What was it like being an atheist?

[Angrboda]

Ignoring this last little altercation and getting back to the OP a little, it occurs to me that the questions suggest that, to the poster, Germans, atheism implies more than simply "lack of belief." I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that the claim that the trope that a person who was "a True Atheist[tm] could never become a True Theist[tm]" is the mirror image of its reverse (True Theist[tm] or True Christian[tm] --> True Atheist[tm]), because I doubt they are. But if atheism is 'merely' lack of belief, then why would it be difficult to believe that somebody could start to believe something they didn't believe before, if it is only lack of belief? It appears to me, imho, that to suggest that a True Atheist[tm] would in some way be incapable of having been a True Atheist[tm], that there is the implication that a person who holds the values or attitudes of an atheist could never become a theist (ignoring the crass accusations of simple dishonesty for the moment). What would these 'things' that would prevent a person from becoming a True Theist[tm] be if atheism is mere "lack of belief" ? It suggests that Germans himself may be lying if he insists, which I think he has, that atheism "is nothing more than" lack of belief to him.

Anyway, I was going to attempt to answer the OP's questions in addition to this point, but I suddenly feel a lack of motivation toward doing so. Maybe I will at a later time.

[Something completely different]

I didnt even notice that something took off in this thread.

@apophenia

No, I do not believe that atheism requires more than a lack of belief. In fact it is the only thing one needs to have in order to be an atheist. I opened this thread mainly out of frustration over the various theists who claim (dishonestly) to have been atheist in an attempt to make an idiotic argument on the basis of having "expirience". The questions I posted were not thought through, they were simply writen by me in an attempt to deface those who claim to have "been atheist".

[fr0d0]

I was going to attempt to answer the OP's questions in addition to this point, but I suddenly feel a lack of motivation toward doing so.

What, AGAIN!!?

*spits dummy*

---

The questions I posted were an attempt to deface those who claim to have "been atheist".

Everyone had to be an atheist at some point. But I know what you mean.

[Angrboda]

No, I do not believe that atheism requires more than a lack of belief. In fact it is the only thing one needs to have in order to be an atheist. I opened this thread mainly out of frustration over the various theists who claim (dishonestly) to have been atheist in an attempt to make an idiotic argument on the basis of having "expirience". The questions I posted were not thought through, they were simply writen by me in an attempt to deface those who claim to have "been atheist".

The question remains, German. What would lead you to suspect that they are dishonest in this?

[Something completely different]

The question remains, German. What would lead you to suspect that they are dishonest in this?

Post such such as those which jstrodel made in this thread as I had just read.

Things that go down the line of "I use to be an atheist aswell" and continue with a "everything was miserable/because I hated god/ because I hated life/ because I wanted to be cool/ because I wanted to be impressive/ because it was fashinable" and "...."

Such statements are hard to believe and I do not think that their writers are sincere in any way.

[Angrboda]

The question remains, German. What would lead you to suspect that they are dishonest in this?

Post such such as those which jstrodel made in this thread as I had just read.

Things that go down the line of "I use to be an atheist aswell" and continue with a "everything was miserable/because I hated god/ because I hated life/ because I wanted to be cool/ because I wanted to be impressive/ because it was fashinable" and "...."

Such statements are hard to believe and I do not think that their writers are sincere in any way.

And I might aswell bet, that not single damn theist will convince anyone on this forum: that they use to be atheist.

Then I guess my question becomes, do you, Germans, think I am lying when I tell you that I was once an atheist?

Are you not convinced of my prior atheism solely on my testimony that I was once an atheist?

What would it take to convince you that I was in fact once an atheist?

Is there anything at all that I could say which would convince you?

[Something completely different]

Then I guess my question becomes, do you, Germans, think I am lying when I tell you that I was once an atheist?

Are you not convinced of my prior atheism solely on my testimony that I was once an atheist?

What would it take to convince you that I was in fact once an atheist?

Is there anything at all that I could say which would convince you?

No. I would believe you.

The reason why I dont and didnt believe others was because of the nature in which they described their "atheism". By using it as a method to level themselves up as someone who has "more expirence", or by slandering it as a horrible expirience or phase "which some people have to go through".

You never claimed to be an atheist previously (to my notion) and even if you would, I wouldnt care aslong as you wouldnt do it in a dishonest way.

[Esquilax]

What would it take to convince you that I was in fact once an atheist?

Is there anything at all that I could say which would convince you?

Oh, I dunno, I think it's pretty easy to tell who's bullshitting and who isn't in this case: the ones who claim they were previously atheists and then proceed to mention as many atheist strawmen as possible as the reasons they gained faith are probably lying, because those "I'm mad at god/I'm an atheist to be cool" canards are demonstrably wrong, or at least so far out of the lived experiences of real atheists as to be laughable. Generally speaking, if your reasons for turning to any kind of god are the best of playlist of anti-atheist propaganda, it's pretty easy to doubt. Hence why I simply don't believe strodel when he says he used to be a non-believer; if he's not being outright dishonest then he's at least misinterpreting other things that were wrong in his life as atheistic problems because that fits in with the narrative he's comfortable with.

On the other hand there are those, like you as far as I can tell, Apophenia, who don't resort to stereotypes or passive aggression in their reasoning.

Really, it's like telling the difference between a cartoon character and a real person.

[Tonus]

Oh, I dunno, I think it's pretty easy to tell who's bullshitting and who isn't in this case:

I don't really see where it matters. Knowing a person's background may be interesting and it may give some insight into their current view of things, but in the end the important thing is whether their arguments hold water or not. Which is why it gets boring when people substitute "you're saying that because you're blah blah" instead of attempting to advance a point. Way too much of that tends to go on in discussions, and the discussion itself gets lost.

It's not relevant why person_A is an atheist and why person_B is a theist, and trying to tell them why they believe what they believe is a waste of time and words that could've been used to advance an argument.

[Creed of Heresy]

I think the whole claim that it's cool to be an atheist comes from the public perception of the stereotypical atheist; rebellious, aloof, intelligent, soft-spoken but with razor wit. It's equal parts begrudging respect and mis-characterization on their parts. Theists have always been so self-satisfied with the accomplishments of religious individuals, and they've always wanted to claim that having a set of religious beliefs makes you morally superior and more likely to be successful. Except, there's so very many famously accomplished atheists in modern history, a period of humanity where culturally we're advancing again after the dark ages that Christianity extended centuries past the necessary point. In other words, where they failed, we've succeeded. So they think everyone ELSE wants to be an atheist just because it's cool. Except the thing is that atheists are still hated. 50% of the USA thinks that muslims, minorities, and jews are more in line with their idea of a perfect America than atheists are. Nobody becomes an atheist to become cool. That's like letting someone shit on your face in order to become respected.

Hence, Fr0d0, I scoff at you when you say you were filled with hatred and anger, pretending like you still aren't. You're the same little ball of anger you've always been and that's not going to change. Your faith has done nothing to change you, although you clearly think you have. Except in very recent memory I've seen several posts where you've gone on outright vitriolic bile-filled spewings of hatred against people on this forum without any fucking provocation. So tell me...if you're still the same person, what's actually changed? What's actually improved, save for some self-delusion you had to convince yourself of because you lacked the maturity to be able to open the view, thus pulling the shades down?

You can pat yourself on your head for your self-perceived success, just like Jstrodel does, apparently. Just look closely at this hopelessly idiotic fellow, and realize how much you have in common...

Enjoy that horrible wave of nausea.