Atheists who become Christians

[fr0d0]

Isn't it hugely arrogant to presume that there can be no good reason to convert to Christianity.

Religion is in itself not rational. You have to accept certain things at face value, certain supernatural things to be precise.

One can be otherwise rational and still be religious. But religion is faith and fatih is emotional. Nothing wrong with that, since we're all emotional about one thing or the other. But it has nothing to do with reason.

I disagree.

What you are talking about, let me presume, is supernatural entities in isolation. It is my experience that many atheists do this. They will accuse a theist of claiming the existence of a supernatural entity, when in actual fact the theist claims no such thing. Both atheist and theist, that I consider to be mentally stable anyway, hold the same belief stance on this. Neither can know.

To you faith may be emotional. To me it isn't.

To put it another way, if there is a rational reason, no one has presented it in the last 2000 years. So I'm fairly confident there aren't any at all.

Then you are particularly blinkered.

I could say exactly the same back to you... 2000 years and still the ancient goat herders are yet to be disproven on anything in the bible. Sure there's a lot of claims made. None successful. How is that if atheism is so right? To me this proves the opposite.

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.

Isn't it hugely arrogant to presume that there can be no good reason to convert to Christianity. That's what I get from skimming this thread. I guess the op is a wind up.

It's not a presumption, it's an observation. Every time we hear about an atheist converting to a theistic religion, we're curious. Was it something that would be convincing to a reasonably skeptical person? Was it a great argument we've never heard, evidence we weren't aware of, or even a personal experience that we can't access but which we can see how it could be convincing if it happened to us? If they have a good reason to think Christianity is true, we want to know what it is. But it's always similar to the conversion stories non-atheists share. We hope for something from a converted skeptic that would convince a skeptic.

We aren't looking for good reasons to convert to Christianity. There can be good reasons to convert to Christianity: to save a marriage, to get elected to public office, to access a good support network, to bandage your emotional wounds, etc.

We're looking for good reasons to think Christianity is really true. And that's something that formerly atheist Christian converts never seem to have when asked what convinced them that Christianity is true.

What are the rational steps? Is it a rationally held position?

It can be, in some sense, rational to hold an irrational position if there are advantages in doing so and your value structure doesn't prioritize truth over those advantages.

Does your own biographical experience prove that rationality only allows one path for everyone? How do you know?

My own biographical experience, coupled with ordinary logic, proves that two contradictory things can't both be true. That doesn't mean that someone can't be both wrong and rational. Rationality isn't a recipe for infallibility. We all only have the tools we have. It's perfectly rational to believe the earth is flat and the sun is a hot fire in the sky that rises in the East and sets in the West if you're unaware of the evidence and reasoning for the opposite position. If you're a tribesman in a remote area who has never been to school, it would be unfair to characterize you as irrational because you have this false belief, because it's based on the evidence you have available (to casual observation, the sun seems to rise in the East and set in the West and the earth seems to be a large disk when viewed from a high place).

But if theists have rational reasons to think their varous religions are true that would hold up to reasonable scrutiny, they're being awfully cagey about them. Some of the reasons they do share seem to be like reasons for believing the earth is flat, reasonable to accept once upon a time when we knew much less, but unsupportable in light of modern knowledge. Most of the other reasons are 'fluffy', and seem to amount mostly to believing because they want to and softening their claims so they at least don't contradict directly observed reality.

You're a skeptic but I believe your bias prevents you from being skeptical in regards to this. You have a vested interest in preserving your own world view, as do I. All we can do is try to look at any problem from each others view. Admittedly it's harder for you if you haven't understood fully from a belief perspective the logic of that position. Every theist will, I presume, understand the atheistic position. It's where we all came from. So skepticism should be the theists ace card. We are in the best position to assess both stances on their merit.

To the theist, atheistic logic is contradictory, in that it is self defeating, for example. I have discussed logic points on this board very many times and not once have my beliefs been successfully challenged, to the extent that I had to change my mind and change my beliefs. I personally don't think it's possible to have knowledge and then believe the contrary to that knowledge. Cognitive dissonance will get you in the end.