From Catholicism to atheism

[Kurama]

I used to be Catholic...yet I found that by accepting evolution and thus rejecting the literalism of the Bible, I hammered the last nail into the coffin of my Christian beliefs. The fact that I rejected the Bible's literalism made me in turn question the Church's beliefs which, while much of it is respectable on a moral level, should never convey absolute morals since it too has made mistakes. This rush of free thought made me abandon organised religion altogether, and soon religion itself...

The fact of the matter is that my initial argument for God's existence was on the basis that ''I don't know whether God exists but I believe he exists''. This simply shows that I was an agnostic theist, like many Christians are. If one admits that there is a chance that God does not exist while still believing in him, they are already an agnostic theist. Likewise I am an agnostic atheist, I do not believe that God exists yet I don't know whether there truly is no God, as much as I do not know whether there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. I see no scientific evidence for such being(s) as gods and deities, and I see many indicators that such beings do not exist. To be true to myself, I cannot accept the existence of God, just as the average Christian cannot accept the existence of Thor, Venus, Baal, and countless other goddesses and gods of antiquity.

I do not seek to be affiliated with the more militant of atheists for I do not see religion in much of a negative light. The days of religion being used as a form to give legitimacy to autocrats (as far as Christianity is concerned, Islam is a whole different story) is finished, people have religion as a form of spiritual guidance and source of hope.

I have nothing against that, and on the contrary, recognise that it is very human to espouse such beliefs. I however choose not to conform to them.

 

[selfinflikted]

Congrats on your liberation.

 

[Kurama]

Congrats on your liberation.

Thank you, though I wouldn't call it liberation per say. I feel that becoming an atheist is more like registering reality. It is the elephant in the room, all theists are aware of it. The fact that I ignored and feared Richard Dawkins conveyed the sheer insecurity of my beliefs, and ultimately it all capitulated.

I do feel more free, in the sense that I do not have the necessity to be bound by dogma. I also feel far happier because I can finally interpret the world to my own liking (while following classical liberal philosophies, such as those of John Locke and the Founding Fathers of the United States, who were quite irreligious themselves). My civil libertarian views have always conflicted with Christianity, and thus this acted as another catalyst towards the breakdown of my faith.

 

[Paradoxum]

Well we agree on this.

 

[jayem]

I was about your age, when I concluded that I just couldn't buy into traditional religion, and god-belief. One of my influences was this essay. It's from 1927, but still a classic. It's the most lucent, well-reasoned, and concise argument for non-belief I've ever seen, and a must-read for any religious skeptic.

Why I Am Not A Christian, by Bertrand Russell

 

[LBP]

Well, OK, but you are awfully young to be arriving at such conclusions. I agree that most Christians, including myself, are "agnostic theists." I don't see how a sane person could be anything other than agnostic, whether an agnostic Christian, agnostic Hindu or agnostic atheist. I always describe Christian faith as "living one's life as though Christianity were true, while acknowledging that it might not be." After many years of pretty intense study of theology, philosophy, psychical research, physics and you-name-it, I concluded that Christianity provided the best explanation of the world in which I live. I always say that I have adopted Christianity as my "template" on the basis of study, experience and observation; I like to describe my faith as an "evidence-based" one. Some of the most compelling evidence that drove me to at least a theistic position consisted of my own anomalous experiences and the quite apparent (to me) workings of a loving-and-guiding higher intelligence in my life. It is impossible that anyone, at age 16, could really have investigated the evidence and arguments for theism and definitively rejected them. At your age, I thought I was a Buddhist. By 20, I was witnessing door-to-door for Campus Crusade for Christ. By 30, I could not believe I had ever been affiliated with Campus Crusade but was intensely interested in anomalous phenomena, psychical research and the (quite compelling) evidence for reincarnation. At 64, I am a Christian who believes in the bodily resurrection of Jesus but regards the Bible as 60% hogwash, 20% demented ravings and 20% profound historical and theological truth. In short, I have evolved to a Christianity in which I can genuinely believe, regardless of whether it fits comfortably within any church creed. When I look back now at the "born again" Christian I was at 20, one who could parrot the fundamentalist lingo and was respected enough to be pushed toward seminary and the ministry by his well-meaning pastor, I can only smile tolerantly; I realize now that I didn't have the life experience or maturity even vaguely to understand or appreciate the Christian message. My point being, I would hope that you remain open-minded and flexible in the coming years and do not plant your flag too deeply in the atheist camp. If you remain a committed atheist in your old age -- well, good for you, but I'd be surprised if you do.

 

[Kurama]

I was about your age, when I concluded that I just couldn't buy into traditional religion, and god-belief. One of my influences was this essay. It's from 1927, but still a classic. It's the most lucent, well-reasoned, and concise argument for non-belief I've ever seen, and a must-read for any religious skeptic.

Why I Am Not A Christian, by Bertrand Russell

Thank you, I'll take a look at it.

Although I disagree with some of Russel's political beliefs (such his advocation of unilateralism), like I do with many atheists, I am quite fond of his various analogies, notably Russel's teapot. Embracing freethought has widened my horizons, I no longer need to base my beliefs, philosophy and life on dogma anymore. I can truly think by myself, and for myself. I realise that religion is an almost indelible part of culture, that people will keep on relying on it as a moral guide, as well as to provide comfort in the face of death. However I don't need religion, accepting the naturalistic sense of the world and the universe is already spiritual fulfilling enough for me

The following quote by Thomas Paine (a deist freethinker) summarises my opinions regarding religion:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

 

[Nithavela]

Glad that you are happy with your choice and conclusions. I don't think you are too young (I rejected the notion of the existence of a God when I was 10 or so) , but keeping an open mind is advisable for everyone.

 

[MehGuy]

Congrats. I made the plunge at 19.

My atheism has become more embedded ever since. I have no idea how I took religion seriously once. After a few years it starts to feel that you were always an atheist, lol.

It really is amazing how drastic the mind can shift.

 

[Cearbhall]

Well, OK, but you are awfully young to be arriving at such conclusions.

I bet you don't say this to Christian youth.

 

[Paradoxum]

Well, OK, but you are awfully young to be arriving at such conclusions.

It is impossible that anyone, at age 16, could really have investigated the evidence and arguments for theism and definitively rejected them.

Do you think so? I wouldn't have said I was an atheist until I was about 21, but I don't see why someone couldn't come to those conclusions earlier. The main reason it took me so long was because I was so emotionally attached to God.

At 16 I was into apologetics, so I don't see why someone else at 16 couldn't see both sides of apologetics. Even then, non-belief is the natural position.

 

[malckiah]

I used to be Catholic...yet I found that by accepting evolution and thus rejecting the literalism of the Bible, I hammered the last nail into the coffin of my Christian beliefs. The fact that I rejected the Bible's literalism made me in turn question the Church's beliefs which, while much of it is respectable on a moral level, should never convey absolute morals since it too has made mistakes. This rush of free thought made me abandon organised religion altogether, and soon religion itself...

The fact of the matter is that my initial argument for God's existence was on the basis that ''I don't know whether God exists but I believe he exists''. This simply shows that I was an agnostic theist, like many Christians are. If one admits that there is a chance that God does not exist while still believing in him, they are already an agnostic theist. Likewise I am an agnostic atheist, I do not believe that God exists yet I don't know whether there truly is no God, as much as I do not know whether there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. I see no scientific evidence for such being(s) as gods and deities, and I see many indicators that such beings do not exist. To be true to myself, I cannot accept the existence of God, just as the average Christian cannot accept the existence of Thor, Venus, Baal, and countless other goddesses and gods of antiquity.

I do not seek to be affiliated with the more militant of atheists for I do not see religion in much of a negative light. The days of religion being used as a form to give legitimacy to autocrats (as far as Christianity is concerned, Islam is a whole different story) is finished, people have religion as a form of spiritual guidance and source of hope.

I have nothing against that, and on the contrary, recognise that it is very human to espouse such beliefs. I however choose not to conform to them.

I think leaving organized religion is fine to some degree as some would say its not a religion, but a relationship. As soon as your belief is all about religion there is a problem. It should be all about Christ and having a personal relationship with Him. Of course there are churches that focus on Jesus and not the religion side of things...Calvary Chapel is a great example. They are all over. As it is always good to be in fellowship with other believers perhaps you should simply get involved in a fellowship like this. Most importantly though is to work on your RELATIONSHIP with Jesus. Read His Word and pray. Walk with Him and you will see that He is already walking with you.
As far as your beliefs, start with simple...Do you believe in a creator or do you think everything just appeared from nothing. To me creation demands a creator just like a watch demands a watchmaker. And if you do believe in a God then look around and see His creations as you can learn about Him through those. A God that created things for us to use and taste.... ie tree's for wood and building, food can taste delicious... when it could have been tasteless altogether. Creation shows his love for us. Now that is not to be confused with the fact that our initial sin cursed the land causing things like thorns and the like. As well as the fact that we are given free will and unfortunately choose to abuse it doing evil things. Ultimately you have to search things out. The Bible has proven itself without error (in its original languages) and has had thousands of predictions that have long come true. Also you can go and visit the places of the bible and see that they indeed exist. As well there are many Non- believers that wrote about things confirming the events in The New and Old testament. An example would be Josephus.
If you write down why you do or do not believe and then seek out answers.... the answers are indeed there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I used to be Catholic...yet I found that by accepting evolution and thus rejecting the literalism of the Bible, I hammered the last nail into the coffin of my Christian beliefs. The fact that I rejected the Bible's literalism made me in turn question the Church's beliefs which, while much of it is respectable on a moral level, should never convey absolute morals since it too has made mistakes. This rush of free thought made me abandon organised religion altogether, and soon religion itself...

The fact of the matter is that my initial argument for God's existence was on the basis that ''I don't know whether God exists but I believe he exists''. This simply shows that I was an agnostic theist, like many Christians are. If one admits that there is a chance that God does not exist while still believing in him, they are already an agnostic theist. Likewise I am an agnostic atheist, I do not believe that God exists yet I don't know whether there truly is no God, as much as I do not know whether there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. I see no scientific evidence for such being(s) as gods and deities, and I see many indicators that such beings do not exist. To be true to myself, I cannot accept the existence of God, just as the average Christian cannot accept the existence of Thor, Venus, Baal, and countless other goddesses and gods of antiquity.

I do not seek to be affiliated with the more militant of atheists for I do not see religion in much of a negative light. The days of religion being used as a form to give legitimacy to autocrats (as far as Christianity is concerned, Islam is a whole different story) is finished, people have religion as a form of spiritual guidance and source of hope.

I have nothing against that, and on the contrary, recognise that it is very human to espouse such beliefs. I however choose not to conform to them.

Your mistake is to assume that all human beliefs are always and should be, empirical. Even science doesn't do this.

Peace

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well we agree on this.

Not all of us.

 

[LBP]

I bet you don't say this to Christian youth.

Of course I would. My IQ happens to be in the 99.7th percentile (hold your applause), and I was an unusually serious and studious child, and I couldn't POSSIBLY (I realize in retrospect) have made an intelligent decision of this magnitude at 16. There simply isn't the time to have considered the evidence and arguments or the maturity to evaluate them. My God, the OP hadn't even read Bertrand Russell's "Atheist 101" essay! I would say to a 16-year-old Christian, as I said to the OP: "Good for you, but don't plant your flag too deeply, stay open-minded, and don't be surprised if you make several 179-degree shifts over the next 40 years." Actually, I would say this to anyone of any age. I'm always amused that atheist "fundamentalists" are as mindless and dogmatic as Christian fundamentalist -- but, please, continue to cheerlead for your new little friend if it makes you happy.

 

[HitchSlap]

Of course I would. My IQ happens to be in the 99.7th percentile (hold your applause), and I was an unusually serious and studious child, and I couldn't POSSIBLY (I realize in retrospect) have made an intelligent decision of this magnitude at 16. There simply isn't the time to have considered the evidence and arguments or the maturity to evaluate them. My God, the OP hadn't even read Bertrand Russell's "Atheist 101" essay! I would say to a 16-year-old Christian, as I said to the OP: "Good for you, but don't plant your flag too deeply, stay open-minded, and don't be surprised if you make several 179-degree shifts over the next 40 years." Actually, I would say this to anyone of any age. I'm always amused that atheist "fundamentalists" are as mindless and dogmatic as Christian fundamentalist -- but, please, continue to cheerlead for your new little friend if it makes you happy.

And how old should one be or information known before one stops believing in Santa Claus?

 

[yasic]

I used to be Catholic...yet I found that by accepting evolution and thus rejecting the literalism of the Bible, I hammered the last nail into the coffin of my Christian beliefs. The fact that I rejected the Bible's literalism made me in turn question the Church's beliefs which, while much of it is respectable on a moral level, should never convey absolute morals since it too has made mistakes. This rush of free thought made me abandon organised religion altogether, and soon religion itself...

The fact of the matter is that my initial argument for God's existence was on the basis that ''I don't know whether God exists but I believe he exists''. This simply shows that I was an agnostic theist, like many Christians are. If one admits that there is a chance that God does not exist while still believing in him, they are already an agnostic theist. Likewise I am an agnostic atheist, I do not believe that God exists yet I don't know whether there truly is no God, as much as I do not know whether there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. I see no scientific evidence for such being(s) as gods and deities, and I see many indicators that such beings do not exist. To be true to myself, I cannot accept the existence of God, just as the average Christian cannot accept the existence of Thor, Venus, Baal, and countless other goddesses and gods of antiquity.

I do not seek to be affiliated with the more militant of atheists for I do not see religion in much of a negative light. The days of religion being used as a form to give legitimacy to autocrats (as far as Christianity is concerned, Islam is a whole different story) is finished, people have religion as a form of spiritual guidance and source of hope.

I have nothing against that, and on the contrary, recognise that it is very human to espouse such beliefs. I however choose not to conform to them.

As has been said before, welcome to your liberation. We will give you the trial membership to the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, but before you can be a full fledged card-holding member we will have to work on your belief that modern day Christianity doesn't hold sway and power in negative ways.

To help with your reprogramm.... *ahem* I mean education, please consider the following:

First up, condoms are well known as being one of the most effective tools to combat STD's and other malignancies. (Link) yet the catholic church has a very strong anti-condom policy that is actively helping spread diseases such as AIDS in many at-risk locations. Even with unofficial means, simply individuals who choose to believe Catholic doctrine end up volenterially not using them putting themselves at harms way.

The Catholic church has a very strong anti-abortion policy. While there is certainly debate when it comes to abortion, most people are ok with the procedure if the mothers life is at risk. For instance a few years ago in Brazil a 9 year old girl was raped by her father and ended up pregnant with twins. Her body normally would be unable to safely carry a single child, let alone twins and an abortion would be a life-saving procedure. The Church went so far as the threaten excommunication for the girls mother and doctor if the abortion took place... and when the doctor deciding the girls life was more important did the procedure, the church followed through and excommunicated him. And this excommunication wasn't backed by just local priests but had the backing of the Vatican itself. As far as the matter of excommunicating the rapists father- no such luck, rape is no a serious enough offense in the Catholic doctrine to justify excommunication (But saving the life of a 9 year old rape victim is). (An article of this)

Up until recently it was a matter of the Catholic Churches policy that sec crimes committed by the priests should not be reported to the authorities but instead should be handled internally. And did the Church handle those- by shuffling rapist priests around giving them access to more victims. Several priests in this manner avoided persecution while raping literally dozens of young victims. This policy was so strong that the punishment was "On pain of excommunication" (Source) meaning if a priest knew about rapist college and tried to report it to the proper authorities he could be looking at losing his position and place in the church. It should be noted that recently the Church finally took a stance against child rape - one can only say 'finally', however many of the people who knowingly and willing shuffled rapists priests around are still serving in their positions.

There is nothing inherently wrong with homosexual marriage or giving them the right to live together in marriage with those they love. The Catholic church disagrees, and in fact spends millions of dollars actively campaigning against same sex marriage (One Example)


And rather than giving further reading, I am instead compelled to provide you with the following Intelligence Squared debate on the subject of "Is the Catholic Church a source of good in the world" between the atheists unquestioned supreme leaders (peace be upon their non-existent souls), Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry, and the two representatives of the Catholic Church: The then British MP Ann Widdecombe, and Archbishop John Onaiyekan.

[2 Hour Version] Christopher Hitchens & Stephen Fry - Intelligence Squared Debate [2009] - YouTube

 

[Belk]

Of course I would. My IQ happens to be in the 99.7th percentile (hold your applause), and I was an unusually serious and studious child, and I couldn't POSSIBLY (I realize in retrospect) have made an intelligent decision of this magnitude at 16. There simply isn't the time to have considered the evidence and arguments or the maturity to evaluate them. My God, the OP hadn't even read Bertrand Russell's "Atheist 101" essay! I would say to a 16-year-old Christian, as I said to the OP: "Good for you, but don't plant your flag too deeply, stay open-minded, and don't be surprised if you make several 179-degree shifts over the next 40 years." Actually, I would say this to anyone of any age. I'm always amused that atheist "fundamentalists" are as mindless and dogmatic as Christian fundamentalist -- but, please, continue to cheerlead for your new little friend if it makes you happy.

Why not? Could you have made itelligent decisions about other topics at that age?

 

[Autumnleaf]

What don't you think the Bible is right about? Start at the beginning and we'll take it from there.

Also, even if the bible was proven to be nonsense, how would that disprove the existence of God? If we find an old science book where it talks about how disease comes from filth do we come to the conclusion that science is a bunch of nonsense?

The Filth Theory:

"Filth theory was a theory that was highly believed back in the 1800's. Filth theory was the theory that filth and general all around dirtiness caused disease."

Filth Theory - All About Viruses and Bacteria

 

[Cearbhall]

Of course I would. My IQ happens to be in the 99.7th percentile (hold your applause), and I was an unusually serious and studious child, and I couldn't POSSIBLY (I realize in retrospect) have made an intelligent decision of this magnitude at 16. There simply isn't the time to have considered the evidence and arguments or the maturity to evaluate them. My God, the OP hadn't even read Bertrand Russell's "Atheist 101" essay! I would say to a 16-year-old Christian, as I said to the OP: "Good for you, but don't plant your flag too deeply, stay open-minded, and don't be surprised if you make several 179-degree shifts over the next 40 years." Actually, I would say this to anyone of any age. I'm always amused that atheist "fundamentalists" are as mindless and dogmatic as Christian fundamentalist -- but, please, continue to cheerlead for your new little friend if it makes you happy.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to tell us about your IQ.

Your analysis of your own capabilities as a teenager in no way affects my opinion. I can't imagine why you think it would when I've been 16 as well. A 16-year-old is perfectly capable of analyzing evidence and drawing conclusions about religion. Of course there's the possibility that she'll change her mind as she continues to learn more, but that doesn't invalidate her current theories.