I'm a former atheist. Ask me anything.

[Langdell]

It’s odd you would say such a thing with a straight face. We’re bombarded all day and night long with Christianity. Evangelical televangelists, Catholics on EWTN, religious radio, religious protesters, door to door evangelists, pamphlets, and a million other mediums of saturation I’m sure I’m neglecting to mention. Yet one guy made a few statements and he’s militant? We have no atheist television programming (although we should), we have no churches, no army of evangelists pounding on doors around the nation, no radio stations, nothing (except for Bill Maher on HBO, if he still has a show).

Even when I was an atheist, I never experienced this. (I don’t know where you live; maybe it’s a regional thing.) No one I know (even people I know who are very religious) has ever tried to convert me, except my mother. Sure, there are religious tv stations and radio stations, but I just didn’t watch or listen to them. When Jehovah’s Witnesses came to the door, I just told them I wasn’t interested, and they went away.

I would call Richard Dawkins (and Christopher Hitchens and a few others) “militant” because they maintain not just that religion is irrational but that it is bad. Maybe “militant” isn’t the best word.

Regarding your other points, I would just like to point out that religious groups led the fight against slavery in England and the U.S., and that the “warfare” thesis regarding the relationship of science and Christianity is no longer accepted by historians of science (if it ever really was).
.

 

[DavidHume]

I would call Richard Dawkins (and Christopher Hitchens and a few others) “militant” because they maintain not just that religion is irrational but that it is bad. Maybe “militant” isn’t the best word.

Please don’t use the word “militant.” There’s too much of a double standard. Militant Muslims blow people up – militant Christians legislate their beliefs into secular law – militant atheists write dismissive polemics?

“Strident” works for Bill Maher, George Carlin, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, et al.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Even when I was an atheist, I never experienced this. (I don’t know where you live; maybe it’s a regional thing.) No one I know (even people I know who are very religious) has ever tried to convert me, except my mother. Sure, there are religious tv stations and radio stations, but I just didn’t watch or listen to them. When Jehovah’s Witnesses came to the door, I just told them I wasn’t interested, and they went away.

so why do you bother watching or reading information on Richard Dawkins if he bothers you so much?

I would call Richard Dawkins (and Christopher Hitchens and a few others) “militant” because they maintain not just that religion is irrational but that it is bad. Maybe “militant” isn’t the best word.

under your logic Christians are far more “militant” than Dawkins or Hitchens.

Regarding your other points, I would just like to point out that religious groups led the fight against slavery in England and the U.S., and that the “warfare” thesis regarding the relationship of science and Christianity is no longer accepted by historians of science (if it ever really was).

Certainly Quakers were heavily involved in the underground railroad, however, the most prominent abolitionists (and advocates for the rights of women) were generally secular (and were demonized by the conservative Christians of their day). Moreover, I’m really not sure what this “warfare” thesis is that you’re referring to, but if it’s the idea that Christianity has generally served as an obstruction to science, your statement that its no longer accepted by historians of science is an outright misrepresentation of the truth, or your just don’t know any better (or the only so called historians of science you read are exclusively Catholic or belong to other fundamental Christian sects).

 

[crenfro]

When can you come over and make my husband want to became a Catholic?

He says he’s an atheist, but he’s got more integrity than I’ll ever have. From what he’s told me over the years, he thinks that Catholics are some kind of cult that will brainwash him then spit him out on the street, drained of all he owns as well as his dignity. He goes to Mass with me during the special times, like Christmas and Easter, but normally won’t go because he’s usually working on some project of his.

He’s well-read and very bright and quick - he’s got a Ph.D. in math - and loves to read stuff out of a magazine called The Skeptical Enquirer.

He’s such a good guy - he makes sure that I always get to confession and mass - but he seems to stay an atheist.

Another thing that puzzles me is that he loves for me to say prayers over him, he doesn’t like to go to sleep without hearing the St. Michael the Archangel prayer and asking Blessed Virgin Mary, his guardian angel and the Lord to bless him.

And I’m not too good of a model of faith myself, but it sure means a lot to me when it’s the 2 of us at mass and not just me.

What are your suggestions for this?

And by the way, Praise the Lord and many blessings for your conversion. And thank you for your thread. Very considerate.

 

[yankee_doodle]

sounds like you’re happy with things the way they are … why try & rock the boat? Life will not ever be a perfect rendition of all your hopes & desires, but it sounds like you have something worth hanging onto (as imperfect as it may seem).

Someone who is an atheist for intellectual reasons (like myself) will never wake up one day and believe Jesus was some sort of supernatural being, because we know (not just think) he wasn’t. So your choice is either accept things the way they are & continue living a happy life (which is my suggestion, since this is probably the only life we will have); or screw things up by listening to religious zealots (who would probably recommend you give your husband an ultimatum). You cannot instill intellectual assent or anything resembling religious faith into a persons mind. Even if you gave your husband an ultimatum and he went along with it … it still wouldn’t be faith (and all it would likely do is ultimately cause him to resent you).

You have to keep in mind who you’re listening to when you ask people for advice. Your husband has a PhD in mathematics, meaning he’s among a very small class of people in terms of intellectual fortitude. It doesn’t make much sense seeking advice from people who aren’t nearly as smart as he is (because that advice will be inapplicable for a variety of reasons).

 

[Langdell]

so why do you bother watching or reading information on Richard Dawkins if he bothers you so much?

under your logic Christians are far more “militant” than Dawkins or Hitchens.

Certainly Quakers were heavily involved in the underground railroad, however, the most prominent abolitionists (and advocates for the rights of women) were generally secular (and were demonized by the conservative Christians of their day). Moreover, I’m really not sure what this “warfare” thesis is that you’re referring to, but if it’s the idea that Christianity has generally served as an obstruction to science, your statement that its no longer accepted by historians of science is an outright misrepresentation of the truth, or your just don’t know any better (or the only so called historians of science you read are exclusively Catholic or belong to other fundamental Christian sects).

I didn’t say Dawkins bothers me. I was just speculating on different “types” of atheists, and I think he’s an example of one type (the “strident” type, if you will).

I also didn’t say that there are no militant (or strident) Christians. Of course there are.

I’m not sure what you mean by “secular” abolitionists. If you mean that most abolitionists were not clergy, then I agree. But most abolitionists were Christians, if for no other reason than that most people in England and America at the time were Christians. At the end of the day, I don’t think there’s a basis for drawing a causal relation between religion and slavery.

The warfare thesis is the thesis that science and Christianity were at war throughout Western history, with religious leaders holding back scientific work. It is not a Catholic or religious concept. If you want to learn about it, a good place to start would be a series of lectures from the Teaching Company entitled “Science and Religion,” by Lawrence Principe, a professor of history of science at John Hopkins, which has one of the country’s leading programs in history of science. Here’s the link: teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=4691 The price is high right now, but if you wait a few months, it will go on sale for about $50.
.

 

[Langdell]

When can you come over and make my husband want to became a Catholic?

He says he’s an atheist, but he’s got more integrity than I’ll ever have. From what he’s told me over the years, he thinks that Catholics are some kind of cult that will brainwash him then spit him out on the street, drained of all he owns as well as his dignity. He goes to Mass with me during the special times, like Christmas and Easter, but normally won’t go because he’s usually working on some project of his.

He’s well-read and very bright and quick - he’s got a Ph.D. in math - and loves to read stuff out of a magazine called The Skeptical Enquirer.

He’s such a good guy - he makes sure that I always get to confession and mass - but he seems to stay an atheist.

Another thing that puzzles me is that he loves for me to say prayers over him, he doesn’t like to go to sleep without hearing the St. Michael the Archangel prayer and asking Blessed Virgin Mary, his guardian angel and the Lord to bless him.

And I’m not too good of a model of faith myself, but it sure means a lot to me when it’s the 2 of us at mass and not just me.

What are your suggestions for this?

I wish I had some good suggestions!

It’s nice that your husband goes with you to mass on special occasions. It sounds like he’s not really anti-religion. Indeed, since he loves that you pray for him, it sounds like he might not even be an atheist, really.

One thing that’s hard for smart and well-educated people like your husband is that Catholicism can seem from the outside like an intellectual straitjacket. It might be possible to engage his interest with higher-level writing, including some work by so-called “liberals” like Richard McBrien. Your husband might be comfortable with big-tent Catholicism.

But ultimately I think his conversion won’t come from his head. Good luck, and keep praying.
.

 

[Reuben_J]

It’s odd you would say such a thing with a straight face. We’re bombarded all day and night long with Christianity. Evangelical televangelists, Catholics on EWTN, religious radio, religious protesters, door to door evangelists, pamphlets, and a million other mediums of saturation I’m sure I’m neglecting to mention. Yet one guy made a few statements and he’s militant? We have no atheist television programming (although we should), we have no churches, no army of evangelists pounding on doors around the nation, no radio stations, nothing (except for Bill Maher on HBO, if he still has a show).

The worse thing is you guys are actually blind to this. You walk around as if you’re entitled to ownership of the world, and the few who bother objecting are demonized for merely expressing their thoughts. This is the sort of tyranny that religion has always represented; and it’s only moderately muted by a secular society built by founders who themselves in many cases held very unorthodox religious views, such as deism, and understood the importance of stripping religious denominations of any political power.

This may not be relevant to your post but as I was asking - is there any atheist who goes around preaching ‘atheism’ then?

In religion, evangelization is normal and Christians are commanded to spread their faith. But what about atheism, would any type of atheists do the same?

Thank you.

 

[AJTheMan]

You’re just the person I need. I have a few questions. I’m quite skeptical of Christianity as well.

1. Did you decide to just accept Christianity “on faith,” or do you believe that Christianity was clearly reality?
2. If it was the latter, then what made you think Christianity was true? What was the main thing that won you over?

I wouldn’t mind becoming Christian if it actually made sense to do so.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I didn’t say Dawkins bothers me. I was just speculating on different “types” of atheists, and I think he’s an example of one type (the “strident” type, if you will).

I also didn’t say that there are no militant (or strident) Christians. Of course there are.

I’m not sure what you mean by “secular” abolitionists. If you mean that most abolitionists were not clergy, then I agree. But most abolitionists were Christians, if for no other reason than that most people in England and America at the time were Christians. At the end of the day, I don’t think there’s a basis for drawing a causal relation between religion and slavery.

there’s no causal relationship between the reasons for slavery (purely economic) and religion. However, religion was used to justify the practice (but of course that’s really not religions fault, it’s obviously men who did these things and looked for whatever justification they could find to reinforce their economic interests and bigotry).

With regard to the abolitionist movement, the first criticism of slavery came from the enlightenment thinkers of the 18th century (who were largely secular). The Quakers were virtually alone among Christian groups in their opposition of slavery (at least in the beginning of the movement, particularly in Britain … although eventually non-Quaker protestants, like William Wilberforce, took up the cause).

That being said the intellectual impetus for the abolitionist movement were the rationalist thinkers of the enlightenment. Eventually as the movement came to the colonies you’ll find most abolitionists were Quakers, Unitarians, deists, or irreligious (although in those days it was taboo to openly be an atheist or agnostic; so we really can’t be sure about the religious preference of people like Susan B. Anthony and her contemporaries in the abolitionist movement). Suffice it to say they were a very unorthodox bunch of Yankees.

The warfare thesis is the thesis that science and Christianity were at war throughout Western history, with religious leaders holding back scientific work. It is not a Catholic or religious concept. If you want to learn about it, a good place to start would be a series of lectures from the Teaching Company entitled “Science and Religion,” by Lawrence Principe, a professor of history of science at John Hopkins, which has one of the country’s leading programs in history of science. Here’s the link: teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=4691 The price is high right now, but if you wait a few months, it will go on sale for about $50.
.

I don’t say Christianity is always at warfare with science. Only where science contradicts religion or religion perceives science as acting contrary to its self-promulgated ethical standards will religion seek to actively obstruct science. However, there’s more to the story than meets the eye. Imagine the dark world of a Puritan village in the Massachusetts colony, or Italy during the inquisition period. Somehow I don’t see that environment very conducive to science. Moreover, there are obvious examples of religious folly when it comes to science (i.e. Galileo, stem cell research, etc.).

However, to me there’s even more to the story than is readily apparent. How many possibilities do we write off as falling exclusively within the divine realm? I don’t think you can quantify that … but I’m sure it’s real and substantial. I do think, thankfully, science tends to ignore religious musings these days (as the majority of top scientists are not theists in the traditional sense, if at all).

So I don’t know who this author is you’re relying on … but the fact that I can readily come up with examples where religion has obstructed science gives me little reason to take his or her authorship seriously.

 

[yankee_doodle]

This may not be relevant to your post but as I was asking - is there any atheist who goes around preaching ‘atheism’ then?

In religion, evangelization is normal and Christians are commanded to spread their faith. But what about atheism, would any type of atheists do the same?

Thank you.

Honestly I would like to see critical and rationalist thinkers (and skeptics) take on religious orthodoxy in this country more aggressively. I think it would benefit the country immensely.

 

[CWBetts]

I was an atheist for years before recently finding faith again. If you have any questions about “the atheist lifestyle,” I’d be happy to try to answer them.
.

:extrahappy: Welcome home!!! My own path led me through the dark desert of agnosticism/atheism as well. Its good to be Home, is it not?

 

[CWBetts]

Honestly I would like to see critical and rationalist thinkers (and skeptics) take on religious orthodoxy in this country more aggressively. I think it would benefit the country immensely.

To what end? We would just here the same old tired arguments. Don’t bring up the “New Atheism” or other such nonsense. Chesterton dealt with those arguments a century ago.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I don’t feel dark at all. In fact for some reason atheism (or agnosticism … whatever I am given the distinction is pretty blurred) has made me a better person. No longer do I view my fate as out of my hands, or subject to deterministic mystical forces. No longer do I accept as fact that spiritual forces are working to influence my behavior.

There’s no devil tempting me or god drawing me. There’s just me, no excuses. I either do or fail, but either way it’s only me to blame, or me to credit. If something bad happens I accept it as unfortunate chance, rectify it without wasting my time trying to explain its reasoning (since I know there is none), and move forward. Only other people, bad weather, accidents, and earthquakes make bad things happen.

I don’t say god please, only to be disappointed (if I only would have prayed harder). I know the only way to win is to practice, train, prepare, work hard, then work harder, if I fail reevaluate my strategy, find a winning solution, and press on.

Doesn’t mean you can’t do all these things as a theist … but this is what works for me.

 

[yankee_doodle]

To what end? We would just here the same old tired arguments. Don’t bring up the “New Atheism” or other such nonsense. Chesterton dealt with those arguments a century ago.

The arguments I make are just fine. To be honest I’ve probably encountered more Chesterton than men like Dawkins (whom I’ve never read). I don’t need a new atheism or anyone to tell me religion is just ancient mythology, no more compelling or true than Zeus or Odin (and frankly less interesting).

 

[CWBetts]

I don’t feel dark at all. In fact for some reason atheism (or agnosticism … whatever I am given the distinction is pretty blurred) has made me a better person. No longer do I view my fate as out of my hands, or subject to deterministic mystical forces. No longer do I accept as fact that spiritual forces are working to influence my behavior.

There’s no devil tempting me or god drawing me. There’s just me, no excuses. I either do or fail, but either way it’s only me to blame, or me to credit. If something bad happens I accept it as unfortunate chance, rectify it without wasting my time trying to explain its reasoning (since I know there is none), and move forward. Only other people, bad weather, accidents, and earthquakes make bad things happen.

I don’t say god please, only to be disappointed (if I only would have prayed harder). I know the only way to win is to practice, train, prepare, work hard, then work harder, if I fail reevaluate my strategy, find a winning solution, and press on.

Doesn’t mean you can’t do all these things as a theist … but this is what works for me.

My experience as an agnostic was much darker. Nothing mattered. We live we work, we die. We end with oblivion. With no God, there was no accountability, no consequences beyond the temporal. When I discovered God, there was a goal beyond self-gratification, and a peace when things went south. No matter how bad things get, this is just temporary. I have an eternal hope. The thought of this world being all that there is? Depressing beyond measure.

 

[Langdell]

You’re just the person I need. I have a few questions. I’m quite skeptical of Christianity as well.

1. Did you decide to just accept Christianity “on faith,” or do you believe that Christianity was clearly reality?
2. If it was the latter, then what made you think Christianity was true? What was the main thing that won you over?

I wouldn’t mind becoming Christian if it actually made sense to do so.

I think my decision was one of faith, in the sense that the only hard evidence I had consisted of my own feeling that belief in God filled my emptiness. Going from atheist to theist was the main thing. Being a Catholic theist was not such a big decision, since I was raised in that faith and did not find anything especially appealing about other faiths, insofar as I was familiar with them.
.

 

[Langdell]

:extrahappy: Welcome home!!! My own path led me through the dark desert of agnosticism/atheism as well. Its good to be Home, is it not?

Thanks! Yes, it feels very good to be back home.

.

 

[yankee_doodle]

My experience as an agnostic was much darker. Nothing mattered. We live we work, we die. We end with oblivion. With no God, there was no accountability, no consequences beyond the temporal. When I discovered God, there was a goal beyond self-gratification, and a peace when things went south. No matter how bad things get, this is just temporary. I have an eternal hope. The thought of this world being all that there is? Depressing beyond measure.

I guess everyone is different. I am by nature a hopeful person (for whatever reason, probably my subconscious development). To spite our shortcomings I have much hope in mankind.

I feel like when I was religious I viewed man as hopeless without a god, but then I thought we seem sort of hopeless even with a god … so even if there is some grand architect of the universe he (or she, or it) isn’t doing us much good?

You hear the spin job from religion about prayer (which is one of the most nonsensical facets of religion). Hey pastor (or father) I prayed my tail off and I got nothing. Well little lad you have to learn how to pray. OK great, run out a buy a bunch of books on prayer, gee pastor I read a bunch of books on prayer (I think I qualify for a prayer degree) and I still got nothing.

Then the little old lady whose been praying for decades finally gets lucky and hits pay dirt. Of her thousands of prayers finally one of her wishes come true. Should I attribute that to a god or the reality that if you keep praying for stuff it’s a statistical probability that eventually one of those wishes will materialize.

Eventually religion started to seem silly to me, then I decided to spend a little bit of time and study this thing I was spending two hours per week, 104 hours per year, and assuming an average lifespan of around 80 years, I would eventually spend over 8,300 hours of my life on (which is one full year). Suffice it to say I became satisfied in my own mind that religion was untrue.

 

[CWBetts]

I guess everyone is different. I am by nature a hopeful person (for whatever reason, probably my subconscious development). To spite our shortcomings I have much hope in mankind.

I feel like when I was religious I viewed man as hopeless without a god, but then I thought we seem sort of hopeless even with a god … so even if there is some grand architect of the universe he (or she, or it) isn’t doing us much good?

You hear the spin job from religion about prayer (which is one of the most nonsensical facets of religion). Hey pastor (or father) I prayed my tail off and I got nothing. Well little lad you have to learn how to pray. OK great, run out a buy a bunch of books on prayer, gee pastor I read a bunch of books on prayer (I think I qualify for a prayer degree) and I still got nothing.

Then the little old lady whose been praying for decades finally gets lucky and hits pay dirt. Of her thousands of prayers finally one of her wishes come true. Should I attribute that to a god or the reality that if you keep praying for stuff it’s a statistical probability that eventually one of those wishes will materialize.

Eventually religion started to seem silly to me, then I decided to spend a little bit of time and study this thing I was spending two hours per week, 104 hours per year, and assuming an average lifespan of around 80 years, I would eventually spend over 8,300 hours of my life on (which is one full year). Suffice it to say I became satisfied in my own mind that religion was untrue.

Everyone has prayer issues from time to time. The thing to remeber about prayer is that God is not a genie, and every time we want something, we shouldn’t go to Him and rub the lamp. Prayer is more about spending time with God and finding out what He wants than trying to get what you want. And as far as convincing yourself that religion is untrue think about this: What other organization which has had 265 administrations, has never changed foundational teachings or policies. Think about it. The Catholic Church is the oldest administrative body in the world, older than any government, older than any group, yet its foundational teachings have never changed.