IIzO wrote:I became a theist because people i trusted said that God existed.

What about trusting yourself, reading the literature and making up your own mind?

Just out of curiosity, do people know that IIzO is still a theist? Because I didn't read that from the post, nor does "skeptical pragmatist" point in that direction.

rJD wrote:Just out of curiosity, do people know that IIzO is still a theist? Because I didn't read that from the post, nor does "skeptical pragmatist" point in that direction.

I was wondering that as well. The reasoning given - "because people you trust told you so" - is actually a pretty good reason to become a theist up to a certain point. It's actually a lot better and more honest than just about every other reason theist are likely to give.

I was atheist until I was driving my Prius on the freeway and the throttle stuck, and I prayed to Jesus for a killer lawsuit.

IIzO wrote:I became a theist because people i trusted said that God existed.

"Trust, but verify."
-Ronald Reagan

To those wondering ,i am an agnostic.

The god of the bible was pretty fucking badass. He was like Rambo meets Hitler.

Then I thought about it, and that was the end for me

IIzO wrote:To those wondering ,i am an agnostic.

So do you no longer have a belief in God?

John

I no longer think i have justification for a belief in God.

IIzO wrote:I no longer think i have justification for a belief in God.

Sound like you are an a*****t then. Welcome to the club.

John

I dunno, I think the bible's god was pretty tame compared to some stuff I've been reading about other heroes today.

purplerat wrote:From my experience in these types of discussions I think it's often fair to assume that when a post such as the one at the beginning of this thread includes the words "I used to be an atheist" that the person making such a claim is flat out lying. I don't consider it a "no true Scotsman" fallacy to call them out on what I usually suspect as statement fully intended to be deceitful. I'm not saying they were never "genuine" atheist or never really thought about it - I'm saying they plainly know they always believed in God or a god and are now plainly lying to gain some kinship with the person or group they are trying to preach to at the moment, in this case atheists.
It's a tactic considered perfectly acceptable, especially amongst evangelicals, to lie about ones own past in order to gain some advantage in spreading "The Word of the Lord". I've seen it done where a person will lie about any number of things including made up past drug/drinking habits, sexual promiscuity, family life even ancestry to try and make their back story more like the person they are trying to convince. I've even heard an anecdote about a Christian "How to Evangelize" booklet containing an actual chapter detailing how one should go about fabricating a story about their previous life and conversion as part of their proselytizing.

That's exactly why I emphasised if in my posts on this issue. If the person did not believe in god then they were an atheist by definition. It follows that if they did believe in god then they were not an atheist by definition. It is a no true scotsman fallacy to say that someone who didn't believe in god was not a 'genuine' atheist. If they didn't believe in god then they were an atheist.

The fact they may be lying about having been an atheist is plausible but is another argument entirely and has nothing to do with whether or not they were a 'genuine' atheist. An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in god(s), if that criterion is met then the person is an atheist regardless of what other woo they may or may not believe in.

Overall, however, I think we are in agreement here.

starr wrote:

purplerat wrote:From my experience in these types of discussions I think it's often fair to assume that when a post such as the one at the beginning of this thread includes the words "I used to be an atheist" that the person making such a claim is flat out lying. I don't consider it a "no true Scotsman" fallacy to call them out on what I usually suspect as statement fully intended to be deceitful. I'm not saying they were never "genuine" atheist or never really thought about it - I'm saying they plainly know they always believed in God or a god and are now plainly lying to gain some kinship with the person or group they are trying to preach to at the moment, in this case atheists.
It's a tactic considered perfectly acceptable, especially amongst evangelicals, to lie about ones own past in order to gain some advantage in spreading "The Word of the Lord". I've seen it done where a person will lie about any number of things including made up past drug/drinking habits, sexual promiscuity, family life even ancestry to try and make their back story more like the person they are trying to convince. I've even heard an anecdote about a Christian "How to Evangelize" booklet containing an actual chapter detailing how one should go about fabricating a story about their previous life and conversion as part of their proselytizing.

That's exactly why I emphasised if in my posts on this issue. If the person did not believe in god then they were an atheist by definition. It follows that if they did believe in god then they were not an atheist by definition. It is a no true scotsman fallacy to say that someone who didn't believe in god was not a 'genuine' atheist. If they didn't believe in god then they were an atheist.

The fact they may be lying about having been an atheist is plausible but is another argument entirely and has nothing to do with whether or not they were a 'genuine' atheist. An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in god(s), if that criterion is met then the person is an atheist regardless of what other woo they may or may not believe in.

Overall, however, I think we are in agreement here.

Ok I get what you're saying. I guess it's the difference between questioning whether somebody was a genuine atheist versus whether they are being genuine in saying they were once an atheist.

I'm not sure about that - it is perfectly plausible that they were atheists, in that definition we use so frequently here - "without gods" - or that they were "rejecting god out of rebellion", but that this position was an unthought, unconsidered one, just as irrational as their current state of theism.

Since we have no way of telling (and their complete inability to understand rational arguments for atheism in no way precludes their previously having held an irrational atheism), I suggest we give them the benefit of the doubt on this, no matter how galling and worthless their current "I used to be an atheist too" statements may be.

FedUpWithFaith wrote:the bloodthirsty atheist.

Hi friends

That shows that the Atheists are not peaceful. Is it that you want to show?

Thanks

paarsurrey wrote:

FedUpWithFaith wrote:the bloodthirsty atheist.

Hi friends

That shows that the Atheists are not peaceful. Is it that you want to show?

Thanks

Of course not; I wanted to show you the origin of Islam.

paarsurrey wrote:

FedUpWithFaith wrote:the bloodthirsty atheist.

Hi friends

That shows that the Atheists are not peaceful. Is it that you want to show?

Thanks

Paarsurrey, that was what is technically called "a joke". It shows that the person making it has what we call "a sense of humour".

paarsurrey wrote:

FedUpWithFaith wrote:the bloodthirsty atheist.

Hi friends

That shows that the Atheists are not peaceful. Is it that you want to show?

Thanks

Look who's talking! We're not executing people for apostasy or stoning them or...I'm taking the bait aren't I? STOP. T-R-O-L-L

rJD wrote:I'm not sure about that - it is perfectly plausible that they were atheists, in that definition we use so frequently here - "without gods" - or that they were "rejecting god out of rebellion", but that this position was an unthought, unconsidered one, just as irrational as their current state of theism.

Since we have no way of telling (and their complete inability to understand rational arguments for atheism in no way precludes their previously having held an irrational atheism), I suggest we give them the benefit of the doubt on this, no matter how galling and worthless their current "I used to be an atheist too" statements may be.

I don't out of hand doubt all theist who say they were once atheist and I'm fully confident that there are plenty of irrational atheist who could be convinced that there is a god. I just have a general distrust when a Christian seems to be proselytizing. I say Christians because those are whom I've had all such experiences with - and in those experiences I've found that these people will lie about anything and everything if they think it can earn them a convert. If a somebody came up to me and said "Hi I'm Joe and I'd like to tell you about Jesus..." I would be skeptical as to whether that persons name was even Joe.

In this case you have somebody claiming the reason they converted to Christianity was the 'argument for the death and resurrection of Christ'. That in particular sets off a red flag because only somebody who is already a Christian would think that is a good reason to convert to Christianity whether it be from atheism or another religion. It sounds like somebody who's always been on the inside trying to imagine what somebody on the outside-looking-in might see (and getting it wrong). So while an atheist may very well convert to Christianity I highly doubt that it would be for that reason alone. Combine that with general distrust for a preaching Christian and I'm highly skeptical about this persons claim of being an atheist.


There is also another case in which people are "retro-active" atheist. In this case a person honestly believes they were once an atheist but only based on a definition they've developed once in a particular religion. The may have had a general or even specific belief in a god or gods before but once they find some new religion they view those previous beliefs as invalid. They believed in god, but not the True God so that previously belief wasn't real or they were atheist in regards to what they now view as the True God. I had a friend who used to claim this all the time. When I would say I do not believe in God he would claim to have previously not believed in God as well. What he really meant was that he now had an understanding of what he believed to be the one True God and any previous beliefs were invalid. God to him had a very specific meaning and to him there could only be one meaning. Belief in any other sort of god was to him not really a belief in God.

Loren Michael wrote:

Mick wrote:You're an interesting lot, Internet atheists. We're told that atheists are just those that lack theistic belief. We're also told that everyone once in his life lacked theistic belief. Thus, we are told that we were all atheists at least once in our lives. Yet, when theists agree and affirm their own previous atheism, you're all up in arms.

I'll agree with "we were all atheists originally" but only in the sense of being generally ignorant.

My objection is to the notion of a "previous atheist" claiming to be an intellectual convert to a particular religious faith. I noted my objections to this earlier: because the specifics for essentially any particular religious beliefs are incredibly specious. The nature of incredible claims and the paucity of evidence for them put the demands far too high for an intellectual conversion to any religious faith. A "former atheist" claiming to "simply have followed the evidence" is almost certainly bullshitting me, or has a radically different perception of "intellectual" and "following the evidence".

I agree with Loren here. I wouldn't claim that my being brought up in the RCC raises the same objection as thedistillers' evidence-free claims to rationality. I wouldn't claim that childhood indoctrination was any kind of 'intellectual conversion' such as thedistillers portrays.

It is interesting, though, that thedistillers stopped by here long enough to disavow the thread. It would only be rational to demonstrate such an 'intellectual conversion'. We can make our own judgments as to the quality of his conversion -- and his alleged former atheism -- from there.