, as if our natures are pure evil and someone/something has to constantly keep us in line.

However evidence shows that it's primarily the religious folks who create all of the suffering in the world, hurting, killing, torturing others in the name of 'god' and for 'his' sake.

I haven't believed in a long time, yet I am an extremely compassionate person, I have deep empathy for others, am always trying to help relieve suffering in myself and others and in the world at large. Yet I do all of this without a belief in god. So I don't see why the god thing is necessary.

I think we are born mostly good with a deep seeded conscience in tact. But that a small percentage of us are born without conscience (see- 'sociopath') and that those few rule the masses often in the guise of religious leaders. They are the ones using religion and the idea of god to control the vast majority who although born with conscience can be manipulated to act against it because of their trusting, sheep like mentalities. ('The Sociopath Next Door' makes a good case for this.)

If we were truly uninhibited by religion and god, we may actually live more harmoniously with each other and our natural environment (instead of always trying to subordinate to our needs, since 'god' gave us 'dominion' over everything). We might live by reason (i.e. think about what our impact on the environment means for our health, our future resources and sustainability/survivability).. we might live more for the moment, which is actually a very good thing, as we'd be more in touch with our feelings, and those of others and may seek to make our lives more peaceful and happy now, rather than waiting for a long off 'promised' hereafter.

It seems to me all religions and their ideas of god are used to control us and keep us complacent with suffering and injustice, because 'god' will take care of it all 'one day'.. we just have to wait, be patient, serve, suffer, not complain (if we complain or think about our suffering and question anything than god might punish us harshly and we may suffer eternally, not just now!).. So we live in fear of punishment later, so we put up with punishment now. Or we believe that god is loving so we wait to receive love and joy later, after we die.. until they we have to suffer and not have love or joy.

But without the idea of waiting until after we die for these promises to be fulfilled, we might find ways to enjoy our lives now, maybe we could make a paradise on earth instead of the hell we create and say we must endure because god wills it, when it's really all man's doing and god because a cop out, a way to shirk responsibility for our own actions now.

I've been shamed repeatedly by religious folks, not just in TSCC, but from all sides, because I don't have 'faith' or a belief in 'god' or a prescribed religion I follow. Yet in all cases they are the ones who mistreat others and do all kinds of f'ed up things and then say that god forgives them, and that I can't rely on them (they may lie, deceive me, mistreat me, cheat on me etc) but have to put my faith in 'god' (the 'perfect being' in the sky) instead. Just excuses to not take responsibility for their actions.

And they are the ones, like my Christian neighbors (not Mormon, but might as well be, big family, strict religious beliefs, etc), who end up shooting innocent puppies because they didn't have the time or caring to try and find a home for the puppy, even though it turns out others had offered to take him if they didn't find one. But they blast the puppy away like it's no big thing. And in the face of my shock and pain over the news, the boys (still not sure which pulled the trigger as they now won't say and have changed their stories a few times) tell me that I can always just go pick up another puppy if I want from the local feed store (where they got the one they killed!) as if it's just a thing and not a being. The same boys boasted of killing 250 toads in their pond last year. They killed them because they didn't like the noise and they said they were 'demonic' because the noises were spooky to them and because they were having sex everywhere 'in public'. Of course they are mating when they only have one chance a year to do so!

The views that religions create of life, and natural activities are so distorted that they create these monsters who can't relate at all to other animals nor even see t themselves as animals. They are supposed to respect all life as 'god's creations, god's creatures' but since they are also told that it was given to them to use and rule as they may, they end up excusing crazy malicious behaviors in the name of god.

These are just small examples. Think of all of the religious/righteous wars waged in the name of 'god' and the popular 'hymn' 'Onward Christian Soldiers' and think how many in the armed forces are actually religious and believe god in on their side in the killing and destruction of masses of people, towns, cities, animals, environment..

I know there are those who think it's so 'sad' when an ex-Mo or ex other cult/abusive religion member ends up 'losing their faith' in god/jesus, etc… believing that 'god' is still 'good' but that a bad organization made us too afraid to trust in a god.. that may be true, I am gun shy so to speak, but I have tried other religions after I saw TSCC for what it really was and even though some seemed less harmful than others, I didn't end up ultimately seeing the point and I realized I am a good person without religion and I don't need that in my life personally. Not trying to say nobody should believe, they can if they want.. but I don't think it's necessary and I think we might all live in a better way if we didn't, didn't rely on an unseen force to fix all of our societal problems for example. Maybe we'd all take more responsibility for ourselves.

But what really bothers me is the attitude most religious and god-believing (I like how mostly people say 'god-fearing' but then say 'god is all love' and don't see the contradiction at all)… towards those who don't believe or feel the need to.. they feel SORRY for us as if we are so LOST and it really angers me sometimes. I am sick of that pity and judgment and shaming when I have done nothing wrong and I am continuously trying to help others and have such consideration and care for others and am not a criminal and live in the most harmonious way I can in this world, yet I have to face this kind of judgment from others on a continual basis. So I dare not come out and say I am Atheist.. because it's bad enough that I don't have a 'religion' ..

However that's mostly how I feel. I don't care to think of a god, a supreme ruler/controller over everything. I don't see the point of that. Only if I feel no love from anyone in this world and like to imagine a loving entity in the ethers that I could get love from. I see the appeal when thinking of a father figure since mine was so terrible, it's nice to think of an actual loving father. Maybe that's why people like to see god as male, since it's been so hard for them to get love from an earthly father (mainly because of warped religious thinking), than maybe they can get it from a heavenly one? It seems less necessary for people to think of a loving heavenly mother since generally that's been easier to come by here (love from a mother). but the flip side of god of course is his stern angry commanding control and that also has to be male because of the male ego needs of less evolved males in our world right now.

Anyway I know this has turned into more of a rant than I had intended. But it's something that really annoys me.

We should feel free to say we are Atheists and not have to worry about shunning, shaming.. and honestly worse.. there are places in the world where you could be killed for saying such a thing. And I fear that this country is moving in that direction where one really may have to fear for ones life is one does not wish to worship the 'almighty'.

First off, the label "atheist" either applies to you or not. If you meet the definition of "atheist", you are an atheist regardless of if you chose to use the label or not. I use the broadest of the definitions for "atheist", lacking a belief in god. It appears you meet that definition.

In the past, atheists were one of the least trusted people in America and it was not safe for us to say we were atheist. In the past few years, many atheists have "come out" in very public ways. The result is that the perception of atheists have improved greatly.

Basically, the more people that are "out" about their atheism, the more it will be OK to be out about atheism.

I'm married to an atheist, and I'd like to see these people represented by someone kind and decent like my husband. Tbe atheist label is something that causes many to distrust you before they know you. One common assumption about atheists is that they're devil worshippers (funny because they dont believe in a devil either). One problem in atheist community is too many atheists are angry people looking to fight or disprove other's beliefs. I have no religion and have been searching for something for fear of that label!

I always find it interesting how often the "angry atheist trying to change the minds of others" comes up. When Christians try to change the minds of others, it's often "Oh, they are carrying a message of love and hope". When one points to the "Angry Christians" protesting at gay pride events or demanding anti-Islamic laws, I often get "Oh, those are not real Christians".

Somehow, Christians often get a pass when they are out sharing the message of their God, but atheists get labeled as "angry" when they snare their message of freedom and hope.

This often comes from people that appear or claim to be supportive of atheists. A Christian trying to change the minds of non-Christians is very often not seen as attacking the non-Christian's beliefs. An atheist trying to change the mind of an non-atheist is often seen as attacking the most precious beliefs of the person.

+ a million

+ 10 million.

Christians (not just Mormons) are atheists when it comes to the gods they don't believe in and they are not criticizing themselves for sending Bibles and Missionaries and all over the world.

why all the labels? why must we label ourselves?



Is it so that we can justify a cause?

This labelling is all a bunch of crap....

is that why you label yourself as ... ? Methinks you doth protest too much.

.

Every word is a label. Your name, address and phone numbers are labels. Without labels, we would not be able to communicate ideas.

If you think labels are bunk, you might try living without labels, (i.e. words) and see how it works out for you.

How do you express the idea of living with less labels? Or more general labels? Or less restrictive? Is that impossible?

With the advent of language were we all forced to live in a world where labels can't be escaped, diminished, magnified or altered but take their immutable place in our lives?

Not sure why you are asking the question. My point was that we can not communicate without using some sort of labels. Now think a bit of the possible implications if ... tries to accept my challenge to not use any labels.

I'm more of a Pantheist myself, which is actually a form of Atheism. Maybe I don't like the stigma of the Atheist label. I notice that lately I've been blaming the church for the way they screwed up my mind. How they betrayed my trust. It's easy to be upset at horrible institutions. The only way I can deal with it is to believe in some higher purpose. That my higher self ("God") gave me the experience for my own benefit. It takes belief and faith to make that work. I end up with an eclectic mix of ideas that doesn't really fall under a religious umbrella. I might just not be quite ready for Atheism because I'm still processing the church's atrocities.

Looking back, I could still be stuck in that TBM mindset. Having an enforced ignorance of the world and projecting ugliness onto people who don't toe the line, including myself. But here I am, projecting ugliness onto a church that seemingly deserves it. That's so Mormon. What does "deserve" even mean? I like Clint Eastwood's line in "Unforgiven": "Deserve's got nothing to do with it". I can imagine Dodo as Gene Hackman's character, but let's not be naughty. Maybe nobody "deserves" anything. I didn't deserve what Mormonism dished out. Mormonism doesn't deserve my contempt. It doesn't deserve a free pass, but that's administrative not emotional. Nobody deserves to be hated. Everybody deserves to be loved. Why? There is no why. No conditions. That's the whole point. We all went through that horrific mind-altering Mormon experience so that we could learn that. The road to heaven winds through places angels fear to tread. But we went. You see what I mean about deserving to be loved?

Thanks for this!

I think there might be many reasons why but no reasons why not.

Wonder Woman said it best. "It's not about deserve. It's about what you believe. And I believe in love."

Best comic book movie I've seen since "The Dark Knight".

I couldn't find it right off, but I recall a survey that asked people whether atheists could be good people, and most said "no."
Then they asked if people who didn't believe in god could be good people, and most said "yes."

I found it both sad and hilarious :)
I'll see if I can find it.

the same people who hate Obamacare but love ACA.

And keep your government hands off my medicare !

Back on the atheist thing. My oldest son (41) "came out" as atheist several years ago. He has very definite ideas about ethics, however, and is teaching his little daughters to be polite, well-mannered, and very loving.

I found it a little disturbing that they have no idea what Noah's Ark is. I developed a fondness for the "Ark" theme after seeing a Broadway play decades ago called "Two by Two," which starred Danny Kaye, and which I thought was delightful. So I have all sorts of little ark figurines in my house.

My granddaughters (about to turn 5 and 9) call it "the boat," and have no idea what it represents. This is upsetting to me, because it seems like a form of cultural illiteracy. My son assumes that sooner or later, they will be exposed to the concept, but without any context of religion, I don't know how they will make head or tails of it.

Am I worrying too much, or should I try to teach them a little about the story without getting much religion into it? I loved that story when I was little, and I didn't have an especially religious upbringing. Ideas??

Seems like a most wonderful problem. I keep seeing a comparative religion approach from atheist parents.

Ahhh, very frustrating! Definitely proves how stigmatized that atheist label really is!

The distrust of atheists is changing.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/living/atheist-president-gallup/index.html

"The percentage of Americans who would vote for a qualified atheist candidate for president has reached 58%, which is 4 points better than it was in 2012, and a whopping 40 point jump from when the question was first asked in 1958. In that year, a mere 18% of Americans could abide the idea of an atheist president.
The number of those who would refuse to vote for an atheist candidate has also dropped from where it was in 2012, from 43% to 40%."

I believe that as more atheists open up about their beliefs, the faster this will change for the better.

Bang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe that as more atheists open up about
> their beliefs...

...or lack thereof :)

I think many people think that an Atheist is someone who is actually AGAINST God, who is ANTI-God, antagonistic or hateful toward God. And so that is different from someone who just doesn't believe. Because of that misconception, I usually avoid the term and just say that I don't belong to a church. It's much less threatening.

Yes. This.
When I first met my nevermo hubby, he was a self-proclaimed atheist. Even though I was pretty much out of the church by then, I was still a bit apprehensive about it due to my Mormon programming/upbringing. Imagine the shock and horror that came from by ultra TBM parents when he and I first got together and they learned of his religious stance (or lack thereof). My mother was so awful to him, saying he was god-less, and the devil himself. So yes, there are people (Mormons in particular) that are afraid of the term atheist, as they do see it as anti-God, anti-religion, as opposed to what it really is...a non-belief. I'm leaning towards atheism myself. I'm not sure what I believe anymore, but I'm ok with that. I would never label myself atheist to my TBM family members, though. I will not put that kind of 'ammunition' into their hands. They simply cannot be trusted with it. I would instantly become a threat in their eyes.

Interesting comparison.
My *extremely* devout and believing Catholic mother-in-law, upon finding out that the guy who wanted to marry her daughter (and only child) was an atheist, simply said:

"I don't care. Is he good, kind, loyal, and honest?"

Some difference :)

Oh, and incidentally...all my wife's friends who married "good christian men" but one wound up separated, divorced, or with husbands who beat them, had affairs, and/or treated them like crap. While the couple with the atheist husband have had a great, loyal life together and been very happy for 25 years.

One of those friends told my wife a few years ago, "I shouldn't have listened to my parents telling me to marry a Catholic, I should have married an atheist." ;)

I prefer the term, "not religious." A potential roommate once described herself to me in that manner, and I liked it.

Thanks for the responses.

I used to just call myself 'agnostic' as that seemed more okay with people. Believing in some idea of a god, but not the dogma of religion.

However now I am more inclined to not believe in a god. But this doesn't mean I don't believe in after life or kindly spirits or forces working outside my power. It's just I can't see them as all wrapped up into one being. So I guess that does make me an atheist.

It's good more are coming out. Maybe I'll be brave enough someday to be more open about it. For now coming out here is the safest, first step.

Thanks everyone!

Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. Many atheists are both.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

shapeshifter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> However evidence shows that it's primarily the
> religious folks who create all of the suffering in
> the world, hurting, killing, torturing others in
> the name of 'god' and for 'his' sake.

I think the largest numbers in modern times were probably committed by communist dictators. Communism isn't a religion, but it is a dogmatism.

Dogmatism is the core of a cult, I think.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2017 12:13PM by thexedman.

Nope, not in the least. I understand the human need for religion but as far as content and beliefs go, they are all utter bunk. People who believe in the supernatural suffer from serious delusions (I know, because I was one of them for a long, long time).

Saying this out loud is probably why the believers try to marginalize atheists. Truth hurts, but mob mentality can overcome the pain (but not the truth).

/remedial English teacher voice on first

Item: an atheist believes there is no god. Check with ex-elder Benson if you doubt me on that one; he's got a Sandra Tanner story, even...

Item: an agnostic merely says the existence of god cannot be proven (or determined).

Background: This stuff has been dinner table fare at family reunions--often loud, and both functional and dysfunctional--for three generations in my family. Although I'm a "technical Nevermo," I'm the only one in my immediate family who was never baptized, and I made Eagle Scout in an LDS troop (and caught hell for my non-belief; I believe I would be denied the award these days, but they were more tolerant in the 1960's). An aunt of mine was ex-communicated for marrying a Catholic and "ignoring" the summons to a church court. One grandfather filled a mission in the 20's and informally apostatized after returning. Both my parents, still living, are on church rolls but are unbelievers...

My dad left his beliefs behind when he attended a service academy, and one of the components of the Honor Code was the term "quibbling." That was absolutely verböten...

My "subjective take" on that "agnostic-atheism" entry in Wiki that "Bang" cited is that it's quibbling, period. My take on Wiki in general has been noted before; I remember my teenage daughter loudly telling me it "wasn't reliable." I generally agree, which is why I don't send them any money but still avail myself of their links occasionally for background info, etc.

I'll let the atheists "define themselves" further if they feel the need since I'm no longer one, although I was well into my 20's... I'm not an agnostic, either, but my "conclusion" from my own journey so far is each individual needs to "follow their own path," and given the horror of "Mormon brainwashing," all roads have their own "elements of legitimacy."

The joker in the deck, IMHO, is the rampant narcissism that infects us all. That drives many to attempt to inflict their own views on others, sometimes legitimately, sometimes illegitimately...

My view is that art, if accomplished "appropriately" is "legitimate," but that's an admittedly gray area. Constructing a public statue of the Virgin Mary out of, say, fecal material is out of bounds.

I'd probably say the same about one of Brigham Young, but if you told me about it in private, I might laugh...

SLC

Chopping wood and carrying water,
And straining to hear the sound of one hand clapping.
The atheists "may be right," but loud voices often mask hidden terror...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2017 01:47PM by SL Cabbie.

"an atheist believes there is no god"

Wrong !

A lack of a belief does not constitute a belief.

you must have never passed algebra then.....

Algebra has nothing to do with beliefs or lack of beliefs in God. Guess you failed philosophy and logic classes.

I agree Dave. But what are you if you believe there is no god?

I aske because I think most atheists lack a belief that god exists and also think god does not exist.

I'm trying to get a handle on this. I lack a belief that my penis is an angel. What am I?

Well, that comes across as trolling. Do you know what they call someone that is trolling?

There are variations among atheists. They do not have labels that are all that well defined and may not be accepted by many. Here is the descriptions I like:

Hard explicit: Assert there are no deities or even a single deity. "God does not exist" This is a statement of fact.

Soft explicit: Do not assert that there are no deities, but believe that gods do not believe god exists. "I believe god does not exist" A statement of belief

Implicit: Do not claim or believe that god does not exist, but lack a belief in god "I have no belief in god" This group contains agnostics and people that were raised without knowledge of God (usually very young).

I used to be Implicit, but after much research and many discussions with people that believe in all sorts of gods, deities and higher powers, I've become soft explicit. I find it ironic that it is the people that try to convince me their god(s) do exist that have convinced me the opposite.

Sounds reasonable.

Implicit seems near impossible to hang on to though many assert that is there position. I think claiming to be an implicit -simply lacking a belief - makes it easier for them to argue their position.

But I usually feel like they are holding back on what they really think. Just say it -- -- -

What your "feel" in regards to someone holding back is irrelevant.

Small children that have never heard of god are implicit because the they have no knowledge of the concept, thus no belief either way. Are they "holding back"?

This is an interesting thread. I try to avoid most religious discussions but eventually I participate which leads to the most common question "So your an atheist?" I give various answers depending on the person but my favorite is "Worshipping a god is not a hypothesis I entertain". (I stole that line from someone famous but can't remember who)

I do like the Pantheist idea though....

I got tired of dodging the question using clever responses that let people believe that I do believe in some sort of god. It feels intellectually dishonest to me.

If someone ask me "are you atheist?" The answer is a simple "Yes". It honestly describes who I am and I am not ashamed of it, so why hide or disguise who I am? If the asker has a problem with that and judges me in a negative way for it, I don't really want that in my life. I find that if they are passing negative judgment on my atheism they are usually judgmental in other ways I do not like.

I also don't care to rename nature to some form of term that implies God. See no reason for that.

Around 7-8 years ago, I realized I was an atheist. I never thought it would end up that way because I thought for the longest time paganism was my path, but that's where I am.

If you were a strong believer in something "bigger" than you, maybe it's harder to admit and accept. I don't go around screaming, "I'm an atheist!" but if it comes up I don't deny it either. I think a few Christian friends think I'm angry at god or whatever, but that's not the case at all- I simply have no god to be angry at!

Your stories about the puppy and animals breaks my heart because I have encountered that attitude with a lot of Christians as well, that animal lives are simply disposable if it doesn't work out the way they wanted.

Personally, I think the highest level of ethics/morality is doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

Thank you I really related to your post! :)

Very interesting thread, shapeshifter, thank you for posting. I certainly understand what you're experiencing and I have felt the same on occasion.

A woman I worked with many years ago kept going on and on about how much she disliked her soon-to-be-DIL. I finally asked why she didn't like her. She angrily replied with much vehemence(the spittle almost flying), "Because she is an atheist!"

I remember it gave me a start at the time but I didn't exactly know then what a true atheist believed but looking back now, I almost wish I'd engaged her in further conversation about it. I remember also wondering why this woman thought that being an atheist meant the future daughter in law was not to be liked?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2017 08:20PM by cinda.

I admittedly don't like labeling myself atheist, even though I am one.

I think because the label comes with a lot of baggage and assumptions by the misinformed so I general say I'm an agnostic atheist.

I'm afraid people will think I am not open to the possibility. I doubt there is a god but it's not like I am "anti" god or anything. If there is a god, great! And even if there is a god, that doesn't mean that he is the god of the Bible either.

I think I am more willing to label myself an atheist when I have time to explain WHY I am an atheist. Most religious folks have been told indoctrinated to believe atheists are so evil and rarely hear the other side. They would probably be more open to people being atheist if they could hear one explain their views.

Atheists, self-labeled or not, simply have not had the undeniable experience of theognosis. I'd dare say most self-labeling theists haven't yet either, or else they would not back various unloving political, ideological, or social positions. Realizing they have--in fact, ARE--a higher identity than their personality, they would be revolutionary in their acknowledgement of the oneness of all people (the transpersonal they recognize in themselves is necessarily the core identity of everyone), rather than taking sides against others.

This doesn't mean wholesale acceptance of everyone's ego positions but a seeing-through of these.

Theognostic--a term I hope we see more and more of...

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Atheists, self-labeled or not, simply have not had
> the undeniable experience of theognosis.

Or maybe we just do not attribute things we do not understand to some sort of deity. We prefer to say "I don't understand what happened" over the "Well that proves theognosis".

An interesting television show that shows how our perceptions often, um, unreliable, is called "brain Games". I recommend it strongly.

the -gnosis = "knowing," not believing. Yes, Plato defined knowledge as "justified true belief," so maybe some sort of belief is requisite for it to be justified. The point is, gnosis indicates going beyond mere belief, which is a personality position.

And of course the "experience" is ineffable; only afterwards, when resorting to words again, would someone possibly describe it as "deity.' But often not. Buddhists wouldn't.

I put "experience" in quotes because conventionally experience requires two separate parts, an experiencer and the thing experienced. The gnosis really transcends this subject-object mode of consciousness. Again, only in retrospect, as one descends from its heights, does one necessarily (because of language) call it an "experience."

Grow mushrooms much?

People often misinterpret their often unreliable perception of something that happened. Talking about "in retrospect" only makes things worse for your cause.

Unreliable perception followed my unreliable retrospective and trying to convert an experience into imperfect language or words, leads to very unreliable results.

Please watch Brain Games.

Knowing requires a much higher level of evidence than belief. As I noted, I do not see personal "experience" (no matter how you try to redefine the word) as a level of evidence to believe, much less knowledge of theologists.

Bang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do not see personal
> "experience" (no matter how you try to redefine
> the word) as a level of evidence to believe, much
> less knowledge of theologists.

Nor do I (note I said "transpersonal"). I liken the direct knowing to standing at the Grand Canyon in an encompassing panoramic view, and the 'personal' recollection of this to a two-dimensional 3"x5" snapshot of that view. And all we can do with words is show the photo and say "this is it."

And how do you get direct knowledge of "transpersonal", being sure that your perception is accurate and that your interpretation is not flawed?

Have you watched Brain Games to find out just how unreliable our perception, including "transpersonal", actually is?

But Richard, since most people are viewing the Grand Canyon through their smart phone, when they show the picture and say "this is it," that secondary experience is "direct knowing" of the first experience.

WTF is a "self labled" Atheist ? Every time I hear that term it comes from a self labled asshole.

Do you use it off the board as well?

I'll take "Who Am I" for $1,000, Alex

Oh, hell no. I wear the label proudly.