Former atheist

[Neo-Scholastic]

FNM, I reread your earlier posts so I’m not sure what the ‘second half’ says that you feel deserves a reply.

I will say this. The ‘former atheist’ trope is very often used as a marketing tool within the Evangelical community. Lee Strobel serves as a good example. “The Case for Christ” repackages basic Evangelical apologetics, but I do not believe his book is aimed at the atheist readers. Instead he is basically saying to a Christian audience “You should buy my book, because when I was an atheist these arguments changed my mind. They will help you fulfill the Great Commission.” It just doesn't come off as entirely sincere.

[watchamadoodle]

@ChadWooters, maybe you already answer this somewhere, but what made you become a theist? Was there a road to Damascus experience?

[Faith No More]

FNM, I reread your earlier posts so I’m not sure what the ‘second half’ says that you feel deserves a reply.

Nothing in particular, I guess. I was just trying to make a broader point about how emotion affects our reasoning skills and hoping the conversation would steer towards the fact that you believe atheism isn't as personally rewarding of a conclusion, so that I could then leverage that to point out that atheism in general is a conclusion reached with less emotion clouding one's judgement.

But you didn't take the bait.

[comet]

Some of you may have met some people who identify themselves as former atheists (they always emphasize the former part) - I'm curious about two things:

1 - Why do these former atheists take so much pleasure in shoving down other people's throats that they were once atheists (as if atheism was false and they now feel enlightened and saved)? When someone asks me my religious beliefs I say I am an atheist, not a former Christian (the same applies to any sect of belief). By the way, I know not every atheist is a former theist, but you get what I mean.

--> I don't think someone's opinion has more or less value because they were once an atheist, just like a former Christian doesn't get extra credibility when talking about Christianity, and people like me don't get extra credit when talking about Islam (I've never been a Muslim)

2 - Why do people become atheists and then go back to theism? Seriously, I sometimes post in a deist forum and I've met people who were atheists for 20-30-40 years and then quitted and became deists. I'm guessing the same happens with atheists who become new born Christians, the list goes on... I cannot understand. After what I've searched and found I cannot imagine myself going back to theism (even deism) because I know it's either false or the probability of it being true is very low.

sounds like the same as the whinny ex-piss off christian to me.

[Strongbad]

The only thing you need to do to be an atheist is fail to believe that gods exist.

Thanks, but I don't view it as a "failure".

---

"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.

Good for them.

[Neo-Scholastic]

@ChadWooters, maybe you already answer this somewhere, but what made you become a theist? Was there a road to Damascus experience?

Old Post

Here is a more comprehensive description I gave a while back.

[remagination]

Most of the time you don't have to worry about a No True Scotsman, because they'll say something like, "I used to be an atheist. I was always mad at god. Yada, yada, yada..." Usually they make it so obvious that it's just a misguided, cheap debating tactic that you're completely justified in calling them out on it.

I am still analyzing the No True Scotsman to determine whether it is truly a specific fallacy of it's own, or merely a proxy for one or more other fallacy (specifically, in the case of this conversation, what I call the "recursive fallacy" -- but I believe is more commonly known as "circular reasoning"). In some cases even, the No True Scotsman proxy is used as a false-alarm fallacy-allegation aimed at discrediting someone who validly calls out a Fallacy of Ambiguity (as I saw it used here http://www.defendingthebible.org/no-true...llacy.html to discredit people who point out that Answers Research Journal does not meet the requirements for being taken seriously as a scientific publication).

But, assuming it is truly a fallacy of it's own, believe that for this to be a No True Scotsman would require two things (among possibly others as well):

#1: Your only evidence for calling someone out as not having been a true atheist is that they later converted to theism.

#2: Your only basis for assuming that it is impossible for a true atheist to convert to theism (hence the validity of pattern #1) is 'proof' based on the fact that, once pattern #1 is applied to everyone, there will be no remaining cases of a 'true' atheist later converting to theism.

Surely it's obvious why I see this as nothing more than example of the Circular Reasoning fallacy ---- and giving it a separate name like "No True Scotsman" is IMHO redundant.

[Delysid]

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.

[I_am_not_mafia]

It isn't impossible to go back. Most of the "former atheists" over the years I have run into when you peal it back simply were apathetic about religion, or took the word as some sort of rebellion. I would say somewhere along the line they simply got sucked in by a snake oil salesman.

There really is a lot you need to know as an atheist as far as the extent of elaborate apology that they come up with. Some may have been atheists, but that doesn't mean they were well armed. I've been at this 14 years almost every day and I can tell you I was an atheist before I started educating myself and back then I was an easy target by comparison.

A child who has never heard of Santa Claus is likely to believe it when told about the existence of a magical man who flies around the world delivering presents. Especially when they find presents at the foot of their bed on Christmas morning.

But once that child learns that Santa Claus does not exist and that it was their parents leaving out the presents, they won't go back to believing it again as an adult.

Education is the key. You can't unlearn what you know.

[robvalue]

I find it rather patronising. To me it sounds like, "I used to be like you."

It's a cheap and irrelevant way to try and earn credibility and acceptance with the audience.