Ask Wednesday: Ex-theists vs. Never-theists

[RoninMiyamotoMusashi]

To the uploader, I mostly agree with you, militant atheists should additionally call themselves anti-theists like Christopher Hitchens. To use your terminology, regarding ex-theists v/s never-theists, I feel ex-theists have had more of a challenge - because they have to fight against indoctrinated beliefs since childhood. I am an ex-theist myself - so perhaps I am biased, but the feeling of freedom/epiphany cannot really be understood by never-theists - they never were enslaved to begin with.

[BornWithoutReligion]

@RoninMiyamotoMusashi I agree with you, and I understand that there is an emotional desire to want to share that feeling of freedom/epiphany with others, but I would caution anyone who is moving too close to conversionary tactics to question those motivations. I feel religious upbringings can instill in a person a need to build consensus with others on issues that do not directly affect that person. Many times those people don't consider the idea that it's OK for the other person to be wrong. :)

[Whatever4009]

I was brought up in a religious home, my mother is a very religious woman, but no she never said bad things about atheists or gays or divorced people or anyone. These days I am struggling with my faith, I feel I have hit rock bottom and as usual god is not answering my prayers, I have recently started watching a lot of atheism videos and I no more believe in "religion" but I am still too scared not to believe in a super power that controls us.

[meteeples]

I don't believe debating with a theist does any good. Atheism is something I personally had to come to on my own. Atheist's had tried to unconvert me for a long time. It wasn't until I started questioning my faith independent of others that I was able to see that the bible was just a story, and that there is no God. I think that giving them information that may inspire thought can get them to explore their faith more, but no one can talk a believer out of their faith.

[RectalDiscourse]

I think it's good to proselytize because most of the time you're just trying to help your fellow human, be it saving their souls or saving them from religion. The problem is it's such a volatile conviction, it ends up being a fruitless endeavor. I'm an ex catholic so I feel like I do combat the religious better since I've been on their team and know their plays, but the difference between us is that I'm not afraid to question things. None win against faith. Not logic, reason or common sense

[iamme81702]

This was the best answer ever!

[musicmode13100]

As a "former theist" (stopped believing in god before i stopped believing in Santa), I find that it allows me to connect with current theists better, as it makes me a bit more empathetic (if that doesn't sound conceited). with regards to the "arguing the bible" point, i find it helpful that i have read it cover to cover (first step to becoming an atheist) and can match quotes that are often quote mined with their counterparts that contradict them.

[SerbAtheist]

That said I disagree with your stance on debate. First, debating using the Bible shows we are not shy about taking the debate onto their turf. And it's a powerful tool: ASSUME the Bible is true, then reach illogical or immoral conclusions. Many-a-theist fell using this approach. Even if not, it makes us less vulnerable than if we are silent to stereotyping, which theists love to do in my experience and which is a common precursor to bigotry if not outright discrimination and violence.

[SerbAtheist]

As a never-theist, I have tremendous respect for ex-theists (I think these are good terms). Giving up God is quite an endeavor, very often a traumatizing one. That said SOME still carry over the bitterness and resentment towards their former religion, again quite understandable given what they went through, but maybe in certain situations counterproductive.

[Katalyzt]

Interesting... As a [Never-theist], I generally let theists come to me if they want to talk/debate. And I do not see a problem with that, as it happens in real life outside of youtube as well. ;O)

Katalyzt

[svanhoosen]

Ex-theists like myself are often perceived as combative, but not because we seek out the conflict, but rather because it seeks us out. For instance, being an ex-theist, my parents, siblings, and many old friends and many of my extended family are theists. Since I left Christianity 25 years ago, many of those theist family members have been bigoted toward me. They push their religion on me, creating combative situations, and the false impression that I am combative. Don't fall for it!

[steviep2]

In my case, which I only realized after too much wine with one of my wife's friends husband who is catholic, when I was arguing all the contradictions, fallacies, etc. My present self was arguing with my past self for my own benefit and not his. I found myself asking “why”, why do I even talk about this, the short answer is to work through my own Post-Religious Stress Disorder. funny, I just wrote in my blog about this.

[aMulliganStew]

(helping to make your point for you...) Yet another way in which I'm not good enough. God, I'm defective as an atheist; I have the original sin of being a former believer. Please send salvation. Make me whole. I'll do whatever you want.

[gabiotta]

I think that it is a way for recent atheists to get baggage out of their systems. People who keep having that conversation... meh.

[awatson945]

"Social and moral progress is the synthesis of the dialectic" --Hegel

"Social and moral progress is the equilibrium found in an adversarial system" --Sandel

Without dialog and debate there is no social and moral progress. The error is to think the evolution of the zeitgeist happens in time scales we can typically observe.

[gedgetips]

I have been struck by how preoccupied some atheists on YT can be regarding belief in god and religion, but then I also never accepted a god when growing up. The idea of a "true atheist" sounds problematic, but I can see this as meaning a focus upon exploring issues w/o even considering the god-option in the process. One thing the anti-god focus can prevent is the exploration of a problem due to wanting a consensus of "rational" belief before examining new & controversial evidence.

[Zentz29]

This video makes atheism seem like a religion. An "atheist point of view" is different for each person

"True atheism"? When do we start building the equivilent of churches and getting the people who understand what "true atheism" is to explain it to the people who believe them? When do we start breaking off into sects because we disagree with each other about what "true atheism" is?

Atheism is the lack of belief in god. Sure, it informs the way you live sometimes, but there is no "true atheism".

[mikemfd232]

BornWithoutReligion, as an ex-theist, I do take the 'combative' approach you talk about. You have not wasted many years believing an obvious lie so of course you are not an 'angry atheist'. I have donated money, time, and energy to churches, so I feel I have earned the right to challenge others about their beliefs. I will not humor theists, their belief is incorrect. While I can neither peove nor disprove a god exists, I can certainly prove that fallacies of the bible prove THAT god is false.

[XxAmericanLedxX]

So are you saying that a lot of ex-theists are antitheists because of internalized religious attitudes? Yeah I guess I can see religious attitudes amongst atheists, but more so with people who don't see that there's a time and place for arguments. Really interesting vid, Zaunstar sent me btw.

[SecularMentat]

Very well put argument. I think in some ways you are right about the perspective of argument with a theist coming from the point of view of a theist.

[Alineniz]

Yaaay another woman non-believer in mythical stories!!!! Woot woot! Keep up the great work!

[eyeEATyoBABIES]

Some of us ex-theists helped spread horrible ideas. We feel that we need to fight because we need to make up for things we did.

[64Ways2Die]

I think a lot of good comes from debating theists, weather you're a "never-theist" or "ex-theist" doesn't matter.. it comes down to dealing with peoples delusions.. after all, a world full of delusional people is a dangerous place.. a great example of "ex-theists" vs. Theists would be Matt Dillahunty and the Atheist experience..

[LsBaba]

From the UK: My parents were non-religious but not overtly atheist, and my school was minimally religious. For few years in adult life I considered the possibility of a Deist god. In the context of this video, I am a "Never Theist".

The "Ex Theists" I see on YT tend feel the need for lengthy explanations and defence of the atheist viewpoint, pointing out the flaws in religious belief, often at great length. Particularly in US, perhaps due to Evangelical Christians. Is it partly self-assurance?

[rriverstone1]

We have to model an alternative to Theism in US. Evangelicals r actively herding ppl 2 theocracy. I think we need 2 b more present in at-risk communities as volunteers (see Atheists Helping Homeless). We have 2 b visible, to counteract the damage of theocrats. Never atheists often say, "what is there to talk about?" Maybe, from being inside theocracy, nontheists understand the potential damage, totalitarianism, mind control, peer pressure, etc. better & feel motivated 2 try to help?

[zEropoint68]

I've noticed that people like me, who never believed, aren't as adamant. I certainly agree and believe that religion is socially, psychologically and physically destructive to the same extent as any other atheists, but none of that has ever touched me personally. While I lack the sense of urgency of the former theist, who has most likely been scarred by religion, I am also not as easily manipulated to anger by that Animal Farm-style chanting that theists think is meaningful discussion.

[iLoveNaughtyGirls01]

@BornWithoutReligion Fact: Real Atheist dont tell the world what they are.. real Atheist dont care! A wanna be Atheist like this Hot Nerdy Babe is actually the biggest believer that there is a God! they just dont accept it and they do everything in there power and believe that there is no God. But you cant hide your feelings because you do believe in God and if you dont TRUST ME you wont make this video.. Think about it.. I dont believe in God but i respect others believe & i dont make fun of it

[DivineCypher]

atheism is not a worldview.because it only deals with the issue of claims for the existence of a god. a lack of belief cant be a worldview because your worldview consists of philosophy, belief, knowledge and facts. though atheism may be a consideration in one's worldview..

[BornWithoutReligion]

@DivineCypher What I meant is that atheism is the foundation on which one's worldview is built. It is the window through which we view all things, and thus influences everything, whether we are directly aware of it or not. I would, of course, argue that atheism is the default and theism would be a filter through which people interpret information and knowledge. Therefore, the title of "atheist" simply expresses this lack of filter.

[Blackmark52]

@BornWithoutReligion @DivineCypher Does a world view need express anything about the world? I consider myself an atheist above all else and that in turn effects how I think about everything else. But atheism to me (I'm a never-theist) is not simply about gods and supernatural phenomenon. Atheism is not believing in life after death. My existence being entirely dependent upon this physical world seems to me to be a world view.

[BornWithoutReligion]

@Blackmark52 I consider "life after death" to be part of the supernatural (as it is not in the natural, tangible and testable world). And I agree that this element of the atheist world view is one of the most influential on decisions throughout ones life. Thanks for the great comment :)

[Yahweigh]

We should lend less credit to these books and ridicule them tactfully more often imo.

[Yahweigh]

I love you.

[hallowbe]

I don't see how atheism could exist in the absence of religion and thus the notion of deities. In the absolute absence of this notion, atheism could not be defined because it's essentially what it encompasses. Hence, this idea would be oblivious to all; we would have nothing to reject so the premises of atheism would be invalid.

[BornWithoutReligion]

@hallowbe Atheism isn't a rejection, it is a state of being without belief in gods. If no one knows the concept of a god then they are, by default, atheists. For example, a new born infant is an atheist because they do not hold a belief in a god (because of the fact that they are incapable of belief at that stage). Animals are, to the best of our knowledge, atheists because they have no concept of deities. Before the age of 6 I had never heard of "god" so I was an atheist. It's that simple.

[hallowbe]

@BornWithoutReligion I'm asserting that atheism could not exist in the absence of religion. We are not innately atheists because we cannot mentally conceive anything let alone rationalise such concepts.

[Yahweigh]

@hallowbe atheism is without religion/a god.

[hallowbe]

@BornWithoutReligion There are variations on the definition on atheism. I think this is where our point are conflicting...what do you think?

[BornWithoutReligion]

@hallowbe I agree that we have different definitions of atheism, but I will have to argue that mine is technically accurate by the shear construction of the word (a = without, theism = god belief). All creatures that have no god belief, whether aware of the concept or not, are atheists. I think you are ascribing cultural attributes to the term that, strictly speaking, it does not have.

Question: the first 6 years of my life I had no knowledge of religion. If not an atheist, then what was I?

[teavea10]

@BornWithoutReligion

It seems atheist should be more practically defined as having an understanding or capability of believing in a god but then not believing so. It seems perfectly legitimate to say a baby is neither. Not everything has to be characterized as atheist or theist.  Would you say worms and rocks are also atheist? Saying babies are atheist reminds me a little of some muslims who say everyone is born muslim, after which many are corrupted by being into non-muslim families.

[BornWithoutReligion]

@teavea10 I don't see the correlation between muslims saying that babies are born with innate belief in something they can't possibly understand, and me saying that babies are born without any belief in gods at all. This only implies that you believe atheism is a belief system, which shows a complete lack of understanding of the concept. And there's no such thing as "neither", as you either have something or you don't. It is physically and logically impossible to reject both states.

[teavea10]

@BornWithoutReligion Some people try to argue atheism/muslim is a default state of babies so therefore the validity of being changed to something else has to be seriously thought about, which they should be anyway but mainly when the ability to think and act about it is there. I am not saying atheism is a religion like Islam, or that babies can be muslim. Note I said "reminds me a little". I agree there is no "neither" if atheism and theism are defined completely complementary.



[BornWithoutReligion]

@teavea10 and in regards to your question of whether worms are atheists, there's an easy test:

Are worms theists? No.

Therefore they are atheists. (That's how the "a-" prefix works in English)

[teavea10]

@BornWithoutReligion "Are worms theists? No."

That did not answer my question. I agree with you, but would you also say worms and babies are not atheists either? We shouldn't be slaves to the forms that words have but define them in ways that make sense and are commonly used and understood. I wish there were a third word to go with theism and atheism, like moral, immoral and amoral.

[BornWithoutReligion]

@teavea10 I did answer your question. If something is not a theist then, by default, they are an atheist. There are many different kinds of atheists, but they are all atheist. There are things that have no ability to believe (ex. rocks). They are not theists, therefore they are atheists. There are people that do not yet have the capability of believing (ex. babies). They are not theists, therefore they are atheists. There are people who reject belief (ex. Dawkins). All are atheists.

[KrisMayeaux]

@BornWithoutReligio The def. of atheist is: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a deity. It could just as easily be said that since the rocks & worms have not expressed disbelief/denial in God, therefore by default they are theists. But maybe you asked them and they answered? LOL This is ridiculous. In order to be a theist or atheist requires a thinking entity to choose or have spiritual understanding of God,(babies do maybe) otherwise it's neither theist or atheist.

[BornWithoutReligion]

@KrisMayeaux that definition of atheist was obviously written by a religious person, as it contains loaded language like "denial". I, instead, break down the word into its component parts and define it thusly (without bias towards either world view).

[KrisMayeaux]

@BornWithoutReligion atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity from Websters 3rd New International Dictionary

atheism - Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god from Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam Webster's def - atheism: a disbelief in the existence of deity

These are 3 random definitions from very reputable dictionaries. The fact is you cannot classify a rock or worm as an atheist! Emily, maybe you need to get some sleep but that's ridiculous.

[BornWithoutReligion]

@KrisMayeaux It's only ridiculous because you're not listening to the words that I'm saying. The "a-" negates the "theism". When you negate something that means you are left with everything outside of that thing. That's how the language of mathematics (the only true universal language of the universe) works. We're not discussing English, we're discussing universal ideas. Think beyond the english language and listen to the concept I'm expressing to you.

[teavea10]

@BornWithoutReligion "That's how the language of mathematics ... works".

No it doesn't. Attributes in math only apply to certain mathematical objects. A triange as a geometic shape is neither negative or non-negative. The value 17 is neither symetric or asymetric. There are statements that are neither true or false. Your trying to apply the mathematical idea of set complement to the largest universe possible in the way you define words.

[teavea10]

@BornWithoutReligion I know others get side-tracked on this question and take different sides, people who can otherwise easily have intellegent discussions without symantic disagreements. I'd like to find linguistic experts giving opinions on this rather than theists or atheists.

Does the un- and dis- work like the -a prefix as you said earlier? Would you say babies disbelieve or are unbelievers since they don't believe? Are babies undemocratic?

[BornWithoutReligion]

@teavea10 From my own experience as an English instructor I have come to understand "dis" as a conscious act of rejection of the word that follows (ex. disassociation, rejecting or separating from association with something/one). "un" is more difficult, as it is usually a way of expressing an act of not doing something in the face of pressure to do it (ex. unproductive, undeterred). I prefer "non-believer" for babies, as it is a neutral observation of the state of lacking belief.

[teavea10]

@BornWithoutReligion 'I prefer "non-believer" for babies'

I also like non-believer better than atheist or non-theist. It seems a stronger, broader, more explicit idea of "not" than a- and is clearly applied to an action (a baby isn't doing). It also lacks -ist that I associate with holding a view, a suffix I take to have precedence over the a- prefix (if you want to define things by word construction).

[hallowbe]

@BornWithoutReligion The definition I hold is from various sources and I don't think it was pertaining to anything cultural.

As to your question, the absence of atheism and theism? I don't know if there's such a word.

I agree now. You've shown me that we are innately atheists and it makes sense. ;-)

[hallowbe]

With all due respect, it's ignorant of you to assume that never-theists have a more informed perspective of the 'atheist-point-of-view' than ex-theists. How else could you fully refute what theists claim without understanding the origin and nature of their assertions?

[BornWithoutReligion]

@hallowbe You seem to have missed my point. I am asserting that when someone attempts to "refute" religion they are making atheist arguments from a religious point of view. I'm not saying that never-theist are "informed" on religios arguments, I'm saying that ex-theists still have religious tendencies deep down like the desire to convince others to their own belief system. Yes, ex-theists can discuss religion more intelligently, but the act of discussing religion is not an atheist activity.

[hallowbe]

@BornWithoutReligion Contradicting or refuting what they claim does not constitute ''a religious point of view''; what they present is the religious point of view. Utilising their own 'evidence' as an opposing argument is respectively atheist in nature. However, I can see how it would be perceived as being from the ''religious point of view'' by a never-theist. In the absolute absence of religion, and the thus the notion of deities, atheism would not exist.

[BornWithoutReligion]

@hallowbe Technically atheism would still exist in the absence of religion, it's just that no one would use the term for it because it would define everyone. In the same way that a-teapotism is the general state of all people (see Dawkins if you don't know what I'm talking about) but no one has to define themselves that way. When I talk of pure, or "true" atheism I mean the state in which no one needs to define themselves that way because there is no one to represent the theism assertion.

[hallowbe]

Those of us who've renounced our faith have an 'inside' perspective of the religion from which we defected, and hence can adequately refute their claims. However, never-theists could also make equally 'potent' rubuttals to theistic claims through sicence and reason.

[PrecambrianLullaby]

you used this word "true"... past that you're probably dead on about the differences between us. i'm 'ex', but i'm also nihilist, maybe, so i don't really see much benefit in arguing to/against theists/ism. i'd like to think i engage a little more topically rather than trying to exemplify or convert. i likes my some talkin' and thinkin'... thars mah 2. 'bout it, really. peace and kittens.

[ChipArgyle]

This video suggests that some atheists are better atheists than other atheists. It advocates an "us versus them" mentality. Of course, this invokes the God of Irony, the only truly existent God. Why? Because "us versus them" is part of the foundation of most modern religious thinking.

[BornWithoutReligion]

@ChipArgyle I'm sorry you see it that way. I do not believe that either kind of atheist is "better" but there are differences and I wanted to point out, from my point of view, what I see as innate religious tendencies within many ex-theists.

[ChipArgyle]

@BornWithoutReligion Pointing out the differences is how racism got its start.  Gotta be careful in this PC world.

[BornWithoutReligion]

@ChipArgyle No, not understanding and respecting differences is how racism festers. Being in complete denial of differences is what makes people hate others that they see as not "conforming" to how they imagined those people should act.

[ChipArgyle]

@BornWithoutReligion That has always been my standpoint, however, most people are far too stupid to understand the subtlety of intent. It's given birth to the opening phrase, "Is it racist..." Safer to steer clear.

[wkhristafer]

it never gets anywhere but its always fun

[tdietz20]

I absolutely believe that debates with Theists are useful, if not essential. Engaging theists in debate does two things: 1) exposes the inconsistencies, contradictions, and variations religious teachings 2) exposes a community of freethinkers to those who might otherwise not realize that faith can be even be questioned.

And if nothing else it may help theists celebrate and enjoy their faith that much more in the face of all this apparent opposition. Good for them.

[tdietz20]

I don't agree that it's easier for ex-theists to argue at the same level, except perhaps with respect to scripture (although to me atheists seem to know more scripture than the average theist). I dont' think previous belief in gods confers any faster path to truth and logic. The sprit of the question seems to be "Is a theist more likely to be swayed by an ex-theist?". Much like the old "Who's more qualified to preach about sin? a saint or a sinner?" It's more about who's being preached to.

[rollofnickles]

No argument here as to ex or not ex, but I have learned so very much here on youtub from the ex-theist, because they point out and explain( empirically) why and how religion warps the mind of believers. One does have to put up with some egos and show-boating of course.

[LividImp]

@BornWithoutReligion

An analogy for why ex-theists are combative:

As an ex-theist, theism resembles "The Matrix" and I feel a sense of urgency to help others out of their own mental prisons. I see any unpersuadable theists as a Cypher type characters selling out others for their personal comfort. As a never-theist, it likely isn't as personal for you and you might see theism as similar to belief in ghosts or the zodiac. But I can assure you theism goes much deeper and is much more insidious.

[fruitikay]

Debates with theists DO get places. I am proof of it. I was a Christian Youtuber who made videos defending God. However, from participating in the debate and talking to atheists, I learned a lot and realized that my faith was fictitious and not logical at all. That is why I therefore engage in talking/discussions with theists sometimes to try and strengthen critical thinking in them and give them something to ponder--NOT to "make them atheist" but to get them thinking about something. :)

[deepashtray]

Excellent insight. Although I think I qualify as a never-theist, I do tend to engage religious people here on YT. I couldn't say why I do except that (at least I like to think) it gives me greater understanding of the whole issue. The trick is to engage without descending into an exchange of spiteful and petty one-upsmanship. It is too easy to cross the line into anger or even hatred, and something I want to avoid in my life. Life is too short to be mean to anyone.

[grubelsucht]

A good question! I would posit that ex-theists more cogently argue against theism as they have learned how to climb out of the deep hole of religious insanity through the power of their own intellect. We might envy the ex-theists ability to make their points of logic while remaining calm in the face of intransigent idiocy--a patience and understanding which I lack. Religiosity must be scorned and ridiculed out of existence as attempts at reason seem to give believers unwarranted respect.

[mebe84]

@grubelsucht You said "Religiosity must be scorned and ridiculed out of existence...." Do you really think showing utter scorn for people of faith and contemptuously claiming your superiority while ridiculing them will bring results? Yeah right - telling them how great you are & how stupid they are will change their minds. LOL Don't you know Jesus said that all believers would suffer persecution? You're only making his prophecy true plus Jesus said for them to pray for people like you LOL.

[grubelsucht]

@mebe84 Xtianity in its ascendancy tortured and murdered millions who refused to convert. We see in mebe84‘s comment that today’s enlightened age has not dispelled the fear and superstitious idolatry ancient tribal savages inspire in weak minds unable to reason without the direction of another. Those brave thinkers of the past who rejected religious superstition created the wonderful world in which we live longer and better today and deserve our acknowledgment, not ancient tribal savages.

[mebe84]

@grubelsucht yea i think its well established that religions and superstition of all sorts do exist o enlightened one.we can put that aside. the point of the comment was that you would be very uneffective at arguing with theists to change their minds.(i didn't write it) she made the mistake of thinking u are someone who cared more about that than ridiculing and talking down to theists.

oh and to say that atheists or atheism "created the wonderful world" is too simplistic to be credible

[grubelsucht]

@mebe84 Mebe84 here serves as an example of the hostility underlying the erratic and incoherent thought processes of deluded fools.

[mebe84]

@grubelsucht " Yes, I am superior to you, you silly jackass"

i thought the above pm u sent me was sorta hostile

there is nothing incoherent with what i wrote.so what is it that your feeble mind cant understand about my comment? ill dumb it down for u if u tell me what u don't get.

u think u r superior to theists. yet i told u i didn't write the initial comment. im an agnostic. i was just sticking up for someone i care for who accidentally wrote a comment on my account.

what a hypocrite u r

[grubelsucht]

@mebe84 One who carries that notion that supernal intelligence watches our movement and waits to reward or punish individuals for eternity is fundamentally stupid. That such an idea is a suitable matter for debate is also fundamentally stupid. I am superior to such people. Identifying stupidity in humans does not represent hostility to them; nor does identifying stupidity in animals, it's just there. Mebe84 I identify as a silly and incoherent jackass not worthy of further consideration.

[KrisMayeaux]

@grubelsucht One of the fundamental elements of morality is having respect for others; also showing kindness and patience. Jesus displayed all of these character traits and so much more. He was the Personification of Love. Your contempt, disrespect, assertions of superiority, coupled with verbal insults to any who question or disagree with you makes you appear totally lacking in morality. Many atheists would even be embarrassed by you. Is that how you want to be viewed by others?

[mebe84]

@grubelsucht try to understand, im not a theist. if u r superior to me u should have a reason less ur arrogant. if the debate is so stupid wtf are u doing watching this vid?and are u superior to those who do debate;plato,nietzsche,russell­,hitchens,harris?i doubt it.i hope u dont debate cause u suck at it. look how easy it is for me to rip your nonarguments to shreds.perhaps u should try harder, instead of just talking down to me. then u wont seem like such an ignorant snob.

debate IS worthwhile

[TheCraich]

Damn, comment below, I was going to hit on her.

[BornWithoutReligion]

@grubelsucht Indeed! :)

[dojohansen123]

She's so hot!

[sevandyk]

I think you are right about the differences between ex-theists and never-theists - ex-theists do tend to do religious-type activities under the new banner of atheism. But I don't think there's an inherent hierarchy there, that one is better than the other, as you seem to be implying. And the idea of a "true" atheism is ... uncomfortable, for me.

[BornWithoutReligion]

@sevandyk I didn't mean to imply a hierarchy in which type of atheism was better. However, it is true that if everyone were born atheist they would have a POV more similar to never-theists than ex-theists in the way that I explained. In this sense, never-theists are closer to the pure definition of what atheism is. This does not make us better, just less influenced by the outside force of religion.

[I85PIES]

@BornWithoutReligion

I think with organised religion intent on pushing it's views wherever it can and influencing public policy that effects us all, and corrupting the education of children with it's BS it's important for us atheists to speak out, and if we pick up a few converts along the way that's even better. After all, silence doesn't get heard, and I for one don't want to live in an oppressive theocracy which is what we could all end up with if we are not careful.

[enlightenedone676]

@I85PIES I also agree, but will add that ex-theists understand what it is to be controlled by your beliefs, and additionally controlling of others due to your beliefs (even if you're unaware). The ex-theist knows the regret and damage that their belief caused them (made them feel like a fool for so many years), and wants to help cure that mental illness in others. For some ex-theists it may be a control issue, but for me it's like being an ex-addict, trying to help those addicted.

[blueyesalexya]

bornwithoutreligion , why are you so cute ? you are my type

[COEXISTential]

I think debating theists (as an atheist) helps to crystalise my thoughts, sharpen my debating skills and, ultimately, hopefully, convince any fence-sitting bystanders not to adhere to a religion, but instead have a deep personal relationship with reality ;)

[RedSkyNord]

It is a waste of time for atheists and theists to debate. Both parties join into the discussion already at the defense of their belief. It is unlikely that the debate will convince either party to disown their beliefs. Both argue differently. Theists try to argue symbolically by trying to make you feel spiritually vulnerable, insisting that there needed to be a god to have created you. Theists just cannot fathom there being no god because of how abstract and enigmatic universe is (by chance). 

[agentm83]

I agree with those who said that the debates are for the people on the fence. Trying to debate with a devout believer is probably a pointless waste of time...unless someone on the fence is listening in...

[1empathy]

Bertrand russel certainly thought "ex-theists" were different, he thought you could even tell an ex catholic from an ex protestant. I live in belfast and when i say i'm an atheist i am usually asked "but are you a protestant athiest or a catholic atheist?" Then we're fighting lol (that's laugh out loud not loyal orange lodge lol)

[TheViciousSquare]

Hey, this is a really interesting topic. I think the critical point is how to define "The Atheist Point of View". As you defined it, what you say makes some sense, but there are problems. #1: Never-theist Sam Harris speaks directly to believers (Letter to a Christian Nation) and frequently seems to be trying to deconvert them from religion. Other never-theists do too. #2: Religion is on the political offensive. Ex-theists and never-theists have to deal with this whether they want to or not.

[jalbador]

I think the religious debates based on scripture are just for entertainment purposes and don't really accomplish anything. The atheists that debate the pseudoscience that religious people come up with to try to validate their beliefs are actually useful. They serve to educate people, even if it isn't the one they are debating with.

[LuckyPhew]

Question: What was it like coming out as/being a lesbian in a religious school?

[boenrobot]

I only believed in a theistic God about two-three years during my elementary school years... I wonder if I could be called ex-theist, or if I've always been a never-theist, since even for the time I believed, I didn't subscribed to the more ridiculous stuff, such as having a personal relationship with a long dead son of a being who has the whole world to worry about rather than me... or thinking there was actually a earth-wide flood.

[shrikechan]

Darn good points :D 

[Zaunstar]

This is a good question! This is something that I have been pondering for awhile and I plan to make a video about it at some point. Another point to ponder is that I think sometimes too that some of the related ideas about the world, about science for instance, or views on homosexuality, can persist even AFTER the root cause, religion, is removed after they have deconverted. I've definitely seen that happen.

[BornWithoutReligion]

@Zaunstar I would absolutely agree with your observation on persisting religious views affecting people's opinions on non-religious issues. Its amazing how deeply religion infiltrates everything.

[HonestDiscussioner]

I've only seen one debate between atheists and theists, of the professional ones anyway, that I felt the atheist did a good job. There are a lot of good debaters who use tactics and rhetoric rather than facts and legitimate argument, and so atheists who are used to ignorant but well meaning Christians don't know what they're doing.

Debates are done for the neutral party, the ones on the fence. They will rarely sway the individual your debating.

[gothatfunk]

i feel just the same way. i think ex-theists are often much better at using scripture against believers to show the preposterousness of certain religious claims. but otherwise, i do feel those who have never believed are better poised to say "the entire God-idea is just silly".

[VideoGuyNC]

I must disagree with your opinion of "ex-theists" trying to convert people. As an "ex-theist" myself, I NEVER try to convert theists into atheists. And that brings me into the answer to your question. No, there is no point to engaging theists in debate/conversation over their beliefs Vs atheism. Theists have been indoctrinated with ways/tactics to avoid certain points, which ends up getting any conversation stuck in a never-ending loop. Therefor - it is pointless to debate them.

[LockardKevin]

I'm an ex-theist.

[renegade4dio]

(...continued, final part) Now, I really do understand that such arguments rarely produce any change whatsoever in theists. But occasionally it works, and the potential consequences of failure include self-destruction of our race. I'd consider that self-destruction to be a profound loss to the universe, as we are (as far as we know) the only thing in the universe capable of knowing the universe. We are how the universe knows itself. If we meet ETIs, I won't care about us so much.

[renegade4dio]

(...continued) But, my point is maybe just a supporting point to yours. I definately exhibit the need to convert, but I strongly believe that many never-theists fail to fully grasp just how bad theism really is, and so they don't consider it something that really NEEDS to be pushed back against with every moral means available. I think this explains your lack of desire to argue directly with theists. (...continues)

[renegade4dio]

As an ex-theist, I look forward to the day when the majority of atheists are never-theists, because I don't think that the damage caused by theism can ever truly be repaired. To get there, we first must go through a phase where many more ex-theists are created until a critical mass of atheists is reached, and to get there ex-theists of the specific type relative to the theists being "argued" with is a dramatic help in creating ex-theists. (..continues)

[VictoriaRosification]

Yes, I would agree if I were trying to convert them to another religion but the reason I try to convert is not because I think everyone must agree with me but I think christianity is harmful to society

[TheNakedAtheist]

I don't see this difference of which you speak. I see just about as many never-theists making the arguments you attribute to ex-theists. Maybe you don't, but I think you may be an exception. Perhaps ex-theists better recognize the value of such arguments, and are better at making them, but I don't think that necessarily is reflected in the various arguments.

[BornWithoutReligion]

@TheNakedAtheist Fair enough. I think it's enough of a difference to make a point about, but of course every individual is different. But in a 4 minute video we can only realistically speak in generalities. :)

[Sahuagin]

always engage with theists whenever possible (same goes for other topics). even if it feels like you're getting nowhere, you are. you are planting little seeds of doubt that may one day bloom into honest skepticism if not of the entire religious mindset, perhaps at least one facet of it. at the very least, you are practicing. it's just good all around, and I don't know if there are any reasons not to. as Benjamin Rush said "Controversy is only dreaded by the advocates of error."

[grits011]

'SPLOSION!!!

[anaverageatheist]

Thanks Emily, I like how you took my question apart.I should have been a little clearer about what I ment by the atheists point of view.(its scary how we think alike on this question) I take any (appropriate) opportunity to debate. Debate is a good thing,It can plant seeds of doubt and doubt is good because it makes us constantly review our own presuppositions

[anaverageatheist]

@anaverageatheist

thats suppositions, not presuppositions.

[RakaTheTenacious]

"How do you feel about atheists having debates with theists?"

The essential deal is rarely expressed. Either believe everything they say or be tortured for eternity by forces that no one can perceive. IMO, there is usually one way this works. The theist feels as though they don't have a choice. The atheist feels that there is a choice. When they debate, both are giving rationalizations.

[gamutman]

I don't mind when atheists debate theists so long as the theist recognizes the suppositions are different. Most of the time, it defaults to straw man. O'Reilly v Dawkins, Comfort and Kirk v rationalist response, WLCraig v everyone, straw man city.

[ToHoldNothing]

Not debating with those you disagree with seems to suggest the same problem of stereotypes that atheists are resistant to discussion. That distinction between a discussion and a debate is pertinent, but I don't think it discredits atheism if you and the theist having a debate have already established particular limits, like not utilizing the bible or other parameters that make the debate simpler and more precise. To debate is also to discuss in a sense, but to debate is to potentially bifurcate

[WineisyourFriend]

I like how you broke that down. I hadn't thought of the atheist perspective in those ways...either of them. Makes a lot of sense.

As for debating theists, I'd have to say it's beneficial to at least some. Early in my deconversion I came across the YT discourse, and found it all very informative. It has also helped me to make sure I know my stuff if I'm going to engage in discussion. It made me study better, which is never a bad thing.

[InternalCompass]

I agree with everything you've said until your 'feeling' that a 'never-theist' is the only 'true-atheist'.

Your video brilliantly exposes the undeniable differences between the EX and the Never with our often foundational bifurcation of thought processes/perspectives. I'm an 'EX' because I believed God is inseparable from Truth. As an Atheist I admittedly still 'worship' and seek truth.

It seems to me that and Ex is loyal and drawn toward truth, while many Nevers seem to just dismiss B.S.

[InternalCompass]

I admit it's arguable which is 'closer' to a 'true atheist', but I think there are many advantages/disadvantages to each side.

[BornWithoutReligion]

@InternalCompass agreed :)

[BornWithoutReligion]

@InternalCompass I just wanted to clarify that I don't think never-theists are the only true atheists, I've simply observed that never-theists find it easier to view the world through a truly atheistic point of view, untainted by religious or theistic tendencies.

[InternalCompass]

@BornWithoutReligion My apology - there was no need for you to clarify, it was entirely my mistake.

Thank you for such a thought provoking video.

[Trillasecond]

I dont know many athiest so i sub to your channel =)

i'm an ex-theist and i never take any time thinking about it nor do I wrestle with my choices. When i was religious I always wrestled with the ideas of heaven and hell.

I think the debate is a complete waste of f*cking time (pardon my french madam, lol). I never entertain the idea unless really pressed or the person posing the question is open-minded such as yourself. -Cheers

[beechgrovejoe]

Great separation between an anti-theist and an atheist :-) Anti-theists seem to be trying to convince theists. Kind of like theists try to convince non-theists. Atheists are just stating their position and they are not trying to convince anybody nor do they claim there is something wrong with believing something. They just don't believe it. But that doesn't stop them from having productive conversions with theists.

[Snowgoon901]

When you're born into a southern baptist family and community, it's impossible to be "outside" of it. God is all around you (figuratively). I used to pass two evangelical billboards on my way to school, and there's another one I saw recently with a man in a white lab coat and a microscope that reads "Evolution is a lie". Sure you can ignore them, but they wont ignore you. Eventually you're gonna respond back. That's why you view ex-theists as "combative". This could happen to never theists too.

[BornWithoutReligion]

@Snowgoon901 I absolutely understand what you are saying here, but what I would say is that there is a difference between telling a theist to leave you alone because of XYZ and telling a theist they should agree with you because of XYZ. It's a small difference since XYZ is usually the same, but the goal is what I would say distinguishes the differences in POV.

[cheeseit126]

From my experience, never-theists do tend to be closer to true atheism as they have no ties to any one specific religion; they see the objective falseness of all religions.

Ex-theists who argue against the Christian god's moral standard, I would argue never fully understood Christianity to begin with.

Never-theists tend to combat religion to advance civil rights and science; but I feel they will never be able to reach out to the religious-minded unless they can see from both perspectives.

[cheeseit126]

As an Ex-theist, I think you have things backwards. I never bother pointing out contradictions in the bible because I understand that the bible is consistent within itself. Whenever I deal with theist, I always engage them outside of the bible from an assuming-nothing position. I'll agree that we do tend to do a bit more converting, but only because we wish to share our enlightenment with our fellow man who still lives according to irrelevant dogma.

[indignant99]

@cheeseit126 You are still indoctrinated. The bible is absolutely NOT consistent within itself.

[guildpactminish]

Yay for goofy out-takes ^^

[skeletonmom]

Love the cricket-song in the background.

I think everyone should be able to talk about what they believe. Helps us grow, sometimes question and learn about other people. I dont like when a theist or non-theist gets militant if someone is different and doesnt fall in line with the "Borg mentality"...sorry, Star Trek reference. ;D

[BionicDance]

I'm not entirely certain I agree. As a Never-Theist myself, I find I'm forced to confront the notion of god's existence quite a lot, if only because of the amount of intrusion of religious people into my life. I mean, between being LGBT and an advocate of evolution over creationism, it comes up a fair amount.

Now, if religion never interfered, never made a nuisance of itself, THEN I think you'd totally have a point about never thinking of god. But that's not the world we live in, really.

[RakaTheTenacious]

@BionicDance In a perfect world we would not need to question the reality of fictional characters.

I've never believed in a god either.

[BionicDance]

@RakaTheTenacious The wishful thinking drive in humans is far, far too strong; the religious are trying to WANT god into existence...without knowing that's what they're doing. *shakes head sadly*

[Sahuagin]

@BionicDance "the religious are trying to WANT god into existence"

well said

[teavea10]

@BionicDance "trying to WANT god into existence"

I think "hope" God into existence is a little better. You can want something you know you can't get. Not so with hope. If you hope hard enough it might be true by virtue of that hope. It's ironic how hope is used in the Bible and acknowledged by believers, e.g. "Jesus is our hope". See 1Tim 1:1, Heb 11:1, Col 1:27, and other verses.

[BionicDance]

@teavea10 That's the thing, tho...I added "without knowing that's what they're doing" at the end specifically because "hope" is too conscious of the plan. It's less "I do believe in fairies! I DO believe in fairies!" and more "Of COURSE god is real! He is! He HAS to be!"...if that makes any sense.

It's less, "Jesus had better be real, darn it!" and more, "The world we live in has Jesus!", coupled with a heaping helping of denial.

[teavea10]

@BionicDance ' "hope" is too conscious of the plan'

I think I see your point. Many think they're doing something not realizing it's something else. But people can still be hoping, not knowing that's what they are doing, regardless of the Bible's take on hope. Faith can be characterized as nothing more than acting on fervent hope. But still, a few religious people consider strong desire or hope as being good enough when they think their faith isn't as strong as they would like.

[teavea10]

@BionicDance "god is real! He is! He HAS to be!"

That seems to characterize two ways people have faith. It's a direct statement, or it's a forced conclusion.

[VictoriaRosification]

I don't think you fully understand this. I disagree. I am an "ex theist" and I think that in general the fact that I used to be religious helps convince religious people to convert. >.> lol and you Have to call out their bible for its bullshit so you Can convert or let them know how bs it it. Ex theist know more about their oponent.

[BornWithoutReligion]

@VictoriaRosification Of course your past helps you to know how to propose convincing arguments, but I would argue that your desire to "convert" them to your side is a remnant of your religious point-of-view, thus still proving my point.

[pernch]

Is Ask Wednesday a reference to Ash Wednesday?

[BornWithoutReligion]

@pernch yes. It was suggested by a viewer 2 videos ago and, considering my Catholic school upbringing, I thought it was cute. Well spotted :)