never been theist vs used to be theist on God

[DrZoidberg]

In the skeptics movement I´ve come to identify two general groups when it comes to talking about God.

1) The ex-religious. These are often preoccupied with explaining why an otherwise intelligent person can hold such stupid beliefs. Often come across as apologetic. Which is unhelpful IMHO. Dumb beliefs are dumb. Don´t try to justify them. You only come across as more dumb.

2) The never-was-religious. This is the group I belong to. Often just poking fun at religion and ridiculing it. Just not nice.

Yes, I´m aware its much simplified. But I´ve always felt uncomfortable about this second group since I don´t like making others feel bad. But belief in God is ridiculous. It´s hard to phrase my views about God in ways that doesn´t insult the first group.

Is my analysis wrong?

I think the reality is that no humans are especially intelligent, and our beliefs around metaphysical concepts are too weird for anybody really to have a firm mental grasp of. It takes years of philosophical training to sort it out and even then it never makes any intuitive sense. I think we´d all be better off by just employing some humility. We´re not atheists because we´re necessarily smarter than theists. It´s an accident of history we should be happy about. Because it does free up a lot of time and effort.

Thoughts?

 

[Keith&Co.]

2) The never-was-religious. This is the group I belong to. Often just poking fun at religion and ridiculing it. Just not nice.

This is the behavior I tend to associate with former believers.
if nothing else, we can craft better jokes as we know more details. Like George Carlin.
And more often than not, the ex religious aren't all that much into apologetics. To me, the greater number of ex religious are more apatheist.

I think the reality is that no humans are especially intelligent,

you don't watch much American TV during an election year, I take it.

We´re not atheists because we´re necessarily smarter than theists.

Theists buy Lee Strobel books.

 

[skepticalbip]

Is my analysis wrong?

A bit, yes.

People who are born into a religious family are conditioned from birth to accept religion just as they accept all the social norms of the family. Until early adolescence, humans are not mentally equipped to seriously question what they have been taught since birth.

ETA:
I take it that. since you claim to have never been religious, your parents weren't religious so you were never indoctrinated as a child into religion.

 

[DLH]

In the skeptics movement I´ve come to identify two general groups when it comes to talking about God.

1) The ex-religious. These are often preoccupied with explaining why an otherwise intelligent person can hold such stupid beliefs. Often come across as apologetic. Which is unhelpful IMHO. Dumb beliefs are dumb. Don´t try to justify them. You only come across as more dumb.

Not if you actually know what you are talking about. In Christianity the majority of beliefs can be traced back to ancient Babylon. From there they were usually introduced much later into apostate Christianity. The apostle Paul foretold this at 2 Timothy 4:3, 4 - "For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories." Paul used the Greek mythos (myth) which was later translated into the Latin fabulos (fables). If these traditions, unsupported by the Bible, have so thoroughly influenced even the scholars who the average believer as well as skeptic will believe before they believe someone with any evidence to the contrary, what are you going to argue? The fable or the facts as presented?

The thing, though, about ex-Christians, is their bitterness. They have overcome a paradigm which they tried and failed at, having tried it for some other reason than truth, having to do with either culture, tradition or social accommodation, and failed it because they couldn't make any sense of it as it was prescribed to them. Rejection of a world view can be a powerfully emotional transformation. They usually find the social accommodation in the current science, an alternative which makes them feel intellectually rather than morally superior. This transformation, is, in reality, no more intellectual than the one they escaped from.

2) The never-was-religious. This is the group I belong to. Often just poking fun at religion and ridiculing it. Just not nice.

Again, that depends upon whether or not you know what you are talking about. Some of the most well informed opposition I've come across are atheists who belonged to this group but knew the Bible very well. Those where my favorite exchanges. To say something you don't know or understand is dumb is just dumb. It's like explaining euclidean geometry to someone who doesn't want to and so refuses to get it. Or like trying to teach your elderly parents how to work a computer.

Yes, I´m aware its much simplified. But I´ve always felt uncomfortable about this second group since I don´t like making others feel bad. But belief in God is ridiculous. It´s hard to phrase my views about God in ways that doesn´t insult the first group.

Is my analysis wrong?

I think the reality is that no humans are especially intelligent, and our beliefs around metaphysical concepts are too weird for anybody really to have a firm mental grasp of. It takes years of philosophical training to sort it out and even then it never makes any intuitive sense. I think we´d all be better off by just employing some humility. We´re not atheists because we´re necessarily smarter than theists. It´s an accident of history we should be happy about. Because it does free up a lot of time and effort.

Thoughts?

True. And this isn't good advise for atheists alone, but theists as well. The exchange has often made an egotistical monster out of me, and I don't like that. I don't like that the exchange seems to have to be like that. It's kind of human nature, though. Often it is a political or class struggle more than an exchange of theological / atheist ideas. I see a great deal in common with the political debate of issues of a political nature. You can exchange religious with political, the various denominations with political parties, the various forms of government with atheist / theist interests and you have the same angry, violent, pointless seemingly endless divisions.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Is my analysis wrong?

A bit, yes.

People who are born into a religious family are conditioned from birth to accept religion just as they accept all the social norms of the family. Until early adolescence, humans are not mentally equipped to seriously question what they have been taught since birth.

ETA:
I take it that. since you claim to have never been religious, your parents weren't religious so you were never indoctrinated as a child into religion.

I´m from Sweden. The first time I ever even met a religious person in person (out of the closet) I was properly an adult. My first friend I got who claimed to believe in God I got when I was in my 30´ies. No, he did not live in Sweden. In Sweden religion is just not a topic of discussion, unless we´re making fun of them. It´s just a non-issue in everyday life. I don´t know if my great grandparents were atheists. But my grandparents certainly were. My parents were quasi-religious hippies. But religion to them was like putting on pants. Religions were adopted if they went with the outfit, rather than any deeper meaning behind it. In truth they were probably atheist. I don´t really know actually. They never explained what they actually believed. I didn´t ask. I could still ask. I just don´t care. And they don´t seem to be in a hurry to tell me.

edit: I remember asking my father what the meaning of life was. He just joked it away. But the gist of it was that he had no good answer and that I´d have to figure it out for myself. That to me sounds like an atheist.

 

[ronburgundy]

There is at least 1 other group: People technically raised within a religion, but were never true believers. This group might be divided into those that consciously left that religion early in life before most of their identity was formed (maybe pre-25), and late bloomers who publicly identified and voluntarily went through the motions of religion as an adult.

I am in this pre-25 (acually 15) group.


As to being apologetic, you take is interesting, because I always thought that those who've seen the inner workings of religion best understand how insidious and harmful to personal and intellectual growth it can be. Thus, they are most critical of it. People I know raised totally without religion seem to think its little more than unimportant ritual, and thus are "live and let live" about it. They don't appreciate that virtually all religious belief is the result of coercion and not freely chosen, thus they think its somehow wrong to actively try to undermine a person's faith as though they chose it because they need it. They view it as taken something from them, when in fact it is more like unlocking their cage that they were forced into, and if they want to close the door because they've become too comfortable in there, then they are free to do that.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'm of the never-been-religious type. As a musician, altered states are a regular occurrence. It makes sense to me that people would develop practices to bring them about. I enjoy them through music, so I have little use for rituals.

I don't have a problem with religion or religious people. To me, God is anthropomorphizing a concept of a unified reality. That visualization seems to help some people, so ok. But two things: one, believing in miracles or the supernatural has nothing to do with spirituality. Apologetics are a waste of time IMO. Two, nothing beyond the personal can be asserted as true based on revelation alone. Revelation is a vital critical thing, but it has to be tested against the collected learning of the rest of us.

 

[DLH]

There is at least 1 other group: People technically raised within a religion, but were never true believers. This group might be divided into those that consciously left that religion early in life before most of their identity was formed (maybe pre-25), and late bloomers who publicly identified and voluntarily went through the motions of religion as an adult.

I am in this pre-25 (acually 15) group.


As to being apologetic, you take is interesting, because I always thought that those who've seen the inner workings of religion best understand how insidious and harmful to personal and intellectual growth it can be. Thus, they are most critical of it. People I know raised totally without religion seem to think its little more than unimportant ritual, and thus are "live and let live" about it. They don't appreciate that virtually all religious belief is the result of coercion and not freely chosen, thus they think its somehow wrong to actively try to undermine a person's faith as though they chose it because they need it. They view it as taken something from them, when in fact it is more like unlocking their cage that they were forced into, and if they want to close the door because they've become too comfortable in there, then they are free to do that.

I've noticed that these types, at least from where I come from, tend to go away and "sow their wild oats" as the old folks used to say, and then when they are ready to settle down and start a family they come running back to the traditional belief structures they grew up with themselves. They haven't really learned anything they just wanted to fuck around.

 

[funinspace]

Not if you actually know what you are talking about. In Christianity the majority of beliefs can be traced back to ancient Babylon. From there they were usually introduced much later into apostate Christianity. The apostle Paul foretold this at 2 Timothy 4:3, 4 - "For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled........

Your words are fancier than S&M's, but the ORGASM kind of smells the same...

The thing, though, about ex-Christians, is their bitterness. They have overcome a paradigm which they tried and failed at, having tried it for some other reason than truth, having to do with either culture, tradition or social accommodation, and failed it because they couldn't make any sense of it as it was prescribed to them.

Huh...uhh..hum...

 

[DLH]

I'm of the never-been-religious type. As a musician, altered states are a regular occurrence. It makes sense to me that people would develop practices to bring them about. I enjoy them through music, so I have little use for rituals.

I don't have a problem with religion or religious people. To me, God is anthropomorphizing a concept of a unified reality. That visualization seems to help some people, so ok. But two things: one, believing in miracles or the supernatural has nothing to do with spirituality. Apologetics are a waste of time IMO. Two, nothing beyond the personal can be asserted as true based on revelation alone. Revelation is a vital critical thing, but it has to be tested against the collected learning of the rest of us.

Believing in miracles or the supernatural doesn't necessarily have anything to do with spirituality, but it can have.

Regarding altered states, the English word pharmacy comes from the Greek word pharmakia, which Paul used in application to the practice of spiritism. Galatians 5:20, the word meaning literally the use of drugs. The Interpreter's Bible says: "Since witches and sorcerers used drugs . . . the word came to designate witchcraft, enchantment, sorcery, and magic." Consider primitive tribes who use drugs to gain access to the spirit world.

 

[funinspace]

In the skeptics movement I´ve come to identify two general groups when it comes to talking about God.

1) The ex-religious. These are often preoccupied with explaining why an otherwise intelligent person can hold such stupid beliefs. Often come across as apologetic. Which is unhelpful IMHO. Dumb beliefs are dumb. Don´t try to justify them. You only come across as more dumb.

2) The never-was-religious. This is the group I belong to. Often just poking fun at religion and ridiculing it. Just not nice.

Yes, I´m aware its much simplified. But I´ve always felt uncomfortable about this second group since I don´t like making others feel bad. But belief in God is ridiculous. It´s hard to phrase my views about God in ways that doesn´t insult the first group.

Is my analysis wrong?

I think the reality is that no humans are especially intelligent, and our beliefs around metaphysical concepts are too weird for anybody really to have a firm mental grasp of. It takes years of philosophical training to sort it out and even then it never makes any intuitive sense. I think we´d all be better off by just employing some humility. We´re not atheists because we´re necessarily smarter than theists. It´s an accident of history we should be happy about. Because it does free up a lot of time and effort.

Thoughts?

I think you are oversimplifying both groups. FWIW, I'm part of the first camp. I've seen a broad spectrum on the ex-religious side, from hostility (cocky or not), to constant sarcasm, to anti-religious preaching, to understanding, to simply nice friendly discussions of ones theological views. I haven't seen too many non-theists providing apologetics for theists.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'm of the never-been-religious type. As a musician, altered states are a regular occurrence. It makes sense to me that people would develop practices to bring them about. I enjoy them through music, so I have little use for rituals.

I don't have a problem with religion or religious people. To me, God is anthropomorphizing a concept of a unified reality. That visualization seems to help some people, so ok. But two things: one, believing in miracles or the supernatural has nothing to do with spirituality. Apologetics are a waste of time IMO. Two, nothing beyond the personal can be asserted as true based on revelation alone. Revelation is a vital critical thing, but it has to be tested against the collected learning of the rest of us.

Believing in miracles or the supernatural doesn't necessarily have anything to do with spirituality, but it can have.

A state of mind where one feels such things are true, or, to put another way, such ideas are alive isn't the same as materially true. Supernatural in that sense, as potential, I have no problem with. Or do you mean something else?

 

[Atheos]

I'd like to point out regarding the OP of this thread that a very great deal of what we learn, especially as children is simply told to us by people we trust. This is good because it accelerates our learning process (as opposed to having to learn everything our parents learned through trial and error), but it's subject to misfire if incorrect information is delivered, which happens a lot.

Religious beliefs are certainly among those things that can be propagated from parent to child. While it may be easy enough for a child to eventually ferret out the truth behind the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, most religious beliefs are not so easily dismissed. Unlike these "childhood" beliefs many adults give every appearance of believing these things fervently. Also, by their very nature, religious beliefs are rarely falsifiable. This is because those beliefs that were falsifiable were eliminated a long time ago, leaving only those that can continue to be rationalized. It's something of an evolutionary process with various forms of religious "life" surviving or going extinct based on its suitability for ever changing environments.

Yes, dumb beliefs are dumb. But unfalsifiable dumb beliefs are difficult to extinguish, especially if there is strong incentive for holding these beliefs. Perhaps the single most compelling incentive is denial of death. When someone we really love dies we don't want to accept the harsh reality that we will never see that individual again. Religion often feeds on this trait, promising a reunion in an afterlife that is often promised to be unmarred by the threat of death.

It's like the classic episode of Star Trek titled "Menagerie" where a paralyzed and disfigured character was given the choice of living the rest of his days in the real world where he was wheelchair bound and could only communicate by answering "Yes" or "No" questions with a beeper or living among a bunch of aliens who could feed him the illusion that he was young and healthy. He chose the latter. Didn't matter if it was real or not, it was more pleasant. I think this is a fundamental, albeit unspoken driving force that encourages people to accept stupid religious beliefs.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I didn't exactly falsify any of the things I was taught, but I did notice key issues in the propagation of certain information.

See, if I asked my father about how electricity worked, I got a lecture. He was a pharmacist, so if I asked him how drugs worked, I got a long, long lecture. If I asked about something he didn't know shit about, I was directed to references.
And if I asked, during a game, if he was cheating, I got brushed off. Or counter-accused. Or made to feel bad about even questioning his integrity. Even with evidence of his cheating in hand, he got upset that I would question his integrity.

When I asked questions at Church, I tended to get a brush-off. Or cautioned against questioning The Lord. Or told it was an inappropriate question. Or I got platitudes.
If I got answers, I seldom got the same answer from two different people, but I often got practiced platitudes.

 

[Perspicuo]

I recognize myself as an intelligent, well-read person. I do not say I deconverted because I'm intelligent, but I recognize that my intelligence did help me, which doesn't mean believers are believers because they're stupid.

The crucial element was that (a) I cared and still care about the truth; (b) I am an empiricist, i.e. I believe truth can only be determined by evidence, and (c) that believing in a book that can only be made "true" (supposedly) by recourse to the argument that the Word of God is only symbolic, not literally, true, is a crappy one.

Item 'c' I did not consciously hold at the time I deconverted, but somehow I intuited it. I knew that if revelation was to be considered true in any meaningful sense there had to be at least some parts in it that were literally true, especially the most relevant ones. I found none. I was 18 y.o. at the time. But I continued to test my ideas and keep collecting more data, although much more than before, because from that day on I got the scent and followed the trail like a bloodhound after prey.

 

[ronburgundy]

I haven't seen too many non-theists providing apologetics for theists.

I disagree with this. Most of the non-theists who criticize so-called "militant atheists" are apologists for theism.

Examples of apologetic (and unreasonable) defenses of theism against criticism that I have heard many times from non-theists are:

Religion is not a causal contributor to violence. It is merely perverted to justify it.

Religion is not a causal contributor of intolerance and bigotry. It is merely perverted to justify it.

Religion is not incompatible with scientific principles.

Science does not favor atheism over theism.

Religion and science are not in conflict, they are completely separate "spheres". (This is the dishonest non-overlapping magisteria argument of Gould who was a major apologist for religion who grossly misrepresented the psychological realities of religious belief and practices and the strong relevance of scientific facts for every ethical idea that religion attempts to lay claim to).

Faith and reason are not opposites.

There is no relationship between intelligence and theistic belief.

Moderate religion is not an enabler of more extreme religion.

Moderate religion is not in conflict with a progressive and secular society.

Religion is the cause of more good than bad.

Monotheism does not promote authoritarianism (and thus is not incompatible with the values of personal liberty and reason-based government).

Militants that criticize religion are the same as fundamentalists.

And finally, virtually every argument claiming that Dawkins or other vocal "militants" are too harsh on religion, or are doing more to increase theism than decrease it (despite all empirical evidence to the contrary).

 

[Underseer]

In the skeptics movement I´ve come to identify two general groups when it comes to talking about God.

1) The ex-religious. These are often preoccupied with explaining why an otherwise intelligent person can hold such stupid beliefs. Often come across as apologetic. Which is unhelpful IMHO. Dumb beliefs are dumb. Don´t try to justify them. You only come across as more dumb.

2) The never-was-religious. This is the group I belong to. Often just poking fun at religion and ridiculing it. Just not nice.

Yes, I´m aware its much simplified. But I´ve always felt uncomfortable about this second group since I don´t like making others feel bad. But belief in God is ridiculous. It´s hard to phrase my views about God in ways that doesn´t insult the first group.

Is my analysis wrong?

I think the reality is that no humans are especially intelligent, and our beliefs around metaphysical concepts are too weird for anybody really to have a firm mental grasp of. It takes years of philosophical training to sort it out and even then it never makes any intuitive sense. I think we´d all be better off by just employing some humility. We´re not atheists because we´re necessarily smarter than theists. It´s an accident of history we should be happy about. Because it does free up a lot of time and effort.

Thoughts?

I'm in category two. Never was indoctrinated.

I admit that on these boards, sometimes I can say extremely unflattering things about theists, but generally I think of theists as victims and feel sorry for them. I've been spending a fair amount of time on atheist vs theist threads in the YouTube comment section, and I spend a fair amount of time explaining to other theists why it is counterproductive (and kind of inaccurate) to call theists stupid.

 

[Rhea]

There is at least 1 other group: People technically raised within a religion, but were never true believers. This group might be divided into those that consciously left that religion early in life before most of their identity was formed (maybe pre-25), and late bloomers who publicly identified and voluntarily went through the motions of religion as an adult.

I am in this pre-25 (acually 15) group.


As to being apologetic, you take is interesting, because I always thought that those who've seen the inner workings of religion best understand how insidious and harmful to personal and intellectual growth it can be. Thus, they are most critical of it. People I know raised totally without religion seem to think its little more than unimportant ritual, and thus are "live and let live" about it. They don't appreciate that virtually all religious belief is the result of coercion and not freely chosen, thus they think its somehow wrong to actively try to undermine a person's faith as though they chose it because they need it. They view it as taken something from them, when in fact it is more like unlocking their cage that they were forced into, and if they want to close the door because they've become too comfortable in there, then they are free to do that.

I've noticed that these types, at least from where I come from, tend to go away and "sow their wild oats" as the old folks used to say, and then when they are ready to settle down and start a family they come running back to the traditional belief structures they grew up with themselves. They haven't really learned anything they just wanted to fuck around.

I'm in the same camp as ron. I was indoctrinated and forced to attend church and Sunday school, but it never ever made sense. I brought it to a head and pressured my mother to let me quit at age 12 (by getting kicked out of Sunday school repeatedly). I sowed my wild oats and settle down into a much more thoughtful and intellectual atheism which remains now, into my 50s.

 

[Underseer]

In the skeptics movement I´ve come to identify two general groups when it comes to talking about God.

1) The ex-religious. These are often preoccupied with explaining why an otherwise intelligent person can hold such stupid beliefs. Often come across as apologetic. Which is unhelpful IMHO. Dumb beliefs are dumb. Don´t try to justify them. You only come across as more dumb.

2) The never-was-religious. This is the group I belong to. Often just poking fun at religion and ridiculing it. Just not nice.

Yes, I´m aware its much simplified. But I´ve always felt uncomfortable about this second group since I don´t like making others feel bad. But belief in God is ridiculous. It´s hard to phrase my views about God in ways that doesn´t insult the first group.

Is my analysis wrong?

I think the reality is that no humans are especially intelligent, and our beliefs around metaphysical concepts are too weird for anybody really to have a firm mental grasp of. It takes years of philosophical training to sort it out and even then it never makes any intuitive sense. I think we´d all be better off by just employing some humility. We´re not atheists because we´re necessarily smarter than theists. It´s an accident of history we should be happy about. Because it does free up a lot of time and effort.

Thoughts?

I'm in category two. Never was indoctrinated.

I admit that on these boards, sometimes I can say extremely unflattering things about theists, but generally I think of theists as victims and feel sorry for them. I've been spending a fair amount of time on atheist vs theist threads in the YouTube comment section, and I spend a fair amount of time explaining to other atheists why it is counterproductive (and kind of inaccurate) to call theists stupid.

Sorry. Edit (underlined) to correct typo.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm in category two. Never was indoctrinated.

I admit that on these boards, sometimes I can say extremely unflattering things about theists, but generally I think of theists as victims and feel sorry for them. I've been spending a fair amount of time on atheist vs theist threads in the YouTube comment section, and I spend a fair amount of time explaining to other atheists why it is counterproductive (and kind of inaccurate) to call theists stupid.

Sorry. Edit (underlined) to correct typo.

ha ha... quite the critical typo