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.
I know of atheists who have 'become believers'.
I don't know how long it lasted though. I was once drawn into this 'Christian' thing.
I very quickly saw through it and withdrew. One of my more embarrassing moments.
I went to a 'church' and the 'pastor' gave a dramatic and passionate spiel and called on people to come up and I was drawn in. Right there the fraud began to show when he basically accused me of using drugs - which I did not. I thought "wait a minute, this guy is speaking with the power of God and gets me wrong?" It wasn't long and I was gone.
Jesus was a great man, I see no reason to be embarrassed to have wanted to 'follow him' in some way, personally.
It is funny how one person can sour others about Christianity or even God.
I appreciate your post, tho. Thank you.
Rem the story of Mahatma Gandhi...after reading the Bible in jail...goes to a Christian church
and is asked to leave because of how he was dressed?
Then said,
If this is Christianity, I want nothing to do with it...paraphrase.
Presbyterian, btw....
My sis left a religious group because of one thing one person said to her....she didn't reject God,
tho, just sayin'.
I have no religion, and can't imagine ever finding any use for it for myself, again. But, I'm not anti-religion for anyone else. I think any flavor of fundamentalism, religious or otherwise, can be quite a treacherous beast, but I don't know if fighting against it does much good.
Fine. Neither are we anti religion - at least not an an individual belief basis. We ARE anti -religious influence on society, and that is the agenda. True, Fundamentalism is the bete noire of the eminence grize, (and Christian fundamentalism has some pretty greasy eminences, for sure) but the wagging of the body politic by the tail of the religious dog of any stipe or spot is what has to go.
Fighting against it may not succeed. But the results are encouraging so far. It has to be done, anyway and has to come sooner or later. This has to come, if humanity lasts.
I just took my pad out and I am pulling the red crayon to write your name down this time. This makes 2 marks again you, you don't wanna see Hannibal after a third. You will be as scared of me if I was a big black bear.
or maybe, if you are just out of your mind at times...I'm so sorry
However, such irrelevance gives me a spare post and I was wondering where to put this snippit of wisdom from a clear -seeing mind, untrammelled by hampering orthodoxy, unobscured by stringent academicism, free of restricting qualifying certification, in fact, dead ignorant.
It is sometimes said that a little learning is a dangerous thing. i can see a germ of truth in that, but in fact it is the mickle of unlearning that is the danger. No what is the danger is a Little Faith.
Some reporter added this to an article about the possible Jesus house under modern nazaeth (or something of that kind) where the evidence wasn't to compelling "You just have to have a little faith".
While I won't dwell on the throwaway remark by a reporter who doesn't care what damage he does so long as he rounds off an article nicely, it made me thinnk about the pernicious mix of inadequate evidence with a bit of Faith.
In a way. those who regard the practice of adulterating pure faith with a bit of evidence as coming close to rendering the faith Void (indeed while faith without any supporting evidence is considered the best Kind, faith maintained in spite of compelling evidence against pretty much guarantees you a top spot at God's dinner table) have, like those who maintain that the bible is true, literally, and totally, a sort of whacky integrity that impresses, more by sheer internal strength than by any credibility, like the Pure Faith sect.
While the believers who give up the untenable stuff to Hold the Line...well, one can communicate with them, but they can be harder to break or pin down (1). And that the danger or problem with the mix of information (if noit fact) and a little faith. The danger is that you have inadequate or in fact inaccurate information if not to say dead wrong, misrepresented ort a downright lie and all you need to make it work is a bit of faith.
Now, while one may see some point in selling this to those who already have the faith - to stop them doubting, one suspects that the real danger is a very appalling one. One that I hope and trust hadn't even occurred to the reporter as he slapped a kneejerk cliche to round off to his article, is that it it is bamboozling people into religion with inadequate information, presented and compellingly as possible (2) and ignoring the counters, and then appealing to a top up of Faith to wash away the doubts.
Wash indeed. It is the old appeal to brainwash one's self into Faith. Just done a different way. A little information is ok - you can always reserve belief and research more, but add a little faith - you are screwed.
(1) I suggest crucifixion nails for the latter and a crucifragum for the former.
(2) while discussing the Nazareth house with Pneuma, the over enthusiasm of the person who found it whose 'This could be the actual house that Jesus lived in' while not disprovable was at best over -enthusiastic and at worst was misleadingly ignoring the point that the site of the house, dug into a hill, suggests a single farm of one family rather than the town house of a carpenter.
or maybe, if you are just out of your mind at times...I'm so sorry
However, such irrelevance gives me a spare post and I was wondering where to put this snippit of wisdom from a clear -seeing mind, untrammelled by hampering orthodoxy, unobscured by stringent academicism, free of restricting qualifying certification, in fact, dead ignorant.
It is sometimes said that a little learning is a dangerous thing. i can see a germ of truth in that, but in fact it is the mickle of unlearning that is the danger. No what is the danger is a Little Faith.
Some reporter added this to an article about the possible Jesus house under modern nazaeth (or something of that kind) where the evidence wasn't to compelling "You just have to have a little faith".
While I won't dwell on the throwaway remark by a reporter who doesn't care what damage he does so long as he rounds off an article nicely, it made me thinnk about the pernicious mix of inadequate evidence with a bit of Faith.
In a way. those who regard the practice of adulterating pure faith with a bit of evidence as coming close to rendering the faith Void (indeed while faith without any supporting evidence is considered the best Kind, faith maintained in spite of compelling evidence against pretty much guarantees you a top spot at God's dinner table) have, like those who maintain that the bible is true, literally, and totally, a sort of whacky integrity that impresses, more by sheer internal strength than by any credibility, like the Pure Faith sect.
While the believers who give up the untenable stuff to Hold the Line...well, one can communicate with them, but they can be harder to break or pin down (1). And that the danger or problem with the mix of information (if noit fact) and a little faith. The danger is that you have inadequate or in fact inaccurate information if not to say dead wrong, misrepresented ort a downright lie and all you need to make it work is a bit of faith.
Now, while one may see some point in selling this to those who already have the faith - to stop them doubting, one suspects that the real danger is a very appalling one. One that I hope and trust hadn't even occurred to the reporter as he slapped a kneejerk cliche to round off to his article, is that it it is bamboozling people into religion with inadequate information, presented and compellingly as possible (2) and ignoring the counters, and then appealing to a top up of Faith to wash away the doubts.
Wash indeed. It is the old appeal to brainwash one's self into Faith. Just done a different way. A little information is ok - you can always reserve belief and research more, but add a little faith - you are screwed.
(1) I suggest crucifixion nails for the latter and a crucifragum for the former.
(2) while discussing the Nazareth house with Pneuma, the over enthusiasm of the person who found it whose 'This could be the actual house that Jesus lived in' while not disprovable was at best over -enthusiastic and at worst was misleadingly ignoring the point that the site of the house, dug into a hill, suggests a single farm of one family rather than the town house of a carpenter.
Yeah, that sums up a lot of people, when they become even more proud of themselves when something becomes more unbelievable.
Like standing in a museum looking at a T-Rex.
Like walking outside at night and looking up with a person who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old, He MUST tell you that the stars are not there lol.
That takes great faith, the dino aint there and neither are the stars.
I'm sorry but I have a very hard time believing anyone who says that they were once an atheist are now are no longer an atheist. I just don't believe they were ever really an atheist.
Contrary to what many people may think, arriving at the realisation that you absolutely do not believe in god is no easy thing. You are going against what society expects and what most other people believe. Also you are letting go of any shred of element of doubt that you may have had. As far as I'm concerned, if you harbour any inkling that there may be a god, however small, you're not really an atheist. I've had this discussion many times on the atheist forum.
When you come to the realisation that you don't believe in god absolutely, it is a truly liberating thing. You realise that your life is what you make it yourself and you set your own purpose. When horrible things happen like a death or illness, you realise that nobody is being punished or tested, it's just life. And when good things happen they are to be cherished and marvelled at. You also get to see the full wonder and marvel of the universe that took billions of years to grow and develop. The whole universe becomes this beautiful, wondrous, natural web of cells and stars and gas and matter of infinite complexity. And you get to see the earth and everything on it being here only being possible due to a long series of chance encounters in space and time, which is a far more powerful and wondrous concept to me than the alternative that it was 'created'.
I would not want to swap any of that with this over simplified idea that 'god did it' and bring with that all of the baggage these gods bring with them.
This...^^^^
The posts are just more Lee Strobel type... 'I used to be a heathen atheist like you... until I found Jesus' tripe. Just like ...'I used to be atheist until I found Ganesh', 'I used to be Muslim until I found Buddha' or 'I used to be Christian before I became atheist, it proves nothing other than that people change their minds about what they believe.
The posts are just more Lee Strobel type... 'I used to be a heathen atheist like you... until I found Jesus' tripe. Just like ...'I used to be atheist until I found Ganesh', 'I used to be Muslim until I found Buddha' or 'I used to be Christian before I became atheist, it proves nothing other than that people change their minds about what they believe.
Ah..she's right..they were never Real atheists..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
Yeah, that sums up a lot of people, when they become even more proud of themselves when something becomes more unbelievable.
Like standing in a museum looking at a T-Rex.
Like walking outside at night and looking up with a person who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old, He MUST tell you that the stars are not there lol.
That takes great faith, the dino aint there and neither are the stars.
There you are folks...pick the bones out of that...
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-20-2017 at 01:20 PM..
Reason: 2nd thots.
I'm sorry but I have a very hard time believing anyone who says that they were once an atheist are now are no longer an atheist. I just don't believe they were ever really an atheist.
I am loathe to go down that road because of its at least superficial resemblance to the theist Standard Practice of claiming that believers who became atheists were Never One Of Us to begin with. I was about as involved and accepted a fundamentalist Christian as anyone can claim to be, including formal training at Bible Institute, for over three decades of my life. People who actually knew me back in the day, who find out I'm an unbeliever now, would act confused and say it's just a misunderstanding or a phase; people who didn't know me, are quite certain I must have been a counterfeit Christian, despite that my level of involvement and dedication were generally far beyond those making said judgment. If I really gave a fig what they think, I'd be infuriated. I just don't care enough at this point, a quarter-century on, to be offended.
I would just leave it this way: people who waffle on such an important topic in either direction are confused, incurious, ignorant, or some combination of the three. Either you see good reason to believe, and can articulate a cogent defense of that reason (something that scripture, by the way, actually commands you to be able to do) or you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
Contrary to what many people may think, arriving at the realisation that you absolutely do not believe in god is no easy thing.
Indeed it is not. Particularly not in a society where theism is dominant (essentially, all of them).
But you are talking about deconverts. Not all atheists are deconverts. Some have better than average BS filters and rejected theism before it could take hold. Some just grew up in irreligious families, and managed, through incuriosity, to remain fairly ignorant of the dominant religious beliefs, or perhaps just had no particular reason to be attracted to them. Then at some point they developed an attraction. Perhaps they experienced some kind of comeuppance or tragedy that made them vulnerable to evangelical value-propositions.
In retrospect they can say technically that they were atheists, but what they were is a particular sort of atheist, a fairly unusual variety that is closer to what most theists seem to want to THINK most atheists are like: either wholly ignorant of the good news or resistant to it on a poorly thought-out basis such as a desire to be some sort of libertine and not to have their style cramped by silly rules.
Then there is the problem that fundamentalism loves nothing more than a dramatic salvation narrative, their version of a Horatio Alger, rags-to-riches inspirational story -- only it consists of "god-hating heathen sees the light". So one is encouraged to think of their former life as highly oppositional to god and their conversion as maximally transformative. It gets you lots of positive attention and acclamation and the Christian version of "street creds" as well as a certain amount of respect. If you were a drug addict or street thug in your former life, that works in your favor, too, particularly if you now look good in a suit and tie and have a traditional family arrangement and blend in well.
Conversion is supposed to be transformative; the sheeple are HUNGRY for such narratives.
I have usually called myself an apathetic agnostic rather than an atheist. I did not grow up in church, though my father (himself a lifelong atheist) introduced me to the KJV at a young age as a source of wisdom and beauty and I have always found it to be so.
I have, in my years, done some spiritual questing and studying sctriptures and belief systems of various cultures. My basic takeaway has been:
1. There is more to existence than us or what we perceive through our senses, but we don't really "know" what that is, exactly.
2. Religions and their holy texts are largely a way to take something infinite and mysterious beyond our understanding and ascribe limits to it in order to make in more comprehensible and digestible to the human mind and heart. To convey the divine through stories. (Think of Jesus teaching through his parables.)
I can say that, for whatever reason, this infinite...thing, or state, or being, is beginning to take form for me. I've begun to feel the flow of it. Not separate from me. Not separate from us.
I do not pretend to have any answers. I do not know if there is a reason or purpose, but I'm coming to believe there may be. Certainly I have come to realize that, to me, this material world of three dimensions is a temporary state of being. That our consciousness, or soul, if you will, has no beginning or end.
This has all led me to cast my eyes beyond where I ever set them before. It's led me to think at least my "purpose" is to love and be joyful, and to spread love and joy. To keep darkness away. Even physicists now say our perception of objective reality is illusory and a product of our consciousness.
What would we perceive, without light to see it by? Did something turn the light on with a purpose?
The thing that is important for me to say here is that I spent years on this forum arguing religion (politics as well on that forum) and I am ashamed to say I could often be ugly and unkind.
I still do not like it when people rationalize bigotry or hatred with their religious beliefs (i e. "God says homosexuals are an abomination and that women should be subjugated" and so on.)
But people who hold those beliefs, it is for them to work through them. It is not for me to try to bash it out of them.
What I'd like to do is apologize, and ask forgiveness. I want to say I'm sorry to anyone I've ever hurt here with ugly words, and for my having been small and intolerant. Likewise, I forgive every hurt done to me, here and anywhere else.
I want to walk in peace and light and love. I truly feel this is not all coming from me, but also to me, and through me, from a greater source. Call it what you will.
And I owe a very special thanks to a very special person--a person I actually met on this forum--for helping me open my eyes to this Way, and for holding my hand through my baby steps.
Bless you, All. May All have happiness in their hearts and peace in their minds. Go love one another.
What do you think is another option other than having a belief in a God(s) and not having belief in a God(s)?
I'm not sure what you mean by knowing what is truly going on or why holding a belief is more practical.
Great question. It about assigning the proper traits to the system we are in. A thing going "poof there it is" is not real. But being in a living system (like the biosphere) is real. Being part of the biosphere may give a person the sense that they are part of a much larger something 'alive'. so they are correct, they are surrounded by, and are part of, that life. That life is not a god.
That's what I mean by "god" and "no god" can't be a true dichotomy because we just don't know enough." By definition yeah, no god or god. But that definition is based off of what? Secondly, does the definition incorporate the science of how the universe works?
The universe works the way it works independent of our belief in god. We are just trying to out figure how the universe is working. I am an atheist so when I am learning about the universe and describing how it works based on observations, a statement of belief about "con't be god" never enters my head. I only lack belief.
Second part. what about holding a belief statement over a knowledge claim as more practical?
This addresses people that hold statements of beliefs as base axioms to form a line of logic.
Example of belief over lnkowedg.
1) "I believe god in the bible is literally true." vs "I believe it takes a long time for animal dying to being a fossil."
one is a base axiom using a statement of belief and one is using a knowledge claim as a base axiom (how rocks form),
2) "I believe religion is so dangerous that I am justified in doing anything to stop it." vs " I believe that all life on planet earth is connected to the life around it."
One is a base axiom using a statement of belief and one is a base axiom using a knowledge claim.
Pick on in describing "how the universe works". The second part of the second example is what I claim. I was told directly by mordant not to talk about the second part of the second example because theists can use it and it makes our job harder to convince people of atheism. that is what I mean by practical over knowledge.
so ask yourself.
are you primarily interested in describing how the universe works or are you primarily interested in selling atheism's statements of belief? or, are you so against religion you would hide, ignore (shun), dehumanize knowledge claims that challenge a statement of belief?
Last edited by Arach Angle; 08-21-2017 at 04:03 AM..
I am loathe to go down that road because of its at least superficial resemblance to the theist Standard Practice of claiming that believers who became atheists were Never One Of Us to begin with. I was about as involved and accepted a fundamentalist Christian as anyone can claim to be, including formal training at Bible Institute, for over three decades of my life. People who actually knew me back in the day, who find out I'm an unbeliever now, would act confused and say it's just a misunderstanding or a phase; people who didn't know me, are quite certain I must have been a counterfeit Christian, despite that my level of involvement and dedication were generally far beyond those making said judgment. If I really gave a fig what they think, I'd be infuriated. I just don't care enough at this point, a quarter-century on, to be offended.
I would just leave it this way: people who waffle on such an important topic in either direction are confused, incurious, ignorant, or some combination of the three. Either you see good reason to believe, and can articulate a cogent defense of that reason (something that scripture, by the way, actually commands you to be able to do) or you don't.
Indeed it is not. Particularly not in a society where theism is dominant (essentially, all of them).
But you are talking about deconverts. Not all atheists are deconverts. Some have better than average BS filters and rejected theism before it could take hold. Some just grew up in irreligious families, and managed, through incuriosity, to remain fairly ignorant of the dominant religious beliefs, or perhaps just had no particular reason to be attracted to them. Then at some point they developed an attraction. Perhaps they experienced some kind of comeuppance or tragedy that made them vulnerable to evangelical value-propositions.
In retrospect they can say technically that they were atheists, but what they were is a particular sort of atheist, a fairly unusual variety that is closer to what most theists seem to want to THINK most atheists are like: either wholly ignorant of the good news or resistant to it on a poorly thought-out basis such as a desire to be some sort of libertine and not to have their style cramped by silly rules.
Then there is the problem that fundamentalism loves nothing more than a dramatic salvation narrative, their version of a Horatio Alger, rags-to-riches inspirational story -- only it consists of "god-hating heathen sees the light". So one is encouraged to think of their former life as highly oppositional to god and their conversion as maximally transformative. It gets you lots of positive attention and acclamation and the Christian version of "street creds" as well as a certain amount of respect. If you were a drug addict or street thug in your former life, that works in your favor, too, particularly if you now look good in a suit and tie and have a traditional family arrangement and blend in well.
Conversion is supposed to be transformative; the sheeple are HUNGRY for such narratives.
Fundamentalist-think thinks that itself has the one true line of logic. You can put "god" and no-god" in that line of logic and the fundy will use it as the only truth that we all should have. "The sheep", as you call them, are looking for confidence and certainty. They are less interested in the truth of the belief statement.
your certainty that "religion is so dangerous that you are justified in doing anything you want." isn't any more real than other personal opinions about religions. But your certainty, even when false, draws the sheep.
The exact same way it did before you turned.
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.
a little learning.
or maybe, if you are just out of your mind at times...I'm so sorry 
or pin down (1). And that the danger or problem with the mix of information (if noit fact) and a little faith. The danger is that you have inadequate or in fact inaccurate information if not to say dead wrong, misrepresented ort a downright lie and all you need to make it work is a bit of faith. 
