Theists who become atheists

[Jack]

There are people who aren't true believers. They go through the motions for social, traditional, familial, or even purely emotional, or material reasons.

That doesn't leave much of anything to argue as a reason to believe in gods.

[finder]

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.

With all the disclaimer I put forth making it clear my intent wasn't in any way to demean the lost faith of atheists, insuring that it was understood that their faith was a serious one you can still be "minorly" offended? I think it's more than a small affront.

To criticize the very book you claimed to have believed in as an inadequate source of what faith in God really is and to claim/suggest people who teach it as it was meant to be taught cull the verses to say what they want them to say is the opposite of taking a believers word. And on that note, do you take a believers word when they tell of their conversion or do you say to yourself you know what they really went through cause after all you been there? It seems atheists get upset only when theists doubt the extent of their one time faith the same way they themselves publicly question the extent of our present faith. Look at some of the responses on this thread and you can't deny the fact that atheists do not take theists word on anything. When has any atheist acknowledged a believer as having a genuine relationship with God because the believer told of it? None. Point made. I just don't take it personal because I know that's how our minds work. We are skeptics.

The sad thing is Jack, you or no other responder addressed the main issue. Manifested faith. Or if you wish, vested faith. You know the bible teaches what that is and how things are revealed if you truly seek and desire it. But if anything at all is held back in your search you can't find the faith you seek. That's not an affront, just a fact of scriptural teaching.
That is why Peter stepping off the ship and learning he can walk on water at Christ's beckoning is recorded. We don't know
what's possible unless we trust our faith in God. God being the right place to put it. If one hasn't one doesn't learn of God in
that way, whatever faith they had manifests itself as unbelief or lost faith. Showing they never did entrust themselves to their proclaimed faith.

[The Theist]

That doesn't leave much of anything to argue as a reason to believe in gods.

Why on earth not?! I think, Jack, that you, like other former Christians I have encountered online, are a bit cynical.

[Senor Hoint]

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 Bible, as a text designed to attempt to convert people to its ideology, has an obvious motive to cast doubt on and exclude those who turn away from it.

[finder]

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.

Funny, I thought this thread was about that very thing and why that might be. I'm not discomforted in anyway????

[The Theist]

The Bible, as a text designed to attempt to convert people to its ideology, has an obvious motive to cast doubt on and exclude those who turn away from it.

I disagree, sir. The Bible simply affords you of the obvious choice. It doesn't hold it against you in the case that you should disagree, in fact it informs you of the ramifications therein. You simply doubt those. And well within your rights.

If the gist of your message is that that is nonsense well, that is one thing which you could be held accountable for, and as a gentleman and a scholar you would have no objections of that unless you happened to be wrong.

Being wrong. Awesome, isn't it? Unless you are fixated upon it without recourse to the law.

Being right. Well. If you are that then it is, as I observe it, a twisted road of self deprivation.

Its like this, Senor, Frank Herbert said it better than the Bible: I'm paraphrasing asbestos I can: "Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty."

The delusion may be your own. That, in all intellectual honesty. Liberty. Is up to you. It is your call.

Don't assume that our call is in vain unless you are most familiar with it and have regarded it in all manifestations of what we hopeless creatures without it can postulate.

At least, from my perspective to yours. One on one. Can logically allow.

[finder]

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.

Quaint little anecdotal phrases like "no true Scotsman" may sound convincing but they are meaningless. For instance you cared enough about what I thought to make sure I knew what you thought about it.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

Quaint little anecdotal phrases like "no true Scotsman" may sound convincing but they are meaningless. For instance you cared enough about what I thought to make sure I knew what you thought about it.

But it is a no true Scotsman fallacy - and that's not an anecdote. The entire premise of your OP is "people who used to believe could not have been true believers, because true believers would never lose faith."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I'm willing to accept that you believe you know God. I take your word for it. I similarly take Jack's word that he once knew God.

So if I take both of you at face value, and believe your accounts and provide them equal credence, what am I supposed to end up thinking?

[Jack]

To criticize the very book you claimed to have believed in as an inadequate source of what faith in God really is and to claim/suggest people who teach it as it was meant to be taught cull the verses to say what they want them to say is the opposite of taking a believers word.

I disagree. A real-world analogy: when a theist tells me their views on science or evolution are based on what they've read on Answers In Genesis and on the Discovery Institute site I don't doubt they sincerely believe what they say. At the same time I understand that their sources are demonstrably inaccurate and as a result their understanding is flawed. There is more to learn than what they currently know and the sources they rely on are inadequate to take them any further along the path of knowledge.

This is how I view the Bible. For anyone truly seeking to understand life and the universe, the Bible and other religious texts are inadequate to explain reality. Religious belief can be a starting point or a point along the path to understanding but it shouldn't be considered a goal or endpoint. Nothing should. The quest for knowledge is a life-long endeavor. We'll never reach the "ultimate truth" in our lifetime. Someone truly dedicated to learning should never stop anywhere along the path and say, "This is as far as I'm going, I don't care to know any more than I know now. I'm going to believe that what I know now is the final answer to everything." I have no doubt that most religious believers are sincere in their beliefs, just as I have no doubt that there's far more to learn than their religious beliefs will ever be able to teach them.

The sad thing is Jack, you or no other responder addressed the main issue. Manifested faith. Or if you wish, vested faith. You know the bible teaches what that is and how things are revealed if you truly seek and desire it. But if anything at all is held back in your search you can't find the faith you seek. That's not an affront, just a fact of scriptural teaching...Showing they never did entrust themselves to their proclaimed faith.

The error you commit is in presuming your conclusion and premise are the only possible explanations for a loss of faith. As I've tried to illustrate that presumption is incorrect.

We are skeptics.

Believers are insufficiently skeptical. They fail to scrutinize their faith as rigorously as they examine most of the other beliefs in their lives.

Why on earth not?! I think, Jack, that you, like other former Christians I have encountered online, are a bit cynical.

Perhaps, but if we are it's warranted. We've experienced belief in gods, we know how easy it is to become comfortable and complacent in the belief that our faith is all there is to know, that we have access to all the wisdom in the world by believing in the creator of the world. We also now realize how premature that attitude was, how much more there is to know than what a belief in god can ever hope to teach us. By experiencing the intellectual trap of religious belief we are naturally and I would argue justifiably cynical when others claim that their particular religious belief, that their particular interpretation of their scriptures, is the one and only truth to be found. Despite their belief that they're right, we know them to be wrong.

I thought this thread was about that very thing and why that might be. I'm not discomforted in anyway????

Well, good then. But that doesn't explain the attempt to rationalize the loss of faith in a way that agrees with Christian teachings rather than with reality. That suggests to me a discomfort with the reality of the situation and a need to make it conform to what your religion teaches so as not to upset your beliefs.

[Robert]

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.

I agree, though interesting Jack takes the same point differently- God is everything, this is nothing else; are minds are so easily controlled it seems; we are part of something far bigger than any of us know I'm sure.

[Robert]

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.

Quite so sir...

[Robert]

Why on earth not?! I think, Jack, that you, like other former Christians I have encountered online, are a bit cynical.

I spoke on the discussions page of Dawkins facebook page....they were not cynical...just plain rude...I mean, you couldn't get much ruder!

I say one thing for this forum, at least you can say what you believe without having your right to comment taken from you, such as happened to me on Dawkins facebook page (not discussions) and his website also. That is his 'oasis' his 'freethinking'