Survey

[abaddon]

Yes. Nominally when I was a child, and fervently for a bit at age 15.

Destroyed, no. Changed, yes.

I want monotheistic, supernaturalist sorts of religion both marginalized and altered as they tend to justify hating the world and its animals, plants and other persons.

I’m not a theist because I have no experience of a god of any sort. Just came to my attention some time in my late teens that that belief wasn’t there anymore though it had been when I was a kid and was occasionally sent to church.

Faded thanks to god never showing any signs of himself or herself or itself. But then, thinking on it more, I found there are positive reasons to think it’s a crappy idea. Most varieties of theism posit a hierarchical relation with a powerful king above and his servants below. That’s not believable because nothing in nature looks like that except some particular societies - the ones that have kings. And, I’m an anarchist.

Any other sort of more philosophical theism seems like people are trying to sum a lot of things up in an already highly loaded word. The word’s “taken” though, in the sense it would take too much effort for too long to rehabilitate it, so these quasi-theists need another word. I’m all for rehabilitating language to suit our more life-affirming values better though.

I’m not a supernaturalist because it’s not believable because nothing in nature looks like that except some events of the imagination. But I don’t see any reason to view the imagination or consciousness or meaning as other than epiphenomena of matter or, less reductively, of the body and environment. That doesn’t strip anything of its meaning and value. Nothing needs to be immaterial or eternal or “incorruptible” to be meaningful; it’s not what things are made from or created by that determines the value.

I’m all for a naturalist, nontheistic, science-informed religion that reveres the earth’s biosphere over all else. (Varieties of this exist). I think religious devoutness would serve everyone well if they weren’t distracted with ancient books and distant otherworlds, and focused their wish for the ultimately real and meaningful on what’s actually ultimately real and meaningful.

 

[James Brown]

I don't want to see organized religions destroyed; I want to see them outgrown.

And Yes, I was a Christian before I became an atheist.

A surgeon once called upon a poor cripple and kindly offered to render him any assistance in his power. The surgeon began to discourse very learnedly upon the nature and origin of disease; of the curative properties of certain medicines; of the advantages of exercise, air and light, and of the various ways in which health and strength could be restored. These remarks ware so full of good sense, and discovered so much profound thought and accurate knowledge, that the cripple, becoming thoroughly alarmed, cried out, 'Do not, I pray you, take away my crutches. They are my only support, and without them I should be miserable indeed!' 'I am not going,' said the surgeon, 'to take away your crutches. I am going to cure you, and then you will throw the crutches away yourself.'

--Robert Ingersoll

 

[Sarpedon]

Raised christian, episcopalian.

Started doubting when I was teaching sunday school, decided to read and study bible to calm my doubts. Read bible, realized I didn't believe it.

 

[bilby]

How many atheists here were once Christian?

If you answered yes,

Um... "yes" would not be a correct answer to the question you asked.
Your question asks for numbers, and 'yes' is not a number.

It is 44,596 in base 36.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Raised Jewishly, but not raised Jewish.

So, you were Jewish in a traditional sense without the religion completely? Did you celebrate Christmas and Easter?

We celebrated Hanukkah and Passover. I didn't have to study The Torah or do a bar mitzvah, thank goodness.

 

[Unbeatable]

I never identified as Christian. I was taken to church a few times and attended CCD for a little while, and my mother taught my brother and I some vague non-denominational prayer, but that was like make believe for me. I remember being creeped out when I heard my brother praying without our mother being in the room, as if there actually was somebody out there listening to him. In retrospect, that may have been an early indication of his mental illness. I don't recall anything at all about CCD or scripture. I definitely never took the whole Jesus myth seriously, if I was even aware of it. My idea of God as a child was based more on popular media than any sort of indoctrination.

"Destroyed" is an aggressive term. I'd like to see religion cease to exist, but I don't think aggression is a feasible means to that end. Religion is like a crutch. It fills needs. I would like to see those needs filled in other ways, and in the long run, I'd like to see genetic engineering and related technologies eliminate the needs themselves.

 

[bilby]

Um... "yes" would not be a correct answer to the question you asked.
Your question asks for numbers, and 'yes' is not a number.

Really? You do realize that I'm not the only one who sees your responses, aren't you?

i don't believe you are that difficult, but nevertheless, for clarification.

How many were Christian, and of those answering yes, I was a Christian, would you like to see religion destroyed. The same question is applied to those answering no. No matter how many.

That clarifies nothing.

You are still anticipating someone will answer 'yes' to a question that starts 'how many...', which is not a sensible thing to expect (unless you previously specified a number base of 25 or greater).

That you cannot manage to be clear and precise on the second attempt does not fill me with confidence that you have the pathway to truth through careful study of the Bible that you claim.

Or indeed that you have sufficient clarity of thought to find truth, or recognise it if it bit you on the arse.

I think what you are struggling to ask is "How many of you were Christian, and of those who were, how many would like to see religion destroyed?"; or perhaps you meant "Were you ever a Christian? If you answered 'yes', would you like to see religion destroyed?".

But I am only guessing, because you are not making yourself clear at all.

 

[bilby]

I have never believed in any religion. The more I have studied religions, the more surprising I find it that any adult is dumb enough to do so.

I would like to see people wise up to the fact that religions are all confidence tricks, intended to gain money and/or power for the perpetrators. Whether that counts as 'destroyed' is another matter. I think 'destroyed' is a loaded word that has no place in the discussion at all.

Belief is for children. Adults should rely on evidence, and have the intestinal fortitude to say 'I do not know, yet', when evidence is lacking, rather than making shit up.

 

[Ford]

Raised in a non-religious household.

Don't want to "see religion destroyed" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean).


It would be nice if religious people would simply leave us non-religious types alone instead of constantly trying to convince us of the error of our ways. Knocking on our door on a Saturday morning to try and hand out a pamphlet. Stopping us on the street and asking us if we'd like to hear a message about Jesus. Showing up in our internet communities, arrogantly spewing a bunch of bullshit and getting butt hurt when you're not welcomed with open arms, etc.


Seriously...what the fuck is it with you people, anyway? Can't you just accept the fact that not everyone shares your "faith" and doesn't want to argue with you about the Bible every single conversation?


I ran into a couple of Mormon missionaries once. They were on bikes when I was out walking. Politely said hello and asked if I had time to talk to them. I said "no thanks," they said "okay, have a nice day" and that was it. End of conversation. Normally I don't care for proselytizers (see above) but if you absolutely feel you must, be like those guys. Politely ask, and if the answer is no, say thanks and pedal your ass away.


Pedal your ass away.

 

[Kharakov]

That clarifies nothing.

Someone asks a group of kids "How many of you like ice cream?" and expects some sort of response from those who like ice cream. They don't expect one member of the group to say "well, by my calculations, exactly 7.395614 of us enjoy ice cream" unless they are addressing a groups of special children.

In fact, exactly 11.723 members understood the question as it was put, although the (1 + 3.891111i) members that did not will all get cookies and milk anyway.

I think I need to use "a groups" more often.

 

[bilby]

That clarifies nothing.

Someone asks a group of kids "How many of you like ice cream?" and expects some sort of response from those who like ice cream. They don't expect one member of the group to say "well, by my calculations, exactly 7.395614 of us enjoy ice cream" unless they are addressing a groups of special children.

In fact, exactly 11.723 members understood the question as it was put, although the (1 + 3.891111i) members that did not will all get cookies and milk anyway.

I think I need to use "a groups" more often.

Well if the question was pitched at children, the follow up to "How many of you...", would be "If you answered 'me', then would you...".

But the question was pitched at sceptics. So an intelligent questioner should have anticipated pedantry in the response; and would certainly have avoided repeating his question without addressing the identified lack of clarity in what he called a clarification.

 

[Kharakov]

Someone asks a group of kids "How many of you like ice cream?" and expects some sort of response from those who like ice cream. They don't expect one member of the group to say "well, by my calculations, exactly 7.395614 of us enjoy ice cream" unless they are addressing a groups of special children.

In fact, exactly 11.723 members understood the question as it was put, although the (1 + 3.891111i) members that did not will all get cookies and milk anyway.

I think I need to use "a groups" more often.

Well if the question was pitched at children, the follow up to "How many of you...", would be "If you answered 'me', then would you...".

But the question was pitched at sceptics. So an intelligent questioner should have anticipated pedantry in the response; and would certainly have avoided repeating his question without addressing the identified lack of clarity in what he called a clarification.

What are sceptics?

 

[bilby]

Well if the question was pitched at children, the follow up to "How many of you...", would be "If you answered 'me', then would you...".

But the question was pitched at sceptics. So an intelligent questioner should have anticipated pedantry in the response; and would certainly have avoided repeating his question without addressing the identified lack of clarity in what he called a clarification.

What are sceptics?

Same as skeptics, only spelled correctly.

Of course, if Americans were consistent in their revisionism, they would spell the word with two 'k's and no 'c's. No wonder the other 95% of the world thinks you are all nuts.

 

[Kharakov]

What are sceptics?

Same as skeptics, only spelled correctly.

Of course, if Americans were consistent in their revisionism, they would spell the word with two 'k's and no 'c's. No wonder the other 95% of the world thinks you are all nuts.

I like Ks.

You should move to Australia, where skeptical societies promote the proper spelling (with a K... which is cooler).

How many of you spell skeptic with a c?

 

[bilby]

Same as skeptics, only spelled correctly.

Of course, if Americans were consistent in their revisionism, they would spell the word with two 'k's and no 'c's. No wonder the other 95% of the world thinks you are all nuts.

I like Ks.

You should move to Australia, where skeptical societies promote the proper spelling (with a K... which is cooler).

How many of you spell skeptic with a c?

I am skeptikal of your reasons for asking. Or should that be sqeptikal?

 

[abaddon]

How many of you spell skeptic with a c?

Five do. I'll intuit the names for you later.

There’s no group here in this disembodied space. The illusion’s incomplete. We interact a bit so it feels kind of “groupish” but anyone "hearing" the OP’s question hears it as a lone individual. To make the kids/ice cream analogy work, you’d have to imagine a person asking one lone kid after another “How many of you like ice cream?” And that rather highlights the clumsiness of the question.

Even if someone intended to survey a million people, he wouldn’t ask “How many of you million people…?” He’d just ask “Do you…?”

And “sceptic” is a Britishism, not a revisionism as bilby claimed. Though not so annoying a Britishism as “whilst”.

 

[DLH]

Raised in a non-religious household.

Don't want to "see religion destroyed" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean).

It means to see religion destroyed, sorry if its confusing.

It would be nice if religious people would simply leave us non-religious types alone instead of constantly trying to convince us of the error of our ways. Knocking on our door on a Saturday morning to try and hand out a pamphlet. Stopping us on the street and asking us if we'd like to hear a message about Jesus. Showing up in our internet communities, arrogantly spewing a bunch of bullshit and getting butt hurt when you're not welcomed with open arms, etc.

<edited>

Seriously...what the fuck is it with you people, anyway? Can't you just accept the fact that not everyone shares your "faith" and doesn't want to argue with you about the Bible every single conversation?

These are religion forums. You are the one here mocking the Bible which you are grossly ignorant of.

I ran into a couple of Mormon missionaries once. They were on bikes when I was out walking. Politely said hello and asked if I had time to talk to them. I said "no thanks," they said "okay, have a nice day" and that was it. End of conversation. Normally I don't care for proselytizers (see above) but if you absolutely feel you must, be like those guys. Politely ask, and if the answer is no, say thanks and pedal your ass away.

Pedal your ass away.

You could always pedal your own ass away. What you really want is everyone to think like you. You are politically and socially frustrated in a "Christian" nation. There are two factors you can't avoid and it burns your ass. #1. If the game is politics you lost fair and square to the idiot fundamentalist right wing conservatives, or whatever. Fair and square. #2. If there is any Biblical support for your not having to have done so, which there is, you are too willfully ignorant to discover it and so all you can do is gnash your teeth and lick your wounds.

Have a nice day.

 

[Ford]

It means to see religion destroyed, sorry if its confusing.

It is a poor question.

<edited>

Reported to the mods.

These are religion forums. You are the one here mocking the Bible which you are grossly ignorant of.

This forum is called "Talk Freethought," not "Bible Study Discussion" or "Let's Talk Faith" It is (and in previous incarnations always was) a community of freethinkers, nonbelievers, and skeptics of religion. Perhaps you've noticed the "Life Without Religion" section? Or the "Science" forums, or perhaps "Freethought Humor?"

As far as the Bible, fuck it. Fuck it and the iron chariot it rode in on. I can say that here because while there are rules against proselytizing and personal attacks (both of which you've broken in my opinion) there are no rules against insulting or mocking a religious text. So when I say fuck the Bible, I'm well within my rights as a member of the forum.

What you really want is everyone to think like you.

No, what I really want is for everyone to think for themselves, something not encouraged in religion generally, and in the Christian faith in particular. Secondly, I want religious people to stop marching into this place, pretending to be smarter than everyone, and getting pissy when their rude behavior is not rewarded with fawning accolades. If it were a couple Mormons who were polite and gracious, it wouldn't be a problem. You are not very polite. Not at all gracious. And for me personally, not welcome here.

Have a nice day.

The sentiment is not returned.

 

[Kharakov]

I like Ks.

You should move to Australia, where skeptical societies promote the proper spelling (with a K... which is cooler).

How many of you spell skeptic with a c?

I am skeptikal of your reasons for asking. Or should that be sqeptikal?

You are correct (in the thought I presume you had), but I did not see it until I clicked post.

 

[Smoker]

I was a Christian once, as you already know DLH, and I actually wouldn't mind seeing most religions destroyed. Not all of them, there are plenty that are peaceful and seem to actually do some good, but certainly those that teach little kids that they will be tortured with fire for eternity if they don't do what they are told, and the kinds that inspire people to form hideously evil groups like ISIS. In my opinion David, even this person belief you seem to have created by yourself seems to be unhealthy for you.