Former Atheists

[JustBusiness17]

It's rather obvious just from reading a discussion between intellectual atheists that there is a lot of debate surrounding the definition of atheism. The definition seems to become a lot more blurred when the discussion leaves atheist circles and enters the discourse among theists. I can tell you from personal anecdotal evidence that all of the supposed "atheism to theism converts" that I've ever encountered, the definition is entirely flawed, although they fully stand by their claim. This made me wonder...

I have a hypothesis:

I propose that a significant percentage of people who claim to be former atheists are making their claim based on the specific definition of what they now believe to be god. What I mean by that is that the majority of people claiming conversion from atheism only considered themselves atheists because they never believed in the specific god that they now believe in. Just so I'm perfectly clear, an atheist to islam convert was only an atheist in respect to Allah because they hadn't yet learned about the thing that has now taken a central position in their world view.

So, when a theist says they used to be an atheist, are they really just saying they didn't believe in their religion before joining their religion? Was their "atheism" simply non-belief in the god that they currently hold on a pedestal?

===========================================================================

EDIT: Just because I know I didn't explain it very well :arrow:

So with those specifics, you're suggesting that when Kirk Cameron says he used to be an atheist, what he's really saying is, "I used to not be Christian?"

Precisely! I didn't know how to say it in a single line, so thank you

 

[butterbattle]

Are you simply saying that theists who consider themselves former atheists were ignorant about the issues? That would be true in many cases, but not all.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Are you simply saying that theists who consider themselves former atheists were ignorant about the issues? That would be true in many cases, but not all.

Not knowing more about what you're proposing, I'm leaning towards no...

 

[DepricatedZero]

They may be guilty of a No True Scotsman, actually.

I think a large number of them were always religious and always believed absently, but because of whatever factors they weren't practicing Christians. They were likely raised in a family which professed to be Christian, went to Church on Easter, said grace for Thanksgiving, and celebrated Christmas. They were your "typical" Christian. However, after becoming fundamental or fanatic, they begin seeing these "Christian-lite" believers as infidels and atheists because they don't truly believe. It's a No True Scotsman, because any true Christian would act the way they are while what they were before wasn't a True Christian - therefore it was clearly atheist.

 

[RichardMNixon]

My understanding of the OP was that if we define atheism not as a belief in no gods, but as a "not belief" in "yes gods," is it really possible to "leave." Can you stop not believing something - is that distinct from starting to believe.

The other problem here is "I used to be an atheist," is a favorite claim of evangelicals like Kirk Cameron, so it's hard to even believe they're telling the truth sometimes. I think a lot of evangelicals also think "I used to do a lot of drugs and didn't care about my life at all," and "I used to be an atheist" are the same statement.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Kirk Cameron's nonsense makes me wonder sometimes... do evangelicals simply define "atheist" as "someone who never thought about religion before"? It would explain why they say that they are former atheists, why they are so easily swayed by bad arguments, and why they seem to believe those bad arguments should work on us.

 

[Divergedwoods]

The problem here is the difference in world views. Atheists usually consider the non-belief in god as the beginning point in our minds and view theism on religion as a plus to those non-believing basis; while theists think of faith and religion as a natural and inherent part in their minds, and view atheism as a negation of that theological conscience (not as not having faith, but as a total negation of the inherent faith)

 

[Anachronous Rex]

They may be guilty of a No True Scotsman, actually.

I think a large number of them were always religious and always believed absently, but because of whatever factors they weren't practicing Christians. They were likely raised in a family which professed to be Christian, went to Church on Easter, said grace for Thanksgiving, and celebrated Christmas. They were your "typical" Christian. However, after becoming fundamental or fanatic, they begin seeing these "Christian-lite" believers as infidels and atheists because they don't truly believe. It's a No True Scotsman, because any true Christian would act the way they are while what they were before wasn't a True Christian - therefore it was clearly atheist.

This.

Though I would say in their defense that it might not always be fallacious. Someone who did not believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins might, while culturally Christian, not qualify as a member of the faith proper. Alternatively, someone who is entirely apathetic to the religious enterprise might legitimately not qualify either.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is hard to apply accurately when it comes to such complex and nondescript ideologies. What does 'Christian' even mean?

Is Theowarner a Christian? He says he is... many Christians would say he's not. This might be the No True Scotsman fallacy, but what about Cathari? Most Christians say they're not, and I agree, but they seemed to think they were. How about Manicheans?

 

[JustBusiness17]

My understanding of the OP was that if we define atheism not as a belief in no gods, but as a "not belief" in "yes gods," is it really possible to "leave."

Ummm.... Not really.... more like the difference between belief in a very specific god specific to a certain religion who must be worshipped in a rather specific fashion versus non-belief in that particulart god although god belief is still quite viable since the atheism they claim is entirely specific to the god of their new-beliefs.

 

[lrkun]

Was their "atheism" simply non-belief in the god that they currently hold on a pedestal?

A thinking man will follow reason or the scientific method.
If an atheist is a thinking man. Then he either follows reason or the scientific method.
Such thinking man will know the existence of God if their is reasonable proof, it's no longer belief.

A thinking man will change his mind, if he finds reasonable proof for the existence of a deity or something similar. Even I would change my mind if there is reasonable proof as regards to the existence of something higher than man.

Liken it to the scientific way of doing things, if something better, more accurate, and is in accordance with the generally accepted and specific theories, such new theory will revise, change, replace, or be an addition to the old ones.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Was their "atheism" simply non-belief in the god that they currently hold on a pedestal?

A thinking man will follow reason or the scientific method.
If an atheist is a thinking man. Then he either follows reason or the scientific method.
Such thinking man will know the existence of God if their is reasonable proof, it's no longer belief.

A thinking man will change his mind, if he finds reasonable proof for the existence of a deity or something similar. Even I would change my mind if there is reasonable proof as regards to the existence of something higher than man.

Liken it to the scientific way of doing things, if something better, more accurate, and is in accordance with the generally accepted and specific theories, such new theory will revise, change, replace, or be an addition to the old ones.

:| This isn't the pulpit, dude...

 

[lrkun]

:| This isn't the pulpit, dude...

Never said it was, pilgrim.

 

[monitoradiation]

They may be guilty of a No True Scotsman, actually.

I think a large number of them were always religious and always believed absently, but because of whatever factors they weren't practicing Christians. They were likely raised in a family which professed to be Christian, went to Church on Easter, said grace for Thanksgiving, and celebrated Christmas. They were your "typical" Christian. However, after becoming fundamental or fanatic, they begin seeing these "Christian-lite" believers as infidels and atheists because they don't truly believe. It's a No True Scotsman, because any true Christian would act the way they are while what they were before wasn't a True Christian - therefore it was clearly atheist.

This.

I find that the only reason to ever bring up "I was a former-atheist" or "I was a former christian" in any kind of debate is mentally similar to being condescendingly dismissive of the other side. They're basically saying two things:

"I've heard everything you will say"
"I know better now"

I largely ignore christians who proclaim that their former atheism is somehow an advantage towards their beliefs. Just as I give no more merit to a deconverted atheist who would hold the same in reverse for their disbelief.

I couldn't care less what their former stance is - I'm not talking to a person from the past. I'm talking to a person here, and now. And what interests me is what their views are NOW. If they'd like to pull past examples, fine.

Though, I find that when this sentence comes up, I immediately ask "well since you've been in the other position, what would it take to change your mind back?" If the answer is nothing, then I know not to waste too much time.

 

[RichardMNixon]

My understanding of the OP was that if we define atheism not as a belief in no gods, but as a "not belief" in "yes gods," is it really possible to "leave."

Ummm.... Not really.... more like the difference between belief in a very specific god specific to a certain religion who must be worshipped in a rather specific fashion versus non-belief in that particulart god although god belief is still quite viable since the atheism they claim is entirely specific to the god of their new-beliefs.

So with those specifics, you're suggesting that when Kirk Cameron says he used to be an atheist, what he's really saying is, "I used to not be Christian?"

 

[JustBusiness17]

Ummm.... Not really.... more like the difference between belief in a very specific god specific to a certain religion who must be worshipped in a rather specific fashion versus non-belief in that particulart god although god belief is still quite viable since the atheism they claim is entirely specific to the god of their new-beliefs.

So with those specifics, you're suggesting that when Kirk Cameron says he used to be an atheist, what he's really saying is, "I used to not be Christian?"

Precisely! I didn't know how to say it in a single line, so thank you

 

[borrofburi]

Ummm.... Not really.... more like the difference between belief in a very specific god specific to a certain religion who must be worshipped in a rather specific fashion versus non-belief in that particulart god although god belief is still quite viable since the atheism they claim is entirely specific to the god of their new-beliefs.

So with those specifics, you're suggesting that when Kirk Cameron says he used to be an atheist, what he's really saying is, "I used to not be Christian?"

Mmm, more like "I used to not be a True Christianâ„¢"

 

[Nyar]

I once had a chat with a guy on youtube who claimed to be a former atheist. When asking about what was being atheist like for him he told me he used to hate god for X reasons. So he actually never was an atheist, he believed in god but hated it.

 

[Bearcules]

Has anyone here heard of Dr. Rick Oliver?

He apparently got a degree in Evolutionary Biology and then became a christian or some such nonsense. My parents tried to drag me to a talk he gave at their church but I declined. He apparently has the same tired road to Damascus former atheist conversion story, but having skipped the talk I cannot say for sure exactly what his story is.

Edit: fixed a typo.

 

[Nautyskin]

Re: Former Atheists

"This used to be me"

 

[Nautyskin]

Has anyone here heard of Dr. Rick Oliver?

At around 02:10 you can see the baby theist starting to play the "I know it's fact" game.

Awww. Isn't that cute?


No. It's fucking disgusting.