Former atheist

[robvalue]

To believe in something, like a god, you must have a reason. If that reason can be identified, it can be assessed to see if it is a rational reason or not, to some extent. Unfortunately, each person may not truly know themselves what the reason is. And even if they do know, they often cover it with obviously unconvincing fake-logic reasons which certainly wouldn't be enough. I suspect that in most cases it is an emotional reason.

[Mister Agenda]

[/i]Believed that physical reality was all that there was, and stories of “creation”, deities, spirits, angels, demons, souls, etc., were merely fantasies[/i]

Yes. But more like misinterpretations of otherwise actual events. For example, the flood myth was based on a local event transformed into legend.

So, you used to believe that spirits, angels, demons, and souls were "misinterpretations" of actual things, but now you believe they are real? Can you please explain the operation of a "soul"? Where does a soul reside? How does a soul communicate with other entities? Does is it have ears, vocal chords and a mouth, or does it just use telepathy? Does it have a brain, and if not, how does it process information?

Sounds like you're setting up for an argument from ignorance. If Chad doesn't know the answers to your questions, do you think it makes you correct?

And then somehow you became convinced that Christianity was no longer to be grouped as a falsehood with all other religions, because it is actually the one religion that is true.

No. I’m very ecumenical. I think there is something going on at a more fundamental level that sensible reality. That is a feeling shared by most religions. How different cultures approach the Divine gives each religion its own flavor. In my own case, Christianity is the best framework for me to use because it is the most familiar and corresponds with my spiritual experiences.

So you don't believe that Christianity is the one religion that is true, but you go with it because it corresponds with your "feelings" and "spiritual" experiences? What is a spiritual experience? Is that like a "feeling"?

If the topic is whether Chad was an atheist, he's established it as reasonably as most of the atheists who post here.

That the god you now “believe in” is actually real, and that he really did create the universe, and that he really does rule over it. That angels, demons, spirits, etc., are factually real. And that after your death you will be resurrected and you will live forever in the presence of this god.

Yes. All except the idea of a physical resurrection.

So you "believe in" non-physical "resurrection? Please explain the mechanics of this.

What's with the 3rd degree?

For some reason, I don’t believe you were ever an atheist..I say bullshit."

And I say piss off.

So sorry to piss you off. And, spoken like a true Christian!

He didn't say he was pissed off, he said piss off, and I don't blame him. There's nothing hypocritical about a Christian telling someone who is implying that he is a liar to piss off.

---

"So when you were an atheist, you:

• Believed that ALL religions were contrived by men, and ALL were works of fiction
• Could not accept the claims made by religious people or their “holy” books
• Believed that religious people, of all “faiths” were misguided at best, and delusional at worst
• Believed that physical reality was all that there was, and stories of “creation”, deities, spirits, angels, demons, souls, etc., were merely fantasies

There are many irreligious theists who would be in full agreement with these points.

So? They are still not a litmus test for 'true atheism'.

---

I believe many of these people are liars. Those amongst these "former atheists" that are genuine more than likely "became atheists" by rebellion or maybe even through anger at their imaginary god.

The conundrum here is that belief in a supernatural deity does not operate within the realm of logic and/or rational thinking. Faith is a matter of faith, not knowledge, not logic, not reason. God, since it requires faith to believe in, is therefore also a matter of faith, not knowledge, not logic. There is no empirical evidence for any god.

So, for one to go from an atheist to a theist, one must have, at some point, on some level, used some rational thinking in order to come to the conclusion that they, in fact, did not believe in any god(s). They decided they would use logic to tackle the subject of god. After spending a certain amount of time like this, they must have then made a conscious decision that they would halt their use of logic and rational thinking when it came to tackling the subject of god, and revert back to using faith, for whatever reason. This would tell me that they considered faith to be superior to logic all along, which is what makes me doubt the genuineness of claims such as these.

Not everyone 'logicked' their way to atheism. If they were never taught to believe, but also never taught how to evaluate claims, there's no reason to think they would be that difficult to persuade. It's not atheism that acts as a bulwark against susceptibility to irrational beliefs, but rational skepticism.

[Pizza]

No, my point was that Strongbad's "true atheist" test was ill thought out for that reason. If irreligious theists count as atheists then who isn't an atheist?

---

---

[/i]Believed that physical reality was all that there was, and stories of “creation”, deities, spirits, angels, demons, souls, etc., were merely fantasies[/i]

Yes. But more like misinterpretations of otherwise actual events. For example, the flood myth was based on a local event transformed into legend.

So, you used to believe that spirits, angels, demons, and souls were "misinterpretations" of actual things, but now you believe they are real? Can you please explain the operation of a "soul"? Where does a soul reside? How does a soul communicate with other entities? Does is it have ears, vocal chords and a mouth, or does it just use telepathy? Does it have a brain, and if not, how does it process information?

And then somehow you became convinced that Christianity was no longer to be grouped as a falsehood with all other religions, because it is actually the one religion that is true.

No. I’m very ecumenical. I think there is something going on at a more fundamental level that sensible reality. That is a feeling shared by most religions. How different cultures approach the Divine gives each religion its own flavor. In my own case, Christianity is the best framework for me to use because it is the most familiar and corresponds with my spiritual experiences.

So you don't believe that Christianity is the one religion that is true, but you go with it because it corresponds with your "feelings" and "spiritual" experiences? What is a spiritual experience? Is that like a "feeling"?

That the god you now “believe in” is actually real, and that he really did create the universe, and that he really does rule over it. That angels, demons, spirits, etc., are factually real. And that after your death you will be resurrected and you will live forever in the presence of this god.

Yes. All except the idea of a physical resurrection.

So you "believe in" non-physical "resurrection? Please explain the mechanics of this.

For some reason, I don’t believe you were ever an atheist..I say bullshit."

And I say piss off.

---

So sorry to piss you off. And, spoken like a true Christian!

In fairness to Chad, I would probably have the same reaction to you as he did, if you jumped down my throat for same trivial reasons.

[remagination]

Not everyone 'logicked' their way to atheism. If they were never taught to believe, but also never taught how to evaluate claims, there's no reason to think they would be that difficult to persuade. It's not atheism that acts as a bulwark against susceptibility to irrational beliefs, but rational skepticism.

This is one reason I do not seek to "convert" anyone to atheism (though it isn't the only reason). You see, I don't see theism so much as a cause of irrationality - but more as a symptom. If I teach a theist to think rationally and they use this skill to analyze their views on a host of social issues and more - but never get around to directing their logic at the question of God's existence, and therefore remain theists --- I know some people here would count that as a loss - but I would not. And I sure would prefer someone like that over an atheist who arrived at atheism through the dumb-luck reasoning that we are trained to be aware of when taught about the Fallacy Fallacy --- because the former has logic (even though they haven't directed it at the God question) while the later does not.

[Strongbad]

So, you used to believe that spirits, angels, demons, and souls were "misinterpretations" of actual things, but now you believe they are real? Can you please explain the operation of a "soul"? Where does a soul reside? How does a soul communicate with other entities? Does is it have ears, vocal chords and a mouth, or does it just use telepathy? Does it have a brain, and if not, how does it process information?

Sounds like you're setting up for an argument from ignorance. If Chad doesn't know the answers to your questions, do you think it makes you correct?

Does it make me correct about what? I never claimed to have answers to the questions, or else I wouldn't be asking them.

If the topic is whether Chad was an atheist, he's established it as reasonably as most of the atheists who post here.

Agreed. All one need do to is claim to be a former atheist. However, as many times as we've heard this "former atheist" claim, I personally am very skeptical whenever I hear it.

What's with the 3rd degree?

He volunteered answers to questions that were not directed at him in the first place. Am I not allowed to question further?

He didn't say he was pissed off, he said piss off, and I don't blame him. There's nothing hypocritical about a Christian telling someone who is implying that he is a liar to piss off.

Again, my original post was not directed at Chad. He volunteered his answers to a general set of questions that I have posted several times in the past. To infer that I was calling him a liar is incorrect.

---

No, my point was that Strongbad's "true atheist" test was ill thought out for that reason.

When did I ever claim or imply that my line of questions was a "true atheist" test?

In fairness to Chad, I would probably have the same reaction to you as he did, if you jumped down my throat for same trivial reasons.

You need to re-read the posts. I never posed those questions to Chad; he volunteered his responses to a general set of questions that I indicated I had posted previously. Jumped down his throat!? Hardly.