|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Young atheists
|
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I read this the other day, from a Facebook link. Integrity is key, it seems, and half-heartedness is deadly poison...
quote:
Sincerity does not trump truth. After all, one can be sincerely wrong. But sincerity is indispensable to any truth we wish others to believe. There is something winsome, even irresistible, about a life lived with conviction.
As for the point that many young atheists have had a Christian upbringing, I guess maybe the Christian upbringing gives them something to push against. Those who are doubtful of the existence of God but don't have much of a Christian upbringing probably would just describe themselves as agnostic or not bothered. That's my guess...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
The thoughts on proselytizing are interesting, considering that I've heard the opposite from most British atheists of the same age. Maybe a pond difference?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Sounds like the atheist version of one of those "Anthropology of Young People" articles that pop up every so often, expressing confused shock at revelations like "they enjoy ice cream on hot days" or "they don't like getting poked in the eye with a sharp stick".
For example:
quote:
They had attended church
Most of our participants had not chosen their worldview from ideologically neutral positions at all, but in reaction to Christianity. Not Islam. Not Buddhism. Christianity.
Translation: strangely, the largest number of American atheists come from the largest American demographic group!
Now I appreciate that Mr. Taunton spent a good deal of effort interviewing atheists and has to pitch his findings as some kind of startling, unexpected revelation, but I'm not sure there's any way to make the idea that "the teenage years are formative" seem like some unexpected insight.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
People who become atheists come from church-going families. Is that what you would expect? What about the rest of their conclusions? Those of you who are atheists, what do you think of the article?
Firstly, ALL children are born atheists. People only become theists as a result of their learning of God.
But to answer your question, I am not a bit surprised that there should be a correlation between positive (and/or militant) atheism and apostasy. It's reactionary. Speaking from personal experience, I feel an inclination to react against what as a critical adult I see as the negative aspects of my experience of religion as a child, and I think this must be pretty common.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
The article reminds me of a term Bullfrog and I use between each other, "fundamentalist atheist." I don't know if others use that word, so let me clarify that what we mean is that said atheist converted in response to fundamentalist Christianity and that's the kind of religion they violently don't believe in. They tend to find other kinds of Christians, for instance ourselves, to be not real. Or perhaps they tell lus that if Christians were like us things would be different. In the end though, we're oddlings who go back in the box, because they already know what god they actively don't believe in and don't want other possibilities.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
The article reminds me of a term Bullfrog and I use between each other, "fundamentalist atheist." I don't know if others use that word, so let me clarify that what we mean is that said atheist converted in response to fundamentalist Christianity and that's the kind of religion they violently don't believe in. They tend to find other kinds of Christians, for instance ourselves, to be not real. Or perhaps they tell lus that if Christians were like us things would be different. In the end though, we're oddlings who go back in the box, because they already know what god they actively don't believe in and don't want other possibilities.
I wonder if we read the same article, because I got just the opposite impression. The header "The mission and message of their churches was vague" is mentioned early on, and while the superficiality of the church's answers could be a criticism of either liberal or conservative beliefs, "They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously" again suggests that this doesn't describe a rejection of fundamentalism, but a rejection of wishy-washy liberalism. But I strongly suspect that this reflects the author's biases as much as anything else.
He's very interested in any little detail that seems to vindicate his own approach. Not just the angle of "look how angry they are at those valueless libruls", but the emphasis on emotion as opposed to reason. Newsflash: everyone's decisions on any subject are fundamentally made unconsciously and then explained away with ad hoc justifications. But he's trying to draw a target and discredit these deconversion stories (despite his claim not to have an agenda) by identifying some small hint of emotion in the process.
Maybe there's some interesting detail in the actual study (if it's worthy of such a name, and I see nothing in this article to conclude that it is), but I could take any point he presents here in his trying-to-look-fair flavour of spin, and turn it round so that it makes a very different point from the one he appears to be aiming for.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Given that some of my children have become atheists, this article has given me a lot to think about.
People who become atheists come from church-going families. Is that what you would expect? What about the rest of their conclusions? Those of you who are atheists, what do you think of the article?
It's bad form to link to other sites but this particular thread was originally titled 'Why are atheists so stupid?' and made me smile numerous times.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
People who become atheists come from church-going families. Is that what you would expect? What about the rest of their conclusions? Those of you who are atheists, what do you think of the article?
Firstly, ALL children are born atheists. People only become theists as a result of their learning of God.
But to answer your question, I am not a bit surprised that there should be a correlation between positive (and/or militant) atheism and apostasy. It's reactionary. Speaking from personal experience, I feel an inclination to react against what as a critical adult I see as the negative aspects of my experience of religion as a child, and I think this must be pretty common.
Surely all children are born agnostic? Atheism is definitely not believing in God, I'm not sure newborn babies really have an opinion on Him.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Newsflash: everyone's decisions on any subject are fundamentally made unconsciously and then explained away with ad hoc justifications.
You really believe this?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
The article reminds me of a term Bullfrog and I use between each other, "fundamentalist atheist." I don't know if others use that word, so let me clarify that what we mean is that said atheist converted in response to fundamentalist Christianity and that's the kind of religion they violently don't believe in. They tend to find other kinds of Christians, for instance ourselves, to be not real. Or perhaps they tell lus that if Christians were like us things would be different. In the end though, we're oddlings who go back in the box, because they already know what god they actively don't believe in and don't want other possibilities.
I wonder if we read the same article, because I got just the opposite impression. The header "The mission and message of their churches was vague" is mentioned early on, and while the superficiality of the church's answers could be a criticism of either liberal or conservative beliefs, "They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously" again suggests that this doesn't describe a rejection of fundamentalism, but a rejection of wishy-washy liberalism. But I strongly suspect that this reflects the author's biases as much as anything else.
He's very interested in any little detail that seems to vindicate his own approach. Not just the angle of "look how angry they are at those valueless libruls", but the emphasis on emotion as opposed to reason. Newsflash: everyone's decisions on any subject are fundamentally made unconsciously and then explained away with ad hoc justifications. But he's trying to draw a target and discredit these deconversion stories (despite his claim not to have an agenda) by identifying some small hint of emotion in the process.
Maybe there's some interesting detail in the actual study (if it's worthy of such a name, and I see nothing in this article to conclude that it is), but I could take any point he presents here in his trying-to-look-fair flavour of spin, and turn it round so that it makes a very different point from the one he appears to be aiming for.
Liberalism doesn't have to be wishy-washy - I am a liberal but take the Bible extremely seriously. Studious ministers exist in all kinds of denominations. At the same time, I have sat through countless vague sermons from conservative evangelicals.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
People who become atheists come from church-going families. Is that what you would expect? What about the rest of their conclusions? Those of you who are atheists, what do you think of the article?
Firstly, ALL children are born atheists. People only become theists as a result of their learning of God.
But to answer your question, I am not a bit surprised that there should be a correlation between positive (and/or militant) atheism and apostasy. It's reactionary. Speaking from personal experience, I feel an inclination to react against what as a critical adult I see as the negative aspects of my experience of religion as a child, and I think this must be pretty common.
Frag I'm on an iPad a can't muck around with coding. I just wondered how you knew that babies are born atheists? I can't remember my infancy very well but all I got out of my two babies was "Ga, Ga, ga ." They could be born with an innate sense of spirituality.
Could there be a possibility of us being born knowing God (or knowing in the womb) and then forgetting?
On the other hand teenagers will react and test out what ever we teach them. Rightly so; if they are to develop skills to work out what is true isn't or it doesn't matter in the long run when their favourite boy band break up.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
He's very interested in any little detail that seems to vindicate his own approach. Not just the angle of "look how angry they are at those valueless libruls", but the emphasis on emotion as opposed to reason.
Not entirely. From the article:
quote:
The decision to embrace unbelief was often an emotional one
With few exceptions, students would begin by telling us that they had become atheists for exclusively rational reasons. But as we listened it became clear that, for most, this was a deeply emotional transition as well.
Note Taunton doesn't say his interviewees became atheists for emotional reasons, just that emotion was involved as well as rational thought. Of course, Taunton structures his writing in such a way to give the impression (successfully, if this thread is any indication) that abandoning a previously held religious faith is a purely emotional decision.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
The article reminds me of a term Bullfrog and I use between each other, "fundamentalist atheist." I don't know if others use that word, so let me clarify that what we mean is that said atheist converted in response to fundamentalist Christianity and that's the kind of religion they violently don't believe in. They tend to find other kinds of Christians, for instance ourselves, to be not real. Or perhaps they tell lus that if Christians were like us things would be different. In the end though, we're oddlings who go back in the box, because they already know what god they actively don't believe in and don't want other possibilities.
I wonder if we read the same article, because I got just the opposite impression. The header "The mission and message of their churches was vague" is mentioned early on, and while the superficiality of the church's answers could be a criticism of either liberal or conservative beliefs, "They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously" again suggests that this doesn't describe a rejection of fundamentalism, but a rejection of wishy-washy liberalism. But I strongly suspect that this reflects the author's biases as much as anything else.
I was thinking of the quote about not respecting anyone who doesn't prostelytize. The way I read that section, that sort of thing came from others too.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Liberalism doesn't have to be wishy-washy - I am a liberal but take the Bible extremely seriously. Studious ministers exist in all kinds of denominations. At the same time, I have sat through countless vague sermons from conservative evangelicals.
Indeed, but that's the message I take from this article, freely paraphrasing his apparent thought process. Take a look at his big conclusions about atheists:
- They were driven away by a vague message/mission
- They only got superficial answers on evolution, sexuality, "Jesus as the only way"
- They respect people who take the Bible seriously
It's arguably coded, but it doesn't take Alan Turing to decrypt it.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Newsflash: everyone's decisions on any subject are fundamentally made unconsciously and then explained away with ad hoc justifications.
You really believe this?
Of course. In the face of a mountain of experimental evidence, why would I not? The precise value assigned to "fundamentally" is probably up for grabs, but the principle has been demonstrated ad nauseam.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
He's very interested in any little detail that seems to vindicate his own approach. Not just the angle of "look how angry they are at those valueless libruls", but the emphasis on emotion as opposed to reason.
Not entirely. From the article:
quote:
The decision to embrace unbelief was often an emotional one
With few exceptions, students would begin by telling us that they had become atheists for exclusively rational reasons. But as we listened it became clear that, for most, this was a deeply emotional transition as well.
Note Taunton doesn't say his interviewees became atheists for emotional reasons, just that emotion was involved as well as rational thought. Of course, Taunton structures his writing in such a way to give the impression (successfully, if this thread is any indication) that abandoning a previously held religious faith is a purely emotional decision.
As I said, he emphasises the emotion, sticking it in the header. He has an axe to grind, and he grinds it with enthusiasm. A careful reading shows the CYA caveats, but this presentation reveals his agenda very clearly.
(Sorry for the triple-post. Gwai, I don't know what to make of the comments about respect for non-preachers, because so much hinges on how it's being presented, but on the face of it, I suspect this is more down to the activist idealism of youth - a sort of "If this is so great, why wouldn't you tell the world, and if not, what's the point?")
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think it's likely that those who were brought up without any church attendance or religious teaching (other than:these are the world's religions) may be pretty disinterested and just getting on with their lives without feeling strongly one way or the other.
If children are brought up with a Christian faith, they will have been given views of it and of God which they might jettison as they begin to think for themselves. If there is no-one there to help them to continue to grow in understanding for themselves, to explain that this doesn't mean that the religion is false or that God doesn't exist, someone whose faith is open and authentic, they may fall away never to return. As someone above said, they may continue to hold on to the God image they decided was false and assume that believers see God in the same way.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Could there be a possibility of us being born knowing God (or knowing in the womb) and then forgetting?
Nope, absolutely no possibility.
And neonates are not agnostic on the existence of gods- to be so requires a degree of understanding (specifically, that they do not know of the existence or nonexistence of gods) that they cannot have. We are all born atheists in the 'weak atheist' class, i.e., we have no belief in gods.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Liberalism doesn't have to be wishy-washy - I am a liberal but take the Bible extremely seriously. Studious ministers exist in all kinds of denominations. At the same time, I have sat through countless vague sermons from conservative evangelicals.
Indeed, but that's the message I take from this article, freely paraphrasing his apparent thought process. Take a look at his big conclusions about atheists:
- They were driven away by a vague message/mission
- They only got superficial answers on evolution, sexuality, "Jesus as the only way"
- They respect people who take the Bible seriously
It's arguably coded, but it doesn't take Alan Turing to decrypt it.
I agree, it's pretty blatant. Liberals are to blame for the young 'settling for' atheism. I also thought I detected a plausibly deniable nudge towards 'male headship'. The 'rock star' (really?) pastor replaced by a woman who didn't seem to know her Bible. The father whose abusiveness caused his daughter's atheism.
[ 19. June 2013, 15:36: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
And neonates are not agnostic on the existence of gods- to be so requires a degree of understanding (specifically, that they do not know of the existence or nonexistence of gods) that they cannot have. We are all born atheists in the 'weak atheist' class, i.e., we have no belief in gods.
I think it's hard to argue with this, but for most people the word 'atheist' means something rather stronger, i.e. an active rejection of belief in god(s). So to describe babies and toddlers as atheistic makes little sense, ISTM.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
snowgoose
Silly goose
# 4394
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Integrity is key, it seems, and half-heartedness is deadly poison...
Even more than half-heartedness, hypocrisy can push young (and old) people away. Christians will say that every word of the Bible is true and then pick and choose which bits they like.
Young people will read the Bible and see that Jesus was against judgmentalism and self-righteousness, then look around and see that many of these self-described Christians are considerably more judgmental and self-righteous than the general population.
This can be particularly offensive to teenagers, who tend to feel that they are constantly being judged on everything they think or do.
When I was younger, the disconnect between what Jesus taught and what Christians actually do (and believe) deeply offended my youthful idealism and I was vehemently anti-Christian for years.
I don't consider myself an Atheist, but I believe that true Christianity is rarely practiced in any Church or denomination. As one university student said to me, there's too much hating gays and not enough hating greed.
--------------------
Lord, what can the harvest hope for, if not for the care of the Reaper Man? --Terry Pratchett
Save a Siamese!
Posts: 3868 | From: Tidewater Virginia | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
It is really hard to opt for a radical discipleship in most churches. A young person who said they want to sell everything and give it to the poor and why isn't everyone one else doing would probably be told to calm down and get over that phase. The theological reasons might be a bit different depending on the political stripe of the particular church. The lack of a distinctive prophetic reaction to the world is probably the biggest turn off when there is very little substantial difference between the Church and its host culture.
@ Yorick. I still think that you make an assertion, on something that cannot be known for sure, admitably.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
This is a group of young atheists who were selected because they belong to support groups for atheism and want to engage with Christians to discuss it.
I suspect there are many other atheists who don't bother with either. There's no need for a support group if you're unchallenged in your life.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Maybe it's just me, but I don't particularly worry about adolescents becoming atheists. That seems to me to be a perfectly normal part of a healthy spiritual development -- as children, they believe whatever their parents believe. As they start to develop their own identity, they reject much of what their parents believe. When they get beyond that, they readopt much of what their parents believe, but do so because it fits them, not because they hadn't thought about it. While it is true that not everyone who rejects the faith of their parents returns to it later, it is also true that for many people that is the only path forward to their own faith.
All the hand-wringing in the article about leaders who are insufficiently authentic in their faith is just so much bloviating. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
[ 19. June 2013, 18:20: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I went through an atheist period in my life. Now that I think about it - it was at a time when I was very unhappy. I think I felt betrayed.
Plus the most public representative of the faith around at the time was a deeply unpleasant man whom I did not trust.
[ 19. June 2013, 19:35: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Pedant alert/
It's a pity the David Hume anecdote is made-up and seems to appear no earlier than 1917 in the "Homiletic Review". There is however a more plausible Hume quote on Whitefield in a 1740 letter:
Sarah Edwards, wife of Jonathan Edwards, to her brother, James
quote:
And he speaks so easily, without any apparent effort. You remember that David Hume thought it was worth going twenty miles to hear him speak; and Garrick said, 'He could move men to tears or make them tremble by his simple intonations in pronouncing the word Mesopotamia.'
But it's more a comment on eloquence than belief.
cheers,
L
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Pedant alert/
It's a pity the David Hume anecdote is made-up and seems to appear no earlier than 1917 in the "Homiletic Review".
Thanks for mentioning this. I think it's very important we know when these things have been cooked up, especially when some advocate an evangelism based on such slurps of chicken soup for the proselytiser's soul.
Funnily enough, 'Sincerity does not trump truth. After all, one can be sincerely wrong' is almost an exact quote from multi-level marketing guru Jim Rohn.
[ 19. June 2013, 20:08: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I just read this, which seems relevant.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
There's something about fundamentalism that makes people very emotionally attached to the purity of their logic. Salvation by doctrine makes being rational (according to certain rationales) a matter of life and death.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
I’m not sure if the thoughts of a British, mid-sixties, retiree who left school at sixteen because it was boring are appropriate – but you asked.
They had attended church – twice on Sunday (choirboy until age twelve) with sunday school/bible study group in the afternoon to keep me out of mischief. I’m a PK.
The mission and message of their churches was vague "The connection between Jesus and a person's life was not clear." Worse – it was non-existent. That is to say – there were some very good people in the church but, as with the bastards, their proportion seemed similar to those outside the church.
They felt their churches offered superficial answers to life's difficult questions if there were difficult questions they were sinful/satanically inspired and risibly simple dogma was all the answer anyone needed.
They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously Both my parents took the bible seriously – but my mother also took it literally (creation in 6 consecutive periods of 24 hours through to the end of revelation).
Ages 14-17 were decisive Yup
The decision to embrace unbelief was often an emotional one I wouldn’t say embrace – more like belief just wore out and didn’t need replacing. (I think my father privately intervened to prevent too many heavy reactions from my mother).
The internet factored heavily into their conversion to atheism In 1960s? and I don’t regard it as conversion, more a transition.
these students were, above all else, idealists who longed for authenticity, and having failed to find it in their churches, they settled for a non-belief that, while less grand in its promises, felt more genuine and attainable. I again quote Michael: "Christianity is something that if you really believed it, it would change your life and you would want to change [the lives] of others. I haven't seen too much of that." Yes that’s me - to a T. – except I’m old/ugly/salesman enough to be honest and say I’ve never seen that – seen people’s lives change, with and without religion, but never simply because of Christianity (remembering that this was when I was a teenager – it always seemed to include a member of the opposite sex who attended church).
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Atheism is definitely not believing in God
No – it isn’t. Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods. Nothing more and nothing less.
Many atheists additionally doubt the existence of any god(s) and are certain that particular current and historic definitions are logically wrong, but that is disbelief rather than unbelief; often referred to as Atheism+ - but it’s not Atheism
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Newsflash: everyone's decisions on any subject are fundamentally made unconsciously and then explained away with ad hoc justifications.
You really believe this?
Can’t say I like the idea but try reading Incognito – ISBN 978 1 84767 940 6 and Free Will – ISBN 978 1 4516 8340 0 / e-book 978 1 4516 8347 9 . Check out the experimental evidence – personally I’d be happy for you to prove them wrong.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
Another bit on the Hume anecdote is something from The Monthly Mirror in 1808 (entitled "Anecdote" and submitted by Impartialitas). This is still some 30 years after Hume's death.
quote:
An intimate friend of the celebrated Hume asked him what he thought of Mr Whitfield's preaching for he had listened to the latter part of one of his sermons at Edinburgh He is Sir said Mr Hume the most ingenious preacher I ever heard it is worth while to go twenty miles to hear him He then repeated a passage towards the close of the discourse which he had heard After a solemn pause he thus addressed his numerous audience The attendant angel is just about to leave the threshold and ascend to heaven And shall he ascend and not bear with him the news of one sinner among all this multitude reclaimed from the error of his ways. To give the greater effect to this exclamation he stamped with his foot lifted up his hands and eyes to heaven and with gushing tears cried aloud stop Gabriel stop Gabriel stop ere you enter the sacred portals and yet carry with you the news of one sinner converted to God He then in the most simple but energetic language described what he called a saviour's dying love to sinful man so that almost the whole assembly melted into tears This address was accompanied with such animated yet natural action that it surpassed any thing I ever saw or heard in any other preacher
It is amazing how many stories are passed on without checking and this goes for all parts of the religious and political spectra.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
Thinking about it, what I find most unsettling about these claims is that they're a carefully digested summary of a study which doesn't even appear to have been completed yet, let alone published - Taunton's Fixed Point Foundation has also published this article, and gave that interesting snippet of information in response to an interested query. I've asked him directly on Twitter about the full study, but I've yet to receive a response.
We have to take his word for it that his summary is both accurate and impartial, because he's drawing all these headlines and conclusions from a dataset that no one else can see for themselves. Given the obvious slant of both his organisation and his article, this rings alarm bells. That's not to accuse him of deliberate distortion (although it can't be ruled out), but the reason why it's important to publish data and methodology is so that other people can check for themselves rather than relying on your conclusions, especially when the results are subjective, not objective.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Can’t say I like the idea but try reading Incognito – ISBN 978 1 84767 940 6 and Free Will – ISBN 978 1 4516 8340 0 / e-book 978 1 4516 8347 9 . Check out the experimental evidence – personally I’d be happy for you to prove them wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Hugh, you've borked the code here, so I've requoted to clarify, and also to add "The Decisive Moment: How The Brain Makes Up Its Mind" by Jonah Lehrer. But this is a pretty big tangent.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
Like many others here, I see a very heavy bias in the argument and an agenda.
I feel like I am on a journey towards atheism - which, incidentally, scares the crap out of me - but I could identify with very few points. That of course doesn't negate the study, HOWEVER, as we all know there are many ways to approach data - and in this day and age, any good spin doctor can make any data suit their agenda.
The main slant of this article seems to be a rebuke to churches, and laying the blame purely on bad experiences as a cause of atheism. It subtly undermines the scientific, rational aspect of the belief, by linking Phil's "conversion" to his pastor leaving. I wonder if, satisfied that there is no debating these points, this is an alternative tactic for abating the slide of Christians into atheism - "you're only doing it because you're emotionally damaged".
Also - the fact that they are picking people who have responded to an invitation by a Christian organisation, to answer questions about atheism, would imply that, putting aside the fact that the predominant religion in America is Christianity, many of the respondees would be from a Christian background - and seeing that they could share their new beliefs without fear of trying to be "deprogrammed".
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
People who become atheists come from church-going families. Is that what you would expect?
Yes. Atheism is a reaction, not something that exists in and of itself.
I found the rest of the article quite odd.
Seems to be saying you have to have passionate conviction or else you will lead people to atheism.
And you should passionately try to convert people otherwise you're not really a Christian because you can't possibly believe your religion.
Doesn't seem to give a fig for truth.
I find passionate, sincere, conviction that is aggressively trying to convert me a HUGE turn off.
But then again, my ancestry is British.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
I was just an antitheist because I thought it was terribly rebellious and contrarian. It turned out I was wrong.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes. Atheism is a reaction, not something that exists in and of itself.
Are you saying that without the postulation of a god atheism couldn't exist? In which case I would agree with you, of course. However, to link that to people who are atheists largely coming from churched families doesn't make a whole lot of sense; most of the atheists I know here in Britain were brought up in non-religious families. Sure they're not militant about it - but it is what it is. Over time as an idea gains viability the opposing views stand on their own rather than dependent on the original view.
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Atheism is a reaction, not something that exists in and of itself.
This is arrant nonsense. You’re talking about ‘strong atheism’ or, more likely, antitheism. Atheism is very simply the lack of belief in god(s). It is the default neutral position, annulled by belief (either that there is a god, or that there is not in the case of strong atheism or antitheism).
We are all born atheists- not agnostics, as has been claimed above. Agnosticism is the position of claiming no knowledge on the issue of whether gods exist. It is prerequisite that a person should have knowledge of what it is that one knows or believes or disbelieves in, so you cannot be described as agnostic, theistic or antitheistic on the existence of gods unless you have some sort of understanding of what a god might actually be. Verily, you cannot be said to be agnostic on the existence of the Blorty Floojamagibbadib in my navel.*
*Well, now you can, obviously, but you couldn’t have before I mentioned Them. You were weakly afloojamagibbadibist before you knew about the possibility of their Blorty existence. Heathen!
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Atheism is very simply the lack of belief in god(s). It is the default neutral position, annulled by belief (either that there is a god, or that there is not in the case of strong atheism or antitheism).
We are all born atheists- not agnostics, as has been claimed above.
I still think most people use the word 'atheism' to mean 'an active belief that there are no gods', rather than the passive lack of positive belief in god / gods. Am I wrong?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
No, you're right and they're wrong. If people were more considerate of the terms, I think they might understand atheism and theism better.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
No, you're right and they're wrong. If people were more considerate of the terms, I think they might understand atheism and theism better.
Just checking I've understood - do you mean I correctly stated how most people use the word 'atheist' but they are using the word incorrectly?
If that's the case, I'd suggest that the meaning of words is, to a large extent, driven by how people actually use those words; so you need to adapt your usage of 'atheist' and related words to reflect how the majority of people use them. Sorry...
Just like how, in English, to brazenly split infinitives hardly gets noticed but 50+ years ago simply to do so would draw sharp comment, I gather. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
I have been pushed to the edge of Christianity, though not (yet?) an atheist. This never would have happened had I not married an evangelical. Many evangelicals insist on believing the demonstrably untrue (and no amount of evidence will change them; but if you ask them for evidence, you won't get it), which sets up its adherent to follow two basic paths: full submission to the fantasy or be marginalised by one means or another. That kind of evangelical culture is demonstrable destructive and it sets up all those involved for a considerable fall; and I will be glad when it eats itself. The article is interested in how Christianity can strengthen itself; the answer is for them to be honest and to acknowledge the unknown.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
[@SCK]
Yes, I understand about common usage determining language, but just as good grammar is important for communicating intended meaning, correct terminology usage saves a lot of misunderstanding. It is helpful, for example, to understand that newborn babies are in fact atheists, because an appreciation of this fact affects our further understanding of things.
[ 20. June 2013, 10:01: Message edited by: Yorick ]
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It is helpful, for example, to understand that newborn babies are in fact atheists, because an appreciation of this fact affects our further understanding of things.
Well, that depends on what one means by 'atheist'! Enough of this tangent, though; we understand each other but simply disagree. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
because an appreciation of this fact affects our further understanding of things.
In what way? I guess you are positing this non-belief in God because newborns have no beliefs about anything? That being the case, their "natural" non-belief in God hardly adds strength to the atheist case.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Indeed, but I think it illustrates how it is that the ONLY way we can know about gods is by learning about them from other people- not through some other magical process. And people suck.
Which ties in with the OP… When people realise the suckiness of the people who teach them as authorities to believe in god, they tend to react by positively rejecting that authority and belief.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Indeed, but I think it illustrates how it is that the ONLY way we can know about gods is by learning about them from other people- not through some other magical process. And people suck.
Which ties in with the OP… When people realise the suckiness of the people who teach them as authorities to believe in god, they tend to react by positively rejecting that authority and belief.
Do they react the same way about all the other basic beliefs they learn from sucky people? A belief in other minds? A belief in scientific method? A belief in trigonometry? (Which I learned from a particularly sucky individual).
I think the research is very skewed. I think it is probably true that most of us choose our beliefs less rationally than we think. I'm not sure that makes a comment on the rationality of any particular belief system.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It is helpful, for example, to understand that newborn babies are in fact atheists, because an appreciation of this fact affects our further understanding of things.
It is not a fact. It is a tendentious decision to define a word in a particular way for polemical purposes.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
Many young atheists are such due to the failure of churches and Christian communities to speak to them effectively. There was an NPR series on this topic not long ago and there were similar views - church is obsessed with political/sexual issues, church is not authentic, Christians do not behave as if their belief has any transformative effect on them.
I never went atheist but avoided church/God/prayer for about 10 years due to what I felt was a failure of the church I was raised in to properly teach and practice Christianity as I understood it. So I can somewhat relate to these people.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Indeed, but I think it illustrates how it is that the ONLY way we can know about gods is by learning about them from other people- not through some other magical process.
...always assuming that there isn't a god - or at least not one who's interested in communicating with people.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
