An insightful personal narrative of an apostate

"RELIGION IS STUPID, MURDEROUS, BIGOTED A...
Image by ruSSeLL hiGGs via Flickr

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/9fg1b/atheism_vs_theism_may_seem_like_a_battle_of_wits/

It is generally common for atheists to consider that the arguments against religion boil down to science, the facts, debate, etc. It puzzles many why someone when faced with all the evidence for evolution for example would still choose to ignore it. I think that many atheists are ignoring the REAL issue, the true reason why it is hard for someone to reject their religion.

I was raised Christian all my life, in a VERY fundamentalist home. I was taught the earth was 6,000 years old created out of nothing, heaven, hell – the whole thing. I was taught how important it was to witness and attempt to “convert” others. I was taught that even bad things, really bad things, had some sort of divine reason and plan attached to them. I believed this into my early twenties.

When I was finally faced with the irrefutable facts, and raw science behind them, I let go – very reluctantly – of my cherished beliefs. It was not easy, It was like wrestling a priceless gem from someone who would just not let go of it.

When you reject religion, its not like – rejecting the earth is not flat for example. With something like this you can say “Oh ok, now I know” – but religion has a much darker and deep rooted hold on a person, and a much more profound effect.

There were times I was actually in tears thinking about the fact that there was no “afterlife” – and that those I had loved who had died – were really dead. They weren’t watching me, or having some hand in guiding me. They didn’t still “love me”. That was pretty depressing.

It is strange how religion gives you a way to reject the reality of death – which I guess does help to ‘ease your suffering’, that you “know they went to a better place” – but it also prevents proper mourning. When someone you love dies, and they tell you on their death bed that they will see you one day in heaven, you are more prepared for them to “die” because you know they aren’t really “dead”.

To reject heaven and accept atheism – is not merely about science, facts, beliefs, etc – it is about accepting the reality of all those who have died – being really dead. It is accepting the same reality about everyone you love NOW one day being – really dead. It is accepting the same reality about YOU one day.

The older you are, the more dear loved ones have passed away, the harder it will be to reject the notions of religion. To reject religion requires the re-mourning of everyone who you love who has died.

Death is just one piece of a very complex puzzle. If you have spent your whole life “living by faith” – and you have made decisions “by faith” that have resulted in really bad situations in your life, you now have to own up to the fact that these situations came about because of YOUR choices. You do not have God to take the burden of this. You can no longer say “This happened because God has some plan for my life”

By rejecting religion, you must also reject the notion that you can avoid responsibility for poor life situations. That too is a hard pill to swallow.

Next, you must reject the idea that your path is somehow guided, that God is walking with you, that you are not truly alone as you walk through life. Imagine a man walking through a room on planks of wood suspended over spikes with large holes to fall in if you take a wrong step. He always manages to take the right next step, but he is never afraid because he “knows” that this is a solid wood floor he is walking on. Now turn on the lights.

To reject religion means to accept the idea that you CAN fall – and fall HARD. It means you have to recognize that up until now you have been fortunate – but now you have to force yourself to think about your next steps.

If you have been spending your life “following Christ”, or witnessing to people, to the extent of even studying this in college, or spending hundreds and hundreds of hours reading and studying the Bible, praying, etc – only to find out that ALL of it was utterly and totally useless, then you have another hard pill to swallow. Imagine swallowing that pill as an older person.

To accept this means to accept that you have lived a large part of your life in vain, while thinking it was purposeful. Talking to such a person about atheism is similar to telling them that their whole life is without purpose, misguided, and that they have missed out on the only opportunity they will ever have to live life.

Surely one can then see why the concept of atheism is offensive and infuriating to so many people.

Then there is the concept of a personal relationship with God. The idea that God and you are “friends”. That you are somehow “above the world”. That you are living in a bubble safe and protected by God himself.

To reject religion, means accepting that you are just like everyone else – and in fact, worse off than most and behind the race because of your past religious belief. To someone who has spent a lifetime believing they are special in this regard, a piece of them is gone, never to return.

Worse than this, such a person values their imaginary relationship with God more than any aspect of their REAL personality. Who you really are takes second stage to your supposed relationship with the almighty.

Rejecting this is surely very difficult, as it entails rejecting a large part of the perceived value someone has in themselves.

I know I have not covered it all, but I hope I have helped to show that there is more to the picture of “religion vs atheism” than merely science, and facts.

The emotional side of religion is by far a larger and darker obstacle than any other that would stand in the way between someone’s freedom from delusion and accepting reality.

There are professional people who specialize in “deprogramming” those who have been captured by a cult such as the Moonies. Society grudgingly approves, with reservations because cults are judged to be “dangerous” and harmful. But try to deprogram someone from a mainline “religion” and now you will encounter blatant open hostility from every quarter. This means there is a double standard. A person who succumbs to the mind control program of a cult deserves help to extract themselves. The theology practiced by Catholics, Mormons and other mainline religions is just as non-nonsensical and can harm the mental state of adherents just as much as the most superstitious cult. Why doesn’t the principal of harm apply here?

There are many self help groups on the web that offer advice and encouragement. But woe to the person who sets out to forcibly separate an individual from a religious faith. It has to be because there is wide spread denial that the fear mongering and guilt inducing methods used by mainline religions are not harmful. If only that were true.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Posted on Thursday, September 17th, 2009 at 7:24 am in Child abuse, Childhood Indoctrination, Hyperreligiosity, Stories.

Share/Save


Bookmark and Share

Subscribe via RSS! or Follow EndOfReligion on Twitter!

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.


Comments (7)

Follow this discussion | Leave a trackback | Login

If you have spent your whole life “living by faith” – and you have made decisions “by faith” that have resulted in really bad situations in your life, you now have to own up to the fact that these situations came about because of YOUR choices. You do not have God to take the burden of this. You can no longer say “This happened because God has some plan for my life”

I don't follow. Religionists believe God can indeed take the burden: all they have to do is postulate inscrutability. "God works in mysterious ways", for instance. To a non-theist, it seems like the religionist has kicked a critical leg out from under himself. The non-theist thinks the religionist has ceded crucial ground by making the God hypothesis untestable. But the religionist is proud of faith without logical backing. I don't see that you've supported your point.

Theist believes god is ultimately responsible for what happens to them.

If bad things happen then god wanted them to happen.

Actually, since there is no god, he can not be responsible.

So the individual is responsible for what happens.

Putting god in the picture simply adds unwarranted complexity.

Thank you.

If it was not clear, I am an atheist. But:

I'm with you on points 1 through 3. But we diverge at point 4. If a drunk driver plows into my home and kills me, it cannot be the case that a god willed this. But it is also the case that I did not will it. Believing that the individual is responsible for everything that has happened to him is not simply wrong, it is pernicious; it leads to (common-to-theists) beliefs that, for instance, the world's destitute and sick are in such a state because of something they have done.

Also, while a desire for parsimony is generally a good rule of thumb, it cannot be permitted as a criterion for what is true. It could be said that monotremes add unwarranted complexity to the mammals. I think that it would be more parsimonious if, at their core, everything were made up of one type of thing, but instead it is looking like "six" (i.e., quarks) is the answer. (By the way, I chose these two examples carefully. Evolutionarily, monotremes are parsimonious, as they show a preserved intermediate step. And string theorists are bothered by the six-quarks bit, too, and are using it as motivation for continued exploration.

But this is so obvious that I am believe you are making a more sophisticated point. The fact that complexity is not necessary is not a proof that things are not complex. If you will bear with me, could you elaborate — again?

But we diverge at point 4. If a drunk driver plows into my home and kills me, it cannot be the case that a god willed this.
+++++++

But the true believer would "blame" god would they not. O god, why hast thou foresaken me is a frequent plaint. And yes such a belief is pernicious. To overcome the unfortunate things that befall them is supposed to make a believer more devout, more slavish in their praise and devotion. In hopes of avoiding future catastrophes.

I agree that parsimony is a rule of thumb and not a proof of anything. I just meant that whenever theists drag a god into the picture that just adds the necessity to prove there is a god and we all go back to square one. A needless trip, so far as I can see. This reliance on god is simply a cop out we don't need to contemplate. It stops people from continuing a search that may eventually lead to a real answer and not a metaphysical one.

I re-read my post, and I wanted to clarify that I meant "a god could not have willed this" not because gods are good, but because gods do not exist. I meant it literally — "could not", not "would not". If that was unclear, my fault.

What I was responding to was "Actually, since there is no god, he can not be responsible. So the individual is responsible for what happens." What I'm saying is that those are not the only options. The "so" — the causal connection — is unfounded. I get hit by a meteorite. There are no gods, so gods are out as a theory. But that doesn't mean that the meteorite strike was my fault..

I'm with you all the way on the laziness of theistic belief. I just don't think a jump to "we are responsible for everything" is any more valid.

I'm enjoying this conversation, thank you.

I got you. I should have qualified my statement. I hope you will continue to read my posts and provide insights.

[...] An insightful personal narrative of an apostate (endhereditaryreligion.com) [...]

Post a new comment

« Is religiosity beneficial in affluent first world nations? America’s Most Stupid Person? »