I think a former atheist fits the description of someone who was bald and good looking and then decided to grow an awful haircut

If you listen to some pastors, a few months not going to church, drinking, and fornicating makes somebody an atheist. Or 'not being saved'. Although there are some genuine former atheists in that crowd, I think they're a minority compared to those who misunderstand what an atheist is, and those looking for Evangelical street cred. About the only thing that competes with 'former atheist' as a story of redemption is 'former heroin addict'.

(February 27, 2015 at 9:49 am)Chas Wrote:

(February 27, 2015 at 9:37 am)ChadWooters Wrote: So what happened to all the diction coaches that enforce compliance with over the definition of 'atheist'? Shouldn't they be reminding everyone that a former atheist simply means a person who no longer lacks the belief in god(s).

Diction concerns speech pronunciation, not word definition.

Quote:dic·tion
ˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the choice and use of words and phrases in speech or writing.
"Wordsworth campaigned against exaggerated poetic diction"
synonyms: phraseology, phrasing, turn of phrase, wording, language, usage, vocabulary, terminology, expressions, idioms
"her diction was archaic"

2. the style of enunciation in speaking or singing.
"she began imitating his careful diction"
synonyms: enunciation, articulation, elocution, locution, pronunciation, speech, intonation, inflection; delivery
"his careful diction"

The second is the definition to which you refer; however, the first concerns usage and vocabulary. It also concerns how you use a word, like atheist, based on its definition.

(February 26, 2015 at 10:43 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 26, 2015 at 9:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: We've already done the heavy lifting, so we find little point in revisiting the issues.

That's a great way to never learn anything regarding a subject ever again. It's also a good indication of a conversion for bad reasons; the truth has nothing to fear from further examination, after all.

I can understand why theists don't want to examine their "faith" -- it's because their faith makes them happy but somewhere (waaay deep down, in many cases), they know it's all BS so they don't want to take a chance that they might shatter their happy delusion.

What I can't understand in why such people post on these forums. If they're smart enough to turn on a computer, they should realize that they're not going to make any progress in convincing atheists that their faith has any merit (other than, perhaps, the "feel-good" thing I mentioned). I guess some of them are so far into their delusion, that they think merely hurling some babble verses and god-talk at us will do the trick; because, Holy Spirit (or some such "magical" thinking nonsense).

In other cases I've witnessed on this board, the only explanation for their participation I can come up with is that some theists merely get off on the sound of their own typing -- not unlike the man who enjoys the smell of his own farts.

---

(February 26, 2015 at 11:59 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(February 26, 2015 at 11:27 pm)whateverist Wrote: Wouldn't be surprised if many of these former atheists just went through some little tiff with god. That would explain why they so often wonder if we're atheists because of anger with god.

Most former atheists tend to have the belief first or if that they are lairs.
Then again it would make sense for a theist out of anger to turn atheist for some reason i do not know why then after awhile are not mad at god anymore.

NO. This doesn't make any sense at all. If someone is angry at god, it doesn't matter what they call themselves, they are NOT atheists. Atheists are most assuredly not angry at the god character that they don't believe exists.

(February 27, 2015 at 9:37 am)ChadWooters Wrote: And thank you, Irrational. I was a sincere atheist for about 15 years. I became an atheist because I was swayed by the philosophical objections in that direction. As I continued to my study I was swayed by the arguments in favor of a general theism. My specifically Christian beliefs are mostly cultural and were prompted by two ineffable experiences.

Given the way you've talked about your past, it appears that the temptation to have a cure to your perceived existential crisis was at least equally responsible for your conversion, because you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that atheism leads to a descent into maddening, pure nihilism and then claim that you were swayed only by the philosophical arguments themselves. Clearly, there would have been much emotional baggage involved, and the theistic arguments gave you a way to relieve yourself of that.

As convincing as you may have found any argument, I don't think you can deny there were heavy emotional factors at play, can you?

Quote:My specifically Christian beliefs are mostly cultural and were prompted by two ineffable experiences.

I bet I could "Eff" them....quite easily.

(February 27, 2015 at 1:20 am)wiploc Wrote: On the one hand, that makes sense. And we were all born atheists, so of course it's true that they used to be atheists.

On the other hand, sometimes they are clearly lying.

I am not saying that we should never question a person, but the question is to what end? To discredit them? Okay. That could help develop a pattern that you could point out later. But once you have fleshed out whether they were a "true" atheist or not, you are still left with the discussion at hand. You essentially have gotten nowhere.

Now I am all for establishing definitions so the discussion can progress as well. But again, just getting the "neener-neener" of no you weren't an atheist is often petty and sometimes it does nothing to advance the conversation. In fact it is mostly used by the theist as a diversionary tactic to get the conversation off the thing he cannot prove.

(February 27, 2015 at 12:04 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I am not saying that we should never question a person, but the question is to what end? To discredit them? Okay. That could help develop a pattern that you could point out later. But once you have fleshed out whether they were a "true" atheist or not, you are still left with the discussion at hand. You essentially have gotten nowhere.

Now I am all for establishing definitions so the discussion can progress as well. But again, just getting the "neener-neener" of no you weren't an atheist is often petty and sometimes it does nothing to advance the conversation. In fact it is mostly used by the theist as a diversionary tactic to get the conversation off the thing he cannot prove.

But questioning them isn't really about advancing the conversation. It's about understanding the perceptions behind the conversation, and it's about exposing shady debating tactics and flawed attempts to add weight to an argument. It's not about getting your "neener-neener." It's about demonstrating that someone is willing to peddle bullshit for the sake of a cause.

This has always been one of my pet peeves. Most of the Christians that post in this forum have claimed to be "former atheists". I have frequently posted this in response to the claim:

"So when you were an atheist, you:

• Believed that ALL religions were contrived by men, and ALL were works of fiction
• Could not accept the claims made by religious people or their “holy” books
• Believed that religious people, of all “faiths” were misguided at best, and delusional at worst
• Believed that physical reality was all that there was, and stories of “creation”, deities, spirits, angels, demons, souls, etc., were merely fantasies

And then somehow you became convinced that Christianity was no longer to be grouped as a falsehood with all other religions, because it is actually the one religion that is true. That the god you now “believe in” is actually real, and that he really did create the universe, and that he really does rule over it. That angels, demons, spirits, etc., are factually real. And that after your death you will be resurrected and you will live forever in the presence of this god.

For some reason, I don’t believe you were ever an atheist, and I think you are making that claim as some lame attempt at an appeal to authority. I say bullshit."

I certainly don't want to be guilty of the "no true atheist" fallacy, but when the "former atheist" starts spewing things like "your atheist beliefs are blah blah blah" or "your atheist worldview blah blah blah", I know that they are full of shit. Hell, one of the clowns that posts here claims that he was atheist, then Christian, then back to atheist, then back to Christian. WTF?

(February 27, 2015 at 11:33 am)Faith No More Wrote: Given the way you've talked about your past, it appears that the temptation to have a cure to your perceived existential crisis was at least equally responsible for your conversion…As convincing as you may have found any argument, I don't think you can deny there were heavy emotional factors at play, can you?

Isn’t it always the case that people’s emotions push them forward? I did have an existential crisis, but that resulted in me acknowledging the cognative dissidence between my religion (UCC) and my tacit atheism. I had already made peace with my mortality. I enjoyed the thought of existential freedom of defining my own meaning. Basically, I lost all ties to Christianity so the only thing that remained was to be intellectually honest about it. Like many deconverts have expressed, I felt as if a burden had been lifted. I remember the exact moment it happened. But I did have some outstanding issues that nagged at me. I found it disturbing that all the secular theories of ethics of which I knew could not avoid the conclusion that “might makes right” and I kept puzzling over the mind-body problem. I also had gnostic experiences that are extremely difficult to square with materialism.

The comments suggesting I must continue to “question my faith” not reasonable. The point I was making was that I already have and that is why I am not an Evangelical. As I continue to tap the vein of the whole Western philosophical tradition, I do not actively try to refute my current understanding. I simply keep learning about the things that interest me. If some ideas just so happen to contradict my current beliefs then I will weight those ideas it on their merit, just as I did before I became an atheist. For example, I recently I finished a book by Freke called ‘The Jesus Mysteries’ and found some of his ideas interesting and some less than convincing. There are certain Christian beliefs that I no longer hold, like propitiatory atonement. If someone confronts me, I have no problem giving them a fair hearing. But on my own initiative, I’m not about to go on rehashing ideas that, to my mind, have already been settled and which no longer interest me.