Theists who become atheists

[finder]

I've found that there is a lot of confidence among atheists who are sure of there rational for becoming atheist after being serious believers at one time. In fact it's common that if their lost faith is dismissed in anyway they become offended, even if the dismissal is simply a matter of fact, with no personal implications attached. Meaning dismissals aren't necessarily a criticism of how they personally applied their one time but since lost faith.

For instance what I usually hear from atheists whether it be in cyberspace or in person is that they really believed. And that they did because of their environment, family and peers who believed. Many, as has been pointed out hear on this site, faithfully attended church, read their bibles, conducted research and even seriously contemplated going into ministry. Only to realize at some point the bible isn't accurate, or a church official lied to them or something else along those lines. And so on the face of it, it seems reasonable why they would loose faith and succumb to doubt. There is just one problem though. In the bible you can find a verse that really gives us a concise guide to understanding the truth...

Proverbs 3:5~Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

In reading that verse it may seem as though God wants us to dump our intellect and blindly follow him. But anyone familiar with scripture knows that's not what this verse is about. We are to trust God even during turbulent times and in the face of supposed facts appearing to contradict God, his influence or even his very presence. And that's what's missing from the vast majority of atheists testimonials on their lack of faith or loss of faith. None of them brought up how the bible became instantly clear. Or how nothing that we can think of contradicts the fact that God is. Some mentioned how the atmosphere stimulated their emotions, but that doesn't come close to what I'm leading up to.

Jesus spoke of a spiritual adviser to truth, a comforter and counselor in truth that true believers would experience and then know the truth in which they have placed their faith. It is all confirming, though we can't scientifically demonstrate that fact. Point being I haven't heard a single atheist describe the union of this spirit to their own. However, many a time they would explain how important their faith was at the time they had it. I have heard from atheists that those of us that do talk of this union of spirits are just experiencing emotionalism and must deny our intellect to continue to believe. Which is to be expected from people who never trusted God to enlighten them to begin with and never experienced the Spirit of Truth for themselves. And such remarks confirms they never trusted God to enlighten them.

In conclusion, to dismiss their lost faith isn't an insult to their honest efforts for trying to believe, it's just the fact that their faith never achieved for even a moment, an uninhibited trust that God would act independent of their faith. They seem to think by their arguments that believers keep their faith alive, not God. But to trust God is a feet not easily done. Our pride, sense of accomplishment, need for quick pro quo understanding of cause and effect, all these things get in the way. Anyone who does manage to do so; instantly has their faith confirmed and thus as per scripture, will keep their faith until the end. That's how we know according to scripture who truly believed and who didn't. By whether or not they ever let their faith uninhibitedly lead them to trust God implicitly at anytime, for even just a second. That is how faith is truly manifested and by default, unbelief is manifested. Had they been able to manifest their faith in uninhibited fashion they would've realized that their intellect isn't sacrificed, it's enhanced.

1John 2:19~ They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

[Cephus]

I couldn't care less what you think, it's not an insult to me, it's a refusal to deal with reality.

But that's what religion really is, isn't it?

[Senor Hoint]

I couldn't care less what you think, it's not an insult to me, it's a refusal to deal with reality.

But that's what religion really is, isn't it?

Yep. Bible quotes as evidence that apostates aren't, and could never have been, "true believers?" What a great argument...

[Jack]

In conclusion, to dismiss their lost faith isn't an insult to their honest efforts for trying to believe, it's just the fact that their faith never achieved for even a moment, an uninhibited trust that God would act independent of their faith.

This is the kind of rationalization I'd expect from a believer who cannot accept as fact that someone else shared their experiences and observations and eventually found them wanting.

The only insult from this manner of reasoning comes from not taking others at their word, putting your words in their mouths. I consider that rude. Theists expect us to trust that they're being honest when they describe their conversions from non-believers to believers but they cannot extend that same courtesy to those who went from belief to non-belief. However, it's a minor affront and includes an element of amusement. Being quite confident in my knowledge of what I once believed and content in what I believe now, I find it amusing that someone else, someone who doesn't know me or my history at all, thinks they can accurately measure the degree of my former faith better than I can, all based on a few sentences from an ancient text. We all know that within the many pages of the Bible passages can be culled that support almost any contention anyone can make or seem to refer to just about everything, at least anything that was known to people back then. I don't consider it very meaningful that a passage can be found to support the notion that non-believers weren't really believers in the first place.

To admit that isn't the case would be traumatic for many believers. That possibility isn't within the narrow confines of what they've been taught to believe.

[The Theist]

This is the kind of rationalization I'd expect from a believer who cannot accept as fact that someone else shared their experiences and observations and eventually found them wanting.

The only insult from this manner of reasoning comes from not taking others at their word, putting your words in their mouths. I consider that rude. Theists expect us to trust that they're being honest when they describe their conversions from non-believers to believers but they cannot extend that same courtesy to those who went from belief to non-belief. However, it's a minor affront and includes an element of amusement. Being quite confident in my knowledge of what I once believed and content in what I believe now, I find it amusing that someone else, someone who doesn't know me or my history at all, thinks they can accurately measure the degree of my former faith better than I can, all based on a few sentences from an ancient text. We all know that within the many pages of the Bible passages can be culled that support almost any contention anyone can make or seem to refer to just about everything, at least anything that was known to people back then. I don't consider it very meaningful that a passage can be found to support the notion that non-believers weren't really believers in the first place.

To admit that isn't the case would be traumatic for many believers. That possibility isn't within the narrow confines of what they've been taught to believe.

I believe you have an excellent point there, Jack.

I knew a couple who, together had been devout Christians for 40 years. They were missionaries devoting all of their time in spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. The kind of people you look at as a theist and think, that is how I want to be. They were imprisoned abroad for their beliefs and tortured viciously, threatened with death and remained faithful through it all. Shortly after their release while still in the missionary work they amazed everyone by, seemingly, waking up one morning and saying to themselves: "What the hell are we doing?!" They both became atheists.

That often happens when a believer goes through a traumatic experience, like a married couple, should they lose a child or one of them makes it through a long illness.

Recently, a believer I looked up to a great deal who was so informed about the Bible I would read his stuff all the time, became an atheist and it just drives me crazy because I think: "What in the world is going on with you?"

On the other hand, that is sort of what being a believer is all about. The purpose isn't necessarily to convert unbelievers it is to present everyone with the opportunity to make an informed choice. Its like the Bible says, you have faith? The demons have faith and yet shudder.

To us . . . this stuff is real.

[Cephus]

Yep. Bible quotes as evidence that apostates aren't, and could never have been, "true believers?" What a great argument...

It's just a variant on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Declare that nobody who is a true Scotsman could ever do anything that would make Scotland look bad, as part of the argument that Scotland could never be bad. It's a classic.

[Jack]

...they amazed everyone by, seemingly, waking up one morning and saying to themselves: "What the hell are we doing?!" They both became atheists.

This is where I'd agree with those who don't like the term atheist. Keep in mind I fully understand what you've written in the quote above, but looked at in one way it could appear that the couple went from having one complete set of beliefs (theism) to having another complete set of beliefs (atheism). It could give the impression that atheism is an entire set of beliefs in itself when it's actually just the lack of theistic beliefs.

Speaking from my own experience, I didn't go from theism to atheism. I went from having theistic beliefs to questioning theistic beliefs to disbelieving them. It was a gradual process though perhaps there was one day specifically when I realized that I no longer believed in the same way or to the same degree I had the day before. I can't remember now, it was more than 30 years ago. I do remember who it was I read that started my questioning my Christian beliefs, Alan Watts.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it isn't so much that people go from being theistic one day to atheistic the next, though I guess that could happen, but rather they go from devout believers one day to realizing they no longer believe as passionately today as they did yesterday.

[Cephus]

Speaking from my own experience, I didn't go from theism to atheism. I went from having theistic beliefs to questioning theistic beliefs to disbelieving them. It was a gradual process though perhaps there was one day specifically when I realized that I no longer believed in the same way or to the same degree I had the day before. I can't remember now, it was more than 30 years ago. I do remember who it was I read that started my questioning my Christian beliefs, Alan Watts.

Same here. I didn't just flip a switch and go from fundamentalist Christian to atheist in an instant. Once I started questioning Christianity, it took several years and many transitions before I could finally admit to myself that I couldn't take any of it seriously. I remember the incident that started me down that road but couldn't really tell you when the road finally ended.

[The Theist]

This is where I'd agree with those who don't like the term atheist. Keep in mind I fully understand what you've written in the quote above, but looked at in one way it could appear that the couple went from having one complete set of beliefs (theism) to having another complete set of beliefs (atheism). It could give the impression that atheism is an entire set of beliefs in itself when it's actually just the lack of theistic beliefs.

Speaking from my own experience, I didn't go from theism to atheism. I went from having theistic beliefs to questioning theistic beliefs to disbelieving them. It was a gradual process though perhaps there was one day specifically when I realized that I no longer believed in the same way or to the same degree I had the day before. I can't remember now, it was more than 30 years ago. I do remember who it was I read that started my questioning my Christian beliefs, Alan Watts.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it isn't so much that people go from being theistic one day to atheistic the next, though I guess that could happen, but rather they go from devout believers one day to realizing they no longer believe as passionately today as they did yesterday.

Well, my dislike for the term atheism is more semantics, I just think it is a stupid term that has no logical relationship with even a very basic understanding of the word, the title, god and gods. Lets not go down that road again.

With the couple I referred to, I think there was a brief period after their release in which they were active in the field together but just going through the motions. Until one day they decided that was enough. I have heard of similar cases, though, where it was instant. I read of one guy who was released from prison and when his feet touched the tarmac of the airport in his home country he knew it was over. He had remained faithful but at that moment he was done.

I think even then though, there is a transitional stage, of guilt, of a society, of fellowship crumbling, possibly of doubt, shame, fear.

[The Theist]

Yep. Bible quotes as evidence that apostates aren't, and could never have been, "true believers?" What a great argument...

What other source would be more appropriate? There are people who aren't true believers. They go through the motions for social, traditional, familial, or even purely emotional, or material reasons.

[The Theist]

It's just a variant on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Declare that nobody who is a true Scotsman could ever do anything that would make Scotland look bad, as part of the argument that Scotland could never be bad. It's a classic.

Hmm. Is that how you took that? I wouldn't have thought of it that way.

[The Theist]

Same here. I didn't just flip a switch and go from fundamentalist Christian to atheist in an instant. Once I started questioning Christianity, it took several years and many transitions before I could finally admit to myself that I couldn't take any of it seriously. I remember the incident that started me down that road but couldn't really tell you when the road finally ended.

My transition from atheist to theist was pretty rapid. But I knew from the start to keep a level head, to not allow myself to become blindly indoctrinated, overly emotional. I made a conscious decision right away that I would remain skeptical, to guard against being trapped into feeling obligated, by either refusing to admit I was wrong or in a desire for it to be true. I have kept that attitude to this day and am resolved to continue to do so.