Anger upon athiesm conversion.

[CBVan]

In Dr. Dawkins Q & A session after his reading at Lynchburg (which can be found on youtube.com (http://youtube.com) or here, (http://richarddawkins.net) at his website, Dawkins gets asked about anger people experience upon an athiesm conversion, among other things. I think this is a good point to discuss.
I know I was angry after my conversion, but not as much initially. My anger was unfocussed then, more anger at the world for what I percieved as widespread stupidity.
Now, I am extremely angry, due to the widespread hypocrisy I percieve in doctrine and standards. I suppose that it is more aimed at Xianity, but that is only because I was raised Xian and (living in the US) it is the most widespread.
This could be entirely due to personal experiences, and I would like to see what other people have experienced after a conversion.

[pchams]

I can't really claim a conversion, as I really never believed the Sunday school stuff, but I don't understand why you should be angry.
Whomever guided you into the xtian stuff probably really believed it was best for you. There is no sense in being angry with them. They just haven't come to the rational conclusion that you have.
Perhaps you should focus on the happiness you must feel after having the yoke of religion removed from your life.

[AgingYoung]

CBVan,

...Now, I am extremely angry, due to the widespread hypocrisy I percieve in doctrine and standards...

This is something I can't quite understand. If there's no interaction between you and a hypocrite why do you care what the hypocrite believes?

Then if there is some exchange between you and the hypocrite why would their theology matter to you? For instance if someone steals from you why is it your perspective is different if they claim to be a christian or an atheist? Why should the thief’s theology matter to you?

Gene

[l0rca]

I too was extremely angry about the naivety and dogma my parents passed down to me without question or encouragement for critical thinking. Those principals gave in me a reverence for faith, and a large lack of logic. From then on I decided to give my kin the caution to be critical of their beliefs, and vocal of my atheism to my young brother and sister. But every time I do, I anger my mother; and my father, while this information has been kept from him, has disowned me for lesser reasons.

In my opinion, your anger is much justified.

[RandFan]

I was never angry. I was somewhat emotional. I felt disconected but I think that had to do with the fact that nearly all of my freinds were at church and I didn't see them so much after.

[Aerik]

RandFan, I don't think we're talking about anger at the prospect that there is no god, but anger at what atrocities, lies, and anti-civility we see being done in the name of a god we now know does not exist. That's different.

When I saw Dawkins speak on the God Delusion at the Lied Center, Kansas University, Lawrence, Kansas, this very subject came up. He decided to ask us, first explaining that his de-conversion was very mild, "Is it true, that once you admit to yourselves that you are atheists, you feel a righteous anger at all the evil done in the name of religion?" Our reply was a loud, raucous YES!

[RandFan]

RandFan, I don't think we're talking about anger at the prospect that there is no god, but anger at what atrocities, lies, and anti-civility we see being done in the name of a god we now know does not exist. That's different.

When I saw Dawkins speak on the God Delusion at the Lied Center, Kansas University, Lawrence, Kansas, this very subject came up. He decided to ask us, first explaining that his de-conversion was very mild, "Is it true, that once you admit to yourselves that you are atheists, you feel a righteous anger at all the evil done in the name of religion?" Our reply was a loud, raucous YES!I actually understood the point. I thought I might abuse readers with how I felt. I didn't feel anger. Period. Perhaps I should have simply left it at that.

An aside, it's an excellent video. I've watched it 3 times now. Dawkins is incredible. I envy your having seen him in person.

[pchams]

I too was extremely angry about the naivety and dogma my parents passed down to me without question or encouragement for critical thinking. Those principals gave in me a reverence for faith, and a large lack of logic. From then on I decided to give my kin the caution to be critical of their beliefs, and vocal of my atheism to my young brother and sister. But every time I do, I anger my mother; and my father, while this information has been kept from him, has disowned me for lesser reasons.

In my opinion, your anger is much justified.

I don't understand this anger. Surely they had your best interests, in their eyes, at heart.
As for the anger people have referred to in this thread, as espoused by Mr. Dawkins, surely there is enough unethical wrong-doing besides the religous one to just see this as one more blight.
Anger is a rash emotion which blinds us to rational thought.
Less is better IMO

[CBVan]

CBVan,
This is something I can't quite understand. If there's no interaction between you and a hypocrite why do you care what the hypocrite believes?

Then if there is some exchange between you and the hypocrite why would their theology matter to you? For instance if someone steals from you why is it your perspective is different if they claim to be a christian or an atheist? Why should the thief’s theology matter to you?

Gene
Hmm. An interesting point. I suppose I am angry because I now fell that all that time that I spent on religion because of them was wasted.
As for pchams, I am not angry for the same reasons as L0cra. I am angry at the ignorance many Xians display about their own religion. I am angry at the intolerance relgions have lead to, historically. I am angry about things like the Crusades and the Jihads.
I would propose that intentions, in this case, do not matter. I wonder how often do you get talked at by fundamentalist Xians? Anger is almost the only response this slightly-less-foolish-than-average ape can come up with.

[joobz]

It is an interesting that anger enters the picture. I remember reading about C.S. Lewis describing his time as an atheist, he felt an anger against toward god for not existing. A contridictory viewpoint, but one that i think may presist in a transition from believing and not believing.

ALso, I wonder if there is anger that exists just as a result of the 5 stages of grief. Has any one's transition into being athiest been also associated with moments of denial, bargining, depression?

[pchams]

CBVan,
I understand your anger, but I find it less than useful.
At times, anger may play a purpose, such as self-preservation, but otherwise, it is a detriment, in my opinion.
As an atheist, actually, an anti-religionist, I understand your feelings.
My intention is to create a less superstitious society, but not at the expense of personal freedom. It is best created through education, and anger has no place there.

[l0rca]

I don't understand this anger. Surely they had your best interests, in their eyes, at heart.
As for the anger people have referred to in this thread, as espoused by Mr. Dawkins, surely there is enough unethical wrong-doing besides the religous one to just see this as one more blight.
Anger is a rash emotion which blinds us to rational thought.
Less is better IMO

Of course less is better in my opinion too. And while you may have some sort of faculty that can quickly switch off anger whenever it is not the most reasonable thing to feel, I do not. I was raised in a dogmatic environment, and now that I am an atheist, I am told not to speak about faith with my brother and sister. The dogmatic environment made it very difficult and emotional for me to admit a godless world to myself, and I'm concerned about the trouble my kin will have growing up as well. But despite my concerns, my opinion is not allowed, and I was quickly shut up whenever I brought it up.

If you still don't understand why this would make a person angry, I suppose I could map out the logic of what makes a person angry and connect it to irrationally being told to be quiet as your brother and sister have beliefs strongly influenced on them. Perhaps you should also keep in mind that Muslim extremists think 9/11 was for the best as well; just because you fully understand your opposition does not extinguish the anger you find in their actions.

[CBVan]

CBVan,
I understand your anger, but I find it less than useful.
At times, anger may play a purpose, such as self-preservation, but otherwise, it is a detriment, in my opinion.
As an atheist, actually, an anti-religionist, I understand your feelings.
My intention is to create a less superstitious society, but not at the expense of personal freedom. It is best created through education, and anger has no place there.
I don't make the claim that anger is useful. I simply accept it as the first response my monkey mind can come up with. If more people were educated about the bible, (i.e. actually read the thing) then more people would be athiests, I think.

[Dogdoctor]

It's probably similar to the reaction some people get when they break up with their girl/boy friends or wives/husbands. They were together because it was the best thing but then once they break up it becomes the worst thing. They supposedly loved the person at one time then switched to hate. I am sure it is all about hating yourself for believing in religion/man/woman which you have since figured out wasn't all you made it out to be. But you can't deal with hating yourself so you transfer the feelings to the object of your despise.

[blutoski]

I don't make the claim that anger is useful. I simply accept it as the first response my monkey mind can come up with. If more people were educated about the bible, (i.e. actually read the thing) then more people would be athiests, I think.

Interesting you should mention that... I was just reading my copy of "I Was Wrong," (Jim Bakker). He says something similar: that if people actually read the bible, they'd be better people. This book is fascinating, because it's an atonement of not just his earlier 'career' and crimes, but also a repudiation of his Prosperity Theology, and materialism in Christianity in general. Essentially, he claims that he had not really read much of the bible until prison, at which point he did a complete readthrough and took some comparative religion courses.


As to your question about anger... I have observed this in many 'converts'. It's not documented enough for me to say that there are Kubler-Ross "stages", but I can't help but believe this from the examples I've seen.

Losing a faith can create a loss analogous to experiencing the death of a loved one. In the case of Christianity, in a way, you lose your best friend. Taken from you by the Angle of Reason instead of the Angel of Death.

So, why not go through the stages? Denial, Anger, Grief, Bargaining, Acceptance.

[clarsct]

Many people go through the bargaining stage with God, witness the Drunkard's Remorse:
Dear Lord, if you get me through this day, with this hangover, I swear I will never do this again!!


And the next day, he's back on the barstool.


I think with religion it may run:
Bargaining, Denial, Anger, Grief, Acceptance.


"I'll believe in you and go to Church if you'll just let <some positive result> happen."

"If you don't do <such and such>, My Lord, I shall no longer believe in you."

"You don't exist, you don't care about me!!"

"F**k God! F'kin preachers"

"Man....what the hell am I doing with my life? What HAVE I been doing with my life? My time has been WASTED!! and FOR WHAT?!"

"Well, ok, It's just me now.....I guess I'll have to clean up my own act from now on."


Seems about right, from what I've seen. I, fortunately, was spared most of that, as I questioned things right away. I remember questioning the idea of 'bad language' in fourth grade. I was kicked out of a Sunday School at about age 12 for asking questions, the wrong ones. "So HOW big was Noah's Ark?"


I could be wrong, but this is a progression I have observed....

[Antiquehunter]

I'm not sure anger is the right word. I felt (and feel) frustration towards and a desire to amend people's irrational beliefs. But this isn't 'anger'. I'm motivated to try and make a difference - but this isn't about atheism - I'm motivated to try and make a difference in any number of areas.

So - does a conversion to atheism result in a desire to be 'active' in the atheist community? Perhaps, in some. Anger in others? Sure. But I'm not sure if its a commonality among all those who (don't) see the light.

-AH.

[slingblade]

I think with religion it may run:
Bargaining, Denial, Anger, Grief, Acceptance.


"I'll believe in you and go to Church if you'll just let <some positive result> happen."

"If you don't do <such and such>, My Lord, I shall no longer believe in you."

"You don't exist, you don't care about me!!"

"F**k God! F'kin preachers"

"Man....what the hell am I doing with my life? What HAVE I been doing with my life? My time has been WASTED!! and FOR WHAT?!"

"Well, ok, It's just me now.....I guess I'll have to clean up my own act from now on."



I could be wrong, but this is a progression I have observed....

Yep. Pretty much nailed it for me. I had a couple of earlier additional steps, but what you do have, I went through.

[Zygar]

Yep. Pretty much nailed it for me. I had a couple of earlier additional steps, but what you do have, I went through.

Likewise. I think that it would be fairly unusual to go through a deconversion without experiencing each of these steps, even if they are not the complete set of steps for each individual.

[Dogdoctor]

Likewise. I think that it would be fairly unusual to go through a deconversion without experiencing each of these steps, even if they are not the complete set of steps for each individual.

As usual I am the exception.

[Darth Rotor]

In Dr. Dawkins Q & A session after his reading at Lynchburg (which can be found on youtube.com (http://youtube.com) or here, (http://richarddawkins.net) at his website, Dawkins gets asked about anger people experience upon an athiesm conversion, among other things. I think this is a good point to discuss.
I know I was angry after my conversion, but not as much initially. My anger was unfocussed then, more anger at the world for what I percieved as widespread stupidity.
Now, I am extremely angry, due to the widespread hypocrisy I percieve in doctrine and standards. I suppose that it is more aimed at Xianity, but that is only because I was raised Xian and (living in the US) it is the most widespread.
This could be entirely due to personal experiences, and I would like to see what other people have experienced after a conversion.

Anger is a motivational tool that requires delicate handling, as it can easily taint whatever purpose you are using it for. It can fill one with energy, or an adrenal rush.

It is also corrosive. I'd use it with caution in any endeavor.

In trite Starwarese: "Anger leads to hate, hate to the dark side." There's more than a grain of truth in that.

"I am angry at hypocrisy."

Welcome to life, be prepared to stay pissed off until you stop breathing, or you learn to get past anger and get on with the actual problem you are trying to solve. Anger, beyond short flashes of it, is a self indulgent exercise in emotion.

I had to learn this the hard way, having been too prone to anger (still am, though to a lesser degree) for much of my life.

DR

[RandFan]

As usual I am the exception.Me too. We probably didn't truly de-convert. ;)

[Aerik]

I don't understand this anger. Surely they had your best interests, in their eyes, at heart.

NO! No, they did not! Surely if they really had faith that their religion was so obviously correct, they could have faith that they didn't need to indoctrinate their own children to get good results and have her respect and assimilate their religion?

Doesn't a loving god find one's personal faith enough rather than demand that the faith be brow-beaten or physically beaten into one's children?

When parents go to a church and suffer an infant to be dunked in cold water in what is commonly called a baptism, isn't that really just more of a public display of their own piety to help their standing among their neighbors and religious community rather than something they think was actually good for the scared infant?

A Christian Fundamentalist mother, for example, forbids her child from attending classes on evolution: though she may claim she is doing it for the child and not of course herself, she is very likely motivated primarily by a desire to make a display of her own purity. Doesn't she just know that God is mighty proud of her for conforming to His will? . . The chief mullah of Saudi Arabia proclaims that the Earth is flat and that anyone who teaches otherwise is a friend of Satan(17): won't he himself be thrice blessed by Allah for making this courageous stand? A group of rabbis in Jerusalem try to ban the showing of the film Jurassic Park on the grounds that it may give children the idea that there were dinosaurs living on earth sixty million years ago, when the scriptures state that in fact the world is just six thousand years old(18): are they not making a wonderful public demonstration of their own piety?

What we are seeing, as often as not, is pure self interest. In which case, we should not even allow a mitigating plea of good intentions on the part of the parent or other responsible adult. They are looking after none other than themselves.

Yet, as I said, in the end it hardly matters what the parents' intentions are. Because even the best of intentions would not be sufficient to buy them "parental rights" over their children. Indeed the very idea that parents or any other adults have "rights" over children is morally insupportable.

No human being, in any other circumstances, is credited with having rights over any one else. No one is entitled, as of right, to control, use or direct the life-course of another person -- even for objectively good ends. It's true that in the past slave-owners had such legal rights over their slaves. And it's true too that, until comparatively recently, the anomaly persisted of husbands having certain such rights over their wives -- the right to have sex with them, for instance. But neither of these exceptions provides a good model for regulating parent-child relationships.

Children, to repeat, have to be considered as having interests independent of their parents. They cannot be subsumed as if they were part of the same person. At least so it should be. Unless, that is, we make the extraordinary mistake that the US Supreme Court apparently did when it ruled, in relation to the Amish, that while the Amish way of life may be considered "odd or even erratic" it "interferes with no rights or interests of others"(19) (my italics). As if the children of the Amish are not even to be counted as potentially "others".

I think we should stop talking of "parental rights" at all. In so far as they compromise the child's rights as an individual, parents' rights have no status in ethics and should have none in law

[Esperdome]

When I converted from religion I felt no hate for those around me who were part of my previous religion. I just felt sorry for them because they were still brainwashed.

This led me to try converting some of my close friends to being atheists. I was unsuccessful at this and regret doing it.

I still feel they should be exposed to other points of view than religion, but I do it more tactfully. Well, at least most of the time.

[joobz]

When I converted from religion I felt no hate for those around me who were part of my previous religion. I just felt sorry for them because they were still brainwashed.

This is the attitude that most religious envision upon atheists. A superior, potential smug, view that all believers are idiots.

Funny enough, that same attitude is what seems to drive religious fundies. A belief that they have the answer and should shove it down the throats of others.

The only difference between your initial attitude and what theirs, is that I'm sure you have actual arguments and logical reasoning for coming to your conclusions. (A very important distinction, BTW)

It's why I appreciate the attitudes of Tricky, Foster Zygote, Ranson and several others. Provide the information, but let the person make thier own choices, conclusions.

[RandFan]

NO! No, they did not! Surely if they really had faith that their religion was so obviously correct, they could have faith that they didn't need to indoctrinate their own children to get good results and have her respect and assimilate their religion?

Doesn't a loving god find one's personal faith enough rather than demand that the faith be brow-beaten or physically beaten into one's children?

When parents go to a church and suffer an infant to be dunked in cold water in what is commonly called a baptism, isn't that really just more of a public display of their own piety to help their standing among their neighbors and religious community rather than something they think was actually good for the scared infant?Your logic is valid. However there is one fatal flaw to your argument. You are applying rational thought to an irrational belief system. You are of course right, from your POV. I'm not asking you to "see their POV" I'm simply telling you that strict adherence to logic from people who put faith above all else when it comes to matters of religion is more often than not unrealistic.

Anger is an emotional response. That's good. We have emotions for a reason. However, it is often counter productive to hold on to that emotion. Sometimes the anger can lead to irrational thoughts and behavior.

The utility of anger often decreases after a time. You might as well be angry at the rising of the tide. Sure, humans are capable of rational thought and therefore are capable of changing their behavior and the tide is not. However anger has a limited ability to cause change and it can steal from you valuable time and energy. IMO anger is not worth that. Though I have to confess that anger gives purpose to some people's life. Anger can also motivate an individual to seek social change. It would be impossible for me to say what is best for you. You are entitled to your emotions. They were, initially, correct in my estimation. What's next? It's up to you.

Best of luck and I hope that if it is possible you can have a healthy relationship with your family and any former friends. I can't imagine my life without the love of my parents. I was scared to death to come out to them. We've moved beyond that and there are no recriminations on either part. I'm glad.

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't understand this anger. Surely they had your best interests, in their eyes, at heart.
As for the anger people have referred to in this thread, as espoused by Mr. Dawkins, surely there is enough unethical wrong-doing besides the religous one to just see this as one more blight.
Anger is a rash emotion which blinds us to rational thought.
Less is better IMO

There is nothing inappropriate about being angry at people who have wronged you, even if they thought it was for the best. I think it's perfectly legitimate to be angry with faithful people who brainwashed you as a child, because adults should know better than to believe in nonsense. What you do with that anger can be good or bad, getting revenge isn't terribly productive, but teaching your own children truths rather than lies is. Emotions do not need a rational motivation. The actions you take in response to them do. I don't think there's anything at all wrong with feeling hurt, betrayed, and and taken advantage of after waking up from the nightmare of religion.

[Esperdome]

This is the attitude that most religious envision upon atheists. A superior, potential smug, view that all believers are idiots.

Funny enough, that same attitude is what seems to drive religious fundies. A belief that they have the answer and should shove it down the throats of others.

The only difference between your initial attitude and what theirs, is that I'm sure you have actual arguments and logical reasoning for coming to your conclusions. (A very important distinction, BTW)

It's why I appreciate the attitudes of Tricky, Foster Zygote, Ranson and several others. Provide the information, but let the person make thier own choices, conclusions.

Interestingly, it was a person who only provided info and let me make my own choices that pushed me all the way to atheism. I had been falling away from god for several years prior to this. I just wish that at 21, I would have been wise enough to realize that is the best way to convince others.

I truly envy people who by their own abilities have rejected religion. But that may be because of my strong religious upbringing.

[Darth Rotor]

I think it's perfectly legitimate to be angry with faithful people who brainwashed you as a child, because adults should know better than to believe in nonsense.
Ya know, ID, it's funny. Adults go to Monte Carlo, and Las Vegas every year, and make someone else rich. So what?

I was never brainwashed, yet I found Faith. I am an adult. I also go to casinos every few years, and gamble. I usually play craps, due to its having excellent chances for returns . . . the way I play.

The last three trips to the tables have been in the black, for me. Yet you and I know, we both know, that the games are set up with the average odds being of an advantage to the House.

Since I am adult, should I stop gambling?

DR

[RandFan]

Since I am adult, should I stop gambling? I'm libertarian. I think you should do whatever you want with your money. I like to gamble but I can't afford it. I consider myself quite adept at poker and can make a good deal of money but I'm too passionate and too often I play lousy. I simply lack the discipline to play as I know I should all the time.

I owe people money for things that have nothing to do with gambling and I have made a commitment that until they are paid off I won't gamble. I also won't gamble if my finances can't justify it.

But if it makes you happy what difference does it make? Entertainment costs money.

[CBVan]

I used to be a libertarian, but thats not the point.
The Las Vegas bit had me laughing out loud, considering TAM 5.

[ImaginalDisc]

Ya know, ID, it's funny. Adults go to Monte Carlo, and Las Vegas every year, and make someone else rich. So what?

I was never brainwashed, yet I found Faith. I am an adult. I also go to casinos every few years, and gamble. I usually play craps, due to its having excellent chances for returns . . . the way I play.

The last three trips to the tables have been in the black, for me. Yet you and I know, we both know, that the games are set up with the average odds being of an advantage to the House.

Since I am adult, should I stop gambling?

DR

You are, or should be, well-informed enough to know that gambling is a risk-taking venture. For another thing, the chances of making money gambling are significantly higher than the chances that Jesus will cure a boil.

[Dogdoctor]

There is nothing inappropriate about being angry at people who have wronged you, even if they thought it was for the best. I think it's perfectly legitimate to be angry with faithful people who brainwashed you as a child, because adults should know better than to believe in nonsense. What you do with that anger can be good or bad, getting revenge isn't terribly productive, but teaching your own children truths rather than lies is. Emotions do not need a rational motivation. The actions you take in response to them do. I don't think there's anything at all wrong with feeling hurt, betrayed, and and taken advantage of after waking up from the nightmare of religion.

Getting angry is often a counterproductive or harmful response. For one thing it takes time and generally accomplishes nothing. Emotions are not rational and lead to actions that are not rational. This results in wife beating and child beatings and other pointless violence and harmful responses to stimuli. So feeling anger is ok only if you can control your actions when you are angry. Generally unless it stimulated you to take useful action on some issue it is pointless. Typically it is just an emotion you need to release to keep it from building up.

[ImaginalDisc]

Getting angry is often a counterproductive or harmful response. For one thing it takes time and generally accomplishes nothing. Emotions are not rational and lead to actions that are not rational. This results in wife beating and child beatings and other pointless violence and harmful responses to stimuli. So feeling anger is ok only if you can control your actions when you are angry. Generally unless it stimulated you to take useful action on some issue it is pointless. Typically it is just an emotion you need to release to keep it from building up.

It's not that I disagree with you, I just don't think a person should have to apologize for their feelings, only their actions. I think there's nothing wrong with anger at having been victimized.

[Darth Rotor]

You are, or should be, well-informed enough to know that gambling is a risk-taking venture. For another thing, the chances of making money gambling are significantly higher than the chances that Jesus will cure a boil.
Ya know, I never ask Jesus to help with a roll of the dice. I figure too many people do that already, which could be part of the boil problem now manifesting itself on the bums of Las Vegas society . . . ;)

DR

[Dogdoctor]

It's not that I disagree with you, I just don't think a person should have to apologize for their feelings, only their actions. I think there's nothing wrong with anger at having been victimized.

I agree there is nothing wrong with it unless you can't control your anger then there is something wrong with it.

[RandFan]

Getting angry is often a counterproductive or harmful response. For one thing it takes time and generally accomplishes nothing. Emotions are not rational and lead to actions that are not rational. This results in wife beating and child beatings and other pointless violence and harmful responses to stimuli. So feeling anger is ok only if you can control your actions when you are angry. Generally unless it stimulated you to take useful action on some issue it is pointless. Typically it is just an emotion you need to release to keep it from building up.I largely agree (see post above). However I think it was anger that motivated many throughout history to do positive things. It's a dangerous emotion though and I would encourage most to deal with it and get over their anger. For most of us it will likely only cause us to think irrationaly and waste our time and resources and for some even cause us our life.

[DiskoVilante]

As a lifelong atheist, I somehow find it understandable that people would get angry after their de-conversion. I think that for a religious person, their religion is the bedrock of their existence. To realize that bedrock was false from the get go is surely a scary experience. Fear leads to anger...anger leads to hate...hate leads to the dark side...:jedi:Okay, maybe not the dark side thing nor the hate, but I think it would be scary to be de-converted and feel like I was left hanging for awhile.
The important thing is that the anger passes.:thumbsup:

[Dogdoctor]

I think people misplace their anger. You have just been fooled by others but also by yourself. If you do nothing you will be fooled again. If you get angry at religion you will be fooled again only you will be angry. You need to take the responsibility for being fooled and accept that it is your fault. You let them fool you. Change yourself. Or you can always blame them and don't change since it had nothing to do with you........or did it?

[Solus]

I didn't get angry or feel any much emotion about it. Athiesm was just a natural point for me to reach. I was agnostic since I was maybe twelve. aAhiesm was simply the next logical point once I became more mature and fully understood both sides.

My only emotion really has always been if god exisited he must have be a real %&#* that what I've thought since I was pretty young.

[ottle]

'Conversion' for me took a long time. I went through phases of it:

Catholic
Extremely strong Catholic
Not Catholic (I wanted a religion but I didn't want it to be Catholicism)
Not Religious (Didn't want to have anything to do with Organized Religion)
Theist
Deist
Agnostic
Athiest

When I finally became an athiest, I think the hard part was that I spent most of my life feeling very strongly that we should respect each others' cultures (I travelled a lot with my family, growing up) and therefore other people's religion. Becoming an Athiest made me feel like I was realizing that all those religious people were 'wrong' and I was very uncomfortable with that feeling. I still put 'wrong' in quotes back there, you'll notice - I have a hard time even now. I don't like telling people that their religion is crap. Even if it is :) It seems disrespectful to me!

But I'm getting better. Just yesterday, I kicked a Buddist in the head.

KIDDING! :)

[Roboramma]

Getting angry is often a counterproductive or harmful response. For one thing it takes time and generally accomplishes nothing. Emotions are not rational and lead to actions that are not rational. This results in wife beating and child beatings and other pointless violence and harmful responses to stimuli. So feeling anger is ok only if you can control your actions when you are angry. Generally unless it stimulated you to take useful action on some issue it is pointless. Typically it is just an emotion you need to release to keep it from building up.

I just typed half of a long response to this and it was lost to the void, but here goes again.

I agree with much of what you're saying - anger can often lead to negative consequences. Sure. On the other hand it can lead us to do things that are good for us too.

It may lead a man to beat his wife, but it can also lead his wife to be unwilling to accept being beaten. She may get so angry she leaves him, fights back, calls on the aid of friends or relatives or the police, gives him an ultimatum, or some other course of action to deal with the problem (she may just nip it in the bud the first time he raises her hand to her by shouting "don't you ever *********** hit me" and meaning it). I think that's one of the reasons we have this emotion at all - because sometimes we need it to spur us to do dangerous or difficult things that nonetheless we should do. Then again, sometimes it doesn't work out in our favour and a guy shoots his wife and her lover and ends up in prison for the rest of his life.

That's not good for anyone involved, but sometimes anger (or it's potential) can be good for everyone. The fact that you know that I would be angry if you tried to steal from me makes you think twice about doing it - you know that I might become physically violent, call the police, or again, do something else to "get back at you", and the threat of this helps to deter you from stealing from me, or in any other way taking advantage of me.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a pretty laid back guy. Usually if something makes me angry I think about it for a while, decide it's nothing, and an hour later I've completely forgotten about it. But sometimes it doesn't work out that way.

The problem is that I used to be a little too laid back for my own good. I assumed that other people wouldn't want to take advantage of me, because I would never want to harm them, and I based my view of others on my view of myself. Well, then I got a glimpse of the real world. After actually being taken advantage of a few times (though never horribly) I realised that it was better to protect myself. I started getting angry when it seemed like someone was going to take advantage of me.

For example, shortly after moving to china my employer sorted out my visa. When we were negotiating before I came here we made some agreements, amoung them I said that I expected them to get me a work visa.
Well, when it came time to do the paperwork they expected me to pay for:
- The hospital bill to get the health check necessary for a visa. (around 1000rmb)
- The visa application and processing fees. (don't remember but something similar I think)

This made me very angry. Because of that anger I refused to pay. This may sound eminently reasonable, but understand that I had very little money, had been unemployed for four months, and didn't have anywhere else to go. Then again, they didn't know that.

When I demonstrated my anger by first talking calmly, but later rather agitatedly, loudly and forcefully, particularly when pointing out that they were not being true to their word, they relented and got the documents sorted out and payed for. I am glad I got angry in that case.

There have been a few more clashes between me and them and in every case anger is the only reason that I fight back. I'm glad that I do as I can tell that they are testing me to see how far I can be pushed, and if I give an inch, they'll take it. (For instance, one of my colleagues wasn't carefully checking if she was being payed for all of her working hours, then one day she found out that she was being underpaid every month.)
The most recent example is when they said that I would have to double my working hours without being payed any more, and that this was in accordance with Chinese labour laws. We went back and forth between them saying "according to your contract and the laws of the country we can do this" (and on and on for about 10 minutes of that) and me interrupting them yelling "I don't care. I won't do it. I have plenty of other options. If you don't back down I'll just leave."

After a while they suggested that this new policy would only apply to the Chinese staff. After much more yelling on my part (and some more subdued arguing one the part of one of the Chinese girls) they said they'd think about it, and we never heard about it again.

On all of those occasions I'm quite glad that I got angry. I think that both I and some of my colleagues are better off because of it. So I don't think that anger is always a bad thing - but I agree that was should try to be rational about it. If you think about something that made you angry and find that it's just ego, or something meaningless, often it is better to just let it pass, but sometimes the opposite will turn out to be the case.

[ChristineR]

I was much angrier before I became an atheist. If God exists, he's a [rule 8] and deserves a lot of anger. The universe has it's low points, but it's still far more wonderful than the self-indulgent doll house I was taught about in Sunday School.

[CapelDodger]

I was much angrier before I became an atheist. If God exists, he's a [rule 8] and deserves a lot of anger. The universe has it's low points, but it's still far more wonderful than the self-indulgent doll house I was taught about in Sunday School.
I did a couple of years in Sunday School, it was easy time, my older brother was there and there were crayons and stories and singing. I realised a lot later that this was more about young parents of two boys getting some quality time together on a Sunday morning than it was about religion. The church was literally next door; our flat was one floor of the old rectory. When we traded up to a house with solid internal walls a bus-ride away, no more need for Sunday School. We was brought up proper anyway.

I remember preferring the OT stories to the Jesus stuff. Gideon was a particular favourite of mine. Robin Hood another, at the same time. All that stuff about "the greatest story ever told", utter nonsense, what about Jason, or the Odyssey? Sinbad? Gimme a break, the New Testament is one long yawn as a story. However it's cut and released - without ever, I gather, the director's express premission.

[thaiboxerken]

I maintain a bit of anger towards Xtianity because here, in the USA, those *(&! keep trying to make the USA a theocracy.

[CapelDodger]

I just typed half of a long response to this and it was lost to the void, but here goes again.

I agree with much of what you're saying - anger can often lead to negative consequences. Sure. On the other hand it can lead us to do things that are good for us too.
I hope your post, which is excellent, proves cathartic. If you're going to find an understanding ear it's here, and I'm one. As a self-confessed freelance, established people will try to shaft you, assuming that you're vulnerable because you're freelance. A situation that terrifies them, sad bastards, but not us. We're freelance because we have something to sell, they try to screw us because they haven't and want to give their lives some meaning. Stand your ground and their employers will put them in their place. They need you, with your skills, far more than they do some back-office jerk-off trying to score brownie-points.

So we have to live off grass and bark for the odd month or two here and there, are we disheartened? We are not. We will not be put upon.

[joobz]

I maintain a bit of anger towards Xtianity because here, in the USA, those *(&! keep trying to make the USA a theocracy.
Not all of them. But unfortunately, the vocal minority is quite unbearable.
Faith-based initiatives? What's with that?!?!?

[thaiboxerken]

I'd say a majority of them, based on the anti-homosexual marriage laws that have been approved by vote.

[joobz]

I'd say a majority of them, based on the anti-homosexual marriage laws that have been approved by vote.
In this instance, I can't deny it.

However, I would say that many voted in that way are confused on the issue. The rather few that I talked to who feel this way think that the law is to "force churches" to marry gays. It's the fact that most in america are confused that there is a difference between a civil service and a religious one.

[thaiboxerken]

They voted, and they are confused. I blame their churches and religious idealogy for that confusion.

[joobz]

They voted, and they are confused. I blame their churches and religious idealogy for that confusion.
Good place to start. I place the blame at the ones who abuse people's faith to assert a political agenda. I'm just happy that the last election cycle wasn't as terrible as the last couple.

[Roboramma]

Thanks CapelDodger, and you're right. :)