are you an out of the closet atheist?

[Sbane]

too many atheists identify as 'agnostic'  or they say something like 'im not religious...im spiritual...'

by being out of the closet i mean:  when you are asked about your religion do you identify as *atheist*

In that case I guess my answer would be no, because although I don't believe in god I identify as agnostic because I don't think the existence of god is something that can proved or disproved.

I basically agree with this so I voted no.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yeah, I'm like PiT in that most of the people around me (except when I'm at church) are actually non-religious. It must be kind of interesting living in a community where there's more pressue on you to be religious than to be an athiest.

I believe it's possible to go "too far" with pushing your religion on somewhere else, but it's so refreshing to see all the crosses on the side of the road when I drive from Toronto to Myrtle Beach.

[TJ in Oregon]

No obviously.

But apparently I was a closet Catholic to my old boss until this week until one of my friends inadvertently told him. Not that it matters since a majority of the people in my old group are religious and my boss is a semi-observant Jew so I doubt anyone would have cared. But apparently no one knew. These sorts of things just don't come up in a professional setting in casual conversation much.

[MorningInAmerica]

No obviously.

But apparently I was a closet Catholic to my old boss until this week until one of my friends inadvertently told him. Not that it matters since a majority of the people in my old group are religious and my boss is a semi-observant Jew so I doubt anyone would have cared. But apparently no one knew. These sorts of things just don't come up in a professional setting in casual conversation much.

And in a way...nor should they.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

No obviously.

But apparently I was a closet Catholic to my old boss until this week until one of my friends inadvertently told him. Not that it matters since a majority of the people in my old group are religious and my boss is a semi-observant Jew so I doubt anyone would have cared. But apparently no one knew. These sorts of things just don't come up in a professional setting in casual conversation much.

And in a way...nor should they.

Well... I don't necessarily think someone should be made to feel uncomfortable about sharing their religious beliefs (whatever they happen to be) either.

[Dr. Cynic]

Not only being from a family where my grandfather was ordained, it's also very hard to be openly atheistic in rural Western Pennsylvania. As I've lived in the city, it's easier to gain acceptance.

I will share a story though. About two years ago, I did a show outside of Pittsburgh and I don't know what I was thinking when I did it, but I did my religion set toward the end of the show. It was a stupid decision on my part to do the set with an audience that would be hostile, but I had a glass full of bourbon thrown right at my head. I, being the genius that I am, went right after the guy instead of just having him thrown out.

So, that's my little story of "How hard is it to be an atheist where I live".

[opebo]

I'll never forget the time my dear departed father and I were sitting in the deep woods atop an Ozark knob miles from any human residence, and this subject arose.  We were there visiting a family of bizarre woodcutters he had contracted with to log this particular property, and we thought we'd take a look.  These chaps were 'selective loggers', and famed for not damaging the forest too much.. we really had no way to know they were evangelicals.

So, sitting there on a felled tree, in that remote place, when the father turned to us, covered in sawdust and dried sweat, he and his two boys all in possession of various hazardous chainsaws, adzes, and the like, and suddenly interjected 'you two are saved, aren't you?', we both stiffed perceptibly and gave each other a little glance.  If my father was an atheist it was deeply closeted, but he certainly never said more than a few words about 'god' in an average year, and always quite equivocal.  I was 'out of the closet' on the issue for long time, but our reaction was the same - how dare he ask such a personal question!

Ever the diplomat in dealing with the Missouri Rube, my father said 'well, that's a lot better than the alternative, I suppose', and then moved on to other topics.

[afleitch]

Yes. I can never ever 100% know that there isn't a god, Thor or Cthulhu out there but I'm not fond of the agnostic label. I would consider myself an atheist. I am open about to everyone and will defend my position.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

No obviously.

But apparently I was a closet Catholic to my old boss until this week until one of my friends inadvertently told him. Not that it matters since a majority of the people in my old group are religious and my boss is a semi-observant Jew so I doubt anyone would have cared. But apparently no one knew. These sorts of things just don't come up in a professional setting in casual conversation much.

And in a way...nor should they.

Well... I don't necessarily think someone should be made to feel uncomfortable about sharing their religious beliefs (whatever they happen to be) either.

Well of course. All of my friends know that I'm a liturgical Christian and most are probably able to identify my denomination by now, although I think a couple of them may be under the impression that I'm Lutheran. Conversely none of my professors do except for my academic advisor, who I told because it's relevant to my graduate school and career wishes, and the head of my department, because we go to the same church.

I definitely think that the United States has a broadly healthier attitude towards religion in public life than many other developed countries despite the recent hostile takeover from a formerly minor strand of conservative pietist Protestantism. I'd credit this to never having had an established church and to the historical willingness to discuss different sorts of beliefs as the populations in the country shifted about.

[The Mikado]

My current identification is "none," not atheist.  Atheist is so constraining, leaving atheism was like taking off a straitjacket.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

What do you think?  Closets are far too constricting for my huge ego. I prefer spending my time in "great rooms."

Logically of course it is "near Atheist." Even with my hubris, who can know to a certainty? None of our species at least.

You've been out of the closet here for quite some time

[Antonio the Sixth]

too many atheists identify as 'agnostic'  or they say something like 'im not religious...im spiritual...'

Why do you assume agnosticism is a stealth form of atheism ? They are just different positions with different theoretical bases.

[fezzyfestoon]

My current identification is "none," not atheist.  Atheist is so constraining, leaving atheism was like taking off a straitjacket.

Huh? How so? It's the lack of a belief, what's constraining about that?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

No, because I am not certain about it yet. I definitely don't subscribe to a lot of what 'christians' are saying these days, but I can't accept that there is no god quite yet.

[John Dibble]

too many atheists identify as 'agnostic'  or they say something like 'im not religious...im spiritual...'

Why do you assume agnosticism is a stealth form of atheism ? They are just different positions with different theoretical bases.

In terms of definition they aren't mutually exclusive - one deals with 'knowledge', the other mere belief. That of course doesn't matter to everyone. There are people who would rather identify as agnostic because there are those whom would start being rather unfriendly if they identify as atheist. "Atheist" has a certainty to it for many people that they aren't uncomfortable with, so some will identify as agnostic to say they aren't a believer but not make the believers they are talking to get all up in arms about it. It reminds me of a story I heard about a woman whose mother found out she was an atheist telling her "Not believing in God is one thing, but an atheist!?"

[RI]

When I was an atheist, I didn't hide it.

[Holmes]

I came out to my dad around when I was six.

Too cute.

[Ebowed]

Sure.

[afleitch]

When I was an atheist, I didn't hide it.

You were nicer then. You made sense.

[Torie]

My current identification is "none," not atheist.  Atheist is so constraining, leaving atheism was like taking off a straitjacket.

I would be interested in "hearing" more about your personal story as to the bolded part, if you are willing Mikado.

[The Mikado]

My current identification is "none," not atheist.  Atheist is so constraining, leaving atheism was like taking off a straitjacket.

I would be interested in "hearing" more about your personal story as to the bolded part, if you are willing Mikado.

Atheists tend to be impossible to talk to regarding everything I'm interested in and passionate about.  I love to debate theology, but (afleitch and Dibble are good examples) tend to always go "that never happened," which is totally a nonstarter and besides the point of what I'm trying to talk about (I always approach works from an in-universe analytical point of view, and "God doesn't exist" is frustrating in the same way as "Raskolnikov doesn't exist").  If I want to discuss whether Krishna's argument with Arjuna that he is a divine, all-seeing entity is an appropriate backing-up for his claim that Arjuna, as a Kshatriya, has to follow his Dharma to go into battle (is "I'm Vishnu and you're not" an argument with legitimate moral force?), I'd always get a response of "Krishna/Vishnu and Arjuna never existed."  If I'd try to talk about the ethics of Jesus' pronouncements on divorce, I'd get some "Jesus never existed/didn't say that" response, which is basically the reason I stopped going into the Religion and Philosophy board.  It's intellectual sophistry of the first order on the part of the atheists to dismiss arguments from Sacred Texts as illegitimate because they weren't authentic: that doesn't address the actual meanings of the words at all.  I've read the Bible (Old and New Testaments), Koran, Bhagavad Gita, and the Dhammapada, as well as extensive works by Augustine, Aquinas, some Schleiermacher, some Kierkegaard, etc. and anytime I try to talk about them I get a "God doesn't exist," followed by the person going to talk about the new Batman movie.  I've refrained from posting "Batman doesn't exist" over and over again. 

The existence/nonexistence of God is utterly irrelevant to the validity of religion and its study and the contemptuous dismissal of it leads to social diseases like positivism, the utter contempt for the past, and the slavish worship of the new God Science that are endemic in certain well-educated parts of modern society.  Michel Foucault writes in The Birth of the Clinic in specific and throughout his works in general how the medical and other scientific institutions have assumed the language and rhetoric of Truth from religion and have attempted to invalidate all truths other than the materialist, physical "reality" they peddle in order to enhance their own power, and its worked stupendously.  Foucault's "biopower," the power that physicians and scientists have gained through their obsessive categorization, classification, and prying into the most private and intimate aspects of human life down to our cells, nay, down to our DNA, has led them to have an amazing degree of control over all aspects of our lives, and the destruction of the substitution of religious truth and power with theirs is one of the key aspects of that rise.  His History of Sexuality Part I, Civilization and Madness, and The Birth of the Clinic in specific and his entire works in general have shown the huge disadvantages of accepting scientific truth as a cultural replacement for religious truth, and is one of the big reasons why he ended up fanatically supporting Ayatollah Khoemeini in his last days despite clearly not believing in God himself.  In many ways, Science is a far more dangerous master than Religion ever was, and the twentieth century has already clearly demonstrated that the road to Progress leads straight into the gates of Auschwitz.  "Modernity" and "Civilization" are orders of magnitude more gruesome and morally repugnant values than anything "Savagery" ever offered.

TL/DR I have no problem with the disbelief of God, I have a problem with the summary dismissal and rejection of religion and the blind worship of the false gods of Science and Progress, and that's what modern atheism entails.

[courts]

mint likes this

[Antonio the Sixth]

too many atheists identify as 'agnostic'  or they say something like 'im not religious...im spiritual...'

Why do you assume agnosticism is a stealth form of atheism ? They are just different positions with different theoretical bases.

In terms of definition they aren't mutually exclusive - one deals with 'knowledge', the other mere belief. That of course doesn't matter to everyone. There are people who would rather identify as agnostic because there are those whom would start being rather unfriendly if they identify as atheist. "Atheist" has a certainty to it for many people that they aren't uncomfortable with, so some will identify as agnostic to say they aren't a believer but not make the believers they are talking to get all up in arms about it. It reminds me of a story I heard about a woman whose mother found out she was an atheist telling her "Not believing in God is one thing, but an atheist!?"

Well, I for one consider myself as an agnostic, yet I think my position toward religious institutions is probably more hostile than that of many atheists.

[Torie]

One short question Mikado before we go further. Are you conflating philosophy with religion? One can discuss  ideas (whatever their provenance, say about the ideas of Jesus, even if some of them may have been put in his mouth later to meets the imperatives of those that did it at the time, or even if Jesus did not exist at all, although the historical consensus is that he certainly did) from a philosophical perspective, sometimes productively, without having to argue about leaps of faith, no?

We need to get past this point, to go much further. As a functional atheist, what you say does not ring true at least for me. I am happy to discuss ideas, even those that emanate from a religious provenance. The provenance is less interesting than the ideas themselves.

And yes there is more to life than science and "progress," whatever the latter means, which for purposes of exploring ideas is probably counterproductive. I think you may be stereotyping atheists. Is that possible?  And do you think one needs religion to have a moral compass? As you got passionate there, you may have got close to implying that. If so, in my opinion, that is just wrong. But then I am biased. The most admirable man I have ever known from the standpoint of simply good character and courage, was my Dad, and he was an atheist. He is long dead, but he sets the standard for myself - and will until my final exit.

[Beet]

No, as I recently recommitted myself to Christianity. To me it's not just about 'good character' or a moral compass, of course. For one, I've found that the deepest feelings that I can have most naturally occur when I think of there being a sentient God, a deity. To abandon my faith would be also to abandon the deepest personal feeling imaginable. Though it's rather intimidating to have people like Mikado saying 'I've read the Bible, which is why I don't believe in it' and so on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you heard of the book by Stephen Pinker that claims the opposite? 'The Better Angels of our Nature' and some such. Claims that when you look at it in proportional terms, the modern world has actually been getting less violent overall, and that WWII was actually an exception to the rule. I suppose these things tend to ebb and flow with history. Also, isn't your argument along the lines of that people must be fed something that you don't believe in, for the social good?