converting back unto theism - yes it's true.

[TruthWorthy]

I suppose my dreams are experienced as objective because I can literally see myself in them while this memory or vision put me within my subjective surroundings.
I consider this is one of the main differences between what I dream and what I remember, although I don't discount the possibility that a dream could occur putting a person in a subjective and apparently real conditions. eh, just my experience of it. It's really annoying that it's almost impossible to share with you all, I suppose you had to be there

[leo-rcc]

It's really annoying that it's almost impossible to share with you all, I suppose you had to be there

That's the problem with those personal revelations. Way too personal.

[TruthWorthy]

There's no lie when as Buddha says "Believe nothing anyone says ever not even if I have said it unless it agrees with your own understanding and common sense".

[Tiberius]

I just realised that your avatar is a great summation of the majority of feelings in this thread.

[tavarish]

So you had a dream that made you a catholic?

I'm thinking you never left, but just had doubts about your faith.

[fr0d0]

Much like yourself then Tav. You never actually knew any rational reason to believe when you claimed to be a Christian like you said in this post: http://atheistforums.org/thread-2492-pos...l#pid56709 - You've always been atheist.

[Xyster]

As an atheist I'm certainly not trying to act as an apologist for religiosity - but don't you think if these people didn't fight over religion, they would have probably found something else to fight over?

NO At least not the ferosity that religion drives one too. tribe vs tribe would be political power over a region for resources... Religion will set neighbor against neighbor to the point of Genocide

I'd say religion is a symptom of a characteristic of human nature we haven't come to fully understand yet. I think maybe our survival instinct can work against us under certain conditions. For instance, early man formed tribes, because it was beneficial to hunt and work in groups. It's a survival mechanism. However, dualistic thinking also seems to be an inherited trait. I'm not a evolutionary or socio-biologist (so I'm not sure how this trait originated - perhaps because of some sort of instinctual paranoia developed through natural selection as a survival mechanism ... who knows), but it seems to be a predominant feature of human psychology. Sometimes our survival instinct combines with our predisposition towards dualism to produce a bad result.

We're pattern seeking creatures who like explanations for things. Obviously early man must have been overwhelmed by natural phenomena, and their general lack of understanding of the natural world probably resulted in all sorts of bizarre superstitions that ultimately led to the development of more complex religious systems (just to mention one of what must have been numerous factors that contributed to the development of modern religion). However, if these conditions didn't exist, groups would have cooperated for different cultural reasons, and there's no evidence to suggest we would be any less dualistic as a result (so we can fairly assume fighting between different groups of people would still happen).

However, religion presents a particularly difficult problem (which I fully acknowledge). Dealing with irrational religious faith is much different than dealing with a secularized form of tribalism (like say linguistic or racial differences). I guess my point in all this dribble is, as rational thinkers, we shouldn't allow ourselves to become overly influenced by emotive arguments. The religious usually sincerely believe what they purport to believe (with some obvious exceptions); and religious mythology is a product of our intellectual development as a species (I guess I'm trying to say we should look at it forensically rather than politically ... I don't know). I'm shutting up now ... LOL?

But you see there is proof that with out religion you can live in peace... There are still a few tribes cut off from civilization that have NO religion what so ever are completely peacfull they get along with the other couple tribes in their area.

[Tiberius]

Atheists often seem to accuse "re-converters" of not being atheists in the first place, as if atheism is some final end-point of a one-way journey that cannot possibly be reversed. You get to atheism by rejection of theism, and you can get to theism by a rejection of atheism. It might be true that a previous rejection was made for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't mean that an atheist that reconverts to theism was "never an atheist".

I think the argument does have some merit with a few choice examples though, which probably explains why so many think this is a good argument. People like Kirk Cameron, Lee Strobel, etc could fall in this category easily, by the lack of understanding they show about atheism. However, as with all arguments that have some basis in a personal experience, I wouldn't use it.

[Frank]

NO At least not the ferosity that religion drives one too. tribe vs tribe would be political power over a region for resources... Religion will set neighbor against neighbor to the point of Genocide

Maybe, but I'm not so sure mankind wouldn't figure out other reasons to kill each other. Nonetheless, religion is something we have to deal with (no matter how illogical we "know" it is). Moreover, I simply don't take the view that the majority of mankind is plagued by sinister motives (which compells them to sign up with their nearest religious cult). That seems as bad as the occasional inference by theists that there's a global anti-god conspiracy among scientists (and they're secretly collaborating on ways to detach humanity from religiosity). It smacks of the same paranoia (a survival mechanism inherited from natural selection) that's probably part-responsible for starting this whole mess in the first place.

I'd say religion is a symptom of a characteristic of human nature we haven't come to fully understand yet. I think maybe our survival instinct can work against us under certain conditions. For instance, early man formed tribes, because it was beneficial to hunt and work in groups. It's a survival mechanism. However, dualistic thinking also seems to be an inherited trait. I'm not a evolutionary or socio-biologist (so I'm not sure how this trait originated - perhaps because of some sort of instinctual paranoia developed through natural selection as a survival mechanism ... who knows), but it seems to be a predominant feature of human psychology. Sometimes our survival instinct combines with our predisposition towards dualism to produce a bad result.

We're pattern seeking creatures who like explanations for things. Obviously early man must have been overwhelmed by natural phenomena, and their general lack of understanding of the natural world probably resulted in all sorts of bizarre superstitions that ultimately led to the development of more complex religious systems (just to mention one of what must have been numerous factors that contributed to the development of modern religion). However, if these conditions didn't exist, groups would have cooperated for different cultural reasons, and there's no evidence to suggest we would be any less dualistic as a result (so we can fairly assume fighting between different groups of people would still happen).

However, religion presents a particularly difficult problem (which I fully acknowledge). Dealing with irrational religious faith is much different than dealing with a secularized form of tribalism (like say linguistic or racial differences). I guess my point in all this dribble is, as rational thinkers, we shouldn't allow ourselves to become overly influenced by emotive arguments. The religious usually sincerely believe what they purport to believe (with some obvious exceptions); and religious mythology is a product of our intellectual development as a species (I guess I'm trying to say we should look at it forensically rather than politically ... I don't know). I'm shutting up now ... LOL?

But you see there is proof that with out religion you can live in peace... There are still a few tribes cut off from civilization that have NO religion what so ever are completely peacfull they get along with the other couple tribes in their area.

There's plenty of religious countries in the western world who manage to live quite peacefully. At anyrate I'm not necessarily opposed to your approach to this thing (and I don't want to sound preachy, I certainly do not claim any qualification to judge anyone's opinion on this subject), but I'm personaly not willing to take a hostile stand on it, and I guess I do question the necessity of it (I live in NYC, not exactly the bible belt, so I'm not sure what I could direct my anger at - even if I wanted to be a hostile opponent of religion). What is religion anyway? It's a word. Look, I can debunk religion all day long (and believe I've spent enough time trying my hand at it). At this point I like to leave it to guys who are good at it (like Hitchens); and try to strike a balance between intellectual exploration, doing some good in the world, keeping a good level of productivity, and enjoying life the best I can before I become worm food.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Everytime i see somthing like this its based on a Emotion..

Unlike deconversion to atheism,which is invariably based on cold logic.



I was brought up rabid Irish Catholic, and began seriously questioning my faith at age 16. I left the Church at 20 (1967) It took me another 20 years to reach what was for me the inevitable conclusion of atheism. That may be why I have so little tolerance of or respect for apologists,especially young earth creationists,whom I see as stunningly ignorant and rather scary.

@TruthWorthy; I really couldn't care less about the why of your reconversion. It's your life, your right to believe what you want. I sincerely hope you find contentment.

Now bugger off,there's a good little Catholic.