I find the focus on fundamentalists very common in critiques of religion. They are, in ways, a ready built, real life strawman.

But Saint Aquinas was not a fundementalist just as Rumi was not a jihadi.

There is a common misconception that, because fundementalist believe in very simplistic, literalist interpretations of Scripture, they must be closest to what the faith was like in earlier centuries. This isn't true. There was, if anything, a much stronger tendency to read Scripture allegorically or analogically in the ancient Church, and really the Middle Ages as well.

Fundementalist, and the more literalist turns of more mainstream Evangelical churches is a modern phenomena. It certainly has echoes in prior eras, e.g. the fideists ("knowledge of God by faith alone") who Aquinas jousted with, but the juxtaposition of romantic, irrational faith and faith undermining reason definitely only comes into its own in the 19th century.

But this isn't a good generalization. Fundamentalists are vocal, but a slim minority. "Evangelicals" (in the sense used in the US today) are a very small minority in Christianity, and they aren't even a majority of Christians in the US (just a quarter). Catholics are actually now the plurality in the US, suprisingly enough (34%, vs 69% in 1950)

Partly, this has to do with self sorting effects. Religion now predicts income even better than race (shocking given the large differences in the US). It also predicts educational attainment quite a bit. It seems like a sort of "hollowing out," of your more educated population could lead to a sort of self fulfilling feedback cycle, whereby people less open to literalism (which education would tend to affect) end up being pushed out, leading to ever more "ideological purity," for lack of a better term.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/magazine/is-your-religion-your-financial-destiny.html#:~:text=Overall%2C%20Protestants%2C%20who%20together%20are,being%20richer%20than%20Catholic%20nations
Partly

Nevertheless, the secular community contains numerous members who were once devout. They found their way out. — Tom Storm

They were probaly never insiders, never "in it" to begin with. I used to make a point of reading people's exit stories from religion/spirituality. And in all cases I have seen, they had a poor knowledge of the religion/spirituality of which they claim to have been members of. So many former Catholics with such a shoddy knowledge of Catholic doctrine! Former Hare Krishnas, former Buddhists, former Mormons, all with really odd ideas about what their former religion teaches. Even if some of them have attained some positions of power and influence in their respective religious/spiritual groups.

These people were probably "members" in the sense that they were physically there in their religion's church or temple etc. But mentally, it was like they were on another planet.

What is interesting however are the amount of formerly religious people who lose their faith when they begin reading the Bible or Koran in earnest. — Tom Storm

Of course. If their initial "faith" didn't have much to do with the foundational texts of their proposed religion/spirituality to begin with, of course they will more likely experience those texts as alienating. (There are, of course, also those who buy a Bible and place it on a prominent spot in their home, and never read it.)

I've met quite a few former ministers, priests, and believers who came to atheism simply by asking the question, why do I believe in this?

Well, how silly of the church hierarchy to assume that the "believers" actually should know why they're there ...

Going through the motions with religious/spiritual belief is actually a phenomenon that is criticized in religion/spirituality.

Going through the motions with religious/spiritual belief is actually a phenomenon that is criticized in religion/spirituality. — baker

Of course. But when has spirituality been a factor in the mass support of religions?

They were probaly never insiders, never "in it" to begin with. I used to make a point of reading people's exit stories from religion/spirituality. And in all cases I have seen, they had a poor knowledge of the religion/spirituality of which they claim to have been members of. So many former Catholics with such a shoddy knowledge of Catholic doctrine — baker

The point is it is only when they acquire such knowledge that many realize they can't believe it any more. I've often thought it is much easier to accept a religion if you don't know much about it, if it's just part of your wallpaper and quotidian experience.

I also think that saying to an apostate, 'you were never a true Muslim or Christian' is an obvious and often false accusation religions use to defend their own weaknesses.

I also think that saying to an apostate, 'you were never a true Muslim or Christian' is an obvious and often false accusation religions use to defend their own weaknesses. — Tom Storm

Not to mention a no true Scotsman fallacy.

:up:

Going through the motions with religious/spiritual belief is actually a phenomenon that is criticized in religion/spirituality.
— baker

Of course. But when has spirituality been a factor in the mass support of religions? — Tom Storm

?
I think the distinction between religion and spirituality is mostly spurios, so I usually use a joint term.

I also think that saying to an apostate, 'you were never a true Muslim or Christian' is an obvious and often false accusation religions use to defend their own weaknesses.

It's the truth.

Some religious/spiritual people will actually say things to the effect "being born and raised into a religion only gives you a foot in the door, nothing more".

It would make little sense to tell children, "You're not really proper members of our religion yet". Have you ever noticed how in many religions, they talk about growing in faith, development, faith formation etc.?

The lines between insiders and outsiders, between members and non-members are sharp only for zealots, and, perhaps, secular religiologists, both of whom have characteristically low and abstract standards for what constitutes religious membership.

For those more serious, those lines are far less defined, certainly not defined in terms of "Tom Storm is not a member, but Nancy Crow is".

I think the distinction between religion and spirituality is mostly spurios, so I usually use a joint term. — baker

Perhaps 'should be' but you know as well as anyone that religion is often just a series of behaviours with no spirituality attached.

I also think that saying to an apostate, 'you were never a true Muslim or Christian' is an obvious and often false accusation religions use to defend their own weaknesses.
It's the truth. — baker

We won't agree on this. I don't think anyone true Christian or true Muslim. Such categories are pointless. You might be an inadequate Muslim or Christian, but so what? Who decides what counts? Surely it is God?

Not to mention a no true Scotsman fallacy. — wonderer1

People often call a NTS fallacy in situations where there is actually a genuine ambiguity at hand. As such, it's not a case of a fallacy at all.

Terms denoting religious, political, national, or racial identity are usually complex, multilayered, subject to debate. As such, it's no wonder different people can mean different things by the same word. This doesn't make anyone's input fallacious. But it does make those calling out a NTSF in such situations simpletons ...

You might be an inadequate Muslim or Christian, but so what? Who decides what counts? — Tom Storm

You apparently decide what counts, by taking sides with those former Christians, former this or that.

How can someone even call themselves a "former Christian" or say they have "left Christianity", when, per you, it is up to God who decides whether someone was a Christian or not to begin with?

I don't think anyone true Christian or true Muslim. Such categories are pointless. — Tom Storm

Then how can you say that someone is a "former Christian" or a "former Muslim" or that they are "now an atheist"?

If terms denoting religious identity don't meaningfully apply, then how come you think they temporarily do apply?

This phenomena goes both ways. Plenty of people subscribe to some form of secular, atheist belief, having never really examined it or competing systems to any great degree. And many of these people, raised as atheists, come to join a religion as adults.

But in these cases, would we claim they weren't "really atheists," despite the fact that they denied the existence of God, because they never took any particularly close notice to how such a denial was traditionally justified?

I would think an atheist is simply anyone who denies the existence of God, regardless of whether they understand the God of theologians, what they are denying, or not.

How then do we classify "real" religious people?

I do see your point though. Most "apostates" tend to be people who were in x belief system by inertia from childhood and/or only at a surface level. That only makes sense. Those most motivated to embrace their faith and grow to understand it and it's history/philosophy are also those who are probably least likely to leave them for a whole host of reasons. Most important is likely the fact that, if you find something more convincing and meaningful, you tend to embrace it more and do more to learn about it. Those less convinced will be less motivated for this sort of effort.

But then again, you also often tend to find things more meaningful and convincing because you've taken time to understand it, so it seems the influence can go both ways. It's rarer to see historians of religion or theologians who radically depart from their faith, although it does happen. What you do see instead is a wider horizon from these folks, because most religions tend to have a universalist aspect, which makes it easier to assimilate and grow from other inputs. E.g., Thomas Merton, while a Christian monk, became a scholar of Sufi Islam and Zen in his quest to understand his own faith.

If terms denoting religious identity don't meaningfully apply, then how come you think they temporarily do apply? — baker

Did I say that? No. I said there is no true Christian or true Muslim. There are just Christians and Muslims. As I see it, rating them for purity or fidelity by attaching words like 'true' or 'proper' seems pointless to me.

Then how can you say that someone is a "former Christian" or a "former Muslim" or that they are "now an atheist"? — baker

As per my above point.

How can someone even call themselves a "former Christian" or say they have "left Christianity", when, per you, it is up to God who decides whether someone was a Christian or not to begin with? — baker

A person calls themselves a former Christian when they say they are a former Christian. I am happy to let people determine how they want to identify.

In relation to my reference to God - presumably if there is a god it decides who is appropriate and no one else, right? I'm just following the ostensible logic of belief.

I would think an atheist is simply anyone who denies the existence of God, regardless of whether they understand the God of theologians, what they are denying, or not. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm an atheist. Like many atheists I know, I don't deny the existence of god. I generally say I have no good reason for accepting the proposition that a god exists. I'm open to hearing arguments, but for me belief in god appears to be an aesthetic judgement informed by how we make sense of the world. Belief seems to me to be a bit like sexual preference. You can't help who you are attracted to.

People often call a NTS fallacy in situations where there is actually a genuine ambiguity at hand. As such, it's not a case of a fallacy at all. — baker

There being a genuine ambiguity at hand, is rather key to a no true Scotsman fallacy being a fallacy.

I would think an atheist is simply anyone who denies the existence of God ... — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's like saying an asexual person is simply someone denies the existence of sex. :roll:

Can you name a mystical / supernatural religion that is either founded on or predominantly preaches

"Thou Shalt Not Believe Hearsay"?

or, better yet,

"Thou Shalt Believe In Only That Which Can Be Shown To Be The Case'?

or, at best, both?

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. — Betrand Russell

I.e. lucidly thinking for oneself ...

Can you name a mystical / supernatural religion that is either founded on or predominantly preaches

"Thou Shalt Not Believe Hearsay"? — 180 Proof

Excerpts from Kalama Sutta, wherein the Buddha addresses the people of Kalama village with respect to which teaching to reject and which to accept.

The criterion for rejection

4. "It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them. ...

The criterion for acceptance

10. "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

:up: (Of course, most Buddhists I've ever encountered ignore those teachings ...)

It's not that they 'ignore' that teaching, although they might. It's also because the main point of the Buddhist teachings is not simply an open book to anyone who happens upon it; or rather, that insofar as it is an open book, one has to learn to read it. The Buddha declares elsewhere that 'the dhamma that I teach is subtle, deep, profound, only perceivable by the wise' (my italics). Unlike empirical science, the kind of insight into emotional reactivity and attachment that the Buddha teaches is a first-person discipline. But, and especially in the early Buddhist texts, it is also stressed that this insight can be obtained by others, as that is the aim of the entire teaching. However not everyone will have that insight to begin with, so to that extent the possibility must be taken on trust. And that does amount to faith, although I understand the connotations of the term provoke strong reactions.

In a dialogue with the monk Sariputta we read the following (where 'the Deathless' is a synonym for 'nibbana'):

Sariputta, do you take it on conviction that the faculty of conviction, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation? Do you take it on conviction that the faculty of persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation?"

"Lord, it's not that I take it on conviction in the Blessed One that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation. And as for me, I have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment. I have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation." — Pubbakotthaka Sutta: Eastern Gatehouse

Sariputta is acknowleding that those who have 'not known, seen, penetrated, realised or attained it' would 'have to take it on conviction', whereas those (like himself) who have seen it, know 'without doubt or uncertainty'.

And yet 'reincarnation' is a central tenet – pure hearsay for most :sparkle: :pray: – of most, if not all, traditions of Buddhist practice.

That's like saying an asexual person is simply someone denies the existence of sex. :roll:

No it isn't. The first is a term about sexual attraction, the second is about belief in God. E.g., the Oxford definition:

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

What would your definition be?

I'm an atheist. Like many atheists I know, I don't deny the existence of god

IDK, that is the dictionary definition of the word "atheist." It doesn't mean you have to claim that God is metaphysically or logically impossible, but it's generally a claim about some level of certainty that God doesn't exist.

"Agnostic," is the term generally used for "undecided," or "the question is unanswerable."

Belief seems to me to be a bit like sexual preference. You can't help who you are attracted to.

I disagree with this entirely. If this was the case, and if you don't agree with the idea of "medical treatments to cure homosexuality," etc., wouldn't this imply that it is equally unwise to bother trying to change someone's beliefs? You can't "argue someone straight," but people change their beliefs based on arguments all the time. Imagine the bind we would be in if people changed their policy beliefs as rarely as their sexuality? What would be the point of antiracism and antisexism efforts then? Surely we convince people of the foolhardiness of racism more often than we "argue them gay/straight?"

I've heard plenty of people tell stories about leaving (or less often, joining) a faith after being exposed to arguments via books and videos. I do not know of a single person who ever claimed to have picked up a book and been convinced to turn straight or gay midway through their life because of it.

Side note: this is just one of the reasons why I think the Nietzschean argument, that "reason is just a desire," is incoherent. IMO, Nietzsche only seems to come up with this definition to avoid having to deal with Plato's arguments re reflexive freedom and freedom as self-control, since those crucially undermine Nietzsche's increasingly strong preference for the "Dionysian mode" over the "Apollonian" in his later work (Birth of Tragedy avoids this).

"Thou Shalt Not Believe Hearsay"?

or, better yet,

"Thou Shalt Believe In Only That Which Can Be Shown To Be The Case'?

Neoplatonism?

Saint Aquinas has the model of the "two winged bird," faith and reason. The above holds for "that which is known through reason." This certainly doesn't support the whole of the Christian religion, and some of Aquinas' rationalist arguments are open to solid criticisms, but he gets a considerable amount of milage out of demonstrable deduction. This is also of true of Thomas's precursors, Maimonides, Avicenna, and Avarroese. Averroes in particular sets logical reasoning above revelation, having the latter interpreted in light of the former where contradiction is discovered.

We might say similar things about Aristotle's God, although that never got the widespread appeal that Thomism got.

Like @Tom Storm suggests, I understand atheism to denote lack of theism (i.e. lack of one, some or all god-beliefs). Theists also lack god-belief but with an exception for one or more god-beliefs; today atheists, however, simply tend to be more consistent insofar as we lack all god-beliefs. I find that mere dictionary definitions (such as yours, Count, (e.g.) focused on "the existence of god" instead of the existence of one's god-belief (i.e. theism or not?)) are colloquial shorthands which more often confuse rather than clarify the concept at issue, especially in philosophy,.

Neoplatonism? — Count Timothy von Icarus

A philosophical 'doctrine' coopted by early Church theologians but "Neoplatonism" was not itself ever a creedal or congregational religion, or religious practice. Doesn't meet my stated criteria (re: Pascal's distinction of the religious 'God of Abraham', not a conceptual 'god of philosophy').

IDK, that is the dictionary definition of the word "atheist." It doesn't mean you have to claim that God is metaphysically or logically impossible, but it's generally a claim about some level of certainty that God doesn't exist. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I know very few atheists who would argue this. But some might. Atheism can take various forms - hard to soft.

Here's what American Atheists say. I have no connection to this group and I am not American.

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

I've heard plenty of people tell stories about leaving (or less often, joining) a faith after being exposed to arguments via books and videos. I do not know of a single person who ever claimed to have picked up a book and been convinced to turn straight or gay midway through their life because of it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Have some perspective. :wink: I didn't say it was identical, I said it was a bit like sexual preferences. And yes, I find this satisfactory. But I never said that's all there is to belief.

I disagree with this entirely. If this was the case, and if you don't agree with the idea of "medical treatments to cure homosexuality," etc., wouldn't this imply that it is equally unwise to bother trying to change someone's beliefs? — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I said, I'm not saying it's an exact match. I would not agree with medical treatments to cure religion either. But on the other hand, many people do start heterosexual, marry and have children with a partner, only to realize after a few years that they were following this conventional path because of expectations and socialization. On encountering the world, on further learning, they might 'come out' and change preferences. People's experiences with religion can be similar. They were never really comfortable with it, but had not yet encountered alternatives or learned that it was ok not to believe. Taboos against atheism and homosexuality have been powerful and still are in some countries. Education about both is important.

I find that mere dictionary definitions (such as yours, Count, (e.g.) focused on "the existence of god" instead of the status of one's god-belief (i.e. theism)) are colloquial shorthands which more often confuse rather than clarify the concept at issue, especially in philosophy,. — 180 Proof

:up: Well put.

It's not that they 'ignore' that teaching, although they might. It's also because the main point of the Buddhist teachings is not simply an open book to anyone who happens upon it; or rather, that insofar as it is an open book, one has to learn to read it. The Buddha declares elsewhere that 'the dhamma that I teach is subtle, deep, profound, only perceivable by the wise' (my italics). Unlike empirical science, the kind of insight into emotional reactivity and attachment that the Buddha teaches is a first-person discipline. But, and especially in the early Buddhist texts, it is also stressed that this insight can be obtained by others, as that is the aim of the entire teaching. However not everyone will have that insight to begin with, so to that extent the possibility must be taken on trust. And that does amount to faith, although I understand the connotations of the term provoke strong reactions. — Wayfarer

It is necessary the same with all religions. If religion was an “open book” as you say, and accessible to anyone, there would be no need for religious authorities and nothing *special* or sacred with which to bind a community. Faith in authority is essential in religion.

If religion was an “open book” as you say, and accessible to anyone, there would be no need for religious authorities and nothing *special* or sacred with which to bind a community. — praxis

It is an open book to those who are able to read. Those who can't read need to be shown how to read. Same with any other higher skill - medicine, piano, science.

It is an open book to those who are able to read. — Wayfarer

That doesn’t appear to be true though. For instance, I could ask a dozen questions about rebirth that no one could answer. It would be the same for questions about God. All anyone could say is that the subject is imponderable or beyond human comprehension. Yet rebirth and God are held to be truths, and it is necessary to not oppose these truths in order to be considered part of the faith. Scientific theories, medical practices, and piano concertos don’t need to be taken on faith in order to belong to those communities. Binding groups in a shared narrative, values, norms, etc is not the point in those disciplines. That is entirely the point in religion.

A philosophical 'doctrine' coopted by early Church theologians but "Neoplatonism" was not itself ever a creedal or congregational religion, or religious practice. Doesn't meet my state criteria (re: Pascal's distinction of the religious 'God of Abraham', not a conceptual 'god of philosophy')

I agree that it lacked some common elements of organized religion. It did have a practical side focused on "inwards and upwards meditation/contemplation" that seems more religious though.

In any event, the direction of influence between Neoplatonism and orthodox Christianity, Gnosticism, and Jewish Platonists is probably one of the most common "large," mistakes I've seen in philosophical histories. This certainly stems from the fact that later Christians and Jews assumed that "Pagan = older," and tended to write the intellectual history that way.

In reality though, a young Plotinus is growing up at a time where Origen and Cyril are his city's most eminent Platonists and where conflict between orthodox Christians and their Gnostic brothers was at a fever pitch. Key "Neoplatonic" elements of Gnosticism show up first, then in Neoplatonism only later. The Platonist tradition in Alexandria's Abrahamic community goes back centuries earlier, back past Philo and co.

So, while we don't have all the intellectual history we'd like, it's more plausible that Neoplatonism is a sort of continued abstraction and re-paganization of Jewish, Christian, and Gnostic ideas.

Of course, the influence would later go both ways. Saint Augustine, the West's most influential theologian, would read the "Platonists" first (likely Porphyry and Proclus). And because Augustine does so much to try to make Neoplatonism consistent with orthodox Christianity, it was generally taken that this must be the primary direction of influence. But his success makes more sense when you consider where Plotinius was getting his ideas from.




I'd have to consider it more, but I don't think that sort of definition works for atheism in most forms. To be sure, one can lack belief in something without having a corollary belief that the thing in question does not exist. E.g., many people have never heard of a lepton. They don't believe leptons exist, but they also don't believe that they don't exist.

But is this the type of "lack of belief" that atheists are generally talking about? I would think not, because normally, they have heard about God and considered the evidence for God. Dawkins, for example, thinks there is strong evidence to think the teachings of traditional religions are false.

Now you can also lack a belief in something that you know "something" about and still not deny its existence. However, this seems to me to be the "agnostic" view point. E.g., you can read a book on string theory and remain unconvinced by it, lacking belief in the truth of the theory, but also lacking any strong belief that it is false.

Is this the sort of lack of belief the term "atheist" generally applies to? I don't think so. Think about one of the core policy demands of atheist groups: that students in public schools not be taught the positive claims of religions in class. Such a demand makes sense if you think said teachings are false or unlikely to be true. The demand makes no sense if you have no belief vis-á-vis the teachings being false.

If I have never been exposed to modern chemistry, I might very well "lack belief in," many of its theories. But my lack of belief in these theories gives me no good reason to demand that such theories not be taught, right? Indeed, if we demanded that things we didn't currently believe in not be taught at schools, we would essentially be setting our current beliefs as the limit for all education. It would be akin to demanding that subjects you had never studied not be taught.

The common atheist position is far more reasonable than this. The claim is generally that the teachings of religions are unlikely to be true (i.e., that they are likely false). And it makes perfect sense to advocate that things that are likely to be false are not taught to students.

The common agnostic position makes more sense too. It is that it is impossible to determine the truth or falsity of key religious beliefs, in which case it wouldn't make any sense to teach them as if they were true. Or we could say that, if side Y wants to teach X, we can allow that Y does not have good evidence to support X, and thus that we shouldn't teach it, without having to suppose that X is false. But this is generally the position labeled "agnostic," which the above definition folds into the lable "atheist."

But simple lack of positive belief is not a good reason to advocate against a position being taught.

Atheism is not a religion, but it's still a belief.

As I said, I'm not saying it's an exact match. I would not agree with medical treatments to cure religion either. But on the other hand, many people do start heterosexual, marry and have children with a partner, only to realize after a few years that they were following this conventional path because of expectations and socialization. On encountering the world, on further learning, they might 'come out' and change preferences. People's experiences with religion can be similar. They were never really comfortable with it, but had not yet encountered alternatives or learned that it was ok not to believe. Taboos against atheism and homosexuality have been powerful and still are in some countries. Education about both is important

Sure. But this is true of embracing liberal/conservative policy positions in many enviornments as well. It's also true re idealism vs physicalism.

My point would be that the phenomenon of shifting religious beliefs shares much more in common with the phenomenon of shifts in other beliefs than in changes in sexual orientation, tastes for certain types of food, etc.

Beliefs are in some ways quite distinct from desires. Religion is about both belief and identity, so there is cross over, but the closer analogy IMO would be becoming a liberal/conservative later in life, or changing one's mind on some core philosophical issue.

The common atheist position is far more reasonable than this. The claim is generally that the teachings of religions are unlikely to be true (i.e., that they are likely false). And it makes perfect sense to advocate that things that are likely to be false are not taught to students.

The common agnostic position makes more sense too. It is that it is impossible to determine the truth or falsity of key religious beliefs, in which case it wouldn't make any sense to teach them as if they were true. Or we could say that, if side Y wants to teach X, we can allow that Y does not have good evidence to support X, and thus that we shouldn't teach it, without having to suppose that X is false. But this is generally the position labeled "agnostic," which the above definition folds into the lable "atheist." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I generally ignore the polemicists like Dawkins who is a type of fundamentalist.

Like many atheists, I generally call myself an agnostic atheist. This common description in freethinking circles says, essentially: 'I don't know if there is a god or not, but I lack belief in one. Atheism and agnosticism are doing different things. Agnosticism goes to knowledge, atheism goes to belief.

I don't think it is reasonable to say you know there is no god since this is a positive claim one can't demonstrate. I would prefer to go with the inferences and argue that there is no sufficient reason to accept the claim.

I have heard most of the theistic arguments - from Aquinas five ways, to the personal experiences of my local Evangelical. I spent many of my younger years in circles with theosophists and people from various religions and groups dedicated to higher awareness. I've read many books about god, from Paul Tillich to David Bentlay Hart. I have encountered nothing that makes me think there are good reasons to accept the claim.

Beliefs are in some ways quite distinct from desires — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not arguing form desire, I'm arguing for preference. Possibly aesthetic preference. For some people the world makes more sense and is more beautiful if they have magic man in it. For others, there is no need for this. Any arguments tend to come later, when one is exploring or experimenting with one's preferences. I linked theism to sexual preference because I think it compares somewhat - we can't help who we are attracted to. This functions at a deeper level than a belief. I don't need to 'believe' I am attracted to certain people - I am just wired this way - it's how I navigate the world. Ditto my preference for theism. Anyway, I don't need you to agree with me, so we can move on. Thanks for the chat. :wink:

Like many atheists, I generally call myself an agnostic atheist

Gotcha, I see what you're saying now. That makes sense to me.

I'm not arguing form desire, I'm arguing for preference. Possibly aesthetic preference. For some people the world makes more sense and is more beautiful if they have magic man in it. For others, there is no need for this.

I certainly think you're on to something here. There is a sense in which "the type of person someone is," can lead them towards or away from any given religion. I think the same is true of political and philosophical leanings as well. Even among people with fairly liberal policy preferences, I think it's meaningful to talk about "conservative personalities," to some extent, etc.

However, I also don't think it completely reduces to these sorts of preferences. Your classic, more shocking conversion stories (in either direction) tend to be more based on evidence for some sort of position change (be that mystical/direct experiences, or the fruit of intellectual investigations).

To embrace the bolded explanation would seem to require discounting such narratives in place of a sort of psychoanalytical explanation about what is really going on. Aside from not being a fan of such explanations, it also seems sort of condescending. It's the atheistic equivalent of the theists' explanation that: "people who don't believe in God do so because they are unable overcome their own ego's demand that they be in control and the standard of their own goodness."

Now might either of those have some merit in some cases, sure. But it seems rather hand wavy given that all different sorts of people are atheists or religious. And of course, in both explanations its "the other side" who has some sort of intrinsic quality that leads them into their belief, which seems too simple.

A person calls themselves a former Christian when they say they are a former Christian. I am happy to let people determine how they want to identify. — Tom Storm

Then off to Humpty Dumpty land it is, where words mean whatever one wants them to mean ...

Can't you see how biased you are in favor of those who have "left religion"?