Former atheist

[I_am_not_mafia]

If you see them go up and talk about how they became Christian then they often try and outdo themselves in a manner of Monty Python's four Yorkshiremen.

One will go up and say that he was so blind to God that he used to be an atheist. The next Christian will stand up and say the same thing but say how he was also angry at God and how his conversion was all the more life changing. Another will follow saying how he used to be all that as well but into dark evil things like D&D and martial arts. The next will add drugs to the list (like alcohol and even inhaled *gasp* marijuana) etc.

But saying that they used to be an atheist when what they really mean is 'not consciously Christian' they are insinuating that you are wrong and that they know that because they used to think like you but found the error of their ways. The suggestion being that you just haven't discovered yet what they have. After all, how do you know what you don't yet know if you don't already know it?

[Cyberman]

I find it rather patronising. To me it sounds like, "I used to be like you."

"And then I got better."

[I_am_not_mafia]

I find it rather patronising. To me it sounds like, "I used to be like you."

"And then I got better."

Which is probably how they see atheists who were raised as Christians. It's probably a denying that some people may have asked questions or have learnt things that they haven't.

[Angrboda]

I'd just like to point out that, having been indoctrinated in a religion prior to becoming an atheist makes it easier to abandon atheism in favor of a return to religion. I think being indoctrinated when you are young likely does change the brain in ways that make seemingly fantastic things more readily credible than for those who have never really believed. Does this imply that the belief in what is seemingly fantastic is less credible? I don't know that it does. It is just a different way of thinking. One could say that the perpetual atheist is unnaturally biased against believing in such things, as much as one could say that the former believer is unnaturally biased toward believing such things. There is no "correct state" for an individual to have.

I myself became an atheist in my youth, though I won't pretend it was a self-consciously rational decision — I was not knowledgably skeptical, nor schooled in the rational reasons for disbelief. At the age of 17, I converted to an atheistic religion, Taoism. Despite having been raised Christian, I have never returned to Christianity, but religion has always held great interest for me; looking around my apartment, you'll note religious icons and art from multiple religions. For a long time, I had a classic portrait of Christ over my bed, even though I was definitely not Christian. Religion is just more "accessible" to me because the concepts and ideas are in a way 'live' inside me, they have import that a different person may not feel or even understand. After my conversion to Taoism, over 30 years, I found myself gravitating more and more towards a form of theistic Hinduism. Was that conversion made more likely by prior religious beliefs? I suspect it was. If I had never believed in a god in my formative years, I likely would find the concept of a god alien. Is it a problem that I have this bias? Am I less sane and rational because of it? I don't think so, nor do I think that someone who lacks this bias can claim any inherent superiority on that account. It's just different; not better or worse.

[Norman Humann]

I'd just like to point out that, having been indoctrinated in a religion prior to becoming an atheist makes it easier to abandon atheism in favor of a return to religion. I think being indoctrinated when you are young likely does change the brain in ways that make seemingly fantastic things more readily credible than for those who have never really believed.

I definitely agree. I think it's because the indoctrination usually starts with the parents, who are the first and most important figures of authority to a child. It's very hard to doubt what they say and be skeptical towards it, even after being presented with contradictory evidence. Even now I find myself accepting what my parents say as right by default and only questioning it afterwards, if ever. Some irrational ideas, including religious ones, still seem plausible to me, despite my best attempts to remain skeptical.

[Chas]

I'd just like to point out that, having been indoctrinated in a religion prior to becoming an atheist makes it easier to abandon atheism in favor of a return to religion. I think being indoctrinated when you are young likely does change the brain in ways that make seemingly fantastic things more readily credible than for those who have never really believed. Does this imply that the belief in what is seemingly fantastic is less credible? I don't know that it does. It is just a different way of thinking. One could say that the perpetual atheist is unnaturally biased against believing in such things, as much as one could say that the former believer is unnaturally biased toward believing such things. There is no "correct state" for an individual to have.

One would say the perpetual atheist is unbiased. It is the indoctrination that introduces bias.

I myself became an atheist in my youth, though I won't pretend it was a self-consciously rational decision — I was not knowledgably skeptical, nor schooled in the rational reasons for disbelief. At the age of 17, I converted to an atheistic religion, Taoism. Despite having been raised Christian, I have never returned to Christianity, but religion has always held great interest for me; looking around my apartment, you'll note religious icons and art from multiple religions. For a long time, I had a classic portrait of Christ over my bed, even though I was definitely not Christian. Religion is just more "accessible" to me because the concepts and ideas are in a way 'live' inside me, they have import that a different person may not feel or even understand. After my conversion to Taoism, over 30 years, I found myself gravitating more and more towards a form of theistic Hinduism. Was that conversion made more likely by prior religious beliefs? I suspect it was. If I had never believed in a god in my formative years, I likely would find the concept of a god alien. Is it a problem that I have this bias?

Yes.

Am I less sane and rational because of it?

Certainly less rational. Unevidenced belief is not rational.

I don't think so, nor do I think that someone who lacks this bias can claim any inherent superiority on that account. It's just different; not better or worse.

It is worse because it is less rational; holding non-rational beliefs weakens one's defenses against other non-rational beliefs.

[Whateverist]

I'd just like to point out that, having been indoctrinated in a religion prior to becoming an atheist makes it easier to abandon atheism in favor of a return to religion. I think being indoctrinated when you are young likely does change the brain in ways that make seemingly fantastic things more readily credible than for those who have never really believed. Does this imply that the belief in what is seemingly fantastic is less credible? I don't know that it does. It is just a different way of thinking. One could say that the perpetual atheist is unnaturally biased against believing in such things, as much as one could say that the former believer is unnaturally biased toward believing such things. There is no "correct state" for an individual to have.

One would say the perpetual atheist is unbiased. It is the indoctrination that introduces bias.

I myself became an atheist in my youth, though I won't pretend it was a self-consciously rational decision — I was not knowledgably skeptical, nor schooled in the rational reasons for disbelief. At the age of 17, I converted to an atheistic religion, Taoism. Despite having been raised Christian, I have never returned to Christianity, but religion has always held great interest for me; looking around my apartment, you'll note religious icons and art from multiple religions. For a long time, I had a classic portrait of Christ over my bed, even though I was definitely not Christian. Religion is just more "accessible" to me because the concepts and ideas are in a way 'live' inside me, they have import that a different person may not feel or even understand. After my conversion to Taoism, over 30 years, I found myself gravitating more and more towards a form of theistic Hinduism. Was that conversion made more likely by prior religious beliefs? I suspect it was. If I had never believed in a god in my formative years, I likely would find the concept of a god alien. Is it a problem that I have this bias?

Yes.

Am I less sane and rational because of it?

Certainly less rational. Unevidenced belief is not rational.

I don't think so, nor do I think that someone who lacks this bias can claim any inherent superiority on that account. It's just different; not better or worse.

It is worse because it is less rational; holding non-rational beliefs weakens one's defenses against other non-rational beliefs.

To no one's surprise I agree entirely with Rasetsu on this one. Everyone holds irrational beliefs; it is just the way we're wired. Reason and analytic thought are part of the post processing of our experience, but our experience is what it is. There is no need to fight against the onslaught of irrational ideas.

Likewise, everyone requires programming or else we'd be like wild children raised by wolves and unable to relate culturally to our own kind. Programming is also a given and parts of it will be based on irrational things like feelings.

Embrace your inner animal. Be the irrational being you are and do all the post processing reason you like. In the end we're all compost.

[robvalue]

No one makes the decision to become an atheist, that decision is made for us automatically by our brain (if we were once a theist). It may not happen instantly, and we may not even consciously notice or admit it right away, but it's out of our conscious control. Once it has happened, we are powerless to do anything about it except to try and "convince it back again".

I happen to have just written that on my website as well :p

[Angrboda]

I'd just like to point out that, having been indoctrinated in a religion prior to becoming an atheist makes it easier to abandon atheism in favor of a return to religion. I think being indoctrinated when you are young likely does change the brain in ways that make seemingly fantastic things more readily credible than for those who have never really believed. Does this imply that the belief in what is seemingly fantastic is less credible? I don't know that it does. It is just a different way of thinking. One could say that the perpetual atheist is unnaturally biased against believing in such things, as much as one could say that the former believer is unnaturally biased toward believing such things. There is no "correct state" for an individual to have.

One would say the perpetual atheist is unbiased. It is the indoctrination that introduces bias.

One could say that, and I think the lion's share of psychological research would indicate that person is wrong — that there is no such thing as an unbiased individual. There is no such thing as a neutral opinion, but that you believe there is might perhaps be a product of your bias. By the time an individual reaches majority, they have already consolidated many opinions and arrived at their own unique biases, perpetual atheist or no.

The rest of your post follows from this belief that the perpetual atheist is in some sense neutral and thereby more rational. Since I dispute this, I dispute that for similar reasons. (To the extent that I, for the sake of argument, accept the hypothesis of rationality as such. I do not. Rationality is a gloss on more elusive movements within the psyche of the individual. To speak of a neutral bias from which an untainted rationality can arrive at some sort of unvarnished truth is to me a vain dream which is simply not supported by the nature of the human mind.)

[Faith No More]

Well, I was going to mention that we're all riddled with bias, but that point seems to have already been made quite well.

Our formative years shape our mind, and I have no doubt that my atheism is largely a result of an upbringing that focused heavily on science with a milquetoast approach towards religion.