Atheists who have converted to theism?

[Mystic]

Well, I felt might perhaps could exist without God, till I really thought about it. Here is the thread where I discussed the issue of value:  http://atheistforums.org/thread-15323-page-7.html You "that means" doesn't follow. I had hope that God existed, but I was closer to despair at his existence, which is why this issue was very emotional for me.  I didn't believe in God, I hope he existed, but I had arguments against God's existence. You can tell by those posts that this issue of human value hurt me. I read the posts again, and I remember the pain I was in.

So your morals and values disappeared during the week you stopped believing in god?

I was confused about it all, I didn't know what to think. I was in severe distress. I had hope there was a way to know to them being objective and true. But it seemed more and more so it was a delusion.

This was the most distressing and darkest moment of my life.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I don't follow, so you stopped believing in god for a week and you started to feel like morality, values, etc. can't exist without god? That means you never actually let go of your belief in god if you feel like morality can't exists without god.

Well, I felt might perhaps could exist without God, till I really thought about it. Here is the thread where I discussed the issue of value:  http://atheistforums.org/thread-15323-page-7.html You "that means" doesn't follow. I had hope that God existed, but I was closer to despair at his existence, which is why this issue was very emotional for me.  I didn't believe in God, I hope he existed, but I had arguments against God's existence. You can tell by those posts that this issue of human value hurt me. I read the posts again, and I remember the pain I was in.

Of course it hurts knowing that all of the fervently positive assertions made by your trusted elders wiere bull, and I still feel that pain when I think of it. It hurts even more when you realize that they had no better source than those lies for maintaining a positive outlook in life, and then you pity them. But when you are psychologically chained by ideas which you know cannot be true, one thing is for sure that llies which are known can do you no good. It is never positive to knowingly embrace falsehood! Let it go, and be free of those chains. Be free to choose your ideas based on their logic, and their descriptive merit, in order to best enable yourself to deal effectively with reality. The ideas which you are holding onto (that you need a metaphysical source because you seek a reason to care about what's good) is of strictly prescriptive merit, and the prescription is for medicine which is 2000 years past it's shelf life. To get a better prescription, start with a truer description. Stop running those old tapes that there cannot be any good without god, and you'll find plenty of good reasons why this isn't so.

[Mystic]

Well, I felt might perhaps could exist without God, till I really thought about it. Here is the thread where I discussed the issue of value:  http://atheistforums.org/thread-15323-page-7.html You "that means" doesn't follow. I had hope that God existed, but I was closer to despair at his existence, which is why this issue was very emotional for me.  I didn't believe in God, I hope he existed, but I had arguments against God's existence. You can tell by those posts that this issue of human value hurt me. I read the posts again, and I remember the pain I was in.

Of course it hurts knowing that all of the fervently positive assertions made by your trusted elders wiere bull, and I still feel that pain when I think of it. It hurts even more when you realize that they had no better source than those lies for maintaining a positive outlook in life, and then you pity them. But when you are psychologically chained by ideas which you know cannot be true, one thing is for sure that llies which are known can do you no good. It is never positive to knowingly embrace falsehood! Let it go, and be free of those chains. Be free to choose your ideas based on their logic, and their descriptive merit, in order to best enable yourself to deal effectively with reality. The ideas which you are holding onto (that you need a metaphysical source because you seek a reason to care about what's good) is of strictly prescriptive merit, and the prescription is for medicine which is 2000 years past it's shelf life. To get a better prescription, start with a truer description. Stop running those old tapes that there cannot be any good without god, and you'll find plenty of good reasons why this isn't so.

I was distressed because I took my skepticism to the limit. First rule about doubting, know when to stop doubting.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Of course it hurts knowing that all of the fervently positive assertions made by your trusted elders wiere bull, and I still feel that pain when I think of it. It hurts even more when you realize that they had no better source than those lies for maintaining a positive outlook in life, and then you pity them. But when you are psychologically chained by ideas which you know cannot be true, one thing is for sure that llies which are known can do you no good. It is never positive to knowingly embrace falsehood! Let it go, and be free of those chains. Be free to choose your ideas based on their logic, and their descriptive merit, in order to best enable yourself to deal effectively with reality. The ideas which you are holding onto (that you need a metaphysical source because you seek a reason to care about what's good) is of strictly prescriptive merit, and the prescription is for medicine which is 2000 years past it's shelf life. To get a better prescription, start with a truer description. Stop running those old tapes that there cannot be any good without god, and you'll find plenty of good reasons why this isn't so.

I was distressed because I took my skepticism to the limit. First rule about doubting, know when to stop doubting.

You know that the doubt will always haunt you, and there's a reason for it. Its existence isn't of purpose, the reason is akin to the fact that the genes of animals which move under the presumption of a stalking predator when they hear a rustle in the trees exist today, while the genes of those which stuck around to find out are gone. The doubt won't ever truly go away, and it will cause you stress, and the only way that you can be truly free of it is to confront the unreality for what it is. Your own mind is begging you to allow it to explore reality outside of the constraints of your handed-down beliefs! LET ME GO, it's pleading!

[Mr.wizard]

I am so lost, how can someone think their morality requires a god while simultaneously not believing in god?

[Excited Penguin]

I am so lost, how can someone think their morality requires a god while simultaneously not believing in god?

I can imagine something like that. One may very well think God is imaginary, but is required for enforcing morality, for otherwise civilisation would be doomed if left to its own devices, consumed by the nihilism and self-hatred that comes with too much freedom of thought. Or so the argument would go, I can imagine.

[robvalue]

I am so lost, how can someone think their morality requires a god while simultaneously not believing in god?

It sounds like MK is stuck on the idea that morality has to be handed down from an authority and can't just be the result of our own thoughts and empathy.

Of course assuming there is objective morality is going to lead to failure, because it's a nonsensical concept. Hiding the problem behind an invisible figure just stops it being immediately obvious that it's a flawed idea, and because God is hidden and mysterious we don't notice it's just his opinion anyway.

I never understand the desire to seek out the most powerful thing available and just do whatever it wants. If we jettison any way we have to judge what is and isn't actually helpful or harmful to human and animals, then we become amoral and don't know what effect following this dictator is actually having. This is flatly contradicted by the way people making such claims then give alternative explanations as to why these objective judgements are "good". If there are sufficient reasons, it matters not who says it.

Morality is simple, in its basic form.

Question 1: Do you want other people to be happy and healthy?

If yes: Go to question 2
If no: You are a psycopath. If religion makes you act as if you did care about others, then by all means carry on.

Question 2: Do you have a good idea what harms people and what helps them?

If yes: Great! Do things that help and don't do things that harm.
If no: Think about what helps and harms you. If you don't even know what helps or harms you, seek professional help.

[Mr.wizard]

I am so lost, how can someone think their morality requires a god while simultaneously not believing in god?

I can imagine something like that. One may very well think God is imaginary, but is required for enforcing morality, for otherwise civilisation would be doomed if left to its own devices, consumed by the nihilism and self-hatred that comes with too much freedom of thought. Or so the argument would go, I can imagine.

I don't how you can not believe that something exists but believe it is required or responsible for something that does exist.

[Mr.wizard]

I am so lost, how can someone think their morality requires a god while simultaneously not believing in god?

It sounds like MK is stuck on the idea that morality has to be handed down from an authority and can't just be the result of our own thoughts and empathy.

Of course assuming there is objective morality is going to lead to failure, because it's a nonsensical concept. Hiding the problem behind an invisible figure just stops it being immediately obvious that it's a flawed idea, and because God is hidden and mysterious we don't notice it's just his opinion anyway.

I never understand the desire to seek out the most powerful thing available and just do whatever it wants. If we jettison any way we have to judge what is and isn't actually helpful or harmful to human and animals, then we become amoral and don't know what effect following this dictator is actually having. This is flatly contradicted by the way people making such claims then give alternative explanations as to why these objective judgements are "good". If there are sufficient reasons, it matters not who says it.

Morality is simple, in its basic form.

Question 1: Do you want other people to be happy and healthy?

If yes: Go to question 2
If no: You are a psycopath. If religion makes you act as if you did care about others, then by all means carry on.

Question 2: Do you have a good idea what harms people and what helps them?

If yes: Great! Do things that help and don't do things that harm.
If no: Think about what helps and harms you. If you don't even know what helps or harms you, seek professional help.

Well that's why I am confused, he claims for that week he was an atheist, but as an atheist believed morality required god. How can you not believe in something and at the same time believe it is required for things that happen in reality? If you cant shake the idea that god is the source of morality, then you never really stopped believing in god.

[robvalue]

Very true.

I think it's not a matter of belief for MK and many others, it's a matter of it being seared into their brain as undeniable fact. No one can "try" not believing something, any more than I can "try" believing in God.

Just to clarify, some people are psycopaths, as highlighted in my DIY guide to morality above. It's not their fault they are this way. Some people just are, they don't have empathy. It is just unfortunate that this means they won't mesh well with society unless they mimic, to some extent, someone who does have empathy.

Of course, there are plenty of reasons not to go around killing and raping, even if you don't actually care about other people. The most obvious one is eventually you'll most likely go to prison for a very long time, which should be a deterrent to anyone who at least cares about themselves.