A Former Atheist

[Theoretical Skeptic]

We hear a bazillion 'I used to be an Atheist' stories from Christians. If they were all true than 20 years ago the US would have been populated by Atheists who converted. It's a selling tactic used by con men. I used to be like you but now I am so much happier after discovering the truth, give it a try. Forgive me, but I'll pass. I also don't find the bible to be at all convincing that the supernatural is real.

This is the Converts Corner. Do you see the atheist that used to be theists posting here as doubtful? I don't. I don't think that you see as many atheists turned theists as you might suspect, I only think you resent them. Lets be realistic. Atheists are the minority. Militant atheists the minority of that minority. Theists are typically uninformed on the subject of the Bible, and disinterested in it. It's a customary traditional socio-political interest. There is no Christian nation, and there never has been, but in the U.S. the religious idiots rule the roost because they have the majority in a democratic society that doesn't work. The atheist concern in the West is political and social. Not a supernatural or scientific issue. 

[Jenny A]

This is the Converts Corner. Do you see the atheist that used to be theists posting here as doubtful? I don't. I don't think that you see as many atheists turned theists as you might suspect, I only think you resent them. Lets be realistic. Atheists are the minority. Militant atheists the minority of that minority. Theists are typically uninformed on the subject of the Bible, and disinterested in it. It's a customary traditional socio-political interest. There is no Christian nation, and there never has been, but in the U.S. the religious idiots rule the roost because they have the majority in a democratic society that doesn't work. The atheist concern in the West is political and social. Not a supernatural or scientific issue. 

This is just my take, but most people who've deconverted from a religion, did so by skeptical thinking, sometimes with much emotional trauma.   Most atheists who converted to a religion were raised without religion and converted mostly because of emotion.  All anecdotal, I know, but that's mostly what  I see.  I've yet to hear of anyone who really converted after reading the bible.

Additionally, we also get a number of pretenders who say I used to be atheist and then turn out to be a sock of a theist who's been here before.  

[Exian]

He doesn't resent them; he's saying its hard to believe the claim in the first place. It's a common tactic in these parts for theists to claim they used to be atheists.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

You also asked me to back up my claims, something you wouldn't need to do if you had prior knowledge of the verses relevant to the issues I'd listed. 

I've written lengthy articles about the passages you later cited, I was most certainly aware of them. I was in doubt of the social protestation so commonly given by atheists against the Bible. 

Humanity corrected its views on slavery, something the bible never did, even into the new testament. My point is that one should not read the bible, read those passages regarding slavery, and then worship the entity responsible for that, regardless of how convinced of his reality you end up being. The moral course of action, were one to read the bible and become convinced that that god exists, is to reject him outright, not to play into his hands. 

How could the Bible have corrected its reporting of the human interaction of slavery? You are not very well informed of the meaning of the Bible because you see it as a moral compass. The Bible is the history of mankind's imperfection by choice, and the possible alternative solution. To point at examples of moral failings from your position thousands of years later is, ironically, a bit premature and missing the point. All you really need to do is recognize a very simple Biblical truth, which is this: put simply. The first man was given the planet given that he keep in mind his creator's advice and protection were essential, much like that of a parent. He rejected this guidance and protection and everything we see around us is an alleged result of that. All the suffering, all of the injustice is a product of that which you continue to reject. Adam said, in a sense: I'm going to run this show, and God, in a sense, responded okay, fair enough, let's see how that goes. 



It seems strange to me that a god that doesn't exist gets the blame for our stupidity. 

It's not hypocritical: I don't worship any humans who advocate slavery any more than I worship gods who advocate slavery. Where is the hypocrisy, there? Humans changed, god did not.

What is your problem with slavery as presented in the Bible? That God did it? All the while not existing? Who created slavery, man or God? And, again, what is specifically your problem with slavery, not in general, but specifically as presented by the Bible? 

... Protected slaves by making it acceptable to beat them to death? By describing in detail how to trick temporary slaves into becoming permanent ones by holding their families to ransom? By allowing them to be raped? Seriously?  

Man also invented murder, by the way, but god had no issue abolishing that in his commandments, yet he remains curiously silent on the immorality of slavery, though equally curiously loquacious regarding the particulars of making it happen. It's a matter of priorities, you see; god places getting all the worship for himself above abolishing slavery, something you would, I assume, find to be a noble cause when humanity does it. Doesn't that seem odd, to you? 

What are you even talking about? What is morality? What is presented by people of a specific time and place as being right, correct? You need to be more specific about your objection to slavery as presented by the Bible like I asked above. Your moral judgement of the ancients is irrelevant. 

In what way were they different? I warn you, I'm well aware of the full details regarding the "you could let them go after seven years!" style of lazy apologetics, so maybe don't go there if you were intending to. 

First of all, to kidnap anyone for the purpose of selling them into slavery was punishable by death. A Jewish person could sell themselves into slavery in order to work off a debt, or pay for theft or property damage and then be released. A slave could have their own business, make their own money, live life as they choose and often were a trusted authority figure in the household or community. Joseph, for example, a slave in Egypt, was the second most powerful and wealthy man in Egypt. Slaves taken from the nations outside of Israel were prisoners of war, and were protected by the law. Intent to kill or the murder of ones slave was a capital offense. These are just a few things. 

I don't think I mentioned genocide, but he became genocidal around about the time he selected a race of people and demanded that they all be killed, because that's literally what a genocide is.

Again, you need to be more specific and logically you need to more carefully grasp the meaning of the Bible. In the case of claims of genocide, for example, who specifically are you referring to, what were the normal policies of warfare of the Israelite once Jehovah began to deal specifically with them? What was the purpose of the alleged genocide? Things like that. 

You don't think that god could have afforded rape victims a wider range of social options and protections by adding a few "be cool to rape victims" clauses into the bible? Possibly taking out that "she must marry her rapist," bit and just have the rapist fund her life in recompense without forcing her into close quarters with him for life? Or hey, just removing the social stigma on being unmarried and having sex, so that the issue never came up at all? I mean, given how utterly arbitrary the value on virginity actually is, that isn't a huge deal, right?

Again, you are giving vague examples based upon your uninformed interpretation and judging the moral fiber of a people that lived thousands of years ago by your current standards. So your case is weak even though your heart is in the right place. Even if you had a point it would be, unfortunately lost. 

---

He doesn't resent them; he's saying its hard to believe the claim in the first place. It's a common tactic in these parts for theists to claim they used to be atheists.

Has anyone considered the possibility that those claiming to have been atheist who became believers are telling the truth? 

---

This is just my take, but most people who've deconverted from a religion, did so by skeptical thinking, sometimes with much emotional trauma.   Most atheists who converted to a religion were raised without religion and converted mostly because of emotion.  All anecdotal, I know, but that's mostly what  I see.  I've yet to hear of anyone who really converted after reading the bible.

Additionally, we also get a number of pretenders who say I used to be atheist and then turn out to be a sock of a theist who's been here before.  

It just seems crazy to me. There is no doubt whatsoever when it is ever expressed, I can only assume, for anyone to have abandoned their beliefs for atheism and yet it is an all too common practice for us believers to infiltrate your forums just to make up claims about once having been atheist like its supposed to be a slap in your collective face?! What nonsense and xenophobic paranoia. Is that neurotic or something? 

My conversion was purely logical. 

[Thumpalumpacus]

No. Like the writers of the Bible I'm a henotheist. 

Sounds like a neat way to eat your cake and have it, too.

---

[...]the Mosaic law simply protected slaves.

It allowed them to be beaten to within an inch of their lives.  It allowed them to be bought and sold as property.

You're not the first theist here to defend Biblical slavery. It's sad how many of you believers have lost your moral compass simply because you must defend this inane book at any cost.

You just watch -- you will be a pretzel in a few days, once the members here sink their teeth into your moral turpitude.  You actually think it's okay to own another human being. What sort of asshole are you?

---

I don't think that God would agree with you.

And you've come to this opinion how? Have you spoken with him recently? Are you his majordomo? Press secretary?

I don't care what you think your god thinks. You are no authority on your god, in the eyes of any other human beside yourself.

Why are you an atheist? What would be the point? Because the political influence of a small tribe of bronze age sheepherders thousands of years ago? Because you just can't abide by fantasy?

No. It's because I don't have any faith.

Do you have children and do you celebrate Christmas with them?

I have a 17-year-old son with whom I celebrate Christmas, not as a celebration of the birth of a fictional god, but in honor of the idea "peace on Earth, good will towards men".

To me it seems odd to adopt the strict militant opposition to the ideology of a thousands year old book while simultaneously expressing amusement at it's authority.   

The fact that you think I've adopted the "strict militant opposition" (whatever that means!)  demonstrates clearly that you are either biased or not very perceptive.

I have no faith. I'm unimpressed by the persistence of foolishness; people believed the sun orbited the Earth for far, far longer than people have worshipped your little deity, and you expect me to be impressed by a book that's hung around like a tumor for 1650 years? Of course there will be gullible folks who buy the carrot-and-stick routine -- yourself included. 

And since you seem to have a problem understanding simple English, I will reiterate: I'm not expressing amusement at its authority, but rather at your credulity. 

[Aractus]

Your objection to the Bible as condoning slavery, for example, what point is there in that? I should dismiss the Bible, which was honest in it's position on slavery and then denounce democracy, even humanity, for doing the same? It seems to me short sighted and perhaps even hypocritical. An emotional fixation. Man, not God, invented slavery, the Mosaic law simply protected slaves. Also to think of slavery in those times as similar to our own country's more recent history is erroneous. To them our system of debt and imprisonment and racism would be far more immoral and inhumane. 

The problem is that just isn't true. The Slavery practises in Egypt were far fairer and all slaved could buy property and work their way to freedom; and no slaves were ever used for forced labour. Yet in the Bible, female slaves are never to be released, men could own "concubines" which are sex slaves, and God specifically says that the Hebrews can make their slaves do forced labour. Furthermore the sexism in the Bible is also something that was not shared by Egyptians. In the Bible, women can't own property or get a divorce from their husbands. There is not one single verse in the Bible that makes it lawful for a woman to divorce her husband, not one. Yet in Egypt, Men AND Women could own property, and Men AND Women could get divorces.

Racism is something condoned by the Bible. The Bible mentions several times other "races" of people in Judea. We now know that there is only one human race. Different people are not fundamentally different to each other as was believed by the Hebrews, Jews, and many other societies right up to the 20th century.

Daniel 2:43: As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.

Deut 7:1-6: “When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you, and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and chop down their Asherim and burn their carved images with fire.

“For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

Ezra 9:1-2: After these things had been done, the officials approached me and said, “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost.”

[Twisted]

lol soon bible will be called Christian mythology like hindu mythology and greek mythology :p i don't understand how you can believe in it,most people who believe in a religion or convert to religions tend to think emotionally rather than rationally,emotional thinking can make you feel good for sometime but in the long run it will do more harm than good,you have to put your emotions aside and accept the truth with bravery no matter how harsh it is

[Alex K]

What is an example of something you would keep, and how do you decide what to discard?

Keep? That depends upon what you mean by keep. I would have people, whether critics or believers, keep the well documented history of these influences creeping into Christianity and while being aware of them educate themselves on the real meaning of the Bible without those influences. 

All of them. 

I mean - which parts of the bible would you keep as "real"

[downbeatplumb]

Keep? That depends upon what you mean by keep. I would have people, whether critics or believers, keep the well documented history of these influences creeping into Christianity and while being aware of them educate themselves on the real meaning of the Bible without those influences. 

All of them. 

I mean - which parts of the bible would you keep as "real"

Apparently he believes in the flood, which throws into doubt his critical thinking skills.

[Alex K]

I mean - which parts of the bible would you keep as "real"

Apparently he believes in the flood, which throws into doubt his critical thinking skills.

Indeed. Looks like a big mess.