Every so often when I am discussing or debating religion with someone, he or she will tell me that at one time they were once an atheist just like I am now. I even had one person call himself an “ex-atheist.” I always found this kind of odd considering that all Christians (and even all theists for that matter) are by definition “ex-atheists.”
What most Christians don’t realize is that we are born without belief in a deity... any deity. Babies don’t believe in deities and religions because they are babies. Their minds have not yet developed and they can’t even recognize themselves in a mirror. They don’t believe in ghosts or tarot, nor do they believe in the boogieman, Santa Claus, or Gods. They are a blank slate as far as complex beliefs go. All babies have are instincts and the nurture of the womb. In other words, people are born without the belief in deities. We are all born atheists.
However, religious indoctrination starts very early on in most families and so by the time a baby can express any kind of thoughts at all, they have probably already been brainwashed to believe in a deity and/or in some sort of religion. This is a sad fact about religious institutions that they can’t even wait until someone has reached the age of reason to start warping young and fragile minds with indoctrination.
So why do some Christians pull out the “ex-atheist” card? Well, one technique in the art of persuasion is to identify with your subject. In this case, a Christian claims to identify with his or her mark by claiming that they once didn’t believe in God and the Bible. The problem with this is that a simple lack of belief is all that qualifies one as an atheist. In other words, a person who has never thought about religion is just as much of an atheist as someone who has studied the claims of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and has researched the Torah, Bible, and Koran and found that those belief systems are ridiculous.
Kirk Cameron of Growing Pains fame is one such person who frequently uses the “ex-atheist” card. But I doubt very much that Kirk Cameron cared about religion at all before becoming religious. He almost certainly didn’t study the claims of religion with any seriousness or rigor nor did he look at the history of Christianity and the Bible before becoming a fundamentalist Christian. He probably never argued with religious believers and probably never thought about any of the philosophical arguments. Yet he still can claim honestly that he was once an atheist.
On the other hand, many atheist activists (i.e. atheists who have actually studied religion and still don’t believe) were once religious. Many were even very religious and some were even fundamentalists. These particular atheists are often very knowledgeable about their particular religious sect and so when they de-convert it really means something. In other words, the claim of ex-Christian may actually carries philosophical weight while the claim of ex-atheist is usually pretty much just meaningless. I know many Christians will claim this is a double standard. But the reason for this double standard is a valid one and so the ex-atheist Christians really have no persuasive ground to stand one.
So when discussing religion with someone who throws out the “ex-atheist” card, it is important to ask them about their former atheism. How knowledgeable of an atheist were they? Did they read and understand the counter-arguments to religious belief? Did they debate or discuss religion with believers when they were a non-believer? What’s their “street cred” so to speak?
Atheism 101 Articles:
Atheism 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Atheism 101: Is there moral grounding without God?
Atheism 101: The Purpose of Life
Atheism 101: Is the Bible the inspired word of God?
Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion
Atheism 101: Why has Christianity demonized nudity, sex and sexuality?
Atheism 101: Does it take more faith to be an atheist?
Atheism 101: What came before the Universe?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the ex-atheist
Comments
Where you were talking about babies not having beliefs, it makes me sad for my 2 year old adopted baby sister. I am literally watching my mother indoctrinate her as it happens, and there's nothing I can do about it. It's pretty sad.
re: street cred--
It's important for us to recognize that not all atheists are skeptics and freethinkers. Some are non-theists because of emotion or apathy or ignorance. Since we are all born without gods, I think it takes education & critical thinking to become a skeptic and, thus, a reasonable atheist.
Awesome post. I get a lot of people that push the claim from Lee Strobel that he was once an Atheist...yet he was simply an apathetic and ignorant non believer.
Good stuff.
Don't worry, Sam. A lot of us were indoctrinated as youngsters as well. If your sister's a reasonable person and is exposed to reason (maybe by someone like yourself), it will be easy for her to formulate her own opinions later on. It happens all the time.
My response is generally, "and?". Someone saying they were once an atheist (as the original poster demonstrated) is not a meaningful distinction. I find that it is usually an attempt to establish authority. "I was an atheist, so my arguments are more sound, by default." This is clearly fiction, because there's not knowledge to be gained from "being atheist". Atheism is just not believing in gods. It doesn't convey any special knowledge or super powers.
It's not important. You can have been whatever you claim, but do you believe in extra-dimensional super-wizards? Then that's the meat of the conversation. Quibbling about the various forms of perceived authority is not useful to a constructive discussion about the validity of supernatural beleif.
Good post, thanks for sharing it with us.
I agree with Michelle. If you're really concerned about your baby sister, I recommend not rocking the boat too much with your mother regarding religion and making sure to remain in your sister's life. Then, as she gets older, whenever possible try to expose your sister to as much critical thinking as possible and not hide your own disbelief in gods. Let her know there are other views out there. As long as you're in her life, there's something you can do.
I'm 75 yrs old this fall and was never brought up to go to church or be in any way involved with any of the religions. I am what you might call a true atheist. And because of this and in spite of religion(s)I have lived a very good life. No jail time, happily married to the same woman. My only daughter believes as I do, not because I cajoled her into thinking like me but because I didn't. She is in her 40's, married and successful in life. So no xtian or religious person is able to tell me what is right and wrong in my life. If you don't believe in something it doesn't matter to you.
There are 4 billion people on earth that probably haven't even heard of xtianity. So xtianity is a minority belief.
Ex-atheism is a very common claim for apologists. Not just Strobel and Cameron, but also C.S. Lewis, Francis Collins, Alister McGrath - it's getting difficult to find an apologist who does not claim to be a former atheist.
Then there was the ruckus a few years back when Antony Flew, in his old age, opted for Deism.
After hearing Francis Collins interviewed a couple of years ago, I decided to read CS Lewis's book "Mere Christianity" because Collins credited that with converting him. Collins is obviously a smart guy, so I figured I needed to read this book with an open mind.
Oh. Your. God. What a poor excuse for an argument for God.
Back when Andy Kauffman was performing, I couldn't stand to watch him because I would get embarrassed *for* him. That's how it was reading Lewis's book - I was embarrassed for Lewis for making such a pathetic attempt at justifying his belief. I'd find myself thinking "No, please tell me you're not headed down this path - NO!!! Tell me you didn't just say that!" It was awful.
Which makes me think that people who have never been exposed to religion are probably susceptible to it. Collins said that he just wasn't aware of religion in his youth.
A smart person once said "Teach a child one religion and you indoctrinate him. Teach him many religions and you inocul
LoL @ the "Ex-Atheist" shirt...
People are not born atheists at all. They are born nontheists and nonatheists.
Rocks do not believe in a god too. They fit your definition and are not atheists.
Clearly you have no idea what atheism is and call it what atheists are not. Ridiculous assertions on Staks' part.
I think that the "I was once an atheist" argument tries to imply that "I am now better/smarter than you (atheist), because I have advanced past that point".
Compare it to: "I was once a busboy, now I own the whole chain of restaurants.... let me tell you a few things you lowly little busboy who is so far behind me in this path."
It is basically condescending, without addressing any actual meat of the debate.
Stax, I could not have said this any better, and in fact have long said what you've stated here. There are plenty of atheists out there who are essentially atheists by default and never really studied the issues involved; those people are vulnerable to the emotional arguments of theists. Besides this, some of these Xians who claim to be an ex-atheist are simply lying to try and get a debating advantage.
One thing I wish you had pointed out though, and that is the correct definition of an atheist as someone who lacks a belief, as opposed to the popular definition which has us claiming we *know* there is no god. "Sam" posted an erroneous view on these comments, based on this mistaken notion of the definition of atheist.
A baby's mind isn't developed enough to decide what he/she believes in. Then again, neither is a teenager's. This is why I'm as amused to hear the testimonial of an "ex-Christian" that goes something like... "I was raised in a Christian home, stopped attending church when I was 14, etc. etc., and now I have an inexplicable hatred toward Christianity and religions in general that I feel it my obligation to be an atheist evangelist - though God forbid someone point out that out to my face since ATHEISM IS ABOUT DISBELIEF IN GOD AND WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BUT I DO?!!!" ...as you are by the claim that ex-atheists make.
By the way, though some may argue that I'm an atheist, I've always considered myself a pearlist. ;)
Syl: "an atheist evangelist"
And how many of those are there, really? Have you ever heard of an atheist going door-to-door, preaching the non-Gospel? The only one I've ever seen is John Safran:
www.break.com/index/door_to_door_atheists_bother_mormons.html
It's funny, because it never actually happens in real life.
to Reginald.
Atheist apologists and preachers may not go 'door to door' specifically, but they DO have soap-boxes, lectures, (this blogger fool Elliot for one), books, conventions, organizations, sermons, and even tax exemption in some places.
so this "arrgh they don't go door to door" lame-or cop-out is silly and dishonest and CONVENIENTLY OVERLOOKS what dogmatic soap-box Atheist DO DO, like Sammy Harris, Dicky Dawkins, Chrissy Hitchens, et al.
Non-Stamp-Collectors don't have whole organizations or "activism" to try to get people to not collect stamps. lol
so spare me the dodges.
Hard-Core Atheism is a religion, with all its soap-boxes and crusades.
(it also has its own set of myths, neurotically and dishonestly touted as "fact", even though "common ape-man ancestor" is twisted supposition with no real evidence, ignoring the appalling gaps in the fossil record, and how real mutations don't work to make new limbs, new organs, or truly new species." & the "a-biogenesis" fail)
Just out of curiosity, were the assumptions about Kirk Cameron based on anything, or just speculation that as a fundamental Christian, he couldn't have studied anything or had philosophical arguments about the existence of God prior to becoming a Christian? Has he confirmed these conclusions? I just don't like to assume based on generalizations about the guy.
Greg said: "People are not born atheists at all. They are born nontheists and nonatheists. Rocks do not believe in a god too. They fit your definition and are not atheists."
You are not comparing similar things. Rocks do not have minds. Rocks do not have complex social structures facilitating belief of anything. However, I agree that by definition, atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods and babies do not have the minds to comprehend that belief; they are not aware of God or gods. Personally, I think a child being born nontheist is more acceptable.
i did not do any research to become an atheist 37 years ago. i just slowly realized that i was no better off just believing things. so tho i have read books since deconverting, i have tried to retrieve that newborn lack of indoctrination. i even had a "born again atheist" bumper sticker on my car 20 years ago. i can honestly say that i live without gods and hardly ever even think about religions.
"so this "arrgh they don't go door to door" lame-or cop-out is silly and dishonest and CONVENIENTLY OVERLOOKS what dogmatic soap-box Atheist DO DO, like Sammy Harris, Dicky Dawkins, Chrissy Hitchens, et al."
Yes? What do they do? They write books, they give speeches. Wowie Zowie.
"(it also has its own set of myths, neurotically and dishonestly touted as "fact", even though "common ape-man ancestor" is twisted supposition with no real evidence, ignoring the appalling gaps in the fossil record, and how real mutations don't work to make new limbs, new organs, or truly new species." & the "a-biogenesis" fail)"
Go ahead, prove yourself to be ignorant.
squirrely: "Personally, I think a child being born nontheist is more acceptable."
"Acceptable" to whom? And why or why not? You are not talking about what is true, but what is comforting to people who have demonised another group of people.
we are not born atheists, duh. you gotta have people believing in gods to have people not believing in them- atheists. can't have anti-religion w/out religion, and we were born with neither one.
Anti-theism is anti-religion. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god. Technically you can be religious and an atheist. Buddhism comes to mind.
Did you happen to bunk with Kirk back in his early years? You have such a deep understanding of what some actor may or may not have studied before becoming a Christian. This isn't journalism, it's someone ranting, with a huge bias, for one particular point of view. You don't have to waste your time with coming up with cool atheist themed articles. You basically say in all your articles is that atheists are superior and smart, while Christians are brainwashed dopes....So give us all a break and just copy and paste that statement everytime you want to post an article.
"Greg" said that neither babies nor rocks have theistic belief, and therefore are both atheists according to such a definition. It was corrected that, since rocks don't have minds, they aren't similar to babies.
I don't deny there's a difference between my atheism and that of a baby. I've considered religious claims, and a baby hasn't. This difference is handled by implicit versus explicit atheism. My atheism is explicit, while the baby's atheism is implicit.
Though it's accurate to say that a baby is an atheist, implicit atheism is practically meaningless; not unlike the apathetic pre-Christian-to-ex-atheists described in the article.
Religious folks are still atheists - just about other religions than their own. Do Christians believe Mohammad was a prophet? No. Do Muslims believe Jesus was divine? No. Atheists and religious people have much more in common than we think.
"Greg" said that neither babies nor rocks have theistic belief, and therefore are both atheists according to such a definition. It was corrected that, since rocks don't have minds, they aren't similar to babies.
I don't deny there's a difference between my atheism and that of a baby. I've considered religious claims, and a baby hasn't. This difference is handled by implicit versus explicit atheism. My atheism is explicit, while the baby's atheism is implicit.
Though it's accurate to say that a baby is an atheist, implicit atheism is practically meaningless; not unlike the apathetic pre-Christian-to-ex-atheists described in the article.
To Will:
I've tried that approach before and been surprised to find that some Christians aren't atheists about other gods. Some of them believe those other deities exist, but they refer to them as false gods or demons. Wow.
To Will:
I've tried that approach before and been surprised to find that some Christians aren't atheists about other gods. Some of them believe those other deities exist, but they refer to them as false gods or demons. Wow.
Staks, you say early on in this essay that babies are atheists, but then you suggest Kirk Cameron never was an atheist because he didn't study religion, put a lot of thought into it, etc. What is the difference? An atheist, as you've said yourself, is one who lacks belief in a deity or deities, period--it's got nothing to do with WHY one feels that way. And, for the record, why one feels that way has nothing to do with what one does with it afterward--one doesn't have to be exceptionally knowledgeable about religion to be an activist, unless one's activism includes debating the truthfulness and merits of religion.
I rather like being an "apatheist"-style atheist. When someone tells me "God says this" or "The Bible says that" in an attempt to persuade me, it's very satisfying to say "That's nice, but I should care why?"
Diane, I suggested no such thing. Kirk Cameron can honestly say that he was once an atheist. But so what? Does that mean that he has studied the arguments with any kind of rigor or that he has read up on the history of religious belief the way Richard Dawkins has? No. So let me restate this again, simply lacking the belief in a god alone does not equate them with being an thoughtful, well informed atheist, it just means that one is or was (in Kirk Cameron's case) an atheist.
Nuts. I must have tossed my old college text describing various "models" of child development theories. The "blank slate" concept was but one idea. Indeed babies have to be taught everything they learn, either by direct teaching/demonstration or self discovery. Of course few if any of us discover god without someone telling us, dragging us to church, or knocking on our door in pairs. But we are not all born atheists by my definition, which is to make the conscious assertion that one personally believes that no gods exist. Until you have the ability to do that you can't really be an atheist. The same with a theist. Even those "indoctrinated" at a young age into some religion may not really qualify as Christian or whatever until they can really analyze what they do and why they do it and is it real to them.
Your thoughts are interesting. One question I have is if people are born a "blank slate" with no religious inclinations, as you assert, how is it that every known civilization in world history possessed religious beliefs?
Thank you in advance for your answer.
John, we are born with a desire to know stuff. We call that curiosity. When we don't know stuff we tend to get frightened. This is called the fear of the unknown. So as a result, cultures throughout history make up myths to explain what they cannot explain. That doesn't make those myths true. Some cultures even understand that the myth is fiction and still love the stories. On a related point, I don't know if it is actually factually accurate to claim that ALL cultures have religion. While I am not aware of any culture that don't, I also have not studied that particular topic in depth. Do you have some evidence for your claim?
Hi Staks,
The evidence that I have is that archeologists have found no civilization in history that was barren of religious beliefs. There simply is no evidence pointing to a culture that did not hold to religious beliefs. This seems to discount your claim that we are born as a “blank slate”.
What evidence do you have that people “make up myths to explain what they cannot explain”? Would you be willing to tell us the myths you’ve “made up” to explain what you don’t understand?
Thanks, Staks.
John
Staks, I just subscribed to your articles in the hope we can have a dialog.
John
"What most Christians don’t realize is that we are born without belief in a deity... any deity." You don't think most Christians realize babies don't believe anything yet? You have a pretty loose definition of 'atheist'. In my case, I became a Christian very young, lost faith shortly after I moved away from home, and was a 'true' atheist for about five years, as a result of asking questions and only finding more questions. God brought me back in '05 when I was no longer looking for answers. It's like you said in your other article--scientists go where the evidence leads them, rather than leading their evidence where they want it to go. However, I'm fully aware that such evidence is only good for 'me' (and gives me zero 'street cred') and that others need to look at evidence that is good for 'all'--hence my articles on such evidence.
Personification can actually be normal human state. And reason is evolution. Pascal Boyer have argued that it is a bit like a seeing dangers in dark bushes. If there is danger it can be lifesaving. And if not, we don't die in that error. Small children see teleology in almost everywhere. Rocks have minds. And nice trees drop sticks as present to humans who can use them.
And yes. This is superstition. Some grow over them. Most of people don't. But even I can get angry to car or computer when they don't work. Even say a curse. This is off course rediculous, but this is the faulty way how humans brain work. WE ARE NOT AS CLEVER AND RATIONAL as we think in our reflective self-masturbation -fantasies.
Maryann, "I was no longer looking for answers." I am truly sorry to hear that Christianity has killed your curiosity. Science never has all the answers and that is what makes science great.
TMH, you said, "Small children see teleology in almost everywhere (sic). Rocks have minds. And nice trees drop sticks as present (sic) to humans who can use them." As a child I never thought rocks have minds or trees "give us sticks." Can you prove any of these claims scientifically? Where's the evidence to prove your brain/mind operation theory?
It's nonsense, of course, and no atheist can prove any of the silly claims they make, including that God doesn't exist. Prove it scientifically. The odds of this particular universe being so lawful, not chaotic, that it developed life out of nothing are so infinitesimally minute that maybe the most famous atheist scholar of the last 50 years, Antony Flew, finally gave up the cause. It no longer made any sense to him. Is Antony Flew a victim of personification after several decades of study?
He is a scholar who simply looked at the latest scientific evidence and gave up atheism.
Staks, you wrote, "Science never has all the answers and that is what makes science great."
I disagree. Science is great because through observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, science offers theoretical explanations of natural causes (American Heritage Dictionary). Atheist David Hume pointed out that science can never claim that phenomena are always, everywhere consistent. He gave the example of the speed of light. Even if tested a million times, science cannot guarantee that the speed is the same always, in every place at all times.
This is only important to point out that science has definite limitations. For instance, science is incredibly unequipped to prove or disprove the existence of God. What sort of scientific experiment would you conduct to prove or disprove God’s existence?
Staks, an example from some well meaning atheists will serve to illustrate the point. In the 1960s Russian cosmonauts flew out into space. They returned and triumphantly announced, "We looked all over for God in the cosmos and didn't see anything. God doesn't exist."
Now, I ask you Staks, does that make scientific sense to you? I have a feeling based on your intelligence that it doesn't. But again, what sort of scientific experiment would prove or disprove the existence of God?
Evolution? No. Evolution could have been put in motion by God.
Since science is unequipped to prove the atheist argument/hypothesis, then why argue based on scientific claims? Antony Flew abandoned atheism because of modern scientific discoveries. Any thoughts?
The girl in the picture looks good in red.
John, you said a mouthful. First, Flew was such a famous atheist that I never heard of him until the claimed that there may be some vague higher power entity. Then of course the flood of fundamentalists gathered around him. I still don't know much about him nor do I care. But from what I heard, Flew's claim isn't that the Christian God is real, only that there may be some vague higher power entity. John, I don't think you understand what atheism is or what science is. Like I said, science don't have absolute certain answers what cannot be questioned or re-evaluated. The speed of light is constant based on the evidence we have observed and evaluated. If new evidence or observations are made, then science will re-open and re-analyze our current conclusions. But, based on our current observations the speed of light is constant. Using that model we have been able to accurately predict several phenomenon.
As for gods, we cannot use science to disprove the existence of vague higher power entities. However, we can use philosophy, logic, and history to disprove particular deities. I will point out though that our scientific model of the universe does not require a deity. In other words, a deity adds nothing to our knowledge or understanding of the universe. So why would we put one into the model when it doesn't need to be there? 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 infinity = 2. Why wouldn't we just say 1 + 1 = 2?
Interesting. I am an ex-atheist. I can tell you that I was indoctrinated with atheism from being a small child since I am from an ex-communist country. And many people in communist countries and former communist countries are indoctrinated this way.
Yes, babies are born without any belief in a deity but they are neither born with a belief in natural evolution.
I did believe that beside the universe of elementary particles there was nothing. Now I believe that a conscious being has created the universe and I call this being God. So I am an ex-atheist or theist if you prefer that term. I did laugh at Christians and made jokes with them. What made me believe in God was computer programming. I began to program when I was 12 years old. Understanding that a computer which is a very complicated machine needs an engineer made think of the universe which needs a creator. And natural evolution did NOT give me any answer how in the world everything evolved from simple to complex.
Believing that all evolved out of nothing from simple to complex sounds like RELIGION so if an atheist is also a natural evolutionist, he is a real religious person because he believes in the great "Something out of Nothing" deity which many even atheist scientists call Mother Nature. Natural evolution is a full blown religion because no one ever measured or experimented or observed evolution in a purely scientific way.
Actually, I believe that babies and young children are essentially theists. We initially believe in all-powerful beings (our parents), and we don't have a firm grasp on what's real and what's imaginary.
At some point we realize that our parents aren't gods, but just older versions of ourselves. Instead of completely abandoning our belief in higher powers, religion allows us to transpose it to some higher, imaginary being. If the religion is transmitted through our parents, as it usually is, we can make the switch while remaining loyal to our parents.
>Natural evolution is a full blown religion because no one ever
>measured or experimented or observed evolution in a purely
>scientific way.
Boyan, you just couldn't be more wrong.
The fossil record shows that either evolution occurred, or "God" is a great deceiver. There were fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then early mammals and so on, in that order. We have vestigial traits of our ancestors, such as the muscle behind the ear that our pre-ape ancestors use to swivel their ears. Whales have vestigal leg bones, and so on.
Evolution due to mutation and natural selection has been observed in the field. Look up "nylon-eating-bacteria", or learn why the gene for sickle cell anemia is selected for where malaria is present.
Given the provable facts that mutations occur and are passed down and that some mutations are adaptive, it requires faith to believe that evolution through natural selection does NOT happen.
So, if you, an atheist, suddenly started to believe in God, however miniscule the chance of that happinging, what would you call yourself?
I consider myself an ex-restaurant manager, but that doesn't mean I was born a restaurant manager. Your logic and premise are flawed.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!