Lion IRC wrote:People would do best to conduct dialogue in good faith (so to speak) and accept people at their word instead of "winning" arguments with an imaginary person who you can more comfortably ignore than a REAL ideological opponent

I always use the rule of "extraordinary claims." Personally I don't care what people believe or don't believe as long as they're not trying to convince me to join them in their belief or otherwise. So if someone says "I used to be an atheist" my response would be "whoop-de-doo." If, however, they said "I used to be an atheist until I found out that Jesus is my saviour and I think you should join my church and give me money to save you for the rapture," then I want them to offer me evidence of both their previous atheism and that Jesus is in fact a "saviour" seeing that he's been dead for 2,000 years. I'm certainly not going to join some cult and give them money based on someone's extreme claims, on "good faith."

Lion IRC wrote:People would do best to conduct dialogue in good faith (so to speak) and accept people at their word instead of "winning" arguments with an imaginary person who you can more comfortably ignore than a REAL ideological opponent

Good point. It's difficult to take my father, mother, uncle, three of my aunts, former prom date, former prom date's best friend, former prom date's best friend's mother, former prom date's best friend's preacher, two of my coworkers, several christian friends I've met online, and a Jehovah's witless (to name a few) seriously when they tell me they were atheists and felt's god's presence at the same time. Maybe they believe atheism is about rejecting a god they believe in, but to then tell me I'm not really an atheist because deep down, I believe in their god, too, tells me they know better.

However, I can't apologize enough for attempting to reduce the number of people I hear this kind of malarkey from time and again into an imaginary person for your convenience. I suppose it was wrong of me to hope you'd take it on good faith that I hear this kind of reasoning a lot in my life.

-Quip

There was a poster on RDF who repeatedly claimed that he "used to be an atheist", and used that to justify some very warped ideas about atheists in general.

When pushed on his history, he described some escapades in his past that showed him to have been a bit of an anti-social yob. Interestingly he described one criminal act that he had partaken in with a hint of pride and no sign of remorse.

Technically perhaps he was an atheist, but not someone who had arrived at a conclusion that "there probably is no god" through rational thought. His "pre-theism" experience gave him no valid insights into the mind of an atheist, but only into the mind of an arrogant twat, which meant that he ended up starting several threads with some very insulting and distasteful bullshit.

Quip wrote:
...Good point. It's difficult to take my father, mother, uncle, three of my aunts, former prom date, former prom date's best friend, former prom date's best friend's mother, former prom date's best friend's preacher, two of my coworkers, several christian friends I've met online, and...

LOL
Thats pretty good!
This forum needs a "thanks" function.

Lion IRC wrote:People would do best to conduct dialogue in good faith (so to speak) and accept people at their word instead of "winning" arguments with an imaginary person who you can more comfortably ignore than a REAL ideological opponent

Someone who brings up their former atheism as though that should have some sort of impact on their credibility has already stopped 'dialoging in good faith'.

What they've done is like this: 'I used to be a poor Ethiopian child but now I'm a successful businessman. That shows there's no reason you can't be a successful businessman like me.' It leads to more questions: 'How did you go from being a poor Ethiopian child to being a successful businessman? What was it in your journey that was the key to your success?' If the answers are along the line of 'uhhh...', they are NOT a real ideological opponent. They are a poser.

Good arguments don't need a resume'.

You know, that's a very good point.

Lion IRC wrote:People would do best to conduct dialogue in good faith (so to speak) and accept people at their word instead of "winning" arguments with an imaginary person who you can more comfortably ignore than a REAL ideological opponent

The irony is that these claims, even if true, represent nothing more than making yourself into that "imaginary" atheist with which to reject an atheist argument out of hand. In effect you are asking us to accept at face value a claim which has the same effect as the the reason you provide for us to accept it at face value. Oh the irony!!!!!

So what do we get if we accept it at face value? I used to not "believe" in God (for no specific reason). Then I heard some BS crap from some BS crapper mumbling about God and now "believe" in God. So where did that get us and how does it constitute a rejection and lack of response to our arguments?

I don't know why, but I think I generally give theists the benefit of the doubt. They believe in God. They want to live moral lives. That includes not lying. "Thou shalt not bear false witness".

Butt the actualite is that all theists are lying.

Not having properly thought through about gods is at least a major sin of omission.

Clive Durdle wrote:
Butt the actualite is that all theists are lying.

Generalisation?

People who claim that they "used to be an atheist" are liars. It is almost impossible to go from understanding the world rationally and knowing there is nothing supernatural, to going back to believing that God sent his son on a suicide mission to save men's souls from the taint he injected into them. The typical exception to this is the aging and deteriorating mind that fears death.

In reality, these individuals think that being an "atheist' was them not going to church on Sunday or otherwise being a good Christian. Like some people claim that they were atheists because they slept around, used drugs, etc. They then attempt to use the "fact" that they were an atheist to act as if atheism is merely a stepping stone on the way to the Truth, and that it is not the truth itself.

If that's what they genuinely think 'atheist' is, they're not liars if they claim to have been atheists.

UtilityMonster wrote:People who claim that they "used to be an atheist" are liars. It is almost impossible to go from understanding the world rationally and knowing there is nothing supernatural, to going back to believing that God sent his son on a suicide mission to save men's souls from the taint he injected into them. The typical exception to this is the aging and deteriorating mind that fears death.

Technically all theists were once atheists. They weren't born theists after all. The atheism we are born into is not an atheism based on reasoned rejection of theistic claims, it is based on being blissfully unaware of theism's "explanation" of reality.

Whilst unfettered rational enquiry will always (IMHO) lead to a rejection of theistic claims, there are other ways to be an atheist. Someone who has simply never considered the question of the existence of a deity is an atheist by default. So technically, the claim "once I was an atheist" is true for every theist. it is the way that theists use this observation that is deceptive...

In reality, these individuals think that being an "atheist' was them not going to church on Sunday or otherwise being a good Christian. Like some people claim that they were atheists because they slept around, used drugs, etc. They then attempt to use the "fact" that they were an atheist to act as if atheism is merely a stepping stone on the way to the Truth, and that it is not the truth itself.

...as you point out here. It comes from a total ignorance (often wilful) of what the term "atheist" actually means.

Nicko wrote:...Technically all theists were once atheists. They weren't born theists after all. The atheism we are born into is not an atheism based on reasoned rejection of theistic claims, it is based on being blissfully unaware of theism's "explanation" of reality...

If everyone was born an atheist that means atheists themselves are responsible for the existence of theism.

Theism had to come from somewhere.

If your parents were born that way - atheist - and their parents' parents and their parents' parents, parents.....

Who on earth instigated the idea that God exists?

And dont even get me started on free will.

If we are merely the product of an endless continuum of perpetual, deterministic, environmental, "I was born that way" prior causes, then the existence of theism is perfectly valid and therefore (QED) we are born THAT way - to become theists.

Or...

"Maybe its just the way, that God made me this day. eh-oh-eh-oh-eh"

Baby (etcetc Music Pty Ltd 2008)
Nick Littlemore/Peter Mayes - Pnau

Lion IRC wrote: Who on earth instigated the idea that God exists?

Someone trying to explain the universe without knowledge of the process of scientific enquiry. Religion is just failed science.

I'm simply pointing out that atheism is merely an absence of belief in god. It is not neccessarily a reasoned rejection of theistic claims athough that is how the majority of members here arrived at their atheism. A person who was simply unaware that any theistic claims have been made would still be an atheist. A person who rejected theistic claims due to some irrational reason would also be an atheist.

Lion IRC wrote:
If everyone was born an atheist that means atheists themselves are responsible for the existence of theism.

I will take this a step further: Without a concept of god there could be no athiests. At one point in our history god didn't exist at all.

Theism had to come from somewhere. If your parents were born that way - atheist - and their parents' parents and their parents' parents, parents.....

Who on earth instigated the idea that God exists?

Rephrased - Where did the concept of a supernatural force originate?
Based on what I've read, this developed over time from concepts of ghosts and witches that affected the local environment to more powerful entities that affected large regions. Ultimtely people attributed human qualities to natural forces.

And dont even get me started on free will.

I think you abandoned that thread a long time ago. I'm sure we can dig it up.

If we are merely the product of an endless continuum of perpetual, deterministic, environmental, "I was born that way" prior causes, then the existence of theism is perfectly valid and therefore (QED) we are born THAT way - to become theists. Theism is the result of an evolutionary process.
.

I would say that theism has been part of many cultures evolution but it's not necessary (e.g. Buddhism). It has been a very miniscule part of primate evolution.

I would say that in our current evolutionary stage we humans are receptive to fantasy. We derive pleasure in fantasy. We love to tell tales, we love to hear tales. The roots of theism and theism itself are part of that fantasy and a part of it has had enough of an evolutionary advantage to continue to survive. Here in the US we have seen where people have taken that fantasy too far - Jim Jones - and that particular faction wound up in an evolutionary dead end. So I wouldn't say we are born to be theists but we are predisposed toward fantasy of which theism is a part of.

ElDiablo wrote:I would say that theism has been part of many cultures evolution but it's not necessary (e.g. Buddhism). It has been a very miniscule part of primate evolution.

Back when I used to argue with Buddhists on RDF, some gave me the idea that many of the supernaturalist aspects of Buddhism involved incorporations of pre-existing beliefs, which were probably theistic in nature.

Anyway, if a theist presented as an ex-atheist and could still articulate commonplace understandings of atheists, then I'd believe that person. I haven't seen that happen. All I've seen were people who were obviously immersed in theism but due to youthful apathy or sociopathy didn't go for it and then were won over.

ElDiablo wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:
If everyone was born an atheist that means atheists themselves are responsible for the existence of theism.

...I will take this a step further: Without a concept of god there could be no athiests. At one point in our history god didn't exist at all...

Thats just going to get us bogged down in semantics about "our history" and the definition of "gods/religion" and whether a person born with an innate sense of the numinous could still be called an atheist.

If you are "born with" the NATURAL tendency to intuit ghosts, spirits, demons, etc. how is that greatly different to theism?

God is described as a spirit. Most humans suspect they have, or are themselves, souls. Any unseen or afterlife realm inhabited by (Higher) spirits surely equates directly to theism and it would be hard to call yourself an atheist if you held to any of those concepts.

Even if you can't empirically prove such a time "in our history" existed, I would be interested to see, by way of an example, your description of a scenario where god(s) didn't exist at all.

(Assuming you mean a time when humans had no theism at all.)

Lion IRC wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:
If everyone was born an atheist that means atheists themselves are responsible for the existence of theism.

...I will take this a step further: Without a concept of god there could be no athiests. At one point in our history god didn't exist at all...

Thats just going to get us bogged down in semantics about "our history" and the definition of "gods/religion" and whether a person born with an innate sense of the numinous could still be called an atheist.

If you are "born with" the NATURAL tendency to intuit ghosts, spirits, demons, etc. how is that greatly different to theism?

God is described as a spirit. Most humans suspect they have, or are themselves, souls. Any unseen or afterlife realm inhabited by (Higher) spirits surely equates directly to theism and it would be hard to call yourself an atheist if you held to any of those concepts.

Even if you can't empirically prove such a time "in our history" existed, I would be interested to see, by way of an example, your description of a scenario where god(s) didn't exist at all.

(Assuming you mean a time when humans had no theism at all.)

Psychological testing has shown that most of us get the "innate sense of the numinous" but more importantly is why that in any way constitutes the presents of a God, or why someone that calls themselves an atheist has not come to logical terms with the "innate sense of the numinous", or why someone would simply jump to theism from atheism without actually dealing with this sense fairly instead of just flapping mindlessly around "beliefs" which were not valid as either an atheist or theist.

Lion IRC wrote:Thats just going to get us bogged down in semantics about "our history" and the definition of "gods/religion" and whether a person born with an innate sense of the numinous could still be called an atheist.

Yes, we don’t want to get too specific when discussing such broad topics as evolution and god. Let’s keep it general and just assume that we didn’t evolve and that concepts like god didn’t develop overtime but are actually a scientific discovery. Yes, Lion everything just popped into existence whole with the wave of a hand and a touch of a breath.

If you are "born with" the NATURAL tendency to intuit ghosts, spirits, demons, etc. how is that greatly different to theism?

They are the precursors to the concept of more powerful entities but they’re related because they attempt to explain the forces that cause of noises, weather, illness, etc... Some people hold strongly to these primitive explanations even when the causes have been discovered to have no supernatural entity guiding it. Fortunately, we also have the ability to shed the fantasies and superstitions that are created as a result.

God is described as a spirit. Most humans suspect they have, or are themselves, souls. Any unseen or afterlife realm inhabited by (Higher) spirits surely equates directly to theism and it would be hard to call yourself an atheist if you held to any of those concepts.

Spirit is a catch-all term that may or may not have otherworldly connotations.
I find more people using the phrase spiritual but not religious to distance themselves from fairy tale connotations that the traditional use of the word spiritual has.

Even if you can't empirically prove such a time "in our history" existed, I would be interested to see, by way of an example, your description of a scenario where god(s) didn't exist at all.

(Assuming you mean a time when humans had no theism at all.)

We don’t have to go back in time to see our roots. Check out this informative video from Daniel Everett, a linguist who studied the Piraha people of the Amazon. Go to 33:00. This tribe doesn’t believe in god and doesn’t have creationist stories.
http://fora.tv/2009/03/20/Daniel_Everett_Endangered_Languages_and_Lost_Knowledge#fullprogram