Should I Come Out as an Atheist to My Religious Family and Friends?

[Sorry!]

I'm sorry but it is the definition of the word. "A-" without "Gnostic/Gnosis" knowledge; ie, it is unknowable.

People who by their own definition of their beliefs should technically fall into the category of agnostic often refer to themselves as atheist because they do not want to be associated with anyone who may actually hold some level of belief in god.

I think we're applying the word knowledge to the wrong thing. It's not knowledge of God/no god. It's lack of knowledge about what ones beliefs are.

 

[russ_watters]

Why does Al-Quaeda label the US 'infidels', when most are believers(supposing allah and god are one and the same entity)?

I don't know how to put this delicately, so I'll just say it straightforwardly: I have never seen such lack of comprehension of the concept of "religion" before! I realize you came from a society that fed you a lot of propaganda about it, but wow, I've just never dealt with that before. People must at least learn about religion in history class. You got an education that has left you unable to understand one of the most basic drivers of how the world works!

A couple of things:
-An "infidel" is a non-believer in Islam.
-While the religions have similar foundations, they have some significant differences, particularly in the way the beliefs are practiced. Whether those differences are enough to kill over, well, are the religious differences between towns in Ireland enough to kill over? (Catholic and protestant?)
-[more from your other posts] You need to understand that there is a very wide variety of religions and religious people. They are not all interchangeable, as you were apparently taught. Some people wear their religion on their sleeve, others you would never know what(if) religion they are unless you asked.

Is simply typing "Al Quaeda" going to attract attention to this thread from employees at the CIA?

The CIA isn't the KGB, so no.

 

[russ_watters]

For the OP, even if you are still living with your parents, at 21, you are old enough to just stop going to church if you don't want to. When asked, tell them whatever you want. If they don't want to hear that you are an athiest, just tell them you don't feel like going. Tell them you got drunk last night and are hung over. At your age, it really doesn't matter.

Note that this should not preclude you from going to church with them on holidays unless you have a serious aversion to the religion. These are as much family functions as religious functions.

 

[NeoDevin]

I think we're applying the word knowledge to the wrong thing. It's not knowledge of God/no god. It's lack of knowledge about what ones beliefs are.

See my https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2327879&postcount=58".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Most theists in this country think atheism is immoral and will label you as such.

Here's an example of prejudice in school by school officials (very sad):




I'm sure there is more cases like this, and in general for teens trying to brake away from strong family religion and influence can be painful because of this kind of prejudice.

Forgot to respond to this when I quoted it in my last post.
This is one girl. One girl who made a point of setting herself apart. A girl who it seems has a rather adamently atheist father. I've heard plenty of similar stories about kids in high school suffering this sort of abuse for various odd reasons even including that certain people just decided that they did not like this person and wanted to make life hell for them. I've also found that when I meet people in person who claim to have had such experiences in school or work they tend to be oblivious of, or edit out, the things that they did to rile these people up. Its certainly not right that they treated her they way she says they did but I can't help thinking that there may have been better ways of dealing with the situation and attempting to get along.
Also, this would be on the tame end of how homosexuals are often treated. I wonder how a gay kid would have faired at that same school.

I think we're applying the word knowledge to the wrong thing. It's not knowledge of God/no god. It's lack of knowledge about what ones beliefs are.

No. The word agnostic was coined specifically with reference to Gnostic christians who go so far as to believe one can have and experience direct knowledge of god. While the word 'gnosis' more or less means 'knowledge' it is most often used in reference to 'devine knowledge' and 'enlightenment'. So yes, the meaning of the word is directly attached to knowledge of god and not knowledge of ones own beliefs.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

See my https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2327879&postcount=58".

Your definition of 'gnostic' is rather broad. In general the religious believe that they have 'knowledge' of god through faith / faith in the knowledge that god exists. 'Gnostic' is supposed to mean 'direct knowledge', the Gnostics believed that you could directly experience god / the existence of god.

 

[junglebeast]

See my https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2327879&postcount=58".

Nice clarification, makes sense. One small mistake,

"Others believe that there is no god, and they can prove it (atheist agnostic)."

By your definition this should be "athiest gnostic."

 

[27Thousand]

I absolutely disagree with this. An atheist plain and simple just does not believe in a diety, they do NOT care about religion. If you want to debate religion, then you have an interest in religion, that has NOTHING to do with believing in supernatural dieties. Please do not confuse the two.

From the broader perspective, what about some denominations of Buddhism who don't believe in any gods? They're by definition, and deductive logic, classified as atheist. However, they're still religious. At the same time, there are quite a few who believe in a God/gods, but aren't religious and don't believe in an afterlife. Although there are general tendencies of beliefs for both theism and atheism, they're actually as diverse in beliefs as the many flavors of ice cream (okay now I'm using metaphors, topic from that other thread ).

Consider, although there are patterns in beliefs, a belief or lack of belief in a god is the "only" requirement to be labeled theist or atheist. Otherwise, it's the True Scotsman logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

 

[27Thousand]

Your definition of 'gnostic' is rather broad. In general the religious believe that they have 'knowledge' of god through faith / faith in the knowledge that god exists. 'Gnostic' is supposed to mean 'direct knowledge', the Gnostics believed that you could directly experience god / the existence of god.

Something I found, gnostic in noun form is one of those Christians. However in adjective form it means that someone has knowledge. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnostic

Agnostic means without knowledge.

There is agnostic theism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist
And agnostic atheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

So you could be an agnostic Catholic, agnostic Jehovah's Witness, agnostic Sunni Muslim, agnostic weak atheist, etc, etc.

Although off topic, I found it interesting that there are Christian Atheists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism They follow teachings of Christianity, minus the God belief.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Something I found, gnostic in noun form is one of those Christians. However in adjective form it means that someone has knowledge. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnostic

Agnostic means without knowledge.

There is agnostic theism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist
And agnostic atheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

So you could be an agnostic Catholic, agnostic Jehovah's Witness, agnostic Sunni Muslim, agnostic weak atheist, etc, etc.

Although off topic, I found it interesting that there are Christian Atheists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism They follow teachings of Christianity, minus the God belief.

I am sure that there are people who label themselves as such though I would question the logic outside of those who are atheist or agnostic that are simply following a "religio-cultural" tradition. For example most of the Jews I have met I am fairly certain have been either agnostic or atheist but still identify themselves as Jews and follow the customs (or some of them).

 

[27Thousand]

I am sure that there are people who label themselves as such though I would question the logic outside of those who are atheist or agnostic that are simply following a "religio-cultural" tradition. For example most of the Jews I have met I am fairly certain have been either agnostic or atheist but still identify themselves as Jews and follow the customs (or some of them).

Another thing along those lines I found interesting, there's also Jewish atheists, who in belief systems do not belief in a God, but culturally and through their mother's line are Jewish. Since through the mother's line gives one the status of Jew, it doesn't create a contradiction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Atheist

So what I'm trying to figure out, what do we call those who don't believe in a God, but who actively are involved in the culture and/or practice teachings (minus the God part) of a religion? Would we label someone who doesn't believe in a God a theist?

 

[DaveC426913]

they're actually as diverse in beliefs as the many flavors of ice cream (okay now I'm using metaphors, topic from that other thread ).

Technically, that is a simile, not a metaphor. :tongue2:

 

[NeoDevin]

Nice clarification, makes sense. One small mistake,

"Others believe that there is no god, and they can prove it (atheist agnostic)."

By your definition this should be "athiest gnostic."

Of course, my bad!

 

[lisab]

People must at least learn about religion in history class. You got an education that has left you unable to understand one of the most basic drivers of how the world works!

I agree, and not only for the historic perspective...you'll never be good at crossword puzzles with no knowledge of the bible .

 

[ThomasT]

Most people simply don't mention their religious beliefs here, so I don't think we have any real basis to make such an estimation.

The basis I used was that this is the Physics Forums.

 

[Sorry!]

The basis I used was that this is the Physics Forums.

I don't think most people that frequent these forums are scientist.

I've always wondered though the academic qualifications of many of the people here. I'm sure its pretty impressive for a lot of them.

 

[ThomasT]

Would you say that there is some sort of a religious propaganda going on over there? Just wondering.

Propaganda means willful deceit. How would we know if a religious proselytizer, or just a churchgoer, or even just somebody who's only relationship with spirituality or theistic religion is just to say yes if asked if he believes in god, actually believes in what they say they believe in?

All governments do this (propagandizing of a general sort), more or less, of course. Ours (the USA) is no different -- and it's not always a bad thing.

If you're asking does the US government promote or foster a religious orientation (namely Christianity), then I would say that it does so indirectly. Politicians recognize (or have come to believe) that aligning themselves with the Christian religion seems to do less harm than not doing so -- and it often actually helps (George W. Bush comes to mind).

Is there a vast, organized effort by the government to promote the Christian religion? I don't think so. There doesn't need to be. It's been a major part of the culture here since long before the formal establishment of the US. Of course some politicians use this to rally and manipulate the populace more than others. Again, George W. Bush comes to mind.

Anyway, if religious belief is perceived as a problem, then I would say that the solution is indoctrinating increasing numbers of the population in the methods of science. An affinity for things scientific, critical thinking, skepticism and the sort of cynicism that seeks to view the world as it is rather than as we might like it to be seems opposed to spirituality, theism, and the trappings of organized religion -- unless you're a US politician trying to get elected to or hold on to some public office, in which case spiritual, theistic religion and physical science are perfectly compatible.

 

[junglebeast]

I agree, and not only for the historic perspective...you'll never be good at crossword puzzles with no knowledge of the bible .

So that's why...

 

[ThomasT]

I don't think most people that frequent these forums are scientist.

It's not that most people here are professional scientists, but that the Physics Forums is, mostly, scientifically oriented; and that the scientific approach to explaining things is pretty much opposed to the spiritual, theistic approach to explaining things; and that this sort of forum(s) tends to attract people who are predisposed to the scientific approach rather than the spiritual, theistic approach.

Hence, the basis for assuming that a majority of the people who visit the Physics Forums are (at least insofar as they're seeking scientific explanations) mostly nonspiritual, nontheistic, or atheistic inquirers, is that this is the Physics Forums.

 

[arunma]

The basis I used was that this is the Physics Forums.

Statistically speaking, physicists are fairly likely to be atheists, so I guess that strictly spekaing you're right. But the secular bias in academia is far less pronounced than many are led to believe (and this is coming from a religious person!). Yes, there are a lot of atheists in science. But physics and chemistry departments aren't out to make anyone stop believing in God. And while I'm sure that there is an Evil Atheist Conspiracy (tm) out there, it doesn't really have any foothold in university physics departments. Indeed I've found that you don't tend to see a lot of militant, "angry atheists" in physics. Most people simply take the position of apathy.

I don't think most people that frequent these forums are scientist.

I've always wondered though the academic qualifications of many of the people here. I'm sure its pretty impressive for a lot of them.

We've got several physics and math professors here, as well as several of us physics grad students. I know a lot of members are grad students in other related fields. And sure, we've got a lot of non-scientists with interest in science too.

 

[WaveJumper]

Statistically speaking, physicists are fairly likely to be atheists, so I guess that strictly spekaing you're right.

I can't make a statement for the majority of physicists, but the most famous names in physics are mostly deists/the idea about an impersonal god/

 

[Santa1]

@OP: Take up Cristo's advice if you have not all ready, tell your friends and family why you don't believe in it (or certain parts).
I know it might be hard and scary at first but it is the best thing to do.
This sounds like a cliché but if your friends do not accept you they are not your friends for the right reasons.

(P.S. arunma has 666 posts, coincidence?)

 

[ideasrule]

Now that is a backstory I would never have thought possible. You must be rare indeed.

What country?

Mainland China. Schools there used to strongly denounce religion, but nowadays they just don't mention it.

It seems that you're right: not many people here have had the same experience. Do I get the title "Most Peculiar Atheist on PF"?

 

[ideasrule]

(P.S. arunma has 666 posts, coincidence?)

6 is a lucky number for many Asian cultures, you know.

 

[arunma]

I can't make a statement for the majority of physicists, but the most famous names in physics are mostly deists/the idea about an impersonal god/

True. I'm using the word "atheist" in a loose sense. Basically I'm referring to anyone who doesn't have a belief in God that would affect his/her life in any significant way. I suppose most physicists do believe in what Richard Dawkins would call the "god of the physicists," which is perhaps just an elegant term for the order that appears in nature.

 

[WaveJumper]

Mainland China. Schools there used to strongly denounce religion, but nowadays they just don't mention it.

It seems that you're right: not many people here have had the same experience. Do I get the title "Most Peculiar Atheist on PF"?

No. You are not the most peculiar, since the same situation unfolded here in Bulgaria, in Russia and the former communist block. The communists were afraid that the religious utopia would overtake their own Red utopia, so they stamped it out.

Religious beliefs in God are frowned upon here, you can get derogatory comments if you spoke of Jesus or the talking snake. It seems religion has been eliminated from the lives of people for good. Most of the friends i talk to, find it hard to believe religion is so strong over there.

 

[ideasrule]

Religious beliefs in God are frowned upon here, you can get derogatory comments if you spoke of Jesus or the talking snake. It seems religion has been eliminated from the lives of people for good. Most of the friends i talk to, find it hard to believe religion is so strong over there.

It's depressing that dictator worshippers confronted talking-snake believers while the sane people couldn't exert any influence. Oh well, just be glad that creationism isn't a problem in Bulgaria anymore. It's long been a powerful curse here in North America.

 

[arunma]

(P.S. arunma has 666 posts, coincidence?)

Haha! I didn't even notice that. It's too bad I ruined it a post ago.

 

[ThomasT]

But physics and chemistry departments aren't out to make anyone stop believing in God.

No, of course not. But I'd conjecture that as one's exposure to and training in the methods of science increases, then one's reliance on spiritual and theistic views tends to decrease.

And while I'm sure that there is an Evil Atheist Conspiracy (tm) out there, it doesn't really have any foothold in university physics departments.

What has a foothold is doing physical science, which tends to preclude doing spiritual and theistic religious stuff -- unless one is a hardcore religious fanatic (I'm using this term loosely) and really really smart. In which case one might invent ingenious rationalizations for one's spiritual beliefs, rather than admitting to an emotional need for some sort of elaborate invisible friend(s) structure.

Adherence to spiritual-theistic religious beliefs is very much an emotional, and something of a social, thing I think. That's why some, otherwise quite rationally oriented, scientists want to cling to beliefs that most other scientists have dismissed as unwarranted (and unnecessary).

 

[WaveJumper]

It's depressing that dictator worshippers confronted talking-snake believers while the sane people couldn't exert any influence.

Haha... I wish Flat-earthers would confront young Earth creationists. Kind of reminds me of the "Alien vs Predator" movie(if you have seen it).

 

[Sorry!]

Haha... I wish Flat-earthers would confront young Earth creationists. Kind of reminds me of the "Alien vs Predator" movie(if you have seen it).

LMFAO. That was a great comparison. I should go to a church and preach outside about the flatness of our earth.

 

[rootX]

6 is a lucky number for many Asian cultures, you know.

I see you had one 6 there too.

I have 969, and lisab has 636 :)

 

[kldickson]

... I'd conjecture that as one's exposure to and training in the methods of science increases, then one's reliance on spiritual and theistic views tends to decrease.

What has a foothold is doing physical science, which tends to preclude doing spiritual and theistic religious stuff -- unless one is a hardcore religious fanatic (I'm using this term loosely) and really really smart. In which case one might invent ingenious rationalizations for one's spiritual beliefs, rather than admitting to an emotional need for some sort of elaborate invisible friend(s) structure.

Adherence to spiritual-theistic religious beliefs is very much an emotional, and something of a social, thing I think. That's why some, otherwise quite rationally oriented, scientists want to cling to beliefs that most other scientists have dismissed as unwarranted (and unnecessary).

From what I've read about various tendencies of the irrational sort in various areas, there seems to be a large amount of compartmentalization involved in the psyche of members of the scientific community who are religious but otherwise rational.

I'm an atheist because I see no proof of any sort of deity. And it's really quite illogical to compartmentalize because it denies integrating information in reality and into a framework - which is one of the basic abilities you need to be a good scientist.

 

[Hurkyl]

No, of course not. But I'd conjecture that as one's exposure to and training in the methods of science increases, then one's reliance on spiritual and theistic views tends to decrease.

People like to see the world from their own perspective. Naturally, the rational atheist likes to think that if other people think rationally, then they will be atheist too. But that doesn't make it so.

Also, blending multiple epistemological beliefs is not a simple task. It's far easier to be a rationalist than being both theistic and rationalistic -- and the strict rationalist will, a priori, deny theism as a path to knowledge.

Of course, the strict rationalist also has to deny empiricism as well, and conversely the strict empiricist denies rationalism. You can see this one crop up when people try to discuss the nature of the physical sciences, which in reality mixes both. (and is not strict)


Of course, you get the the ideologues, such as

Oh well, just be glad that creationism isn't a problem in Bulgaria anymore.

who, when faced with crackpottery done in the name of religion, try to push the idea that it's a typical example of religious belief, rather than a typical example of crackpottery.

 

[Sorry!]

People like to see the world from their own perspective. Naturally, the rational atheist likes to think that if other people think rationally, then they will be atheist too. But that doesn't make it so.

Also, blending multiple epistemological beliefs is not a simple task. It's far easier to be a rationalist than being both theistic and rationalistic -- and the strict rationalist will, a priori, deny theism as a path to knowledge.

Of course, the strict rationalist also has to deny empiricism as well, and conversely the strict empiricist denies rationalism. You can see this one crop up when people try to discuss the nature of the physical sciences, which in reality mixes both. (and is not strict)


Of course, you get the the ideologies, such as

who, when faced with crackpottery done in the name of religion, try to push the idea that it's a typical example of religious belief, rather than a typical example of crackpottery.

Religious belief is crackpottery. :) Can I say that without getting banned?