Atheists who become Christians

[Thumpalumpacus]

Oh wow, is that you? You've been spying on the forum huh! What do you think of your apologetics?

Matthew 7:21 - 23.

[robvalue]

Frodo : Saying a belief is rational because it can't be proved untrue is the classic argument from ignorance. You can hold any insane unfalsifiable belief. It's not a way to find truth.

And yes, I treat each claim separately, hence my request for clarification. But if it involves anything supernatural, then by definition it is currently unfalsifiable. Such claims are useless and should be dismissed.

If you want to define rational in a different way in order to claim a belief is rational, then that's fine.

---

For example, is it rational to believe that God lives in my house, because no one can prove he doesn't?

[abaris]

Not necessarily. Many could just so well subscribe to the understanding that 'the supernatural' doesn't exist, and attribute it to something not unlike 'planes of existence'.

It can be very very bitter and angry thinking... and it can be utterly empty of emotion.

Alice, not to sound overly picky, but planes of existence are also in the supernatural realm. Beyond the natural concept of reason, since there's neither proof nor any hint they exist. Also, fairies and gobblins can fall under the same category.

And to be bitter and angry is also emotional.

[robvalue]

Nope: yeah I see what you mean. I guess if someone is utterly convinced they have had a "supernatural" experience, then they are in some way being internally rational in believing it. Like you say, you can't stop yourself believing something you believe. Arational is a good way to describe that. Good point.

But then it can't be considered rational to anyone else, except by taking on confidence that the person has their own reasons. I could never be convinced of the truth of someone's claims merely on their own testimony, if it's something that goes against what I know about reality. I think a lot of people have very low standards of evidence and are easily fooled by their mind. How can I differentiate between all the people making such claims? Like you say, I can't.

But I mean... If you experience something supernatural, then by definition it's not supernatural. By my definition anyway.

Someone asking me to make a special case and "just believe them" is misguided I'm afraid. I'm not trying to tell other people to stop believing things, that would be absurd. But if they are saying I should believe it too, then I need to be convinced.

For example, a Muslim would ask me to believe something contradictory to a Christian. Even two christians would tell me to believe contradictory things. They can't all be right. (But they can all be wrong.)

[robvalue]

I have things I believe, but which I wouldn't make a claim about because I can't support them with enough evidence. I guess it's being self critical enough to know the difference.

Merry Christmas everyone

[watchamadoodle]

It seems that atheists who become Christians have not thought about several issues:
- historical evidence showing Judaism and Christianity changed gradually in fundamental ways such as changing the definition of God and later Christ.
- hallucinations among normally sane people that can explain many personal experiences
- ... (probably many other things too)

If they consider any arguments against Christianity, it is usually the philosophical arguments such as: the problem of evil, first cause, etc. They convince themselves that deism is possible and then they accept all the nonsense in Christianity without further objection. Christianity is not deism, but they don't seem to care.

Usually they have practical reasons for wanting to believe such as: falling in loved with a believer, desperate need for an imaginary friend, etc.

Are you joking? I fear not.

We can judge people doing stupid things as being people doing stupid things, sure. That broad brush unjustly wipes out any reasonable argument opposing you. I guess that's why you use it.

No, I was simply summarizing the explanations I have read so far. I was reading another one last night about an atheist who was so impressed with the wisdom of the Catholic Catechism that she became a Catholic. She believed the wisdom of Catholicism could only be explained by God - not wise humans. Apparently she satisfied herself that the philosophy of Christianity could work and then she decided she could be a Christian. She seems to have ignored other problems like the lack of evidence for divine inspiration in the gradual evolution of Judaism and Christianity. Here is the link to the Catholic woman's explanation:
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/article...they-think

If you are aware of some better explanations, then how about sharing them?

[robvalue]

You can't prove there isn't a good explanation

[fr0d0]

Frodo : Saying a belief is rational because it can't be proved untrue is the classic argument from ignorance. You can hold any insane unfalsifiable belief. It's not a way to find truth.

And yes, I treat each claim separately, hence my request for clarification. But if it involves anything supernatural, then by definition it is currently unfalsifiable. Such claims are useless and should be dismissed.

If you want to define rational in a different way in order to claim a belief is rational, then that's fine.

---

For example, is it rational to believe that God lives in my house, because no one can prove he doesn't?

I never say this Rob. I don't define rational any differently than the standard definition. I would suggest that you might. Do you demand material proof substantiation? That's where discussion of rationality ends up with the anti theist stance, which in my opinion simply exists to argue that black is white. That is, without any real objection.

[robvalue]

No, if someone wants to convince me that their belief is objectively rational, not just "rational to them", then they should be able to demonstrate sound and reasoned arguments, backed up with evidence where appropriate.

If you have such an argument, as you seem to be claiming, I'd love to hear it. I've not heard anything that comes close. All I have heard is the three pillars of apologetics: deceit, logical fallacies and emotional manipulation. If you have an argument that doesn't use these, bring it on. I'll happily shut up about it if you can produce one.

Or if you want to argue that any of the three pillars are acceptable, please make that case.

I don't even know what your definition of "God" is, so that's the first thing to define. Then also, define what "exists" means.

[The Grand Nudger]

Anti-theism doesn't ask you for proof -of any kind-, Frodo, because anti-theism doesn't actually give a shit whether or not your god exists.