Is it possible for a Religious person to go full circle and become atheist

[FiveLinden]

A further point: people on CAF seem to think that ‘atheism’ is some sort of systematic set of ‘beliefs’. It’s not. It’s just not believing in any god(s). Just as Catholics don’t go around wondering about Zeus or any of the thousands of gods they don’t believe in, atheists don’t go around thinking about the thousands of gods, including the God Catholics worship. Absence of belief is just that: absence. It is not in itself a belief.

There is absolutely no parallel between the process of a Catholic becoming a Jew or a Scientologist and the process of a Catholic becoming an atheist. In the first the Catholic remains a believer, only in different things. In the second belief ceases.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I’ve never been atheist, although I have been borderline agnostic, and I have been Buddhist, welcome home.

 

[TexasRed]

That’s me.

Born and raised Roman Catholic, drifted away over time, spent my teenage years as an edgy euphoric Atheist, eventually cooled off into Agnosticism, then “None-ism.” Over the next few years, I gradually reopened my mind to the idea of Christianity, but only recently did I start trying to practice my old faith.

 

[sorrowful1]

My atheism then, sprouted from my belief that science is everything (used to be a student of science).

Today, I believe in God as much as I believe in science – perhaps, maybe a little bit more to God (Christ), do I give my high obeisance.

 

[po18guy]

Strive to be a spiritual settler rather than a seeker. You are home and delight is to be found at home, not in the wandering.

Doubts? When parishes open, I strongly advise you to place yourself before Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. With patience, perseverance and prayer, when you become aware that He is there, you will be changed.

 

[englands123]

Have you gone full circle ?

From believer to 100% unbeliever ?

But surely apart of you must still believe?

 

[englands123]

I’m not here to judge anyone, just trying to understand how a person who loves God. Can over time suddenly not believe in him at all.

Religion is not based on facts but on the supernatural world. Which is not natural to humans which I can understand. That’s why so many do not believe as it’s unnatural to them with out logic.

 

[FiveLinden]

People in my experience don’t ‘suddenly’ not believe. Catholicism as an explanation of the world becomes less plausible as the belief is applied to real situations. Literal belief gives way to symbolic belief and symbolic belief fades into nothing. If the people who experience this don’t spend time pondering the meaning and reality of ‘belief’ and non-belief’ (as I have) their former beliefs become like past memories. They can be recalled and applied but without any continuing ‘belief’ experience. I know former communists, JWs, and astrologers who have had similar experiences of the ‘loss of faith’.

I disagree that it is ‘not natural’ for people to believe in the supernatural. Religious experience is universal among societies. It is therefore natural and a part of the way our brains work. I think it is likely that this, or something associated with it, gave an advantage to ancestors at some point in our evolution. I think it is possible that this advantage was the ability to rationalise the knowledge of personal mortality and still keep contributing to the group. People with this, and the associated optimism, had a better chance of offspring surviving.

Religion as you suggest may not be ‘based on the natural world’ but all religions seek to explain the natural world and the experiences we have. As science has advanced fewer phenomenon (rain, disease, locusts etc.) are attributed to god(s). Those areas in which god(s) are still used to explain things tend to be those in which science is least advanced.

 

[Salibi]

I am not an atheist and do not agree with you, but your posts are so thoughtful and eloquent! Much respect.

 

[Freddy]

I’m not here to judge anyone, just trying to understand how a person who loves God. Can over time suddenly not believe in him at all.

And to add to Five’s excellent post, I might add that I seriously doubt if anyone believes (or doesn’t believe) with 100% conviction. I’m about as ‘atheist’ as anyone you could meet, but you will never hear me say that God doesn’t exist. There is the remotest of chances that He does. But a chance nevertheless.

It is extremely rare to find a Christian to admit to having any doubt whatsoever but I’m pretty certain that deep down it’s there. As Voltaire said: ‘Doubt is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is absurd.’

That said, if I somehow found out that God did exist, I think I’d be more surprised at that than finding out I was an avatar in some galactic video game.

 

[Diaconia]

A mixture, a few Orthodox, some Reform, more Conservatives than the other two.

I suppose the Orthodox are both less likely to leave, but if they do, would be attracted to a more conservative Christian group (Catholics or perhaps Eastern Orthodoxy).

Reform may be more inclined to a more liberal group (including non-Christian world religions).

Conservatives somewhere in the middle, most likely.

What is your experience of those leaving Judaism, @meltzerboy2?

Deacon Christopher

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But surely apart of you must still believe?

No, that’s not how it is.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

In other words, they typically can’t reconcile the “Problem of Evil”

And you can of course.

I don’t understand your post here… what are you trying to say or imply?

 

[phil19034]

As concerns the roman church in particular and Christianity in general Not only are there multitudes of examples of people “falling” away but you should expect to see this trend increasing towards the latter days. If you haven’t gotten that out of your biblical studies you need to revisit the bible. The hearts of many will go cold etc. etc. Christ warned people this would happen. I think its because whats been historically pushed upon people by the church in order to force people to obey or in more recent times comfort and entice people to join and stay within the church doesn’t quite add up to what people are experiencing in reality.
When ones expectations aren’t met one tends to rebel.
I don’t think its just a matter of those people not understanding the love of God or finding it too hard to keep God’s commandments or simply being drawn away by the enticements of worldly pleasures. I think it is more the shock factor of how the church has behaved versus what people have been taught about the church and God. History and the sins of the past are catching up and the church has more of itself to blame than any other entity.
Of course these remarks are inflammatory and I can expect some harsh disagreement. I’m open to be enlightened If anyone would care to rationally and peacefully discuss my assumptions.

I think what you say here is very valid in regards to why people go from devout to “fallen away,” lukewarm, no organized religion, and/or maybe even agnostic.

But I don’t think this fully explains devout believer to full blown atheist. To become an atheist, it usually is much more than just the perceived hypocrisy of any given religion.

To change from devout believer to a full blown atheist, one must come to the belief that God does not exist. Such a belief is really more than just the actions of the members of any given religion.

 

[phil19034]

Can you reconcile the problem of evil with a loving God?

Yes. I reconcile it the way the Catholic Church teaches us. Now, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t hard sometimes. But in my head, the arguments from the Church Fathers and scholars for almost 2000 years makes sense to me (at least academically)

 

[jeannetherese]

Technically speaking, going full circle would bring one back to Christianity. I pray that this will be the case for all who fall away from the faith.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

But I don’t think this explains devout to full blown atheist. To become an atheist, it usually is much more than just the perceived hypocrisy of any given religion.

Unfortunately when one’s beliefs are shockingly shattered one tends to rebel “full blown” into the opposite direction with little regard for rational behavior. Rational behavior may or may not catch up with them later. For instance if one goes into the church believing that all Priests are so close to God that they come near unquestionable integrity and trustworthiness and then one of them abuses a child and worse the community rallies around the priests defense that child or the parents may rebel to the point of total disbelief in a God who lets this happen.
The church has created more atheists by her behavior than the world at large ever could have.

I’m sorry, I don’t buy this argument.

YES - a scandal from a person inside the Church can destroy a person’s faith. I totally see that as making them become “spiritual but not religious” or even agnostic.

But someone’s bad behavior (alone) doesn’t cause a devout person who loves Jesus Christ to stop believing in Jesus Christ. It takes more than just the actions of men.

It requires the person to abandon the writings of Scripture too.

And to become an atheist, it requires a person to abandon the philosophical reasons to believe in a “higher power” to become completely atheist.

My point: while the scandals created by men can lead someone away from Faith, it alone is not the reason they select atheism. To become an atheist is a choice to ignore the philosophical evidence for God.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

the arguments from the Church Fathers and scholars for almost 2000 years makes sense to me (at least academically)

You must be gifted indeed, or blessed by God with understanding. I find the Church’s teachings, overly dense, at times impossible to reconcile with reality, and severely vague to the point of meaninglessness. Not all her teachings mind you…but a good portion.
Since we have all been charged with care and concern for each other perhaps you could help me to understand by first giving me a taste of what you believe the church teaches about the matter.

Here is a very basic, 8 minute video, regarding the Problem of Evil. There are also many books, etc. To me, I find St. Thomas Aquinas to be pretty straight forward.

The Problem of Evil — Aquinas 101

aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org

 

[kapp19]

Stem cells - Well, they’re fine, it’s just the killing of embryos (in embryonic stem cells - which are also not very useful) that is a problem.
Homosexuality - Not a sin in itself, just the reordering of human sexuality which was designed by God which occurs in the acts associated with this.
Condoms and birth control - see “Homosexuality”
Abortion - Yes, it’s immoral to kill people; the only consistent definition of a human being is conception
Politics - The Church should certainly not be meddling in secular politics, except when intrinsic evils are directly involved (see “Abortion”)
Animal rights and nature - We should be good stewards, but we are superior to plants and animals; they exist for our use

Pedophilia - It’s bad, and exists everywhere; but it’s worse in the Church, even though it occurs less than in other religious environments, because people hold the Church (rightly) to a higher standard
Vatican bank - The IOR is a bank; it is full of Italian dirty money; it is very hard to touch anything without upsetting some mobster who made an account (this has more to do with Italy than the Church)
Homosexuality and priests - Hypocrisy is certainly bad, but the question is whether it is right to say that a teaching is wrong just because the teacher does not follow it…
Focus on wealth - Only some places and people; also, see above (“Homosexuality and priests”)
Holier than thou - See the two above
Denial of science and history - That one has me stumped; evolution? Nope; Big Bang? A priest was the first one to posit it.

Evolution - Not denied
Philosophy - Not a clue what you mean
False miracles - Sure, but there are real ones too
Dogma - Now, that’s a better topic… actually disagreeing with real teachings as such is better grounds than some of the other points…

Happy to talk by private message.

 

[Mrchatsworth]

I know it’s nit picky but the “full circle” phrase in the question bothers me. As a believer I don’t think it’s full circle to go from atheism to belief and then completing the circle back to atheism. I’m sure it can happen but that doesn’t seem to be the case with most atheists I’ve met. One way I could see it happening is someone raised from birth in a atheist household, rebelling, exploring religion, and then returning to atheism. That would be “full circle”. But that isn’t the majority of atheists I’ve met.