I'm very open about my atheism, and I won't participate in prayer, in any venue. I most especially will not recite the 1954 version of the Pledge of Allegiance, which added the words "under God" and which is a) unnecessary and b) clearly a violation of the Establishment Clause. If I find myself at some ceremonial occasion such as a wedding or funeral where a prayer is invoked, I stand silently. I am also silent at family holiday gatherings when somebody says grace before the meal.

So far, no one has questioned me. If I were challenged, I would probably simply point out that it's not my religion, and that I decline to participate. If pressed, I would inquire as to why the questioner was being so rude. If pressed further, I can see myself asking if they'd mind if I substituted "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "Invisible Pink Unicorn" for "God"/"Jesus"/"Allah" to make my point. Recite whatever ritual you want and I will stand there quietly and won't complain, but if you start insisting that I have to follow suit to be polite, you have picked a fight and are going to be mocked.

That said, I like secularized holidays for their food, fun and festivities. I was raised Dutch Reformed Protestant, but I find that if I have to attend a religious event, I'm most comfortable with Jewish ceremonies. I'd much rather be in temple than in church. I have a lot of Jewish friends so there is always a bat or bar mitzvah on the calendar. Everybody there knows I'm one of the goyim to begin with, so they more or less expect me to just stand there when the prayers come up, and nobody bats an eyelash.

If they remove the Nine Nights religious aspect from it, then I'm pretty sure it could evolve into a fairly innocuous event (although, truth be told, I wouldn't say it has any major detrimental effects as it's pretty much a party). My position is that we should preserve a lot of benign rituals but just be rational about it.

Well like I said I don't know anything about that particular tradition. There are all kinds of traditions regarding the grieving process, and most came about in an effort to help people cope with loss and move on with their lives, and any supernatural stuff was just tacked on as the justification. Personally, I'd have no problem getting together with family, but I wouldn't be reciting any prayers or rituals about the afterlife. I can't think of one good reason to do so.

Also, I do not subscribe to the belief that people "should" preserve traditions. You may preserve your cultural traditions as much as you like. But nobody ever has any grounds to tell someone else they should observe some ritual, since declining to participate in rituals harms absolutely nobody.

Interestingly, I just had a dinner guest tonight who was lamenting at how strict her cultural group is regarding traditions (she's from a Lebanese Christian background). She doesn't want to observe the rituals but she's almost forced into it by her family. And it has nothing to do with belief, it was entirely about observing their cultural traditions. It was an unfortunate reminder of how far some people have yet to come.

Well, other than the usual Christmas/Easter (which have nothing at all religious about it but origin), when I find myself in a church I surely don't pray (I just stay there with my eyes open and watch whoever's faking it) but I do sing (because I like singing so *shrug* even if the hymns are pretty lame). The only times I'm somewhat compelled to observe it is if my mother's around - because she doesn't know of my atheism (rather, she knows, but is happy to ignore it) and I usually don't want to be picked on. Otherwise, no.

I'm not usually exposed to religious tradition, though, so there's that.

"You mention the secularisation of Easter and Christmas for example. Doesn't this show that even if a ritual had its roots steeped deeply in mysticism that it can be rectified into something relatively benign? If they remove the Nine Nights religious aspect from it, then I'm pretty sure it could evolve into a fairly innocuous event (although, truth be told, I wouldn't say it has any major detrimental effects as it's pretty much a party). My position is that we should preserve a lot of benign rituals but just be rational about it."

Sure, but no one is thinking about Ishtar worship during Easter. I think there needs to be a certain cultural distancing before you can call a celebration truly 'secularized.' You could hardly consider saying a New Testament prayer during a spiritual ceremony to have the same religious neutrality as eating a painted egg has.

@ Jeremy: I said I only ever recite it in a group/community setting. Never by myself. It's kind of like singing "God Save the Queen" over here. I mean, I don't think God exists nor do I think the Queen is more worthy of saving than anyone else, but if everyone else starts singing it, I'd feel a little awkward just keeping my mouth shut. Hell, I guarantee that most Atheists and Agnostics in Britain would sing it.

Oh and Nine Nights(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_nights) are mainly a Jamaican or Trinidadian thing. In Great Britain they make up the majority of the West Indian community, so naturally I'd be dragged off to their events when I was a child. So to an extent I have a soft part for things off that nature based upon my childhood. And I partially agree with you on a few points. I think those who play the defenders in a cultural war are generally going to lose. But even so, some aspects of culture (no matter how steeped they are in mysticism and woo) should be preserved to a degree. If we remove the superstitious factor from them as we've done to Christmas and Easter in the UK, then it just becomes another happy occasion with generally little negative effects.

You mention the secularisation of Easter and Christmas for example. Doesn't this show that even if a ritual had its roots steeped deeply in mysticism that it can be rectified into something relatively benign? If they remove the Nine Nights religious aspect from it, then I'm pretty sure it could evolve into a fairly innocuous event (although, truth be told, I wouldn't say it has any major detrimental effects as it's pretty much a party). My position is that we should preserve a lot of benign rituals but just be rational about it.
Keep Christmas, but be rational that the divine birth of Christ didn't happen. Keep Easter for the Easter eggs for children but be rational that Jesus never rose from the dead. Keep Nine Nights, but be rational that no duppies (patois for spirits) would be sent away to the spirit realm. I could go on, but you get the picture.

I have a similar reaction to Ty, though maybe not as strong. But I feel no compulsion to partake in any religious ritual of any kind. If I was ever "expected to pray" the other people present could expect to receive a one-finger salute.

It's probably easier for me though, coming from a white protestant family in Canada. Outside the bible belt North American society is fairly secular. There aren't a lot of religious rituals that everyone is expected to observe. Christmas and Easter have been so thoroughly secularized (huzzah for the War on Christmas!) that I can celebrate them almost identically to nearly any religious person and yet never have to engage in any religious activity.

Your "Nine Nights" example (I'd never heard of it) is something I certainly wouldn't feel any need to observe. I don't view cultural traditions that were based in ignorance and superstition (ie sending someone's soul to the afterlife) to be something worth preserving. In fact "culture" is generally not something I feel anyone should need to defend. Cultures change (thank goodness), and those who fight to keep things they way they used to be are fighting a losing battle.

I do have one question. You say you occasionally recite the Lord's Prayer to yourself, yet you are "not superstitious". Then why do you do it? Surely the fact that you know you're only talking to yourself would be enough to kill any feeling of remaining tied to your cultural past?

I find myself extremely allergic to any of the rituals involved in faith now. Hymns annoy me, and public praying makes me want to leave the room.

Yeah, Muslims have a ton of rituals. I don't pray usually or fast but I sometimes do it in public gatherings. I never felt a sense of community though. I felt like I stuck out like a sore thumb and pretty bored. Apart from Eid. I get money from my relatives at Eid. So, that's pretty awesome.

But do any of you ever participate in any cultural aspects of religious belief?

Absolutely. I'm particularly fond of any tradition that involves food or drink (I'm a sucker for a good Passover seder meal; what particularly helps there is that Passover strikes me more of a political story of a people fleeing oppression than a strictly religious tale). On the rare occasions when I find myself in a church, I tend to sing along with the congregational hymns.

Usually I participate for two reasons: either it's good fun, or the event calls for solemnity (and nobody does solemn better than religious ceremony). As such, for example, I appreciate funereal rituals and participate when I'm at a funeral/wake/sitting shiva/whatever because the rituals give structure to something that desperately needs it.

This topic has probably already been made, so sorry if it has.

I've known there wasn't a God for at least most of my life, although I did at once think that some ethereal life force existed, but now I'm pretty damn sceptical of that and identify as an Atheist.

Now here's the thing, I'm part African and part Caribbean, and both sides are incredibly religious. On the occasion that I do happen to go to a Caribbean or African event, religion plays a massive role in it.
Even though quite a few of them know I'm irreligious and have for the most part accept it, whenever I go to a function I'm expected to pray. Funnily enough, sometimes I don't mind it.

I don't think I'm alone in believing that many of us have come from backgrounds where religion is an integral part of the culture. But do any of you ever participate in any cultural aspects of religious belief?

For example, I wouldn't ever pray seriously as I think it will never bring forth results, but just recently I noticed the significance of certain rituals in my life. In some Caribbean islands we have something called "Nine Nights" whereby whenever someone dies, nine nights after the death we have a send off where we invite all the family, friends and well-wishers to celebrate their lives. The rationale behind this is that if they don't perform the Nine Night the soul would stay behind in this realm. Most of them don't believe the latter, but still consider it very important. I also do like this aspect. Hell, I don't believe in an immortal soul or an afterlife, but if I were to die now I would love for my family to do one for me.

Also, with regards to prayer, at certain events I do bow my head and say the Lord's Prayer if I'm in the mood. Perhaps it's because I see it as a community solidarity mechanism or just want to feel part of the group.

I'm not superstitious, but I think sometimes these things are important if one wants to retain some cultural links with their heritage.

So the question is, do you think it's acceptable to partake in some Christian rituals and events even though you might be an Atheist or Agnostic? And more importantly, I want to hear from the more militant or hardline Atheists; would you partake in any of these cultural aspects?

I consider myself an agnostic atheist. As an agnostic, I have no knowledge of a god but that does not mean I cannot ever; I simply have no knowledge and no evidence. As an Atheist I have no belief in God.

I agree its not worth the quibble, but I recently came to change what I considered myself to be. I was a 'Strong' Atheist until I realised it said very little and merely emphasised that I wouldnt take religious pap without comment. So Agnostic Atheist fits me fine and covers my ass nicely.

I can usually deal with religious people. After all, I used to be one. I just think of it as, they have their religion, and I have mine. Freedom of Religion, and all that. As long as they're not trying to convert me or are conservative evangelist wackos who think that they're the only ones who could possibly be right (see: my theology professor), I'm fine with them. And, actually I can be okay with the conservative evangelist wackos too, sometimes. My theology professor seems like a good guy; I just don't agree with him on theology or (likely) politics.

@Aron That happens to me too. I agreed to attend my brother's church once (to be nice) and my Dad suggested that it would be a reservoir of new friends for me. Instead of explaining the problem I just said "No."

I understand Aron's reluctance. I admit I would not want to spend much time with a group of religious people in a religious setting that is expressly about a religious celebration. Having Easter dinner in a church with a bunch of members is pretty much exactly that.

That might be your problem then Aron, depending on how much / if the church crowd are trying to convert you.

It's perfectly understandable to not want to participate in any rituals or be preached to. It's another to be unable to converse or spend time with someone just because of what they believe, or to put it into your words, to have trouble relating to religious people even when they're *not* talking about their religion. The latter is just bigotry.

FWIW, I attended a church Christmas lunch with my wife's family. Went just fine.

I don't know how you do it. I have trouble trying to relate to anyone religious these days, especially when they are talking about their religion.

Case in point: My mother trying to invite me to her church's easter dinner. "But Aron, it's just dinner!" ... she doesn't even understand why I have a hard time spending time with the church crowd.

Good luck to you!

Yeah, but that's yahweh. His idea of humor is giving the Philistines hemorrhoids for stealing his ark. He's sort of a slapstick god.

You mean the Redundant Department of Redundancy? =P

"as well as some funny humor!"

From the Department of Redundancy Department.

Welcome Helen. Hope you find this site helpful to help you sort through the questions you are having.

I hope so - I hope to be involved in interesting and enlightening conversations, as well as some funny humor!

Hi Helen. Your situation is similar to that of a lot of people here, myself included. My wife, most of my family, and almost all of my friends are Christian. Since I became an atheist I've very intentionally been as non-confrontational as possible about it, because it only upsets people and I have no wish to ruin friendships. I generally just keep my mouth shut and have very few people in real life to discuss these issues with.

I've found online blogs and forums to be a very good alternative. So welcome.

Welcome Helen!

I'm Helen. I consider myself Agnostic. Ironically, I'm in my second year of going to a Christian college named Malone University. Hence my title of my post - I always feel like the elephant in the room. I didn't start at Malone as an Agnostic, but somewhere along the line, doubted the truth of Christianity, due to unanswered questions and the conduct and words of those around me. I love my Christian friends, but I want to talk to some people with similar opinions to mine - sort of why I'm on this site.

This actually isn't my first foray into the arena of Agnosticism - I was one for a year back in high school, but I think I'll save that for a different post in a different area. This is supposed to be an introduction.

I'm 20 and studying Nursing. I enjoy music and computer games and just hanging out. I very much enjoy discussing politics and religion (hence part of why I'm on here!).

~Helen~

Actually it all depends on what one sees as the definition of "atheism." And there is a VERY big difference of opinion on that.

Standard dictionary definitions such as Merriam-Websters offers "a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity" (see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism). Other dictionaries have this or something very similar. In other words, "atheism" in these definitions means "an affirmative belief that there is no deity."

More recently a lot of folks have taken to using a different definition. They say that "atheism" means "a lack of belief in a deity." This is a MUCH wider range of meaning than the former definition.

Now, are they correct? According to M-W and other authorities, they aren't. They beg to differ and say that a wider definition is required in order to accommodate the difference between belief and knowledge as well as other factors.

Now, they ARE correct in that there ought to be a word, or words, which embrace the gray area between affirmative belief in a deity and affirmative belief that there is no deity. However, they are wrong to assume the solution to that problem is to throw open the meaning of "atheism" to be much wider than it had been. At it turns out, that problem has been solved, and the solution to it exists already.

It was solved, in fact, by T.H. Huxley in the 19th century, when he coined the term "agnostic." He described the meaning of this word and its genesis rather specifically (see http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html).

Thus, no useful purpose is served by fostering the notion that atheism=agnosticism or that all agnostics are also atheists. There is no need for this. If you are what Huxley describes as an "agnostic," then you are, in fact "an agnostic" and not "an atheist." If you are what M-W and other dictionaries describe as "atheist," then you are "an atheist" and not "an agnostic."

It really is that simple, and there is no real need to go any further with this. Redefining "atheism" and quibbling over the difference between knowledge and belief, is just ridiculous. All it does is confuse the meanings of words and provides ammunition for theists, who really ought not be given any more.

That said, I quite understand the effort here. Atheists are trying to force the term to include as many people as possible. I've even heard some say that even theists are atheists because there are deities they don't believe in (e.g. Christians are "atheistic" about, say, Zeus). This kind of thing just isn't going to help, however. No fierce believer is going to be swayed by this kind of rhetoric. All it will do is cause anger and render the word "atheism" so wide in meaning, that ultimately, it ceases to mean anything any more.

I couldn't have said that better, Rodney.

PROBABILITY. Not impossibility. That is why I am an atheist.

Absolutely. Agnosticism concerns knowledge, atheism concerns belief. I am an agnostic atheist: I believe it is impossible to know for sure whether or not there are gods, and I believe there are no gods.

I think people are usually only "agnostic" when they're talking about it. The rest of the time, they seem pretty firm in their decision not to worship Jesus or Poseidon or Ra, and behave as if there are no gods, which is atheist.

The word "atheist" has a lot of baggage, so I sort of sympathize with people wanting to avoid using it, but I don't say "agnostic atheist" because most people associate "agnostic" with a position I consider cowardly (or at least, not very thoughtful). "We can't know the answer so it must be 50-50"? In any other sphere of thought you don't just give up like that, you think about probability. And the odds against there being gods of any kind are extremely long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkEJtQJ5tz4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAF2NuAI9EU

Does anybody agree with these statements?

I consider myself hard atheist, but I do admit you can't know for sure if there is a God out there.

On the other hand, if you allow for one, you are allowing for others. So how many Gods am I allowing, anyhow? That's where it gets too confusing to me and I just say, "hard atheist".

I can say for sure that I absolutely believe there is no christian god, as christianity doesn't seem any more persuasive than any other world religion when it comes to actual evidence.

To belabor the points...

I am a (consider myself to be) gnostic atheist, meaning my belief that there is no God is as strong as my belief that my right hand is actually my right hand and my senses are not tricking me about reality, and at some point you got to draw a line about how much evidence is required to call something 'knowledge', since all knowledge is a belief in some form.

Obviously you can't disprove something that can't be detected, by definition, but in my view the lack of evidence is so staggering for the existence of supernatural beings, but the amount of evidence for human fabrication is so great, that if Jesus appeared and slapped me with a fish I would just conclude that I have schizophrenia because I 'know' that can't happen.

I suppose I make the point because agnosticism means nothing if "we're all agnostics".

Atheist refers to belief (of lack thereof).

Agnostic refers to knowledge or information.

An individual can know their car is white, but force themselves to believe that it is black. The same way a believer can't know that a deity exists, but they can believe it to be true.

I agree that skepticism (or scepticism) is a mindset or as Ty put it, an "incredibly useful tool."