Why did you Change your world view?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why did you Change your world view?

This forum is full of theists that used to be atheist, atheists that used to be theists, Christians that used to be Jews, Creationists that used to be Evolutionists, etc.

So if you have changed your religious world view I would like to know what was the “thing” that convinced you that you where wrong,

In my particular Case, I used to be a YEC, in my mind the strongest and irrefutable argument for a flood was the fact that there where flood legends with parallels all over the world, to me it was obvious that all these legends had a common source, and this source had to be the actual event (a global flood)

Then I realized that the supposed parallels where vague and that the stories were in no way similar to the story reported in the bible. The exception would be Flood Legends in the middle east, but that can be explain by claiming that both legends where “quoting” from a common legend (not necessarily the event)

Then slowly but surely I began to notice that I was using the same logic that fanatics atheist use to support YEC. Things like “avoid the burden proof at all cost” “reject scientific consensus just because there are a few small holes u}in our knowledge, contradictions, conspiracy theories, raise the bar unrealistically to high when it comes to evidence that contradict my view, etc.

Then I simply decided that this logic was flawed. And had no option but to reject YEC.

I say I never had any "worldview altering" experience.
I was raised in a secular way. You can call that "atheist" if you want. It's atheist in the sense that religion and gods simply never came up. I was aware of its existance around the world off course. I remember not really caring. I simply accepted it was part of some people's culture / background.

I remember as an 8-year old at public school... there were optional religious christian classes. And then there was this one guy in our class who took an optional islamic class. There was this teacher that came all the way to our school to teach that one dude an hour a week in islam.

He was the only morrocon. We notice that off course. We also didn't really care / talked about it. It made sense to us - he was morrocon and thus from another culture and had different habbits etc. We accepted that and it was fine.

I was aware of the kind of stories that were found in those books. I always assumed that people understood that they were just stories - like poetry or something. It was only during high school and transferred to a catholic school that I really began to be instructed in a religious bible class. Before that, everything I knew about it were bits and pieces cobbled together through the stories or "lore" associated with our holidays like christmass and easter. These bible stories in religious class were mostly presented as metaphorical with a "moral of the story" type thing and we'ld read it and discuss it. Much like one would do in a literature art class

Still a bit later, I learned that there were people in the world that took all this stuff literally. And quite radically. To the point of it creating problems and them fighting and lobbying over things. Then there's the much more violent islamic version thereof.

Perhaps that realisation comes closest to what I'ld call is a "worldview defining moment", when it comes to me stance on religions.

As a kid, I saw it as harmless cultural lore / heritage. Like Greek and Viking mythology. Full of colour, melodrama, "wisdom", etc.

As I grew older, I came to see it more like an obstacle to human development. Which can intensify to the point of being a straight up danger to human development and humans themselves.

 

[leroy]

I used to be christian, of the church of England variety. I got out of that because of christians. i then read the bible to try and find out why Christians can be such ****s. As a consequence of that study i became atheist

The way I see it, from the “fact” that the bible is wrong, fallacious, stupid, evil etc. it doenst follow that God doesn’t exists nor even that Christianity is wrong, at most it would follow that the specific doctrine of biblical inerrancy is wrong

 

[ChristineM]

The way I see it, from the “fact” that the bible is wrong, fallacious, stupid, evil etc. it doenst follow that God doesn’t exists nor even that Christianity is wrong, at most it would follow that the specific doctrine of biblical inerrancy is wrong

Christians can are wrong, i think that's about what I said but if the book that teaches them to be christian is 'wrong, fallacious, stupid, evil etc' then i rest my case.

I studied the bible (3 actually) they could not agree, made no logical sense and provided no evidence for a gods existence. In fact the more the book is understood in the context of history the more i see the abrahamic god to be just another camp fire fairy story like all the other 1000s of god stories that have been worshipped over time

 

[exchemist]

I was brought up Catholic but let it drift in my twenties, largely because of girlfriends, I suppose. Then I was posted to Dubai and travelled in the Middle East and Far East, thereby becoming exposed to Islam and Buddhism, which I noticed seemed to encourage much the same kinds of behaviour in their followers as my own religion. I began to find it implausible that my own religion had a unique claim to truth, while all these others were false. It just seemed unlikely. I began to suspect that all religions may come from the same basic impulse in humanity. It seems to me an open question whether that impulse is divine or merely due to the psychology of humanity.

I still love and respect the Catholic church, for all its many faults, and I attend mass, which I find calming, re-orientating, consoling and occasionally inspiring, but I am agnostic as to the literal truth of its teachings.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A professional backslider

"Religion escape artist." trademark

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

Personal trauma along with some critical thinking

 

[leroy]

Christians can are wrong, i think that's about what I said but if the book that teaches them to be christian is 'wrong, fallacious, stupid, evil etc' then i rest my case.

I studied the bible (3 actually) they could not agree, made no logical sense and provided no evidence for a gods existence. In fact the more the book is understood in the context of history the more i see the abrahamic god to be just another camp fire fairy story like all the other 1000s of god stories that have been worshipped over time

As I said before from the alleged fact that the Bible is wrong, stupid, fallacious etc. It doest follow that God doesn't exist, at most it would follow that the Bible was not written/inspired by God


How do you go from
"the Bible is wrong" to "therefore God doesn't exist?"

 

[Samael_Khan]

What about the arguments typically given by theists (cosmological argument, fine tuning argument, moral argument, resurrection, etc.? are you familiar with those arguments?, do you have good reasons to think the arguments are wrong or fallacious? Do you think that the arguments for atheism are better?
To me it seems that many atheist (not sure if this includes you) operate by the logic “there is no 100% conclusive evidence for God, …… therefore I am an atheist. What I am trying to say is that many times, atheist raise the bar unrealistically to high (which is also what YEC do when it comes to evolution)

I would say that it is less an argument for atheism than that it is a rejection of current arguments for the existence of God. One doesnt argue atheism in the same way that one doesnt try to disprove something that hasnt been proven yet.

For instance, one doesnt try to disprove the existence of aliens.

I have used most of the arguments you mentioned in my past. The moral argument and resurrection argument i think are fallatcious, but that doesnt mean that they are not true. The fine tuning argument is pretty thought provoking but that is all that it is. None are conclusive and there could be multiple answers for all of them. Which is why there needs to be evidence concluding that they are true otherwise they are just claims.

 

[Samael_Khan]

What about the arguments typically given by theists (cosmological argument, fine tuning argument, moral argument, resurrection, etc.? are you familiar with those arguments?, do you have good reasons to think the arguments are wrong or fallacious? Do you think that the arguments for atheism are better?

To me it seems that many atheist (not sure if this includes you) operate by the logic “there is no 100% conclusive evidence for God, …… therefore I am an atheist. What I am trying to say is that many times, atheist raise the bar unrealistically to high (which is also what YEC do when it comes to evolution)

Also, to add, the way i go about determining whether God exists is the same way I do about determining the existence of other things.

So if someone tells me that a unicorn exists without providing evidence I wont believe them.

I would say that the strongest evidence for the existence of God is if somehow we can make accurate uncommon predictions based off that knowledge. It wouldnt be conclusive but it would mean that we are on to something.

Also I would think there is truth to be found in something if the viewpoint or structure or story is common around the world and is known to not be something that is intrinsic to human psychology.

For instance many ancient nations built pyramids. Many religions have similar myths relating to seasonal cycles and sun worship. The flood story is across all continents. The concept of Gods. Why is this the case? There must be something in common among all of them to be so specific about such things. A truth. I dont know what it is, but I do have limited multiple possible ones.

 

[james bond]

Why did you Change your world view?

This isn't an example of changing my worldview, but one if I was an atheist of changing my worldview.

Do you want to hear the best thing I ever heard an atheist say? This was when apologist Dr. William Lane Craig was debating Professor Lawrence Krauss of ASU and author of A Universe from Nothing fame. The reporters asked Krauss what would make him believe in God and he said if the stars realigned themselves to spell out, "I am here," then he would reconsider.

A week later a regular atheist man made the front pages of the SF - Bay Area paper by saying that's not good enough because the people in the Southern hemisphere would not see it. Furthermore, every atheist in the past, i.e. the dead, present, and future would have to see it. That was really something. From then on, I thought that atheists would get their proof in the Lake of Fire. Pain and suffering could be a strong persuader -- Is Pain And Suffering The Only Way To Convince Atheists That There Is A God. Yet, in 2019 I discovered that God had said "every eye will see" already in his prophecies. This was around 2000 years ago.

"Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen." Revelation 1:7

The dead atheists would rise again and be reunited with their bodies in order to see. Same with those in the present who died. Those in the present and future still living would see it live.

It meant everything will be settled on Earth. I thought if I was an atheist, then that would make me fall down on my face and beg for forgiveness. That would convince me.

 

[ChristineM]

As I said before from the alleged fact that the Bible is wrong, stupid, fallacious etc. It doest follow that God doesn't exist, at most it would follow that the Bible was not written/inspired by God


How do you go from
"the Bible is wrong" to "therefore God doesn't exist?"

You don't but its a start. Then once the doubt is ignited you consider the objective evidence for gods. for which there is none. You study history and how people lived, how they grouped and their motives. You evaluate your own life and that of your contemporaries and you consider the subjective evidence for which there is a vast amount to show various aspects of gods cannot exist.

 

[leroy]

For instance, one doesnt try to disprove the existence of aliens.
.

So would you put God in the same category than Aliens? (perhaps he exist perhaps he doesn't, we don't know) but it's realistically possible that he excist

Or would you put God in the same category of Santaclaus? (he obviously doesn't exist we have good positive reasons to reject his existence)

 

[Samael_Khan]

So would you put God in the same category than Aliens? (perhaps he exist perhaps he doesn't, we don't know) but it's realistically possible that he excist

Or would you put God in the same category of Santaclaus? (he obviously doesn't exist we have good positive reasons to reject his existence)

I would place God in the same class as Aliens.

 

[Samael_Khan]

So would you put God in the same category than Aliens? (perhaps he exist perhaps he doesn't, we don't know) but it's realistically possible that he excist

Or would you put God in the same category of Santaclaus? (he obviously doesn't exist we have good positive reasons to reject his existence)

Actually, my previous post is too broad an answer. Certain concepts of gods can be possitively disproven while others are not. A true God might not even have been properly defined by us yet as the concept of God is vague.

 

[leroy]

I would say that it is less an argument for atheism than that it is a rejection of current arguments for the existence of God. One doesnt argue atheism in the same way that one doesnt try to disprove something that hasnt been proven yet.

For instance, one doesnt try to disprove the existence of aliens.

I have used most of the arguments you mentioned in my past. The moral argument and resurrection argument i think are fallatcious, but that doesnt mean that they are not true. The fine tuning argument is pretty thought provoking but that is all that it is. None are conclusive and there could be multiple answers for all of them. Which is why there needs to be evidence concluding that they are true otherwise they are just claims.

I would agree that none of the arguments for the existance of God is conclusive, but I don't think that is a good justification for atheism,...... science, history, philosophy etc. Usually don't present conclusive evidence for stuff, we simply accept the best explanation based on the data that we have to date.

My view is that These are good arguments for the existance of God that together make a comulative case that makes theism more probably true than atheism, and the arguments for atheism are bad in comparison to these arguments.

 

[leroy]

Actually, my previous post is too broad an answer. Certain concepts of gods can be possitively disproven while others are not. A true God might not even have been properly defined by us yet as the concept of God is vague.

Well let's define God as an intelligent agent who created the universe

Given this definition.... Would you put God in the category of "aliens"

 

[leroy]

You don't but its a start. Then once the doubt is ignited you consider the objective evidence for gods. for which there is none. You study history and how people lived, how they grouped and their motives. You evaluate your own life and that of your contemporaries and you consider the subjective evidence for which there is a vast amount to show various aspects of gods cannot exist.

Ok so how do you go from "the Bible is wrong" to God doesn't exist?

Which specific argument/data/evidence convinced you.

You say that there is no evidence for God, well what is wrong with the arguments that theist typically provide? Like the kalam cosmological argument fine tuning, moral argument, resurrection, etc?

 

[Samael_Khan]

I would agree that none of the arguments for the existance of God is conclusive, but I don't think that is a good justification for atheism,...... science, history, philosophy etc. Usually don't present conclusive evidence for stuff, we simply accept the best explanation based on the data that we have to date.

My view is that These are good arguments for the existance of God that together make a comulative case that makes theism more probably true than atheism, and the arguments for atheism are bad in comparison to these arguments.

I wouldnt agree with that conclusion, but it isnt a conclusion that I would have a problem with. As long as someone isnt saying that a God definitely exists then i am fine with it.

My concern with a belief would be more if it has rammifications in the real world. So if someone just believes in a God then i dont care much. But if that belief causes harm in the real world then it becomes a problem.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Well let's define God as an intelligent agent who created the universe

Given this definition.... Would you put God in the category of "aliens"

Yes.

 

[ChristineM]

Ok so how do you go from "the Bible is wrong" to God doesn't exist?

Which specific argument/data/evidence convinced you.

You say that there is no evidence for God, well what is wrong with the arguments that theist typically provide? Like the kalam cosmological argument fine tuning, moral argument, resurrection, etc?

The kalam cosmological argument is debunked from get go, for supposition, ignorance and leaps of faith. What fine tuning? The universe chaotic.

Morality is a human (and other animals) trait, stolen by god believers and bastardised to omit those not of their particular faith.

Evidence of resurrection world be nice, as it stands its only the opinion of believers in resurrection

Ok evidence for god. None
Evidence god is compassionate, just the opposite, any innocent child suffering the agonies of leukaemia should show you that
Evidence god listens, the starving millions show otherwise.
Evidence for player prayer Fill a warehouse with prayers and another will aid and see which is more beneficial.
Evidence for omnipotence, e=mc2 proves otherwise