Is atheism a consequence of religious abuse?

[harvey1]

There seems something odd that a group would exist solely as "anti" to a philosophical position. It's easy to imagine why you would be "pro" a position since it is the position you wish to take. But, labelling yourself based on a position that you don't wish to take is like walking around saying that you do not wish to ever visit the Vatican. It might be something you would say in a conversation if someone asked you to go with them to the Vatican, but would you go to a website for people who wanted to take a group trip to the Vatican just to tell them that you don't want to go to the Vatican? Why would you do such a thing, unless you felt abuse by those who took frequent trips to the Vatican. Maybe, for example, you were watching cartoons one fine Saturday morning and somebody drove by running over your puppy and said "I'm sorry, would you like a free trip to the Vatican? I'll pay...". In that situation, I could understand why you would visit Vatican tour websites. You're still peeved about the guy who ran over your puppy.

So, does anyone think that atheism is a consequence of religious abuse, like the guy who ran over that kid's puppy?

[bdbthinker]

I'm confused. What is the purpose of this thread? Is it to debate the definition of atheism/agnosticism or is atheism a consequence of religious abuse?

I guess it's my fault.

I saw what seemed like a lot of confusion over the meaning of god and wanted to clairfy the definitions of theist/atheist/agnostic.
Looks like this is going to be impossible though so...well..whatever..

I fell I must add my two cents here...lol

Lets first state that belief and Knowledge are different words.
Just as faith and evidence are different as well.

Saying that I submit this idea of the difference between a Atheist and a agnostic.

One you can't be against something you don't think or believe exist. That should be elementary. To be against GOD I must first believe or know he exists. As most atheists and agnostics are against religion.

Second an Atheist believes based upon the evidence shown to them that a GOD doesn't exist PERIOD.

A agnostic feels that there isn't enough evidence to say absolutely or to have knowledge of the fact that a GOD does exists or doesn't exist.

However, and this is where is gets a little tricky, a agnostic could BELIEVE there is a GOD, because belief doesn't need facts nor does it need to be knowledge based. A agnostic could also believe that there is no GOD.

All a agnostic is saying is that they can't prove it either way, so here is an agnostic statement
I BELIEVE there is a GOD, but I don't KNOW there is one. (theist agnostic)

I BELIEVE there is no GOD, but I do not KNOW that there isn't a GOD(atheistic agnostic)

Atheist statement
I KNOW there is no GOD, based upon evidence that exist

A religious theist Statement
There is a GOD and I know this emphatically even though there is no real evidence to back this assumption. I just know within there is<-- this is really belief by definition passed off as knowledge.

Thank you thank you!!!! Well written, I agree most with this definition.

[otseng]

As a point of reference, we do have some definitions on atheism and agnosticism. The problem is finding an accepted definition to work upon.

I would suggest for harvey1 to pick a definition of atheism and then the debate can continue based on that working definition. As for debating the definitions of atheist/agnostic, I would suggest creating another thread.

Personally, I believe there is a connection between people being hurt by religious people and them rejecting religion. In the thread Did you grow up with some sort of religious influence?, one common element among the A/A is that they grew up with some sort of religious influence. So, it would be interesting to find out how much of a part did religious abuse have in their decision to atheism.

[micatala]

otseng wrote:

I'm confused. What is the purpose of this thread? Is it to debate the definition of atheism/agnosticism or is atheism a consequence of religious abuse?

Hear, hear (or is it here, here , how about 'hear here' )

As a former atheist, I would say yes in my case, although I can't say the 'abuse' was very severe. It was more a case of coming to the realization that a lot of what I was told was just not so. Another aspect was that a lot of what I was told (perhaps I should say I was raised catholic) had more to do with the preservation of the church as an institution, and less to do with the church trying to fulfill its stated mission.

Ultimately, I came to believe that it is a mistake to develop beliefs by reacting against the mistakes, or perceived mistakes, of others. None of us, theists or atheists or whatever, are immune to mistakes. I can certainly see that one may not want to be labelled in the same way as those whose beliefs or actions one finds unpalatable, but that, to me, is giving them more power or credence than they deserve.

[mrmufin]

So, does anyone think that atheism is a consequence of religious abuse, like the guy who ran over that kid's puppy?

I don't pretend to speak for any other nonbelievers, but my lack of belief has a much simpler foundation: the claims made by believers ring unconvincing on my ears. As well, the curious lack of observational data of the gods seems to be consistent with my disbelief.

I grew up in a family best described as "non-practicing Christians." Though I was christened shortly after birth, I was neither heavily exposed to religious practice, nor was I ever prohibited from religious practice. Currently, the majority of my family consists of devout, practicing, church-every-Sunday Christians. However, my atheism predates their "rebirth." As such, my input should be weighed as evidence against "atheism as a consequence of religious abuse" and as evidence for "atheism as a result of disbelief of religious claims."

Regards,
mrmufin

[ST88]

Personally, I believe there is a connection between people being hurt by religious people and them rejecting religion. In the thread Did you grow up with some sort of religious influence?, one common element among the A/A is that they grew up with some sort of religious influence. So, it would be interesting to find out how much of a part did religious abuse have in their decision to atheism.

You might find more people who have left a particular religion for another religion or for no religion in particular than who have left theism altogether because of abuse. I have heard many stories of former ("recovering" is the word they use) Catholics leaving the church, yet who still believe in God and are now Protestants of one flavor or another. Somehow, they got the message that the people within the religion were to blame for the abuse, and not that there is a Godless universe that allowed it to happen. Even those who come to hate God still acknowledge that He exists.

For myself, like mrmufin, I did not have a traumatic religious experience that drove me from it. Religion, for me, just never really made any sense. It still doesn't. Though I now understand a little better why people Believe, I still don't understand the process or the feeling.

[QED]

So, does anyone think that atheism is a consequence of religious abuse, like the guy who ran over that kid's puppy?

I get a quarterly visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses. It always seems to be when I'm eating a meal I won't say that this is the sole reason for my atheism, but it certainly contributes to it. What does bother me is the way the Church makes it's way into the news - here in the UK, despite having one of the more secular societies, whenever a moral topic comes up they wheel-in a clergyman wearing some ridiculous costume and probe him for his considered opinion.

The man in the costume dutifully channels gods own personal opinion on the matter - thus disseminating nothing less than absolute truth, which by an incredible coincidence is invariably contrary to the simple understanding that can be arrived at by taking the evolutionary mechanism into account. For example:

Clergy: God declares that under-age sex is wicked and evil. Hence it must be forbidden.

Naturalist: Evolution biases organisms towards a high level of participation in the reproductive act. You won't stop half a billion years of evolution just by saying "don't do it", so you better hand out some condoms.

By denying the real issues that underline so-called moral issues, we end up with needlessly confused, guilty individuals. This I can readily identify as a form of abuse and countless similar instances lead me to actively promote the fact that there is no such entity as a god that sits in judgment of us.

[trs]

Personally, I believe there is a connection between people being hurt by religious people and them rejecting religion.

A the same time, one shouldn't peddle the tricycle of implication backwards: a consequence of being thrown out of the house by your mom may well be that you live alone, but that in no way implies that all or most of those who live alone were so rudely evicted - nor does it say anything whatsoever about the legitimacy of the decision to live alone by those who arived at that state by some other means.

[bernee51]

Personally, I believe there is a connection between people being hurt by religious people and them rejecting religion.

An interesting thought but one which, if taken generally, tends towards a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. It is, I believe, incorrect to assume because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by the other.

In the thread Did you grow up with some sort of religious influence?, one common element among the A/A is that they grew up with some sort of religious influence. So, it would be interesting to find out how much of a part did religious abuse have in their decision to atheism.

I too grew up in a somewhat religious environment - RC in the 50's. Did the church every Sunday and holy day thing. No meat on Fridays. (an aside: what has happened to all those folk who ate meat on Fridays - then a mortal sin - died, and ended up in hell for it. The law changed in the 60's. Were they released from hell if they had no other mortal misdemeanor on their record?). Served at altar. Prayed rosaries at home as a child. If boredom is religious abuse then I admit to being abused.

Looking back now I feel I questioned the whole shebang from about age seven or so. In my early teens I started reading on alternate religions, metaphysical movements (theosophy) and different philosophical perspectives. I used to get into a bit of bother at my school (a catholic high school) for asking questions which were deemed not appropriate (i.e. ignored). In retrospect I now believe the teacher (a christian brother) had not the faintest idea of what I spoke.

My atheism, which if anything has strenghened over the last decade or so, is as a result of self reflection, rational thought and having no reason to have a god belief. I am very comfortable with the idea that this is all there is. I do not have any reason to want to believe in an afterlife. I do not need a dogma to tell me what is a right or wrong action.

[Corvus]

As a point of reference, we do have some definitions on atheism and agnosticism. The problem is finding an accepted definition to work upon.

I would suggest for harvey1 to pick a definition of atheism and then the debate can continue based on that working definition. As for debating the definitions of atheist/agnostic, I would suggest creating another thread.

Personally, I believe there is a connection between people being hurt by religious people and them rejecting religion. In the thread Did you grow up with some sort of religious influence?, one common element among the A/A is that they grew up with some sort of religious influence.

I have to wonder... hasn't almost everyone? A/As are, after all, a very small minority, though I wonder if they have not become more prevalent recently, and, if so, why? People on this board have in the past made reference to the fact (if it is a fact) that in the 18th century, people were either Christians or deists, and atheists/agnostics were as rare as calves with two heads. But if there are more atheists/agnostics now, then understanding why that is so will aid us in answering this question. Is it because of the science steadily giving us more and more materialistic explanations for the way the world functions? Or, as, Ravi Zacharias might say, is it because religious ideas, ideals and rituals have lost their social and cultural significance? Is there in fact no increase in nonbelievers, only people liberated by a tolerant and diverse society to feel comfortable with their own apostasy?

I hardly need to describe my own initiation into the ranks of the non-believers to you, otseng, as you yourself were witness to the transition. What I cannot explain is why I was a deist in the first place, though I have made numerous attempts. I think I tried to create a god as I would expect him to be; that is to say, nicer and not so Jewish (to paraphrase the end of the first Blackadder episode). Then I came to believe, as I still do, that gods are silly things which cannot credibly exist, and went ahead and stopped trying to create one.

[Dilettante]

I would say people arrive at atheism for a wide variety of reasons and following a wide variety of routes. The problem is that the term "atheist" has a long history as a derogatory label. Let's not forget Pagan Romans called Christians atheists because they did not believe in the Roman gods.
I know atheists who have had bad experiences with religion, but I also know plenty who do not. And I know believers who had had terrible experiences with religion, yet they still believe. I respect people who don't let their life experiences influence their views. I think religious claims should be evaluated independently. The behavior of a religious leader is not the best indication of the truth or falsity of that religion's claims. Of course I much prefer people who are ethical, but I haven't always found a correlation between faith and morality. I'm sure Bin Laden is a man of great faith, yet he is undisputably evil. You can have faith and be evil, and you can lack faith and be moral.
So I don't think the main reason for people becoming atheists is religious abuse, though it certainly is for some. It shouldn't be. Likewise, sometimes, someone will say "there is no God" because he believes his or her child to have been killed in an accident, but then, when the child turns out to be alive that same person exclaims "there is a God after all". I find this ridiculous. Whether God exists or not shouldn't be a matter of how well life goes for you. What about the rest of humanity?
I think people tend to adopt whatever religious position they're most comfortable with. To some, religion provides strength and consolation. To others, it is a source of anxiety and fear. Ideally, people would use reason and logic to decide about religious claims (though I sometimes suspect this would eventually destroy positive religions). But man does not live by reason alone, and our feelings are just as important for survival.