How do you become an Atheist?

Bill said:

I see, when I attack Atheists, you see other motivations and don't blame Atheism, but when faith is attacked, you no longer see other motivation, you ignore secular concerns and motivations, faith is purely to blame.

BTW, is it still OK to genetically mutilate those who hold differeing opinions?

Click to expand...

You were not attacking atheists, yet you were either misunderstanding, or misstating the point of my post, thus my clarification and reply. When a particular faith is "Attacked" (which I have not done), I do not bother to defend it, as I consider them all the same.

And no...I do not consider it OK ti genetically change someone merely because they differ in opinion, nor have I stated as much.

Either you have a tendency to manipulate the words of others, or simply do not quite understand what was stated.

Hammer, Bill, Zoomer, et al,

The belief in a Supreme Being, something larger than ourselves, is not necessarily bad. But anything taken to excess can be harmful.

Hammer said:

Bill said:

Do you think this is a good idea? Do you support doing this?

Click to expand...

Commies can be counted on to support things like this. How many millions of his own people did Mao kill? What percent of his country's population did Pol Pot kill? Atheists would happily sacrifice the health of practically their whole population in an effort to make them more amenable to Atheism.

The "God gene", though, at this point is nothing but a hypothesis.

Click to expand...

=Zoomer= said:

As a programmer, I would say, "It's a bug. Was supposed to default to '0' (off)".....

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

I don't think we know enough about the the VMAT-2 Gene to warrant a specific action; yet.

I only mention the gene so that everyone is on the same sheet of music when it comes to understanding what is meant by "hardwired to believe." It is not common to all of humanity.

Now the opposite of the therapy to neutralized the VMAT-2 is the similar to the therapy to introduce the VMAT-2.

(IMO)

This should be done in a controlled setting. We don't know near enough about the potential outcomes.

But it appears that the symptoms of this gene has been around for a very long time. We don't know if it was part of the original genome, or if, though the many different religious genocides, if the gene became prominent after so many purges of the various non-believers (gene eradication).

For instance, centered on old Baghdad, was a cultural bonanza in math and science between 800 AD and 1100 AD. Basically, this is when algebra and astronomy really took-off - and the stars were recorded and named. But THEN, came along Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111). It was al-Ghazali, more than any other influence, that promoted the idea that manipulating numbers was the work of the devil. That was the beginning of the decline of Islamic contributions to mathematics and science. (See: http://muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID=1330 )

This is rather a hard distinction, but al-Ghazali was both brilliant and an obstructionist to science, all at the same time. But I can see this gene in play here.

Most Respectfully,
R

RoccoR said:

I don't think we know enough about the the VMAT-2 Gene to warrant a specific action; yet.

Click to expand...

The video about the gene is bullsh!t and so doesn't give us anything to work with.

But, yes, what does this gene do? Is it found disproportionately in Muslim suicide bombers? Faggoty Christians? Orthodox Jews?

Hammer said:

The video about the gene is bullsh!t and so doesn't give us anything to work with.

But, yes, what does this gene do? Is it found disproportionately in Muslim suicide bombers? Faggoty Christians? Orthodox Jews?

Click to expand...

Perhaps, do a bit of research beyond watching a video before commenting. Also preferable would be avoiding the insults that have come to be a signature of your posting personality as this adds nothing of value to this site.

This might be a good place to begin...you are Welcome:
"
Experiments were done in 1979 at the University of Minnesota where investigators began tracking down 53 pairs of identical twins and 31 pairs of fraternal twins that been separated at birth and raised in different environments. The investigators were looking for traits the members of each pair had in common, particularly their disposition towards spirituality, assuming that the characteristics shared more frequently by identical twins would be genetically based because of their identical DNA. Their findings demonstrated that identical twins have plenty of things in common, such as migraine headaches or similar fears, but most importantly, identical twins showed a similar overlap in their feelings towards spirituality and religion, much more so than fraternal twins. The disposition towards spirituality did not translate into a degree of observance of a particular faith, something that the investigators agreed was significantly impacted by environment, but it did translate into whether we're drawn to God from the beginning"
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1830

tecoyah, et al,

Yes, some of these research is on the MAO-A Gene and some is on the VMAT-2 Gene. And there is still another that studies the combined effect of the two.

tecoyah said:

"[/COLOR]
Experiments were done in 1979 at the University of Minnesota where investigators began tracking down 53 pairs of identical twins and 31 pairs of fraternal twins that been separated at birth and raised in different environments. The investigators were looking for traits the members of each pair had in common, particularly their disposition towards spirituality, assuming that the characteristics shared more frequently by identical twins would be genetically based because of their identical DNA. Their findings demonstrated that identical twins have plenty of things in common, such as migraine headaches or similar fears, but most importantly, identical twins showed a similar overlap in their feelings towards spirituality and religion, much more so than fraternal twins. The disposition towards spirituality did not translate into a degree of observance of a particular faith, something that the investigators agreed was significantly impacted by environment, but it did translate into whether we're drawn to God from the beginning"
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1830

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

The funding for the research into these outcomes and properties has been withdrawn in most cases. There is a great fear that the open publication or corporate association of the Business with these genes might lead to a backlash by either Christian or Islamic Fundamentalist; or both.

Most Respectfully,
R

I should do more research? You'd have to do ten life times of research just to catch up with what I know now. The study referred in the article you linked doesn't address this particular gene, let alone answer my specific questions about the gene.

At a more general level of genetics vs. faith, my questions were actually digging for the kind of faith that has been linked to genetics. For example, if someone said they found a gene that makes someone into a homosexual, I'd want more details to try to uncover the mechanism. Like, does this gene make a man's dick small so they spend their lives suffering penis envy? Or, does this gene make a man's dick small so that they can't please a woman? Or, does this gene make a man's dick small so that they don't feel like a man? And, then we'd see that the homosexuality itself isn't really what's genetic, just the small dick. Likewise, I doubt this gene has any direct relationship to faith. Maybe it makes a man a homosexual, so they want to blow themselves up as a Muslim to end their misery, or develop a "personal relationship" with Jesus and exchange "I love you"s, or try to cure themselves by becoming an Orthodox Jew?

tecoyah said:

Perhaps, do a bit of research beyond watching a video before commenting. Also preferable would be avoiding the insults that have come to be a signature of your posting personality as this adds nothing of value to this site.

This might be a good place to begin...you are Welcome:
"
Experiments were done in 1979 at the University of Minnesota where investigators began tracking down 53 pairs of identical twins and 31 pairs of fraternal twins that been separated at birth and raised in different environments. The investigators were looking for traits the members of each pair had in common, particularly their disposition towards spirituality, assuming that the characteristics shared more frequently by identical twins would be genetically based because of their identical DNA. Their findings demonstrated that identical twins have plenty of things in common, such as migraine headaches or similar fears, but most importantly, identical twins showed a similar overlap in their feelings towards spirituality and religion, much more so than fraternal twins. The disposition towards spirituality did not translate into a degree of observance of a particular faith, something that the investigators agreed was significantly impacted by environment, but it did translate into whether we're drawn to God from the beginning"
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1830

Click to expand...

Hammer said:

I should do more research? You'd have to do ten life times of research just to catch up with what I know now. The study referred in the article you linked doesn't address this particular gene, let alone answer my specific questions about the gene.

At a more general level of genetics vs. faith, my questions were actually digging for the kind of faith that has been linked to genetics. For example, if someone said they found a gene that makes someone into a homosexual, I'd want more details to try to uncover the mechanism. Like, does this gene make a man's dick small so they spend their lives suffering penis envy? Or, does this gene make a man's dick small so that they can't please a woman? Or, does this gene make a man's dick small so that they don't feel like a man? And, then we'd see that the homosexuality itself isn't really what's genetic, just the small dick. Likewise, I doubt this gene has any direct relationship to faith. Maybe it makes a man a homosexual, so they want to blow themselves up as a Muslim to end their misery, or develop a "personal relationship" with Jesus and exchange "I love you"s, or try to cure themselves by becoming an Orthodox Jew?

Click to expand...

Again...I see no point, as you are either extremely immature, or misinformed.

Goodbye.

RoccoR said:

The belief in a Supreme Being, something larger than ourselves, is not necessarily bad. But anything taken to excess can be harmful.

Click to expand...

I can see quite a few potential benefits to society of having "faith" in a higher power, be it a singular god, multiple gods, or any other entity one chooses to believe in. I've said many times I envy those that were born with that ability. If science has an opinion, I will always rely on that knowledge. It is a generally less "secure" life, admittedly, for those that do not have the comfort of believing.

I don't think faith taken to excess is harmful to individuals. It's when that faith is seen as bestowing some right to proselytize one's belief on others, as is so common in organized religion.

=Zoomer= said:

If science has an opinion, I will always rely on that knowledge. It is a generally less "secure" life, admittedly, for those that do not have the comfort of believing.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't have a problem not knowing. I would rather not know than believe in a myth. A lot of my views on this matter have been influenced by Richard Feynman; he touches on the topic here: http://www.politicalfray.com/showpost.php?p=33032&postcount=1

myp said:

I disagree. I don't have a problem not knowing. I would rather not know than believe in a myth. A lot of my views on this matter have been influenced by Richard Feynman; he touches on the topic here: http://www.politicalfray.com/showpost.php?p=33032&postcount=1

Click to expand...

I have no problem not knowing either myp. And I also would rather not know than believe a myth. However, the point of my post was that those that CAN and DO believe, generally find more "peace" in life (whether or not their premise is well founded or not).

How do you become an Atheist? You say you're an Atheist and you are an Atheist. It's really that simple. Atheists just don't believe in any religion.

How do you become an Atheist? Thought/experience/decision.
Shouldnt the question be 'How do you become a believer?' for surely we are all born without a belief and are instructed into one?

Admittedly, the title of this thread made me smile a bit. To answer the questions within however:

1. What is your religion when you were born?
I was born into a Christian family, and I still live in a predominantly Christian region.

2. What do you really believe? Science?
Yes, I believe in science. However, I think an atheist saying that he/she believes in purely science is but scratching the surface of their beliefs. I also don't think that anyone's beliefs (atheist, or otherwise) can be summed up in one word or phrase. I believe in logic, science, reason, truth, beauty, inquiry, and empathy. I believe in all of the problems, mysteries, and absurdities of life. The "a" in "a-theist" does mean without, but being an atheist does not mean being devoid of belief. The major difference therein lies in the lack of doctrine. Each atheist must pursue his or her own beliefs. Their attitudes toward religion, life, and themselves will help define their beliefs.

3. And, when and how did you became an Atheist?
This is a difficult question for me to answer. In fact, it's probably the most difficult question for me to answer out of the three. I will give you a brief summary. I first doubted God at a very young age. This was at a time when I did not know the word "atheist" even existed, much less the idea behind the word. This was at a time where there was no other option aside from Christianity and a belief in God. I was naive and inexperienced. I do not blame my family or environment for that. I was simply young. It would take time for me to come to terms with my lack of belief in God and even begin referring to myself as an "atheist." I struggled with it a lot for several years, but the more that I read and the more people I met, the easier it became.

I became an atheist when I began to apply reason to my thinking. My family was not religious but believed in God. They would call themselves Christians. I don't recall ever thinking about God at that time but would hear others mention God and I assumed it was some "adult" thing that I would understand in time. Then when I was about 6 yrs. old my family joined a church and began to try to teach it's doctrines to me and my sibling, we went to church on Sunday, etc. But, as I began to read the Bible for myself (age 6-10) I had many questions which neither my parents or the members and leaders of their church could answer. They all boiled down to: why should I believe in something without any proof? My parents did not force me to believe and neither did their church and I am happy to have had the freedom to choose. This does not seem to be the norm, from what I have gathered in discussions with believers and non-believers alike. So, I concluded from the use of my own capacity for reason that although some people get positive benefits from joining a religion or even just believing in a higher being, there is no logical reason to do so unless one is in need of a social network or psychological comfort.

bluefig said:

I became an atheist when I began to apply reason to my thinking. My family was not religious but believed in God. They would call themselves Christians. I don't recall ever thinking about God at that time but would hear others mention God and I assumed it was some "adult" thing that I would understand in time. Then when I was about 6 yrs. old my family joined a church and began to try to teach it's doctrines to me and my sibling, we went to church on Sunday, etc. But, as I began to read the Bible for myself (age 6-10) I had many questions which neither my parents or the members and leaders of their church could answer. They all boiled down to: why should I believe in something without any proof? My parents did not force me to believe and neither did their church and I am happy to have had the freedom to choose. This does not seem to be the norm, from what I have gathered in discussions with believers and non-believers alike. So, I concluded from the use of my own capacity for reason that although some people get positive benefits from joining a religion or even just believing in a higher being, there is no logical reason to do so unless one is in need of a social network or psychological comfort.

Click to expand...

it seems like a good way to grow up, not being forced one way or the other. I certainly am giving my kid his freedom. He was forced into the Mormon church by his biological folks we went to that church for a couple of weeks when he came to live with us just to give him comfort, but if he decides not to believe in anything I will love him all the same.

For me, becoming s believer was a very organic experience. Frankly my reason brought me to the belief in God. But that's really the reason i want to give my ward his own space to come to his belief or ideology of his own accord. I was forced into catholicism, it isn't appropriate in my domestic life to be Catholic.

GekiDan said:

Atheists are people who don't believe in God or any other gods. In short, they are the one who don't have a religion.

Since I have read many posts contradicting(that's what I thought) other religions here, especially Christianism. I really do believe that these people are Atheist. What is your religion when you were born? Where do you really believe? Science? And, when and how did you became an Atheist?

Click to expand...

the way one becomes an atheist is to give free reign to the EGO. the bigger the EGo the better your chance of becoming an atheist.

falcondule said:

the way one becomes an atheist is to give free reign to the EGO. the bigger the EGo the better your chance of becoming an atheist.

Click to expand...

An interesting theory. Care to expand upon it?

think of the EGO you need ,to think you have solved the great riddle of the universe.
while billions of others believe in God ,you stand among the few that don't !!
that takes chutzpah .
but how do you know for certain. ?
only a supersized ego would convince you that you challenged the almighty and you won.

falcondule said:

think of the EGO you need ,to think you have solved the great riddle of the universe.
while billions of others believe in God ,you stand among the few that don't !!
that takes chutzpah .
but how do you know for certain. ?
only a supersized ego would convince you that you challenged the almighty and you won.

Click to expand...

Conversely, think of the "EGO" needed to believe that your religion is the one true religion and all others are completely wrong. Wow! What chutzpah that takes, eh?

To be an atheist, one just have to stick to one what sees. Since they cannot see God, they won't believe in Him.