Converting from Christianity to Atheism

[Dioptre]

This is a post I placed on ShipOfFools - I'm expecting a different take on it here.

Recently, as a skeptic, I've found myself challenging my own Christian beliefs. I'd be very interested to hear argument or counter-argument.

The train of thought goes something like this:

* P: I believe in God
* A: Where's the testable evidence for God?
* P: God doesn't interfere directly in the world
* A: And there's an invisible dragon in my garage
* P: But God could act through people who believe
* A: Then why doesn't he have a clearer method of communicating with believers?
* P: He does - the Gospels
* A: And where's the testable evidence that they are recounts of the truth?
* P: I have faith
* A: I don't

How do I get back from here?

 

[BlackCat]

* P: I believe in God
* A: Where's the testable evidence for God?
* P: God doesn't interfere directly in the world
* A: And there's an invisible dragon in my garage
* P: But God could act through people who believe
* A: Then why doesn't he have a clearer method of communicating with believers?
* P: He does - the Gospels
* A: And where's the testable evidence that they are recounts of the truth?
* P: I have faith
* A: I don't

Well, first things first, I think an atheist would say "And where's the testable evidence that they are the word of god?"

Second, I would replace, "I don't" with "Faith is belief without evidence. If you can believe in things without evidence of them, why don't you believe in everything, such as fairies, conspiracy theories, psychics, angels, alien abductions, cats placed on this planet in order to control human minds for some great unknown cat-purpose, etc.?"

By the way, good for you on challenging your beliefs. Many of us did the same, so you're not alone.

Great first post!

BlackCat

 

[Just Me]

Second, I would replace, "I don't" with "Faith is belief without evidence. If you can believe in things without evidence of them, why don't you believe in everything, such as fairies, conspiracy theories, psychics, angels, alien abductions, cats placed on this planet in order to control human minds for some great unknown cat-purpose, etc.?"

BlackCat

WTrule8!!
I know for a FACT that cats are here to control me. My television told me. Sure it was unplugged at the time but. . . it was on television!!
Welcome to the forum Dioptre.

 

[shemp]

cats placed on this planet in order to control human minds for some great unknown cat-purpose

I can state from experience that this one is true.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Puss: There is no truth to this cat rumour whatsoever. You humans have nothing to fear from us, I swear on my honour.

 

[bluess]

Cats don't have honor. They have hairballs...

 

[Pauliesonne]

Death comes for us all, Puss, but something much worse comes for you. For when you die, it will be
...Without honor.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

All right, let's give the thread back now...

* P: I believe in God
* A: Where's the testable evidence for God?
* P: God doesn't interfere directly in the world
* A: And there's an invisible dragon in my garage
* P: But God could act through people who believe
* A: Then why doesn't he have a clearer method of communicating with believers?
* P: He does - the Gospels

What is the clear and consistent message of the Gospels that God is communicating, and why are there so many disagreements about it?

 

[I less than three logic]

This is a post I placed on ShipOfFools - I'm expecting a different take on it here.

Recently, as a skeptic, I've found myself challenging my own Christian beliefs. I'd be very interested to hear argument or counter-argument.

The train of thought goes something like this:

* P: I believe in God
* A: Where's the testable evidence for God?
* P: God doesn't interfere directly in the world
* A: And there's an invisible dragon in my garage
* P: But God could act through people who believe
* A: Then why doesn't he have a clearer method of communicating with believers?
* P: He does - the Gospels
* A: And where's the testable evidence that they are recounts of the truth?
* P: I have faith
* A: I don't

How do I get back from here?

First, I’d leave the converting to the religious. I’ve said a few times that I don’t think attempting to convert people to Atheism is an appropriate course of action. No one should be telling others what to think, or seeking to deny another the right to their opinion. This is what I find trying to convert people to be. The best we could, or should, hope for is to do exactly what you’ve done. That is to challenge their own beliefs.

I believe the best way to approach this is to teach, promote, and, as a society, truly value critical thinking skills and the affection for learning. Carl Sagan had the right idea when he wrote that he’d love to see: “a community of people really working the mix – full of wonder, generously open to every notion, dismissing nothing except for good reason, but at the same time, and as second nature, demanding stringent standards of evidence – and these standards applied with at least as much rigor to what they hold dear as to what they are tempted to reject with impunity.” Whether or not this creates more Atheists is irrelevant, as it would at least address the problems of ignorance and credulity that create the misconceptions, prejudice, and animosity between people of various beliefs or non-belief.

However, it sounds like you’re dealing with someone already set in their belief, and, while promoting critical thinking may be useful to some extent, asking them to examine their beliefs like that will mostly like be taken offensively. In this case, I’d advise merely explaining why you’ve come to your conclusion, and the evidence and logic you used along the way. If they're willing to listen, perhaps you might influence them to examine their beliefs. If not, then the agree-to-disagree is the only option left. Hopeful, they’re civil enough to accept this and leave it at that. Any further attempt by them to convince you you’re wrong is clearly a violation of your personal boundaries, and is subject to acceptable social reactions as such.

Just my

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This is a post I placed on ShipOfFools - I'm expecting a different take on it here.

Recently, as a skeptic, I've found myself challenging my own Christian beliefs. I'd be very interested to hear argument or counter-argument.

The train of thought goes something like this:

* P: I believe in God
* A: Where's the testable evidence for God?
* P: God doesn't interfere directly in the world
* A: And there's an invisible dragon in my garage
* P: But God could act through people who believe
* A: Then why doesn't he have a clearer method of communicating with believers?
* P: He does - the Gospels
* A: And where's the testable evidence that they are recounts of the truth?
* P: I have faith
* A: I don't

How do I get back from here?

My US$0.02. I'd actually see two possible courses for the conversation to take:
1) *P: I believe in God.
*A: That's nice.

2) *P: I believe in God.
*A: That's nice.
*P: You should too.
*A: Why?
....
At this point the onus is on the believer to provide a convincing argument, or convincing evidence, as to why the non-believer should change his/her position.

 

[Phil]

This is a post I placed on ShipOfFools - I'm expecting a different take on it here.

Recently, as a skeptic, I've found myself challenging my own Christian beliefs. I'd be very interested to hear argument or counter-argument.

The train of thought goes something like this:

* P: I believe in God
* A: Where's the testable evidence for God?
* P: God doesn't interfere directly in the world
* A: And there's an invisible dragon in my garage
* P: But God could act through people who believe
* A: Then why doesn't he have a clearer method of communicating with believers?
* P: He does - the Gospels
* A: And where's the testable evidence that they are recounts of the truth?
* P: I have faith
* A: I don't

How do I get back from here?

Take a ride on a Razor. And I'm not talking about the scooter.

Huge discussion at TAM IV: "Can a believer be skeptic?"

Of course a believer can be a skeptic --- as long as he or she admits to turning off his or her skepticism when it comes to certain issues.

Many of us need to have faith in something. We are rational, intelligent beings, but that ration and intelligence is often far overshadowed by our capacity for emotion. And it's that emotion that is the basis of our need to believe. It's that emotion that shuts down skepticism in the face of certain issues.

If I were you, I'd examine the emotional background of my beliefs. Is there some other way you can find the emotional comfort you get from having faith? You may find that there are other ways and that you don't need your belief anymore, in which case, the Razor is much easier to apply to the things that really need it.

 

[Pauliesonne]

All the believer has to do is make the non-believer into an addict ( of something ) and then manipulate the non-believer when he/she is at their very lowest..

 

[writerdd]

This is a post I placed on ShipOfFools - I'm expecting a different take on it here.

Recently, as a skeptic, I've found myself challenging my own Christian beliefs. I'd be very interested to hear argument or counter-argument.

The train of thought goes something like this:

* P: I believe in God
* A: Where's the testable evidence for God?
* P: God doesn't interfere directly in the world
* A: And there's an invisible dragon in my garage
* P: But God could act through people who believe
* A: Then why doesn't he have a clearer method of communicating with believers?
* P: He does - the Gospels
* A: And where's the testable evidence that they are recounts of the truth?
* P: I have faith
* A: I don't

How do I get back from here?

You don't. You celebrate that you are free from the guilt and fear that had been hanging over your head for all those years you'd been a believer. That is close to the path that I actually took in my departure from Christianity, except for the dragons.

Some people who go down this path prefer to maintain a belief in "god" and to continue to participate in their religion for family or social reasons, so they change their definition of god to mean a metaphor for the good in all humans or the source of all life or something else equally vague.

The counter argument from born-again Christians would most likely be "Faith" as in "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" and/or "I know God is real because he's in my heart and I experience his workings in my life."

 

[the_bgma]

This is a post I placed on ShipOfFools - I'm expecting a different take on it here.

Recently, as a skeptic, I've found myself challenging my own Christian beliefs. I'd be very interested to hear argument or counter-argument.

The train of thought goes something like this:

* P: I believe in God
* A: Where's the testable evidence for God?
* P: God doesn't interfere directly in the world
* A: And there's an invisible dragon in my garage
* P: But God could act through people who believe
* A: Then why doesn't he have a clearer method of communicating with believers?
* P: He does - the Gospels
* A: And where's the testable evidence that they are recounts of the truth?
* P: I have faith
* A: I don't

How do I get back from here?

Challenging your own beliefs is good, it forces to examine WHY you have those beliefs. Is there reason behind it, or merely indoctrination?

A suggestion for a way to solve your dilemma: read. Read the Bible, including the notes in www.skepticsannotatedbible.com . Recognize that it is (of course) a fallible book written by men. Then read books on Atheism as well (go to my link below and there's a list of books to read), and maybe go back to some Christian apologetics books, or maybe Jefferson's Bible. You don't have to read a lot of books, just a select few.

And then distill what you have read, and come up an answer that works for you. Maybe you're an Atheist, or maybe an Agnostic or Deist, or maybe still a Christian. (Albeit a liberal one, I'm sure, you certainly won't be a bible-thumping fundamentalist after reading!) Whatever you end up with, you'll know that you looked at it from all angles and made your judgment based on the evidence at hand, incomplete though it is.

Good luck on your search!


******************************************
The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist

 

[pgwenthold]

This is a post I placed on ShipOfFools - I'm expecting a different take on it here.

Recently, as a skeptic, I've found myself challenging my own Christian beliefs. I'd be very interested to hear argument or counter-argument.

The train of thought goes something like this:

* P: I believe in God

A: God who?

 

[uncy]

Ultimately it all boils down to you, belief is like sexuality in that you can’t choose it, and to find what’s best for you, you need to try different things. I guess it’s like ice cream too, how do you know which flavor is your favorite without tasting a bunch.

Whichever way you go, nobody who truly cares about you will hate you for it. As far as I’m concerned, I’m happy for people who have faith provided that it a) Truly makes them a better person, not in a, “holier than thou,” way, but in being a decent human being way and b) they follow George Carlin’s third commandment, “Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself. (Unless of coarse you post on a forum titled, “Religion and Philosophy,” of coarse.

 

[a_unique_person]

This is a post I placed on ShipOfFools - I'm expecting a different take on it here.

Recently, as a skeptic, I've found myself challenging my own Christian beliefs. I'd be very interested to hear argument or counter-argument.

The train of thought goes something like this:

* P: I believe in God
* A: Where's the testable evidence for God?
* P: God doesn't interfere directly in the world
* A: And there's an invisible dragon in my garage
* P: But God could act through people who believe
* A: Then why doesn't he have a clearer method of communicating with believers?
* P: He does - the Gospels
* A: And where's the testable evidence that they are recounts of the truth?
* P: I have faith
* A: I don't

How do I get back from here?

I went through a similar process once. Not quite so logical, but when it came down to it, I was never able to convince myself that any of it was true, despite my best efforts. The only logical conclusion was that there were many things that were easily proven, and many things easily disproven, but this one things seemed to be impossibly difficult to prove, but so easy to disprove.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Ultimately it all boils down to you, belief is like sexuality in that you can’t choose it, and to find what’s best for you, you need to try different things. I guess it’s like ice cream too, how do you know which flavor is your favorite without tasting a bunch.

Whichever way you go, nobody who truly cares about you will hate you for it. As far as I’m concerned, I’m happy for people who have faith provided that it a) Truly makes them a better person, not in a, “holier than thou,” way, but in being a decent human being way and b) they follow George Carlin’s third commandment, “Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself. (Unless of coarse you post on a forum titled, “Religion and Philosophy,” of coarse.

I disagree with the notion that you can't choose it, since I myself have had dedicated hardcore beliefs in the past for years at a time before figuring something out and moving on to where I am now. And, to have a favorite ice cream, I'd say all I need to try is one. It's instantly the one I like most (and worst).

 

[westphalia]

I'm not sure why the believer would answer "God doesn't interfere directly in the world." For a Christian (most, anyway), Christ's mission is a direct intervention into the world ("the Word became flesh, and dwealt among us"). Miracles are a direct intervention into the world. God speaking to Moses, Joshua or any other supposed prophets and leaders is a direct intervention into the world.

I don't think a true believer can possibly make that second statement without completely unsaddling the horse.

 

[Just Me]

I'm not sure why the believer would answer "God doesn't interfere directly in the world." For a Christian (most, anyway), Christ's mission is a direct intervention into the world ("the Word became flesh, and dwealt among us"). Miracles are a direct intervention into the world. God speaking to Moses, Joshua or any other supposed prophets and leaders is a direct intervention into the world.

I don't think a true believer can possibly make that second statement without completely unsaddling the horse.

Wonderful statement. I bow before you.