It is irrelevant.

And theists here dont usualy make those kind of comments.

So someone survived a near fatal operation for no apparent reason? And she explained that by using god?
Try asking her what happens when someone completely healthy just drops dead for no apparent reason. Is that god too?

Well for some deconversion starts long before the actual plunge into the abyss. However, emotional reasons for deconverting is often times the straw or justification. I have a theory that pertains to this that I invented back when I was a theist and it still holds water. Based on observational evidence of seeing various atheists vs theist debates, I have noticed an interesting trait. This trait is that regardless of the argument proposed and how logical or compelling said argument is. Neither side will drop their held belief and they will instead resort to cognitive dissonance. This struck me to make hypothesis, that argument is not driving component to convince someone their held beliefs are wrong. It then sparked a question then what does.

This goes into the main point of the theory, all beliefs are start as a basic need needing met. This need can vary from person to person however it is a need nonetheless. This need often times is driven by a desire, this desire is then justified through a stimuli. This stimuli is either emotional or logical, how this stimuli then gives the desire justification to hold on to for said belief. When this desire fuel by the stimuli it will turn into their world view or whatever stance they hold. This world view then shapes the lenses by which they see the world. This will affect how they view logic and evidence. What would allow them to change their world view? To affect their beliefs you have to have a stimuli equal or greater to the stimuli that caused them to believe their world view in the first place. Now I doubt this cover 100%, but it does explain a little bit how people can believe despite the evidence presented.

(September 5, 2013 at 8:46 pm)ThisGuyAgain67 Wrote: I came out to one of my family members today and as we talked she made the generalization that atheists turn doubt their belief in God when they are exposed to traumatic events and that some others may be just rebelling against their upbringings.

The question that I have is that, as an atheist, do these things have any real effect on what they believe to be true ( That God isn't real) or if these concepts are just irrelevant?

I don't really find a problem in what she said. We, humans, form our opinions, viewpoints and ideologies through our sufferings. So why should atheism be an exception?

One who finds God so callus has the right to doubt his mercy then to doubt his existence. Why should one stick to an experimentally falsified idea about merciful God??? This may be the spark of atheism in many cases, but it is not the reason that atheists hold atheism. This spark is the beginning of the walk-up but it is not the motivation behind keeping walking up.

(September 5, 2013 at 8:46 pm)ThisGuyAgain67 Wrote: I came out to one of my family members today and as we talked she made the generalization that atheists turn doubt their belief in God when they are exposed to traumatic events and that some others may be just rebelling against their upbringings.

The question that I have is that, as an atheist, do these things have any real effect on what they believe to be true ( That God isn't real) or if these concepts are just irrelevant?

I always thought it was a generalization that christians turn to god because they're dying or had someone close to them die.
That's why I'd never argue with a christian in the street I don't want to crush the dreams of someone with cancer if they want to believe they're about to go to a theme park in the sky and want to shout about it I say let them do it.

(September 5, 2013 at 8:56 pm)ThisGuyAgain67 Wrote: I did think along those lines because during the talk, her main illustration for not understanding why God could not exist was one of her sons being able to survive a near fatal operation.

So...

A traumatic event that turns out OK is a good reason to believe in a god, but a traumatic event that turns out bad is not a good reason to disbelieve?

Got it...

But seriously, I know many atheists, none of them disbelieve because of a traumatic event or rebellion.

I'm of the opinion that people change as a result of context and cognition resulting in emotional experience that provides the motivation for changing. A common example is that in therapy, it is not uncommon for the therapist to attempt to help a client become more aware of how a specific pattern of behavior is resulting in recurrent unpleasant emotions as a consequence of the behavior. This may be brought about by helping the patient develop insight about the relationship between the behavior and the emotional consequences or perhaps by simply helping them identify the behavior itself as a pattern, or approaching some other angle of the client's understanding of the behavior and the consequences. This helps to focus awareness of the emotional cost of the behavior, as well as helping the patient visualize possible alternatives to the behavior. If a client is guided to an increased awareness of how codependent behaviors are contributing to her unhappiness, her unhappiness and "existential anxiety" about the continuance of such patterns can motivate her to change her behavior. In such a situation, emotion is driving the effort to change, but the choice itself and the reasons for desiring the change are rational and justifiable. I suspect questions of belief may be similar, in that it requires emotional impetus to fuel the actual process of change. When theists (or atheists) refer to believing or disbelieving for emotional reasons, I think they generally implicitly mean as an irrational response to an emotional event or experience, and exclude the possibility that emotional reactions can be sensible and rational, dependent on the context. Emotion is an essential part of reasoning and decision making, and there's a tendency to avoid acknowledging the emotional aspects because it is often viewed as implying a lack of rationality to the actions and decisions. Unfortunately, perhaps, atheists have a tendency to be more vulnerable to the loaded and somewhat biased nature of the suggestion from theists because, in general, they are often encouraged to elevate the value of rationality, and devalue that of emotion. Unfortunately, that bias, combined with a loaded question, can result in unnecessary difficulty in formulating a reasoned response to the question.

Oddly enough, perhaps emotion is involved there as well, as the atheist is reluctant to go down avenues where they might experience their position as a nonbeliever as vulnerable to shameful or embarrassing accusations of unreasonableness, made all the more acute by the general atheist/rationalist trend to avoid being seen as being influenced by emotion rather than reason, because of their polarized valuation of the two mental resources.

(September 6, 2013 at 11:55 am)apophenia Wrote: Emotion is an essential part of reasoning and decision making, and there's a tendency to avoid acknowledging the emotional aspects because it is often viewed as implying a lack of rationality to the actions and decisions. Unfortunately, perhaps, atheists have a tendency to be more vulnerable to the loaded and somewhat biased nature of the suggestion from theists because, in general, they are often encouraged to elevate the value of rationality, and devalue that of emotion. Unfortunately, that bias, combined with a loaded question, can result in unnecessary difficulty in formulating a reasoned response to the question.

Oddly enough, perhaps emotion is involved there as well, as the atheist is reluctant to go down avenues where they might experience their position as a nonbeliever as vulnerable to shameful or embarrassing accusations of unreasonableness, made all the more acute by the general atheist/rationalist trend to avoid being seen as being influenced by emotion rather than reason, because of their polarized valuation of the two mental resources.

Yep, pure rationality is what I expect from a circuit board. People will be far more complex. Fortunately it isn't necessary to abandon emotion in order to justify a lack of belief in gods. Better to abandon the inclination to justify everything.

Quote:I came out to one of my family members today and as we talked she made the generalization that atheists turn doubt their belief in God when they are exposed to traumatic events and that some others may be just rebelling against their upbringings.

One of the most traumatic events of my life was the death of my father. Far from 'turning to God', I made a lunge at the priest delivering the funerary service. He made the remark that, 'God, in His infinite love and mercy, will welcome home even someone like Ned Shannon.'

If my 5 brothers hadn't held me down, it might have been a double service.

Boru

(September 6, 2013 at 9:27 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: One of the most traumatic events of my life was the death of my father. Far from 'turning to God', I made a lunge at the priest delivering the funerary service. He made the remark that, 'God, in His infinite love and mercy, will welcome home even someone like Ned Shannon.'

If my 5 brothers hadn't held me down, it might have been a double service.

I don't know if it's Catholic funerals or what, but I had a bad experience with one, too. After the service I was just scratching my head thinking, "What the fuck?!?" It wasn't as explicit as your example, but it definitely sent the message that my deceased friend now resides in hell.