Theists who become atheists

[NoJingoLingo]

But what did cause you to think to yourself "that proved God", what made you swallow all the rest in the Bible that was NOT experienced by you?

We both can agree that the black dog across the field is digging for a ground squirrel, but when one of us later reports that further examination showed a piece of black plastic blowing in the wind. Can't you imagine that your first impression had been a mistake? And why would that first impression be so hard to let go of but from extreme vanity and an existential fear of loss of self? That inability to let go is the false idol of supernatural belief in the unnatural. Is there some kind of bet that would be lost for admitting a mistaken impression?

The bet would be believing and going to eternal bliss upon death, seeing your loved ones and being with them forever or eternal punishment in the fiery pits of hell. Fear of the unknown, the thought of nothingness, oblivion, scares the shit out of people... So there are TWO reasons to cling to belief.

[Peter]

I used to have absolute faith in Santa Claus and then I grew up. Is it that I didn't really have faith in Santa or is it just natural for people to outgrow silly beliefs simply by learning more about reality?

[Ender]

If I may take the liberty of adding a few words to your statement perhaps I can provide an explanation.

It would be (quite reasonable) for a religious person to see (what he perceived as) proof of God, and then decide they were going to be an atheist (after realizing that what they previously took as evidence has a perfectly natural explanation) anyway...

I don't think you understand my point Jack. Of course that is how an atheist would see it. But I am speaking from the perspective of a believer. I believe that God exists with my mind and my heart. So I would see such proof as real and supernatural. It would be therefore impossible for me to believe a Christian saw God in his or her life, and then realized that evidence had a natural explanation. Do you see what I'm saying? The original post I replied to complained that it was judgmental to say those who turn away from God never truly believed, but that is the only perspective a faithful person can logically have.

I have no doubt that ex-believers thought they had come to a religious understanding, but if they really had, they would still believe.

I used to have absolute faith in Santa Claus and then I grew up. Is it that I didn't really have faith in Santa or is it just natural for people to outgrow silly beliefs simply by learning more about reality?

Whose reality? Yours? Many people have more faith the more they learn about "reality" whatever that even means.

[Peter]

Whose reality? Yours? Many people have more faith the more they learn about "reality" whatever that even means.

You're right, confirmation bias is extremely strong in some theists and prevents real learning about the reality revealed by science.

[Jack]

I don't think you understand my point Jack. Of course that is how an atheist would see it. But I am speaking from the perspective of a believer. I believe that God exists with my mind and my heart. So I would see such proof as real and supernatural. It would be therefore impossible for me to believe a Christian saw God in his or her life, and then realized that evidence had a natural explanation. Do you see what I'm saying?

I do understand your point; it's one I shared in the past. It's a position shared by a number of denominations under the general title of "Once saved, always saved". But it's a position that praises ignorance over enlightenment. It's a dogma that suggests that no matter what I may learn in the future my opinion about the existence of god can never change, therefore I must ignore or explain away any new information that challenges my current belief. I dare not consider anything that might cause me to reconsider my belief that god exists. It's a principle that favors arresting intellectual development. In Christianity, it does so by belittling intelligence and preferring faith.

While I agree it's a common belief I also contend it's an erroneous one. People of strong faith and conviction do turn away from religious belief. I would even contend that the number of people rejecting religious claims would be greater if more people really examined their beliefs and paid more attention to the basis of their philosophical opinions. Until the religious can present a standard for measuring the sincerity of religious belief they have no grounds to contend that those who have abandoned the faith did so because their faith was too weak or non-existent.

The problem arises because theists have to explain why one of their own could reject their common beliefs. I would compare it to those who, believing the world is flat, having to deal with the account of one who has sailed around the world. Allowing his testimony to stand as honest and true implies their belief is in error. The "atheists" among those flat-world believers would say, "Well, based on this new evidence it seems I was wrong in my beliefs" and would adapt their opinion to the new evidence. The "theist" flat-world advocates would have to denounce the sailor, suggest that he hadn't actually sailed around the world simply because the world is flat and it can't be done, or assault his character and suggest he is lying or badly mistaken about his voyage. Even more, they must find a way to discourage anyone else from attempting the same voyage in an effort to confirm or disprove his claims. They need to find a way to make belief in a flat world so appealing, comforting and popular that no one would want to find out for themselves.

The original post I replied to complained that it was judgmental to say those who turn away from God never truly believed, but that is the only perspective a faithful person can logically have.

It's not a belief arrived at through the application of logic, it's an emotional response to the idea that something I believe to be true could possibly be wrong.

[Ender]

Jack

I'm still not being clear enough. I'm not saying that their belief wasn't strong enough or that they secretly lacked true conviction. I think it's hard sometimes for an atheist to imagine or remember what it was like to believe. I'm saying that their belief could not have been divinely inspired. Had they recognized God, they could not have turned away from Him. We are looking at the world from very different perspectives. My view takes God's presence into account and I'm not sure you are seeing that.

It has absolutely nothing to do with an unwillingness to confront disbelief. Christianity demands a reevaluation of one's own beliefs and a willingness to engage nonbelievers in positive discussion, at least in my view. A fear of challenging one's own view is a fear that God may not exist. If I am not open to being convinced, that's when my faith is weak.

Your analogy deals in fact. Faith in God is not an objective discussion. We can sail around the world to see if it's round. There's no objective measure for God. The very fact that you acknowledge a religious individual can provide no standard of measurement for belief invalidates your later point. When a Christian says a former Christian did not truly see God's truth it is not a judgment on that believer. It is an acknowledgment of God's existence. And it is actually a credit to that atheist. I'm sure you would agree if you ever saw conclusive proof of God you would believe in God. Whether you believe I or any other Christian has seen such proof is irrelevant. We believe it and to pretend otherwise would be inconsistent.

Intelligence and faith are not mutually exclusive in my estimation. Intelligence informs faith and vice-versa. A person confident in the existence of God would have no problem encouraging the development of intelligence. You are painting a picture of an aspect of a minority of religious individuals and I can't defend a world view I don't hold.

You're right, confirmation bias is extremely strong in some theists and prevents real learning about the reality revealed by science.

I didn't write that. I'm not interested in a conversation where people tell me what I think rather than listening and responding in an open and honest manner. If you want to have that sort of conversation let me know.

[Jack]

I'm saying that their belief could not have been divinely inspired.

I agree. Nothing is divinely inspired. There is no evidence of a divinity who inspires anything.

Had they recognized God, they could not have turned away from Him.

All theists presumably recognize their particular god, else they wouldn't believe. When further reflection brings one to understand the causes of that recognition one can easily turn away. It only makes sense to turn away from or leave behind previous errors in reasoning.

My view takes God's presence into account and I'm not sure you are seeing that.

How can I help but see the preconceived conclusion you've reached. Believers are only believers as long as they accept "god" as the preordained and only acceptable conclusion to the search for knowledge. It's what prevents them from considering evidence that doesn't lead to the conclusion god exists.

[ozzie666]

I think it's hard sometimes for an atheist to imagine or remember what it was like to believe. I'm saying that their belief could not have been divinely inspired. Had they recognized God, they could not have turned away from Him

All theists presumably recognize their particular god, else they wouldn't believe

i've seen this before to. your encounter with God, which only YOU experienced, is so much greater and more exclusive than anybody else's. Its almost like you have it simply so you can solidify your belief by saying things like "if anyone had experienced what i have experienced, you wouldn't be able to turn away from god." making you feel all the more closer to god cause no-one feels what you feel.

or whatever...

[Peter]

I didn't write that. I'm not interested in a conversation where people tell me what I think rather than listening and responding in an open and honest manner. If you want to have that sort of conversation let me know.

Your name is apropos. If you don't wish to trade thoughts simply say so.

My point, which seems to have confused you, is that the only way anyone can learn what science says about the universe and GAIN faith is by using confirmation bias. They only take on board those facts which seem to support their beliefs. They do this by misunderstanding or cherry picking scientific reality.

[Peter]

I'm still not being clear enough. I'm not saying that their belief wasn't strong enough or that they secretly lacked true conviction. I think it's hard sometimes for an atheist to imagine or remember what it was like to believe. I'm saying that their belief could not have been divinely inspired. Had they recognized God, they could not have turned away from Him. We are looking at the world from very different perspectives. My view takes God's presence into account and I'm not sure you are seeing that.

Replace God with Santa Claus in your paragraph and you'll have some appreciation of how an atheist reads it. My view takes gods likely absence into account and I'm not sure you're seeing that.

[Ender]

I agree. Nothing is divinely inspired. There is no evidence of a divinity who inspires anything.

All theists presumably recognize their particular god, else they wouldn't believe. When further reflection brings one to understand the causes of that recognition one can easily turn away. It only makes sense to turn away from or leave behind previous errors in reasoning.

How can I help but see the preconceived conclusion you've reached. Believers are only believers as long as they accept "god" as the preordained and only acceptable conclusion to the search for knowledge. It's what prevents them from considering evidence that doesn't lead to the conclusion god exists.

I don't think I can convince you that belief and investigation are not mutually exclusive. I don't see a belief in God as a "preordained" or "preconceived" conclusion. But that's not the point I was trying and failing to make. Let me try it this way. If someone searched for evidence of God's intervention in their life, and if God was real and presented such evidence to that person, do you think they would later become atheist? Assuming that the Christian God exists?

Replace God with Santa Claus in your paragraph and you'll have some appreciation of how an atheist reads it. My view takes gods likely absence into account and I'm not sure you're seeing that.

I'm not trying to prove to you that God exists Peter. I was presenting a religious perspective on the question posed in the post I replied to. Perhaps that's where our miscommunication is. I understand that most atheists see belief in God as frivolous as a belief in Santa Claus. That is coming from such a place of disdain for religion, that it would be difficult to reach any sort of mutually understanding, in my view.

My point, which seems to have confused you, is that the only way anyone can learn what science says about the universe and GAIN faith is by using confirmation bias. They only take on board those facts which seem to support their beliefs. They do this by misunderstanding or cherry picking scientific reality.

Science and faith are separate. I find value in both, but I would never argue science alone inspires faith. It may inform faith, but you cannot have a science based faith. If I seemed to be suggesting otherwise, I was being unclear. But if you are suggesting that science conflicts with religion, you misunderstand the nature of both. Science is dispassionate inquiry. It has nothing to say on matters of faith, positively or negatively.

i've seen this before to. your encounter with God, which only YOU experienced, is so much greater and more exclusive than anybody else's. Its almost like you have it simply so you can solidify your belief by saying things like "if anyone had experienced what i have experienced, you wouldn't be able to turn away from god." making you feel all the more closer to god cause no-one feels what you feel.

or whatever...

I didn't write that. Please don't vomit your assumptions onto my posts.

[Jack]

I don't see a belief in God as a "preordained" or "preconceived" conclusion.

I fail to see how the statement, "My view takes God's presence into account", can be interpreted as anything but an admission that "God exists" is a predetermined conclusion.

If someone searched for evidence of God's intervention in their life, and if God was real and presented such evidence to that person, do you think they would later become atheist? Assuming that the Christian God exists?

Assuming (a) god exists and (b) this god has presented incontrovertible evidence to me of its existence, I would likely be a believer as long as I didn't discover other natural explanations that rendered the evidence controvertible.

Interestingly, your hypothetical question leads to a conclusion that since there are people who were once convinced a god exists yet later became atheists that the existence of a god is quite unlikely.