How did you loose your faith?

Zombrex

Esmereldina wrote:

shows that we are born with a predisposition towards belief rather than atheism.

I wouldn't say it is quite as simple as that. What we seem to be born with is a predisposition to viewing the world in terms of purposeful interaction, applying agency to events.

This makes sense when dealing with human interaction (Who opened my front door?), but it seems to also extend to how we view the natural world (Who makes the Sun rise?)

Religion provides an answer that fits within this framework (eg God does it, because of reason X), and as such is easy and comforting to people because it appears to "make sense" to how they instinctively want to view the world.

One could just as easily say that it is the fairies, or the boogey man that does this, but God also provides other apparent solutions to problems, such as death, so it is not hard to see how he would become the more popular.

Esmereldina

Wicknight wrote:

I wouldn't say it is quite as simple as that. What we seem to be born with is a predisposition to viewing the world in terms of purposeful interaction, applying agency to events.

This makes sense when dealing with human interaction (Who opened my front door?), but it seems to also extend to how we view the natural world (Who makes the Sun rise?)

Religion provides an answer that fits within this framework (eg God does it, because of reason X), and as such is easy and comforting to people because it appears to "make sense" to how they instinctively want to view the world.

One could just as easily say that it is the fairies, or the boogey man that does this, but God also provides other apparent solutions to problems, such as death, so it is not hard to see how he would become the more popular.

Yep your explanation makes sense too... I don't think it contradicts mine so much as explains it in a fancier way
I would post here more often only you people are just too clever for me

Galvasean

I questioned religion at an early age. Blame my fascination with dinosaurs if you will. I just became interested in evolution and science, basically how things worked. The idea of a supreme God being just felt like a get out clause to fill in any gaps in our knowledge. To me that just doesn't feel right.

Zillah

Esmereldina, while maybe its not accurate to say everyone is born an atheist in the affirmed sense, I think its fair to say that a new born is an atheist in regards to any particular God. He obviously doesn't believe in the God of the Bible, or the Gods of Norse mythology, or the spirits of Shinto. When we name everything the child doesn't believe in (which is everything), we have to accept that at some point he went from having no belief in a God to having the opposite.


Also, in my personal experience, people who are born into non-religious families (the kind who just don't have a religion, rather than a family that has strong secular principles), they tend to have a fairly light hearted atheism. They lack the stronger more affirmed atheism that a lot of post-belief atheist have, but its clear to me that a person will be a light hearted atheist unless someone specifically convinces them otherwise.

lookinforpicnic

My story:

I believed in god up till about 10 or 11 (before 7 or 8 i don't remember what i believed... you can bet though that it wasn't very sophisticated!), i stopped believing in a christian god for various reasons...different religions existed, contradictions i encountered, the priests i encountered were not very smart I thought, there were lots of other little reasons which all lead to the conclusion that the idea of christian god didn't make sense.

I still believed in something else though for a few years further, when someone asked did i believe in God i would say no but.... maybe there is something else there etc....I not sure what i was thinking, something spirtual I suppose or reasons behind things..there can't be just nothing rationale:o (I can't believe i thought like that.. remnants of the indoctrinated religious memes I suppose, and a quiet popular stage i think)
I investigated various esp/psychic/paranormal stuff for a small period and quickly realised that all these phenomena depended heavily on intepretation and thus were bull****.

Studying science then particularly biology, my view cemented around what i would call now a naturalistic world view, but there was still an important level of understanding missing for me, i still yearned for a 'skyhook' (non-mechanical mover) in the evolutionary process I still vaquely thought that there was more than mere mechanism maybe some kinda of lamarkian force or something (which may be the last remnant of those cursed religious memes i learned as a kid), but at 19 reading Dawkins selfish gene, I distinctly remember a realisation I had reading the first or second chapter of that book, when Dawkins is talking about the primodial soup and the early replicators and that these replicators remain or out live there competitors simply because they can, and such a process can occur simply given lots and lots of time, no purpose/force/reason or anything supernatural at work. From then on I never had any pseudoreligious thought as an explanation again:D

Alot of people i encounter today when religion pops up they would say that they don't believe in god but would still believe in something spiritual (supernatural) at work in their lifes. I like the term 'bright' (a term used to describe someone with a supernatural free worldview) for that reason. As I became an atheist at about 11 but i didn't become a bright i suppose till i was about 19.

Sorry about the lenght guys..

Dades

lookinforpicnic wrote:

Sorry about the lenght guys..

Not at all. An interesting read.

I like the idea of "Brights" but not the name. Must have a look at their site again, it's been a while.

Hypatia

Lets see,

First real questioning, the time I asked, 'if god is so great, why has he declared that all new born children are sinners'? That got me strapped very heavily. Augustine, in the 300's declared all chiuldren to be carrying original sin.

Then asking, how could adam and eve have been the first humans as they had two sons and no daughters? What did they do,have a gay marriage and use technology to grow a few fetus's in a test tube? That one kind of let me know that the bible was nothing more than a fairy tale.

By 13 I had questioned the official reaon Attila the hun decided not to destroy Rome. Leo had brought Avienius the richest man in rome with him to plead for Rome. In plain laguage they gave Attila all the gold, so he didn't see any point in invading it. Got strapped for that one?

I asked how could the romans be civilised if they exterminated everyone in the Dacian, third of the gauls, most of southern Germany, the Chatti in Northern Germany, Carthage and annnihilated every city they encountered which was not Roman as they needed to replace all cultures with Roman so called culture, where they watched people fighting to the death for entertainment and how they claim that the Catholic church took up the mantle of civilisation and brought civilisation as Rome did? I asked did that mean the church commited genoicide and wanted to throw people to the lions. It was the first time I saw a priest so angry, he could not speak with rage. They did hand us history books and told us to study in the library, which I actually did. Strapped again.

At 14 I mentioned something I read in New Scientist about some scrolls that were being analyised, which happened to mention the current gospels were written over 200 years after JC was supposed to have died. That also got me in serious ****. I was accused of being evil and strapped as usual. Catholic thing to strap a child apparently, when I questioned that. Noticed the bastards doing the strapping seemed to be enjoying it.

At 15 I got in real crap for stating that Saint Cyril was a psychopath, for buring the Library at Alexandria, Killing Hypatia and killing thousands of Jews. Again strapped.

I could go on, but i think you get the picture. Besides all that I usually got in trouble for asking very awkward questions.

Hivemind187

Hypatia wrote:

Lets see,

First real questioning, the time I asked, 'if god is so great, why has he declared that all new born children are sinners'? That got me strapped very heavily. Augustine, in the 300's declared all chiuldren to be carrying original sin.

Then asking, how could adam and eve have been the first humans as they had two sons and no daughters? What did they do,have a gay marriage and use technology to grow a few fetus's in a test tube? That one kind of let me know that the bible was nothing more than a fairy tale.

By 13 I had questioned the official reaon Attila the hun decided not to destroy Rome. Leo had brought Avienius the richest man in rome with him to plead for Rome. In plain laguage they gave Attila all the gold, so he didn't see any point in invading it. Got strapped for that one?

I asked how could the romans be civilised if they exterminated everyone in the Dacian, third of the gauls, most of southern Germany, the Chatti in Northern Germany, Carthage and annnihilated every city they encountered which was not Roman as they needed to replace all cultures with Roman so called culture, where they watched people fighting to the death for entertainment and how they claim that the Catholic church took up the mantle of civilisation and brought civilisation as Rome did? I asked did that mean the church commited genoicide and wanted to throw people to the lions. It was the first time I saw a priest so angry, he could not speak with rage. They did hand us history books and told us to study in the library, which I actually did. Strapped again.

At 14 I mentioned something I read in New Scientist about some scrolls that were being analyised, which happened to mention the current gospels were written over 200 years after JC was supposed to have died. That also got me in serious ****. I was accused of being evil and strapped as usual. Catholic thing to strap a child apparently, when I questioned that. Noticed the bastards doing the strapping seemed to be enjoying it.

At 15 I got in real crap for stating that Saint Cyril was a psychopath, for buring the Library at Alexandria, Killing Hypatia and killing thousands of Jews. Again strapped.

I could go on, but i think you get the picture. Besides all that I usually got in trouble for asking very awkward questions.

I believe Pavlov called that "negative reinforcement" only I dont think it hadnt the intended result on you.

Galvasean

A quick question, has anyone else ever received what I call 'spiritual blackmail'?
Case study: When I was younger and first started opening up to my family about my lack of faith/belief in God/religion my parents used to say to me things like, "Oh,well what do you suppose happened to your grandfather* then?" Is it just me or is that a horrible thing to say to a child?

*as you can probably tell he's dead

Zillah

Galvasean wrote:

Is it just me or is that a horrible thing to say to a child?

Yes.

Its right up there with "God is watching you and will punish you if you're bad". Luckily they've moved on from the "Do what we say or you will suffer an eternity of nightmarish agony." And we should be very glad they no longer do the whole "Obey us in every way or we will torture and murder you." Ah the inquisition...


Now that I think of it, one of the things that always struck me as weird when I was a kid was the claim that dogs don't have souls. I was so baffled by that. Here's my cute little scottish terrier, bouncing around having more personality than most of the adults in my life, and yet I was told that some how she was fundamentally inferior to us, and that we'd exist forever and she wouldn't. That was stupid.

Attractive Nun

Brought up Catholic, family went to mass every sunday - still do. Up until I guess 12/13, I guess I just believed it because everyone else did. Even most of my friends went to mass, which is probably a little strange, as did all my cousins etc. I suppose around then I started doubting religion - or at least Catholicism - because so much of it doesn't really make sense. For some reason, I can remember asking my mom why humans exist (or some such question) and she replied "because God got bored of the dinosaurs". Good times. But at that point, both because my family/friends were mainly religious and because I didn't like the idea of a Godless life, I tried not to think about it. In fact, I can also remember saying to myself at a youngish age, "OK, maybe you don't really believe in God now, and that will make death scary, but you can worry about properly believing in him when you're older".

Anyway, I still went to mass more or less every sunday, just to please the family really, until I was about 17/18. Sometime in that period I guess I started discussing it with friends and concluded, randomly, that "maybe Christianity is wrong but there's probably something - your standard copout. I remember realising for certain that I wasn't in any way Christian on the day before my leaving cert, my parents gave me a good luck card with a prayer inside it and I involutarily did a major :rolleyes: Stopped going to mass around then.

Since then, just through reading arguments about it and actually taking an interest in religion, I've come to realise that I was being dishonest with myself and that I don't actually believe there's 'something' out there. I guess it was only recently enough (I'm 19) that I fully realised I was an atheist rather than a vague agnostic.

Hypatia

Hivemind187 wrote:

I believe Pavlov called that "negative reinforcement" only I dont think it hadnt the intended result on you.

Good point.

I had really lost any idea that the whole judeo-satanist- christian-muslim nonsense was anything more than nonsense by the time i was about 13:p

Thing is, the churchs see us as a means to supply them with money, nothing else. People need to wake up and realise the church collection is really tax, to keep a bunch of nutters, who have retreated from rel life, living like Liberatche in the Vatican.I personally think they should pay VAT and Corporation tax as the whole religeon thing is a buiness.

PDN

Hypatia wrote:

At 14 I mentioned something I read in New Scientist about some scrolls that were being analyised, which happened to mention the current gospels were written over 200 years after JC was supposed to have died. That also got me in serious ****. I was accused of being evil and strapped as usual. Catholic thing to strap a child apparently, when I questioned that. Noticed the bastards doing the strapping seemed to be enjoying it.

This raises the interesting question of whether the end justifies the means. Here we have someone who has reached a conclusion (that Christianity is false) that would presumably be considered good by most who post on this board.

However, this conclusion was reached, in part, by the sadism of some people who claimed to be Christians, and by a false statement concerning the dates when the Gospels were written.

If the priests who strapped Hypatia so often had instead been enlightened compassionate Christians, and if he had been exposed to more accurate information concerning the dates of the Gospels, then he may not have reached his atheistic position.

So, what do you think? Did the ends justify the means? Was it a good thing that he was beaten and misinformed?

Myksyk

Pointless pedantic factoid of the day - this was not negative reinforcement (it's common to mix it up with punishment). NR refers to the increase in a target behaviour upon the contingent withdrawal of a stimulus. I don't think Pavlov was involved either!!!;)

Pointlessness over .. you may now stop casting your eyes heavenward!

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

So, what do you think? Did the ends justify the means? Was it a good thing that he was beaten and misinformed?

Well I would analyse the action (beaten and misinformed) from two perspectives:
1. What was the intent?
2. What was the consequence?

In both cases the action comes out poor.
The intent was to force someone's opinions on someone else not to get them think for themselves. The consequence of the action, seems to be simply the person hated the action and felt some pain and stress.

But that's analysis is completly separate to the fact that the person now might be very well informed, which would of course would be as a result of various other actions.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well I would analyse the action (beaten and misinformed) from two perspectives:
1. What was the intent?
2. What was the consequence?

In both cases the action comes out poor.
The intent was to force someone's opinions on someone else not to get them think for themselves. The consequence of the action, seems to be simply the person hated the action and felt some pain and stress.

But that's analysis is completly separate to the fact that the person now might be very well informed, which would of course would be as a result of various other actions.

I'm interested by your assertion that New Scientist acted out of a poor intent of forcing opinions on others when they misinformed him about the date the Gospels were written. I would tend be more charitable and think that the magazine simply made a mistake.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I'm interested by your assertion that New Scientist acted out of a poor intent of forcing opinions on others when they misinformed him about the date the Gospels were written. I would tend be more charitable and think that the magazine simply made a mistake.

The New Scientist wasn't part of my analysis, I was talking more about the religious orders, the angry priest and the beating.

I would need to see the New Scientist edition first to determine if it was a mistake. I don't see how a magazine, an inanimate object can force an opinion on someone.

Sorry, I should have been clearer.

robindch

PDN wrote:

Did the ends justify the means? Was it a good thing that he was beaten and misinformed?

Well, you're assuming that I think it's good for Hypatia that he's (she's?) free of religion -- and who knows, perhaps he's depressed and unhappy because he doesn't believe any of the consolations that christianity promises, and being depressed is hardly a pleasant situation. But I don't imagine that's the case.

But regardless of the outcome in this case, lying to somebody to get them to agree with you isn't an honest way of carrying on, whether you're writing for NS, or you're Ken Ham standing in front of his rows of dickless mannequins. And that's assuming that NS lied anyway, which from the posting above, doesn't seem much of a sure thing to me.

Turning the question around, would you ever be even faintly dishonest when serving the ends of your religion, or would you ever commit a sin of omission, by not mentioning, for example, of the relatively undisputed facts concerning the unresolved question of authorship and authenticity of the NT? Or would you gloss over the topic, trusting people not to question you on the topic?

PDN

robindch wrote:

But regardless of the outcome in this case, lying to somebody to get them to agree with you isn't an honest way of carrying on, whether you're writing for NS, or you're Ken Ham standing in front of his rows of dickless mannequins. And that's assuming that NS lied anyway, which from the posting above, doesn't seem much of a sure thing to me.

I certainly agree that lying to someone, whatever your motive, is wrong. I am not assuming that NS lied, BTW, but would rather believe that they made a mistake (I must here confess having a soft spot for NS. My Dad was a university lecturer in biology and he always got me a copy of Look and Learn along with his New Scientist. I often used to try to read NS, although then, and probably still now, most of it would be above my head).

I try to take posts at face value where possible. If you, Robin, say something happened to you in Jakarta then I believe you. I would think it incredibly rude to assume that you were lying or that you imagined it. Equally, if Hypatia says that priests beat him, or that he read something in NS, my natural inclination is to believe him.

Turning the question around, would you ever be even faintly dishonest when serving the ends of your religion, or would you ever commit a sin of omission, by not mentioning, for example, of the relatively undisputed facts concerning the unresolved question of authorship and authenticity of the NT? Or would you gloss over the topic, trusting people not to question you on the topic?

I certainly hope that I would not be dishonest or that I would omit anything that I felt to be genuinely relevant to the point at hand. Of course you and I may not agree as to what should be omitted. What you see as relevant I may see as a crackpot theory with little merit, and vice versa of course.

Galvasean

Zillah wrote:

Now that I think of it, one of the things that always struck me as weird when I was a kid was the claim that dogs don't have souls. I was so baffled by that. Here's my cute little scottish terrier, bouncing around having more personality than most of the adults in my life, and yet I was told that some how she was fundamentally inferior to us, and that we'd exist forever and she wouldn't. That was stupid.

I don't want to go to the heaven unless my dog is there. If he's not there I'll wait for him.

Tar.Aldarion

Zillah wrote:

Now that I think of it, one of the things that always struck me as weird when I was a kid was the claim that dogs don't have souls. I was so baffled by that. Here's my cute little scottish terrier, bouncing around having more personality than most of the adults in my life, and yet I was told that some how she was fundamentally inferior to us, and that we'd exist forever and she wouldn't. That was stupid.

I found the idea that we were special compared to other animals laughable, that alone would convince me that christianity is nonsense. And now, I haven't eaten puppy for years and no more christianity, all is well.

PDN

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I found the idea that we were special compared to other animals laughable, that alone would convince me that christianity is nonsense. And now, I haven't eaten puppy for years and no more christianity, all is well.

It doesn't taste good anyway. (Dog meat, I mean, not Christianity)

Tar.Aldarion

|I've never tasted meat thayt I did not like, however I never tried dog. It probably wouldn't be as good as human.

robindch

I had Dog's Leg Soup in the North Korean town of Kaesong -- tasted just like the leg of a really huge chicken from the little of the flavour that I could make out past the chili. Our government minder said it was alsatian, so it probably wasn't.

pinksoir

PDN wrote:

It doesn't taste good anyway. (Dog meat, I mean, not Christianity)

Oh, I'd say it's a lot easier to swallow than Christianity though...

Hivemind187

Hypatia wrote:

Good point.

I had really lost any idea that the whole judeo-satanist- christian-muslim nonsense was anything more than nonsense by the time i was about 13:p

Thing is, the churchs see us as a means to supply them with money, nothing else. People need to wake up and realise the church collection is really tax, to keep a bunch of nutters, who have retreated from rel life, living like Liberatche in the Vatican.I personally think they should pay VAT and Corporation tax as the whole religeon thing is a buiness.

Agreed, except for the reference to "satanist". The CoS (Church of Satan) is an atheistic organisation which doesnt believe in any deity, after life or higher plane. Its a too complicated to go into here but suffice to say that they dont fit with the others on that level.

Attractive Nun

pinksoir wrote:

Oh, I'd say it's a lot easier to swallow than Christianity though...

I'll get your coat...

pinksoir

it was too hard to resist.

DerKaiser

Why does it feel like the christians on boards are entitled to sneer at the athiests, but the other way 'round wouldn't be tolerated? Is it just me, do Athiests not have rights too?

Tim Robbins

DerKaiser wrote:

Why does it feel like the christians on boards are entitled to sneer at the athiests, but the other way 'round wouldn't be tolerated? Is it just me, do Athiests not have rights too?

There is an equal amount of sneering and good humour on all sides.
It's logic that differentiates the groups IMO :;