# I Was a Closet Atheist Most Of My Life



## Lon (Aug 27, 2014)

I came out of the closet when I retired 22 years ago. I have been a non believer since discovering there was no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy. I went along to get along during my working years because I lived and worked with believers and felt that I would be ostracised socially and business wise if folks knew I was a died in the wool atheist. Now, when asked by some one about my religion or beliefs, I reply that I am a Secular Humanist, and hope they run to look that up and save me explaining the term. By the way --- atheists are pretty normal people and don't eat their young or wish to recruit people to their non belief. We just don't believe and don't mind at all if you do. Now having said that, let me add that there are some atheists that are pretty despicable types, just like some believers.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 28, 2014)

> By the way --- atheists are pretty normal people and don't eat their young or wish to recruit people to their non belief. We just don't believe and don't mind at all if you do. Now having said that, let me add that there are some atheists that are pretty despicable types, just like some believers.



I was an atheist in my early adulthood and I was then the same person that I was before renouncing religious teaching. That is to say I was a conscientious young woman with strong ethics and morals. In fact I was a bit of a prude but in the process of becoming more liberal in my thinking. Like you, I did not go round wearing my nonbelief as a badge of honour unless I got into a religious argument with someone, which didn't happen all that often and then only if I was a bit tipsy.

That was years ago. These days I find there is an evangelical branch of atheism that does wish to recruit people to their cause, a cause which seems to seek the destruction of all religious belief. I'm thinking of the disciples of Dawkins and Hitchins. They can be very agressive and vocal in their contempt for people of faith, or at least for the things that they hold dear. I regard them to be the other side of the coin to Christian fundamentalists. Same horse, different direction.


----------



## Justme (Aug 28, 2014)

I was brought up by parents who believed in the ghastly, evil dogma, 'you must be saved, or go to hell'. I even did the 'saved' bit when I was eleven, but kicked it into touch by the time I left home to marry at 19. I haven't missed having a faith. I am of the opinion that Christian fundamentalism can be very abusive indeed.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 28, 2014)

All forms of fundamentalism can be abusive because fundamentalism tolerates no unorthodox thinking.


----------



## rkunsaw (Aug 28, 2014)

It seems that that these days it's the Christians who are trying to convert everyone to their beliefs, not the Atheists. I got into a discussion awhile back about why Christians insist on having the ten commandments posted at every courthouse in the country. I came to the conclusion it was either or both:

(A) Christians spend a lot of time in court

(B) Christians have trouble remembering the ten commandments 

Most Atheists, like me, may think others beliefs are silly but we really don't care what you believe as long as you give us the same respect.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 28, 2014)

> It seems that that these days t's the Christians who are trying to covert everyone to their beliefs, not the Atheists. I got into a discussion awhile back about why Christians insist on having the ten commandments posted at every courthouse in the country.


Only in America. We have the state coat of arms and a portrait of the Queen.


----------



## Michael. (Aug 28, 2014)

.

Many people believe in religion for lots of reasons. 

I find it hard to believe that some presence up above is watching over billions of us down here on Terra Firma.



.​


----------



## Geezerette (Aug 28, 2014)

I am an agnostic secular humanist, & don't like evangelists of any stripe.


----------



## Misty (Aug 28, 2014)

I'm a Catholic and don't care if other's believe or not. It gets upsetting to see posts and other venues ridiculing those who believe and insinuate they are stupid. There should be tolerance on both sides.


----------



## Davey Jones (Aug 28, 2014)

RE:I Was a Closet Atheist Most Of My Life 


*And here I always thought only gays live in the closet,is there anybody else in there?

*


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 28, 2014)

Davey Jones said:


> *And here I always thought only gays live in the closet,is there anybody else in there?
> 
> *



I'm a closet Taoist - the atheists tend to stay on the floor, the gays hang onto the pole and I sit up on the shelf.


----------



## Justme (Aug 28, 2014)

Misty said:


> I'm a Catholic and don't care if other's believe or not. It gets upsetting to see posts and other venues ridiculing those who believe and insinuate they are stupid. There should be tolerance on both sides.



I will ridicule and condemn those who use their belief system as a means of abusing others, whether emotionally, physically or sexually.


----------



## Misty (Aug 28, 2014)

Justme said:


> I will ridicule and condemn those who use their belief system as a means of abusing others, whether emotionally, physically or sexually.



I definitely understand your feelings, justme, but many times christians as a whole are ridiculed and sometimes condemned. Not all christian's are guilty of those actions, just as all atheists don't ridicule christians.


----------



## []Doo[]Der (Aug 30, 2014)

Misty said:


> I definitely understand your feelings, justme, but many times christians as a whole are ridiculed and sometimes condemned. Not all christian's are guilty of those actions, just as all atheists don't ridicule christians.



Is it justified to ridicule any belief system?  

What if I were to ridicule the belief in reincarnation? Martyrdom where virgins are waiting me in paradise? If a cow is perhaps a dead relative ? If ALL religions are ridiculed Christianity among them? If god, GOD, G-D, Allah,  is ridiculed? If confession, the sacramental blood and body of Christ? If statues of the virgin with babe as a graven image? Is all sacrosanct or can one express an opinion. 
I find the belief system of any follower of a faith alone deity or supreme designer/being to be as rational (or not) to believe in Christian tenets as I do that of believing in reincarnation or that a cow is holy nor that a monkey is possibly a deceased grand dad.

An opinion, as "I think Christians belief if wine as blood, a wafer, the body of Christ, confession assures god's forgiveness...etc. is asinine,"that's my opinion. If you or another considers that to be ridiculing your Christian religion, that's your problem not mine. You see I have a right to point out what I see as ridiculous with an expressed opinion if the subject comes up for discussion. The alternative is to ignore the subject or not opine...I opine.

The gods have long gone all of them. They discovered they were fallible and ..well layful: ridicules living on Mount Olympus or in an ethereal 'heaven' above the clouds or somewhere over the rainbow.


----------



## Shirley (Aug 30, 2014)

By night an atheist half-believes in God.
- Edward Young

What can be more foolish than to think that all this rare fabric of heaven and earth could come by chance, when all the skill of art is not able to make an oyster!
    Author: Jeremy Taylor


Atheism leads to numerous absurdities promoted by otherwise intelligent people.
    Author: Dave Hunt


Agnostics cannot understand Christ for the same reason a thief find a policeman--they don't want to.
    Author: John Hagee


Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist.
    Author: C.S. Lewis

The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful, and has nobody to thank.
Dante Gabriel Rossetti

I was at this time of living, like so many Atheists or Anti-theists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.
C.S. Lewis


----------



## Misty (Aug 30, 2014)

[]Doo[]Der said:


> Is it justified to ridicule any belief system?
> 
> What if I were to ridicule the belief in reincarnation? Martyrdom where virgins are waiting me in paradise? If a cow is perhaps a dead relative ? If ALL religions are ridiculed Christianity among them? If god, GOD, G-D, Allah,  is ridiculed? If confession, the sacramental blood and body of Christ? If statues of the virgin with babe as a graven image? Is all sacrosanct or can one express an opinion.
> I find the belief system of any follower of a faith alone deity or supreme designer/being to be as rational (or not) to believe in Christian tenets as I do that of believing in reincarnation or that a cow is holy nor that a monkey is possibly a deceased grand dad.
> ...



Since I won't be calling your's or anyone else's beliefs or unbeliefs idiotic or asinine.....it won't be anyone's problem from me, DooDer. Those who believe in God, are open season in ridicule by some, but if people gave their opinions of other races or ****** identities as idiotic or asinine or not right, they could lose their jobs etc, instead of having their opinions honored.


----------



## Bettyann (Aug 30, 2014)

One gets to the point (hopefully) where one realizes that 'dogma' is MAN-made and is used for purposes of control.
I do NOT want to be identified as a Christian, but I do appreciate churches such as the Unitarian-Universalist, or Science of Mind churches. 
Sounds like there is a good chance many of you endured the same type of fear and guilt conditioning via religion, as I did...and it took me most of my life to LET GO of it... 
I believe there is a distinct difference between religion and spirituality....and it bugs me to see spirituality used in the same context as religion. For those of us who were psychically and mentally damaged via dogma...it is very hard to be tolerant... however, it still comes down to the individual and how they act, what they say, and what they do... be it an atheist or a Southern Baptist.... 
The reasons that so many Americans are so divided is because of their religious like attachment to the political party of their choice...and THIS is how they are kept under 'control' whether they believe it or refuse to... 
My father was a really cool guy...and yes he went 'to church' ... but he told me when I was only 12 years old: Think for yourself. Don't EVER believe it when your teachers tell you America is 'God's country'... and that "God is on our side" is such pure, unmitigated, embarrassing bullshit." But don't even get me started on THAT!


----------



## Michael. (Aug 30, 2014)

Would you believe it?

Florida Mayor Forces Atheist To Leave Public Meeting 
For Not Standing During Prayer Or Pledge Of Allegiance 
(Includes Video Footage)
.
http://tinyurl.com/p28jsny
.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 30, 2014)

What happened to freedom of religion? Or freedom of expression for that matter?


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 31, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> What happened to freedom of religion? Or freedom of expression for that matter?



They went the same way as our _other_ "freedoms" ...


----------



## []Doo[]Der (Aug 31, 2014)

Or the right to  freedom from religion.
If one calls all religion ridiculous they are nor singling out Christianity. If one defends their religion why would they not expect another opinion?
 Is Christianity alone sacrosanct? Belabor all others but not Christianity..!!! .A  nonsensical expectation.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 31, 2014)

I'm not sure where you're coming from DooDer. 
Freedoms are just that but if we are not to lose them then we must insist on exercising them. The atheist mentioned in the OP allowed his freedom to be taken from him. He should have stood his ground by remaining seated. I would have. Sitting down did not infringe the rights of anyone present and he was quite within his rights to do so for any reason important to him.


----------



## Twixie (Aug 31, 2014)

When I was in bible class..listening to blah..blah..blah...I didn't believe..

When I was in a church..listening to blaaah..I still didn't believe..but I knew that something was there..

I realised that ''god'' would be more likely to be in beautiful forests..flower covered meadows...rather than being in a crusty old church..

I have ''God'' in my heart..I do the best I can every day..to everyone..

And that is why I am a Wiccan....


----------



## []Doo[]Der (Aug 31, 2014)

Misty said:


> Since I won't be calling your's or anyone else's beliefs or unbeliefs idiotic or asinine.....it won't be anyone's problem from me, DooDer. Those who believe in God, are open season in ridicule by some, but if people gave their opinions of other races or ****** identities as idiotic or asinine or not right, they could lose their jobs etc, instead of having their opinions honored.



Those that don't believe in a god are open to ridicule as well. People constantly give opinions on race,****** identity, misogyny, but if they're dumb enough to do it on the job or from the job or if it conflicts with their job  brand obviously they face accountability.

If others have the right to apostasy, TV preaching, (screwing the poor),charitable deductions, untaxed huge edifices that must be served by my taxes, historic pedophilia behavior, religious  misogyny, Crusades,killing,Inquisition torture, witch burning,Persecution of Jews,Gypsies, etc. I certainly should have a right to ridicule those that a Christian god seems to have been able to live with.


----------



## Sunny (Aug 31, 2014)

Michael, I loved your joke.

Dame W., I agree that atheists can be as obnoxious as militant fundamentalists of any religious faith. But I take exception at your putting Dawkins and Hitchens in that category. (You could have added Sam Harris and Mark Twain while you were at it.)  They may make people of faith uncomfortable by pointing out some unpleasant truths, and they are not tiptoeing lightly in order to spare anyone's feelings. But here's the difference between them and the fundamentalists: they are not making claims that can never be proven. They are questioning those claims. The burden of proof is always on the one who makes the assertion, not on the one who questions it.

So, if I say there is definitely a tooth fairy up there, and I believe in her, and you are sinful and will go to hell because you don't, it is up to me to offer some proof. Your reaction to that claim would be either laughing or shaking your head in wonder that I could believe such nonsense. That reaction might be rude, but is not on the same level as making the assertion in the first place.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 31, 2014)

You have the right, DooDer, but exercising the right of ridicule is a right that should not be overused. It makes one a total bore.


----------



## Davey Jones (Aug 31, 2014)

It it OK if I still believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny ?


----------



## Pappy (Aug 31, 2014)

You go right ahead, Davey. Gotta believe in something.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 31, 2014)

Sunny, I am a former science teacher and a former atheist so I am not unaware of the arguments about the existence/nonexistence of a deity. 

What I object to is the non-scientific arguments of the more militant atheists such as all religious education is indoctrination and a form of child abuse. In this case the burden of proof is on the ones making the assertion, because they are expressing  an opinion as a matter of belief. 

When Richard Dawkins says that it is immoral to give birth to a child with Downes syndrome if the mother has the choice to abort it he is stepping outside his scientific expertise and entering a field where his opinion is no better than anyone else's but he comes across as some sort of scientific prophet, and a fundamentalist one at that in that he does not concede other positions.

There are many other atheists, past and present that I respect but not the more dogmatic ones.


----------



## Bee (Aug 31, 2014)

Davey Jones said:


> It it OK if I still believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny ?



I do, so we can join together in our beliefs.


----------



## Bettyann (Aug 31, 2014)

This makes perfect sense to me: especially when it comes to the Who Is Right and Who is Wrong in 'war.'


----------



## Lon (Aug 31, 2014)

As SPOCK from the Star Trek Program would probably say about ALL RELIGIONS  "IT'S JUST NOT LOGICAL"


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 31, 2014)

Lon said:


> As SPOCK from the Star Trek Program would probably say about ALL RELIGIONS  "IT'S JUST NOT LOGICAL"


Neither are humans all logical, not even the scientists, even though they like to think that they are.
Dreams are not logical either and religion/faith is an expression of human dreaming, a desire for something more.
Take away the dreams and what are you left with?

What would McCoy say? What would Kirk say? All of these characters are expressing elements of Roddenberry's view of humanity.
I like Roddenberry's dreaming but I wouldn't build my life on it alone.


----------



## []Doo[]Der (Aug 31, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> You have the right, DooDer, but exercising the right of ridicule is a right that should not be overused. It makes one a total bore.



So what is your acceptable level of criticism, AKA, ":censure, condemnation, denunciation, disapproval, disparagement, opprobrium, fault-finding, attack, broadside, stricture, recrimination;" ? Are they all a form of derision? Even if true?

Is it acceptable to have an opinion on ANY faults historically or the tenets  practices? If I criticize ANY religion for what might be reasonably construed as either criminal behavior of practitioners, or, silly  practices judged by community standards? *Or is it just those directed solely at Christianity that you find objectionable?*

Is any level of fault finding acceptable, or is Christianity not to be ever faulted?


----------



## []Doo[]Der (Aug 31, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Sunny, I am a former science teacher and a former atheist so I am not unaware of the arguments about the existence/nonexistence of a deity.
> 
> What I object to is the non-scientific arguments of the more militant atheists such as all religious education is indoctrination and a form of child abuse. In this case the burden of proof is on the ones making the assertion, because they are expressing  an opinion as a matter of belief.
> 
> ...



Dawkins was giving his opinion when asked as I recall. In matter of fact most that have a choice follow his position as I understand it.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 31, 2014)

[]Doo[]Der said:


> So what is your acceptable level of criticism, AKA, ":censure, condemnation, denunciation, disapproval, disparagement, opprobrium, fault-finding, attack, broadside, stricture, recrimination;" ? Are they all a form of derision? Even if true?
> 
> Derision is defined by tone, not truth. My acceptable level of criticism is dialogue where two parties engage in discussion from different viewpoints without labelling the other stupid..
> 
> ...



Of course Christianity is not faultless because human beings are not faultless whether they are religious or entirely secular. Yes, it is acceptable to have opinions on any faults historical or present. You can, indeed must criticise churches and nations for their past crimes and sins but it is a bit much to criticise those living today for the acts of those who died centuries ago. 

Silly practices are a matter of opinion and community standards change over time. I have my own thoughts about the silly practices of others, but I tend not to go on the attack because there is no reason to. When it comes to silly, each to his own. I find tattoos and body piercings very silly but only say so to my grandkids. I also find Monty Python very silly but everyone in my family loves this kind of silly.

Criminal behaviour is always to be condemned unless the law is unjust in the first place, then breaking it may be the honourable thing to do. Acting in good conscience is not the same as cruelty, rorting or paedophilia, all of which are found widely in all sorts of societies, religious or otherwise.



> *Or is it just those directed solely at Christianity that you find objectionable?*



You are presuming to know my mind  and are implying an attitude that I do not hold. Why is that? Do you suppose that all Christians are a homogeneous class of humanity like peas in a pod?  By the way, on the internet and in real life I am not deaf. There is really no need to shout at me. It's not what we say but how we say it that people find objectionable. I include myself in that "we" because I don't always give sufficient respect to the other point of view either.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 31, 2014)

> Dawkins was giving his opinion when asked as I recall. In matter of fact most that have a choice follow his position as I understand it.


Yes, apparently it was in response to a twitter question.



> Dawkins had responded on Twitter to a woman's comment about what she should do if she were pregnant with a Down syndrome baby."Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice," tweeted Dawkins in response.


Later, after considerable backlash, including parents of Down syndrome children, he modified his words and apologised.


> On Thursday, following the backlash over his comments, Dawkins issued an apology and explanation on his website.
> "Those intrepid enough to venture onto my Twitter feed will have noticed a new feeding frenzy yesterday (Aug. 20), for which I apologise," wrote Dawkins.
> "My phraseology may have been tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding, but I can't help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand."
> In his apology, Dawkins also defended his views on abortion for Down syndrome babies, arguing that once "Down syndrome is detected, most couples opt for abortion and most doctors recommend it."
> "Of course, I regret using abbreviated phraseology which caused so much upset. I never wanted to 'cry havoc,'" continued Dawkins.


Richard Dawkins is a Darwinian biologist (invertebrates) and is entitled to his opinion on moral matters just as much as anyone else but not more than anyone else. The question of whether a woman should terminate a pregnancy is a very personal one and involves few others. It was bad enough when laws denied women that choice by criminalising safe medical abortions but it is just as bad to be told that unless one chooses to abort a handicapped child you are behaving in an immoral way.

If Dawkins was a nobody his opinion wouldn't cause much fuss but he is touted as "an atheist intellectual" and his words are bound to be all over social media and even the headlines. He should be more careful and more sensitive to the feelings and values of others even as he disagrees with them. It's not what he says but the arrogance with which he say it.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 31, 2014)

I love watching the TV show _The Last Leg _hosted by comedian Adam Hills and assisted by Josh Widdicombe and Alex Brooker. All three men were born with physical disabilities and they are very funny.

They have a segment titled "Is it OK if...?" where viewers tweet questions and they answer, usually amusingly. Occasionally they are more direct as in the case of the Hillsborough Baptist Church and  Richard Dawkins. Still funny though.

In both cases the response was "No, it is not OK" to behave in certain ways but at no stage was the criticism aimed at all Christians or all atheists. Here are some links to the show if you are interested.

Hills Borough Baptist Church https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60ETdhgLA8U#t=21

Hillsborough Baptiust Church responds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrBZbdQdPzE

For Richard Dawkins in this full episode ff to 13.55 mins : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc5TvO0DyKQ 

Adam Hills is a very decent fellow and he's an atheist that I that I admire.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 1, 2014)

How do you feel about hedonists?


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 1, 2014)

Neutral on hedonists.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 1, 2014)

Are you saying live and let live even if some want to live totally for pleasure?


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 1, 2014)

I don't choose the hedonistic lifestyle for myself. 
It's not for me to criticise those who do. 
Neither to praise them.
I am Switzerland on hedonism. Neutral.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 1, 2014)

Good!  So I guess I can regale you with snippets of my outlandish lifestyle without any negative feedback...


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 1, 2014)

What you call hedonism over there is probably just normal Aussie culture over here. :grin:


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 1, 2014)

What you call hedonism over there is probably just normal Aussie culture over here. :grin:



> [h=1]Hedonism galore at Aussie resort[/h]Published: 8:57PM Thursday November 13, 2008 Source: Reuters
> 
> An Australian holiday resort will hold a month-long, nude anything goes party to combat an expected economic downturn, media reports said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 1, 2014)

Wow!  Are they holding another one this year?   I will book a reservation tomorrow (today is a holiday here)...


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 1, 2014)

Dunno. It was six years ago. Perhaps they went broke for lack of customers ?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 1, 2014)

A lack of customers?  Are you kidding?  They probably ran out of reservations early...


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 1, 2014)

Or perhaps those naked hedonists romping through the Queensland rain forest ran into the Gympie Gympie Stinging Tree.
Guaranteed to put an instant stop to hedonistic holidays. :grin:



> MARINA HURLEY'S DEDICATION TO science was sorely tested during the three years she spent in Queensland’s Atherton Tableland studying stinging trees. The entomologist and ecologist’s first encounter with the Gympie-Gympie stinging tree produced a sneezing fit and left her eyes and nose running for hours. Even protective particle masks and welding gloves could not spare her several subsequent stings – one requiring hospitalisation – but that was nothing compared with the severe allergy she developed.
> 
> “Being stung is the worst kind of pain you can imagine - like being burnt with hot acid and electrocuted at the same time,” said Marina, who at the time was a postgraduate student at James Cook University investigating the herbivores that eat stinging trees.



http://www.australiangeographic.com...06/gympie-gympie-once-stung,-never-forgotten/


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 1, 2014)

Why come out of your tent and risk it?


----------



## Sunny (Sep 1, 2014)

W.C. Fields:  "Everybody's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer."


----------



## []Doo[]Der (Sep 1, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Of course Christianity is not faultless because human beings are not faultless whether they are religious or entirely secular. Yes, it is acceptable to have opinions on any faults historical or present. You can, indeed must criticise churches and nations for their past crimes and sins but it is a bit much to criticise those living today for the acts of those who died centuries ago.
> Truncated for brevity.


Excellent reply. BTW I do not consider ad hominem attack types of responses as acceptable, but, the subject should be open to criticism. I find those defending Christianity often to be able to deride other religions and even differing off shoots of Christianity whilst their particular sect dare not be pointed out for faults...mea culpa. 

I know of Baptists that consider Catholics heretics and worse and do not hesitate to say so.
That's religion all to often.


----------

