Atheists who turn to god, why are we doubted?

[Augustus]

Technically true. But there is only so much traction from "Hey, neither of us believes in a deity! Cool!"

For some people that's true. For others they create societies to promote atheism and share views on atheistic ideologies.

 

[Derek500]

I was just laughing at the entirely predictable, always present double standards and special pleading of modern atheism

Not really. Literally everyone in the western world was subjected to having to be believers, whether they were believers or not. Now they can fill out the forms stating that they are non-believers without fear of retribution. No double standards involved.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was just laughing at the entirely predictable, always present double standards and special pleading of modern atheism

So you don't think that most atheists had a religious upbringing? What country do you live in?

 

[LuisDantas]

For some people that's true. For others they create societies to promote atheism and share views on atheistic ideologies.

That still needs a whole lot more than simple atheism as a core, though.

 

[Milton Platt]

Having been an atheist for a while and turning back to religion I find it bizarre being on the other foot because even when I professed being a deist I was not being serious to myself. I just used it as a security blanket to avoid being an atheist as I was appalled by them. But when I finally admitted to being an atheist I felt free and truly believed there was no god yet I was left empty after quickly associating with atheists in person and it was not befitting for my constant depression. Believing in a god never made my depression better but having an unbiased and explorative outlook on the world did and I never found this amongst secularism as a whole.

Thinking about my life and why I became an atheist it seemed like a natural development of a security blanket after leaving 2 mentally exhausting religions being Christianity and Islam. But I never took atheism seriously and overtime I was led right back to religion with a stronger fire than ever.

But when I tell atheists this it is left in utter disbelief because the notion of an atheist returning to religion is just not acceptable and there go the constant push to delegitimize me a former atheist which I have been for a couple of years. I understand Christians do this to atheists who are former Christians yet atheists do the exact tactic for the reverse.

Is this a sign of atheism being turned into a religion or is is merely an American response do to the stereotyped unreasonable nature in American Protestantism.

I always have two questions.
Why were you an atheist
Why are you a theist now

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@Sha'irullah having been atheist myself, I feel the same way. There are plenty of philosophical arguments one can consider for transcendence or deities. Philosophers aren't unthinking dogmatists on the whole. These are thought out positions. Why should someone be criticized when these positions convince them? Atheists are also convinced.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I always have two questions.
Why were you an atheist

Because I lacked a belief in a god. Years of dealing with religions made me fatigued and indifferent to them and I slowly lost all faith in the potential reality of religion and theism.

Why are you a theist now

Because after going on my 3rd year as an atheist I had to actually continually convince myself that I was an atheist as I got stuck into identity groups and tried conforming to norms and being more acceptable. This primarily came from depression but after I got over that phase I just gave up on this went with the feeling that I had a few months prior. I was reexamining the Teleological and Ontological arguments and I strongly liked them and I was able to rationalize them correctly which lead me to being a theist again.

 

[viole]

Having been an atheist for a while and turning back to religion I find it bizarre being on the other foot because even when I professed being a deist I was not being serious to myself. I just used it as a security blanket to avoid being an atheist as I was appalled by them. But when I finally admitted to being an atheist I felt free and truly believed there was no god yet I was left empty after quickly associating with atheists in person and it was not befitting for my constant depression. Believing in a god never made my depression better but having an unbiased and explorative outlook on the world did and I never found this amongst secularism as a whole.

Thinking about my life and why I became an atheist it seemed like a natural development of a security blanket after leaving 2 mentally exhausting religions being Christianity and Islam. But I never took atheism seriously and overtime I was led right back to religion with a stronger fire than ever.

But when I tell atheists this it is left in utter disbelief because the notion of an atheist returning to religion is just not acceptable and there go the constant push to delegitimize me a former atheist which I have been for a couple of years. I understand Christians do this to atheists who are former Christians yet atheists do the exact tactic for the reverse.

Is this a sign of atheism being turned into a religion or is is merely an American response do to the stereotyped unreasonable nature in American Protestantism.

I suspect that such things can happen only in cultures where Atheism vs. Faith is similar to supporting two different football teams. Or when there is a lot of social contrast between them.

I personally do not sense it as a betrayal of an ideology if an atheists starts believing in God. Probably because I do not consider atheism an ideology at all.

In my milieu (Central/Northern Europe), where the cultural war is practically settled, that would sound weird. It would be like starting believing the blue fairy and being accused of never having been a true a-afairist to start with.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Quintessence]

Is this a sign of atheism being turned into a religion or is is merely an American response do to the stereotyped unreasonable nature in American Protestantism.

I would go with neither. This issue pertains more generally to in-group and out-group dynamics amongst the social human animal. When you become a member of some community, the process of leaving that community has repercussions. Members of the community who are particularly attached to their community will react poorly to others leaving. After all, my community is so awesome, why on earth would anyone want to go back to those people over there? Leaving the group is seen as some sort of regression, perhaps even a betrayal. It's a typical, human reaction that occurs across (ir)religious communities.

Does social ostracism towards those who leave occur more often in atheist communities than other (ir)religious communities? Lacking in any such data to assess this, we can only speculate, but I don't imagine that most atheist communities are cult-like enough for this to be an issue. I doubt there's much beyond annoying judgmental attitudes that many like to exercise on this, that, and the other thing. Fortunately, there are plenty who are willing to listen to others tell their stories and suspend such judgements. Give them your screen time and forget about the rest; our time is too limited to invest it in those who only wish to take us down a notch.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was reexamining the Teleological and Ontological arguments and I strongly liked them and I was able to rationalize them correctly which lead me to being a theist again.

If that's the case, then you're officially the only person I've ever encountered who was convinced by the teleological or ontological arguments.

In my experience - except for you and you alone, apparently - a person has to already believe in God to think that either argument is a good argument for God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would go with neither. This issue pertains more generally to in-group and out-group dynamics amongst the social human animal. When you become a member of some community, the process of leaving that community has repercussions. Members of the community who are particularly attached to their community will react poorly to others leaving. After all, my community is so awesome, why on earth would anyone want to go back to those people over there? Leaving the group is seen as some sort of regression, perhaps even a betrayal. It's a typical, human reaction that occurs across (ir)religious communities.

Does social ostracism towards those who leave occur more often in atheist communities than other (ir)religious communities? Lacking in any such data to assess this, we can only speculate, but I don't imagine that most atheist communities are cult-like enough for this to be an issue. I doubt there's much beyond annoying judgmental attitudes that many like to exercise on this, that, and the other thing. Fortunately, there are plenty who are willing to listen to others tell their stories and suspend such judgements. Give them your screen time and forget about the rest; our time is too limited to invest it in those who only wish to take us down a notch.

To me, any disbelief isn't rooted in feelings of betrayal. It also isn't rooted in any in-group/out-group thing: I generally don't feel much affinity for other atheists unless they're also skeptics & humanists.

Any disbelief - or more accurately, incredulity - is rooted in my understanding - which I'm sure some here will disagree with - about how people become religious: with only rare exceptions, people have to be raised in religion for religion to "take." Yes, people do move around a bit from religion to religion, but this is mostly "brand switching:" adjustments to the details, not full-blown replacement of a person's worldview.

The vast majority of the time, a religious adult is someone who was raised to be religious as a child. When we're talking about an adult atheist becoming religious, we're necessarily talking about a different process... and a process that's outside the norm.

Also, you don't need to be in any particular group to recognize that:

- it's pretty rare for theists to become atheists.
- it's pretty rare for atheists to become theists.
- therefore, all else being equal, it's exceptionally rare for a theist to become an atheist and then a theist again.

In fact, it's rare enough that it's valid to ask whether it's more or less likely that someone who says they went through all that really did make a full conversion each time, or if they actually still believed in God while they said they were an atheist.

... and I'd have the same thought for an atheist who said he had converted to some sort of theism for a while and then switched back. I would still question the sincerity of his theism.

Most people don't even make one wholesale change to their worldview in their adult lives. Two changes is very rare... much rarer than, say, encountering someone who's a bit insincere or confused.

 

[Milton Platt]

Because I lacked a belief in a god. Years of dealing with religions made me fatigued and indifferent to them and I slowly lost all faith in the potential reality of religion and theism.


Because after going on my 3rd year as an atheist I had to actually continually convince myself that I was an atheist as I got stuck into identity groups and tried conforming to norms and being more acceptable. This primarily came from depression but after I got over that phase I just gave up on this went with the feeling that I had a few months prior. I was reexamining the Teleological and Ontological arguments and I strongly liked them and I was able to rationalize them correctly which lead me to being a theist again.

Thanks for the answers. Fair 'nuf!

You do know that the Teleological and Ontological arguments do have sound refutations???

 

[Sha'irullah]

Thanks for the answers. Fair 'nuf!

You do know that the Teleological and Ontological arguments do have sound refutations???

I am fully aware of them yes although they all use a monotheistic god and I have yet to find the refutation valid in all cases even for monotheisms.

 

[Sha'irullah]

If that's the case, then you're officially the only person I've ever encountered who was convinced by the teleological or ontological arguments.

In my experience - except for you and you alone, apparently - a person has to already believe in God to think that either argument is a good argument for God.

I admit I have an odd fascination for ridiculous abstracts and paradoxes. I have reoccurring dreams about humans having different hand configurations that are deemed the, "optimal universal clasper." I actually find it pretty natural considering my history I would like the ontological argument but of course it is not the classical one so to be more precise it would be, "a ontological argument."

I bet Bertrand Russell is rolling in his grave right now screaming, "you bloody fool!"

 

[Milton Platt]

I am fully aware of them yes although they all use a monotheistic god and I have yet to find the refutation valid in all cases even for monotheisms.

Interesting. Can you share what you feel invalidates them? It's a big topic, and if you don't want to wade off into it, I understand.

 

[Shad]

I admit I have an odd fascination for ridiculous abstracts and paradoxes. I have reoccurring dreams about humans having different hand configurations that are deemed the, "optimal universal clasper."

Sounds like you have an idea for a utility prosthetic in there.... So tell me about this dream /grabs a notepad.

 

[carmenara]

I liked Christianity and Islam but found hostility in wanting to join each community. That or an insurmountable barrier somewhere that blocks me from engaging further. Harsh words, or demanding I unlearn certain things, invasions of privacy and looking at my way while calling me an "unbeliever" regardless of how long I've been in the "flock" or how devout I am wanting to be invited to followership.

I kept to myself and floated for some time in a sea of depression and lots and lots of frustration pursuing material things that never ever came to fruition. But I managed to survive just fine.

After many years I found Hinduism through my Indian colleagues, presented myself as I am, shared stories about how I was touched by someone or "something" at a cultural event last year, how things seemed to add up including an actual invitation to a temple after I donated to the local ISKON community.

I don't feel like what I believe or what I seek in to be important at all, but when a community chooses me to act for them, and invite me to explore their realm further I am even more inclined to give thanks, learn more and serve them. I am in awe for the powerful experiences I've had, the stories about my experiences that seem like they have been told before in the Gita, and that's where my beliefs are set in stone now.

And life is quickly becoming less stressful and easier to manage now. More time and energy to channel to devotion.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Interesting. Can you share what you feel invalidates them? It's a big topic, and if you don't want to wade off into it, I understand.

I am so sorry I forgot to respond. I am going to make a seperate thread on this matter and slowly work my way into it because the ontological arguments seem a bit . . . "abstract" for many people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I admit I have an odd fascination for ridiculous abstracts and paradoxes. I have reoccurring dreams about humans having different hand configurations that are deemed the, "optimal universal clasper." I actually find it pretty natural considering my history I would like the ontological argument but of course it is not the classical one so to be more precise it would be, "a ontological argument."

Well, I've seen a few ontological arguments, but I haven't seen one yet that wasn't absolute rubbish, trying to define God into existence. I won't pass judgement on yours without seeing it, but I don't hold out a lot of hope.

I bet Bertrand Russell is rolling in his grave right now screaming, "you bloody fool!"

If that's what you think he'd think of your argument, why do you find it convincing?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Well, I've seen a few ontological arguments, but I haven't seen one yet that wasn't absolute rubbish, trying to define God into existence. I won't pass judgement on yours without seeing it, but I don't hold out a lot of hope.

I have to agree with you undoubtedly although I still think the argument holds significant weight.

If that's what you think he'd think of your argument, why do you find it convincing?

Every reading of Bertrand's work makes me think he is a bitter and cranky old man for some reason. I think I am just projecting my own delusions onto the man's appearance but at the same time it would amuse me if he somehow had the answer to refute my argument.