Atheists questioning their Atheism?

[Orias]

A lot of us understand. I was born Atheist and never was I a believer in any faith/god but I know of plenty of Atheist on this forum who went from being a believer to to being a non-believer. For them there must have been a reason but the fact is...they were believers at first and had an understanding of their faith.

Either an understanding that they disliked or a misunderstanding that they disliked.

Either way, the best understanding comes from somebody who actually understands and cares to furthure understand, not from someone who bounces inbetween faiths.

If it were as so much an understanding then perhaps semanticle dissonances wouldn't be an issue, but the problem is deeper than "understanding", it's a way of life.

What source? The only sources are the ancient text and the believer.

Doubt is a great source.

How so?....Atheist aren't the ones preaching the existence of "God", heaven, hell, damnation, judgment, afterlife...magic underwear or any of the religious dogma we see and hear throughout society. We simply require those that spout it to present some evidence...otherwise their claims are "faith based".

Your right, they just take over the public schooling and education and preach religion as an illogical regression. Either that or I must be getting mixed messages in my science classes.

People preach in general, any belief, they project it as an expression of their mind, giving society their two cents worth. Which is why atheists tend to **** me off so much, clearly atheists make no ontological claims when they tell theists that faith is irrational on the basis that anything greater than man has to be "proven".

Of course they are faith based. It's a choice, not which one has the best "evidence", but which one gratifies your personal desire.

People don't follow a faith for a "God", they do it because it makes them most comfortable.

Why? Why should I believe in Jesus and not Muhammad? Why should I beleive in Yahweh and not the various gods of the Hindus? Should I follow the bible and not the quran or vedas or are you advocating believing in all without question and following all of them...similar to (Bah'ah)..? What's wrong with requiring some evidence?

Why should you believe in anything other than your own intuition? Looking for others perception will only twist and contradict your own.

Also noted that "empirical" observation tends to have a bias tongue about it, for one who does not want to believe in God will simply chose not to see any reason to.

No it's not. Sounds like you're unfamiliar with Atheism.

Either that or I just see right through them. You know, for as many atheists that I've argued with on these forums you'd figure one of them would change their argument. (I mean no offense)

Consider me crazy, our bodies consist of dust, nothing more.

To understand something isn't to know it, it is to feel it, to live it.

 

[Pegg]

Does this ever happen? I notice Atheists like to push Theists to question Theism, or even sometimes accuse Theists of not questioning enough because we didn't arrive at Atheism. Now I ask this. Do Atheists ever question their Atheism?

some of them do...and some of them change

Have you heard of Antony Flew? He is/was one of the 19th centuries foremost atheists who promoted atheism and was the mind behind some of todays atheistic arguments such as 'the burden of proof rests with theists therefore atheism should be the default position'

well, he's changed his position on atheism and now believes in a God. He says that it is the overwhelming evidence from modern science which has drawn him to that conclusion.

 

[Magic Man]

You misunderstand. I said atheists claim a stance of skepticsm, yet if they were as so skeptical about a certain belief they would care to understand it, instead proclaim a certain ignorance about it.

Truly, if one were as skeptical as they claim they would go to the source, instead of basing "empirical" observation of those who follow it.

Where did you get the idea that atheists don't generally understand the concept of god? Many atheists come from a Christian background. They grow up believing in God or being taught all about him, and then stop believing in him at some point. I'd say they understand the concept. Even those who don't grow up in a religious household tend to have a pretty good grasp on the concept. I'm curious what examples you have of atheists proclaiming ignorance about god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

some of them do...and some of them change

Have you heard of Antony Flew? He is/was one of the 19th centuries foremost atheists who promoted atheism and was the mind behind some of todays atheistic arguments such as 'the burden of proof rests with theists therefore atheism should be the default position'

well, he's changed his position on atheism and now believes in a God. He says that it is the overwhelming evidence from modern science which has drawn him to that conclusion.

It's rather despicable to pull out Antony Flew as an example of an atheist who turned to theism.

First of all, he rejected Christianity his entire life, including the period when he supposedly "converted". Apparently, he moved from atheism to deism (saying that he could accept "an inoffensive, inactive God"), but all the while rejecting the idea of an active God.

The claim that Flew "now believes in God" is mainly based on a book where he was listed as the co-author, but it's rather unclear how much of it he actually wrote:

In 2007, Flew published a book titled There is a God, which was listed as having Roy Abraham Varghese as its co-author. Shortly after the book was released, the New York Times published an article by religious historian Mark Oppenheimer, who stated that Varghese had been almost entirely responsible for writing the book, and that Flew was in a serious state of mental decline, having great difficulty remembering key figures, ideas, and events relating to the debate covered in the book.[6] His book praises several philosophers (like Brian Leftow, John Leslie and Paul Davies), but Flew failed to remember their work during Oppenheimer's interview. The article provoked a public outcry, in which atheist PZ Myers called Varghese "a contemptible manipulator."[26]

A further article by Anthony Gottlieb noted a strong difference in style between the passages giving Flew's biography, and those laying out the case for a god, with the latter including Americanisms such as "beverages", "vacation" and "candy". He came to the same conclusion as Oppenheimer, and stated that "Far from strengthening the case for the existence of God, [the book] rather weakens the case for the existence of Antony Flew".

Antony Flew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And of course, now that Antony Flew is dead (last year - he's hardly a "19th Century atheist"), it's safe for people to say whatever they want about his beliefs without worrying about being challenged by the man himself.

 

[Orias]

Where did you get the idea that atheists don't generally understand the concept of god? Many atheists come from a Christian background.

Hmm...maybe that's why atheists don't get a complete understanding of "God".

They grow up believing in God or being taught all about him, and then stop believing in him at some point. I'd say they understand the concept. Even those who don't grow up in a religious household tend to have a pretty good grasp on the concept. I'm curious what examples you have of atheists proclaiming ignorance about god.

Christianizing never did anyone any good. And if atheists are basing their "atheism" off of the Christianized version of God, then I have to say that they lack in the observations that seem to make them so proud of.

But I highly doubt that is the case, it seems a lot of atheists just down right deny God, even if they don't know what exactly it is that they are subjecting themselves too.

What I mean by them claiming a certain ignorance about "God", is that atheists tend to try and proclaim that "science" is as consistent as it can get, and that anything else is inconsistent and fallable.

Of course, generalizing doesn't do much good for anyone either, I realize that some atheists are capable of seeing the inconsistency in human fabricated existences, though many of these people wouldn't consider themselves atheists in the first place.

 

[Magic Man]

Hmm...maybe that's why atheists don't get a complete understanding of "God".

I'd say they get a complete understanding of the theistic god, which is all they need.

Christianizing never did anyone any good. And if atheists are basing their "atheism" off of the Christianized version of God, then I have to say that they lack in the observations that seem to make them so proud of.

But I highly doubt that is the case, it seems a lot of atheists just down right deny God, even if they don't know what exactly it is that they are subjecting themselves too.

You seem to have some misconceptions about atheists. An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in theistic gods. That can mean someone who denies the existence of God, or someone who just answers "No" to the question "Do you believe in God" but doesn't necessarily deny God's existence. But either way, a theistic god is not a hard concept to understand. It's an intelligent being that created the universe and controls it to some degree. I'd say anyone who identifies as an atheist most likely understands God pretty well.

What I mean by them claiming a certain ignorance about "God", is that atheists tend to try and proclaim that "science" is as consistent as it can get, and that anything else is inconsistent and fallable.

Ah, another misconception. Many atheists claim that science is consistent in that it uses a tried and true method of determining objective facts, but anyone who knows anything at all about science will not claim that it is infallible. It's precisely the fact that scientists realize their method is fallible that it works so well.

But if what you really mean is that atheists claim that science is a good way to determine what is fact and what isn't and that personal experience is not a good way to do that, then you are correct and so are they. That is not ignorance on their part.

 

[gerobbins]

I know people who where atheist who became theists and vice versa

 

[Revoltingest]

I know people who where atheist who became theists and vice versa

Many atheists I know are Jews or converted Catholics.
I've never met anyone who moved from atheism to theism.

Once God you lack
you never go back.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Ah, another misconception. Many atheists claim that science is consistent in that it uses a tried and true method of determining objective facts, but anyone who knows anything at all about science will not claim that it is infallible. It's precisely the fact that scientists realize their method is fallible that it works so well.

This.


The Scientists are the first ones to stand up and say that they were wrong about a hypothesis when evidence is shown in the contrary. Unfortunately, this is not so in most of the religious community. This is mainly due to the fact that theistic religious beliefs are not based on any sort of fact or evidence.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I've never met anyone who moved from atheism to theism.

Once God you lack
you never go back.

I've actually known one or two individuals who have switched to theism. They talked about that whole "I've been saved" brouhaha. Of course this did indeed make me question if they were truly Atheists to begin with.

 

[Alceste]

what property are you talking about? Christ asked people to renounce property, to live a life of poverty, chastity, and obedience, in what ways is this similar to communal ideas?

communism doesn't reject property -- Christianity does.

Refer back to Penguin's scripture reference. They did not "renounce worldly goods", they brought all their personal belongings into the community, where everything was shared. If they had property, they sold it and brought the profit to the community. If they left the community, they didn't get their stuff back.

 

[Alceste]

Where did you get the idea that atheists don't generally understand the concept of god? Many atheists come from a Christian background. They grow up believing in God or being taught all about him, and then stop believing in him at some point. I'd say they understand the concept. Even those who don't grow up in a religious household tend to have a pretty good grasp on the concept. I'm curious what examples you have of atheists proclaiming ignorance about god.

I don't understand the concept and I come from a Christian background. The Christian god I learned about is only one of many tens or hundreds of thousands of god-concepts I don't happen to believe in. IMO, atheists who think when others use the word "god" they must be talking about the same one we learned of in childhood (or hear most about in our communities) are making a rationally unsupportable assumption. I lack belief in the Protestant god with the same absence of enthusiasm with which I lack belief in Egyptian gods. Why would I lend additional weight to the United Church of Canada god-concept I happen to be personally familiar with? For all I know the person I am speaking to believes in Thor, Guan Yin or the God of the Phelps family.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Refer back to Penguin's scripture reference. They did not "renounce worldly goods", they brought all their personal belongings into the community, where everything was shared. If they had property, they sold it and brought the profit to the community. If they left the community, they didn't get their stuff back.

And for a different take on this issue, let's consider a quote from the "father" of capitalism, Adam Smith:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Compare and contrast this with a quote from Jesus (Luke 6:35):

"But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked."

 

[Orias]

I'd say they get a complete understanding of the theistic god, which is all they need.

Understanding what God is, isn't understanding what God is to other people.

Being a theist myself, I would go as far to say that they don't get a complete understanding of theistic belief, simply because my theistic belief is highly conflictive with supernatural perspectives.

You seem to have some misconceptions about atheists. An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in theistic gods. That can mean someone who denies the existence of God, or someone who just answers "No" to the question "Do you believe in God" but doesn't necessarily deny God's existence. But either way, a theistic god is not a hard concept to understand. It's an intelligent being that created the universe and controls it to some degree. I'd say anyone who identifies as an atheist most likely understands God pretty well.

No, I have no misconceptions about atheists, as I was once one myself. Not to mention I'm taking the term right out of the dictionary, unless you disagree with the dictionary of course.

A God doesn't have to be intelligent, he doesn't have to have any control.

For all you know, God could of created us ignorantly and has no control.

Ah, another misconception. Many atheists claim that science is consistent in that it uses a tried and true method of determining objective facts, but anyone who knows anything at all about science will not claim that it is infallible. It's precisely the fact that scientists realize their method is fallible that it works so well.

Of course, but the misconception is that you think that all atheists and scientists think that.

The reason why I have such a problem with the label atheist, is because that they seem to appear just as dogmatic as the supernatural worshipping fools they Oppose (no offense to anyone).

But if what you really mean is that atheists claim that science is a good way to determine what is fact and what isn't and that personal experience is not a good way to do that, then you are correct and so are they. That is not ignorance on their part.

Ignorance is universal, there is no escape.

Not to mention fact can be distorted to best flavor one's taste.

Facts, knowledge, conceptions. They are all human fabricated intuitions, desires, and arrogance.

So you would agree that the justice system is just, that what you know is irrelevant, that it's what you can prove?

Please, if everyone observed based off of conspicuous facts then no one would care to challenge narrowminded and bias observations.

The truth is that there is none, and the best way to see the whole picture is to enlighten both sides.

You do no good with just a hammer and no nail, though of course you could hit someone over the head with it and cause them to act regressively instead of conducively.

But it's all how you view it, man speaks in riddles, the sooner you learn that, the sooner you will know the meaning of nothing

 

[Revoltingest]

The reason why I have such a problem with the label atheist, is because that they seem to appear just as dogmatic as the supernatural worshipping fools they Oppose (no offense to anyone).

Atheists are more diverse than you allow in that statement. Let's say that some are just as dogmatic.

 

[Penumbra]

No, I have no misconceptions about atheists, as I was once one myself. Not to mention I'm taking the term right out of the dictionary, unless you disagree with the dictionary of course.

This statement pretty much sums up the reason for your inaccurate posts.

You claim to have no misconceptions about atheists (which is quite contrary to many of your posts in this thread), because you were one once? So because you were an atheist once, you don't have any misconceptions about other atheists? Really? And you looked in the dictionary for the word?

There's a ton of atheists here telling you about their atheism, but you're ignoring them and working with your own thoughts regarding what an atheist is, does, or thinks. Rather silly, no?

 

[Frank Merton]

Atheists are more diverse than you allow in that statement. Let's say that some are just as dogmatic.

I am a certifiable atheist, not just in the sense that I don't believe in God, but also in the "strong" sense that I think "God" is a logical impossibility and that any sort of creative force in the world flies in the face of almost all the evidence.

Still, I think religion is generally a good thing and practice my particular brand (a sort of "liberal" Buddhism), also going to Christian churches when I'm in the U.S.

I find myself "arguing" far more with other atheists than with believers. Part of this, I think, may be that I don't think it is really possible to argue with a believer -- they and I are on different poles -- but another part is that the some of the atheists I run into on this board seem a particularly arrogant and obnoxious and, dare I say it (?), dogmatic bunch.

The big difference between myself and the other atheists may be background; I was raised an atheist but taught to be respectful of religion; most atheists were raised in some sort of dogmatic religion and rebelled, but kept the dogmatic frame of mind about "Truth." They have a residual hate inside themselves against what was "done to them" as children. I agree that brainwashing a child before their intellectual facilities are mature is abhorrent, but I guess because it wasn't done to me I am better able to look at it objectively.

 

[dizzy209]

Does this ever happen? I notice Atheists like to push Theists to question Theism, or even sometimes accuse Theists of not questioning enough because we didn't arrive at Atheism. Now I ask this. Do Atheists ever question their Atheism?

Why would I have to question being an atheist? I don't believe in anything. There is no reason to question it. I think religious people should look into creeds a little better and actually ask themselves if they honestly believe.

 

[dizzy209]

Penumbra

I... I... I think I love you!

 

[dizzy209]

The big difference between myself and the other atheists may be background; I was raised an atheist but taught to be respectful of religion; most atheists were raised in some sort of dogmatic religion and rebelled, but kept the dogmatic frame of mind about "Truth." They have a residual hate inside themselves against what was "done to them" as children. I agree that brainwashing a child before their intellectual facilities are mature is abhorrent, but I guess because it wasn't done to me I am better able to look at it objectively.

I was not raised anything. My mother and father didn't care about religion in any way. There were no discussions on religion in any way, either for it or against it. We have hate because of what was done to us as children? Nothing was done to me as a child. Being what I am has to do with what I see today. I just think all religions, including yours, are ignorant.