No full deconversion for me

[DarkMagician]

I'm probably one of the few "second generation" atheists here. My father was an atheist, my mother was a non-practicing catholic turned agnostic. I started off as an agnostic (I was neutral in regards to an almighty), but I used to believe in a whole lot of crap. Clairvoyancy, divining, telekinesis, I believed it all.

What first turned me athiest was the internet. The discussion forums that I could find dealing with the weaknesses of religion and creationism. The more I participated, the more I started to learn about Evolution, Abiogenesis, and the Bible. Then the thought process called "Inverted Pascal's Wager" took over.

1. There are a whole lot of religions
2. Most of them are exclusive from the others
3. Either one of them is right, or none are right.
4. The odds of one religion getting it right over all the others are slim
5. Thus, it's improbable that one of them is right.
6. Thus, it is a decent conclusion to believe that none of them are right.
   [/list=1]
   When that answered my mind, I stopped pulling punches to people I was debating with. That was the time I finally called myself "atheist".
   
   What stopped my beliefs in crazy things was a little different, as each ability I thought I had, clairvoyance and divining, failed one after another. When I lost something, my first habit would be to divine for it. Of course, one of the items I found when the divining pointed almost perpendicular to it (considering the method was waving something metal by a long thing, perpendicular could be considered "utter failure")
   
   The other one was discarded when I liked a girl, and wanted to know if she'd go out with me. I relied on my dreams to predict the future, but this event, when pulled into clairvoyance, gave a "yes" answer... then a "no" answer. Further more, neither event happened. I then started looking at the dreams I had when I thought that I had the ability, and realized that most of the information about the location was off. For example, in my dreams, we went to a place where they were surrounded by woods, but the field trip that upcoming day was almost all field.
   
   The more I started being critical about my abilites, the more I realized I was tricking myself into thinking I have them. I might have them, I don't really know, but I'm no longer going to lose sleep over it until I get something a whole lot more solid. Part of me still wants those abilities to be real, but I've taken up a materialist's way of thinking that stops those endeavors.

 

[Ryokan]

I'm probably one of the few "second generation" atheists here.

I'm one too, actually.

And I've been sceptical about religion since as long as I remember. When I was around 10, I got it into my head that I wanted to attend sunday school. None of my parents were religious, none of my friends went to sunday school, and neither did anyone else that I knew. I just wanted to. I don't remember specifically what I was taught there, but I do remember that I didn't buy any of it. And haven't since.

 

[supercorgi]

Then the thought process called "Inverted Pascal's Wager" took over.

1. There are a whole lot of religions
2. Most of them are exclusive from the others
3. Either one of them is right, or none are right.
4. The odds of one religion getting it right over all the others are slim
5. Thus, it's improbable that one of them is right.
6. Thus, it is a decent conclusion to believe that none of them are right.
   [/list=1]

1. 
   
   Not raised by atheists but I was always fascinated by different cultures (ended up majoring in anthropology). Since my early years, I was aware of how many different religions had existed and flourished throughout history and thought it was absolute arrogance that most of them proclaimed themselves to be the ONE, TRUE BELIEF. Since everyone thought theirs was the ONE, TRUE BELIEF, I ended up concluding that none of them was and that there weren't any God/Gods. So now I proclaim "Thank Dog!"

 

[Gestahl]

(Snip inspiring personal history)

After all that, you claim by the tread title "no full deconversion." It would seem that you have fully "deconverted". How do you feel that you haven't?

 

[c4ts]

Randi converted me.

No, seriously, I was obsessed with paranormal stuff up until I was about nine years old when I found Flim Flam, and thought it was the coolest book of all time.

Although the atheism came more or less from dealing with religious nuts who after several failed attemts at rational communication, convinced me through example that religion was a form of brain damage. That and there were too many similarites to beliefs held by those who weren't religious nuts, another case where everyone just turns a blind eye to themselves, human nature at work. It was one of those Socratic journeys where you go around trying to find out what people really know only to discover they're all full of empty hoo-haw which they can repeat until someone gets frustrated and gives up, usually me. People think they need it to be moral, to give their lives meaning, give them a sense of fulfillment, (etc)... when it's pretty obvious they've been doing it by themselves all along. Some people just don't want to ditch their training wheels.

 

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

Thank you, C4ts - an excellent summary - and I really like DM's six points.

I was brought up as a Presbyterian, but in my late teens started to drift away, as it didn't seem to make any sense to me.

I assume that I went through phases of Deism, Agnosticism until I reached Atheism. However, I never really thought about it, and until recently never considered myself as having any "label".

However, since arriving at the JREF, I decided that - as a sceptic, or skeptic if you prefer! - I ought to test my (lack of) beliefs.

So - I've been visiting all sorts of sceptic (Talk Origins is awesome!), atheist and christian websites, even the "real" fundie ones, and reading what such luminaries as Kent Hovind has to say.

Suffice it to say - and I'm sure it comes as no surprise to many here - all this has done is confirm to me that my atheism is the only logical position to hold.


YBW

 

[Ausmerican]

Personally I am a third generation atheist. My maternal grandfather became one during WW2. He told me that stuff about "no atheists in the trenches" was a crock. When you see your friends getting blown to bit in front of you you stop beleiving in a loving god pretty fast.
My mother is an atheist and I have no idea what my father thinks of religion as he has never mentioned the subject to me. Ditto for my maternal grandmother and both my paternal grandparents. However there was always a bible lying arounf the house, along with books on greco-roman myths, norse myths and celtic myths. My parents were equal opportunity mythologers at least.

 

[DarkMagician]

Re: Re: No full deconversion for me

After all that, you claim by the tread title "no full deconversion." It would seem that you have fully "deconverted". How do you feel that you haven't?

Because I started part way in. I started off as agnostic.

It depends more on how you define "full deconversion". If you're going by result, then yes, it's a full deconversion. If you're going by process, then no.

 

[Nucular]

Oh, if we're playing that game, you could call me a fourth gen atheist. My great grandfather disgustedly decided in the trenches during World War I that no God could exist and allow what he saw to happen, and ever after was an outspoken atheist. My grandfather, still alive, has always been agnostic/atheist; my mum, whilst having been agnostic most of her life, has in the last few years come down fairly solidly on the atheist side of the fence, whilst my father has always been; and I've dabbled rather, but for a long time considered myself an atheist.

I'm proud of that lineage, but I have the uncomfortable feeling that it puts me in the same category as people who are Catholic simply because they were brought up so - I believe I arrived at my atheist position independently and through lots of thought, but maybe this was just an inevitable process preordained by my upbringing, accompanied, but not caused, by all the thinking.

Hope not, but who can say?

 

[Orangutan]

You know I'm not sure what generation athiest I am!

Definatly my mum and dad were athiests but I dont know about my grandparents. As far as I know they never went to church other than what you did as a society back then, marriges and deaths. But I think back then it was more of a community thing than a personal chioce. You were catholic (for example) because you were from a catholic family. I'm pretty sure they wern't catholic btw. I don't remember any talk on relegion, or relegious images or items in there houses.

OH! I just remembered, one set of Grandparents had a horseshoe for good luck outside there front door. Perhaps they were pagan! lol.

O.


PS, Thanks for a thought provoking topic (for me anyway) I must talk to my parents about it next time I see them.

 

[Beleth]

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a minute:

1. There are a whole lot of religions
2. Most of them are exclusive from the others
3. Either one of them is right, or none are right.
4. The odds of one religion getting it right over all the others are slim
5. Thus, it's improbable that one of them is right.
6. Thus, it is a decent conclusion to believe that none of them are right.
   [/list=1]

1. 1. There are a whole lot of numbers
   2. Most of them are exclusive from the others
   3. Either one of them makes "x - 1 = 0" a true statement when it is substituted in for x, or none do.
   4. The odds of one answer being correct over all the others are slim
   5. Thus, it's improbable that one of them is right.
   6. Thus, it is a decent conclusion to believe that none of them are right.
      [/list=1]
      
      My point is that just because there are a lot of religious viewpoints doesn't mean that none of them are correct. It just means that you might have to go through an awful lot of haystack before you find the needle.
      
      And I'm not saying that one of them is indeed correct; I'm just saying that your argument is insufficient to come to the conclusion you have come to.

 

[c4ts]

Actually, organized religion is comparable to different ways not to solve for X while claiming to have the correct value...

Or maybe I'm just thinking of ID.

 

[lumos]

Re: Re: No full deconversion for me

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a minute:

1. There are a whole lot of numbers
2. Most of them are exclusive from the others
3. Either one of them makes "x - 1 = 0" a true statement when it is substituted in for x, or none do.
4. The odds of one answer being correct over all the others are slim
5. Thus, it's improbable that one of them is right.
6. Thus, it is a decent conclusion to believe that none of them are right.
   [/list=1]
   
   My point is that just because there are a lot of religious viewpoints doesn't mean that none of them are correct. It just means that you might have to go through an awful lot of haystack before you find the needle.
   
   And I'm not saying that one of them is indeed correct; I'm just saying that your argument is insufficient to come to the conclusion you have come to.

1. Sorry Beleth, I just don't buy your analogy.
   
   1. Numbers are real. (one raisin, two raisins, fifty-five raisins, etc.)
   2. A number is not equivalent to the theory of life.
   3. x-1=0, one IS right.
   4. One answer is almost ALWAYS correct.
   5. It's not just probable, it's factual and proven.
   6. It's only a decent conclusion that none are right if you are a liberal arts professional who doesn't understand math!
   
   (My apologies to those liberal arts professionals. I have an aunt who was an english teacher and I love to get the digs in any time I can!)

 

[Beleth]

Re: Re: Re: No full deconversion for me

Sorry Beleth, I just don't buy your analogy.

You weren't supposed to. The whole point of the analogy was to show the flaws in DarkMagician's original argument. Compare your point #4 with my first paragraph after my analogy; we're saying the same thing.