# Faithless, marginalized and feeling fighty



## pancake (Nov 26, 2009)

I've always been quiet about being an atheist, feeling that if I don't want religious people to constantly attempt to convert me I need to pay them the same courtesy. Live and let live.
However, just recently my stance is changing.

Over the past few years it has become acceptable (even in the UK) to use religion as an excuse for censorship.
Invoking your God of choice seems to be all it takes to get your way. I feel sickened that religion can so easily override freedom of speech. For example I've had to apologize publicly to religious colleagues for exclaiming the word "Jesus" in surprise and that 's just the tip of the iceberg.

I am tired of pussy footing around and being treated like I am lacking in some way because I don't worship an erratic higher power.

Why is religion STILL untouchable? How can it be becoming even more so in modern times?! Shouldn't belief be a choice rather than something you're forced into, have to at least pretend at in order to keep out of trouble?

I am really starting to feel marginalized. I am starting to feel I need to be more militant about my beliefs - or as it were - my lack thereof*.

I'd be interested in your opinions on the subject esp. re religion being exempt from scrutiny.

*yet I don't even dare post this in the Faith section DOH!


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2010)

pancake said:


> I've always been quiet about being an atheist, feeling that if I don't want religious people to constantly attempt to convert me I need to pay them the same courtesy. Live and let live.
> However, just recently my stance is changing.
> 
> Over the past few years it has become acceptable (even in the UK) to use religion as an excuse for censorship.
> ...


Interesting. I've been feeling the same way myself ... perhaps since I joined FB a year ago. So many of my good friends are Christian. I don't fit in. No one is preaching to me, save one relative, but I have been told by said relative that I need to be saved. He literally seems to "need" me to be saved. My mother was an atheist (and she drove me nuts - abusive) so her "preaching" atheism was as irritating as this relative. Using her as an example, I have no problem with someone's beliefs, but I don't any forced on me, so I guess it goes both ways. *(Not saying you're forcing anything on anyone.)*

At any rate, I believe that spirituality is innate ... that is I believe it is an adaptation, perhaps something hard-wired, something that evolved to help us adapt -- and I mean over hundreds of thousands of years. Some folks get angry with me for that but to the best of my knowledge there is NO culture that has ever existed (no anthropologist has ever found such a culture) that does not have some form of spirituality, and subsequently religious rituals.

Rituals have a very logical purpose. They unite people, they provide social structure, maintain a community around a common bond.

People need a belief system, and that can be political views as well, that provides a sense of structure. One could say that my belief in instinct, evolution, biology is my "religion" ... my core belief system. And to be honest, I don't know how I came to be this way, save for the absence of any Faith in my tiny family, or for the fact that my parents were both doctors. (Not to say doctors don't have religious faith ... know a lot of them.)

I could carry on. But the whole "Tea Party" movement going on, the Glen Beck rally here in D.C. recently ... what I found troubling about it was politics cloaked in religion. I don't give a hoot if someone has a religious celebration, I do if it disguises another agenda. In this case ... a backlash against the Democrats/Obama which is also racist in many ways. (Huge debate here about the whole mess.)

Anyway, I'm trying to sort this out to, and this isn't helping me, LOL.

One thing is on PBS/Frontline, coming up in October -- forgot where you live -- there will be a special, "God in America" which will hopefully help with my understanding of the history of religion since the founding of this country.

Anyhoo, as I recall, there are only about 16% of the world's population that is not spiritual/religious ... I'll find my old pie chart.

Have a look at http://www.adherents.com

But yes, I feel left out. Particularly w/this family member ... who is really my closest relative (don't have many) and there is a need to keep in contact for the sake of ... well, family. I was not baptized and only attended church or synagogue with friends.

Man, I'm at a loss.

I guess I feel the same way you do. Let me find my favorite pie chart. Oh, and I don't feel I'm "missing" anything, but there are so many social gatherings that involve Church and such. I end up being a black sheep in that way.

I associate myself most with being Buddhist, just the ritual of it/the mindset, it's very logical, and not thinking of Buddha as anything more than an enlightened man, a teacher, not a God.

Wow, yup feeling the same.
But I have no problem if someone has faith, I think things go bad with organized religion and FUNDAMENTALIST organized religion. The evil within can be justified somehow, which I find incomprehensible. I say, "He who is without sin cast the first stone" and in the end, if there is God, any God, let him/her judge. But again, there are so many people with differing POVs and ways of seeing the world. I love the diversity if people are civil about it.

Rambling, sorry, time for bed.
D


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2010)

PS -- was trying to define myself again.

A-theist ... I don't believe in any anthropomorphized God -- Zeus to Allah, etc.
also
Agnostic ... Who knows? There could be a "higher power" though I have always had no ability to find it and I am almost 52. And oddly enough, I never had a real belief system ... religious ... than I can recall, since childhood. And I also had friends who were not religious or had any spiritual faith. I have never felt a need to "seek" this.
Not thrilled with hypocritical organized religions.

Buddhist teachings make a lot of sense to me.
Judaism as teaching of certain values makes sense to me.

But it would seem to me someone can be moral/have respect for secular law and not have religious faith. And there are those of a faith/particular religion who have no moral center at all. This makes no sense to me. Also, if I am not baptized, I will not be saved. (This relative of mine is Baptist.) Well, why? What of every other religion that exists? What happens to those who died before a certain religion came into being?


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2010)

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Great pie-chart ... too lazy to link it from somewhere else.
Yes 16% of the world's population give or take is "non-religious" ... that's a pretty small chunk. Christianity and Islam run neck and neck, and a ton of other religions follow suit. They are as common as any cultural activity you would find in different parts of the world. And there are so many sects, broken off from the original religion I can't keep track.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2010)

Well, I'm on my research frenzy now. Approximate numbers of individuals part of a particular religion. 
#1 Christianity: 2.1 billion
#2 Islam: 1.5 billion
#3 Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
#4 Hinduism: 900 million
#5 Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
#6 Buddhism: 376 million
#7 primal-indigenous: 300 million
#8 African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
#9 Sikhism: 23 million
#10 Juche: 19 million
#11 Spiritism: 15 million
#12 Judaism: 14 million
#13 Baha'i: 7 million
#14 Jainism: 4.2 million
#15 Shinto: 4 million
#16 Cao Dai: 4 million
#17 Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
#18 Tenrikyo: 2 million
#19 Neo-Paganism: 1 million
#20 Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
#21 Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
#22 Scientology: 500 thousand

With all of these various ways of seeing the world ... well, as in some other discussion ... can we share our diversity, or must we fight it out to the death? IDK.


----------



## BlueTank (Jun 2, 2010)

Scientology 500 thousand????? Not a fan of guns, but I think me needs an assault rifle now.

Scientology.... or... Mormonism 2.0. Woops stepping out a little too much here. Heh.

*runs*


----------



## Surfingisfun001 (Sep 25, 2007)

I relate to this song

God by John Lennon


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2010)

BlueTank said:


> Scientology 500 thousand????? Not a fan of guns, but I think me needs an assault rifle now.
> 
> Scientology.... or... Mormonism 2.0. Woops stepping out a little too much here. Heh.
> 
> *runs*


Ah, I agree. Both religions are so recent, and both so "out of this world" it scares me to death. John Smith was ... I have no clue. And L. Ron Hubbard was off the wall. I find it inconceivable that individuals follow Scientology. It would be fine if THEY didn't preach, but I also found it absolutely vicious that say Tom Cruise gets on his anti-psychiatry pedestal. I'd like to thwack him. And recently I want to scream over the desire for Mormon's to give "salvation by proxy" to Jews killed in the Holocaust ... in other words ... go back, deny their beliefs and "save them" now? WT ...

This again is forcing one's beliefs on others. I have NO problem if someone wants to practice a religion on his/her own, find spirituality in his/her own way ... but to make it a "competition" over "who's right and who's wrong." Well, I just have to throw my arms up in the air. Or, yes, scream. Getting out a rifle troubles me a bit, LOL.

Oh, and who is burning the Koran on 9/11? OMG. Another group. Forgot. Give up!


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2010)

surfingisfun001 said:


> I relate to this song
> 
> God by John Lennon


Yeah, I like that, Kenny. Interesting, as in the Ten Commandments one reads "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." I read this in my own way in that we should not worship fame, "heroes" -- they let us down or can be corrupt, etc. We should only try to be ourselves and not hurt others -- and there are so many ways to hurt. And the ultimate thing to do is to love someone. To give love to others. Wish I had someone to love these days.

" ... it's just like getting out of one car and into another."

And man, oh man, do I remember that day. Yup I was in uni. And that was quite stunning. Oddly enough the individual who shot Lennon was denied parole a sixth time today or yesterday. Sadly he was mentally ill. Same with the individual who shot Reagan -- same year? -- but didn't suceed, yet seriously injured James Brady. Now I can't remember which one. No memory! SIGH.

Life is a sad mystery sometimes.


----------



## S O L A R I S (Dec 24, 2009)

A question I want to raise is, what came first, Religion? or Universal Human values? I think in a way, the universal values we share nowadays are associated with being extracted from religious teachings. So declaring god doesnt exist , could mean a rejection of these values and morals in the eyes of alot of people who are critical of atheism.

So now you have human values on one side, fused with religion, which later gets mixed with cultural norms. So seeing one or the other becomes very difficult and confusing because they are now just one giant ideology. You need to adhere to all to be considered 'Normal'

I recall the Enlightnment movement/ Noble savage ideology by Rosseau, which states "the moral sense in humans is natural and innate and based on feelings rather than resulting from the indoctrination of a particular religion", so there was a move to sort of re-understand morality back in the day away from the concept of religion which I believe opened new ways of seeing things.

Personally, I think religious or not. its a personal issue. These are just labels that are being used nowadays more so than anything. One grey area which I am personally confused about is the terms atheism, agnostic and spiritual. I need to do my research on these terminologies.


----------



## voidvoid (Sep 5, 2008)

S O L A R I S said:


> A question I want to raise is, what came first, Religion? or Universal Human values? I think in a way, the universal values we share nowadays are associated with being extracted from religious teachings. So declaring god doesnt exist , could mean a rejection of these values and morals in the eyes of alot of people who are critical of atheism.
> 
> So now you have human values on one side, fused with religion, which later gets mixed with cultural norms. So seeing one or the other becomes very difficult and confusing because they are now just one giant ideology.


This is probably what I would have written had I had the energy/clarity. Perfect answer.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2010)

S O L A R I S said:


> A question I want to raise is, what came first, Religion? or Universal Human values? I think in a way, the universal values we share nowadays are associated with being extracted from religious teachings. So declaring god doesnt exist , could mean a rejection of these values and morals in the eyes of alot of people who are critical of atheism.


Yup this is a great question. I would say it has to do with human evolution and survival. I think, bottom line, it is indeed "survival" to have "altruistic traits" along with a desire to defend one's self from enemies. As Darwin said "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one *most responsive to change*." -- yes, that quotation is on my bulletin board, LOL.

Even in studies of the great apes, we see both tribalism, pecking order, etc. as well as altruistic behavior. So we see in the animal kingdom even war -- in chimps (Jane Goodall's studies and more recent studies.)

I see humans as complex animals, we have adapted, and our instincts are still as active as our more developed brain/culture/thinking, etc. Having "morals" or "helping behavior" can help SURIVIAL of a group. Sharing ritual can help survival of the group. *Sharing "good behavior" helps survival, so perhaps "moral behavior" is a positive adaptation. Without it we would destroy each other.*



> So now you have human values on one side, fused with religion, which later gets mixed with cultural norms. So seeing one or the other becomes very difficult and confusing because they are now just one giant ideology. You need to adhere to all to be considered 'Normal'


And agreed. The world is not full of isolated groups/tribes/families/countries, etc. We are dependent on each other, yet each evolved with tremendous commonalities, and tremendous differences -- some of which appear to be very difficult to change. 



> I recall the Enlightnment movement/ Noble savage ideology by Rosseau, which states "the moral sense in humans is natural and innate and based on feelings rather than resulting from the indoctrination of a particular religion", so there was a move to sort of re-understand morality back in the day away from the concept of religion which I believe opened new ways of seeing things.


I recall the noble savage, but I remember it as being too simplistic a model. But I would say that humans in the main have a moral sense separate from any SPECIFIC religion. But I think fear of the unknown and of death (we are the only species that contemplates our own existence and death) has led to the addition of a need for EXPLANATIONS. Though I don't believe in a particular God, I am still filled with questions about why we are here. It's nuts. But I am not as bothered by this thinking much at all now. I like to discuss it intellectually.

And also, I can look at myself. I would say I have what would be considered high morals, though I was brought up with no religion. I will say, I was in a community where "being responsible" was highly valued regardless of any religion. I went to a private non-denominational prep school. If you did stupid things, you got into trouble or kicked out of school. And most of us were pretty decent kids, and have turned out to be pretty decent adults. I learned to respect SECULAR authority, though I also can challenge it, but civilly.



> Personally, I think religious or not. its a personal issue. These are just labels that are being used nowadays more so than anything. One grey area which I am personally confused about is the terms atheism, agnostic and spiritual. I need to do my research on these terminologies.


100% agreed.

In reading a great book on various writers on Atheism (just called Atheism by S.T. Joshi), contemporary figures as well as going back to Lucretius (about 60 BC?), I came to a better understanding of these terms. (Atheism has existed as long as theism -- belief in God/s) ... there are always some who doubt.

*Atheism* -- I think this mainly means one does not believe in a GOD ... an entity in human form (or a variation) ... that one worships or is the force behind all things. A (not) Theistic (adhering to the concept of a God)

*Agnostic* -- A (not) gnnosia (knowing). I call myself that as I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a higher power. And I wouldn't presume to know. How can any of us know for certain what is beyond death. I tend to believe there is nothing. But who am I to say?

One can be Spiritual (have Faith in God, or a "higher entity or power") without being part of a religion or "enacting a set of rituals" to appease or worship the higher power.

*Spirituality* = Faith (personal Faith)- a sense of connection to God, to this higher power, connection to powers greater than a person. Pure spiritual belief outside the realm of any organized religion.
*Religion* = ritual (groups get together to share Faith) -- this can also be positive. It doesn't have to be negative. It's when it is forced on others, or becomes extreme/Fundamentalist that it becomes dangerous.

Also, I know quite a few people who go to Church -- carry out religious rituals and who do not believe in all that goes on re: the "rules" of the religion, and some don't have that much Faith/spiritual connection either. It is more of a social experience, a family experience, a common experience that is tradition.

Tradition and shared experience are important too.

My two, no three, cents.

D


----------



## BlueTank (Jun 2, 2010)

Dreamer* said:


> Ah, I agree. Both religions are so recent, and both so "out of this world" it scares me to death. John Smith was ... I have no clue. And L. Ron Hubbard was off the wall. I find it inconceivable that individuals follow Scientology. It would be fine if THEY didn't preach, but I also found it absolutely vicious that say Tom Cruise gets on his anti-psychiatry pedestal. I'd like to thwack him. And recently I want to scream over the desire for Mormon's to give "salvation by proxy" to Jews killed in the Holocaust ... in other words ... go back, deny their beliefs and "save them" now? WT ...
> 
> This again is forcing one's beliefs on others. I have NO problem if someone wants to practice a religion on his/her own, find spirituality in his/her own way ... but to make it a "competition" over "who's right and who's wrong." Well, I just have to throw my arms up in the air. Or, yes, scream. Getting out a rifle troubles me a bit, LOL.
> 
> Oh, and who is burning the Koran on 9/11? OMG. Another group. Forgot. Give up!


Yeah it gets taken way too far.

I realized when I said I needed an automatic weapon I didn't say that it means for protection.... When they come to get me and try to "save" me. haha.

Oh memes... How some of them are so flawed yet replicate so fast.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2010)

BlueTank said:


> Yeah it gets taken way too far.
> 
> I realized when I said I needed an automatic weapon I didn't say that it means for protection.... When they come to get me and try to "save" me. haha.
> 
> Oh memes... How some of them are so flawed yet replicate so fast.


Hey, I understood the first time. Don't think I haven't thought of shooting a few people, for real. Sometimes I don't know how I keep myself from doing it. Well, I don't own a weapon. I tell you I'd like to beat a few of these people senseless though, LOL.


----------



## Pablo (Sep 1, 2005)

pancake said:


> I've always been quiet about being an atheist, feeling that if I don't want religious people to constantly attempt to convert me I need to pay them the same courtesy. Live and let live.
> However, just recently my stance is changing.
> 
> Over the past few years it has become acceptable (even in the UK) to use religion as an excuse for censorship.
> ...


Overall in the UK it's not so bad in my opinion, for example Monty Python savaged Christianity with their humour and everyone loved them for it, it's just Islam which has it written that it shouldn't be criticised which is a shame for the religion and everyone else because criticism is a fundamental driver of progress and improvement.


----------

