Like many children, I thought church was extraordinarily boring. Unlike many children, I was compelled to be at church several times a week. That being the case, I couldn’t help absorbing the dogma that was reiterated ad nauseum in both church and home. I was not raised in a complete bubble, but it was about as close as it could get short of being home-schooled. As an adult – even as a Salvation Army officer – I resolved never to let my life, or the lives of my children, become completely absorbed in evangelical Christian and – especially – Salvation Army bubbles. In hindsight, I think that resolution probably sealed my fate.
I was about 12 when I first learned that there were people who didn’t believe in god. Until then, I had no idea that no-god-belief was even an option. As far as I knew, everyone believed in god, and everyone I knew personally believed in god, or said they did. The medium through which I learned about atheism and agnosticism was a TV show called All in the Family and the first “out” nonbeliever I encountered, via the boob tube, was Mike Stivic, Archie Bunker’s agnostic son-in-law. All I figured out at that time was that agnostics professed not to know whether god existed, and atheists did not believe in god. I didn’t know of any way to find out more about nonbelief, so I just tucked those little bits of information into some corner of my mind. I didn’t love god. I didn’t want to “do god’s will.” And I certainly didn’t want to go to church as often as I did, but I wasn’t in a position to change that circumstance anytime soon. So, I got on with my life as best I could.
I was about 14 when we studied Greek mythology in 9th grade English class. I was greatly amused by those randy gods who couldn’t resist having sex with all those beautiful mortal women. One day, I had a weird thought: What’s the difference between those gods and dolls, and god and Mary? Wow! Stunning idea! An idea I quickly dismissed by rationalizing that god didn’t actually have sex with Mary, so it wasn’t the same thing at all.
So I went on living my life. 
But…that Virgin Birth thing never really sat well with me; I had a feeling there was more to that story than I was being told. I believed in god, Jesus, the whole evangelical schtick as far as I knew it, but I still didn’t love god or Jesus, and I still didn’t want to “do god’s will.” I just labeled myself a rebel and got on with my life.
I was in my mid-teens when I “got my heart right with god,” and, after graduating from high school, I attended a Christian college. Needless to say, the indoctrination process there was thorough, and I graduated completely convinced that Christianity was the True Religion, and evangelicalism was the right way to do it.
Fast forward to my mid-thirties. I’m the oldest person in my graduate school History of Education class. I’m also the only former minister. One day, as we’re examining Martin Luther’s writings on education, a student asks: What’s he talking about when he keeps saying that the devil is tempting him? I wait for the prof to field the question, then jump in when he shrugs his shoulders. I explain that all indications were that Luther believed that Satan was a real being – a spirit being, but a real entity nonetheless – who worked evil in the world and in people’s lives. She looks astonished that any adult would believe such a thing. The prof looks abashed, but doesn’t say anything. I just shrug my shoulders and think, “Yeah, it does sound pretty silly, doesn’t it.” That was the day I stopped believing in Satan.
There were other signposts along my de-conversion trail – points at which I stopped, caught my breath, and wondered whether the path I was following led anywhere at all. I’ve written about some of them before but there’s more to tell. In good cliffhanger fashion, I’ll save those stories for another day.
– the chaplain
Astasia
January 21, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Do you think there are those who are deeply involved in religion who also experience these signposts? And if so, what do they do with them? Ignore them? Dismiss them? Rationalize them? Or do even the “truly convinced” have doubts?
Cyc
January 22, 2011 at 12:18 am
I would be very surprised ( as well as a bit more disappointed in my species’ mental capabilities) if such signposts were not present. In fact I believe that is very much the reason why they react so violently (that gives me an idea for a post…). As they see others who have the same exact signposts but deal with them and are ok while they are far too terrified or indoctrinated to push further. So they just do whatever they can to make them go away, be it rationalizations or simple avoidance. From those I’ve known, they spend quite a bit of time on this actually.
the chaplain
January 22, 2011 at 9:32 am
Astasia & Cyc:
I think nearly all believers spot these signposts, and others, throughout their lives. My guess is that many do what I did – ignore or dismiss them.
It’s often easy to dismiss them because the church has had two millennia to develop canned responses to explain (i.e., rationalize) them. One example: when I was in a teen Bible study course, I was taught that similarities between the Jesus story (which was true, of course) and other religious myths existed because those other stories “pre-figured” the coming of Jesus. Jesus was the fulfillment of the things that god had only vaguely revealed to those other poor sods to prepare the world for Jesus’ arrival.
(Aside: if you object that it’s odd for a perfect god to have revealed something vaguely (i.e., imperfectly), the reason for such “partial” (not imperfect, just incomplete) revelations is that people weren’t ready to deal with the entire concept yet. That’s also the rationale for “progressive revelation,” which supposedly explains why the characters of the OT and NT gods are so dissimilar: the OT god is an outright bastard; the NT one is a kinder, gentler bastard.)
The keys to making rationalizations like these work are:
a) the assumption that only one god – the Bible god – exists. All the competition (other gods) must be eliminated right from the starting gate. And
b) the assumption that the Christian Bible is the one holy book that gets it right. Again, all the competition must be eliminated right from the gate.
The primary task of the entire Christian apologetics industry is to support these two assumptions. If one questions these two assumptions (as John Loftus’ Outsider Test compels one to do) then the entire dogmatic edifice crumbles.
As Cyc noted, quite a few Christians spend quite a lot of time rationalizing their faith in order to dismiss such signposts as “Satan’s snares.”
Frank DN
January 22, 2011 at 8:22 am
My turning point came not because of a realization of the foolishness of some doctrine or story but because of the stroke I had. It was like my faith switch had been flipped to off. Everything about who I was at the time changed radically. I was determined to find out why and started studying the bible looking for some understanding. That was when I discovered how little sense everything I believed actually made. I still have moments when I wonder how in the world I accepted such obvious bullshit as the truth. I had been exposed at an early age but never remotely as indoctrinated as you so I have a hard time comprehending why I wasted 17 years of my life on this nonsense.
the chaplain
January 22, 2011 at 9:43 am
You and me, both, brother. It took me far too long to figure out what should have been obvious to me decades ago.
PhillyChief
January 22, 2011 at 10:22 am
I think you’re proving the case that believers must shut themselves away from the outside world as much as possible or else Satan will poison their minds with television, books, and (gasp) the internet. That then justifies imposing censorship and criminalizing certain behaviors in order to protect people from Satan. It’s for everyone’s good, after all.
the chaplain
January 22, 2011 at 11:20 am
You’re describing what I call the 3 Is of Fundogelicalism: Isolate, Inoculate & Infiltrate. Here’s a thumbnail sketch of how they work:
1. Isolate – Do everything possible to isolate the sheep from the outside world: social activities for every demographic group at church, Christian schools and colleges, homeschooling, sports teams and leagues, summer camps – do everything possible to meet all social, educational and spiritual needs within the fellowship so that fundogelicals don’t have to look to the outside world for anything.
2. Inoculate = indoctrination + apologetics. Think of Indoctrination as the “offensive” play – fill minds with dogma. Apologetics, then, is the “defensive” play – fill minds with canned responses to challenges, signposts like those I wrote about and so on.
3. Infiltrate – this is the political tactic that you described: impose censorship in the larger society via textbooks, elected offices, etc., and criminalize all behavior that does not fit the fundogelical norm.
Astasia
January 23, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Have you done a post on this before? If not, you should. (And trademark it, too. It’s a brilliant summary.)
Ubi Dubium
January 27, 2011 at 10:17 am
Oh, that’s a great description. I have a file where I copy and paste good stuff I find and want to remember, and I just put that one in.
the chaplain
January 27, 2011 at 11:44 am
Ubi D:
Per Astasia’s suggestion, I’ve expanded this idea in a post.
Sarge
January 22, 2011 at 11:20 am
I think that there are compartments in some people’s lives that are, well, ‘the truth’, and then there is ‘The Truth’. ‘The Truth’ is a beautiful but very fragile thing, quite often. Handling it or even closely examining it will cause pieces to flake off, or even cause it to shatter. So, they keep it on a shelf, accept it, and don’t examine it with any kind of context other than that ordered by society at large. ‘the truth’ is a work-a-day thing, quite utile and it’s surface is sometimes elastic although the core is most of the time quite a static thing.
My atheist cuz’s wife is now preaching UU, and my own wife has admitted some changes to her philosophy. They still believe in a deity, but they don’t like it as much as once they did.
Ol’ Marty, he was a caution. What he thought should happen to Jews and the Bundschuhe folks, hey, there’s religion, even to this day. Just read the words to “A Mighty Fortress” and you get a pretty good jist of his thoughts.
My father finished up WWII in Eisenach (Germany’s partitioning was not yet in effect) and he and others went to the castle where Luther was given refuge. They were shown a big splotch of ink on one wall where Satan was supposed to have actually appeared to Luther while he was writing, and Luther chunked his inkpot at him. They were shown another wall where there was a huge yellow splotch. Here, Luther and the devil were said to have had another encounter, Luther so upst the devil that he farted this sulphurous cloud that stained the wall which remained.
My father said they were invited to sniff the wall to check it out. They all declined.
the chaplain
January 22, 2011 at 11:26 am
When one reads about Martin Luther’s life and superstitions and examines his writings, one can only marvel at how superstitious his society had to have been to have taken him seriously and allowed him to impact the world as he did.
PhillyChief
January 22, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Any more superstitious than the society which accepted the tale of gold tablets from an angel named Moroni given to a known con artist or the society that accepted the idea of Xenu and spaceships that looked like 747s from a sci-fi writer? Granted, the entire society didn’t accept this shit, but enough did and continue to today in our oh-so-modern and enlightened tech age.
I love the Satan’s fart stain tale! Magnificent! LOL!
the chaplain
January 22, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Depressing, isn’t it?
Sarge
January 22, 2011 at 7:15 pm
I have been told by a history professor that in that day, a very quick way to some punishment was to NOT believe in witches, devils, demons, etc. New “Lutheran or Catholic, you better believe it.
I know a young lady from a fundy family who is experiencing growing pains and her family fears for her.
She was sent to Moody Bible College (she once told me it wasn’t called “moody” for nothing) but was having trouble absorbing the more ridiculous things.
They sent her to Bobby Jones for a year and that just made things worse, it’s causing no end of family problems. Apparently she started one of her siblings thinking as well, and asking unseemly questions.
She’s thinking of joining the military, and they don’t know whether to be horrified or glad she’ll be not contaminating the rest of the family.
the chaplain
January 27, 2011 at 8:47 am
Poor gal. Moody and Bobby Jones are both quite a bit farther right than my alma mater.
philosopoet
January 23, 2011 at 11:59 pm
…this Christian God, is just so absent in times of trouble…as to be unbelievable…and as absent in times of trouble as God is, in times of fortune, well it must have been the lord…
How they built a God concept around this boggles the mind…
Sarge
January 25, 2011 at 11:50 am
Use fear, take away any security, and like any other abusive relationship, you have it.
It isn’t the deity that’s wanting, it’s you. You’re not good enough, not faithful enough, have sinned, blah-blah-blah, and anyway, so they say when there is a question about the attentiveness of this deity to the prayers tendered to it, and some problem is found, this slogan:
“God Doesn’t Work That Way”. or some riff on that.
And you are supposed to shut your mouth, nod your head, and think of it no more.
Goldarn
January 24, 2011 at 1:52 am
That’s what failed me in the Mormon church. When they talked and preached and taught me about how Truth was Most Important Thing (“Oh Say What is Truth? Tis the fairest gem that the riches of worlds can produce” says one of the hymns). When the leaders began making more and more excuses to cover up the lack of truth, and how they rejected truth if it wasn’t useful to them, it made me feel less and less comfortable going to church. Now I don’t go. And, most likely even more important to them, I don’t pay tithing (and I payed good sum over the years).
the chaplain
January 27, 2011 at 8:51 am
That’s the real sin right there. They probably don’t give a damn what you believe, as long as you play the game by saying and doing the approved things, especially keeping the money flowing into their bank accounts.
Sarge
January 25, 2011 at 9:01 am
I never experienced the “signposts”, but my observations of the more devout in a religion, mainly christian, is very complex. Cross currents on a lot of different levels. I think that there is a level of maturity involved as well… a certain lack of it.
From the outside it just looks like kids games gone out of control, with rules made up to suit the moment. But we’ve all seen people up close who are caught in it.
So, you see the signs, what do you do? Say, hmmmm, maybe I better think for just a couple minutes, this looks like I may have been wasting time and resources on all this folderol?
Or, since there is at least a cultural reason for going along with the gag, just ignore it?
Or if you are, indeed, “faithful”, see this as something “Of The Devil” set to snare you, or a “test” set up by your deity to check out your faith quotient and worthiness. And making sure that the Age of Enlightenment has its rheostat turned down by any means at hand.
At any rate, the (alleged) stakes are high, so “follow”, “Trust and (most importantly) Obey”. Learn to embrace cognitive dissonance.
My young friend dropped by last night for a chat, she mentioned that she just couldn’t fool herself any longer, was leaving her church. Her parents were very upset, she’d told them that day, and there were literal tantrums from her folks.
She was kind of vexed, though, because they did ask a valid question, I think.
They asked her words to the effect that if there was no god, and there was no savior, and she had no faith, then what and who was she? If there wasn’t any faith then she and everyone else should be running insane in the streets. But she repeated that part, what and who am I if I have no faith? Externally supplied identity, I guess.
My wife came up with a good one: she said faith, gods, or not, the girl wasn’t twenty yet, how should she or anyone else know yet? Shoot for what you want, and realise that there isn’t any net, there never was, just live your life as well as you can, treat people well. Just like she was already doing.
I keep seeing the part from The Twilight Zone with a few modifications: “That’s the signpost up ahead…! Quick! Go the other way! It’s the Reality Zone”!
philosopoet
January 25, 2011 at 10:03 am
….it is doubt that propels all progress…
I feel for this young lady – social, familial and religious tethers can impede the ship of curious explorations from ever leaving the shores of ignorance…
I am certain though that this young lady still dose have faith, perhaps not in the god of her family, but in hope, kindness, and the warmth of friendly relationships…
the chaplain
January 27, 2011 at 9:07 am
Sarge & Poet:
Sarge’s wife hit on an important idea – this gal’s identity is developing, and not just because she’s young. Middle-aged and older folks’ identities keep evolving too, as life experiences and new information compel them to reconsider who they are, what they believe, and what and whom they value. Identity is never static. Fundogelicals don’t grasp this.
For them, identity is primarily faith-dependent; the most important facet of one’s identity is whether one is faithful or faithless. It’s more important than gender, ethnicity, nationality, socioeconomic class…anything. Take away faith, and they’re left with no idea how to build lives and identities.
grasshopper
January 25, 2011 at 10:42 am
My first real signpost was a mission trip to Africa. Africa alone should be enough to convince anyone there is no god.
the chaplain
January 27, 2011 at 9:10 am
You’d think so, wouldn’t you?
MrPopularSentiment
January 28, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Until then, I had no idea that no-god-belief was even an option.
This was my final “signpost.” I struggled for a really long time trying to find a way to reconcile what I could see to be obviously true with my knowledge that God existed. I had to keep redefining God and, frankly, it was a really bad time for me, but I had to find a way to make it work because it just never occured to me that no-god-belief was an option.
Then I stumbled on an atheist website and it just hit. It was a “Oh, that explains it” moment and everything fell into place.
the chaplain
January 28, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Man, I know that feeling well. Thanks for sharing a bit of your story.
Momma
February 1, 2011 at 7:32 pm
You don’t make a very compelling case for atheism. Norman Leer does a silly TV show where he needs to create a dim, racist buffon as a foil to mock traditional values and any politics to the right of George McGovern. You take that TV show as “divine” revelation. Then, you study Greek mythology in school, and try to draw parallels between myth and the bible. When an unbelieving classmate expresses astonishment that anyone would believe that Satan is real, you then jump on the There’s No Satan bandwagon. Seems to me you have always been easily led, and as such, never really sought God in the first place. You merely accepted what was foisted on you, until you heard a new gospel you found more palatable.
I would think that one who rejects God could do so without having to turn the name of God into a common noun, rather than the proper noun we all know you’re writing about. Putting God’s name in lower case is like refusing to call your own parents Mom and Dad, as if by trying to call them by their first name, you’ll be their equal.
For one who so cynically lays out Christianity as a 3-tiered strategy of “isolate, innoculate, and infiltrate,” what have outspoken, practicing atheists such as yourself done? Don’t you isolate yourself (either through physical avoidance or emotionally distancing yourself) from people who genuinely believe in the authority and reality of God? Don’t you innoculate your atheistic world view by repeatedly writing what you believe, blogging about it, talking about it with like-minded atheists, forming your anti-religion organizations, and even taking out billboards and bus banners proclaiming that God doesn’t exist? Don’t you infiltrate the culture, by demanding that public displays of the 10 Commandments be removed, or that nativity scenes must be displayed only if you can post signs that ridicule belief in God, or that children should be prohibited from having bible clubs in public schools? What is it if not insecurity when, in a nation where >70% of all Americans self-identify as Christians, activist atheists demand that Christmas and Easter be made into secular observations?
I am sorry that your childhood exposure led you to feel forced into a belief system, or that you may have found hypocrisy among people who claim to love God (remember, Christians don’t claim to be perfect, they claim to be sinners who are in need of a Savior). However, it doesn’t seem that you’ve found enlightenment. All you offer are the bitter writings of someone who seems discontent in his disbelief, and wants to make sure others are nodding in agreement with that disbelief. What is the formal joining together of atheists if not a religious movement? The dogmas of atheism: there is no God, everything came from nothing, life evolved randomly over billions of years (slime + time = people), there is no consequence to our actions beyond the worldly possibilities of criminal or social penalties, and rejection of the unseen world unless a scientist tells you what it is that you’re not seeing is actually there. The practice of atheism: making sure you express your disapproval whenever others acknowledge God, making sure you never show the slightest sign of respect toward others’ worship (lest your silence be misinterpreted as a submission to God rather than just a polite response to others’ prayers), making sure that you let everyone know you think believers of God are somewhere between misled to moronic.
Some of the smartest people I know didn’t become Christians until well into their adult years…they didn’t get there because their parents “churched them up,” they got there because they read the bible, they challenged themselves, and they found the truth of God’s word to be far more believable than the macro-evolutionary claims of Darwinists, and the fruits of sincere believers to be far sweeter than the fruits of those who think they live in a world where they are their own god. So, you have free will to reject God. If you could have a lack of belief that required no outward expression, I might believe you actually didn’t believe in God. But the need of atheists to shout their faith in nothing from the mountaintops is not a compelling expression of faithlessness, it’s more like a cry for help.
the chaplain
February 1, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Oh, yeah! Preach it, sister! Tell me some more about the love of Jesus that’s dripping out of your comment!
Spanish Inquisitor
February 2, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Love of Jesus? Stupidity is more like it. And arrogance. Extreme arrogance. Boy that Momma really had you pegged, she must know you personally. She knows all about how shallow you are, and how dim-witted you are, that you would so easily jump, willy-nilly, on the “There’s No Satan” bandwagon without thinking about it. /sarcasm. Of course there’s a Satan, and her name is Momma.
Some of the smartest people I know didn’t become
Christiansatheists until well into their adult years…they didn’t get there because their parents “churched themupdown,” they got there because they read the bible, they challenged themselves, and they found thetruthsheer lunacy of God’s word to be far morebelievableexplanatory than themacro-evolutionary claims of Darwinistsdelusional rambling of Creationists, and the fruits of sincerebelieversfreethinkers to be far sweeter than the fruits of those who think they live in a world wherethey are their ownthere is a god.the chaplain
February 2, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Yeah, she had me so worried that I had to check her IP to make sure she wasn’t really my Mama!
John Evo
February 2, 2011 at 12:58 am
“to be far more believable than the macro-evolutionary claims of Darwinists”
First of all, evolution has nothing to do with disproving the existence of god although, I’ll grant you, it sure does put a dent into any claim about YOUR god being accurately revealed in the “perfect word” of your scriptures.
But I want to focus on this silly notion that some of you are forced to cling to. So at least you’re bright enough to accept that evolution occurs, though your last refuge against it is that “it only occurs on the MICRO level”. How incredibly disingenuous of you! I guess you have a hard time wrapping your head around deep time.
Listen, it’s really simple. If you accept that evolution happens in tiny degrees that don’t do a whole lot to change the nature of a creature and you think that you can even see some real life evidence of this in YOUR lifetime, so that it can not be denied – then all you have to do is think:
“Huh… I wonder then how much change would happen to that organism over 10,000 years? How about over 100,000? I guess it would be quite a bit more. The creature might look substantially different with all those little changes over that much time! So, how much more would be the morphological changes in a period 10x that long?! A million years! Wow! Must REALLY change! But…. hmm, a MILLION years sounds like a whole LOT to me, but it’s only a drop in the bucket of deep time. How many little micro-evolutionary changes might that creature experience over TEN million years? A HUNDRED million years? TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION YEARS!”
Yeah… your mind is starting to wrap around it now, isn’t it? If an organism that could show even minute “micro-evolutionary” change in your lifetime, then that creature is going to be a completely different animal (or plant) a million years later – and that’s just a short time.
MrPopularSentiment
February 2, 2011 at 6:44 am
The example I like to give is the number of dog breeds that have emerged just in the last two hundred years.
Or the fact that a chihuahua and a great dane share a common ancestor. I’ve yet to meet anyone who claims that Noah packed off each individual breed, and yet if we encountered chihuahuas and great danes in nature, we wouldn’t classify them in the same species category (since they cannot successfully interbreed).
There’s no such thing as macro-evolution. It’s the silliest concept I’ve ever heard! A sudden significant change would go much further to disprove evolution than prove it! It’s just micro-changes, stacked one on top of another, over a long period of time. As you say, very hard for a creature that can only expect to live ~70 years to wrap their heads around…
MrPopularSentiment
February 1, 2011 at 8:58 pm
You take that TV show as “divine” revelation.
Actually, he said that he didn’t know atheism was an option until that show – not because of anything on the show, but because it introduced the possibility that one *could* not believe in God (or gods). When accusing others of using strawmen, it’s best not to do it yourself.
Then, you study Greek mythology in school, and try to draw parallels between myth and the bible.
“Try”? Oh sweety, there is absolutely no difference between the myths of the Greeks and the myths of the Bible, except for the fact that the later are still believed today.
Seems to me you have always been easily led, and as such, never really sought God in the first place. You merely accepted what was foisted on you, until you heard a new gospel you found more palatable.
Or, to be more accurate, he learned as he grew (as do we all). His “signposts” were all of encountering a new idea and adding it to his store of information until he reached a tipping point – when the weight of information on one side outweighed the information on the other side. This is what normal, healthy, thinking humans do.
By the way, telling other people whether or not they “really” thought this or “really” sought that is rather silly. In the world of fallacies, we call it the “No True Scotsman.” You meet a person who deconverted, you haven’t deconverted, therefore you conclude that they could never have shared your beliefs in the first place. It’s silly. He just looked at the information and drew a different conclusion than you did. That absolutely does not mean that he never sought God, or didn’t believe hard enough, or wasn’t a true Christian.
How presumptuous of you to write otherwise…
For one who so cynically lays out Christianity as a 3-tiered strategy of “isolate, innoculate, and infiltrate,” what have outspoken, practicing atheists such as yourself done?
Most humans will choose to surround themselves with people who share their ideologies, and most humans will speak out about things that matter to them. That you have found examples of atheists who do this too is proof of nothing other than that atheists are human.
But you would be surprised by how different it is for the atheist. For one thing, prominent atheist bloggers tend not to delete comments from anyone who disagrees with them (something that can’t be said of many prominent Christian bloggers). Atheist parents tend to be very cautious not to “indoctrinate” their children, consciously or otherwise – many going so far as to keep their atheism hidden from their children or enrolling their children in religious schools or classes. This is, in fact, a hot topic within the atheist community – how can we raise our children without ever pushing them towards our own ideology? I have yet to see a Christian community extending so much consideration.
I don’t think you understand why atheists tend to dislike public displays of religion (that actually use public space/resources). It’s not because we want to “infiltrate the culture.” Far from it! It’s because we value the Constitution and the secular society it set up. When the government is seen to be promoting one religion over others (or over non-religion), we speak up. We would be just as vocal against government-sponsored atheism, by the way. We believe that the government shall make NO law respecting the establishment of religion, regardless of which side of the fence it’s on.
And please give me an example of atheists saying that children should be prohibited from having bible clubs in public schools. I’ve never heard of such a thing! In fact, I think that most atheists would be perfectly fine with a bible club, and even encourage it (I know I would)! The only catch is that it can’t be mandatory and it can’t receive public funds/resources above what would be given to any other club.
And by the way, secularism isn’t just for the atheist. Secularism is for everyone who isn’t in the dominant religious group. If there’s one thing history has taught us, it’s that a society in which religion is given political power tends not to be a particularly pluralistic or tolerant society. So we believe in secularism, we believe in respecting the rights of all people to believe, and practice their beliefs, as they wish. The secular society we promote (which is, once again, also supported constitutionally) is one that doesn’t just favour the atheist, but also the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, and the non-whatever-denomination Christian.
However, it doesn’t seem that you’ve found enlightenment.
Which you, without having met him, are capable of judging?
If I were to return the favour, I would say that you are trapped in a delusion, lashing out in anger (which is clear from your language, since you make so many false assumptions and accusations) because of the pain you are experiencing – the cognitive dissonance of believing in something and having it be a fundamental part of your self-identity while simultaneously knowing that it doesn’t fit with what you can actually observe to be true.
Don’t feel bad. I was in the same place once! It’s a horrible feeling – all that anger and pain – and it makes sense that you will try to externalize it by vilifying the atheists who just keep reminding you of what you are trying not to know. But if you just let go of God, you’ll find that there’s a much better (and more “enlightened”) existence out there for you.
What is the formal joining together of atheists if not a religious movement?
Community.
If you want to define “people with shared interests getting together” as a religious movement, it would logically follow that being a Bristol Rovers fan is actually being a Bristol Roverist.
The dogmas of atheism: there is no God, everything came from nothing, life evolved randomly over billions of years (slime + time = people), there is no consequence to our actions beyond the worldly possibilities of criminal or social penalties, and rejection of the unseen world unless a scientist tells you what it is that you’re not seeing is actually there.
I would love to have you come out to one of my local atheist organization’s meetings! If you step outside your bubble of Christian propaganda, it wouldn’t take you long to see just how far off the mark you are.
Atheists don’t believe in God (or gods). That much is true. Is it a dogma, though? It’s more like a definition. We don’t force potential group members to repeat a reverse Shahada or anything like that. Rather, if you don’t believe in gods, you are an atheist – that’s what not believing in gods is called.
But that’s really where our similarities end. In my local atheist organization, we do have some members who believe in spirits, some who believe that the universe is filled with “energy” that can bring good luck to you, some who believe in ghosts, the afterlife, and out-of-body experiences. Most of us do believe in evolution, but some of our members don’t (or aren’t sure). Some believe that everything came “from nothing,” but I would actually put them in the minority – most believe that the universe was always present in some form, or that the universe came from another universe which came from another etc. (all the way back to eternity). Others, such as myself, just say “I have no idea, but I’d love to find out some day” and leave it at that.
We joke that getting us all to agree on anything is like herding cats. While many of us are more scientifically-minded, many of us are not and there’s a whole lot of disagreement. If you ever came out to one of our meetings, the first thing you would find is how accepting we are of each other. We do argue and debate a lot (in fact, we hold special events just for this purpose!), and we’ll usually challenge people we disagree with, but we in no way have any kind of enforced doctrine or dogma. We’re atheists, and being an atheist just means that you don’t believe in gods.
The practice of atheism: making sure you express your disapproval whenever others acknowledge God, making sure you never show the slightest sign of respect toward others’ worship (lest your silence be misinterpreted as a submission to God rather than just a polite response to others’ prayers), making sure that you let everyone know you think believers of God are somewhere between misled to moronic.
Some, true. Some not. For example, the president of my local atheist group participated in an interfaith panel discussion last summer as part of Peace Week. She presented her views and listened to the various religious panelists present their views, and we all got along swimmingly.
When we find common ground, we’re perfectly willing to work with religious groups. In fact, my local atheist organization co-sponsored a book club with our local Unitarian Universalists congregation, and many of our members were regular attendees. If you look at the Foundation Beyond Belief, you will see that they include some religious organizations in their recipient list.
Don’t mistake disagreement for aggression.
Some of the smartest people I know didn’t become Christians until well into their adult years…they didn’t get there because their parents “churched them up,” they got there because they read the bible, they challenged themselves, and they found the truth of God’s word to be far more believable than…
And some of the smartest people I know became atheists in their adulthood (some as late as their forties and fifties). I also know life-long dog lovers suddenly realize that they prefer cats!
People convert and deconvert for many different reasons and at many different times in their lives. This is neither an argument for, nor against, any particular ideology. I would also hesitate, if I were you, to speculate as to what lead to people’s conversion/deconversion (as you seem fond of doing, both here and at the beginning of your post). Religion tends to be an incredibly emotional subject, so the reasons for belief or non-belief tend to be very personal.
the fruits of sincere believers to be far sweeter than the fruits of those who think they live in a world where they are their own god.
Aside from that glaring strawman (I’ve never actually met anyone who believed that they were their own god – and if I ever did, such a person would certainly not fit the definition of an atheist…), I don’t think that you’re in a position to know. Have you ever actually been an atheist? Personally, I have found my life far more fulfilling since my deconversion – although I do know many religious people who will say that their lives have seemed more fulfilling since they converted (or began to take religion seriously). Once again, this is really something that is intensely personal and individual, and you simply cannot make such broad generalizations.
If you could have a lack of belief that required no outward expression, I might believe you actually didn’t believe in God. But the need of atheists to shout their faith in nothing from the mountaintops is not a compelling expression of faithlessness, it’s more like a cry for help.
There are many reasons to be a vocal atheist. I do know some atheists who seem to be into it more out of rebellion and a desire to shock rather than any reason I would consider legitimate, but that applies only to a minority.
For my own part, I am a vocal atheist for two reasons: 1) Because I see religions causing a whole lot of harm – even in the first world, I see religious groups blocking civil rights and trying to deny freedoms that they enjoy (including religious freedoms!) to other groups. 2) Because no one thinks twice about the Christian who self-identifies as such, but an “out” atheist is considered rude and “in your face.” I frequently find myself in a position where I am asked what my religion is and, when I reply that I am an atheist, told that I am being rude (or treated as such). As long as honestly answering a question about my beliefs is considered offensive, I will be as open as I can be about my atheism. We, as a society, need to become desensitized to atheism. Atheists need to be just a normal, non-shocking part of our society. My goal is for an admission of my lack of belief to bore people. When that happens, I’ll be perfectly content to keep to myself.
Tom
February 1, 2011 at 11:32 pm
@MrPopularSentiment – All of what you said – perfect.
I hope ‘Momma’ reads this and really cogitates on it.
Roz
February 2, 2011 at 1:35 am
I enjoyed your deconversion story, Chappy. Momma’s response is a sophisticated version of the ‘you were never a true Christian’ fallacy.