What kind of atheist converts to a theist?

[philbo]

I agree with you, and I don't think that personal experience, or trauma alone can change beliefs. I would think the the individuals current beliefs, previous beliefs, exposure to any other beliefs, and his/her knowledge would play a significant role in the change as well. Whether they identify that or not would most likely be unknown to them because things typically influence us at a subconscious level.

Can I expand a little: while I think trauma can stimulate a change in beliefs, the end result would be influenced by those other factors you mention. Not that the trauma alone is the sole factor that directs the outcome.

 

[Windwalker]

I disagree with the "now seen a larger, or higher, reality" assertion. My whole point is that they haven't: they may think they have, and if the result of these experiences is to make them question assumed truths, then all well and good: such questioning is never a bad idea. But "larger or higher reality"? No. The only change is internal, in perception. Not in reality.

Really? They only "think" they experienced love, but we know love isn't real. Something like that?

Ones perception of reality, defines what is reality to them, and shapes their experience of reality. Of course the change is internal, but where on earth else do you think we experience anything? And our experiences define us.

That you believe you can interface directly with some objective reality without meditating it through you subjective, internal reality is naive in the extreme. It's like looking out at the world through your eyes, and denying your eyes have anything to do with how your experience and understand what is outside of you.

There is no distinction between what you experience is reality and reality itself to you. There is no way for you to access that except through the subjective mind, even if you are using tools of empiricism. The mind still interprets what it observes.

..which is another way of saying that I disagree with your "personal realities": sure, the way we perceive the outside world is what may seem real to us, but that isn't "reality".

Which is precisely my point. It never will be reality. You can never know reality as it is trying to model it with the mind. The only way to directly interface with it, is beyond any thought about it whatsoever. You would simply just sink into being itself, with no thought, concepts, ideas, images, representations, and so forth. Anything other that that, is not reality itself outside of us. Our minds can only think about it in terms of mental objects. It's the mental objects you mistake for the thing in itself.

So my point is every single one of us live inside personal, as well as interpersonal realities, in relationship with an exterior reality that we can only directly know by not modeling it with our minds. Anything short of that, is in fact an illusion of mind we call reality. It's not that those are invalid, mind you, it's just that we should be aware our ideas are not the thing itself, nor ever will be under any circumstances.

To be clear, in no way shape or form am I misconstruing this understanding in any New Age fashion to suggest that what we "think" or perceive creates matter, such as that atrocious misunderstanding of quantum physics. I believe there is a reality 'out there', but am simply saying we cannot directly know it through mind. And so therefore, nothing we ponder in our minds qualifies as accurately knowing or understanding that reality as it is.

Now one step further, since all of it, bar none, is a perception of reality, there are in fact different stages of development that alter how that reality is modeled and understood. Rationality, is a stage of perception, a stage of how the conscious mind models the world, instead of mythological symbolism as in the past. But it is not the height of human perception, even though it likes to presume so because it is the current set of eyes looking at the world and cannot imagine it any other way.

Defining our nuanced perception of what's outside our heads as a personal reality interferes with the meaning of the word "reality".

Not understanding it what is going on in the mind, ignoring that, in fact is what interferes with the meaning of the word reality. It ignores what goes on in the mind, and therefore entirely misses the left balance on the scale in making its judgments of truth.

Twaddle. It's an attempt to have some kind of objective reality; something that doesn't twist with perception. Something that doesn't turn into what I want it to be just because I want it to be that way.

I do not believe that New Age nonsense. That is not what I'm saying. Hopefully, what I'm explaining shows I'm not engaged in that sort of "twaddle" as you imagine this is. This is not New Age fluff reality, it's well researched in the sciences and understood in postmodernist thought. It's academic in nature, not quasi science.

And it derives from the absolute certainty that my personally perceived "reality" is unlikely to be objectively "real" at all, and that is very likely to be the case for pretty much everyone else.

You misunderstand the implications of this. Here's something you might wish to begin to familarize yourself before making further assumptions: http://www.smccd.edu/accounts/larson/psyc390/Docs/Consensus Trance.pdf

 

[Willamena]

So logic is dependent upon the information available?

No. Arguments and conclusions are.

 

[philbo]

Really? They only "think" they experienced love, but we know love isn't real. Something like that?http://www.smccd.edu/accounts/larson/psyc390/Docs/Consensus Trance.pdf

We were talking about conversion to & from theism: they think they experienced God, but we know God isn't real. It's reality at that kind of level I'm thinking of, that personal experience really doesn't change objective reality.

I'm not going to get into abstracts like "love" which are pretty much defined by personal experience.

 

[Willamena]

We were talking about conversion to & from theism: they think they experienced God, but we know God isn't real. It's reality at that kind of level I'm thinking of, that personal experience really doesn't change objective reality.

I'm not going to get into abstracts like "love" which are pretty much defined by personal experience.

We imagine it isn't real. If you claim knowledge that God does not exist, you're a better atheist than I.

 

[philbo]

We imagine it isn't real. If you claim knowledge that God does not exist, you're a better atheist than I.

I was simply repeating the phrase as used with the key word changed.. Might have know that would be picked up on

 

[George-ananda]

Because using only personal experience, especially during a period of trauma, is inherently flawed as a rationale for changing beliefs about the universe. I am not arguing that it doesn't change people's beliefs, rather that it shouldn't.

You slyly changed the subject exactly like RedJamaX did to me.

I was not referring to responses to traumatic events (i.e. people looking for comfort and meaning).

I was referring to experiences that occur perhaps in deep meditation, experiencing a miracle (like the Fatima miracle), etc..

These things can change a material-atheist's worldview. I'm addressing the question 'what can change an atheist to a theist'. My answer was 'new experiences'.

 

[sandandfoam]

The way I'm reading it it seems that there is something 'irrational' about seeking comfort and/or meaning. Am I reading it wrong?

 

[Windwalker]

We were talking about conversion to & from theism: they think they experienced God, but we know God isn't real.

We know this?

I don't know this. How do you?

The way I say it at this point. The question of God versus No God are not questions to me. What is a question is how to speak of that experienced reality that defies definition. Is that "God"? Even that is a moot question. A rose by any other name should smell just a sweet.

To claim nothing exists, is to have not seen through those eyes or tasted that reality. To you, it does not exist.

It's reality at that kind of level I'm thinking of, that personal experience really doesn't change objective reality.

But actually, it does. If someone's personal reality is one of deep anguish and hatred, it will lead to actions that change objective reality in a magnitude of ways, such as killing another person, burning down their homes, impacting society, etc. On the positive side, if someones personal reality is one of love and compassion, the world is changed as well.

It's naive to believe the subjective exists isolated from the objective. There is interplay in both directions.

I'm not going to get into abstracts like "love" which are pretty much defined by personal experience.

By ignoring these points I'm making is not actually being looking at reality. The world is full of abstractions that constitute reality. We are more than just some mindless biological eating machine. We are mental, and spiritual as well.

 

[Windwalker]

The way I'm reading it it seems that there is something 'irrational' about seeking comfort and/or meaning. Am I reading it wrong?

Not irrational, simply non-rational. Irrational violates rationality. Non-rational simply describes the nature of it, that does not violate reason. Non-rationality is reasonable, even though it cannot be reasoned itself.

 

[RedJamaX]

I was referring to experiences that occur perhaps in deep meditation, experiencing a miracle (like the Fatima miracle), etc..

These things can change a material-atheist's worldview. I'm addressing the question 'what can change an atheist to a theist'. My answer was 'new experiences'.

Now this IS different. Coming to some sort of revelation through deep meditation requires practice, patience and conditioning... typically years of time spent performing these types of activities will pass before any sort of personal revelation. In this case, you have made a lifestyle change, and the subjective knowledge of the individual would be changed.

Please note that when we address the "knowledge" of an individual, it is always subjective at the level of the individual. But that does not necessarily mean that it's true. A prime example of this is that the ancient Mayan's "KNEW" that they had to make a blood sacrifice in order for the sun to rise on the following day.

 

[Athan]

So we have all heard, read, watched, or experienced for ourselves, the stories of people who have converted to, and/or from, being an athiest, and sometimes back again. To be honest, the first time I heard of an atheist converting to theism, I was baffled... I had converted from thiesm to atheism my self, and I coulndn't possibly fathom how I could ever switch back. I thought it was just some theistic manipulation of the truth in order to provide more "prais to the glory of god". But I think I understand what's really going on. Based on all of the stories I have heard (or otherwise), I have a general hypothesis about atheists who convert to, or back to theism.

I think that almost all atheists who convert to theism were not atheist due to a rational, in-depth analysis of theism. I'm not supposing what may have been their source for being atheist, just that it was NOT a concious and deliberate decision against being a theist due to a rational, in depth approach to theism. I am making a point to say "in-depth approach" because... a theist who used to be an atheist, but their atheism was simply because they were raised in an atheist family and was always told "there is no evidence for god", could claim a "rational approach". While that claim "is" rational, it's no where near the same level as a fomer theist who was raised theist, and battled with the cognative dissonance for years while examining the scriptures, evidence, history, etc... and finally coming to the conclusion that their belief in god is unsubstantiated.

Agree, disagree? Does my hypothesis make sense?

EDITED:

I also wanted to add, that MOST of the "Atheist to Theist" conversions I have heard of involved some sort of traumatic event in their life. Possibly suggesting their conversion was emotional... out of fear or a need for comfort??

EDITED AGAIN:

It seems that I need to place a more defined description on the type of atheist that I believe would be highly unlikely to be converted to a theist...
An atheist who I think would not be converted is one who makes observations in our world with a rational approach, has a confidence based in sciences, and was not an atheist for any emotional reason, but one who's lack of belief in a god was solely based on rational analysis of the natural world. (this would include the aforementioned analysis of religion as it could be included in sciences since it falls under anthropology and that relation to ancient civilizations)

It's an issue of clarity. Once an atheist accepts the fact that the universe doesn't revolve around him, it opens the door to a whole new world of possibilities.

 

[RedJamaX]

The way I'm reading it it seems that there is something 'irrational' about seeking comfort and/or meaning. Am I reading it wrong?

Actually, because we are emotional, cognitive beings, "the search for" comfort and purpose is not irrational at all. However, many of the things people accept to provide that comfort and purpose are irrational.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's an issue of clarity. Once an anti-theist accepts the fact that the universe doesn't revolve around him, it opens the door to a whole new world of possibilities.

Hm?

How often do you think anti-theists even think that the Universe "revolves around them" in the first place?

Far less often than Theists do, I would bet.

 

[Athan]

Hm?

How often do you think anti-theists even think that the Universe "revolves around them" in the first place?

Far less often than Theists do, I would bet.

I'm sure they think that way without even realizing it. When there is no God in the picture, mankind has to be the most supreme being. It's up to the atheists to explain how the Universe works, because us silly believers sure as heckfire aren't gonna find out. It's simple humanistic logic, really.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm sure they think that way without even realizing it. When there is no God in the picture, mankind has to be the most supreme being. It's simple humanistic logic, really.

Nope. It is just gross and unfounded prejudice, I am sorry to say.

You are gravely mistaken, I fear.

 

[Willamena]

Nope. It is just gross and unfounded prejudice, I am sorry to say.

No, it's Humanism.

Mankind takes the place that the "other" (deity) occupied, but the picture remains the same.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, it's Humanism.

Mankind takes the place that the "other" (deity) occupied, but the picture remains the same.

Talk about yourself. That shoe is a very ill fit.

 

[RedJamaX]

We know this?

I don't know this. How do you?

The way I say it at this point. The question of God versus No God are not questions to me. What is a question is how to speak of that experienced reality that defies definition. Is that "God"? Even that is a moot question. A rose by any other name should smell just a sweet.

To claim nothing exists, is to have not seen through those eyes or tasted that reality. To you, it does not exist.

So in regard to this, there are things we know due to research that's been conducted. Meditation access and trains the right side of the brain. That's the emotional AND the creative side. It's the side we use to explore our emotions and it's where our subconscious lives as well. (right side handles logic, reason, math, etc...).

The more you meditate and or hallucinate (or both at the same time), the only thing you acquire a deeper meaning of is yourself and your own mind... your subconscious, your old memories that are repressed, or have been forgotten, your feelings and where they come from, where you thoughts come from, how they form and originate. These "experiences" may allow you to understand your self, which is not a bad thing at all, but if it leads you to "there is a god", then all you've discovered is that you believe there is a god... it does not provide ANY evidence that there is one... At the risk of being cliche' ... it's all in your head. And we know this due to scientific research done with brain activity and meditation, revelations, emotions and religious experiences.

 

[George-ananda]

The more you meditate and or hallucinate (or both at the same time),

Why isn't there another 'or' clause: 'or experience expanded consciousness'

And we know this due to scientific research done with brain activity and meditation, revelations, emotions and religious experiences.