The Atheist Alliance 2.0

I wanna join!
I'm an Agnostic Theist
 
Okk no problem

So, I was raised Catholic, and the concept of Hell always scared me when I was younger
I recall a Biblical passage that said that blaspheming the Holy Spirit was the unforgivable sin. This legitimatley scared the crap out of me, and I didn't even want to mention the Holy Spirit
When I was 5, we had to say prayers every morning, but prayers scared me for some reason
My teacher (nun) forced me to write with my right hand, despite me being better with my left
I would sit at home and practice using my left hand (it was easier to write with)
I read the Bible all the way through, and Leviticus alone was enough to make me doubt the entire thing. If a girl has her period, and she sits on the couch, the couch and everyone who touched it were unclean and had to bathe and wait until nightfall to be cleansed. This was the most "out there" thing I had read, ever
Then, I read Revelation, which gave me nightmares for a while

The more I learned about the Bible, the more I researched it, the less I wanted to be Catholic.
I renounced this faith, and subscribe to a more personal view of things. No longer did I want to associate with Catholicism.

So, are there any (former) Catholics?
Anyone have any interesting childhood experiences with the Bible, or any religion for that matter?
 
obZen said:
Okk no problem

So, I was raised Catholic, and the concept of Hell always scared me when I was younger
I recall a Biblical passage that said that blaspheming the Holy Spirit was the unforgivable sin. This legitimatley scared the crap out of me, and I didn't even want to mention the Holy Spirit
When I was 5, we had to say prayers every morning, but prayers scared me for some reason
My teacher (nun) forced me to write with my right hand, despite me being better with my left
I would sit at home and practice using my left hand (it was easier to write with)
I read the Bible all the way through, and Leviticus alone was enough to make me doubt the entire thing. If a girl has her period, and she sits on the couch, the couch and everyone who touched it were unclean and had to bathe and wait until nightfall to be cleansed. This was the most "out there" thing I had read, ever
Then, I read Revelation, which gave me nightmares for a while

The more I learned about the Bible, the more I researched it, the less I wanted to be Catholic.
I renounced this faith, and subscribe to a more personal view of things. No longer did I want to associate with Catholicism.

So, are there any (former) Catholics?
Anyone have any interesting childhood experiences with the Bible, or any religion for that matter?
Click to expand...

There are plenty. I was raised Catholic. Went to private Catholic school from K-12.
 
obZen said:
Okk no problem

So, I was raised Catholic, and the concept of Hell always scared me when I was younger
I recall a Biblical passage that said that blaspheming the Holy Spirit was the unforgivable sin. This legitimatley scared the crap out of me, and I didn't even want to mention the Holy Spirit
When I was 5, we had to say prayers every morning, but prayers scared me for some reason
My teacher (nun) forced me to write with my right hand, despite me being better with my left
I would sit at home and practice using my left hand (it was easier to write with)
I read the Bible all the way through, and Leviticus alone was enough to make me doubt the entire thing. If a girl has her period, and she sits on the couch, the couch and everyone who touched it were unclean and had to bathe and wait until nightfall to be cleansed. This was the most "out there" thing I had read, ever
Then, I read Revelation, which gave me nightmares for a while

The more I learned about the Bible, the more I researched it, the less I wanted to be Catholic.
I renounced this faith, and subscribe to a more personal view of things. No longer did I want to associate with Catholicism.

So, are there any (former) Catholics?
Anyone have any interesting childhood experiences with the Bible, or any religion for that matter?
Click to expand...
In what way do you still consider yourself a theist?
 
QuilavaKing said:
In what way do you still consider yourself a theist?
Click to expand...

I'm open to the idea of a deity existing.
However, the whole religious aspect has been detatched from me
I've grown to appreciate life in itself than worship something that may or may not exist to begin with
 
obZen said:
I'm open to the idea of a deity existing.
However, the whole religious aspect has been detatched from me
I've grown to appreciate life in itself than worship something that may or may not exist to begin with
Click to expand...

Theist. I do not think this word means what you think it means.

EDIT: Then you are not a theist. A theist is someone that follows a religion. Believes in a specific god. You are just simply agnostic.
 
Last edited:
Phantom said:
Theist. I do not think this word means what you think it means.

EDIT: Then you are not a theist. A theist is someone that follows a religion. Believes in a specific god. You are just simply agnostic.
Click to expand...

I've labeled myself like this for a while
I was reading this, so I'm just confused at the differencee between agnostic theism and theism?
I've read things about agnostic / gnostic atheists and agnostic / gnostic theists, like this, so I wound up identiying as agnostic theist for a while
/not sparking debates, just interested
 
This is more of a dilemma or question I have for this group.

Atheism is a belief that there are no deliberate intelligent beings that exist, that are responsible for life, including interaction of life on Earth.

Agnostic is a lack of belief, it's a classification of not knowing (or professing to know) if there is are deliberate intelligent beings that exists, responsible for life, including that on Earth.

That is why I have some objections to Atheism, for the same reasons I have objections to Theism. Both are belief systems, making absolute claims. Lack of religion doesn't mean lack of belief system, or "faith".

Agnostics profess a truth. "I don't know." Whereas Atheists and Theists profess a false statement "I know..."

Unless of course, those with faith profess, "I don't know, but I hope/desire that..." Would that mean I am professing the truth of not knowing as an Agnostic, but having hope, but not necessary believe/faith?

That is why I have difficulty in associating whether I am Agnostic or Spiritual, or Agnostic and Spiritual.

Which do you think?
 
I don't know many Atheists who would say they know anything to be absolutely true. I certainly don't. However, when I look at the universe and our scientific understanding of it as objectively as possible, I can confidently say "This makes sense." It makes enough sense that I'm willing to continue under the assumption that it's probably true, until something else comes along to make me think otherwise.
 
I am atheist, like legit I believe in nothing. I hate it when atheist shove science and evolution in people's faces, and Christians doing the same thing only with god and the love of Jesus.
 
QuilavaKing said:
I don't know many Atheists who would say they know anything to be absolutely true. I certainly don't. However, when I look at the universe and our scientific understanding of it as objectively as possible, I can confidently say "This makes sense." It makes enough sense that I'm willing to continue under the assumption that it's probably true, until something else comes along to make me think otherwise.
Click to expand...

The concern I have is that the most intelligent and well-versed humans in a variety of disciplines know less than 1 percent of the phenomena that occur within the universe. It's like completing a sudoku, with a couple numbers filled in, and even those letters have ambiguous properties. We know relatively little as far as unequivocal facts.

I'd like to know how you have arrived to the conclusion of "this makes sense" or "probably true".
To have such certainty, probably true, one must certainly have access to substantially more information and be well-versed in analyzing that information, correct?

Would being uncertain of the existence of deliberate/intelligent agents classify you as agnostic? To have certainty or high probability of a truth one must make sweeping assumptions of countless unknown variables, and therefore has a subjective or intuitive belief system.
 
Hackenfall Backslash said:
Tell us about your experiences?
Click to expand...

A few years ago I wrote a letter to an atheist podcast that meant a lot to me. I shared with the host the story of what was happening with me at the time.

I was nineteen when I wrote to him, but he read my letter live on the podcast. Fast forward to about 06:40 to hear him reading my letter.

I put the video in because I am so tired of writing my story, lol.



For those who won't watch the video.

I was born Roman Catholic, went to Catholic school since K, decided I was atheist around tenth grade. A lot of **** had happened that made me question religion, and the more I questioned the less sense it made. But when I say I was Catholic, I was freaking crazy. I was an alter server, I was in the choir when I wasn't on the alter. Went to mass five times a week, (serious, every Friday with school, then two masses Saturday and two on Sunday) I was even a youth group leader and lead Bible classes.

I was raised a devout member of the Roman Catholic Church. I went to private catholic school since I was in kindergarten. (Graduated from a school of the LaSallian rite, taught by Christian Brothers) (graduated in 2009) Which meant I took a minimum of two theology classes a year in elementary and middle school, in high school a minimum of four (two a semester), aside from a life of religion. That's thirteen years of uniforms and cramming Christian dogma down my throat. Two relatives are priests, my grandfather is a respected member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and one of my best friends is joining the priesthood; my grandparents even run a food shelf "Trinity Mission", which I am still a part of, that feeds two thousand families a month.

I was an alter server for twelve years, received four of the seven sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, Confession, and Confirmation). I also took a theology class in college as well as three philosophy classes.

I've also taken a World Religions course (Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Judaism) and a in-depth class on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. My move to atheism was hardly an uneducated decision.

I had always doubted. The more classes and the more I learned the more I started to question. It started when my mother got cancer when I was in 7th grade. I thought what God would do this to someone? It's a question that I understand is asked quite often. The Church had no answer than "God's will".

The more questions, what I've seen, what I've lived through, they make no sense in a world with a loving God. I've lost friends to war, I saw the towers fall, my mom almost died, my best friends mom as well.

I volunteered freaking everywhere, thinking that good work, doing god's work, would bring my faith back into light.

Then I tried other religions, most in study, a few by practice but none made any sense.

The last straw was when my church's priest was diagnosed with dementia and lost his mind, and the new priest was amazingly corrupt. This new priest systematically took over the diocese. He cared only for power. He ruined our little church, THE oldest parish in the city, because he wanted to be the priest of a big fancy, rich church. He got his wish last year when our little church was closed down by the Archbishop.

The old priest, Father Joe was a good man, a man worthy of respect. He was one of the kindest people I'd ever met. Now he doesn't know who he is anymore. The last mass I ever served was one he attended nine months after being diagnosed. He couldn't follow mass anymore. He would stand, and yell at the nurse with him that he wanted to leave because he was scared. He became agitated and hit her. I almost cried when I saw this. I was really close to that priest and to see him like this. Such a good man and a man of great faith, how could his god allow that?

This new priest was cruel and cared only for himself. Not only that but he told me, after twelve, almost thirteen years of service, during a Eucharistic Procession to every church in the diocese that I could not be a part of it because most of the churches would not let a woman onto the altar. And then, the final straw, he removed my status as head server.

After that, I never went to church again.

That lead me through the long road to figuring things out, to using what I'd learned to realize that none of it made sense. There was no logic in it. Blind faith. Led like asses by a carrot on a string.

I decided to put not faith, but logic first.

The Dark Avenger said:
The concern I have is that the most intelligent and well-versed humans in a variety of disciplines know less than 1 percent of the phenomena that occur within the universe. It's like completing a sudoku, with a couple numbers filled in, and even those letters have ambiguous properties. We know relatively little as far as unequivocal facts.

I'd like to know how you have arrived to the conclusion of "this makes sense" or "probably true".
To have such certainty, probably true, one must certainly have access to substantially more information and be well-versed in analyzing that information, correct?

Would being uncertain of the existence of deliberate/intelligent agents classify you as agnostic? To have certainty or high probability of a truth one must make sweeping assumptions of countless unknown variables, and therefore has a subjective or intuitive belief system.
Click to expand...

It is not a matter of 'making sense' or 'probably true' it's a matter of "This IS true, here's evidence to support that fact."

And yes, that would classify you as agnostic. An agnostic, simply put, is a person that believes there is a higher power but a) we simply don't have the ability to understand it or b) a person who neither claims belief or disbelief. They are the neutral party, so to speak.

obZen said:
I've labeled myself like this for a while
I was reading this, so I'm just confused at the differencee between agnostic theism and theism?
I've read things about agnostic / gnostic atheists and agnostic / gnostic theists, like this, so I wound up identiying as agnostic theist for a while
/not sparking debates, just interested
Click to expand...

I misread one of your posts. Yet still, the definition of agnostic theism differs from that article, it is belief without knowledge. It is not a form of atheism, it's a form of belief.
 
Last edited:
I watched the video and read the text. Why am I telling you this?
 
The Dark Avenger said:
Would being uncertain of the existence of deliberate/intelligent agents classify you as agnostic? To have certainty or high probability of a truth one must make sweeping assumptions of countless unknown variables, and therefore has a subjective or intuitive belief system.
Click to expand...

Really though? This is just another instance of "if you cannot prove something nonexistent then it could exist."

I mean, looking at the media etc. not many people actually experience 'God' - even if they believe and pray. I see plenty of people who claim they saw ghosts, or people saying they spotted illusive creatives (Big Foot, Nessie?). Logically these claims seem silly, and they tend to be investigated, but... since we cannot always disprove ghosts (/demons/monsters/etc.) must we remain agnostic about them? Even if everything we can perceive with science says otherwise why should the supernatural outweigh solid evidence and force us to ignore the data we actually have?
 
The Dark Avenger said:
The concern I have is that the most intelligent and well-versed humans in a variety of disciplines know less than 1 percent of the phenomena that occur within the universe. It's like completing a sudoku, with a couple numbers filled in, and even those letters have ambiguous properties. We know relatively little as far as unequivocal facts.

I'd like to know how you have arrived to the conclusion of "this makes sense" or "probably true".
To have such certainty, probably true, one must certainly have access to substantially more information and be well-versed in analyzing that information, correct?

Would being uncertain of the existence of deliberate/intelligent agents classify you as agnostic? To have certainty or high probability of a truth one must make sweeping assumptions of countless unknown variables, and therefore has a subjective or intuitive belief system.
Click to expand...
[PokeCommunity.com] The Atheist Alliance 2.0

What is this a picture of?

You can only see a small portion of the picture, but chances are, you can probably tell what it is. Even if you're not 100% sure, you can definitely tell what it's not. It's not a human, it's not a flower, it's not a cat. You know, because you can see the beak, meaning that it's probably a bird. That's the only thing you need to know to eliminate 99% of the possibilities. The average person may not be able to tell you exactly which species of bird, but an expert definitely could. Someone who's studied them their whole life can likely tell one from another from their beak alone.

When I say our scientific understanding of the world is probably accurate, I'm as confident in that statement as you are in knowing that there is probably a duck in that picture.
 
Last edited:
QuilavaKing said:
[PokeCommunity.com] The Atheist Alliance 2.0

What is this a picture of?

You can only see a small portion of the picture, but chances are, you can probably tell what it is. Even if you're not 100% sure, you can definitely tell what it's not. It's not a human, it's not a flower, it's not a cat. You know, because you can see the beak, meaning that it's probably a bird. That's the only thing you need to know to eliminate 99% of the possibilities. The average person may not be able to tell you exactly which species of bird, but an expert definitely could. Someone who's studied them their whole life can likely tell one from another from their beak alone.

When I say our scientific understanding of the world is probably accurate, I'm as confident in that statement as you are in knowing that there is probably a duck in that picture.
Click to expand...

QuilavaKing said:
[PokeCommunity.com] The Atheist Alliance 2.0

What is this a picture of?

You can only see a small portion of the picture, but chances are, you can probably tell what it is. Even if you're not 100% sure, you can definitely tell what it's not. It's not a human, it's not a flower, it's not a cat. You know, because you can see the beak, meaning that it's probably a bird. That's the only thing you need to know to eliminate 99% of the possibilities. The average person may not be able to tell you exactly which species of bird, but an expert definitely could. Someone who's studied them their whole life can likely tell one from another from their beak alone.

When I say our scientific understanding of the world is probably accurate, I'm as confident in that statement as you are in knowing that there is probably a duck in that picture.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that is an disparate comparison.

Ducks, birds, are observable organisms, and you are making the point we can make inferences from our observations. The inference of particular instances by reference to a general law or principle (of observation). Since an observable organism has features A, B, and C, and birds have features A,B, and C, it's likely a bird, and not another organisms with features E,F,G, H, ect.

The example follows, but as a comparison isn't pertinent to the concept of an unknown variable with unknown properties ? ? and ?, since there are no observations. One cannot simply deduce what properties there are to compare in the example of an unknown intelligent agent.

One may use inductive reasoning to argue the viability of several religious doctrines/references, but one cannot deduce from those antitheses any overarching claims that an intelligent agent(s) are responsible for life.

For instance, science can theorize phenomena, such as the big bang theory, yet that doesn't resolve the issues of how and why, and what (if anything) existed before the big bang. It becomes the issue of what forces are at play when a phenomena occurs.

The baseball doesn't break my cheekbone, the person who throws it does right? Why does the person throw the baseball at my face? I stole money from him, but why? Biological programming as well as my environment/social interactions? What processes are responsible for my biological programming and my environment/social interactions/upringing? Why does natural selection occur? Why do microorganisms compete? Why do molecules form associations? Why do atoms bond, and begin this process of higher organization? Why do the laws of physics exist by which cause atomically behaviors which lead to higher organization of life? Have these laws of physics always existed? This whole chain process as a collective is responsible for my broken cheekbone.

When it comes down to it, there are incalculable masked agents responsible for my broken cheekbone...I can go back to the big bang (and beyond) to explain how a single event occur, since, the big bang is a requisite for the incalculably high number of agents responsible for my broken cheekbone.

Sure, we have scientific observation, but we vastly underestimate the fundamental observations, such as the laws of physics or mathematics, why do these exist?

Hawking:
"God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics"

Logically, he is at the stage of the baseball (laws of physics) hitting my cheek (big bang). He arrogantly negates the existence of anything beyond the reason why the laws of physics exist, or any intermediary/concurrent steps between "laws of physics and "the big bang".

Because the baseball hits my cheek and a person threw the baseball at my face, it doesn't therefore preclude other agents/actors involved in the process. I cannot logically claim, the reason why the ball hit my face was SOLELY this other person.

The differences with the example I provide and the origins of life is that we know some of the intermediary actors that get us from the big bang and the baseball to the cheekbone. The underpinnings of how life exists is far from being sufficiently supported and explored. When we fail to have any idea as to why physics exists and the origins of anatomical bonding necessary for life to form and become more complex, we are all in the dark in answering the question in its completeness as to why life exist.

I'd like to hear specific reasons as to why one deduces an intelligent agent(s) isn't responsible or play a role in the existence of life. Usually I am given a scientific phenomena, without any sort of logical explanation as how that scientific phenomena lends support to theory of atheist. Either that or generalizations/sweeping assumptions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top