What they are not

By Lael Telles
November 3, 2009

Chris Busby, a UW junior, was raised in a Southern Baptist community in Alabama but now identifies himself as an atheist.

When Michael Amini walked out of a Mormon endowment ceremony in May 2006, his parents asked him if it was the most amazing experience of his life. The UW senior was about to embark on his mission trip to Singapore, but he emerged from the temple questioning the entire foundation of his faith.

“I found the ceremony disturbing,” Amini said. “I was immediately convinced the whole church was false.”

But instead of turning his back on the first 18 years of his life, Amini opted to leave for mission training in Utah. After several days, he phoned his parents to explain that he had confessed a sin to the bishop and he would not be permitted to continue on the mission.

When Amini then started to explore non-Mormon texts, he came to identify himself as an atheist, which he defined as “the lack of a belief that there is a god.”

Like Amini, other UW students raised in very religious families or communities started to identify as atheists after a great deal of thought and exploration once arriving in college.

Most religions center on a single doctrine like the Bible or the Quran, but because atheism doesn’t have a guiding text, it is up to individuals to define their beliefs for themselves or form groups to discuss philosophy and religion — or, more precisely, the absence of it.

“The word ‘atheist’ doesn’t say anything about you,” Amini said, “just what you are not.”

For Amini, identifying as an atheist meant losing most of his friends and a full scholarship to Brigham Young University. It divided his family, and their relationship is still strained today.

Similarly, UW sophomore Kevin Constantin was raised in a Christian household and attended the same church until he left for college.

“I was always asking why and questioning everything in church, and they didn’t like that,” Constantin recalled. “[It felt] like they were hiding the truth from me or they were embarrassed to answer.”

Constantin found himself feeling angry toward the church and everyone who attended, especially when they “spouted off hatred toward homosexuals,” he said.

“I didn’t want to be a part of a religion that justified that kind of disrespect,” Constantin said.

The move away from home to college also had a profound affect on Abraham Smith*.

Smith, a UW junior and biology major, grew up in a Muslim family, but gradually realized his beliefs lay outside Islam.

“As I became more educated, I couldn’t reasonably believe everything my parents were teaching me,” Smith said. “I think I’ve always had that skepticism, and, combined with my studies, especially evolutionary study, I could not keep religion and science compatible for myself.”

Smith and Constantin have yet to come out of the “religious closet” and tell their families about their atheist beliefs, something others who have “outed” themselves struggled with. Smith said his family would likely disown him and cut him off financially, so he will continue to live a dual life until he has a foundation of his own.

Chris Busby, an out-of-state student from Birmingham, Ala., who was raised in a Southern Baptist community, shared one such outing experience with his family. He found his parents’ reactions were largely dependent on geography.

“My mother took it all right; she was raised in Denver,” Busby explained. “My father wasn’t too happy about it; he had never really left the state.”

Busby thinks his father’s negative response was due to his limited experiences with religious diversity. Busby’s parents continue to fund his education, but once he graduates from college, he does not intend to continue his relationship with them.

Because morals are often associated with religion, atheists are frequently asked where they get their morals without a god to guide them.

When Busby was younger, he gave a primitive and simple answer to those who asked why he didn’t steal and murder: “I don’t want to go to jail.”

But, after leaving his faith, Amini struggled with this issue.

“Mormonism affects everything: how to vote, what is right and wrong,” Amini said.

Soon after he left the church, Amini wrote down a list of moral questions in an attempt to define his beliefs, but he realized he was unable to answer them. When Amini arrived at the UW, he discovered a theological and philosophical forum in the Secular Student Union (SSU), where he was able to discuss these matters with other UW students.

Through the SSU, Amini came to more specifically identify himself as a humanist, which he defined as the “embodiment of philosophy that puts the welfare and betterment of humanity above all.”

Even so, Amini and other atheists continue to participate in discussions with people from different belief backgrounds, persisting on his path of questioning — a perpetual process.

“If I had to say the single most important reason I became an atheist,” Constantin said, “it would be that religion told me not to question, and that is all I really want to do.”

*Name has been changed to preserve anonymity.

Reach reporter Lael Telles at lifestyles@dailyuw.com.

(daily link here: http://dailyuw.com/2009/11/3/what-they-are-not/)

Topic: What does non-belief mean to you and how did you arrive at your position.
Time: 4:30, Tuesday Oct 13th
Location: Hub 209B

For the next meeting, we’re going to talk about the different approaches to atheism/agnosticism/unbelief. Everybody has a unique story about how they arrived at their beliefs and it’s interesting to see the diversity of opinions that are under the big tent of non-belief. We’d love for you to bring your personal stories and share with the group.

I want to thank all of you for making the Dawkins event such a big success. According to the facilities management, we had approximately 4500 people come to see Dawkins speak which makes it the biggest crowd he’s ever spoken to in North America! I especially want to thank the excellent group of volunteers we had that made the entire event run like a well oiled machine. Without you guys, we never could have pulled the event off.

If you have any thoughts or comments about Dawkins’ speech, please post them in the comments. Try to be civil and respect the viewpoints of others in the comment section.

Exciting news!

This October, Richard Dawkins will be coming to the University of Washington to discuss his latest book, “The Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution.”

When is it? Thursday, October 8th at 7:30PM
Where is it? Bank of America Pavilion (Hec Edmunson) at the University of Washington (map)
Do I need to get tickets or reservations? No, the event is free, and there is no registration required. We’ll have around 5,000 seats available.
Do I have to be a UW student? No, this event is free and open to the public
Can I help? Yes! We need volunteers! If you would like to volunteer, please send an email with your name and phone number to secular(at )u.washington.edu.
I have another question… Any questions regarding the event may be sent to secular(at )u.washington.edu as well.

More details are forthcoming.

(Meetup for this event)

Hope to see you there!

There will be a Northwest Freethought Coalition’s Freethinkers’ Picnic on July 3rd, starting at 1PM at Ravenna Park. See the Meetup.com event for more information.

The following represents the opinions of  single member of the SSU, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the SSU as a whole.

Being an atheist with many like-minded friends, I often detect great amounts of animosity toward the modern form of Christianity, and Evangelical sects in particular. Sometimes, this is directed at the Dominionists, as they attempt to override our laws in order to enforce Biblical law upon the rest of us. Other times, it stems from the frustration of being pre-judged as immoral, degenerate, foolish, or ignorant.

Today, however, I saw this animosity coming from the clear hypocrisy of purported “Christians,” swirling around a recent news story:

Churchgoers more likely to back torture, survey finds

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new analysis.

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than 6 in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only 4 in 10 of them did.

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/30/churchgoers-more-likely-to-back-torture-survey-finds/

These Christians claim to follow the man who has long been lauded for his pacifist philosophies which have affected Western thought for centuries.

I speak out of the frustration felt by many whom see these abhorrent policies sanctioned so, when I ask:

How is torture…

• Turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-42)?
• Loving thy neighbor (Leviticus 19:18)?
• Loving thine enemies (Matthew 5:44)?

To any who continue to sanction such acts, I quote your Christ (John 8:7), and say:

Let he who is without sin…

• Administer the first lethal injection
• Tie the first hanging rope
• Flip the first electric chair switch
• Waterboard the first suspect

The god of the Old Testament slaughtered mercilessly those who opposed him or his people. However, Jesus commands his followers to turn the other cheek, and leave the stone throwing to god himself. 

To the self-proclaimed Christians that support and sanction torture, I ask:

Why do you disobey the god you claim to worship so? Why are you not the first to stand up against those who commit these atrocities in your names?

How dare you condemn the non-religious as amoral, when we reject torture in greater numbers, and even without divine commandments. Take the beam out of thine own eye before condemning the mote in ours (Matthew 7:3).

Disclaimer: this post represents the views of an individual, and not of the Secular Student Union as a whole.

Today in my philosophy of religion course, we discussed Buddhism. I’ve heard a lot of atheists who, while incredibly derisive about Christianity, are incredibly enthusiastic about Buddhism. This was the case for most of the students in the class. I have to confess, I’m perplexed. But I think it says something about our psychological need for belief, for spirituality, that when people leave or lack theism, they feel a need to turn to some, any form of religion or areligion.

I don’t understand the attraction of Buddhism. To me, much of it reads like a poetically written self-help book. The beliefs espoused by Buddha are not, in my opinion, religious, although it certainly depends on your definition of religion. Which is not to say that Buddhism isn’t a religion. Despite the Buddha’s rejection of any form of idiosyncratic metaphysics, the vast majority of Buddhists do hold such beliefs, believing in a soul, reincarnation, and nirvana as distinct from the body in this life. As in, the Buddha is basically telling people ways to be happier in this life. You can find many modern equivalents to his work that are better supported by recent psychological research in any supermarket. No one would call those religious. Neither would anyone study them in the way I have seen some atheists study the teachings of Buddha. Why are the works given such respect? I don’t think atheists are giving Buddhism (if one can call the teachings of Buddha “Buddhism” when the two often have large metaphysical differences) the serious critical attention it deserves as both a theory of human psychology and happiness and as an ethical theory. It appears to me, instead, that they are almost giving it the respect of a somewhat dogmatic occasionally questioning religious practitioner. If you’re interested in human flourishing and how to live, I would recommend a combination of modern positive psychologists and modern virtue ethicists as much better sources.

part I:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5jyi_idtyw&feature=channel

and part II:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAF-xrXU6aI&feature=channel

While this isn’t directly a religious issue, or at least shouldn’t be a religious issue…

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/04iowa.html?_r=1&hp

Salon.com just published an interview with Bart Ehrman, New Testament scholar, former evangelical Christian, current agnostic, and the author of a new book called “Jesus, Interrupted.” I haven’t read the book yet, but I am very familiar with Ehrman’s work and I highly recommend his books. Salon describes him as “a bomb-throwing moderate, a non-dogmatic rationalist.” His earlier “Misquoting Jesus” is a highly readable introduction to what bible scholars know about who wrote the New Testament and why biblical infallibility cannot be true. After a brief detour into the problem of evil with his book “God’s Problem,” he has now returned to his area of expertise and expands on themes from “Misquoting Jesus,” and I am sure it will be a worthwhile read. Here is the article. And here is a video where Ehrman briefly discusses the new book, and here he discusses it on NPR’s Fresh Air..