AtlanticCitySlave

Speaking as an Ex-Christian, I as well moved from being a Christian to an atheist pretty quickly, and from there on moved to basically rejecting just about every other religion I know of (I'm not familiar with many of them, like the many African religions).
I think the reason for this, and the reason you may find so many atheists holding the same position, is that by rejecting Christianity, or coming to, many of us at the same time are overall rejecting the idea of the supernatural. For example, the first atheist book I read, The Case Against God (George Smith), argued at some length to reject not just the existence of God, but the existence of the supernatural. Being that the majority of us are negative atheists (or even if we were positive many find the idea of "supernatural" incoherent), it shouldn't be too much of a surprise to see us place the same view concerning all other religions.
Considering the majority of religions, especially the major ones, all appeal to the supernatural, and I think you'll find that is the underlying point coming from us, the atheists: we reject the idea of the supernatural (for now). At least that's my take on it.
Obviously many of us do not have the time (or energy) to study practically every religion that comes down the pipe, so we are often in a position where we apply the same underlying principles across the board, i.e. I reject the idea of a supernatural being in this religion since I find it lacking in evidence, self-contradictory (or whatever reason), so I apply this underlying rational principle(s) to other religions as well. One doesn't have to know (or even really study) Hindu thought to reject the idea of multiple God's and reincarnation.

zwi

The great problem with exChristians in my opinion is that there are not enough of them

Zwi

bluefugue

Must one "try out" every religion, and investigate it seriously, before rejecting it?

Which ones do we choose? Should I thoroughly investigate Zoroastrianism, Manicheanism, Monism, Greek and Norse and Egyptian Paganism? Scientology? Wicca? Moonyism? Shinto? Or just stick to the Big Five (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism)? Should I set a population cap -- i.e. any religion with under 1 million adherents is not worth investigating? Or a "newness" cap -- any religion under 100 years old is not worth investigating? (Both are rather silly approaches, as every religion must at one point have been under 100 years old and had fewer than 1 million adherents.)

But there is limited time in my life! I would rather devote my time to studying history, science, philosophy, art, etc., than to studying what I consider to be fairy tales. ("You'll be soorrrryyy," crows the theist.) Not that religion is uninteresting, mind you; it has fascinating aspects. And there is much wisdom within. But I think I would always approach any religion from the perspective of an outsider -- mining it for what's good, maybe; examining its historical context and sociological import, sure; but being extremely dubious about its general truth-assertions about the universe.

I think most atheists reject all religions wholesale because they suspect the other ones rely on similar methodologies to the one they've had the most exposure to (which in the West is most often Christianity). And they devalue those methodologies more than the specific results.

I will admit that I tend to be more genial towards non-Abrahamic religions just because they seem -- at a distance at least -- to be less bullying. However, this may not be true all the time. I've heard about a growing Hindu fundamentalist movement. (I must admit in a weird way, I'd almost be glad to have one as a counterweight to Islamic and Christian fundamentalism. Twisted, eh?)

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]</p>

Humble Heathen

I find this to be true. Christians that I know would not even begin to consider than another worldview might be right and their wrong. They presuppose all other beliefs systems to be erroneous. I see this all the time. Most of them don't know a thing about the other religions they dismiss. It it's not "their religion" then it's wrong. Yes, this is the sort of closed-mindedness and bigotry that Christianity teaches.

Not necessarily. Most of them are structured around such similar belief systems that it's pretty safe to reject all monotheistic religions if you reject one. However, it is good to be knowledgeable about them before completely dismissing them. Besides, what reason could you have for dismissing the religion if you know nothing about it?

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: Humble Heathen ]</p>

bluefugue

Shortage of time. I don't want to spend all my life studying religions. I'd rather study other topics. And again, where do you draw the line? Do I have to study Zoroastrianism to make sure that I'm right in not being a Zoroastrian? Should I study Wicca in order to confirm that it's okay for me not to be a Wiccan? Christ, life's too short as it is...

Corgan Sow

I have a bit of technial problems so I can't o cut-and-paste. Iesus Domini I would personally study the famous religions that "survives" time, well take Xtianity, Islam, Hinduism. Of course Zorontianism is a religion nobody heard of, so I skip that.

I didn't certainly say you must embrace some religions before decide to be an atheist. The moment in theistic arguments you stereotype all religions to be as floppy as Christianity, I say that is a humiliation.

You don't need to be religious to study religions. It is just another form of philosophy in my opinion. As for my beliefs, I'm still agnostic with leaning tendency towards atheism.

Devilnaut

The problem is that you're shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof in the case of the existence of God lies with religion. If one does not care to study religion in depth, it is rational for him to call himself an atheist.

After deconverting from Christianity, atheism is the only rational stance, until you have had sufficient time to determine that some other religion is viable.

What's the difference between atheism and agnosticism anyway? An atheist isn't one who is sure that all religions are wrongheaded. It's just someone who doesn't believe a deity exists.

What I mean here is that there's nothing stopping an atheist from deriving wisdom from religions.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Humble Heathen

Yes. No need to convert to any religions, just familiarize yourself with them. Get an encyclopedia and read about it.

Regarding world religions, here's my theory: If there is any "right" religion, it's one that 99 percent of the world has never heard of. Like an American Indian religion or something. If anyone's got things figured out, I'll wager it's either the Indians or the Buddhists.

Corgan Sow

Well, I'm not a believer of metaphysical naturalism and I am only going to be an atheist when the problem of creation is solved. We don't know how the universe came on in the first place. Doesn't mean it's a bigot old man yapping a magic word, or the universe is all that is. For me, God, is like what expressed by Nate in Six Feet Under, some uncontrolled thing in the universe, not some bigot old man in the clouds.

Synaesthesia

Odd: I believe the same thing and yet I am an atheist.