The more I see the term atheist, the more I don’t like it. Not that I have a problem with it. It just has such a negative connotation. And I don’t have a problem with those that choose to be identified as atheist any more than I have a problem with those that choose to be labeled Christian, Muslim, short, tall, funny, or any other adjective that they choose. It’s just that “atheist” doesn’t currently work for me.
I think the term areligious describes my beliefs better anyway. The way I look at it to know there is no god requires the same amount of faith as it does to know that there is a God. Since I have yet to see convincing proof either way I can’t fall on one side of the argument or the other. I suppose that makes me agnostic as well, which is a term I’m comfortable with.
And areligious really fits better because I’m not against Christians (or Muslims, Jews, or any other faiths), I’m against Christianity (or again any of the other religions). Every religion on this planet is man made no matter what your pastor tells you. They are all based on either oral histories or books written by men. No book was inspired by God.
Religion is what caused the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, the Spanish Inquisition, and the 9-11 bombings. Adults using what they were taught as children that God hates homosexuals is what leads to the Westboro Baptists protesting funerals. Had Fred Phelps been told that all people are people and that homosexuals just prefer to be with the same gender when he was young the Freedom Riders might not be necessary. Had Osama bin Laden’s mother not read him stories out of the Koran as a child the Twin Towers might still be standing. Had Hitler’s parents not raised him as a Catholic (yes, I know that there will be Christians who come along and disagree with that statement) hundreds of thousands of Jewish people may not have been killed. Catholicism is to blame, not the Catholic. Christianity is to blame, not the Christian. Islam is to blame, not the Muslim.
At the end I’m not against the belief in a god. I’m not against God. I’m against organized religion. It is poisoning the people of this planet and I feel that we would be better off if everybody could believe what they want without feeling that it is their god-given duty to fight a spiritual battle against those that believe differently. Unfortunately that is not going to happen any time soon as long as parents are teaching their children to hate others just because of a difference in belief.
[...] “Is There a God?” has a new post called I’m not an atheist, I’m areligious. I was writing a comment there, but it was getting too long, so I’m posting it [...]
Pingback by Why non-belief is the rational position to take at Way of the Mind — September 9, 2007 @ 10:08 am
Hello,
I started to write a reply here, but it got too long, so I wrote it in my own blog. You can see it here.
Pedro
Comment by Pedro Timóteo — September 9, 2007 @ 10:09 am
You know, I believe you’re quite right. The only point I disagree is the one you say you’re “against organized religion”. Don’t forget religions are made by men, and men are not perfect, so they make mistakes. When one tries to create something for a greater good, then I think it’s valid. But we see many people using God’s name to kill, steal, and all sorts of things. I believe in religion, I think people should have an organized group and talk about God and human behavior. But it should be done only by thinking in good things for other people. If something is good for you but not for someone else, then it’s not good at all.
Religions are needed, yes. But they have to follow God’s words, those put inside of each one of us.
Comment by Fabio — September 9, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Would “against exclusionary, bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic groups that are unwilling to hear opinions of other people” be a better phrase than “against organized religion”?
I don’t disagree that good does come out of religious groups. But I do disagree that the good comes because they are a religious group. The good comes because the group of people are good, not because they are religious.
And why do you think that religion is better for the greater good? Do you not think that there would be charitable organizations if organized religion didn’t exist? Do you not think that people would help other people if organized religion didn’t exist?
Comment by Is There a God? — September 9, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
“The way I look at it to know there is no god requires the same amount of faith as it does to know that there is a God.”
Aaaahhhh! Are you sure you’re not Xian!? Or theist?!
Sorry, first time here and I saw a canned Xian sentence. Scared me.
Comment by stacy — September 28, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
Stacy – Just because somebody is Christian doesn’t mean I disagree with everything they say. The assumption that we are here by random chance a few billion years after a big explosion is on the same level as the assumption that there is some type of creator. Neither side really knows. All a person can do is look at both sides and see which makes more sense to him, or do like me and realize that neither side can definitively prove their side (yet) and stay somewhere in the middle.
Currently I lean a little more to the atheistic side because the way I see the world matches better with that world view, but I’m not willing to say that I am 100% sure that there isn’t a creator.
Comment by Is There a God? — September 29, 2007 @ 8:00 am
In the same way that Atheists who are actively against believing in a god are called “militant atheists” maybe you’re a “militant agnostic”? By that I mean you’re still on the fence to a certain extent but are dead set against organized religion.
Comment by The Atheist — October 7, 2007 @ 9:32 am
I agree with the “spirit” of your post. I am not areligious; I am anti-religious. I suppose my “label” is a bit more militant than yours.
But I go farther. I am opposed to any organization which requires followers to acquire a certain mindset based on a number of chief beliefs, rules, and regulations: basically, anything which requires strict adherence.
Organized religion, then, is at the top of my must-stay-away-from concepts.
Other organizations are, for example, vegan groups, people who won’t even eat rice which spiced with chicken soup powder. While I like the idea of eating little or no meat and of following a healthy diet, I detest the extreme of a vegan organization.
I am particularly leery of multi-level marketing organizations, where people go out there pumped up by the idea that if they trick their friends into buying they will become rich.
In sum, it is the requirement for a herd mentality that I abhor. Anything that takes away my freedom to make my own choices.
And there is much of that in our culture: weddings must be a certain way, pretty, popular women must look a certain way, handsome, attractive guys must drive a certain kind of car.
So you don’t have to be against religion or Christianity to refuse to label yourself. Because labels invite adherence, I think.
Personally, while I am mostly an atheist, I don’t want to call myself one, because I feel it will limit my freedom to think and do as I please.
For example, say that I tell everybody that I am an atheist. But then people hear that I like the show Medium or that I am attracted to the occult just because I like to observe things people do and believe.
Then, I will be confronted: “I thought you were an atheist.”
So no, I don’t want to label myself atheist. When people ask, I tell them that I dislike organized religion and that, in general, I am skeptical toward the establishment.
Comment by Lorena — October 26, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
I like your thoughts Lorena, especially the part about the herd mentality. And I think that really is a good way to look at religious groups – you must believe a virgin had a baby that rose from the dead to be part of our clique.
And I’ve found the a- versus anti- comparison interesting. When a religious person hears the term atheist they generally are thinking of someone antitheistic. That is someone that is actually against their religion, not someone that simply doesn’t believe. Of course maybe in their eyes someone who doesn’t believe is the same as someone who is against.
I don’t have as much of a problem with other organizations like vegans that you mention because I’ve never had a vegan try to recruit me. So I guess it’s the pushing of beliefs that bothers me, not the belief itself. If there were evangelical vegans then maybe it would bother me more.
And oddly I’ve been thinking about a post on labels and how they bother me. Just haven’t gotten around to writing it yet.
Comment by Is There a God? — October 27, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
“I don’t have as much of a problem with other organizations like vegans that you mention because I’ve never had a vegan try to recruit me.”
Good point!
I guess I don’t oppose them as much as stay away from them. That is, even if I agree with their basic mission statement, I refuse to join, because once I do, I will be accountable to follow their rules.
I suppose I am just afraid to fall for something again, so I have my guard up. At the first sign of danger, I run away. Maybe the fear will fade with time. But for now, I still miss the fellowship of Christianity, and I am in danger of falling for just about anything that will provide the community I miss.
Comment by Lorena — November 2, 2007 @ 1:41 am
In my reading comments as well as the ititial article, I see alot of observations with conclusions drawn.
I do not see anyone asking this Jesus to reveal Himself,.. IF He is real?
Let’s just shove aside the human factor and its organizational oxcart. Man screwed things up from the beginning why should we expect things to change, given the opportunity it seems he (man)has not changed.
This Jesus is perfection right?
I doubt He is religious, although He was Jewish, right?
Some people say they “talk” to God. Go ahead, ask Him. Forget about asking anyone else. “Jesus, are you real?” ” I have my doubts, but I am really asking,…really.”
As we all can see, this world is in a mess. This would be a good time for God to show up, would’nt it? Jesus,…are you real? Go ahead, press it, “Are you real, Jesus?
There’s got to be somebody out there, whom you would trust, that has asked this question already. Find them and see if they got an answer, if yes, is the evidence they provide believable. Would they lie? Why would they need to?
What good is this Jesus stuff if it is not real?
I suppose if He is the key to it all, then it is logical that I would need to acknowledge His existence. It would certainly be easier to honestly do that if He were to make Himself real to me personally first.
If He is,…then He’ll have to look passed my attitudes I guess. After all I definitely have been pretty critical, but not so much of Him personally as of some of the people out there who claim to represent Him.
I wonder if they have asked the question? Maybe they have only followed others and never asked the question for themselves?
Just following is like the difference between being a baseball player and someone observing from the stands. You both experience the game but from two different perspectives. Man,..I want to play in the game. How can that happen?
It seems like it must be in us to want to be “on the team”, to belong. “Yeah but I hate putting up with some of those guys.” That’s the rub. It’s the team mates that are the problem, not the club owner. Knowing the owner is what counts. The more you know him, the less, the trouble others cause, effects you! Yeah…
Your in, period. You just play your position, with all your heart, and enjoy it! Man that’s what I’m looking for.
Comment by Michael — January 7, 2008 @ 12:38 am
I think the issue of hate is distinct from religion. Hate can be taught even in the absence of religion – the Rwanda Genocide, the war in Sierra-Leone, and even the post-election violence in my home country of Kenya (now affectionatel known as Obama-land) had little to do with religion.
Religion can be used to justify injustice, as was the case with segregation in the southern states. But even in the absence of organised religion, men who’s hearts are filled with hate will find other ways of justifying their behaviour.
And it is important to note that most children are taught how to hate in their homes by their parents. Here one can pass on hate, without the scrutiny of law, peers, religous community or society in general. We would be making a grave error if we equated hate with organised religion.
However, in our era, i believe organised religion has lost its relevance, largely because it is not and cannot be rooted in culture. Religion has been reduced to a set of rules, ancient texts and practices that were outdated long before the printing press was invented.
But the fact remains that organised religion has a huge following. This means that it still has the potential of transforming our world. The problem is that the clergy, rabbi and imams have become defenders of the status quo, especially in political matters.
Incidentally, i see parallels between some of the comments shared here and the attitude of christian missionaries. We should resist the urge to prove the other side wrong. After all, there will always be some that subscribe to an organised religion and others that don’t. In the final analysis, it matters little whether some of us believe that God exists and some don’t. What matters is – now that we know that fact – what are we going do to make this world a better place?
Perhaps if we dig deeper we may find that the problem is not so much the existence of organised religion, but the high level of hypocrisy among mankind aka lots of BS.
For the record, i am non-religious, but respect all religions and the rights of their adherents to worship accordingly.
Comment by Charles — June 15, 2009 @ 7:25 am