Jack,  my experience was not nearly as stereotypical as all you have described. I know what your talking about, but that was never my experience. I was a moderate disciplinary problem in catholic schools from 4-8 grade.  By 5th grade or so I was agnostic, heading to atheism.  The nuns either loved me or hated me.  Funny enough the priest I mainly dealt with was a very open person who didn’t seem to care about my trouble making or my increasingly open profession of doubt.( he had just returned from Vietnam as a Chaplain in the Army)
Religion class was curriculum in all the grades, and by 5th grade or 6th I was arguing about the existence of god with the nuns who taught the class(not in a reasoned way but in a very disruptive, wise-ass way.).  Sometimes it got my hair pulled usually they just kicked me down to the library.
I never felt guilt, and I never remember feeling that whole guilt “thing” everyone always talks about. A meme perhaps? Once my mother got over the minor bewilderment of my atheism, it was no big deal.  I think the nuns, the priests and my mother all thought it was a phase and that eventually I would see the light and embrace christ.
But yada, yada yada…The catholicism I grew up with was pretty mild and seemed to be partly reformed from the social changes of the 60s and 70s.
On another note Jack, I’m moving along with that Oxford US History collection.  It’s going good. Little heavy on politics and religion.(first 3 books anyways)

I guess the ones I knew were of the more conservative type then. I never heard any of them mention lapsing into agnosticism. In fact one of my best friends, a fundie Baptist converted after marrying a catholic girl he met in the Air Force. That was in 72’ and he’s still devout today. Yeah, maybe the guilt thing is a meme after all. I picked it up from lapsed catholic comedians and never really had a sit down discussion about it. When we get together we stay off religion and politics. And BTW, my mother still has me banned to the hot place for denying the virgin birth. Also, glad to hear you’re still pursuing finishing the Qxford History collection. It’s really worth the effort. If you’re interested in more in-depth reading I could suggest some other works and there’s a slew of monographs mentioned in the bibliographies.

Cap’t Jack

free_of_belief - 01 October 2012 07:25 AM

please do meditation, read zen or buddhist text books and try to understand what they say. you will have your empirical evidence.

I don’t want to sound negative, because meditation is great.  The age-old problem has always been that if you search for God within yourself, you will always find him.  The reason is that your brain WANTS to see order in chaos, faces in clouds.  There’s even a term for it, “hyperactive agent detection” if I remember correctly.  It’s one ability that made our ancestors so successful.

“God” is a reality that does not exist.  Tis sounds ludricrous but I am collecting evidence of it.  My hypothesis covers all the ‘silly’ claims.

mid atlantic - 30 September 2012 08:35 PM

Are you really asking if we non - believers would refuse to accept evidence of a deity, out of dislike for the whole concept?

If irrefutable proof was found, then I would have to believe. It would be hard to accept, however.

If empirical evidence is demonstrated no belief would be necessary.  Freethinkers would accept what is shown to be true but would continue to be skeptical of the unproven extras.

Arthur King - 18 March 2013 11:34 AM

“God” is a reality that does not exist.  Tis sounds ludricrous but I am collecting evidence of it.  My hypothesis covers all the ‘silly’ claims.

Any “god” is a human construct, used for human purposes.

My research and the resulting hypothesis starts with the question “Why does all of humanity do it, no matter how little contact they have with one another?” and “How are the lesser animals programmed, from the tiniest flea to the biggest whale?”.  Keep in mind that at this stage it is only a hypothesis.

How does humanity do what, Arthur? And what are fleas and whale programmed to do?

Lois - 18 March 2013 12:07 PM

If empirical evidence is demonstrated no belief would be necessary.  Freethinkers would accept what is shown to be true but would continue to be skeptical of the unproven extras.

And yet there are Christians who claim, “I don’t have enough Faith to be an atheist!”  Yet ask him to explain what he means by that, and he’ll eventually get tangled up in his own contradictions about just what he means by “faith”.

“God” exists but is not a thing, being, etc, it is a condition.

George - 19 March 2013 07:38 AM

How does humanity do what, Arthur? And what are fleas and whale programmed to do?

All of humanity seems to automatically have a ‘god’ gene, since all have a diety of some kind, all independent and separate from one another.  Question:  Is this an inherited trait, or something else common to humanity.  If it is inherited, how?  How much programming can can a single cell carry forward? (I am a programmer).  All animals seem to be pre-programmed prior to birth, except humans.  Why is this?  Is it really pre-programming or are they all ‘programmed’ after birth?  It takes a smart human months to learn to fly but the tiniest gnat can fly immediately, navigate, do security maneuvers, find food and sex, and never gets lost.  A pig starts begging for food minutes after being born and knows it’s mother from all the other sows.  A human will die if not totally cared for after birth and has to be taught everything it will ever know after it is born, except the assumption of some kind of deity.  Why the difference?  I will be composing my answer to this soon in http://www.angeloftruth.com.  It is too long to post here.

free_of_belief - 01 October 2012 12:03 AM

actually i am not talking about monotheistic god nor polytheistic god. there is no evidence in both cases. but there are other paths of seeking god namely: tao, zen, buddhism, Dzogchen ( read so-shen) etc. what about them ?

—They are not ways of seeking god.  They are ways of appeasing people’s needs for supernatural answers.  There is no evidence that there is a god or gods to seek.

taoism said that there is one TAO which cannot be described in words, which has its path in circular form. tao can only be attained through meditation.

—Yes, a very rational idea! If it can’t be described in words it has no validity. 

zen totally dismissed the idea of god rather it teaches you how to be a god i.e. how to achieve your own divinity and how to have clear thinking. it also emphasizes on meditation.

—ah, yes, much better to be one than to find one.

Dzogchen helps seeker to know his own spiritual self through dream work. it also dismiss the idea of an almighty god.

—What is the spiritual self? Can you describe it in words or is it just like god?

buddhism dismissed the idea of god. it rather teaches the seeker how to be a buddha i.e an enlightened man.

—It depends on which kind of Buddhism you are referring to. There are thousands of gods and goddesses in Buddhismand countless supernatural claims.

in one word all these paths dismiss the idea of an outer god who regulates our lives from outside. they rather teach us how to attain our own inner divinity or divine nature.

—What is inner divinity or divine nature?  Are the supernatural concepts?  If so, they are invalid because there is no evidence that any supernatural concept exists. 

they all teach meditation as the only way to know your inner divinity.

—Which you can’t describe and which, by the way, is a supernatural concept that has no evidence that it exists. You might as well be talking about the tooth fairy. 

there are many people who follow these paths and find them helpful. 

—There are many people who claim to follow a lot of “paths” and find them helpful.  There is no evidence that the paths lead anywhere or that the method of seeking will have any empirical results.  Everything is in the mind of the “meditator”.

have anyone among you ever try meditation to know your inner self?

—sure, I’ve heard claims of what neditation can do, but no evidence that it does anything beyond maybe self hypnosis. You’ll have to describe the inner self first.  You can’t find something if you don’t know what you are looking for.  That leaves you with a lot of empty talk and nothing else, just like any religion.

....

free_of_belief - 01 October 2012 12:03 AM

actually i am not talking about monotheistic god nor polytheistic god. there is no evidence in both cases. but there are other paths of seeking god namely: tao, zen, buddhism, Dzogchen ( read so-shen) etc. what about them ?

—They are not ways of seeking god.  They are ways of appeasing people’s needs for supernatural answers.  There is no evidence that there is a god or gods to seek.

taoism said that there is one TAO which cannot be described in words, which has its path in circular form. tao can only be attained through meditation.

—Yes, a very rational idea! If it can’t be described in words it has no validity. 

zen totally dismissed the idea of god rather it teaches you how to be a god i.e. how to achieve your own divinity and how to have clear thinking. it also emphasizes on meditation.

—ah, yes, much better to be one than to find one.

Dzogchen helps seeker to know his own spiritual self through dream work. it also dismiss the idea of an almighty god.

—What is the spiritual self? Can you describe it in words or is it just like god?

buddhism dismissed the idea of god. it rather teaches the seeker how to be a buddha i.e an enlightened man.

—It depends on which kind of Buddhism you are referring to. There are thousands of gods and goddesses in Buddhismand countless supernatural claims.

in one word all these paths dismiss the idea of an outer god who regulates our lives from outside. they rather teach us how to attain our own inner divinity or divine nature.

—What is inner divinity or divine nature?  Are the supernatural concepts?  If so, they are invalid because there is no evidence that any supernatural concept exists. 

they all teach meditation as the only way to know your inner divinity.

—Which you can’t describe and which, by the way, is a supernatural concept that has no evidence that it exists. You might as well be talking about the tooth fairy. 

there are many people who follow these paths and find them helpful. 

—There are many people who claim to follow a lot of “paths” and find them helpful.  There is no evidence that the paths lead anywhere or that the method of seeking will have any empirical results.  Everything is in the mind of the “meditator”.

have anyone among you ever try meditation to know your inner self?

—sure, I’ve heard claims of what neditation can do, but no evidence that it does anything beyond maybe self hypnosis. You’ll have to describe the inner self first.  You can’t find something if you don’t know what you are looking for.  That leaves you with a lot of empty talk and nothing else, just like any religion.

....

free_of_belief - 01 October 2012 12:03 AM

actually i am not talking about monotheistic god nor polytheistic god. there is no evidence in both cases. but there are other paths of seeking god namely: tao, zen, buddhism, Dzogchen ( read so-shen) etc. what about them ?

taoism said that there is one TAO which cannot be described in words, which has its path in circular form. tao can only be attained through meditation.

zen totally dismissed the idea of god rather it teaches you how to be a god i.e. how to achieve your own divinity and how to have clear thinking. it also emphasizes on meditation.

Dzogchen helps seeker to know his own spiritual self through dream work. it also dismiss the idea of an almighty god.

buddhism dismissed the idea of god. it rather teaches the seeker how to be a buddha i.e an enlightened man.

in one word all these paths dismiss the idea of an outer god who regulates our lives from outside. they rather teach us how to attain our own inner divinity or divine nature.

they all teach meditation as the only way to know your inner divinity.

there are many people who follow these paths and find them helpful. 

have anyone among you ever try meditation to know your inner self?

Arthur King - 19 March 2013 06:23 AM

My research and the resulting hypothesis starts with the question “Why does all of humanity do it, no matter how little contact they have with one another?” and “How are the lesser animals programmed, from the tiniest flea to the biggest whale?”.  Keep in mind that at this stage it is only a hypothesis.

That is not a correct statement. All of humanity does not believe in gods or deities.
Most gods come from witnessing unexplainable events which are then attributed to some intelligent director. Today we know that causality can be explained in scientific terms and no god is required to perform those “miracles of old”

Arthur King - 19 March 2013 11:53 AM

“God” exists but is not a thing, being, etc, it is a condition.

Yes it is and the proper term for this condition is Potential.  While potential is a “metaphysical condition” it does not have the god-like qualities we so desperately seek in the concept of God.
If there ever was a God it would have no feelings, no motives, no desires, no needs, no wants, no love, no hate.  Those are Human (animal) qualities.

Arthur King - 19 March 2013 12:06 PM

George - 19 March 2013 07:38 AM

How does humanity do what, Arthur? And what are fleas and whale programmed to do?

All of humanity seems to automatically have a ‘god’ gene, since all have a diety of some kind, all independent and separate from one another.  Question:  Is this an inherited trait, or something else common to humanity.  If it is inherited, how?  How much programming can can a single cell carry forward? (I am a programmer).  All animals seem to be pre-programmed prior to birth, except humans.  Why is this?  Is it really pre-programming or are they all ‘programmed’ after birth?  It takes a smart human months to learn to fly but the tiniest gnat can fly immediately, navigate, do security maneuvers, find food and sex, and never gets lost.  A pig starts begging for food minutes after being born and knows it’s mother from all the other sows.  A human will die if not totally cared for after birth and has to be taught everything it will ever know after it is born, except the assumption of some kind of deity.  Why the difference?  I will be composing my answer to this soon in http://www.angeloftruth.com.  It is too long to post here.

I have no idea where to begin here. Our traits are encoded in our genes and just like the rest of the animals we are born with all kinds of “programs,” “designed” by evolution. I recommend you read some introductory books on evolution and evolutionary psychology. Until then, there is no point to carry on this conversation.

As far the “god gene” goes, your assumption that everyone has it is wrong since I know for a fact one person who doesn’t have it: me. I could go into all the details and tell you about the different speculations on religiosity being an adaptation, or a byproduct of other traits, but like I said above, you really need to read some Evolution 101 stuff first.

If you are interested, I can recommend a few books.l