Yet another "ex-atheist" has written a book...

"In your hearts honor Christ as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 15). She writes about her journey from atheism to orthodox Christian faith in her book "Not God's Type: A Rational Academic Finds a Radical Faith

More: http://www.hieropraxis.com/

I was going to start my own thread with this, but I wasn't sure if it would really start any discussion, so I'll post it here.

Used to be an atheist?

One thing that I have noticed on this forum and elsewhere on the World Wide Web is a propensity for atheists to doubt the claims of theists as to their past atheism. Whether it is Alister McGrath or Kirk Cameron, there are a number of people who will claim that they were never non-believers. Some would even claim that these people are blatantly lying. That they are simply engaging in mental manipulation to sway the credulous. While this may be true in certain cases, I would contend that most of the time these people are telling the truth.

It is sometimes hard to believe that the claimants were ever atheists because of how they currently express themselves. Anyone who can stand to listen to Kirk Cameron talk about Christianity and creationism for more than a few minutes wouldn't be out of line to suspect that he is as credulous now as he ever was. Yet Cameron still holds to the claim that he was an atheist until his late teens/early twenties. I agree with that he probably was. I don't agree that he was a 'hard atheist' (whatever that mean), but I do think that he didn't believe. The difference between Cameron and most of the atheists on RatSkep is that Cameron likely never thought about why he didn't believe. Non-belief was simply a default mode for him. This is the same default mode that I found myself in for the first 16 or 17 years of my life. I didn't believe, as I wasn't raised that way, and my complete disinterest in religion didn't lead me to investigate it. My first real meeting with theological claims came from reading a debate between a Christian and an atheist on the web. It was here that I saw this atheist resoundingly batter each and every one of the Christians claims. Now this very well could have been a particularly un-educated Christian, but that wasn't the point. The point was that my first contact with theism wasn't via a slick apologist.

I believe that it is likely that these theists first came to belief through the words of a savvy minister or slick apologist. They heard the likes of William Lane Craig presenting a cosmological argument and didn't have the prior experience in such arguments to spot the flaws. I think this is the best way to explain how someone like Cameron could have been so enamoured with Ray Comfort's work. Had they the mental toolkit for dealing with nonsense and wibble they may not have so easily turned to their current position.

This is why I think it is unfair to claim that these theists were never atheists or that they were just paying lip service whilst believing. It is also why I think that websites such as this one are such a wonderful tool, as they allow people like myself to be educated and enlightened by clear minded individuals, so that when I come across someone like Craig or Comfort, I won't be sucked into their web of fallacies and lies.

Nice post croc!

Thanks. For a group of people who get so riled up when assumptions are made about them, I think a lot of atheists could do well not do likewise.

Well all children are born atheist so until they get infected with a faith then they should remain in their state of being an atheist (albeit weak).

byofrcs wrote:Well all children are born atheist so until they get infected with a faith then they should remain in their state of being an atheist (albeit weak).

I understand that. The theists i'm talking about are the ones who were atheists until much later in life.

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:

byofrcs wrote:Well all children are born atheist so until they get infected with a faith then they should remain in their state of being an atheist (albeit weak).

I understand that. The theists i'm talking about are the ones who were atheists until much later in life.

Well I would be more impressed if they said that they were noted as a Secular Humanist and then turned into an Evangelical Christian. Now that would be newsworthy.

"Atheist" is simply to not have a belief in God and few of these people have any track record of being a strong atheist or secular humanist or similar. They have no published claims other than their own. And now they believe in an invisible entity and we're to believe what they say is true without evidence simply from their own subjective claims ?.

We don't take this approach with anyone (e.g. scientists making claims) so why should we take this approach with them ?.

Given that according to this women in the OP post, here,
" If atheism is true, and there is no God, then everything really is all about me, and what I want, and what I can get.

No wonder it strikes such a chord in our self-obsessed culture.

Put your finger on the pulse of modern culture: it throbs with “me, me, me.” Advertisements tell me: “Indulge yourself! You deserve it!” I can buy my lunch and my coffee made “my way.” I flip open a magazine, or browse the best-sellers, to find ten easy tips on how I can have what I want, right here, right now.

Put one way, this is selfishness. But the spin on it in our post-Christian culture is that it’s empowerment, self-actualization. ..."

she has a rather messed up idea of what Atheism is anyway.

If she has evidence of being an atheist (other than as the natural born state of an infant) then so be it but if we are just to take her word, then it is a doubtful claim unsupported by objective evidence.

Which is par for the course.

I'm not saying that I simply accept their subjective claim. Nor am I saing that they were strong atheists or secular humanists. As atheists, we so vehemently argue the proper definition of atheism against those that wish to mis-categorise us, that we should be willing to accept that these theists may have fallen under the weak or default atheist position. My argument is that they were likely people who never thought about their lack of belief. It makes sense that someone who was never exposed to the proper definition or common arguments would have a messed up idea of what atheism is. It make sense that they might get caught up in bizarre beliefs.

I agree that their switch to strong theism isn't a ground shaking moment. If someone hasn't the capacity to deal with nonsense that is presented in an attractive manner, it makes sense that they might accept it.

There's a difference between someone who wasn't raised religious and hasn't thought much about god, and someone who decides to be an atheist after thinking carefully about it. I think most of the converts who claim to be former atheists are from the first category, rather than the second. But I won't say that no one has ever converted from "real" atheism. People are complicated animals, and they do lots of unexpected things, sometimes. I agree that some apologists can sound very plausible, when you aren't used to it. Certainly I was taken in by them for many years.

Harmless Eccentric wrote:There's a difference between someone who wasn't raised religious and hasn't thought much about god, and someone who decides to be an atheist after thinking carefully about it. I think most of the converts who claim to be former atheists are from the first category, rather than the second. But I won't say that no one has ever converted from "real" atheism. People are complicated animals, and they do lots of unexpected things, sometimes.

I completely agree with you. I just don't like to see people jumping to the conclusion that anyone with messed up ideas about atheism or young earth creationism must be lying about their previous atheism.

In some more conservative Christian traditions, the definition of 'atheist' gets stretched to people who don't believe in the right god, or don't believe the right things about god- a Unitarian, for example, or even some of the more liberal Methodists and Presbyterians, might change her beliefs about god so dramatically that she would, using the language of her new church, say 'I used to be an atheist,' meaning, 'I used to believe that god wasn't an active participant in human activity, but just a rather vaguely benevolent force.'

We are all atheists... it's just many of us are delusional... and don't want to die.

Croc - Great post. I agree with you and HE, I think most people, when they are younger, decide that they ascribe to theism or non-theism for reasons that are untempered by sufficient knowledge on the subject. If we take Kirk Cameron at his word, he obviously hadn't thought through his atheism in order to back it up with sensible arguments. After all, the reasons he presents for his theistic beliefs are easily demolished in Creationist Debunking 101...most of which I wasn't aware of until I started actually researching the subject a few years ago. You can certainly believe there is no god without having logically sound reasons for believing so

I'd think that the most clear cut example would be Antony Flew. If you were to doubt that he was a genuine thought-out atheist for most of his life, you'd also probably be doubting Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc.

Yet he still converted in later life. Perhaps given his advanced age at the time, and the seemingly muddled arguments he advanced for his conversion, you could put it down to him losing his marbles. Still, if it could happen to him, it could happen to any of us; that's a scary thought.

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:snippity goodness

Your post contains good points. I think I've addressed most of them in the past. Example: Was Kirk Cameron an atheist? My argument was, I think, that he kinda was. He didn't believe in a god. He had no exposure to gods, so had no way to be either a believer or active disbeliever. He was (to choose a term for a laugh) in limbo in that respect. It's impossible to believe in something you've never heard of.

The problem with Cameron's argument is that he doesn't show the first fucking clue of having any way of discriminating between bullshit and reality. Fine, he was an atheist, but he was also ignorant to fuck-off. It's entirely possible to be atheist (without gods) whilst being ignorant. The problem is that the arguments for gods are largely predicated upon that, so we end up with ignorant robots like Cameron spouting nonsense at us ... and someone almost always seems to come along spouting this shit.

Gah, I'm tired, and I'm going to bed.

Kirk Cameron couldn't organise a fart in a cow's arse.

Matt_B wrote:I'd think that the most clear cut example would be Antony Flew. If you were to doubt that he was a genuine thought-out atheist for most of his life, you'd also probably be doubting Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc.

Yet he still converted in later life. Perhaps given his advanced age at the time, and the seemingly muddled arguments he advanced for his conversion, you could put it down to him losing his marbles. Still, if it could happen to him, it could happen to any of us; that's a scary thought.

Flew had a co-author, and didn't remember over half the shite attributed to his authorship in that last book.

Seemingly muddled? Seemingly?

His arguments, if they were his, were so muddled that I could shit a sno-cone and it would make more sense.

If I start converting, kill me. This is not an idle statement; I'll be saying the same thing to my near-and-dear. When I fucking lose it, kill me.

Goldenmane wrote:

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:snippity goodness

Your post contains good points. I think I've addressed most of them in the past. Example: Was Kirk Cameron an atheist? My argument was, I think, that he kinda was. He didn't believe in a god. He had no exposure to gods, so had no way to be either a believer or active disbeliever. He was (to choose a term for a laugh) in limbo in that respect. It's impossible to believe in something you've never heard of.

The problem with Cameron's argument is that he doesn't show the first fucking clue of having any way of discriminating between bullshit and reality. Fine, he was an atheist, but he was also ignorant to fuck-off. It's entirely possible to be atheist (without gods) whilst being ignorant. The problem is that the arguments for gods are largely predicated upon that, so we end up with ignorant robots like Cameron spouting nonsense at us ... and someone almost always seems to come along spouting this shit.

Gah, I'm tired, and I'm going to bed.

Kirk Cameron couldn't organise a fart in a cow's arse.

i agree with all that. That is why I said that it is easy to suspect that Cameron is possibly even lying about his non-belief through his teens. He professes fuckwittery of the highest order. I also decided to try and frame my post so that I didn't state that he was a 'bad atheist'. I've seen people argue that certain atheists are 'good' atheists'. Which is utter nonsense, in my honest opinion. Someone may very well be a good or bad skeptic, but the only way to be a 'bad athiest' is to believe in a god. Which rather defeats the purpose, one would think,

The problem is that by saying they were an atheist, they are trying to claim that they've been through everything that all other atheists have, have studied it and analyzed it just as much but have chosen otherwise so all the OTHER atheists must be wrong.

In most cases when they subscribe to a specific religion, their past 'atheism' amounted to being a rebel or feeling rejected by god or something. It shows when they are not even able to formulate coherent rational arguments in support of atheism.

wunksta wrote:The problem is that by saying they were an atheist, they are trying to claim that they've been through everything that all other atheists have, have studied it and analyzed it just as much but have chosen otherwise so all the OTHER atheists must be wrong.

In most cases when they subscribe to a specific religion, their past 'atheism' amounted to being a rebel or feeling rejected by god or something. It shows when they are not even able to formulate coherent rational arguments in support of atheism.

Yes, that may very well be the case. If someone wanted to make that argument I'm sure they would be able to gether a lot of traction.

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:

I believe that it is likely that these theists first came to belief through the words of a savvy minister or slick apologist.

And this may be the case with this particular conversion as well. I see the description of the book on her website says:

Yet through a series of conversations with a wise and patient mentor, Holly not only became convinced of God’s existence, but also embraced Jesus as her Savior and Lord. In this memoir of her conversion, she turns her analytical mind toward the path that leads from darkness to light—from death to life.

It sounds like she was convinced by apologetics arguments and is even donating the proceeds from the book sales to an apologetics fund. I would personally also like to see proof that she has an "analytical mind." Her website says she's a professor of English and literature, that doesn't necessarily mean she's a "rational academic."