Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

5 Reasons an Atheist Changed His Mind About Religion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 5 Reasons an Atheist Changed His Mind About Religion

    So I occasionally wander to another theology forum, and found this encouraging from one of their resident atheists,

    I’d just like to explain the five main reasons why I changed my mind about religion.

    5- Many of my foundational arguments were much weaker than I had suspected. was initially convinced that the Bible was plagiarised from Pagan myths, filled with scientific errors (true) and bad morality. Whilst I never outright denied the existence of Jesus (nor did I believe the Catholic Church taught the Earth was flat or that Hitler was motivated by Christianity, or that Christianity was unevocqually pro-slavery), I did believe elements of his story were taken from earlier pagan deities such as Mithras and Krishna (I was aware that the Horus stuff was a load of BS however). I later of course discovered this was completely wrong.

    4- Realising atheists do not have the monopoly on truth, as they think they do. This is linked to the first point. Thanks to Tim O’Neill, Ben Stanhope and others I have realised the hypocritical promotion of junk historical theories by almost the entire movement. Whilst it does not convince me of God, it certainly means that I will never again associate my self with the movement of New Atheism.

    3- I do see evidence for some form of design. I find it hard to see how the laws which govern the universe could have came about through naturalism.

    2- Christianity and Judaism are the only two religions I have seen which give some form of explanation for ‘why’ God would go through the trouble of creation. After reading John Walton’s Lost World, I’m convinced it is to function as a temple to him.

    1- Perhaps the most important reason for me is realising how foundational Christianity is to liberal, western values. New Atheists do not like to hear it, but our ideas on Liberty, Dignity and Equality do have a greater basis in Christianity than anything else. I’m in no way suggesting that you can’t be good without God, you can, but we can’t expect everbody to intellectually rationalise things. I feel as though eventually, as western countries lose their foundational values through secularism, we will inevitably turn to chaos.

    There you go, that is the reason why 2017 was the year I changed my mind, probably for good.

  • #2
    So what did he change his mind to?
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      So what did he change his mind to?
      It's listed in the first post.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        It's listed in the first post.
        I guess I'm missing it. The post seems to say s/he changed his/her mind abour religion, and the 3rd item suggests a return to Christianity or Judaism. Do you know if it was one of those, or just a general change in perspective about religions? Maybe s/he thought they were all bad or something?

        Edited to add: NVM, I guess the fifth item more clearly suggests s/he returned to Christianity.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • #5
          I hope he continues to question and study.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            I guess I'm missing it. The post seems to say s/he changed his/her mind abour religion, and the 3rd item suggests a return to Christianity or Judaism. Do you know if it was one of those, or just a general change in perspective about religions? Maybe s/he thought they were all bad or something?
            Huh. I thought his post was pretty clear. The post indicates that he essentially went from a hardcore sort of "New" Atheist who found religious ideas ignorant and occasionally evil, to one that found a lot of his initial ideas about religion incorrect. That religious people can have good reasons for accepting the views they accept, and that some religions even seem self-consistent (even if he believes them untrue). The third item doesn't at all suggest to me a return to Christianity or Judaism, rather it suggests that he sees good reason for some people to embrace views that are not bound by strict naturalism. So, he may be agnostic on that particular point, but not so agnostic on other points that he'd consider himself an agnostic or theist. Perhaps he leans towards some sort of virtual simulation theory like Starlight does. But either way, he seems to be saying "Hey, I get why you believe in a higher power, even if that's not for me".

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              Edited to add: NVM, I guess the fifth item more clearly suggests s/he returned to Christianity.
              He hasn't.

              Comment


              • #8
                5- Many of my foundational arguments were much weaker than I had suspected. was initially convinced that the Bible was plagiarised from Pagan myths, filled with scientific errors (true) and bad morality. Whilst I never outright denied the existence of Jesus (nor did I believe the Catholic Church taught the Earth was flat or that Hitler was motivated by Christianity, or that Christianity was unevocqually pro-slavery), I did believe elements of his story were taken from earlier pagan deities such as Mithras and Krishna (I was aware that the Horus stuff was a load of BS however). I later of course discovered this was completely wrong.


                I agree with this. Too many atheists I listen to are not really all that versed in history or theology, and take on some very odd positions as a consequence.

                4- Realising atheists do not have the monopoly on truth, as they think they do. This is linked to the first point. Thanks to Tim O’Neill, Ben Stanhope and others I have realised the hypocritical promotion of junk historical theories by almost the entire movement. Whilst it does not convince me of God, it certainly means that I will never again associate my self with the movement of New Atheism.


                I have not met too many atheists that think they have the "monopoly" on truth. Indeed, this is often a claim I hear from some theists, who claim a kind of inerrant knowledge that is biblically inspired or god-inspired. Most atheists that I know of are fairly heavily science-focused, and if they know their science, they know that "truth" is not an absolute thing.

                3- I do see evidence for some form of design. I find it hard to see how the laws which govern the universe could have came about through naturalism.


                I have never found the argument from design compelling. It tends to presuppose its conclusion. "Order" does not required an orderer. The universe exhibits a degree of order because of the natural laws under which it functions. These natural laws are the "nature" of the universe - they describe it. They did not "come about" in some fashion. In a sense, just as the nature of god is said to be intrinsic to god, the nature of the universe is intrinsic to the universe. We seek to discover and understand them, much as Christians seek to discover and understand the nature of their god. Different methodologies, of course, but a similar goal.

                2- Christianity and Judaism are the only two religions I have seen which give some form of explanation for ‘why’ God would go through the trouble of creation. After reading John Walton’s Lost World, I’m convinced it is to function as a temple to him.


                I'm not sure this is true either. Islam has an explanation for creation (https://www.islamreligion.com/articl...create-part-1/), and so do many other religions. I'm not sure why the writer thinks this is unique to Christianity and/or Judaism.

                1- Perhaps the most important reason for me is realising how foundational Christianity is to liberal, western values. New Atheists do not like to hear it, but our ideas on Liberty, Dignity and Equality do have a greater basis in Christianity than anything else. I’m in no way suggesting that you can’t be good without God, you can, but we can’t expect everbody to intellectually rationalise things. I feel as though eventually, as western countries lose their foundational values through secularism, we will inevitably turn to chaos.


                There is no question that Christianity was (and is) the dominant force in Europe and the Americas. The Christian ethics has framed much of modern social ethics. A lot of that framing has been good - some not so much. As Christianity is giving way to a more secular population, ethics and morality are going through a change. Change usually comes with some amount of discomfort and pain. I look at the way our young people today are standing up for the disenfranchised, helping the poor, fighting for equal rights for all people, and I think the future is going to be in good hands. I do not see any more or less chaos than we have had in the past.

                An atheist responds...
                Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-11-2018, 02:07 PM.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  Huh. I thought his post was pretty clear. The post indicates that he essentially went from a hardcore sort of "New" Atheist who found religious ideas ignorant and occasionally evil, to one that found a lot of his initial ideas about religion incorrect. That religious people can have good reasons for accepting the views they accept, and that some religions even seem self-consistent (even if he believes them untrue). The third item doesn't at all suggest to me a return to Christianity or Judaism, rather it suggests that he sees good reason for some people to embrace views that are not bound by strict naturalism. So, he may be agnostic on that particular point, but not so agnostic on other points that he'd consider himself an agnostic or theist. Perhaps he leans towards some sort of virtual simulation theory like Starlight does. But either way, he seems to be saying "Hey, I get why you believe in a higher power, even if that's not for me".
                  Thanks for the clarification. I did not find his actual worldview clear from the post. Perhaps I missed the larger context.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Basically Carpe, he is saying he turned from JimL into you.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      5- Many of my foundational arguments were much weaker than I had suspected. was initially convinced that the Bible was plagiarised from Pagan myths, filled with scientific errors (true) and bad morality. Whilst I never outright denied the existence of Jesus (nor did I believe the Catholic Church taught the Earth was flat or that Hitler was motivated by Christianity, or that Christianity was unevocqually pro-slavery), I did believe elements of his story were taken from earlier pagan deities such as Mithras and Krishna (I was aware that the Horus stuff was a load of BS however). I later of course discovered this was completely wrong.


                      I agree with this. Too many atheists I listen to are not really all that versed in history or theology, and take on some very odd positions as a consequence.


                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      4- Realising atheists do not have the monopoly on truth, as they think they do. This is linked to the first point. Thanks to Tim O’Neill, Ben Stanhope and others I have realised the hypocritical promotion of junk historical theories by almost the entire movement. Whilst it does not convince me of God, it certainly means that I will never again associate my self with the movement of New Atheism.


                      I have not met too many atheists that think they have the "monopoly" on truth. Indeed, this is often a claim I hear from some theists, who claim a kind of inerrant knowledge that is biblically inspired or god-inspired. Most atheists that I know of are fairly heavily science-focused, and if they know their science, they know that "truth" is not an absolute thing.
                      Unfortunately, I've met far too many atheists like that. Some even here. On a popular level, you definitely get this impression from people like Dawkins, and even moreso Alex Rosenberg who defends "scientism" as the only basis of truth. I agree, though, that there are theists, too, who hold similar views.


                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      3- I do see evidence for some form of design. I find it hard to see how the laws which govern the universe could have came about through naturalism.


                      I have never found the argument from design compelling. It tends to presuppose its conclusion. "Order" does not required an order. The universe exhibits a degree of order because of the natural laws under which it functions. These natural laws are the "nature" of the universe - they describe it. They did not "come about" in some fashion. In a sense, just as the nature of god is said to be intrinsic to god, the nature of the universe is intrinsic to the universe. We seek to discover and understand them, much as Christians seek to discover and understand the nature of their god. Different methodologies, of course, but a similar goal.
                      Yeah, this is the common rebuttal one often hears to teleological arguments. I'm pretty sure this is the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse' objection to teleological arguments. It's just not a very convincing argument, I don't think. A number of atheists are abandoning it to views like the one I mentioned that Starlight holds...that the design of the universe points to....something, and that that something might be some sort of virtual simulation.


                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      2- Christianity and Judaism are the only two religions I have seen which give some form of explanation for ‘why’ God would go through the trouble of creation. After reading John Walton’s Lost World, I’m convinced it is to function as a temple to him.


                      I'm not sure this is true either. Islam has an explanation for creation (https://www.islamreligion.com/articl...create-part-1/), and so do many other religions. I'm not sure why the writer thnks this is unique to Christianity and Judaism.
                      Perhaps he finds the Judeo/Christian conception more self-consistent, less ad-hoc (for a religion anyways). Have you read Walton's Lost World? Good book. If not, you should add it to your list.

                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      1- Perhaps the most important reason for me is realising how foundational Christianity is to liberal, western values. New Atheists do not like to hear it, but our ideas on Liberty, Dignity and Equality do have a greater basis in Christianity than anything else. I’m in no way suggesting that you can’t be good without God, you can, but we can’t expect everbody to intellectually rationalise things. I feel as though eventually, as western countries lose their foundational values through secularism, we will inevitably turn to chaos.


                      There is no question that Christianity was (and is) the dominant force in Europe and the Americas. The Christian ethics has framed much of modern social ethics. As Christianity is giving way to a more secular population, ethics and morality are going through a change. Change usually comes with some amount of discomfort and pain. I look at the way our young people today are standing up for the disenfranchised, helping the poor, fighting for equal rights for all people, and I think the future is going to be in good hands. I do not see any more or less chaos than we have had in the past.
                      I really wish more people understood how dominate Christianity framed modern Western social ethics, because that seems to be lost on SOOO many atheists I've read/debated.

                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      An atheist responds...
                      Thanks for sharing!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        Basically Carpe, he is saying he turned from JimL into you.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          Basically Carpe, he is saying he turned from JimL into you.
                          Thanks... I think...
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            Unfortunately, I've met far too many atheists like that. Some even here. On a popular level, you definitely get this impression from people like Dawkins, and even moreso Alex Rosenberg who defends "scientism" as the only basis of truth. I agree, though, that there are theists, too, who hold similar views.
                            Yeah - they're definitely out there. However, most of the atheists of my acquaintenance are also rooted in philosophy, so we tend to note that science is good for discovering some truths, but not all. I'm not sure science will ever explain my love for my family.

                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            Yeah, this is the common rebuttal one often hears to teleological arguments. I'm pretty sure this is the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse' objection to teleological arguments. It's just not a very convincing argument, I don't think. A number of atheists are abandoning it to views like the one I mentioned that Starlight holds...that the design of the universe points to....something, and that that something might be some sort of virtual simulation.
                            I have found the "virtual simluation" discussion interesting, at least philosophically. But it seems to me to inevitably lead to the "turtles all the way down" problem.

                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            Perhaps he finds the Judeo/Christian conception more self-consistent, less ad-hoc (for a religion anyways). Have you read Walton's Lost World? Good book. If not, you should add it to your list.
                            Just what I need - another book.

                            I'll add it - but thus one goes to the BOTTOM of the list!

                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            I really wish more people understood how dominate Christianity framed modern Western social ethics, because that seems to be lost on SOOO many atheists I've read/debated.
                            I think some atheists seem to feel that if they acknowledge any good out of religion, they "give ground." I don't have that concern. Religion has played an important role in the history of humanity. That role is changing, but re-writing history is not something I think we should be doing unless we have learned we were wrong to begin with. The major religions of the world have done much good - and some not so good - throughout history. Keeping a balanced perspective seems to me to be prudent.

                            And I think religions have a role to play for some time to come, frankly.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              I have found the "virtual simluation" discussion interesting, at least philosophically.
                              Since I was mentioned in regard to that view in the context of teleology, let me point out that I do not find "the argument from design" at all compelling in any way, shape or form, and that it comprises 0% of my reasons for thinking the view seems a likely one.

                              But it seems to me to inevitably lead to the "turtles all the way down" problem.
                              There might be turtles a long way down. I have no problem with that, perhaps it is even likely. I don't think we're in any position to make claims about what's below the turtles, in the same way that Super Mario within his computer game, as he exists within that world inside this world, is in no position to make claims about our world.

                              But I think it's extremely presumptive to assume that there is not allowed to be anything between the First Cause and our universe coming into existence, the way most theists are prone to do.

                              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              There is no question that Christianity was (and is) the dominant force in Europe and the Americas. The Christian ethics has framed much of modern social ethics. A lot of that framing has been good - some not so much. As Christianity is giving way to a more secular population, ethics and morality are going through a change. Change usually comes with some amount of discomfort and pain. I look at the way our young people today are standing up for the disenfranchised, helping the poor, fighting for equal rights for all people, and I think the future is going to be in good hands. I do not see any more or less chaos than we have had in the past.
                              I feel like you're ignoring the extent to which the secularization of politics in the Enlightenment, and subsequent increasingly widespread adoption of utilitarianism as the de facto moral code for use by legislators, have had.
                              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X