From atheism to Christianity? How so?

[Jacob(smooth)]

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.

And there I thought everyone was born atheist! I'm sure I read that somewhere... [/quote]

[Strongbad]

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.

And there I thought everyone was born atheist! I'm sure I read that somewhere...

Which is quite ridiculous, obviously. How could a newborn possibly have knowledge of the claims made by theists, and the intelligence to reject them?

[Whateverist]

But if newborns lack the capacity for the knowledge, then we can be absolutely sure they are without belief in gods. Same goes for rocks. If by "atheist" it is meant "someone who can and does understand what gods are but rejects them anyway" then I'm no atheist. I do not understand what gods are at all. I have my pet theories of what people who do claim to believe in gods have in mind, but that gets me no closer to knowing what they are. So if newborns can't be atheists I guess I can't either.

[Strongbad]

But if newborns lack the capacity for the knowledge, then we can be absolutely sure they are without belief in gods. Same goes for rocks. If by "atheist" it is meant "someone who can and does understand what gods are but rejects them anyway" then I'm no atheist. I do not understand what gods are at all. I have my pet theories of what people who do claim to believe in gods have in mind, but that gets me no closer to knowing what they are. So if newborns can't be atheists I guess I can't either.

I think its a bit simpler than that. No one understands what gods are. Atheists merely reject the claims made by theists regarding their "knowledge" (in real terms: "belief") of what gods are. Of course newborns are without beliefs in gods - they are without beliefs in anything - but that does not make them atheists. Rocks lack the capacity to believe or reject anything.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Hmm, agapelove.

I'm fairly sure someone trolled AF.com with that username/idea a decent while ago.

Could be coincidence...

[Angrboda]

The Golden Rule in history:

---

"The Code of Ur-Nammu is the oldest known law code surviving today. It is from Mesopotamia and is written on tablets, in the Sumerian language c. 2100–2050 BC."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu

---

"The Eloquent Peasant is an Ancient Egyptian story about a peasant, Khun-Anup, who stumbles upon the property of the noble Rensi son of Meru, guarded by its harsh overseer, Nemtynakht." (ca. 1800 BCE)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eloquent_Peasant
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/peasant.htm

[agapelove]

The same way that you think you know that there is a question to be answered.

What way is that?

So...God knew we would "fall", and He knew that the only the thing, THE ONLY THING, that would appease His "anger", the only way to "provide a savior", would be a human sacrifice to Him. But not just any human sacrifice would do - it had to be His "only begotten son" that would satisfy his blood lust.

You "used to be an atheist", and this is what you now believe? Again, I can only exclaim: BULLSHIT!

You are reiterating the no true scotsman fallacy. I could express a similar argument towards those who claim to have once been Christians and converted to atheism.

If he knew we would fall, then he designed us specifically with that in mind. Not only did he not stop it, he deliberately set it in motion. Everything that follows does so because he designed the first humans to fall short, then punished all of humanity for their success in falling short.

The only rule given to the first pair of humans is to avoid one tree in the utopian paradise that god has provided them. If he hadn't introduced this temptation, would Adam and Eve not have free will? If so, then the only way for them to exercise their free will was to break the one rule given them. If not, then we suffer because god added an unnecessary obstacle that was designed solely for the purpose of causing humanity to fall.

The story is written so as to put the blame squarely on god's shoulders, which is why it's such a tricky one for Christians to explain, and why there are such varied (and often unclear) explanations for it. Just the basic story --where god pats himself on the back for his "good" creation then watches it turn on him-- forces the believer to blame humanity for a shortcoming that is built into it. As you delve deeper the questions get tougher and the explanations more and more bizarre.

God created Adam and Eve to be able to freely choose whether they wanted to obey Him or not. They were not designed to fall short at all; after God created them He said everything was "very good". They had no imperfection, but they did have the freedom to exercise their own will. Unfortunately, they made the wrong choice; does making the wrong choice mean they were designed to do that? Why doesn't it mean they have a real choice? If they had made the right choice would you infer that? If what you're saying is that it is impossible for Adam and Eve to truly have free will, I disagree with you. God could create them to have free will, and because He is merciful, He provided the solution even when they made the wrong choice. Nothing is lost for even a single human being regardless of the fall, because every person can still make the right choice and join Him all throughout history.

Well Agape, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that you were, at one time, an atheist who had through a profound experience gained a belief in a supernatural construct -- up until that last post.

Now, I simply do not find your story believable on several counts.

First of all -- atheists are not impressed with spouting quotes from your favorite holy text. I ignore that just as if you were spouting random quotes from The Pokey Little Puppy. It is not just that we reject the claims made in the Bible -- the basic premise is wrong. There is no such thing as a book that was inspired by, much less authored by, a supernatural source. There is no such thing as a book that can always be counted upon to be right no matter what -- such a book does not exist -- end of story. You seem to be entirely unaware of this fact and your claim that you once held this view is suspect to say the least.

I know how atheists feel about the bible; you'll notice that the conversations I am having where I am quoting scripture are to people who have asked me questions about the scripture. If I've directly quoted scripture in any other context beyond being directly questioned about it, I don't recall doing it. If I have done it, it was only as an aside and not my main point. Please point out the instances where I have been quoting scripture apart from people asking me direct questions about it.

Perhaps you were a non-believer in the supernatural, in an uninterested way, but you have made it clear that you were never an active skeptic.

If you were really a skeptic, you would never have fallen for the cheap, sleazy, fake leg-lengthening parlor trick that has been used by scumbag faith healers for ages. I have an internet search engine -- so do you:

https://www.google.com/#q=faith+healers+...k&safe=off

Just pick one or two of the many articles and videos exposing this scam.

This is the no true scotsman fallacy. How do you think I could wrong about one of my legs being shorter than the other? Not only did I measure it with a tape measure, but it was uncomfortable to walk on. Now they're the same length and my gait is fixed. How do you think someone could imagine this?

The woman who needed money -- just eliminate the supernatural and what are you left with? A woman was having financial difficulties and her son gave her some money -- so what. A skeptic will naturally pursue a natural explanation -- It appears that you never really had such a mind-set. Dreams that seem to be prophetic can be explained by paradolia and retrofitting. There are no cases of confirmed prophecy that can't be explained by natural means.

A skeptic should be skeptical even of his own assumptions and evaluate evidence on its own merits rather than on predetermined conclusions. You say so what and dismiss the supernatural out of hand; isn't that simply biased? It seems reasonable that when you pray for something and it is answered literally two minutes later, that is evidence for supernatural intervention and it bears consideration. What would your answer be beyond "its a coincidence"?

Are we really to believe that you started studying all religious paths except the one that is by far the dominant, most popular, most pushed in your culture and then looked at that one last and found it to be true? No -- I don't believe you. Are we to believe that you went on a quest for spiritual enlightenment without actually "looking for anything"? Again, I don't believe that.

I haven't asked you to believe anything, I've just given my testimony, and it is the true testimony of my life. I would say I studied Christianity last because of my cultural exposure, not in spite of it. My view was basically anything but Jesus. You will also see in my testimony that I started searching when God gave me spiritual experiences.

Any anyone who was ever the least bit skeptical of supernatural claims would never use Pascal's Wager -- even most xtian extremists reject it as sub=standard argumentation.

I never used Pascal's Wager..and you'll look carefully you'll see that it was admitted that the accusation was not true.

Bottom line, Agape -- I think you are just as much a former atheist as was Lee Stroebel of Kirk Cameron.

Your story is simply not believable.

However you may configure this argument, according to the no true scotsman fallacy, it isn't any less fallacious

agapelove,

you may have missed my reply, no biggie, I'll repeat the question I want answered the most.

You said my grandparents were deceived by the devil, that their prophetic dreams only served to lead them to the wrong path and that it happened to you too and you ended up going into new agey stuff. So the question is how do you know you're not being deceived now and that the real god is the muslim god, which also talks about a syaitan (their equivalent of satan)?

Sorry to have missed your reply..you're right I didn't see it. To answer your question, I believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead, something I believe only God can do.

The book of revelation was a dream. A man, if he eats too much or grabs the wrong mushroom, he has this type of experience. If you dream of your wife calling you a lunatic, will you slap her when you wake up? Why are you so illogical?

They are the words of Jesus Christ, according to the bible.

Good old Matthew...I asked, from the lips of Jesus...why are you giving me what Matthew perceived?

Every word we have from Jesus is written by someone else. I've given the words of Jesus Christ but you don't believe He said them.

I'm the son of God too, me, Ksa from atheistforums.org. You're the Son of God also. Anybody bound by the spirit of God is the Son of God.

I thought you were an atheist?

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.

To say your rationality confirms your rationality is to argue in a circle. How do you know you're perceiving the evidence correctly?

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

I've read a few books by atheists and skeptics; I read the God delusion, for example. And I do respect Bart in a few ways; one, in that he admits the existence of the historical Jesus. The Jesus that he admits to does not really resemble the Jesus of the bible, but at least he believes that much. I haven't read his books but I've listened to a few debates he was in and I don't think the evidence is on his side. I could give examples if you like, or link to some of the debates.

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?

Could you please quote the iteration that you're talking about? As far as credibility goes, Moses wrote about things that happened at the beginning of time. Some of those events and some of that wisdom has filtered down throughout the ages into many different cultures. For instance, you can find flood myths in almost every culture and civilization in history. That a bit of wisdom known by man coincides with a particular teaching of the Lord doesn't really prove anything; it would have to be systemic, and it isn't. Basically everything Jesus said was unique, or came from the Old Testament. Have you ever studied His teachings?

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?

Well, I haven't found any evidence that this is true. That's what I am trying to nail down here, what is the evidence that it is borrowed? I've found a lot of people talking about it but there are no citations from ancient literature that back up any of the claims.

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.

I don't think it proves anything either way, is what I am saying. God doesn't allow Himself to be approached except by faith.

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.

Its mission seems a mix of secular and seeker to me and not much adhering to the Christian viewpoint:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation

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?

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that He may have prearranged for those He was going to answer yes and those He was going to answer no to be in that study and approximate the average before the study ever took place.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

agapelove,

you may have missed my reply, no biggie, I'll repeat the question I want answered the most.

You said my grandparents were deceived by the devil, that their prophetic dreams only served to lead them to the wrong path and that it happened to you too and you ended up going into new agey stuff. So the question is how do you know you're not being deceived now and that the real god is the muslim god, which also talks about a syaitan (their equivalent of satan)?

Sorry to have missed your reply..you're right I didn't see it. To answer your question, I believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead, something I believe only God can do.

1. Why do you believe Jesus was resurrected?
2. Why do you believe it's something only god can do?

I hope you see how circular this is. If not, then answer away, XD.

[agapelove]

Hmm, agapelove.

I'm fairly sure someone trolled AF.com with that username/idea a decent while ago.

Could be coincidence...

I have posted on atheistforum.com before, but I don't remember my nickname. It was awhile back but I sincerely doubt it was agapelove or anything like that. I doubt anyone would remember me because I didn't really interact with more than a few people.

---

Sorry to have missed your reply..you're right I didn't see it. To answer your question, I believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead, something I believe only God can do.

1. Why do you believe Jesus was resurrected?
2. Why do you believe it's something only god can do?

I hope you see how circular this is. If not, then answer away, XD.

I believe the evidence is sufficient, for example the martrydom of the disciples, the testimony of the women at the empty tomb, and many other reasons. For spiritual reasons, because when I gave my life to Jesus I was born again. This was a supernatural rebirth of my very being and it points to the reality that Jesus is alive.

I believe only God can raise the dead because it's God who gives us life. That is the testimony of Jesus, and I believe He gave us the revelation of who God is. It all hinges on the resurrection. If the resurrection didn't happen, as Paul said we are to be pitied above all men.

[Esquilax]

Could you please quote the iteration that you're talking about? As far as credibility goes, Moses wrote about things that happened at the beginning of time.

Come on. Come on, man: you should know how that claim is going to be received before you even made it. First of all, modern science has all but debunked the entirety of the creation story, so I'm not exactly going to be terribly amenable to the claims that the things Moses wrote about the beginning of time, given that we know it to be false, especially when many of the stories about Moses have been roundly falsified by anthropology too. I shouldn't have to explain this stuff; if you want us to take claims from the bible more seriously than we'd take demonstrable science, then you need to show us that the things depicted in the bible are true, and you're not going to do that by telling us how popular it is and then attempting to reinterpret all of history so that it was merely inspired by the bible.

Some of those events and some of that wisdom has filtered down throughout the ages into many different cultures. For instance, you can find flood myths in almost every culture and civilization in history. That a bit of wisdom known by man coincides with a particular teaching of the Lord doesn't really prove anything; it would have to be systemic, and it isn't. Basically everything Jesus said was unique, or came from the Old Testament. Have you ever studied His teachings?

I'm rapidly losing respect for you. You claim that everything Jesus taught was unique or OT inspired, in response you're given examples of things that predate the Old Testament or existed contemporaneously with it in areas of the world that had never heard of it, and your answer is to reiterate your initial claim, and display how little you looked into our claims before you decided they didn't matter; the Code of Hammurabi was a legal code (systemic) enacted by a king for the entire nation. You're just wrong here, and asserting your initial claim again isn't going to make you any more correct.

Well, I haven't found any evidence that this is true. That's what I am trying to nail down here, what is the evidence that it is borrowed? I've found a lot of people talking about it but there are no citations from ancient literature that back up any of the claims.

I literally said, in the part you quoted, that I don't think the Jesus story borrowed specifically from other sources; I'm saying that certain narrative elements of the Jesus story have parallels elsewhere, which to me, is an indication that the story was written by humans, rather than being something that actually happened. Have you heard of the monomyth? It's like that: there's a basic template that many classical narratives follow, and when it comes to gods, we can find even more similarities: the concept of a god dying and then rising later isn't an uncommon one, for example. Nor is the use of wine as symbolism, among many other things. To claim that Christ represents some unique and wonderful account is to merely ignore the many, many ways in which it is not.

I don't think it proves anything either way, is what I am saying. God doesn't allow Himself to be approached except by faith.

And if the study had been overwhelmingly in favor of prayer, would you be saying the same thing?

Its mission seems a mix of secular and seeker to me and not much adhering to the Christian viewpoint:

Ah, so they're not True Christians.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that He may have prearranged for those He was going to answer yes and those He was going to answer no to be in that study and approximate the average before the study ever took place.

This seems to me to be one of those "no, but yes," answers. I asked you whether god denied selfless prayers for the safety of someone recovering from heart surgery in order to conceal his presence from scientific study, and you answered yes. I can't begin to count the ways in which this is dishonest, but I'll start with the most obvious: according to you, if I pray and nothing happens, that's still not evidence that prayers are ineffective. And if lots of people do it and it doesn't work, it's also not evidence that prayer is ineffective. So what's the failure state, here? How can you possibly, honestly say that if you pray you'll find god if you're willing to excuse every instance of that not happening? This is just confirmation bias run amok: you'll circle every hit, while ignoring every miss, and yet somehow I'm supposed to think you and this prayer action has any credibility at all?

If I told you that burning your house down will result in you winning trillions of dollars, and in the ashes of your house you remain penniless, would you continue to believe me if my excuse was that some magic force arranged it so that this time you wouldn't win trillions? Would you continue burning down houses, or would you decide I was delusional?