Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You too please. Do provide an example or two and explain WHY you changed your core belief(s). Thanks!
Keeping it short, I was a Christian (mainstream very conservative denomination) and my beliefs were the foundation of my life. In other words, there was nothing “in name only” about me. I am no longer a Christian. My participation on various discussion forums over a period of about 4 years was what got the wheels turning and eventually showed me the light.
Keeping it short, I was a Christian (mainstream very conservative denomination) and my beliefs were the foundation of my life. In other words, there was nothing “in name only” about me. I am no longer a Christian. My participation on various discussion forums over a period of about 4 years was what got the wheels turning and eventually showed me the light.
And your story is echoed by many others on this forum over the years. Zhatz, mordant, thrill, pcamps and several others whose nicknames escape me at the moment, have talked about "un-fundamentalizing" themselves during adulthood -- often by first lurking, then participating in forums like this.
To argue or defend atheism in terms of what the Nazi party was or was not is to give the comparison legitimacy it does not deserve.
To not argue the position is to allow this lie to fester. It occurred here in Germany in the 1930's regarding the Jews, it is occurring now in Europe regarding Muslims.
Do you really want to see something like this happening with atheists in the US?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
No doubt plenty of people read these forums without comment but evidence anyone changes their core beliefs because of arguments presented in these threads is scarce (or for any other reasons for that matter).
As I said above, even if I change peoples minds on peripheral issues (such as the religious beliefs of Hitler), I am happy. I do not care if a Christian remains a Christian, I do care if they believe atheists are evil because of the lie about the Nazis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
If you have changed your mind about certain core beliefs, I would be interested to know which ones and why you changed your mind. I've had people give me examples in the past that are not really core beliefs, but these exceptions and understanding what caused the change is more interesting to me. Most people essentially believe what they were for the most part born and raised into believing. Do tell your story if you don't mind with maybe an example or two...
No problem. I accepted the idea that Jesus was based on a historical figure for most of my life. I was not convinced by most mythicist arguments, although I saw some of the arguments were valid. But then I reread the NT epistles to see if the texts could be read from a mythicist point of view. It was when I read the Epistle to the Hebrews that it all made sense.
Another example comes from my mothers second husband (how do you say that in English?), who was a Marxist when he was younger. He helped during a strike by people who worked coal. When he saw how some strikers did not help others, he realized socialism would not work.
To argue or defend atheism in terms of what the Nazi party was or was not is to give the comparison legitimacy it does not deserve.
I've never bought that argument when it was used against evolutionists engaging with creationists : "it gave creationism too much legitimacy". It was argued when the Nye - Ham debate was coming up. But I think the results showed that it was needed.
To maintain a snobby silence was what science did when Dainiken's claims broke and they came almost too late to realise that they had better do something. To ignore it or Creationism or comparing atheists to Hitler or Stalin just gives them what they like: a clear field. They would like nothing better than for the Other Side to remain silent, whether out of fear or in a huff, they don't mind.
In fact repeated demonstrations that Hitler was not an atheist have almost eliminated his inclusion in the comparison of atheists with various bloody -handed dictators. That one reading back to the Wiki article (1) was the first I have seen in some time.
It isn't the right option to ignore these claims, especially since we seemed to have rolled the old Hitler one right back.
(1) which disturbingly focusses on the anti -Christian aspects, ignoring that he was fine with Christianity if it followed his orders, and the various element of paganism and any seemingly secularist remarks; and ignoring his protestations of devotion to God and searing denunciations of atheism apart from suggesting that he was lying (a tellingly Theist argument). If it was an article written to revisit the 'Hitler was an atheist'claim, and salted on Wiki, it couldn't have been written any differently. I do hope there is a corrective update to put the matter right.
Keeping it short, I was a Christian (mainstream very conservative denomination) and my beliefs were the foundation of my life. In other words, there was nothing “in name only” about me. I am no longer a Christian. My participation on various discussion forums over a period of about 4 years was what got the wheels turning and eventually showed me the light.
Do you still believe in God? If not still a Christian, what? Please explain what sort of comments or argument caused you to change your belief over these four years. If you are one of the exceptions to the rule, of most interest to me is WHY you changed your core belief(s)...
To not argue the position is to allow this lie to fester. It occurred here in Germany in the 1930's regarding the Jews, it is occurring now in Europe regarding Muslims.
Do you really want to see something like this happening with atheists in the US?
I have little fear or concern about what will happen to atheists in the US, and I hardly believe that battling nitwit arguments about this sort of thing will make a difference to anyone who is a nitwit, but if you or others feel the time is well spent, and if ultimately in the name of separating fact from fiction, I am all for that sort of effort generally speaking. Don't mind me...
No problem. I accepted the idea that Jesus was based on a historical figure for most of my life. I was not convinced by most mythicist arguments, although I saw some of the arguments were valid. But then I reread the NT epistles to see if the texts could be read from a mythicist point of view. It was when I read the Epistle to the Hebrews that it all made sense.
Another example comes from my mothers second husband (how do you say that in English?), who was a Marxist when he was younger. He helped during a strike by people who worked coal. When he saw how some strikers did not help others, he realized socialism would not work.
I had typed up a reply to your comments above and then lost it when my Internet connection failed for some reason...
Not sure I feel like trying as hard again, but I would be interested to know how "it all made sense" when you read the Epistle to the Hebrews. Can you further explain? Again, I'm interested in the WHY (and/or how).
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you had a focus on Jesus early on and this continues to be your focus today. I can’t be sure, but I don’t read you were once a non-believer or follower of another faith and today a believer in something else completely. My experience (and/or theory) is that people may further develop their core belief, in God for example, and this development may take different forms, but ultimately the core belief in God remains, in Jesus for Christians. Again correct me if I am wrong about this in your case. Thanks.
Same with your socialist example. My theory is this person was someone who leaned liberal/left in terms of concern about “the little guy” on balance with the problem of too much wealth massing into the hands of the few. Maybe he came to feel that socialism was not the best way to achieve the goal of a better balance, but his core socio-economic belief and/or leaning about this remains liberal/left-leaning. Do you know? My further assumption is that this once-upon-a-time socialist is not today a right-wing conservative who has all his faith in the free market instead. Again tell me if I am wrong.
This sort of observation is the same as I have noticed with people I know from a young age. Those who leaned liberal/left at a young age, still lean that way today. Those who were conservative/right at a young age, still lean that way today, although there may be some variety or change in terms of how we think our core beliefs can best be achieved. That’s not a real change in our core beliefs that I am referring to in my “Cement Theory.”
I've never bought that argument when it was used against evolutionists engaging with creationists : "it gave creationism too much legitimacy". It was argued when the Nye - Ham debate was coming up. But I think the results showed that it was needed.
To maintain a snobby silence was what science did when Dainiken's claims broke and they came almost too late to realise that they had better do something. To ignore it or Creationism or comparing atheists to Hitler or Stalin just gives them what they like: a clear field. They would like nothing better than for the Other Side to remain silent, whether out of fear or in a huff, they don't mind.
In fact repeated demonstrations that Hitler was not an atheist have almost eliminated his inclusion in the comparison of atheists with various bloody -handed dictators. That one reading back to the Wiki article (1) was the first I have seen in some time.
It isn't the right option to ignore these claims, especially since we seemed to have rolled the old Hitler one right back.
(1) which disturbingly focusses on the anti -Christian aspects, ignoring that he was fine with Christianity if it followed his orders, and the various element of paganism and any seemingly secularist remarks; and ignoring his protestations of devotion to God and searing denunciations of atheism apart from suggesting that he was lying (a tellingly Theist argument). If it was an article written to revisit the 'Hitler was an atheist'claim, and salted on Wiki, it couldn't have been written any differently. I do hope there is a corrective update to put the matter right.
Again, I'm all for the general effort to separate the fact from the nonsense. I did not mean to suggest that a "snobby silence" is most appropriate. Pointing out that an argument is not worthy is not silence...
Take for example this question if you will. Just how many times DO you beat your wife?
Better to dignify the question with an answer or better to call the question what it is without answer?
Again, I'm all for the general effort to separate the fact from the nonsense. I did not mean to suggest that a "snobby silence" is most appropriate. Pointing out that an argument is not worthy is not silence...
Take for example this question if you will. Just how many times DO you beat your wife?
Better to dignify the question with an answer or better to call the question what it is without answer?
AKA bait, the straw man argument.
Unfortunately all people use such in support or against all views, religious or secular. Usually shows either no real knowledge or a desire to keep knowledge from surfacing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
