Why I am not a believer

[Cerin]

The problem is that the name of the thread is "Why I am not a believer"

This is what intrigues me and strikes me as peculiar -- why predicate the thread on a negative, rather than offering a parallel to the other -- ex., 'The nature of your atheistic beliefs'. This makes the thing rejected the focus of the discussion.

I should think it would be preferable to atheists to be defined in terms of what they are and have embraced, rather than in terms of what they are not and have rejected. Unless the essence of atheism is in fact a negative focus, an actively on-going rejection of certain beliefs one has found repugnant?

Why should my sense of identity impinge on yours, or vice versa?

I think that's what I'm asking. Why should an atheist have to define herself in terms of what she doesn't believe? Can't atheists talk about what they believe without talking about what they do not believe? If the answer is 'no', then I'm inclined to agree with what I think Dave was saying, and that it isn't possible to have this discussion without disparaging other beliefs (and therefore without violating the HoF guidelines).

[Primula Baggins]

I disagree, Cerin. I think "why I am not a believer" is a separate question from "what I believe." There is no monolithic institution or single set of beliefs that all atheists and agnostics subscribe to. But in a society where many people believe and belief used to be the default, quite a few people who don't believe have come to that choice as adults and have reasons for it.

I don't see how an atheist saying "I don't (and/or can't) believe there is a God" is necessarily insulting to people who do believe there is one. That's not the same as "What you believe is bunk, you're deluded," which would be inappropriate here. Even if it's someone's actual opinion, it won't be expressed if people stick to discussing and describing their own beliefs.

[vison]

If I wasn't living in a society where it is, in fact, "expected" that everyone has some kind of religious belief, it wouldn't be something I'd ever think about.

But I do live in such a society.

Some people I know are actual religious persons, although many of them are not Christians.

What I generally hear is something like: "Oh, I'm not a churchgoer, but I believe in a Higher Power" or "I'm a spiritual person, I think there is Something out there", "it can't all be an accident!", "there must be some meaning to our lives!", etc., etc.

Since I started a thread about the nature of "your" deity, I thought it was only fair that I respond to the mildly expressed curiosity of someone-or-other about what I believe.

I don't believe, that's the short answer.

Which, I've been told (not here in particular), means I am "immoral", "amoral", "will accept/condone any old behavior if I have no idea of sin", etc., etc.

I am a moral person. Do I consistently and perfectly live up to my own ideas of what a moral person should be? Of course not, of course I fail at times. I am prone to anger, to fear, to hatred: those are human feelings and perhaps failings.

So that's about it for my own ideas. It is not "belief", it is what I think. It's not a matter of "faith" on my part that there is no god, it's just the way things are, the conclusion I have arrived at. The existence or non-existence of a god means absolutely nothing to me, personally. It does not affect my life in any way.

[JewelSong]

The existence or non-existence of a god means absolutely nothing to me, personally. It does not affect my life in any way.

I always think that this must be close to how a dolphin or an elephant deals with the Divine. They do not need any kind of religious trappings, or even to acknowledge a deity at all. They are not amoral or sinful or anything like that. They simply ARE.

And, in my very humble opinion, that makes them closer to the Divine than any human could hope to be.

[vison]

Hm. I'm trying to work that out to be a compliment . . . . .

And therefore, probably untrue.

[axordil]

As vison notes, the discussions are not perfectly symmetrical because our culture is not symmetrical on this question. Asking for a view of deity from a variety of believers may result in a variety of answers, each of which shows something about the respondent's relationship with the divine and perhaps how they got there. Asking the same question of atheists, not so much.

On the flip side, asking a believer why they believe could easily be seen as asking them to justify their belief, which may well be disallowed here, because it's rude. Asking a nonbeliever why they don't, on the other hand, provides the same insight vison's question of believers did: where they are, and how they got there.

And, of course, people did ask vison to share her thoughts.

[Lalaith]

And I appreciate the discussion here. I have not been offended by anything (though some things naturally make me sad, particularly when I hear about people turning away from God because of the actions of people). But, mostly, I have found the discussion interesting and insightful.

I am not one of those, btw, who thinks an atheist or agnostic is necessarily immoral or amoral. In fact, I find that to be a situation based on the individual; many so-called people of faith act immorally (habitually--I'm not talking about isolated incidents) and vice versa.

[nerdanel]

The problem is that the name of the thread is "Why I am not a believer"

This is what intrigues me and strikes me as peculiar -- why predicate the thread on a negative, rather than offering a parallel to the other -- ex., 'The nature of your atheistic beliefs'. This makes the thing rejected the focus of the discussion.

The default in our society is towards religious belief. This means that many, maybe most, agnostics and atheists were raised by religious parents. This also means that many of us had "faith" at some point in our lives. In a sense, then, many of us are "converts" to agnosticism or atheism. Even just to explain our personal spiritual (or non-spiritual) paths, then, requires explaining what we have rejected and why.

If you ask a room full of Jews who have converted to Christianity why they have done so, they will probably explain their childhood religious identities and what caused them to embrace a different faith. They will probably point to aspects of Judaism that didn't make sense to them, or that they feel are fully realized only through Christianity. On the other hand, a Christian-from-birth can explain her faith without reference to any other. That doesn't mean that these Christian converts define themselves in terms of what they are not and have rejected; it just means that what they have rejected is a part of their history that it would be appropriate to share in a discussion like this.

My hypothetical Christians can explain two things: (1) what they rejected; and (2) what they embraced. For some atheists and agnostics, there is a part 2 - in my post yesterday, I tried to explain why I embraced Jewish spirituality. For others, there is no part 2 - they have rejected a societal norm (and have an explanation for why), but there's nothing more to share.

I think that's what I'm asking. Why should an atheist have to define herself in terms of what she doesn't believe? Can't atheists talk about what they believe without talking about what they do not believe? If the answer is 'no', then I'm inclined to agree with what I think Dave was saying, and that it isn't possible to have this discussion without disparaging other beliefs (and therefore without violating the HoF guidelines).

In previous discussions about religion, you've elaborated on your Christian beliefs, and you have explained that you believe that non-Christians, in believing something different than Christianity, are in error. In stating that you believe non-Christian beliefs are in error, are you disparaging them? I think I essentially did the equivalent in my post yesterday (albeit in more detail), in listing certain fundamental Christian tenets and stating that I personally concluded that they were not true.

Obviously, non-Christians don't think Christian beliefs are literally true, or else we would be Christian. Vice versa is also true for Christians, as you've pointed out in the past. I don't think it violates the HoF guidelines, then, for us to respectfully but explicitly disagree. Some of us do think particular beliefs are factually untrue. Others of us think that non-adherents to our faith are in error. I don't think it violates the HoF guidelines (or automatically counts as disparagement) for us to state that.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

This is what intrigues me and strikes me as peculiar -- why predicate the thread on a negative, rather than offering a parallel to the other -- ex., 'The nature of your atheistic beliefs'. This makes the thing rejected the focus of the discussion.

I should think it would be preferable to atheists to be defined in terms of what they are and have embraced, rather than in terms of what they are not and have rejected. Unless the essence of atheism is in fact a negative focus, an actively on-going rejection of certain beliefs one has found repugnant?

The nature of being an atheist is already predicated on a negative. Many of our little vignettes show former "believers" who have turned away. vison makes an excellent point that she (and us in America) live in a culture where the default is assumed that you are a believer in something. I'm not particularly disappointed about that since there is no one set of atheistic beliefs (other than "no god"). Atheism doesn't have a defined set of terms anymore than likes and dislikes have a defined set compared to Ax's (for example) whereas, religiosity (christianity, judaism, shintoism) are all framed in a set of terms (god, jesus, chosen people, the sublime, etc. etc etc.).

[Cerin]

There is no monolithic institution or single set of beliefs that all atheists and agnostics subscribe to

That's exactly why I thought a thread parallel to the other would have made equal sense -- to understand what sorts of concepts atheists believe in, as opposed to hearing why they don't believe what they don't believe. It just struck me as odd. Who defines themselves in terms of what they are not? What would be the purpose of a thread titled, 'Why I don't like bananas'? It would just bring focus on the thing the person doesn't like. I don't see what would impel such a discussion, unless the enjoyment is in disparaging the banana, or unless one's dislike of the banana is so pervasive as to be defining.

I don't see how an atheist saying "I don't (and/or can't) believe there is a God" is necessarily insulting to people who do believe there is one.

That wouldn't be insulting. What is insulting is making disparaging comments about other people's beliefs. Suppose I said I viewed the Muslim prophet as obscene and lecherous, or as a brute and a bully. Would I be thanked for being respectful?

Even if it's someone's actual opinion, it won't be expressed if people stick to discussing and describing their own beliefs.

But this thread isn't about people describing their own beliefs (I think that would be great), it's about describing why they've rejected other people's beliefs. I don't see how a person can substantively discuss why they've rejected something for negative reasons, without making negative comments about the thing they've rejected. And when the thing is religious belief, I think we say that isn't done here.

The existence or non-existence of a god means absolutely nothing to me, personally

That's precisely why I'd prefer to hear about the things that do mean something to you. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but it struck me as odd, and it also struck me as odd to see it called respectful when disrespectful things are said about someone else's God. I mean, obviously if you view a particular deity as cruel (or whatever), that isn't a belief system you are going to subscribe to. But clearly the people who do subscribe to it don't see it that way or they wouldn't subscribe to it either, so I don't see the value of elucidating the negative concept. You don't believe it, and neither do I. We're then talking about something no one believes. Where's the point in that?

For others, there is no part 2 - they have rejected a societal norm (and have an explanation for why), but there's nothing more to share.

Thanks, nel. It does make sense if belief is accepted as the societal norm. And yet logically, it makes more sense that one would need a reason to believe in the unseen, than need a reason not to.

Some of us do think particular beliefs are factually untrue. Others of us think that non-adherents to our faith are in error. I don't think it violates the HoF guidelines (or automatically counts as disparagement) for us to state that.

I agree. I don't think disagreement counts as disparagement. I think disparagement counts as disparagement. And I think it is hard to avoid disparaging something when talking about why one disparages the thing one disparages.

In any case, this isn't a formal complaint. I just felt the need to voice my perception.

[axordil]

When I stopped believing, I know I didn't think of it as rejecting my parents' beliefs, or my church's beliefs, or anyone else's beliefs: I rejected mine. Their origin wasn't really relevant at that time, nor is it now. Moreover, I stopped because it just wasn't doing anything for me. Obviously it does things for others. I fail to see anything more negative there than an acknowledgment that one size doesn't fit all.

[Cerin]

I fail to see anything more negative there than an acknowledgment that one size doesn't fit all.

I'd agree there is nothing more negative there than that.

[Teremia]

For many people contributing to this thread (and for odd-balls like me, who could contribute cheerfully to BOTH threads, being both believer and unbeliever at once), the issue does not seem to be "rejection" at all, but rather an inability to believe. One just doesn't believe certain things. Or can't. Not a conscious choice, which is what "rejection" sounds like to me.

So I, for instance, am unable (genetically? constitutionally?) to believe in a "God the Father," but on quite the other hand have had experiences in Quaker meeting that seem to me to have something to do with the Light within every one (see other thread!).

I don't really believe in heaven (sigh), but I quite like the idea, am far, therefore, from rejecting it (at least in a certain egalitarian utopian and probably fairly Teremian conception of heaven), and would love to be proved wrong at the end and to be able to have a long cup of tea with my mother -- physics, entropy, science, and my own rational view of the universe be d***ed.

But that is different from believing, so mostly I guess I belong here.

[Primula Baggins]

You're not alone, Teremia; a lot of believers spend a fair amount of their time unable to believe some or all of what their particular faith propounds. Faith is more like a marriage where people aren't "in love" the whole time, where the joy of it comes and goes from year to year (as in most marriages I've ever known well).

[axordil]

You have a point, Teremia. I never had a moment where I angrily tossed aside a Bible or shook my fist at the heavens or walked out of church. I simply started acting in a way that eventually made me realize the belief I once had wasn't there any more. I then spent a long time figuring out why it had happened after the fact, and how I felt about it, and other navel-gazing exercises.

Rejection isn't the right word. Realization is closer.

[narya]

There is no monolithic institution or single set of beliefs that all atheists and agnostics subscribe to

That's exactly why I thought a thread parallel to the other would have made equal sense -- to understand what sorts of concepts atheists believe in, as opposed to hearing why they don't believe what they don't believe. It just struck me as odd. Who defines themselves in terms of what they are not? What would be the purpose of a thread titled, 'Why I don't like bananas'? It would just bring focus on the thing the person doesn't like. I don't see what would impel such a discussion, unless the enjoyment is in disparaging the banana, or unless one's dislike of the banana is so pervasive as to be defining.

I don't believe in Santa Claus any more. I'm not disparaging him, or disliking him. I just no longer have the faith that I had as a 5 year old to press my nose against the bedroom window in eager anticipation of his arrival. Somewhere along the line I just stopped believing in him. I haven't substituted some other belief to fill that void, I've just dropped that one. Being a non-believer when it comes to Santa does not define me, but I will talk with others about how they came to be in the same state of mind.

I can contribute to a thread entitled "why I don't believe in Santa" but I can't contribute to a thread that focuses on everything else I do believe in because that would be way too broad.

And I like bananas. And apples. And oranges. And cinder blocks.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

That wouldn't be insulting. What is insulting is making disparaging comments about other people's beliefs. Suppose I said I viewed the Muslim prophet as obscene and lecherous, or as a brute and a bully. Would I be thanked for being respectful?

But no one has said those kinds of things about anyone's god or prophet, so I don't understand your point here.

But this thread isn't about people describing their own beliefs (I think that would be great), it's about describing why they've rejected other people's beliefs. I don't see how a person can substantively discuss why they've rejected something for negative reasons, without making negative comments about the thing they've rejected. And when the thing is religious belief, I think we say that isn't done here.

I don't understand how you're using negative in this case. Negative = insulting, or negative = denial? If this discussion involved people saying, "the reason I don't believe in god is because he's a hamster diver!" (and we all know hamster diving is done by only the most inferior of beings), then the discussion would be negative (insulting). But, the most basic part of being an atheist is rejecting a particular belief, especially since so many of us grew up in that belief system. Atheism doesn't have any core beliefs except "no god." Atheism doesn't have tenets because it isn't an ethical system, so discussing our beliefs in right and wrong wouldn't ever be a discussion of atheism. Instead it would be a discussion of morality (perhaps kantian, utilitarian, epicurean, etc etc etc etc etc).

I once went to a philosophy lecture where the lecturer discussed the existence of god in terms of what god isn't. Too long ago for me to remember anything substantive from it.

Rejection isn't the right word. Realization is closer.

While it might be a nicer way of putting it, I think the realization still comes from a rejection of the belief system that your family tried to instill in you. I was always told by my mother, "you should go to church, you should pray, you should believe in god, you should thank jesus" etc. (not in any evangelical way, because my family isn't like that). And essentially I rejected 18 years of being taught christian beliefs. I, too, see it as a realization, but through rejection (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).

[vison]

Um, I actually did say I thought the god - as the story is told in the bible - that tricked Abraham was a brute and a bully.

Others see it differently, as I know, having had it explained to me many times by several Jews, several Christians, and an Ismaili Muslim.

My opinion remains my opinion.

There are other gods I don't admire, particularly in the Hindu pantheon and, of course, I am not overly fond of Zeus and Hera, either.

But none of that has anything whatsoever to do with my "non-believing". Nothing. I mean, Nothing. I am not a non-believer because I "don't like the god of the bible", if that was the reason, I could pretty soon find a god that wasn't like that. There are many, and many of them are merely different views of that very god - I could "accept" the explanations I've been given.

I really don't want to have this turn into a god-bashing thread. But I also want to make it clear that it is not "religion" that I don't "accept", but the concept of a supreme being, or spirit of the universe, etc.

In my case it was a realization, and not a reaction. Thanks for that expression.

[JewelSong]

vison, I totally understand where you are coming from.

I'm telling you, you're like a dolphin. You simply ARE.

[axordil]

I agree in general with vison, though our backgrounds are dissimilar. I became conscious of the problems I had with the details of the religion I was raised with long after I simply stopped believing. At that later time, perhaps, I could be said to reject the religious aspects of my upbringing, but it was very much after the point where my faith, such as it was, ended.