The thread was really just a “why did you lose/keep your faith?
A personal journey, that is what James gave I thought, sincerely, it would be nice to hear yours too.
I just came across an
old version; think of it this way, I've had time for that story to evolve, a little. For instance, there are a couple paragraphs, ca.
2007↗, and while we should note they are in the middle of a discussion with familiar subject matter, we might as well be having the same discussion today. But, like I said, I've had time for the story to evolve a little. Compared to that old explanation, the idea of
Apathism emerged, and apparently it's really hard for people to wrap their heads around; it's imporant if you get caught up in the detail of the old post, some of which has changed—
developed, advanced, evolved, refined—over time. A
2017↗ version covers that difference, but it's also true that post, ten years later, still carries certain issues that were afoot in 2007, and, yes, they're still afoot today, and part of a discussion that dates back to
2003↗, at least.
Anyway, it's true, I do weary of finding new ways to repeat myself, since it's generally futile:
• 2007: I was raised in a holiday-Lutheran family; e.g., we made it to church on Easter and Christmas Eve, and my brother and I are confirmed into one or another Lutheran organization, but we have escaped the simplistic and weak trap of faith by which we were tempted. I even endured three years at a Jesuit high school, though I can't complain too greatly; in college, I wrote papers for friends of mine who had graduated from public schools with Advanced Placement credit. The Jesuits were not nearly as difficult as many outsiders and critics might suggest, and one thing they did do was teach us how to do things like read, write, and communicate.
But Christian faith never stuck. It fought a hard fight, to be sure, but not even IHVH can win every round. I've traveled the road through Christianity, Satanism, High Magick, Witchcraft, atheism and its attendant nihilism, a passing fancy for Sufism, and eventually settled on the nondescript theism that allows me to speak to believers according to their rhetoric without actually believing any of it. If someone asks what God wants, and I respond by theorizing about what God wants, it's an artistic leap for me, one of metaphor in which the word "God" suffices in consideration of the number of words required to make the point without it. And, in the end, I have decided that it is more important to be able to communicate with the sick and deluded than it is to get an ego rush out of castigating their misfortune.
Did you catch it, the part that needed development and refining? See, it's also a really long citation if I try to include the points that, "it's as useless to attempt to deny the existence of God as it is to demand that God be what we want it to be", and, "My description of God acknowledges that God is a human invention, and posits that the invention is intended to represent something; it is that something that I will acknowledge as God." And over the years, I've had plenty of opportunities to refine. As you're aware, 2017 isn't the first iteration of
apathism, but it's concise enough for the moment:
• 2017: I use the word "Apathetic" to describe my outlook on God; I am neither theist nor atheist nor agnostic, and I literally do not care if God exists because it is just a word, and in the monotheistic framework describes an abstraction; this notion is not any pioneering work of my own, but something I learned from reading really smart people giving their best historical analyses to notions they personally didn't believe.
And, 2003? Well, take a look at what our neighbor
Foghorn said↗. And did you see what he
did? He actually went back and read through one of the links; it's unclear how often people actually do that, around here. For instance, here is something I
had occasion↗ to say to someone, once: "Well, think of it this way: in my post, I linked back over a decade to discussion of those experiences; additionally, a subsequent paragraph makes the point, and a subsequent post in the series explicitly enumerates, and with all that right there in front of you,
your response is to ask for what is already right in front of you." In one form or another, it's possible to say something like that on a regular basis.
Irony: I sometimes razz Foghorn because he
should not be taken seriously↗, and in the moment it's worth observing that he made that point in a similar context to his post above.
You'll find that among atheists at Sciforums, threads like your
Jesus discussion↗ will only go so far because this community has cultivated an aversion to anything more complicated than pretending confusion about Sunday school basics. (And just so you don't have to ask, my contribution to your Jesus discussion could easily be a
2019↗ post in re, "What was Jesus like?")
But that's the thing. 2003? Okay, so, it's over twenty years, now, and, really, the problem Foghorn refers to in our moment remains the same: It's a matter of priorities.
Since this part started with my discussion with James, let's take a look at a couple things he has said:
•
"These days, I'm more informed about the enormous burdens and costs that religion of all kinds has placed (and is placing) on believers and non-believers alike." (
2024↑)
•
"I do take issue with them at the point where their unsupported beliefs start having detrimental impacts on other people, however." (
2020↑)
On the surface, one might think that James and I share common ground having to do with the burdens, costs, and detrimental impacts of religion; even I fell down that hole. However, when it comes to what we might do to mitigate that harm, and reduce the social influence and authority of that religion, his discursive criteria are much more personal. It's not unusual, around here, nor should it be after twenty years of Administrative prerogative shaping the discourse, but in the end, most atheistic discourse around here is about the empowerment of judgment and pursuit of ephemeral emotional satisfaction. Please understand, we're well past the threshold of atheists inventing religious believers to criticize.
And for reactionary atheists like that, it isn't so much a question of losing their religion as having found a new one. Inasmuch as some of us might seem to share common ground having to do with the burdens, costs, and detrimental impacts of religion, we might also observe who is seeking solutions and who is just looking for a fight.
Vis à vis that harm, those burdens, costs, and detrimental impacts of religion, deliberately reinforcing religious people's prejudices about atheists actually only makes things worse.
And a "personal journey", sure, but I've already noted the brochure gloss; after you see it a few times, well, it's true this version tells a little more detail than the
last time↗ I saw it, but there must be reasons certain details remain mysterious, and it occurs sometimes to wonder whether even he knows what those details are. And that, for instance, is a reason why the brochure gloss stands out, or why the line about the burdens and costs reads sterile; 'tis a fine pitch, except it's not a pitch, it's just a sentence and anyone else is wrong to suppose its meaning. Sure, burdens and costs, and not convinced it's a net good, but if we take the moment to wonder why he cares, it's only because we might observe his preferred manner of inquisition is solipsistic and seems more about roughing up theists; that is to say, its main effect is to affirm religious people's stereotypes about atheistic hostility and unreasonability.
And, sure, we can joke that maybe that's the point, but the thought of James R as a Christian agent provocateur who hasn't come up for air in over twenty years is ridiculous. Moreover, it's not
just James, and it's not
just Sciforums. Toward your thread title, we could say that
atheism is one of the religions I "lost" along the way.
Cosnider, it's kind of like you: I
get that you weren't looking to go after Jews, specifically, but neither did you stop and consider what you were saying, because as an atheist you just don't think you need to. I have no use for that kind of fallacy, because compared to the harm religion does, such contributions only make things worse. Thing is, part of my personal story of religion includes certain failures of "atheism" over thirty years of experience: The part where people complain about religion is easy enough; the part where people do better than what they complain about is apparently too much to ask.
And, I get it. They think they've found a circumstance that licenses gratification at the stations of hate. But that's just something I can't take part in. They're wrong; it's hate. And the things that would make it not? Apparently that's just
so unfair to atheists.
