15 Year Old Atheist...

Thoie

Of course, by now the OP is 18, his reading list has expanded, and he's sworn never to ask advice on the internet ever again.

OP, I'll just repeat the bit about not bringing it up in front of your little sister, that will probably make things a bit easier.

Galvasean

I'd introduce my atheism gradually. Don't try ram it down their throats so to speak. Engage with the odd point now and then, why you don't think certain religious aspects are correct, but address them in a more inquisitive manner than an all out theological assault (and whatever you do don't ever talk down to them in matters of faith - that won't win any brownie points). Eventually your family shoud notice that religion isn't for you and hopefully they will respect your views as you have come about tehm in a polite manner.
Also it might be worth calling yourself an agnostic at least in the presence of your family) for a while before being a fully 'out' atheist. That way your transition won't be fobbed off as mere teenage rebelliousness.

That's what I did and it worked out for me. Best of luck OP.

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

Well it does largely depend on what your parents are like. When I told my parents that I thought all this God lark was silly and I wasn't going to mass any more I was about your age, maybe a little older. Their response was "No, you have to go to mass, when you're 18 you can decide for yourself." My response was "No, I'm not going any more, as of now".

Just bear in mind that however badly they react, they'll get used to it and their opinion will mellow over time. It's a bit like coming out as gay, at first they might be shocked, appalled and upset, but after the initial surprise wears off it'll stop seeming so weird.

Don't approach them apologetically about it either. Last thing you want to do is to reinforce the notion that you're doing something wrong. Go in with the attitude that you have every right to decline mass attendence if you so choose. They'll probably think you're being childish or silly at first, stick to your guns. Also, maybe consider easing them into it. Drop a few hints about your atheism at first so that when you announce that you're giving up mass it won't be out of the blue.

Good luck.

I agree with this advice.

If your parents use the argument in bold, I suggest that you explain to them that according to their own religion, accepting Jesus Christ as saviour is the only thing that really matters. Tell them that dragging you to church is not going to cause that. Basically, there is no point in going to church if you don't believe in it.

Húrin

CDfm wrote: »

In the context that people rely on his work to support anti -God theories- that really are not there. Science is neutral or it should be.

The claim that science inherently serves atheism is nonsense, but it has been doing the rounds here for a while.

seamus wrote: »

I don't think you can draw any conclusions from it without examining each case individually. How do you know they've reconciled their work and their faith? Many people never reconcile them and would rather pretend there was no conflict.

It's also fair to say that any scientist who would put their faith above scientific evidence would have no place calling themselves a scientist

And many others would rather pretend that there is a conflict.

It is a ridiculous generalisation to imply that most religious scientists would filter their acceptance of sound evidence through their faith. It shows how weak your argument is.

sink wrote: »

That is because natural science studies everything tangible i.e. everything that exists. If it is not tangible it does not exist.
....
The existence of god on the other hand is a physical question. God either does or does not exist. If god exists the study of god should be part of the natural sciences.

So what does it tell you when no modern scientist has made any serious attempt to incorporate theology into the body of natural science?

Mickeroo

Húrin wrote: »

So what does it tell you when no modern scientist has made any serious attempt to incorporate theology into the body of natural science?

Chalk and cheese?

sink

Húrin wrote: »

So what does it tell you when no modern scientist has made any serious attempt to incorporate theology into the body of natural science?

It tells me that theology has little basis in physical reality.

Húrin

sink wrote: »

It tells me that theology has little basis in physical reality.

theology = the study of god

theology has little basis in physical reality, yet you think it should have a basis in the natural sciences? This is getting contradictory.

If the former is the case, then why should it be incorporated into science? If the latter is the case, then why aren't any actual scientists doing it?

sink

Húrin wrote: »

theology = the study of god

theology has little basis in physical reality, yet you think it should have a basis in the natural sciences? This is getting contradictory.

No, I said if god exists he should have a basis in natural science. God does not exist and as such has no basis in natural science.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not an expert in memetics but my understanding is that it is part of human behavioural science (the study of human behaviour)

CDfm wrote:

What Im saying is that it doesnt fit as a real theory and is just as provable or not as what it attempts to discredit.

Not so much the study of the behavior of humans alone, but the generalized study of the transmission of information which is not genotypically specified. It's the study of how biological "software" transmits from organism to organism using biological "hardware" defined by the genes and other upstream components.

More specifically, it's simply noticing that the three features (fecundity, variation and heredity) which permit natural selection to take place at the genotypic level also apply at the non-genotypic level. The mapping being that the brain can generally consume and produce far more than it can transmit (fecundity), that these ideas are either miscommunicated or otherwise imperfectly transmitted (variation via memory loss, invention or misinterpretation) and that the ideas move from transmitter to transmitter (heredity, via speech, books etc).

With respect to religion, the conclusion that memeticists tentatively draw is that religion appears to have evolved a vast and disorganized, but mutually-supporting, collection of behaviours and ideas (say like christianity) which seek to maintain its mindshare in the presence of other memes which seek to replace it (say like atheism or islam).

Memetic explanations do not discredit religion, they simply explain with a great deal of economy, why religion is so enduringly popular, as well as being so tremendously devious on so many levels.

CDfm -- out of interest, ever wondered why so many religious people view the transmission of the religion as so vital? A meme-based explanation for religion will tell you why that is.

robindch

RHRN wrote: »

What I want to ask is, should I tell my parents and family? If so, what should I say? I'm completely clueless A&A!

I'd recommend being as non-confrontational about it as possible, and stick to some very simple line -- perhaps something like "I've thought about it a great deal, and decided that religion and church-going are not for me. Thanks but no thanks". And leave it at that if it's possible and refuse, as much as possible, to be drawn on it.

Adopting a confrontational attitude isn't likely to help very much, either in the short run or the long run, and even being conversational about it will almost certainly be maddening since there are probably a few friends or family who think you're going through the kind of "phase" that other posters have mentioned (and who simply can't bring themselves to imagine that it's not a "phase").

tech77

LZ5by5 wrote: »

First of all I'd like to commend you for being a very eloquent 15 year old (hope that doesn't come across as patronising).

FWIW absolutely agree with this^
- first thing that struck me about the post.
Nice change from the average text speak morons.
Can't offer any advice though OP, sorry.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Key differences:

1) I'm not using the Bible to speak to my parents, nor do I intend to, they're pretty clear that I am a Christian anyhow.

No, you are using the Bible to speak to us and in an attempt to demonstrate a point to us you quoted something someone else wrote rather than explaining it in your own words.

How is that a "key" difference?

Jakkass wrote: »

2) I was elaborating how personality and Christianity go hand in hand and showing the looseness expressed by Biblical authors in relation to roles in the church does that rather adequately I think.

And you couldn't have explained that yourself, seeing that Christianity encourages you to "be your own person"?

Or was it simply a case that the Bible put it nicely.

Why can't the OP quote from Dawkins if Dawkins nicely makes a point that the OP is trying to get across?

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

So what does it tell you when no modern scientist has made any serious attempt to incorporate theology into the body of natural science?

That theology is nonsense? :rolleyes:

We can study biological life, alien or otherwise, galaxies and stars, light and space-time, particles and matter, wormholes and lasers.

So why has no modern scientists made any serious attempt to incorporate the Star Wars trilogies into the body of natural science?

DiarmaidGNR

Wicknight wrote: »

No, you are using the Bible to speak to us and in an attempt to demonstrate a point to us you quoted something someone else wrote rather than explaining it in your own words.

How is that a "key" difference?


And you couldn't have explained that yourself, seeing that Christianity encourages you to "be your own person"?

Or was it simply a case that the Bible put it nicely.

Why can't the OP quote from Dawkins if Dawkins nicely makes a point that the OP is trying to get across?

Nicely put.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Not so much the study of the behavior of humans alone, but the generalized study of the transmission of information which is not genotypically specified.

Out of interest, ever wondered why so many religious people view the transmission of the religion as so vital? A meme-based explanation for religion will tell you why that is.

You are trying to get me in trouble again. Last type I used geno phrases there was hell to pay. I now know that a geno-nazi is not an atheist phrase:D

I actually would like to know more about this and need to drop some preconceptions.

Lets take this up another time.

CDfm

Mickeroo wrote: »

Chalk and cheese?

I'm lost - is that carbon and silicon. Just because we dont have silicon based life forms on earth or havent discovered any doesnt mean they don't exist. Maybe they do but we don't have the technology to detect them.

THats rhetorical and me being a smartarse.:pac:

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

No, you are using the Bible to speak to us and in an attempt to demonstrate a point to us you quoted something someone else wrote rather than explaining it in your own words.

How is that a "key" difference?


And you couldn't have explained that yourself, seeing that Christianity encourages you to "be your own person"?

Or was it simply a case that the Bible put it nicely.

Why can't the OP quote from Dawkins if Dawkins nicely makes a point that the OP is trying to get across?

I half agree with you. The OP is exploring his beliefs and needs to look at outside sources. So asking him to discuss them in terms of religion is wrong and restrictive.

Quoting Dawkin's is just inflammatory. Lots of Catholics don't understand our religion and the OPs Dad is probably one of them especially on creation.

Fcek -Wicknight - if I have to ask questions on science and ethics I post here for info to form a balanced view.

Jackass - the OP has the right to form his own views. Thats what Christianity teaches. I dont see why going back to the same place that has caused him not to believe is helpful at all.

Malari

OP, when I was your age I let my parents know I was atheist and wasn't going to church anymore with them. They didn't accept it straight away but they didn't think it was just a phase - they knew me better than that, because of the fact that I was questioning beforehand.

With younger siblings, they wanted me to go on with the pretense, but I insisted, and eventually they relented. In fact, I know now that their beliefs were a pretense too, in order to get us into good schools and because my mother is a primary school teacher and really had no choice.

My father was as reluctant to go to the church as I was but he played along for mom's sake, so I think he was glad he had an ally!

I think it's important to be honest with your family. They should respect you for coming to them and being sincere.

Phototoxin

In this day and age its not a big deal anyway.

I'm 17 now and I told parents that I didn't believe in any of it. They were fairly annoyed about it at first but they don't really care now. Just can't let uncle know as he's a priest. I'd say go for it. Spent years not going to mass though while pretending to.

I dont understand why people hide the fact? Are they afraid of being stigmatised? Surely if atheism is about what is factually 'true' then transparency and honesty would be the way forward?

RHRN

Thanks for all the replies!

So I was wondering, is it something I just say out of the blue? Doesn't seem like that, but then it hardly seems like there's a specific occasion for saying it?

I know it sounds like I'm making a big deal of it, but as phototoxin, yes, one of my worries is being stigmatised. Granted, that didn't happen among friends but still I think it anyway...

fitz0

Phototoxin wrote: »

I dont understand why people hide the fact? Are they afraid of being stigmatised? Surely if atheism is about what is factually 'true' then transparency and honesty would be the way forward?

Well when you are dealing with a parent who strongly believes that their child will burn in the fires of eternal hell if they dont believe what they do it can be a little upsetting for them.

Not saying it should be hidden but some parents just don't need the extra worry.

toiletduck

Phototoxin wrote: »

I dont understand why people hide the fact? Are they afraid of being stigmatised? Surely if atheism is about what is factually 'true' then transparency and honesty would be the way forward?

It's not worth it sometimes. The horrible stuff that come out etc. Speaking from experience with an very religious up bringing.

jill_valentine

Phototoxin wrote: »

I dont understand why people hide the fact? Are they afraid of being stigmatised? Surely if atheism is about what is factually 'true' then transparency and honesty would be the way forward?

It can cause a huge degree of aggro, believe me. Parents don't take it seriously, which is patronising to the teenager in question, but more than that they tend to feel insulted - My dad was convinced I thought he was stupid.

In my household, it was pretty much the only thing we ever argued about, but we did it weekly. Whether it's right or wrong, it would have been considerably easier for me to keep my mouth shut until I moved out.

WooPeeA

I think you should be proud of yourself RHRN.

When most of people believe in what they are told to believe, you decided to find out what is it all about and make your own conclusions. No matter what they are, they are yours.

philologos

WooPeeA wrote: »

I think you should be proud of yourself RHRN.

When most of people believe in what they are told to believe, you decided to find out what is it all about and make your own conclusions. No matter what they are, they are yours.

So those who accept Christianity don't have their own conclusions? Interesting.

Also, if the OP hasn't read the Biblical text in it's entirety has one made a full conclusion or received the big picture? I'm not entirely sure.

WooPeeA

Jakkass wrote: »

So those who accept Christianity don't have their own conclusions? Interesting.

If you're fed with that stuff since you're little child, nope.

Also, if the OP hasn't read the Biblical text in it's entirety has one made a full conclusion or received the big picture? I'm not entirely sure.

Have you read full Koran or Torah before rejecting it?

Galvasean

Jakkass wrote: »

Also, if the OP hasn't read the Biblical text in it's entirety has one made a full conclusion or received the big picture? I'm not entirely sure.

I'm willing to bet you havent read all of the Scientology literature properly. By your logic you arent giving them a fair chance.

philologos

WooPeeA wrote: »

If you're fed with that stuff since you're little child, nope.

I was brought up in Christianity, rejected it as a teenager due to not understanding it, read the Bible in my late teens and here I am. It was something I thought about quite extensively. I really don't think it's fair to suggest that Christians in Ireland haven't and don't think about their own beliefs or merely blindly follow the instruction of their parents. That isn't even what the Bible encourages. Having a personal encounter with God for yourself through reading Scripture is far better than having it indirectly from a priest, or a parent.

WooPeeA wrote: »

Have you read full Koran or Torah before rejecting it?

I don't reject the Torah. The Torah is the Law of Moses and is crucial to understanding Christianity. The Torah is included in all Christian Bibles, from Genesis to Deuteronomy. In Christianity, Jesus is the fulfilment of the Jewish teachings.

As for the Qur'an it's something that intrigued me at the time. I've read sections out of it, and it is a book that is based on many Biblical teachings. I found it interesting, however, when I looked to many Apocryphal Christian works I found that many of them were borrowed and incorporated into the Qur'anic text when these Apocryphal Christian works are dubious in terms of their own dating and by their own merit.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't reject the Torah. The Torah is the Law of Moses and is crucial to understanding Christianity. The Torah is included in all Christian Bibles, from Genesis to Deuteronomy. In Christianity, Jesus is the fulfilment of the Jewish teachings.

As for the Qur'an it's something that intrigued me at the time. I've read sections out of it, and it is a book that is based on many Biblical teachings. I found it interesting, however, when I looked to many Apocryphal Christian works I found that many of them were borrowed and incorporated into the Qur'anic text when these Apocryphal Christian works are dubious in terms of their own dating and by their own merit.

Have you read every book, scrap, tract and napkin that every religion, cult, wacko, prophet, messiah and kook has published somewhere in the world at any time?

No?

But...then you don't have the full picture!

I'd regard your motley collection of hebrew books with the same disdain you regard the texts of Raelians or Scientologists or whatever.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

Have you read every book, scrap, tract and napkin that every religion, cult, wacko, prophet, messiah and kook has published somewhere in the world at any time?

Expected answer: No

Zillah wrote: »

But...then you don't have the full picture!

I'm willing to admit, that I don't. However, I unlike many of the posters here do not make it my business to criticise other faiths. I merely accept my own, and try my best to explain my reasoning behind doing so.

Zillah wrote: »

I'd regard your motley collection of hebrew books with the same disdain you regard the texts of Raelians or Scientologists or whatever.

I don't regard texts such as Dianetics with disdain, and I certainly wouldn't say that I do without having read them first. It would be hardly fair to say that you despise a book before reading it. I don't despise the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita or anything else for that matter without being acquainted with it.

It might be best not to derail the thread mind.