Atheists: Are you an implicit or an explicit atheist?

[Hentenza]

Inquiry minds want to know.:)

Here are the definitions. Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism)

ETA: I allowed for multiple choices since some of you might have explicit beliefs and implicit beliefs.

Please post why if you feel comfortable.

Thanks!!!!

[VoxRat]

lol @ "non-atheistic non-theism"

Too much hair splitting.
I don't believe in any god defined by any believer I've heard attempt a definition. Perhaps tomorrow a believer will offer me a definition I don't find implausible. What category does that make me?

[Hentenza]

lol @ "non-atheistic non-theism"

Too much hair splitting.
I don't believe in any god defined by any believer I've heard attempt a definition. Perhaps tomorrow a believer will offer me a definition I don't find implausible. What category does that make me?

Implicit.:)

[Lisa0315]

Just to help me keep up with this...Implicit is being an atheist without conciously thinking about it, but Explicit is having researched it and rejected the idea of a deity.

Right?

Lisa

[Barefoot Bree]

Explicit. I'm 49 years old, daughter of a minister. I've been around the church block so many times I'm dizzy, and have never heard any coherent explanations or reasons, nor seen any credible evidence in god's existence. If he does exist, he's ever bothered to get in touch with me. And I'm perfectly comfortable with going the further step of taking this complete absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

To me the difference between explicit and implicit atheism, between weak and strong atheism, or even between atheism and agnosticism is this little issue of comfort with that last step. I'm not holding out any final judgement, waiting for the off chance that evidence might present itself. Like I said, I'm no spring chicken, and I'm pretty widely travelled and read. I'm pretty sure that if a god worth his godhood did exist, I'd have noticed by now.

[Goldie]

Explicit. I'm 49 years old, daughter of a minister. I've been around the church block so many times I'm dizzy, and have never heard any coherent explanations or reasons, nor seen any credible evidence in god's existence. If he does exist, he's ever bothered to get in touch with me. And I'm perfectly comfortable with going the further step of taking this complete absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

To me the difference between explicit and implicit atheism, between weak and strong atheism, or even between atheism and agnosticism is this little issue of comfort with that last step. I'm not holding out any final judgement, waiting for the off chance that evidence might present itself. Like I said, I'm no spring chicken, and I'm pretty widely travelled and read. I'm pretty sure that if a god worth his godhood did exist, I'd have noticed by now.

^ This.

[Soul Invictus]

Implicit atheism sounds dumb. "The absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". What is this supposed to mean? I'd categorize myself as a weak atheist, and if that requires me to be this convoluted idea of being an implicit atheist, so be it.

[BioBeing]

Explicit, for basically the same reasons as Bree.

[4321lynx]

Explicit.
And as you saw on another thread fairly rude about it.
But that's nothing compared to what I can be when I really get going, not that I'm proud of it, it's just the way it is. I can be polite for short periods if I really try.;)

[Eudaimonist]

Explicit, since I'm an ex-theist due to carefully pondering the issues.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Lisa0315]

I am just pissed that there are no magical brownies in this poll. WTF? I am feeling marginalized here.

[BioBeing]

lol @ "non-atheistic non-theism"

Too much hair splitting.
I don't believe in any god defined by any believer I've heard attempt a definition. Perhaps tomorrow a believer will offer me a definition I don't find implausible. What category does that make me?

Implicit.:)

No - he has thought about it and explicitly rejects all forms of theism he has heard of so far.

[SallyAnne]

I am just pissed that there are no magical brownies in this poll. WTF? I am feeling marginalized here.


LOL Lisa! I'm going to wade in and figure out what I was before I became a Christian (apart from being a hedonistic heathen).:p

Um, I used to be 95% atheist and 5% agnostic. What did that make me?:confused:

[Lisa0315]

I am just pissed that there are no magical brownies in this poll. WTF? I am feeling marginalized here.


LOL Lisa! I'm going to wade in and figure out what I was before I became a Christian (apart from being a hedonistic heathen).:p

Um, I used to be 95% atheist and 5% agnostic. What did that make me?:confused:

Very confused? :D

Anyway, the magical brownies and marginalization, hard to explain, old joke on another forum called Talk Rational. Unfortunately, there was a lot of talk, but most of it was not rational.

Lisa

[DMB]

I am not voting because I don't accept the categories. I'm just an atheist.

[SallyAnne]

I am just pissed that there are no magical brownies in this poll. WTF? I am feeling marginalized here.


LOL Lisa! I'm going to wade in and figure out what I was before I became a Christian (apart from being a hedonistic heathen).:p

Um, I used to be 95% atheist and 5% agnostic. What did that make me?:confused:

Very confused? :D



HAHAHA! great minds think alike.;) I read back on my post and thought exactly that.:D

*Sally, you was confused gurl*:p

[Monad]

I am not voting because I don't accept the categories. I'm just an atheist.

Agreed - this nit pickery is bollocks

[JamesBannon]

I don't know what to vote. Since i don't believe there are gods or other mythological beasts & monsters, that makes me an atheist. On the other hand, to state absolutely "no god exists", one needs a definitive proof and, since none have been offered that I can see, that makes me agnostic.

[Worldtraveller]

lol @ "non-atheistic non-theism"

Too much hair splitting.
I don't believe in any god defined by any believer I've heard attempt a definition. Perhaps tomorrow a believer will offer me a definition I don't find implausible. What category does that make me?

Implicit.:)

I disagree, that's an explicit atheist, is it not? He has rejected multiple notions of divinity conciously, not because he hasn't really thought about it.

I am an explicit atheist. Weak with respect to the idea that there might be something out there that comes close to what we might consider god(s)(ess)(es), but a strong atheist WRT every single version of god that has ever been presented to me, and I've done a lot of reading.... :)

[SallyAnne]

I don't know what to vote. Since i don't believe there are gods or other mythological beasts & monsters, that makes me an atheist. On the other hand, to state absolutely "no god exists", one needs a definitive proof and, since none have been offered that I can see, that makes me agnostic.


This is how I used to feel! The majority of me just didn't believe and that was that. But there was a very small part (like 5%) that wasn't sure because there isn't definitive proof against the possibility, so I guess I was agnostic too but mainly atheist.

From a Christian perspective though, I was an unbelieving gentile who had not yet rejected the Gospel.

So what is that in atheist-speak? Implicit or full-blown agnostic?

[David B]

I've never come across the terms implicit and explicit atheist before.

Is Lisa right, Hent, about what you mean by them?

In any case, I reject the idea of God, as the term is generally used and understood, as a supernatural entity who created the universe, and judges people.

Sometimes people (like Einstein, for instance) use the word in a different way, perhaps as a metaphor for the deep rules of how the universe works, like relativity.

This I think not so much wrong as confusing.

And some people use God as a word to describe some sort of naturalistic pantheism. I'm in sympathy with the feelings of awe and wonder that one can feel when contemplating life, the universe and everything, but I don't see that as any sort of God as the word is generally understood.

David

[hecaterin]

lol @ "non-atheistic non-theism"

Too much hair splitting.
I don't believe in any god defined by any believer I've heard attempt a definition. Perhaps tomorrow a believer will offer me a definition I don't find implausible. What category does that make me?

Implicit.:)I took that as explicit. VoxRat's position is basically my position too.

[hecaterin]

Implicit atheism sounds dumb. "The absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". What is this supposed to mean? I'd categorize myself as a weak atheist, and if that requires me to be this convoluted idea of being an implicit atheist, so be it.I think you'd have to be brought up by non-religious parents in a largely non-religious society. The label would fit a lot of Australians that I know, and I imagine a lot of Scandinavians. A sort of default atheism, where you don't believe, but have also never really considered it in much depth.

[RBH]

Lemme see. Raised in a pretty conservative Protestant denomination, essentially evangelical before that was the buzz; once upon a time head usher at one of the largest Lutheran churches in the country; and an atheist for decades now, 'out.' And for reasons I've laid out in any number of places. Explicit in the terms of the OP.

[SallyAnne]

LOL! This thread is hilarious, now were dicing and slicing the definitions of "atheist" and still can't agree!

[hecaterin]

I think we're good with atheist = no belief in any god. We're just looking at proposed subcategories here.

[RBH]

LOL! This thread is hilarious, now were dicing and slicing the definitions of "atheist" and still can't agree!And Christianity has how many denominations, sects, and divisions? :evil:

[SallyAnne]

LOL! This thread is hilarious, now were dicing and slicing the definitions of "atheist" and still can't agree!And Christianity has how many denominations, sects, and divisions? :evil:



Yeah exactly, LOL, it was starting to remind me of Christianity, I was gonna say:

"welcome to my world guys":evil:

haha.:D

[JamesBannon]

I don't know what to vote. Since i don't believe there are gods or other mythological beasts & monsters, that makes me an atheist. On the other hand, to state absolutely "no god exists", one needs a definitive proof and, since none have been offered that I can see, that makes me agnostic.


This is how I used to feel! The majority of me just didn't believe and that was that. But there was a very small part (like 5%) that wasn't sure because there isn't definitive proof against the possibility, so I guess I was agnostic too but mainly atheist.

From a Christian perspective though, I was an unbelieving gentile who had not yet rejected the Gospel.

So what is that in atheist-speak? Implicit or full-blown agnostic?

Atheism / theism are belief claims. Agnosticism is a knowledge claim. Since I cannot "know", that makes me, and everyone else, agnostic (since IMO knowing which particular god claim is true, if any, is impossible in principle). This does not, however, mean that I am not a convinced atheist. I am.

[RBH]

Atheism / theism are belief claims. Agnosticism is a knowledge claim. Since I cannot "know", that makes me, and everyone else, agnostic (since IMO knowing which particular god claim is true, if any, is impossible in principle). This does not, however, mean that I am not a convinced atheist. I am.Yup. That's why it's entirely coherent to identify oneself as an agnostic atheist.

[BigEvil]

I had been taught that atheists were the worst people on earth when I was a kid. The last thing I ever wanted to be was an atheist. So it was rather unsettling when I discovered that I had became one. The term still had negative implications to me. I had a hard time admitting to anyone that I was an atheist. Hence, I described myself as a weak atheist, at least I wasn't one of the horrible strong atheists.

But that was several years ago. Today, I am an atheist. Explicit atheist, strong atheist, there-ain't-no-god-atheist. I couldn't call myself a "Bright", it seems too much like a step backwards for me.

[4321lynx]

Atheism / theism are belief claims. Agnosticism is a knowledge claim. Since I cannot "know", that makes me, and everyone else, agnostic (since IMO knowing which particular god claim is true, if any, is impossible in principle). This does not, however, mean that I am not a convinced atheist. I am.Yup. That's why it's entirely coherent to identify oneself as an agnostic atheist.

An explicit agnostic atheist.:)

[4321lynx]

LOL! This thread is hilarious, now were dicing and slicing the definitions of "atheist" and still can't agree!And Christianity has how many denominations, sects, and divisions? :evil:



Yeah exactly, LOL, it was starting to remind me of Christianity, I was gonna say:

"welcome to my world guys":evil:

haha.:D

But, unlike most of you lot, we do not wish or expect everlasting hellfire & torture for those we have slight or serious disagreements with. Not even for the confused/deluded Xtian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/etc/etc/etc lot:evil:

[SallyAnne]

And Christianity has how many denominations, sects, and divisions? :evil:



Yeah exactly, LOL, it was starting to remind me of Christianity, I was gonna say:

"welcome to my world guys":evil:

haha.:D

But, unlike most of you lot, we do not wish or expect everlasting hellfire & torture for those we have slight or serious disagreements with. Not even for the confused/deluded Xtian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/etc/etc/etc lot:evil:


Well I certainly don't "wish" for hell-fire for anyone.

[4321lynx]

Yeah exactly, LOL, it was starting to remind me of Christianity, I was gonna say:

"welcome to my world guys":evil:

haha.:D

But, unlike most of you lot, we do not wish or expect everlasting hellfire & torture for those we have slight or serious disagreements with. Not even for the confused/deluded Xtian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/etc/etc/etc lot:evil:


Well I certainly don't "wish" for hell-fire for anyone.


Never said you did. But most good "saved" Christians tell all who are not, that we're going to get it. For ever & ever, with merciful Jesus looking on in all his three aspects. It's part of the"faith", SallyAnne & you know it.:dunno:

[Brother Daniel]

Not even for the confused/deluded Xtian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/etc/etc/etc lot:evil:
Not even for members of rival secular message boards?

* ducks and runs *

[lex]

Eximplicit atheist. Explication of the implication of this term is extremely imprecatious

[Copernicus]

I don't acknowledge the "implicit atheist" category. For me, atheists are people who have considered the existence of gods and rejected them as plausible beings. People who don't know what gods are do not qualify as atheists.

[SallyAnne]

But, unlike most of you lot, we do not wish or expect everlasting hellfire & torture for those we have slight or serious disagreements with. Not even for the confused/deluded Xtian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/etc/etc/etc lot:evil:


Well I certainly don't "wish" for hell-fire for anyone.


Never said you did. But most good "saved" Christians tell all who are not, that we're going to get it. For ever & ever, with merciful Jesus looking on in all his three aspects. It's part of the"faith", SallyAnne & you know it.:dunno:


Do I? I don't tell anyone that they're going to hell, never have done and never will. Just making myself clear lest you erroneously lump me in with the "most."

[Eudaimonist]

I am just pissed that there are no magical brownies in this poll. WTF? I am feeling marginalized here.

Here you go.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/1/2224424_dc7642fc1e.jpg

The magic is inside.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Zygote]

Implicit atheism sounds dumb. "The absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". What is this supposed to mean? I'd categorize myself as a weak atheist, and if that requires me to be this convoluted idea of being an implicit atheist, so be it.

It sounds to my like this could fit some nominally religious people. I'm sure there are those who have always gone through the motions of church but never relied on, talked to or, if they thought about it, actually believed in a deity.

[tjakey]

Since I used to be a Christian I guess "explicit." I do kind of wonder why it matters though.

[lpetrich]

Since just about every atheist here is likely an explicit one, we ought to start a poll about something more meaningful, like weak vs. strong atheism. I think that such a poll should include options like agnosticism, pantheism, deism, belief in the Abrahamic God, and belief in non-Abrahamic gods. I'll let someone else do that, because I think that someone else may be better at laying out categories of belief.

[Jobar]

LOL! This thread is hilarious, now were dicing and slicing the definitions of "atheist" and still can't agree!

No, there's considerable agreement here.

I haven't voted {changed my mind; I did vote}, because this poll is not going to tell you very much. See, anyone posting here and identifying as an atheist is going to be an explicit atheist. We have thought and written about this subject a great deal; some more than others of course, but all of us explicitly reject the notion of a personified and almighty creator of the universe.

Most of us are agnostic atheists, though; we won't claim to know in any absolute sense that there are no gods, because we realize that *we* aren't all-knowing. Still we *believe* there are no gods.

Myself, I'm an atheist/pantheist. I think that the universe itself is a unity, but not a personified unity; self-creating and of itself so, it partakes in a few of the characteristics that theists usually impart to their gods, but not most. If you're interested, read Jobar's pantheism (http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?t=128574) from the former II. Post #25 there is a speech I gave some years back, at a meeting of the Georgia Humanists.

added- We unbelievers have a much easier time with this than do you believers. See, we can readily agree that there are no gods; but you that believe in gods, or a god, then have to agree on their/its nature, and decide what god(s) want(s) you to do. With no physical evidence, nothing outside your own heads, and the writings of other human beings. Thus the never-ending disputation and factioning we see among all religions which posit a god, or gods; you have no touchstone, nothing evident to the senses which would serve to draw all your beliefs into a convergent whole. Instead, your beliefs diverge; they have no center.

[Worldtraveller]

I am just pissed that there are no magical brownies in this poll. WTF? I am feeling marginalized here.

The magic is inside.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I use that line a lot too, hardly ever works. :p ;)

Oh wait...you were talking about the brownies?

Ahem, nevermind, carry on..... :cool:

[tjakey]

Implicit atheism sounds dumb. "The absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". What is this supposed to mean? I'd categorize myself as a weak atheist, and if that requires me to be this convoluted idea of being an implicit atheist, so be it.

It sounds to my like this could fit some nominally religious people. I'm sure there are those who have always gone through the motions of church but never relied on, talked to or, if they thought about it, actually believed in a deity.

I think there is a lot in that observation. We keep hearing how America is a "Christian" nation. Yet on any given Sunday less then 25% of the population is actually in a church, and, (if I remember the statistic correctly) that includes all religions, not just the Christian sects. If pressed I think a lot of people who would call themselves believers have only a vague idea of what they actually believe and no real good reasoning of why they believe.

[Jobar]

I suspect that the idea of 'implicit atheism' is a stick that some pastors and priests use to beat nominal believers over the head, trying to get them to attend church services and live a more (your sect here) lifestyle. Oh, and donate. Mostly to donate.

[tjakey]

A slight hijack, but I happen to agree that the universe is best seen as a whole. Sharp divisions between things are human inventions that break down under scrutiny. In the cosmos all things blend from one to another, there are no fissures in the continuity of the evolution of the universe up to and including our species.

But there is no "theism" in my "pan."

[Garnet]

Explicit and I firmly state that gods don't exist.

It isn't up to me to conclusively disprove every claim of the existence of gods. If you claim gods exists, you prove it in such a way that it is unquestionable. Until then, there ain't no such critters.

[tjakey]

Explicit and I firmly state that gods don't exist.

It isn't up to me to conclusively disprove every claim of the existence of gods. If you claim gods exists, you prove it in such a way that it is unquestionable. Until then, there ain't no such critters.

Amen!

[BioBeing]

Implicit atheism sounds dumb. "The absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". What is this supposed to mean? I'd categorize myself as a weak atheist, and if that requires me to be this convoluted idea of being an implicit atheist, so be it.

It sounds to my like this could fit some nominally religious people. I'm sure there are those who have always gone through the motions of church but never relied on, talked to or, if they thought about it, actually believed in a deity.

I'd call these people implicit Christians. They just go to Church without actually hearing the preacher or thinking about their religion. I'm sure that, if they did think about it, they would become explicit atheists...

[Vill]

Following the definitions in the OP, I would say I was Implicit when I was younger, but the older I get, the more explicit I get... :)

[court and spark]

LOL! This thread is hilarious, now were dicing and slicing the definitions of "atheist" and still can't agree!

One day all the atheists will come to agreement on what it is we don't believe...

[Copernicus]

LOL! This thread is hilarious, now were dicing and slicing the definitions of "atheist" and still can't agree!

One day all the atheists will come to agreement on what it is we don't believe...

I vehemently disagree.

[David B]

LOL! This thread is hilarious, now were dicing and slicing the definitions of "atheist" and still can't agree!

One day all the atheists will come to agreement on what it is we don't believe...

I vehemently disagree.

Well, I agree with you, so that's a start:D

David

[BigEvil]

One day all the atheists will come to agreement on what it is we don't believe...

I vehemently disagree.

Well, I agree with you, so that's a start:D

David

Well, I am in weak agreement which is not to be confused with strong argeement. Not quite sure if I am in implicit or explicit agreement. Maybe I should just be agnostic to the agreement part.

[4321lynx]

I vehemently disagree.

Well, I agree with you, so that's a start:D

David

Well, I am in weak agreement which is not to be confused with strong argeement. Not quite sure if I am in implicit or explicit agreement. Maybe I should just be agnostic to the agreement part.

I refuse to be explicit about whether I am in implicit strong agreement or explicit weak agreement with the above, at the same time implicitly denying that I am in either explicitly strong or implicitly weak agreement or indeed in any kind of agreement at all, this however, must not be taken as a sign of my strong or weak implicit or explicit disagreement. I implicitly hope that by this explicit statement I have made myself crystal clear to everyone here.:dunno:

[BlackBerry]

:rolling:

[RBH]

I refuse to be explicit about whether I am in implicit strong agreement or explicit weak agreement with the above, at the same time implicitly denying that I am in either explicitly strong or implicitly weak agreement or indeed in any kind of agreement at all, this however, must not be taken as a sign of my strong or weak implicit or explicit disagreement. I implicitly hope that by this explicit statement I have made myself crystal clear to everyone here.:dunno:Damned schismatics! :bang:

[Worldtraveller]

Splitters!! :p

[lex]

Side splitters!

[LoneWolf]

I am an explicit atheist. I find it difficult to understand how anyone could be an implicit atheist, at least if they grew up in a place like the US. It seems to me in such an environment an actual decision had to be made at some point, or at least considered. And I REALLY don’t see how any atheist who takes the initiative to become a member at a board like this one could be an implicit atheist.

[Barbarian]

I refuse to be explicit about whether I am in implicit strong agreement or explicit weak agreement with the above, at the same time implicitly denying that I am in either explicitly strong or implicitly weak agreement or indeed in any kind of agreement at all, this however, must not be taken as a sign of my strong or weak implicit or explicit disagreement. I implicitly hope that by this explicit statement I have made myself crystal clear to everyone here.:dunno:Let us generalize.

Let the set A, the set of possible atheisms denoted by their central claim, be inductively generated by the following three rules:

"there is no god" is in A

"I don't know about the existence of a god" is in A

and finally

if P is in A then "P and I am sure about this" and "P but I am not sure about this" are both in A.

Inductive generation means there are no other elements in A save those generated by a finite number of application of the rules above (which is not to say that there are no other atheisms, although Barbarian's conjecture - so far unproven - states that all forms of atheisms have a meaning-preserving mapping onto A). We have immediately the consequence of injectivity: no two differently generated atheisms are the same, and from here it follows that there are infinitely many different atheisms (countable infinity, in the case you wondered). Since there are finitely many atheists, it follows from here that there are atheisms with no adherents, which is either a scary thought or a boring one, not sure which.

[Eudaimonist]

court and spark: One day all the atheists will come to agreement on what it is we don't believe...

Copernicus: I vehemently disagree.

I disagree with the both of you! ;)

But seriously, I have no problem with all of this labelling as long as we don't take it too seriously. I certainly don't intend to introduce myself as an "explicit atheist" at parties.

If memory serves, George Smith offered the distinction between implicit atheists and explicit atheists to deal with the question: "Are babies atheists?" with the answer: "Yes, but only implicit atheists."

I suppose the terms have some value there, but not much more.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[sohy]

I am explicitly a strong atheist. :D

[premjan]

Like methodological vs. metaphysical naturalism.

[nygreenguy]

Philosophically implicit, practically explicit.

Sure, there's a chance god exists, but its utterly ridiculous to think so and to simply leave the "possibility open" like weak atheists do it just a waste of brainpower. Not only is there a lack of evidence, the probability is nil.

[A Dead Relative]

I didn't realize there was different types of atheism, but it does make sense.

I use to be a believer, but I've always had doubts. In `03, when I looked at all my doubts and compared them to what could possibly be religion, I realized that anything I believed about any god/Jesus/bible was just shenanigans.

[Goodchild]

So, is to be the Allied Atheist Alliance or the United Atheist Alliance? Maybe the Unified Atheist League?

[BigEvil]

I am going with whatever group the sea otters endorse.

[Goodchild]

I am going with whatever group the sea otters endorse.

Bah, their science is flawed!

[Notta]

I am going with whatever group the sea otters endorse.Heretic!

[TheBear]

So far, over 86% voted "Explicit". That's a pretty resounding majority.

[BigEvil]

I am going with whatever group the sea otters endorse.

Bah, their science is flawed!

I am going with whatever group the sea otters endorse.Heretic!

I shall enjoy watching both of your skulls being crushed like a clam on the Otter King's tummy!

[A Dead Relative]

:eek:

[DrLight]

I would catogarize myself as an agnostic atheist. I would agree in principal with Jobar and JamesBannon about the nature of reality.

As too my background, brought up in the the Kirk, I ended up joining an evangelical baptist church when I left home, volunteering my time and ended up doing some lay preaching.

My de-conversion was caused by a couple of things - one being a young earth creation joining the congregation and "pointing out" the inerrant nature of the bible (which I believed in at the time). However having someone tell me that the flood actually happened and various other favored topics of the YEC raised doubts in my mind. (proving yet again that some fundamentalist Xians are the best argument for atheism there is).

I was also having a bad time personally, as both the teaching of the Kirk and my current church were telling me that my desires were unnatural and abominable.

Also at the time I was having a very difficult time at work, trying desperately to reconcile a loving god with the wreckage I was having to examine and troubleshoot.

It wasn't a slow process as I recall it, but rather like a tipping point had been reached and I just underwent a change of state.

It was a life changing event, and I hated my loss of faith.

[BigEvil]

As too my background, brought up in the the Kirk,

What does that mean? I have never encountered the phrase "the Kirk" before. (Except maybe as a Star Trek reference.)

[SallyAnne]

What's the Kirk?:confused:

[JamesBannon]

What's the Kirk?:confused:

Scottish - church (Protestant reformist)

[DrLight]

Sorry - but I never actually heard anyone refer to "the Church of Scotland" its always been just "The Kirk"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland

[SallyAnne]

Is that the Episcopalians?

[lpetrich]

The Church of Scotland is the Scottish branch of the Church of England, a.k.a. the Anglican Church. The Episcopal Church is the American branch of it.

[SallyAnne]

The Church of Scotland is the Scottish branch of the Church of England, a.k.a. the Anglican Church. The Episcopal Church is the American branch of it.

Oh I see, cheers Ip.

[SallyAnne]

It was a life changing event, and I hated my loss of faith.



What was your faith in?

[David B]

The Church of Scotland is the Scottish branch of the Church of England, a.k.a. the Anglican Church. The Episcopal Church is the American branch of it.

Looking through the wiki link makes me doubt this.

David

[DMB]

The CoS is Presbyterian, not Anglican. In the words of Flanders and Swann:

The Scotsman is mean as we're all well aware
He's boney and blotchy and covered with hair
He eats salty porridge, he works all the day
And hasn't got bishops to show him the way

Song of Patriotic Prejudice

So the CoE has bishops and the CoS doesn't.

[Garrett]

Implicit atheism sounds dumb. "The absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". What is this supposed to mean?
That rocks are atheists.

http://planetsmilies.net/shocked-smiley-9449.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

[Garrett]

implicit theism: the absence of atheistic belief without a conscious rejection of it

http://planetsmilies.net/sign-smiley-446.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

[JamesBannon]

The Church of Scotland is the Scottish branch of the Church of England, a.k.a. the Anglican Church. The Episcopal Church is the American branch of it.

Incorrect. The Kirk adopted the Calvinist articles of faith before the Anglican church. A war was fought to oust the Bishops.

[DrLight]

It was a life changing event, and I hated my loss of faith.



What was your faith in?


I was a Christian

[SallyAnne]

It was a life changing event, and I hated my loss of faith.



What was your faith in?


I was a Christian

And my question still stands. Most ex-Christians seemed to have their faith in religion. Where was yours?

[Goodchild]

What was your faith in?


I was a Christian

And my question still stands. Most ex-Christians seemed to have their faith in religion. Where was yours?

I always get a kick out of how so many christians find it so hard to accept that former christians had the exact same type of faith/belief/whatever as what they currently hold. It's an obvious defense mechanism, but still funny to see in action.

[Lanakila]

What was your faith in?


I was a Christian

And my question still stands. Most ex-Christians seemed to have their faith in religion. Where was yours?Yeah you tried to say that is what was wrong with my former faith. What was wrong with my former faith was that it was in the Christian Bible God therefore it was misplaced because he doesn't exist.

[SallyAnne]

I was a Christian

And my question still stands. Most ex-Christians seemed to have their faith in religion. Where was yours?Yeah you tried to say that is what was wrong with my former faith. What was wrong with my former faith was that it was in the Christian Bible God therefore it was misplaced because he doesn't exist.

Are you DrLight? I'd like to hear DrLight's response unless you think you need to speak for him/her because they can't speak for themselves?

[SallyAnne]

I was a Christian

And my question still stands. Most ex-Christians seemed to have their faith in religion. Where was yours?Yeah you tried to say that is what was wrong with my former faith. What was wrong with my former faith was that it was in the Christian Bible God therefore it was misplaced because he doesn't exist.




I was a Christian

And my question still stands. Most ex-Christians seemed to have their faith in religion. Where was yours?

I always get a kick out of how so many christians find it so hard to accept that former christians had the exact same type of faith/belief/whatever as what they currently hold. It's an obvious defense mechanism, but still funny to see in action.


What I find intriguing is when I hear the apostate Christian stories, it doesn't resemble mine at all, they seem to think they know where I am and what I believe. But then they give me all their religious credentials of being brought up in religion, going to church from age zero, being soaked in theology and tradition, and belonging to every religious activity imaginable. I don't find anything in common with their experience, it's nothing like what I've been through.

But I certainly believe that there is an apostacy as described in 2 Thess, so fallen away Christians confirm prophecy on that score and in line with what Jesus said that in the last days many will fall away from the faith. So yeah, ex-Christians are evidence of that and I do believe they have fallen away, just as Jesus said they will.

[sohy]

What I find intriguing is when I hear the apostate Christian stories, it doesn't resemble mine at all, they seem to think they know where I am and what I believe. But then they give me all their religious credentials of being brought up in religion, going to church from age zero, being soaked in theology and tradition, and belonging to every religious activity imaginable. I don't find anything in common with their experience, it's nothing like what I've been through.


With all due respect, you have done the exact same thing when you referred to your agnostic/atheist past. This is partly why I try to avoid this type of argument. It usually leads nowhere except to conflict. People go back and forth trying to convince each other that they were truly Xian or truly atheist. What does that accomplish? We humans haven't reached the point where we can read each minds. :)

[DrLight]

What was your faith in?


I was a Christian

And my question still stands. Most ex-Christians seemed to have their faith in religion. Where was yours?



As I said i was brought up in The Kirk - and in an area where it was much more like the "Wee Frees". It was a strict and utterly joyless religious experience - and caused some controversies when I was at Secondary School, because I was in the school quoir, and we sang in Latin at the episcopalian cathedral :eek:- which was far far too papist for my parents & church.

For numerous reasons that i won't go into I ended up in England working for the MOD - and having bumped into a member of a local babpist church in a Christian bookshop found myself invited there.


Needless to say the experience was considerably different and more joyful. After a while, I became "born-again" giving myself over to Christ completely, even getting baptized (full body immersion in a built in baptismal pool). The fellowship I belonged to believed and preached Christ Risen - as given in the quoted statement below

1. That there is one living and true God, eternally existing in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

2. In the love, grace and sovereignty of God in creating, sustaining, ruling, redeeming and judging the world, and this God governs all things according to His sovereign will for His glory, and that He infallibly foreknows and foreordains all that will come to pass.

3. That the Bible is the Word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that it has supreme authority in all matters of belief and behavior.

4. That since the fall, the whole of humankind is sinful, so that everyone is subject to God’s just wrath and condemnation which results in physical, spiritual and eternal death, and that all human beings are born with a sinful nature and are also sinners by choice.

5. That the Lord Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, conceived by the Holy Spirit. We believe in His virgin birth, sinless life, miracles and teachings. We believe in His substitutionary, atoning death, bodily resurrection, ascension into heaven, perpetual intercession for His people and personal, visible return to earth.

6. That on the cross, and only on the cross, sinful human beings are redeemed from the guilt, penalty and power of sin through the sacrificial death once and for all time of their representative and substitute, Jesus Christ, who bore God’s punishment for their sin.

7. That those who repent, forsake sin and believe in Christ are forgiven all their sins and accepted by God, only because of the righteousness of Christ credited to them; that this justification is entirely God’s act of grace, received solely by trust in Christ and not by their own efforts; that God in His love forgives sinners whom He calls, granting them repentance and faith.

8. That the Holy Spirit has been sent to glorify Christ and to apply His work of salvation; that He convicts sinners, enabling them to turn to God from their sin and to trust in Jesus Christ; that He indwells all believers, unites them with Christ through new birth, bringing assurance of salvation and produces increasing likeness to Christ; that He builds up the Church and empowers its members for worship, service and witness to the world.

9. That the one holy universal church is the Body of Christ, of which Christ is the head, and to which all true believers belong.

10. That God created men and women in the image of God, equal in their God-like personhood; that they are suited for complementary roles, within ministry as well as within marriage

I lost my faith primarily because I could not see how a loving God could be letting the needless slaughter of innocent people happen with such appalling regularity. Also that those who had never heard the word were still condemned to Hell.
Plus there were personal issues involved as well - in regard to the church's view on homosexuality. Because I truly believed in a loving and forgive god, who wanted us, the pinnacle of his creation, to be happy in his fellowship. How could a god like that then make you love someone, who by the definition of his inerrant holy word, utterly forbidden?
How could a god that I loved with all my heart be as cruel as to make me love someone of the same sex?

That was, if you like, the earthquake that cracked the foundation of my faith - plus other things that were going on in my life at the time.

I came to a crossroad, I would think similar to your own SallyAnne, its just I walked the other way - back to what i regard as a life based on rationality, but it did hurt.

I hope the above is the sort of fuller reply you were hoping for if nt maybe we can start a thread about it. :) (seriously - I'm happy to discuss it further I just don't wish to commit another huge derail).

Sorry for the huge wadge of stuff people - I guess i got a bit carried away, and apologies for the derail.

[lpetrich]

The Church of Scotland is the Scottish branch of the Church of England, a.k.a. the Anglican Church. The Episcopal Church is the American branch of it.
Incorrect. The Kirk adopted the Calvinist articles of faith before the Anglican church. A war was fought to oust the Bishops.
I concede. My mistake.

I always get a kick out of how so many christians find it so hard to accept that former christians had the exact same type of faith/belief/whatever as what they currently hold. It's an obvious defense mechanism, but still funny to see in action.
I think that it would be nice to see some independent sources on that, like some documents showing what one had earlier thought. If they exist, then why not point to them?

[Rilx]

I always get a kick out of how so many christians find it so hard to accept that former christians had the exact same type of faith/belief/whatever as what they currently hold. It's an obvious defense mechanism, but still funny to see in action.
What I find intriguing is when I hear the apostate Christian stories, it doesn't resemble mine at all, they seem to think they know where I am and what I believe. But then they give me all their religious credentials of being brought up in religion, going to church from age zero, being soaked in theology and tradition, and belonging to every religious activity imaginable. I don't find anything in common with their experience, it's nothing like what I've been through.
Goodchild, IMO you don't see the whole picture. I think SallyAnne sees it much better.

SallyAnne, I think that you when atheist - like ex-Christians before conversion - basically were trapped by a superficial culture. When you needed more profound answers to major questions of life, you couldn't find them in your then world. You had to change the culture to continue towards true adulthood. That's what have happened to those who began their life as Christians, too.

So, theist children grown to atheist adults and atheist children grown to theist adults now accuse each other of behaving childish. Pot meet kettle.

And if it were that easy. But in both camps there are people who have never grown up, never searched nor found answers for themselves. Soldiers of faith and soldiers of reason, living not for themselves but for "us" and by "us" like a wolf pack.

Nice to meet you, SallyAnne. I'm atheist, have always been. I spent my childhood with lots of great stories: fables of Aesop, cruel stories of Grimm brothers, Greek mythology, local (Finnish) mythology, Mother Goose, etc. When I finally met Bible, there was nothing human left, no real content which I hadn't already read. And necessarily I never saw any gods, fairies and donald ducks real, but fictional agents by whom the real human content was presented.

[maddog]

Well I certainly don't "wish" for hell-fire for anyone.
This is probably for a separate thread, but, why not?

[SallyAnne]

Well I certainly don't "wish" for hell-fire for anyone.
This is probably for a separate thread, but, why not?

Because Jesus came and died an excrutiating death to reconcile people to God and I want everyone to enter a relationship with Him because He loves them.

[SallyAnne]

SallyAnne, I think that you when atheist - like ex-Christians before conversion - basically were trapped by a superficial culture. When you needed more profound answers to major questions of life, you couldn't find them in your then world. You had to change the culture to continue towards true adulthood. That's what have happened to those who began their life as Christians, too.

So, theist children grown to atheist adults and atheist children grown to theist adults now accuse each other of behaving childish. Pot meet kettle.

And if it were that easy. But in both camps there are people who have never grown up, never searched nor found answers for themselves. Soldiers of faith and soldiers of reason, living not for themselves but for "us" and by "us" like a wolf pack.

Nice to meet you, SallyAnne. I'm atheist, have always been. I spent my childhood with lots of great stories: fables of Aesop, cruel stories of Grimm brothers, Greek mythology, local (Finnish) mythology, Mother Goose, etc. When I finally met Bible, there was nothing human left, no real content which I hadn't already read. And necessarily I never saw any gods, fairies and donald ducks real, but fictional agents by whom the real human content was presented.



Wow, I understand where you're coming from, thanks for sharing.

[David B]

Well I certainly don't "wish" for hell-fire for anyone.
This is probably for a separate thread, but, why not?

Because Jesus came and died an excrutiating death to reconcile people to God and I want everyone to enter a relationship with Him because He loves them.

That sort of presupposes a God.

Not only does it presuppose a God, but it presupposes ....well what sort of God?

An omnipotent God, who made it pan out that way?

In that case - no-one hurt Jesus but God. And if Jesus was God, then Jesus was only hurting himself.

For a matter of hours, for eternal bliss.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/

An omniscient God, who knew it would have to pan out that way, but couldn't do anything about it.

An omnibenevolent God, who wants good for everyone, but can't do anything about it?

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God?

Well - make that fit, if you can.

David (Would actually prefer that the existence of any God were established, before wondering about said putative God's attributes)

[maddog]

Well I certainly don't "wish" for hell-fire for anyone.
This is probably for a separate thread, but, why not?

Because Jesus came and died an excrutiating death to reconcile people to God and I want everyone to enter a relationship with Him because He loves them.

But God "wishes" hellfire. You disagree with God?

[SallyAnne]

This is probably for a separate thread, but, why not?

Because Jesus came and died an excrutiating death to reconcile people to God and I want everyone to enter a relationship with Him because He loves them.

But God "wishes" hellfire. You disagree with God?


Why did God send Jesus if he "wishes" hell-fire?

[maddog]

Because Jesus came and died an excrutiating death to reconcile people to God and I want everyone to enter a relationship with Him because He loves them.

But God "wishes" hellfire. You disagree with God?


Why did God send Jesus if he "wishes" hell-fire?

Hell-fire still exists. Therefore, God still "wishes" hell-fire. How could it be otherwise?

[David B]

Because Jesus came and died an excrutiating death to reconcile people to God and I want everyone to enter a relationship with Him because He loves them.

But God "wishes" hellfire. You disagree with God?

Why did God send Jesus if he "wishes" hell-fire?

Because he's not omnipotent enough to avoid hellfire without torturing his son, who is also himself in some sort of weird way that no-one can quite explain, to death?

Then again, what about considering the logical possibilites, which are also physical possibilities, that there is no God at all? And, if there were to be a God, the possibility that God is not the God of the Bible, OT or NT?

David

[SallyAnne]

But God "wishes" hellfire. You disagree with God?


Why did God send Jesus if he "wishes" hell-fire?

Hell-fire still exists. Therefore, God still "wishes" hell-fire. How could it be otherwise?


Because Jesus was sent to save. It's you who puts the "wish" spin on hell-fire, but what God desires is in 1 Timothy 2:4-5.

[maddog]

Why did God send Jesus if he "wishes" hell-fire?

Hell-fire still exists. Therefore, God still "wishes" hell-fire. How could it be otherwise?


Because Jesus was sent to save so God wants repentance. It's you who puts the "wish" spin on hell-fire, but what God desires is in 1 Timothy 2:4-5.

Is God powerful or not? If God did not desire hell-fire, how could it possibly exist?

[David B]

Why did God send Jesus if he "wishes" hell-fire?

Hell-fire still exists. Therefore, God still "wishes" hell-fire. How could it be otherwise?


Because Jesus was sent to save. It's you who puts the "wish" spin on hell-fire, but what God desires is in 1 Timothy 2:4-5.

My bold.

We know that what Timothy said reflects the desires of a putative God whose existence has yet to be established?

I don't know that.

Persuade me, if you can.

David