From atheism to Christianity? How so?

[Chas]

Saying it was a reality you experienced is claiming too much. All you can claim is an internal experience. There is no way to objectively verify it.

You had thoughts and emotions, or possibly a delusion. You cannot dismiss that out of hand.

I don't, but I also recognize that is impossible to completely verify your own rationality, since you are using your own rationality to do that. At some point we all taking a leap of faith in our capacity to reason. My reason was telling me that the evidence was valid, enough at least to continue to pursue that line of reasoning.

Well, you may have once been indifferent to the idea of a god, but you clearly were not a skeptic or a critical thinker.
Your internal experiences do not qualify as evidence.

My rationality is confirmed by the evidence of reality, no faith required.

[Angrboda]

Say someone... pfffff, any random atheist, not calling out anyone... converted to Christianity. How did this happen? Anybody else... er, I mean anybody here been there, done that?

I confess I'm skeptical to this. First thing to pop into my head is that this is just another fundie trying to save souls by fitting in then sticking the hook down the throat.
Granted I could be wrong. Show me.

I've been meaning to respond to this, but I haven't had time to read the entire thread, so I'm just going to respond directly, ignoring any later replies. Apologies if I duplicate or seem to ignore some previously made point.

I think my experience as a Taoist and Hindu convert may be relevant to the question. When I was young, before the age of 10, I lost my belief in the god of Christianity and became an atheist. I don't remember why or how, but as a teen, I knew I didn't believe in God like my mother did. When I was 17 years old, studying Asia in school, the teacher read us a few chapters of the Tao Te Ching. He loaned me his copy, and I read it cover to cover that night. I converted instantly because everything that Lao Tzu had written resonated with my own experience. A few years later in college, I encountered Kali in the words of a poem, an ode to Kali, by May Sarton. Again, the images and ideas resonated with my personal experience and beliefs. Over the next 20 years, the goddess and Hinduism just sort of gradually seeped into my bones. However, only in the last 5-10 years have I been actively cultivating my understanding of Shakta Hindu traditions specifically, and the various orthodox and heterodox traditions of India.

That is basically my conversion story, and I think it speaks directly to your question in a number of ways.

First, it's worth pointing out that only in the last 3-5 years have I become knowledgeable about the arguments against various religions, so while I was an atheist in my teens, I wasn't equipped with reasons for being an atheist. So I was a naive atheist, and as such, didn't have the knowledge which many atheists here possess which is critical of religion. Perhaps you're assuming that atheists generally have an array of reasons for being non-religious. I only had one: I simply didn't believe. Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that knowledge and reason often play second fiddle to other forces in our minds in determining our choices and beliefs. Cognitive bias, emotion, intuition, and quirks of behavioral learning can all have a more powerful influence on what we end up believing than reason applied to knowledge. In my case, in both instances, my intuition indicated that what I was finding was correct and worth pursuing. As noted elsewhere, my reasoning abilities are the poor stepchild to the power of my intuition, so something appealing to my intuition is bound to have a significant effect on me, even in the face of reasons and knowledge otherwise. (And we all know similar examples; women continue to become involved with "bad boys" or entering dysfunctional relationships in spite of having a lot of head knowledge and being otherwise very intelligent.)

I think there are a number of myths prevalent in the atheist community which contribute to such questions. The first and foremost being that we, as humans, are primarily guided by reason, assuming all other things being equal. This is bollocks, and it doesn't take much looking around to discover counter-examples. Another myth is that the typical atheist is knowledgeably and self-consciously atheist. Having participated in a lot of discussions both online and offline, it's apparent that there are many atheists who are simply going on instinct and what they picked up along the way, and are essentially traveling the road with a kit bag that was assembled in a thoroughly ad hoc fashion. This kit bag tends to include a lot of gems, in my opinion, because the quality of scholarship and intellectualism in the culture associated with atheism is very high; but it also contains many useless, counter-productive, and even plain wrong items as well. So the typical atheist, even if they've picked up a sizable "anti-theist kit bag" from their travels, may still be quite vulnerable to conversion in spite of the so to speak "gems" amid the dross in their kit bag. (A potent example of this is that there are roughly a half dozen popular theories about religion in general, from it being used to control the masses to social cohesion theory. Most atheists have a very informal acquaintance with one or two of these, and have latched onto one of them as "the answer" which explains religion, to the neglect (and often complete ignorance of) competing hypotheses. Most such people are unaware that their chosen explanation has competitors, and that it is just a hypothesis, nothing more; many I talk to seem aghast when I suggest their hypothesis might be wrong. To many I talk to, their chosen hypothesis is just "a self-evident truth." The appeal makes sense, because any one of these hypotheses do offer great explanatory power; however, so do the competing hypotheses. What happens if an atheist who is sold on one explanation of religion encounters a religion or religious experience which falls outside his chosen explanation for it? I'd say the odds of conversion increase immensely in such a situation.)

Anyway, this is getting tl;dr, but I think people have a tendency to view deconversion as a rational process, and conversion as an irrational one. The fact is both kinds occur going both directions, and the amount of rationality involved in these processes is, to my mind, enormously exaggerated. We, as a species, don't use the bulk of our brains to reason; the bulk of our brains has other ideas.

[TudorGothicSerpent]

Anyway, this is getting tl;dr, but I think people have a tendency to view deconversion as a rational process, and conversion as an irrational one. The fact is both kinds occur going both directions, and the amount of rationality involved in these processes is, to my mind, enormously exaggerated. We, as a species, don't use the bulk of our brains to reason; the bulk of our brains has other ideas.

Definitely some good points. In my experience, atheists who are de-converted by rational arguments (or who learn arguments against the existence of God at some point) rarely convert to any religious system based on apologetics arguments. Whenever they do, it's almost always a conversion to a strand of religion with non-traditional views of God or of faith, and there's still usually a relatively high degree of agnosticism. Rational conversions straight to conservatism or fundamentalism almost never happen, so my assumption when someone says that they went from atheism to evangelical Christianity is that their original atheism wasn't based mostly on rationality.

[Lemonvariable72]

Anyway, this is getting tl;dr, but I think people have a tendency to view deconversion as a rational process, and conversion as an irrational one. The fact is both kinds occur going both directions, and the amount of rationality involved in these processes is, to my mind, enormously exaggerated. We, as a species, don't use the bulk of our brains to reason; the bulk of our brains has other ideas.

Definitely some good points. In my experience, atheists who are de-converted by rational arguments (or who learn arguments against the existence of God at some point) rarely convert to any religious system based on apologetics arguments. Whenever they do, it's almost always a conversion to a strand of religion with non-traditional views of God or of faith, and there's still usually a relatively high degree of agnosticism. Rational conversions straight to conservatism or fundamentalism almost never happen, so my assumption when someone says that they went from atheism to evangelical Christianity is that their original atheism wasn't based mostly on rationality.

My experience is that most Evangelical Christians that say they used to be atheists are full of shit. You can usually tell within 5 minutes of talking to them because they will know nothing about atheism.

[TudorGothicSerpent]

My experience is that most Evangelical Christians that say they used to be atheists are full of shit. You can usually tell within 5 minutes of talking to them because they will know nothing about atheism.

That...yeah, that also happens. I think that most just didn't think about religion very much in the past. If asked at the time, I doubt they would have said that they didn't believe in God.

Of course, the idea that a real Christian won't participate in non-Christian behavior or can't lose their salvation (something you find in evangelical circles pretty often, particularly among Calvinists) probably leads to a lot of that. If sola fide is true, and if you were participating in behavior that marked you as "unsaved" (partying/swearing/[insert denomination's least favorite thing here]), then of course you didn't really believe.

[pocaracas]

It's because of people like this guy that I let my wife teach my kids about her religion...

[Lemonvariable72]

My experience is that most Evangelical Christians that say they used to be atheists are full of shit. You can usually tell within 5 minutes of talking to them because they will know nothing about atheism.

That...yeah, that also happens. I think that most just didn't think about religion very much in the past. If asked at the time, I doubt they would have said that they didn't believe in God.

Of course, the idea that a real Christian won't participate in non-Christian behavior or can't lose their salvation (something you find in evangelical circles pretty often, particularly among Calvinists) probably leads to a lot of that. If sola fide is true, and if you were participating in behavior that marked you as "unsaved" (partying/swearing/[insert denomination's least favorite thing here]), then of course you didn't really believe.

Thats my feeling too, but some of those people try to play that up once they convert. Like Lee Strobel, the single apologist I hate more they any

[Whateverist]

I think people have a tendency to view deconversion as a rational process, and conversion as an irrational one. The fact is both kinds occur going both directions, and the amount of rationality involved in these processes is, to my mind, enormously exaggerated. We, as a species, don't use the bulk of our brains to reason; the bulk of our brains has other ideas.

I agree entirely. Reason and rationality are almost a sideshow. Yes we can sometimes do those things and sometimes to wonderful ends. But it rarely describes the way anyone lives their life. We don't build up our beliefs, values and actions from scratch. Indeed we could not. There is always so much more going on in our noggins than the splinter we know as our conscious minds.

Aside from the conscious/unconscious divide, there is also the obvious fact that the portions of our brains which enable symbolic language must be a recent development evolutionarily. Words are for interpersonal communication primarily. What we communicate to one another with language are realizations and plans we must have been acting on earlier in human history without language. So language is a simplification of what can be realized with non-discursive thought. Information is lost, not gained, by concentrating on just that which can be communicated interpersonally.

Think of all the people who take drugs, realize things and then find afterwords that they cannot put it into words. Well of course they can't. What they had been realizing wasn't by way of language. So when they come back to their normal consciousness where they rely overmuch on language they can't grasp any of it. They could but they are simply warped by an over reliance on language in their own internal thinking. It isn't necessary and it isn't optimal. If it wasn't so prevalent it would be recognized as pathological.

[Minimalist]

So, your interpretation that Jesus was in the mind of God doesn't fit the testimony of scripture, or even in its own context.

Surely you have figured out by now that no one puts any stock in your "scriptures." I reject that term and call them bullshit stories designed to impress the gullible.

Now I will concede that my view is quite jaded so I'll go with the opinion of biblical scholar Bart Ehrman who has demonstrated that this stuff is anonymous, fraudulent, mistake-ridden and heavily edited to suit the needs of the power structure as it emerged. I suggest you read Jesus Interrupted to learn how badly you have been conned.

A very large percentage of seminarians are completely blind-sided by the historical-critical method. They come in with the expectation of learning the pious truths of the Bible so that they can pass them along in their sermons, as their own pastors have done for them. Nothing prepares them for historical criticism. To their surprise they learn, instead of material for sermons, all the results of what historical critics have established on the basis of centuries of research. The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable contradictions. Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write the Gospels. There are other books that did
not make it into the Bible that at one time or another were considered canonical—other Gospels, for example, allegedly written by Jesus’ followers Peter, Thomas, and Mary. The Exodus probably did not happen as described in the Old Testament. The conquest of the Promised Land is probably based on legend. The Gospels are at odds on numerous points and contain nonhistorical material. It is hard to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the historical Jesus taught. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are filled with legendary fabrications and the book of Acts in the New Testament contains historically unreliable information about the life and teachings of Paul. Many of the books of the New Testament are pseudonymous—written not by the apostles but by later writers claiming to be apostles. The list goes on.

Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted Pg. 5-6

It gets better from there but I doubt you have the courage to read it.

[Esquilax]

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

That doesn't say what you were asked to provide.

I haven't really researched the history of the golden rule; do you know what is the earliest known quotation of it? What I do know is that Moses wrote the pentateuch in 1400 BC which was 900 years earlier than the quotation by Confucius. Even if it were found to be older than the Old Testament, I wouldn't see that as being a problem for the credibility of Jesus.

Well, the Code of Hammurabi, from ancient Babylon, has a secular iteration of the golden rule. And I'd see these things as a problem for the credibility of the claim that Jesus' teachings were the product of divine inspiration and unique to christianity; demonstrably, that's false, and if heathens can come up with the same things, it's hardly the exclusive domain of god, now is it?

As far Jesus borrowing from Horus, Mithra etc, that was the claim of a famous documentary called Zeitgeist which has been roundly debunked.

Oh, I dunno that I'd go so far as to say that the Jesus story borrowed from those other ones, just that those commonalities aren't unique either; they're memes that repeat throughout many mythologies, so why would we give them any special consideration from this one?

That said, I am not trying to prove anything with my statement other than offer a possibility. The possibility is that the impact of Christianity on the world, and its prominence in history and even today points to the truth of what Jesus said. If He is the Son of God, the result we have seen matches His claims.

Those two things share no logical connection: the world is flush with impactful figures that we've later determined were wrong. You're just adding extra importance to the figure you want to be the real deal; I'd rather address the proof and evidence for his claims and the attendant ones about god, rather than measuring veracity by popularity.

What you have to see is that all prayers are answered, and sometimes that answer is no.

And now you've lost any sense of credibility: what you're saying is that if prayers are answered, there's a god, and if prayers aren't answered, there's a god. No falsifiability, means no rational justification. You're just practicing confirmation bias, now.

To a man with no faith, he will see the no answers as being unanswered prayers when they are actually answered prayers.

The study I linked you to was performed by the Christian Templeton Foundation. This was men of faith coming to the determination that prayer doesn't work any better than chance.

So, the study itself could never accurately measure the effectiveness of prayer for that reason. God could arrange the circumstances so that those prayers which were answered yes would never have a statistical significance, and He might do that because He only allows us to approach Him in faith and not by testing.

And so he arranged it so that the prayers of those asking for a safe heart surgery failed and caused great pain and possibly death to those who prayed... because he was irritated we were testing him? And that seems moral to you?