Why I do not Believe In God

  1. ... et idem
    indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus...

    Horace

    I

    I spent less than half of my life as a Roman Catholic, and while I look back on those years, I can only do so from an admittedly biased point of view. The whole experience was not terribly unpleasant, I rather miss some of the artwork and the sense of community. Some of the priests were very well educated, and charming, and friendly; I even still remember (and miss) some of the hymns.

    While I regret that I cannot relive those years, I am not so much sure that I would like to now, with the experiences that I have today I cannot go back and re-convert as it were, it is too late. There is perhaps at least some small compensation in the fact that by my formally abandoning religion it was one of the most singularly liberating and enjoyable experiences of my life, and while I was once a hypocritical follower of a system I fundamentally did not believe in I am now no longer under such...persuasions.

    Most of my education was spent attending private Catholic schools (grades second to twelve), I was to later find out that the main reason behind the decision to send me to parochial school was not for reasons of religious observation but because they were thought to be superior to the public schools in the area in which we were residing (in that regard I agree wholeheartedly and feel very privileged for the opportunity). By that time of course I was far from devout, and just about everyone around me seemed to regard all of religiosity with the same air of suspicion, or at least a dull and almost stoic lack of enthusiasm (which was by High School of course, teenagers are rebellious by nature).

    That realization was accompanied, in my adolescence, by a number of epiphanies; some small and some significantly large. These realizations shattered my faith or as I prefer to think of it, my nearly lifelong pedagogical indoctrination) and ultimately lead to my abandonment of adherence not only to Roman Catholicism, but any organized religion and indeed any notion of any god. The epiphanies and resulting deductions lead me to assume skeptical standpoints of most matters, including the occult, pseudosciences, and UFO-ology among other things. As some would say, I can be open-minded, but not so open-minded that my brain should fall out of my head.

    In that sense I am no more biased against religion and God than I am to the Sasquatch, the Yeti, and the Abominable snowman, although I can agree that those are two arguments of a slightly different nature, in the case of Bigfoot most claimants at least display hoaky evidence, most people of faith resign their beliefs to faith and not evidence. I regard them all as somewhat charming, often entertaining, but approach them all with what I believe to be a very well warranted sense of cautious skepticism. As Carl Sagan was fond of saying, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    With that lengthy background and introduction behind me I can address the topic mentioned in the title. As you can imagine; when it comes up, or it is determined, or when I freely admit that I am an atheist a number of things might occur. In a group it may acquire a queer look or two, or an approving nod or grunt, but far too often I'm afraid, there is also a kind of gasp and physical withdrawal, usually accompanied with a frown or a shake of the head, as if I had just admitted to being the son of Satan himself.

    I can attribute this apprehension primarily to misinformation (sometimes deliberately circulated, such sophistry in my opinion qualifies as defamatory hate speech, in this case a discriminatory targetting of atheists by theists) of the atheist position or misconceptions of what being an atheist means.

    As a definition, it can vary from person to person and dictionary to dictionary, however among the more progressive of descriptions I agree wholeheartedly with and now use for myself: "someone who lacks a belief in a god or gods". Rather than attempting to describe atheism as a belief or a philosophy I belief that it is prudent and intellectually honest to instead treat it as an absence of a very particular kind of belief.

    As far as viewpoints go it is hardly a controversial issue, although some people treat it as such. In the long history of debatable topics and philosophies I can certainly think of things much more divisive and controversial. There is, I suspect, a very long list of grievances and offenses that most people would find highly objectionable to say the least, and to me atheism does not and should not belong among them.

    For one, no atheist has ever advocated setting themselves on fire for an atheist based anti-war demonstration, nor do we promote corporal mortification to simulate the pain felt by Isaac Newton when an apple fell on his head. We generally do not advocate the mutilation of an infant's genitalia, or the trial, torture, and murder of unbelievers in the laws of gravity. However, I digress.

    Much of the misconceptions arrive from the erroneous perception that atheists are godless sinning heathens, hedonists, lustful malcontents intent on perverting societies and overthrowing religions. While there are, to be sure, some atheists who are very much against religion, outspoken in that respect, and opposed to all organized religions (I was once among them), that is not a valid representation of all atheists.

    In the same sense that not all religious people are zealots and extremists, the average atheist is probably not only non-militant in their lack of belief but reserved for fear of persecution (most Americans when polled freely admit that they would not vote for a presidential candidate who happened to be an atheist - for a secular nation where church and state is separated by law that is a stunning revelation).

    Interestingly, atheists are the fastest growing minority in the United States, ahead of Jews and homosexuals, and at around 10%, close to African-Americans. Far from a fringe group we total more people than the populations of dozens of European countries, and in the case of the smallest among them, more than their total populations combined.

    Whenever my dirty secret is revealed, usually in groups of three or more where I have taken the position of defending the atheist position ( I half-jokingly say with my back against the wall) the others often either because of the peer pressure of the cultural norm or curiosity probe my intents and rationale, a number of questions come up. They all dig down at the matter of why I do not belief in a god, but they often can and do take different approaches.

    As a method of critically analyzing a topic that is an area of debate as old as civilization itself, and one of the gravest of imports to many people of all proclivities, I assume the apologetic standpoint and use Socratic questioning to soften up the blows of the questions.

    I prefer, whenever possible, to address the questions one by one because there are actually many clarifications that need to be made and many misconceptions to address along the way. The many layered onion of theist conceits (not used as a pejorative in this context I assure you, conceit is simply a word to denote a hardened position in this usage) go to the heart of modern culture.

    Among the most persistent of these misconceptions is the idea that without a God there can be no morality and no reason to do good. I always find that as ironic because some of the greatest moral and ethical teachers, champions of the very idea of human goodness itself, made their cases for secular reasons and in the absence of a requirement for a belief in a god (but we shall cross that bridge when we come to it).

Comments

  1. Eoz Eanj
    Is it bad that the only response I can conjur up is,

    "Yep, pretty much"

    ?
  2. GrantG
    Somehow it came out that I'm a non-believer at one of my weekly poker games. One of like six people flipped a lid; the others didn't really care. I hate arguing about this stuff (actually, I hate talking about it at all) because I don't want to convert anybody. So, I said, "By believing in one religion you're not believing in a million others. I just happen to believe in one less religion than you do." I'm not sure what happened, but that seemed to change the subject pretty easily.

    That's where the story should have ended.

    Then I got a little drunker that night and proclaimed that I thought my limited understanding of Scientology made more sense to me than my limited understanding of Christianity (the origin stories are less supernatural; I have an easier time believing in aliens than I do angels and demons). That statement turned EVERYONE against me, including my best friend who I'm pretty sure is also a nonbeliever.

    So, the point is: atheism is much more accepted today than it has been in previous times. Scientology apparently isn't accepted, under any circumstances.

    For the record, I'd be more likely to cut my legs off then become a Scientologist. But why does the bare mention of the religion anger both believers AND nonbelievers?

    Just an observation. I thought we were supposed to respect EVERYONE'S beliefs here.
  3. jonathan hernandez13
    Obviously some beliefs are respected more than others. We have been taught all our lives to respect the opinions of others when it comes to religion, regardless of what they may believe. I am a kind of contrarian.

    Like Sam Harris I believe in a kind of intolerance of religion, but not anything as overt as discrimination. I am for new rules of dialogue, and when we probe into not only what they believe, but why, they get to cry intolerance and we are expected to drop the issue. I don't think that's fair.

    In any other part of normal society, if someone has a believe that is contradictory to the norm, we have a right to address it. Religion plays a kind of no fair foul banner to make itself immune to criticism, but they get to criticise non-believers all the time as immoral and as sinners nd all that. They tell us to be tolerant of their beliefs while not acknowledging our lack of belief and our rights to point figers at them.

    If you want to play hardball, you have to be willing to get your hands dirty and your feelings hurt.:)
  4. HorusEye
    My stance is that -- self-evidently -- nobody can know anything about things beyond knowledge, i.e. beyond our senses, comprehension or scientific means of detection. I think that statement is so obvious I almost feel dumber after having to point it out.

    The only conclusion one can really draw from the agnostic premise is that all religions are man-made institutions built on arbitrary assumptions and cultural preferences, falsely presented as claims to ultimate right and truth.

    To attach oneself to such an institution either requires severe brain-washing or severe intellectual dishonesty and I cannot lower myself to pretend I have any kind of respect for religious followers or leaders. At best I can feel sorry for those who had it forced down their throats throughout childhood. The selectively intellectual leaders of these cults, however, may only earn my despise.

    All too often, it's pointed out that the casual religious person does no harm to anyone and should be allowed their comforting beliefs, but what is ignored is that every one membership of a religion is a passive vote of support to the fanatical top. Without the passive foundation, these lunatics would have nothing to stand on. Prophets and priests would just be another bunch of loons examined through slits in bolted doors.

    I may sound a bit harsh on religion, but I'm just being honest here -- I don't wanna be PC if it makes me a hypocrite.

    I think that in our day and age, religion is the greatest barrier between humanity and humanism. If we are to evolve to a state of enlightenment, fairness and reason, then religion has to go. I'm convinced that once the cycle of heredital indoctrination has been broken, God will never be missed. Nobody really misses Ba'al, Zeus or Ra.
  5. mugen shiyo
    :) LOL. This brings back memories. I was once religious because of my grandmother. Then I realized I was just inspired by my grandmother.

    You ever get tired of having to argue your points? I can remember arguing this with people a LOT of times and absolutely no traction. You can debunk the bible in the first few chapters of the first book of Genesis. The math of the first seven days of creation is all messed up. You could try cornering them in debate, but they always fall back on metaphysical proof or evidence like, "He talks to me in my mind and heart" or "He appears to me in all things." These abstract references to him make him pretty much unassailable. You can't really tell a person what goes in their head, and what they are experiencing. Well, almost unassailable. There only weakness, ironically, is the bible. It's a blatant contradiction to common sense. By giving their God a back story and form, they open him up to review and investigation. When the stories in the Bible are found to be without logic- as in our times today- it becomes increasingly irrelevant. They should have just stuck with the concept of a higher being. Simple. Like poetry, people will take that for what they will. Actually, they have. So many different types of Christian out there.

    Wow...I'll stop my rant :p Good blog. You almost sent me on my crusade again.

    I was thinking about humoring you ( or myself) and acting like I really believed just to drive you nuts but I don't have the energy for that. I think history itself bares enough proof for anyone willing to accept it. Those who do not simply will not and it's a choice.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice