(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); DISCLAIMER!

I'm going to start this thread by saying that I hope an in depth and interesting discussion can occur here but if you're not an atheist, you're not involved... sorry but that is the nature of this thread. This thread has a very specific scope and purpose, and I don't want this to become another thread where we argue for/against the existance of God, or explain evolution to the profoundly stupid over and over. We already have an extensive thread which debates religion You must login or register to view this content. which is currently over 720 PAGES long. That discussion is still ongoing so please post there if you have a God concept you want to champion or a religious belief you want to preach because it will be ignored here.

I would also ask that atheists here please refrain from responding to theistic points, questions etc. in this thread. I will simply groan the posts and report the post to a moderator as off-topic spam as I will consider it an attempt to hijack or railroad this thread. I shouldn't have to say this, but such is the internet.

-----

DEFINITIONS

For the sake of this thread I am using a few new words that don't technically have a definition. I will give these words below, including a defintion of 'atheist' and 'theist' for the sake of completion.

Atheist - Someone who lacks faith and/or does not possess a belief in the existance of a deity or deities.
Theist - Someone who believes that a deity or deities exist.

Now for the other terms.

Ex-theist - An atheist who was once a theist but has de-converted.
Never-theist - An atheist who has never held a theistic belief, and has been an atheist their entire life.
Quasi-theist - Someone who claims to be a theist, but doesn't actually appear to believe what they claim to believe.
Proto-theist - Someone who is questioning their faith and claims to believe in "something" but cannot define it.
Anti-theist - Someone who is actively opposed to the belief in any deity and who considers the concept intrinsically flawed.

-----

DISCUSSION

OK, now that we're ready, here's the meat of the discussion.

I was watching a YouTube video recently where the question was raised; "Do ex-theists and never-theists have different perspectives when arguing about religion?". I found this question very interesting and as a never-theist have often found the concept alien myself. I would very much like to hear the opinions of other atheists in this forum as I know we have atheists here who have converted since they joined NGU.

I have personally seen a progression in people. They tend to go from theist, to proto-theist, to ex-theist. The other path I've seen is quasi-theist straight to ex-theist. I've noticed a large percentage of theists are really quasi-theists, especially in Christianity. They claim to believe in God and to have a "personal relationship with Jesus" and when questioned haven't read the bible, don't actually know what the tenates of Christianity are, and usually have little knowledge of what Jesus actually did outside of his birth and death. These people I hesitate to call theists as I wonder if they ever really had faith to begin with. Where they simply told they where Christians as children, as I was, but unlike me they simply never questioned this. (I still remember having an argument when applying to High School aged 11 with my Mum because she wrong "Church Of England" as my religion on the application and I refused to send it because my religion is "None". I was an atheist and felt insulted that my mum would neither take it seriously and felt that it didn't matter what was on the forms).

Really the group I'm most interested in are the true theists who eventually become ex-theists. Those who not only believed, but took an active role in their religion or genuinely knew (or at least thought they knew) what it was they where claiming to believe.

For those ex-theists out there who feel they where true theists at one point, I'm very interested in hearing your answers to the below questions but I'd love to hear from any atheist on NGU who feels this is an interesting discussion (although please indicate if you're an ex-theist or never-theist).

1. If an ex-theist; Do you feel your time as a theist has given you more insight into the mind of a theist?

2. Generally, do you feel ex-theist or never-theists are the more knowledgeable about specific religions (particularly their own)?

3. Do you think being an ex-theist is more or less likely to drive people towards anti-theism? Why?

4. Do you feel ex-theists and never-theists approach discussion and debate with theists differently; and if so which do you feel are more effective?

5. Do you think ex-theists are less prepared or less resolute in explaining the sceptical reasons for atheism than never-theists or not?

6. Do you consider yourself an anti-theist? Why/Why not?

7. Do you find that ex-theists tend to retain some beliefs associated with the previous religion, and/or tend towards political leanings that are usually associated with their religion?

8. Do you think never-theists are predisposed to scepticism in such a way that theism and religion as concepts simply do not take hold, or would you agree that environment dictates religion at early age, due to childhood brainwashing, reguardless of predisposition?

9. Do you see any corrolations between never-theists and any ideologies or political opinions, that you feel are due to them having never experienced faith?

10. Do you feel that never-theists are lacking in a life experience or some ability to relate or understand others due to never having experienced faith?

11. Do you find that ex-theists and never-theists have differing attitudes towards respecting religion or respecting faith?

12. If an ex-theist; Do you feel angry, ashamed etc. or do you consider yourself to have been abused by those who indoctrinated you and if so how does this effect your view of theism or religion?

13. Do you fear death? Do you feel you being either an ex-theist or never-theist informs or effects this answer?

14. Do you have anything you wish to add or ask about the relationship between the two different instances of atheism that you feel hasn't already been raised in the discussion?

As I said, I look forward to the responses I get. Feel free to answer any or all of the questions, or to simply comment on the discussion topic in general if you'd prefer. I'll answer these questions myself in a few hours. I tried as best I could to phrase the questions as neutrally as I could, so as to not create leading questions but be aware I consider myself both an anti-theist and never-theist, so take this into account if you feel the questions wording is suspect.

I hope this becomes an involved and in depth discussion where the atheists who populate the debate section, (and more specifically the God vs. Fact thread), can muse on the various outlooks and perspectives atheists with different experiences and personal histories tend to have without the frustration of repeating oneself and feeling like you're acting as a teacher to the perminently baffled.

Just want to have this on hand


I would imagine there would be a large difference.


Most people are raised one faith without being given another alternative.


I'll answer it the best I can


Most definitely. I can answer most questions any theist could have about my disbelief before they asked them. i also could pinpoint some of the weaker areas into their belief. Belief for a believer is much different, as you have usually invested your entire mindset into your faith. Not only your mindset, but your emotions too.


I would say it depends, but for the most part yes. When one leaves the path of faith, they tend to drive straight toward atheism due to the similarities in all religions. I would say I know far more about Christianity, then let's say Islam. Actually, I wish I could spend time studying the various religions and their practices.


Once again, multiple factors. When I first deconverted I had a very anti-theist mindset. I think it has something to do with the feeling of being wronged or lied to the entire time. Slowly that feeling went away and I thought much more clearly. So instead of it strictly being theoretical or emotion I could see the practical side of it.

Actually, when Clutch Hunter first deconverted he was very much anti-theist :p . What was funny about that was I had relaxed a bit on the matter. Like I said, deconversion is usually a dramatic process.


100% think this. I feel ex-theists are. For the most part they know how to look inside a religion how it is taught and such, and take it apart from there. Never-theists tend to use much more theoretical arguments as well, and are very harsh over the matter. Another factor is that ex-theists stir up questions in a theists mind over why you left the faith, while never-theists are looked at as a lost cause.


I think it varies. I would argue using evolution, morality, creation, flaws in religion, lack of evidence. The thing is for an ex-theist you had to have heavy grounds to turn away from your faith in the first place.


I would consider myself a very mild anti-theist. I feel religion does more harm than good overall. Now what changes my direction are factors. The fact that atheists are a minority is one, the fact simply going about forcibly removing religion is another (everyone has the right to their beliefs, but it's how they take actions on them that draws the line). I also wouldn't be willing to lose my theist friends and family who I enjoy over this issue.


No, not at all. When the deconversion takes place you remove all ties to that religion. I do think some get caught in a web still grasping for something, but then again I wouldn't say they were full deconverted.


Both. Some children have a harder time just listening to "orders". Then some children are brought into the church at a very young age, bring in heavy influence. I am strongly against any type of brainwashing that takes place as well.


Not necessarily.

When you say pain of de-conversion, do you mean the pain of realising that there's actually no life after death?

Because me being a never-theist, I can also relate to that. I was raised with no religion, my step-dad is an Atheist and my mum is a Creationist and they let us all choose our own religion, because they don't agree with the forcing of a religion.

The only issue with this was that I never acknowledged death, it never came to mind until I was 16 and it hit me really hard, probably as much as an ex-theist like yourself. It wasn't because I believed in after-life, it was because I never experienced a close friend/family dying so death never came to mind until I was 16. I went through near a month of severe depression with thoughts of suicide because I didn't see the point of life.

The positive from this experience though, is now I appreciate life, I love nature and I'm now a better person because I realise how precious our life is. I used to be quite a horrible person, I was extremely disrespectful to my parents but now I'm an Atheist I now have huge respect for my parents, and everyone.

I haven't slept yet and it's 8:30 am, I hope my post is alright.

I'm a Never-theist, just to let you know.


I think their perspectives are different, but they won't have a big difference.

That's probably more common for people living in the US, though I don't know much about England to be honest.

Here in Finland, I and many of my friends, never believed in god. We just saw it stupid to believe in something that created everything, when it can be explained with science.

For example: When I was a kid (like 6 or something) we, me, my mom and my little sister, always went to worship held in the morning of the Christmas Eve (not day here) and I just found it boring and couldn't wait to get presents. My dad was, and still is, an atheist so he didn't came with us. My sibling also found it boring (they were members of the church back then) and didn't went with us. My mom wasn't religious either, she just thought it's a tradition and that's really the only reason we went there.

At age of 10 or something, I just said that do we have to go there, cause it's really boring and she just said "Ok, we won't go then." So we have skipped the worships since then.

It's ironic that I'm member of the Church and yet I'm an atheist. Well, the main is reason that I never bothered to resign and because I wouldn't be able to get married at the church as an adult. I know that may sound ridiculous, but here it's really greater get married in church than register office.


Besides we have confirmation camp here, basically as an age of 14 we go somewhere to "strengthen" out believe in god. Utter bullshit, me and my friends thought, but when we realized that it's a tradition here, and you get like 500€ from relatives, we were like: "Fúck it, if I get 500€ for just to go to some shitty camp, that's fine for me." So we didn't believed in god or anything and we just went there to get some money.



I shall skip this then.


I'm going to answer these anyways, even some of them are redirected to ex-theists.


Can't answer to this as I'm a never-theist.


I think this is more correct with ex-theists than never-theists. Even though I do study Christianity (for the reasons stated earlier) and I know a lot about it. Especially about its history.

Just to let you know: Teacher who teaches religion (Evangelical Lutheran here), once asked in our class: "Do you believe in god?" and about 50% said no, so they were atheists and yet going for lessons, mostly due to reasons I stated earlier. So being on my situation (Being atheist, and yet still member of the church) is pretty common in Finland.


Probably yes, cause they feel that people have lied to them all the time.
(Not sure about this though, just making conclusions)

Probably yes, but I cannot really say which one is more effective as I don't have a lot of knowledge about ex-theists as all my friends are never-theists.


No. I think ex-theists are as prepared or resolute to explain them than never-theists.


No, I think I'm more passive and I would only debate with someone if we would be talking about it, or if the person wants to talk about it.


No, I don't believe so.


Probably both. For me, the environment is a perfect example. I, my friends and especially many young people here just don't believe in god, but are still members of the church.


Maybe with some political opinions. What I have experienced, at least here, that people whom don't believe in god will rather vote left-wing parties than right-wing parties.


No.


I don't think so.


Can't answer to this as I'm a never-theist.


Yes, I'm afraid that I have to die at some point. I just don't think about it, cause I'm still so young.
For the latter question: No.


I don't have anything in mind just now.


I think people have noticed that you are an anti-theist.


True that.

Well I am both an ex-theist & an anti-theist, and obviously an atheist. To answer the question, yes I do think it has. Although I was only a theist up until the age of around 14, I had long enough to know what it feels like to think that there's a God, an afterlife and maybe even more. Heck, a few months before I became agnostic I wanted to be Christened It's certainly a faith that is difficult letting go of.



Yes. In-fact numerous surveys have pointed out that atheists know more of religions than the people actively "believing" in them.



I'm not sure, I'd probably suggest it's quite subjective. Obviously being raised by faith healing nutjobs who hurt you as a child is more likely to turn you to an anti-theist position than having had a great life with just a curiosity taking over.



Again, I'm not sure. I think the most effective way would be as both yourself and people like Richard Dawkins & Christopher Hitchens approach(ed) it, that is to make the theist feel like their belief is silly. Because frankly, it is.



No. I would probably suggest that ex-theists come prepared with the knowledge, reasoning, evidence and/or logic that made them themselves de-convert. Surely that's a plus?



Yes. Religion is a wholly negative formation, it indoctrinates people into believing something that they may lack the ability to ever question sceptically. Then there's non-religious theism, which whilst far less dangerous, I still consider a negative influence on society for 2 primary reasons. 1) It proves that people are either mentally weak, intellectually lacking integrity, lacking the ability to find sceptical reasoning without being prompted to do so or just generally unintelligent. 2) It can affect people's decision-making. This isn't such a problem until you have a situation whereby a man with supreme power, such as a president, has the ability to change the world forever at his fingertips. Once he has that ability, his belief in a deity will either affect his decision making or the possibility of lying about it will enter his mind. At this point I think it's George Bush that springs to mind, but anyway... yes, anti-theist here.



I honestly wouldn't know. I'd hope not though- with me when I became an atheist I also became a sceptic, and it baffles me how some others could not.



The way in which one is raised will change the person they become without a doubt. So if you're going to suggest that the religious are essentially brain-washed from a young age never to gain the valuable tool that is scepticism, then I'd have to agree.



I wouldn't know. So... pass.



No. Just as if one as a child never believed in the tooth fairy, it won't affect their lives negatively. I think.



Ex-theists are probably less respecting towards religion, however, again, I wouldn't know.



My upbringing was not nearly as bad in this manner as most other ex-theist's. It does make me angry though knowing that people are indoctrinated into certain belief systems everyday- certain belief systems that will go on to affect their entire lives. As Richard Dawkins said, it's cruel and it's wicked.



Although right now, even in my own uniquely crap situation I find myself both bored out of my mind and worried about my future, I still like the concept of being able to live forever, for some reason. I'm not afraid of death though, when it happens it happens and I will just cease to exist. Rather peaceful, for lack of a better word. I would presume a never-theist may have a better acceptance and understanding of death though, this is one of the things that you will never get from religion or any form of theism.

Well, I said I'd answer these questions myself so here are my answers. I'll then go on to discuss any points people have raised after the questions... so this may end up as mutiple posts one after another or one very long post...


I feel frequently confused at the thought patterns of theists. The seem to work independent of logic or reason, which just doesn't make sense to me. Faulty logic sure, but none at all... that just doesn't make sense to me. So I certainly feel my never-theism leaves me wishing I had more insight into the mind of a theist.


This is interesting for me, because I found that ex-theists are usually very knowledgable about their previous religion, but know next to nothing about any other religions while never-theists simply disreguard all religions. The never-theist doesn't need knowledge of a religion to disreguard it, they simply ask the theist for evidence, and when it isn't supplied make the rightful assumption that whatever their peddling is a con-job. For much of my atheism religion was unimportant for me and I didn't care about it, but one trend I have spotted is that never-theists are generally more knowledgeable about all religions, and know more of the points needed for arguments. They seem to know the contradictions in the bible, but can't really remember much else for example. This I think is because they stick out so much to the never-theist. I also feel anti-theism causes people to make themselves knowledgable in religion simply because the frustration they feel makes them want to learn and correctly oppose religion.

The best example I can give of this is Matt Dilahunty on the Atheist Experience TV show. He's an ex-theist and was in seminary school training to become a preist when he lost his faith and he's not the president of an atheist association and host of it's TV show. Clearly the man has leadership qualities reguardless. When it comes to debating however, he debates Christianity very differently than I would. He frequently quotes the bible, he often points out contradictions in thoughts etc. However if he's debating Islam, he act as a never-theist would, and rather than pick apart the internal parts of the religion, he seems to have already deemed that irrelévent. Instead for Islam he simply focuses on the "all powerful creator God" and picks apart the basic concept. This is a far more analytical way of debating Islam, he doen't need to know why Islam forbids pork, it's not important. The need to give evidence, and he assesses that evidence.

Because I spend my time writing fantasy and horror stories, I have a lot of personal interest in myth. I would have no issue in claiming I know more about any religion you care to name than Matt Dilahunty... except Christianity, I couldn't even begin to imagine the level of memorisation he has as he can recall word for word bible quotes just by being told the chapter and verse numbers.


I've found that never-theists tend not to be anti-theists unless there's political reasons at which point they slowly become more and more angered by religion, much like I have. Ex-theist however often become anti-theists very quickly, for whatever reasons, and either stay like that arguing against religion, or slowly come to terms with their issues and become less angered by religion. But I can't say if my experiences are typical.


Definately. I have much less patience than ex-theists, and this seems to be the case for most never-theists in debate. Never-theists tend to either be extremely impatient and irritated by theists in debate, or extremely condescending and blasé in their debates often seeming extremely arrogant I'm sure. I know I do both. Ex-theists however take more time to discuss finer details. The interesting thing is, while the never-theist drives more people away from the argument, I think that method of discussion is more effective at de-converting the ones that do stick around.


Definitely. While there are always exceptions in any situation, ex-theists have had to learn scepticism in their adult life, where as never-theists (usually) has scepticism as their default way of percieving the world around them. Often I found that discussions with ex-theists are based a lot around emotional reasons and personal experiences, much like religion was before hand. While they understand the sceptical reasons they don't seem to be anywhere near as forefront in the thinking methods of ex-theists as they are for never-theists. I consider things by believe/disbelieve paradigm in everything I do, ex-theists tend to only consider it when concerned with religion/philosophy etc. which is why I see ex-theists with superstitions about opening umbrellas in the house, or crossing your knife and fork after a meal etc. but not never-theists.


Yes definitely. I feel that religion has damaged humanity greatly and it has stunted our techological and scientific advancements by an order of magnitute. On top of that religious thinking influences politics and from my perspective seems to only influence politics as a tool for evil bigotted hate-filled policies. The "Religious-Right" are an example of that. As a far-left wing political person, I find right-wing politics to be quite disturbing at times and often they seem to be intertwined with stupid religious points... I definitely see religion, right-wing politics, corporate-greed, racism/homophobia etc. as all heads of the same beast at this point and religion seems to be one of the strongest heads. My disgust towards religion grows with time and I actually find I need to make a concious effort to not focus on it sometimes or I'll do nothing but become a bitter old man.


Actually yes. While those here in NGU don't seem to as far as I can tell. I've spoken to ex-theists who have argued that; "gay people are not born gay" with no evidence or reason and being against things like gay adoption without knowing why. I've known ex-theists who deny evolution because they still don't understand it, even spouting creationist lines when they no longer have faith. Do I think it's a constant? No. But I do think even being religious at some time, drags people closer to the right wing on some policies.


I went to church, I was in a school that had twice weekly prayer groups, both my parents where Christian, I went to sunday school, and I went to a Christian run youth centre once a week... I was in a perfect little subject for brainwashing, yet not only did I not convert but I was kicked out of both sunday school and the youth centre for actively de-converting the other kids. I can't imagine how much more someone could have done to raise me as Christian yet not only have I never believed, I've de-converted both my parents and spread atheism in practically every establishment I've set foot in. If I don't have some kind of predisposition towards a lack of faith then I certainly have no other explaination for what is clearly extremely strong resolve.


Yes actually. I'm not sure why, but atheists are almost universally liberals and it's much more apparent with never-theists. Almost every never-theist I've spoken to has been for increased socialised systems, anti-military, pro-environmentalist, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, and to lesser extents anti-gun, pro-legalise drugs, anti-corporate etc. I see a clear connection between libertarian social politics and liberal finacial politics and with atheism in general but more clearly in never-theists. I'd even go so far as to say never-theists are frequently tee-total and often vegitarians or at least have personal opinions on the meat industry (ie. only use free range). I would like to think it's because atheists in general are more compassionate because they don't believe in a cosmic justice so try to create a fair and just pleasant life here, rather than let it rot because "God" will make it happen for us anyway... but perhaps that's my baises speaking.


Yes definitely. Theism confuses the hell out of me sometimes. It's like we're discussing film and I'm the only one who hasn't seen Star Wars or Citizen Kane, and everyone keeps referrencing them. I just don't understand the thinking processes some people use and it's certainly causes much of my frustration. As to wither it's a life experience that I'm missing that would have enriched my life I don't know. I don't personally feel I'm missing anything of value.


Yes. I feel that ex-theists tend to show religion and faith more respect in general, although a fair number of never-theists simply show apathy.


Not applicable.


Oh hell yes. I'm actually not going to go into too much detail because the concept of death does actually creep me out, but I find my lack of faith does provide me with much less comfort. Part of my wonders however if being an ex-theist would make it worse for me.

Well, that took a little longer than I thought... I make another post responding to other peoples posts in an hour or two as I need to do stuff, so I'll be back in a moment.

---------- Post added at 07:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 PM ----------


Cool. I'll do my best to answer.


Yes definately. I find the concept of faith entirely baffelling. It doesn't make sense to me at all. I'm not even sure how to explain anything because my entire method of communicating my ideas and percieving the world around me is predicated on a simple logic gate.

a. A claim is made.
b. Is claim reasonable and likely to be true? To assess claim follow these steps.
b1. If claim is trivial and ultimately unimportant ie. "My name is Joe", assume it's true until something contradicts this.
b2. If claim is a standard claim from a reasonable person ie. "Someone broke into my car last night and stole my CDs", assume it's true unless there is evidence to the contrary.
b3. If the claim is somewhat reasonable and has supporting evidence ie. "I'm a qualified psychotherapist" and the person has a MD from University of York and MSc in Psychology from University of Manchester with there names on them, in frames on the wall behind them, assume it's true unless there is evidence to the contrary.
b4. If the claim contradicts what you have previously experienced ie. "I can jump this 6ft wall from a standing position" when you're reasonably sure that's outside the limits of a standard persons physical capabilities, assumes it's false until demonstrated.
b5. If the claim is fantastical or deeply involved involved, ie. "Unicorns exist" or "matter consists of atoms", expect repeated scientific evidence and assume it's false until given such evidence, assume it's true if sufficient evidence is given until the claim is falsified or much of the evidence is invalidated.
c. State assumption as believed fact for ease of coloquiallism. ie. is assuming unicorns don't exist, state "Unicorns are not real".

This seems to be the only way to suitable run your life. I can't understand how other people can think coherant thoughts without using this method.


Oh yes. It makes me supremely nervous at the concept of theism because as far as I can see it, theists don't use logic to think, they simply think random disjointed things that don't make sense. Otherwise the very concept of God would seem ludicrous to them and they would be atheists... what this means is we have an unpredictable, illogical person, and in the case of mainstream religions rather dangerous person, predisposed to hearing voiced, and deciding their morals and ideals based on a non-logical process then justifying them with a religious text. They care not for consistancy, reason or evidence when they form opinions and their actions are almost certainly informed by them. As far as I'm concerned, a religious person is as unstable as any insane person, they just happen to exhibit tendancies to comform to society as it is now. We can't assume they will always act sane, after all, these people can (and frequently do), hear the voices in their head tell them to do something and then go off and do it. Just because the insanity of faith presents itself as sanity in day to day activities does not mean I can trust them. Effectively my inability to understand faith causes me to consider the faithful as unpredicable, unnerving and quite frankly dangerous, and the only reason others don't see that is it's an insidious form of insanity that people can function fine with day to day, and it's so wide spread that treating it as the mental illness it so clearly is not socially acceptable (even amongst atheists a lot of the time).


Not at all. I was raised by Christian parents. I went to a Christian school with twice weekly prayer. I went to church and sunday school. I even went to a Christian youth club. As a kid, faith was actively encouraged, and in school etc. I was specifically punished for not believing. If anything, looking back, my atheism was a rather remarkable display of resolve for a young child.

In some respects however you could claim I could never have the option to indulge in faith as I do believe that predisposition towards faith exists and that I simply have the opposite. Some people are simply don't think in ways that are conducive to faith, and I'm one of those people I'd say. I find the concept alien. So much so that I also never believed in things like the tooth fairy. I believed in Santa at one point, but not the Santa most people think of. I believed in Santa because I'd read the story of St. Nicolas, and I'd as a kid convinced myself that there was "some truth" to Santa but all the stuff about magic was nonsense. So much so that I told my parents at the age of 5 that I new the presents where off them anyway because in all the stories about St. Nicolas he makes the toys himself, and my games where made by SEGA.

The interesting thing is, even if I believed stupid stuff as a kid, I still know it was never faith. I may have accepted silly claims but I quickly learned that my mums sister lied to me a lot because she thinks it's funny... so I'd stop believing things she said. I'd believe things that where wrong sure, but I'd question them and ask "Why?" and I honestly can't imagine how people could function without that personal methodology.