To FORMER atheists

[Drew98]

mkw:

After 41 years of living in the dark, I woke up and found out the error of my thinking. I FOUND GOD…

So what was the error of your thinking? How did you find God?

 

[Fidelis]

Since y’all can’t seem to agree on a definition of atheism to get this show started, why not just use the simple definition given in the glossary of the Catechism:

Atheism: The denial in theory and/or practice that God exists.

The expanded explanation is as follows:

2124 The name “atheism” covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be “an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history.” Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. “It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man’s hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth.”

 

[wolpertinger]

Fidelis:

Since y’all can’t seem to agree on a definition of atheism to get this show started, why not just use the simple definition given in the glossary of the Catechism:

Why not? Because that definition is not acceptable to many atheists. Would you accept my definition of a Christian (i.e. anybody who self-identifies as one)?

 

[AnAtheist]

abcdefg:

AnAtheist if you’re interested in defending atheism I suggest you read marxism philosophy.

To make one thing clear: I am neither a Marxist or a Communist, what is nearly the same anyway. Marxism has one feature in common with religion, it is not based on any scientific research. Marx has simply put his view of history into an ecomnomical and social theory that lacks almost any connection to reality. Mankind simply has not the traits to setup a functioning communist society, and I am happy to explain why, but not in this thread.
Besides Marxism in no way equals atheism, I know christian Marxists and atheist conservatives (even anti-abortionists). There is an overlap not no equality.

I started this thread, because I have developed a little theory regarding those former atheists who show up on religious and atheist forums and I want to put it to a test.
First I had 3 classes of former atheists, thanks to LisaN’s post I ammende my theory with a 4th one. I will share the definition of those classes with you, if anyone’s interested in that, but I like to read some more answers first. And yes, I know, this is mere anecdotal evidence and not even poor statistics, but I don’t intend to write a paper on it, it’s just curiosity.

 

[abcdefg]

HOW I FIND GOD

when I’m a strong atheist(<10 years old), I’m always try to learn how to harm those who’re not my friends without exposing myself. I also want to give up all moral values. fortunately I failed in both. I then wondering if there’s something supernatual is preventing me from becoming evil. the deaths of some of my relatives makes me wonder where they’re going. Marxism philosophy can’t answer that–it didn’t even say death is a dreamless sleep as someone said here in this forum, nor can it answer what’s the difference between a rightuousness person and a serial killer after death. I spent the following years as an agnosticism. news of mass execution is shocking(once 70+ in a day, which newspaper said, showed the determination of goverment to punish criminals). I can see the psychological torture of deathrow inmates’ family on TV and I tend to believe death penalty is a punishment for other innocent members of the criminal’s family not the criminal himself. As the only child in the family, I long for a brother or sister. that’s why I found abortion ads on TV particularly nauseating. The experience of falling in love with a girl forged my respect for women. (don’t worry she and I are extremely “conservative” according to classmates. nothing immoral happened.) we separated as I went to college from home while her score was less well and couldn’t enter a college. I can’t expect she would wait for my graduation, but I hoped(now pray) that she might/may find a good husband.I also often hope/pray that anyone who finds love “be the mother/father of thousands of millions”(KJV Gen24:60, of course I didn’t know this say back then) when the confusion of atheism was beyond my tolerance. Islam is too violent to be true. Buddism promotes the cut-off of relation with all surroundings which is unnatural enough to turn me away. only Christinity doesn’t promote violence. pro-life issures filtered out protestantism. furth reading of Humanae Vitae and CCC confirm me Catholicism is the right way to choose.

 

[AnAtheist]

Carl:

AnAtheist

I think before I get any deeper into this thread, I’d like to know your definition of “atheist.” My definition is one who knows there is no God.

On the face of it, this is ridiculous. How could you know there is no God?

Whereas the agnostic is one who knows the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. There might be a God.

The defintion of an atheist depends on the defintion of God. I agree, when you say, atheists cannot know there is not any kind of god. Agnostics state, there is no way to know, while atheists (incl. me) say, they are pretty sure, i.e. 99.99…% sure, about that.
On the other hand, atheists state (incl. me), I know, i.e. 100% sure, that the Christian God does not exist, because there are traits ascribed to him, that are logically impossible.
I might add “most” atheists to both above made statements, the majority of atheists I know think that way.

This is, btw, one of the key misunderstandings between members of a specific religion and atheists (or even between those religions), because religious people have a specific image of their god, while atheists don’t have that. So, when someone speaks of “god”, you automatically interpret that as “God”. While atheists interpret that as “some kind of god”, and only think “God”, when you say “Christian god” or “Yahwe” or synonimous names.

Once I figured out the intellectual dilemma of the atheist, I stopped calling myself one.

The problem, not to 100%ly know, there is no god - is that the intellectual dilemma of atheism in your opionion?

 

[AnAtheist]

   		 		 		Since y'all can't seem to agree on a definition of atheism to get this show started, why not just use the simple definition given in the glossary of the Catechism:

Atheism: The denial in theory and/or practice that God exists.

For the sake of this thread, that defintion does suffice. I am 90% happy with it.

 

[abcdefg]

AnAtheist:

I started this thread, because I have developed a little theory regarding those former atheists who show up on religious and atheist forums and I want to put it to a test.
First I had 3 classes of former atheists, thanks to LisaN’s post I ammende my theory with a 4th one. I will share the definition of those classes with you, if anyone’s interested in that, but I like to read some more answers first. And yes, I know, this is mere anecdotal evidence and not even poor statistics, but I don’t intend to write a paper on it, it’s just curiosity.

I can’t wait to see your classification. agree with it or not, I appreciate your contribution
btw communism and christianity pretty much exlude one another. marxism rejects all kind of religion strongly. if there’s a christian marxist, he must admit he’s unblievable ignorant. which is enough to put his sanity and claim of being a christian marxist under doubt. there’s a saying that is either “a good communist can’t be a Catholic” or “a good Catholic can’t be a communist” I forget who said that.
I used to be a weak atheist(or agnosticism) conservative.

 

[abcdefg]

I finally decide to give up atheism, not because I directly I observed God, but through the moral related doctrines of church, I conclude the existence of God.

 

[AnAtheist]

abcdefg:

if there’s a christian marxist, he must admit he’s unblievable ignorant. which is enough to put his sanity and claim of being a christian marxist under doubt.

Well, there are Christians, who ignore essentials parts of their religion, as there are Marxists who ignore parts of their doctrine. So if you take the right, non-mutual-exclusive parts of both, you can be both or at least delude yourself that way. The “pick-and-choose” doctrine is not limited to protestants, it works for communists too.

funny sidenote: According to Acts 4, the first Christians lived in a communist community, “communist” with respect to the economical habits not the political ones.

 

[abcdefg]

so that’s it: good for both is good for nothing.

 

[katherine2]

The “pick-and-choose” doctrine is not limited to protestants, it works for communists too.

he he. so true. Marxism has no Ratzinger.

 

[Lisa_N]

AnAtheist:

On the other hand, atheists state (incl. me), I know, i.e. 100% sure, that the Christian God does not exist, because there are traits ascribed to him, that are logically impossible.
I might add “most” atheists to both above made statements, the majority of atheists I know think that way.

However your conclusion is based on the hubris of atheists who think that God can be defined or debunked through some logical argument and that man has the capacity to understand, classify and define God.

Everything you believe is predicated on the assumption that man can KNOW about God. If I believe in God, then I also believe that we mere mortals cannot know Him at His level. That would make us gods ourselves and I don’t see that kind of arrogance among believers. We don’t go into paralysis by analysis and assume that man knows or can know everything.

So your claim that you know 100% there is no “Christian” God is totally an opinion. Traits ascribed to Him? By whom? With what authority? It is relatively easy to debunk a number of theories but you cannot claim to know by empirical testing that there is no God. So tell me about this God you don’t believe in…

Lisa N

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

wolpertinger:

Assuming the philosophical materialists are right (and I believe they are), these things could be proven on a purely physical level. Whether we will ever know enough about our brain’s workings to deliver such a proof is an open issue at this time.

I disagree. You might be able to prove that compassion caused a physiological reaction in the brain that could be measured but that would be an effect, not the compassion itself. HUGE difference. As the compassion and Love are the MOST important aspects of our eternal lives and have NO physical properties regardless of whether or not the emotion theat accompanies tham produces physiological byproducts.

All the most meaningful aspects of human existence resemble God in that they have no physical properties; they are spiritual. Unless the atheist denies love and compassion exist he must assume evidence for the existence of things that have no physical precence. This leads to the possibility of God and if God is love it fits with us physical creatures living a life in faith.

Wow! Talk about missing the forest for the trees!!

Contemplate the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

 

[4_marks]

AnAtheist:

I’m interested how **former **atheists (Carl et al.) have justifed their atheism back then.

You surely had some kind of reasoning for your temporal non-belief. Later on you obviously learned some better arguments or saw some flaws in your reasoning.

Care to provide some details? And please do not concentrate on the better arguments but on the reasons for your former atheism and why they now seem wrong or invalid to you.

Thanks.

I was once an agnostic. I believed that there could be a God, but also that there might not be a God. For a time I thought most people who went to church were hypocrites trying to make themselves look good to others. Later, I began to believe that religion served a purpose. It helped keep people in line to believe in God, and the really sincere people who did would do good works to help others and improve the human condition. I was less hostile toward religious belief after that.

The real kicker for me was having to explain my concept of God in comparison to the relationship to God in Christ that many of my friends demonstrated. I suppose what did it for me was witnessing the example of how faith in Christ really transformed the lives of some of my college friends. Down deep I realized that there was more to the picture than what I could empirically measure. The Spirit of God took it from there.

 

[4_marks]

Tlaloc:

Well lest see: Atheists may demand proof of God because you are asking them to change beliefs the same as you might want proof of No God if you were to change. Besides which you overgeneralize atheists as all demanding proof which is blatantly untrue. And you top it off by ignoring Occam’s Razor that the explanation that is simplest is the most likely and therefor requires the least amount of supporting evidence.

Ockham also postulated that if God wanted to, tomorrow, He could make the sun rise in the west and set in the east. In fact, Ockham went so far as to say that we cannot be assured of the fact that the sun will continue to rise in the east and set in the west. It may not. To this day, evangelicals and fundamentalists (and some Catholics) continue to operate out of such foolish fideism. The reality is that God is a God of faith, but also of Reason. William of Ockham…gotta love him.

 

[wolpertinger]

MichaelTDoyle:

I disagree. You might be able to prove that compassion caused a physiological reaction in the brain that could be measured but that would be an effect, not the compassion itself. HUGE difference. As the compassion and Love are the MOST important aspects of our eternal lives and have NO physical properties regardless of whether or not the emotion theat accompanies tham produces physiological byproducts.

I’m afraid I have to disagree with you in return.

If the materialistic view is true, then emotions like love or compassion are nothing but emergent phenomena of physical processes. Given sufficient knowledge about the brain’s workings, which may be forever out of our reach, emotions could be measured in purely physical terms; if you can measure it, you can also induce it…

What you say is not an internal critique of the materialist view, but a rejection of that view. Fair enough, as a theist you can hardly do otherwise.

All the most meaningful aspects of human existence resemble God in that they have no physical properties; they are spiritual. Unless the atheist denies love and compassion exist he must assume evidence for the existence of things that have no physical precence. This leads to the possibility of God and if God is love it fits with us physical creatures living a life in faith.

Materialists do not deny love or compassion or hate or any other emotions, it just happens that they disagree with your view of exactly what these emotions are.

Wow! Talk about missing the forest for the trees!!

Sigh. I suppose the feeling is mutual.

 

[AnAtheist]

off-topic, but anyway:
Lisa N:

Everything you believe is predicated on the assumption that man can KNOW about God.

Pardon me, but the christian god is very well defined. And it is christians who keep insisting to know alot about God, like that he created anything, he saves us through Jesus, which he is himself btw, etc etc

So your claim that you know 100% there is no “Christian” God is totally an opinion. Traits ascribed to Him? By whom? With what authority?

By whom? There’s the bible, the catechism, the Church, evangelists of any stripe, …
Authority? Guess, all christians agree, that the bible has some authority. For the other sources of knowledge it depends…

And yes, I do apply logic to God, you may call it hybris, I call it common sense. You apply logic to God too, consider this:

(P1) One must accept Jesus as one’s Saviour to get saved.
(P2) I want to get saved.
(C) I must accept Jesus as my Saviour.

Plain logic. If logic cannot be applied to God, huhu, how about this conclusion:
(C1) I must not accept Jesus as my Saviour.

Would work, as logic doesn’t apply.

or
(C2) I must accept Thor as my hero.
(C3) I should eat cheese.

 

[Lisa_N]

AnAtheist:

off-topic, but anyway:

Pardon me, but the christian god is very well defined. And it is christians who keep insisting to know alot about God, like that he created anything, he saves us through Jesus, which he is himself btw, etc etc.

So tell me about this God you don’t believe in? I may not believe in that God either. You seem to see God in very simplistic terms and again that is hubris on your part. I realize that I cannot fathom God Himself in all of His qualities. I can’t limit Him to human definition. I can’t put Him in a corral like a horse. I wouldn’t be in awe of a god that could be defined by a self professed athiest. Your term or definition of god is simply not compelling. No wonder you don’t believe in that version.

BTW I think it is incredibly disrespectful that you consistently fail to capitalize where it is appropriate. Shall we have some mutual respect? The cheese example was also rather cheesy. If you wish to quit the discussion because it’s run its course then say so. Don’t simply post absurdities.

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

wolpertinger:

I’m afraid I have to disagree with you in return.

If the materialistic view is true, then emotions like love or compassion are nothing but emergent phenomena of physical processes. Given sufficient knowledge about the brain’s workings, which may be forever out of our reach, emotions could be measured in purely physical terms; if you can measure it, you can also induce it…

Why would the physical processes of the brain be forever out of our reach if there is no God? You assume a lot here. That we could measure something like compassion or love and that we could induce it. Still no answers just assumptions.

Lisa N