Anyone ever become an atheist after believing?

Inquizitor · 5 Mar 2013 at 14:36

To the OP: yeah, I was brought up Catholic. In my teenage years I thought about stuff a lot and came to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god, and if there is it's nothing like Catholocism makes it out to be.

Zatoichi.uK · 5 Mar 2013 at 14:48

ringo747 said:
I struggle a bit with that idea to be honest. After all we form rational beliefs every day based on what other people tell us. I'd find it difficult to comment on rationality without knowing how a person came to their conclusion.

Do you have an example?

ringo747 · 5 Mar 2013 at 14:52

Zatoichi.uK said:
Do you have an example?

An example of believing what someone tells us on a day to day basis you mean? For example if a work colleague discussing a particular topic, I often believe the implications of what they are saying without there being any evidence. I'm sure everyone has held a belief because of what a friend told them.

Zatoichi.uK · 5 Mar 2013 at 14:54

ringo747 said:
An example of believing what someone tells us on a day to day basis you mean? For example if a work colleague discussing a particular topic, I often believe the implications of what they are saying without there being any evidence.

Presumably these aren't on the same level as the claim of a deity? Can I also assume that if you wanted to investigate the claim, you could?

ringo747 · 5 Mar 2013 at 14:57

Zatoichi.uK said:
Presumably these aren't on the same level as the claim of a deity? Can I also assume that if you wanted to investigate the claim, you could?

No they weren't associated with a deity, however, I did hold a belief rationally without evidence being presented.

AJK · 5 Mar 2013 at 14:57

If my work colleague says to me "I bought a new car on the weekend", I am likely to believe him. If he says "I'm going to have pizza for dinner tonight", likewise. If he says "I'm going to grow wings and fly to Switzerland" he'll probably get a different response.

There is a difference between something which is rationally plausible, and something which isn't. (Plausibility being judged largely on previous experience and evidence to which we have been previously exposed.)

Skunkworks · 5 Mar 2013 at 14:58

Agnostic is pointless label, as we’re all agnostic. It’s like saying human Christian, human Muslim, or human atheist. You can drop the human part as it goes without saying.

ringo747 · 5 Mar 2013 at 15:02

AJK said:
If my work colleague says to me "I bought a new car on the weekend", I am likely to believe him. If he says "I'm going to have pizza for dinner tonight", likewise.

If he says "I'm going to grow wings and fly to Switzerland" he'll probably get a different response.

Exactly.

The problem I have with the claim by elmarko is that it could be taken to be an extraordinary claim in itself considering that there is no supporting evidence for the claim.

Castiel · 5 Mar 2013 at 15:04

elmarko said:
I'd argue that rejecting an assertion due of lack of evidence is pretty much the same as the above - as in no part of the rejection does it imply an indefinite aspect, it's always open to change if new evidence is presented (as the above) - while no counter argument is made no final decision is made (just a rejection).

I am not rejecting anything however, I am reserving judgement until I can decide objectively whether I reject or accept the proposition being made.

elmarko said:
It seems to be semantic based, as opposed to a tangible difference (as the end result seems identical as weak atheism).

It is agnosticism rather than weak atheism...as I neither accept or reject the proposition..I have not the knowledge to do either.

elmarko said:
If real evidence was presented in favour of a deity I'd change my views accordingly, that's what I think part of being open minded is.

Indeed, however I think it is important to say that for many theists the evidence they accept is very real to them and the majority of them have come to a very rational and considered position on why they are a theist. No different from those who profess atheism or any other position.

elmarko said:
Unwavering faith isn't open minded.

Unwavering Faith is not Faith, it is Blind adherence and that kind of Faith without Reason is no Faith at all.

Zatoichi.uK · 5 Mar 2013 at 15:05

ringo747 said:
No they weren't associated with a deity, however, I did hold a belief rationally without evidence being presented.

Someones made my point for me. I'm sure you could see where I was going anyway.

ringo747 · 5 Mar 2013 at 15:08

Zatoichi.uK said:
Someones made my point for me. I'm sure you could see where I was going anyway.

Exactly. The claim presupposes that a person thinks that the existence of a deity is an extraordinary claim. It is possible that people have different views on the plausibility of the deity existing in the first place.

Zatoichi.uK · 5 Mar 2013 at 15:12

ringo747 said:
Exactly. The claim presupposes that a person thinks that the existence of a deity is an extraordinary claim. It is possible that people have different views on the plausibility of the deity existing in the first place.

It is an extraordinary claim, especially in the Christian context.

Regardless, the other examples provided can be investigated where as the claim of a deity cannot. Most theists cannot even agree what God is to begin with.

ringo747 · 5 Mar 2013 at 15:17

Zatoichi.uK said:
It is an extraordinary claim, especially in the Christian context.

Regardless, the other examples provided can be investigated where as the claim of a deity cannot. Most theists cannot even agree what God is to begin with.

It may be an extraordinary claim to you, but it is possible that it may mean something different to someone else.

Your second statement I guess leads to the question of what evidence one would expect if given the task of investigating the existence of a deity.

Zatoichi.uK · 5 Mar 2013 at 15:24

ringo747 said:
It may be an extraordinary claim to you, but it is possible that it may mean something different to someone else.

Your second statement I guess leads to the question of what evidence one would expect if given the task of investigating the existence of a deity.

Well it may well mean something different, but it cannot BE something different.

My first question would be for you to define what God is.

elmarko · 5 Mar 2013 at 15:24

ringo747 said:
It may be an extraordinary claim to you, but it is possible that it may mean something different to someone else.

Your second statement I guess leads to the question of what evidence one would expect if given the task of investigating the existence of a deity.

I think most religious people consider 'god' to be extraordinary.

By extraordinary claim I mean something incredibly significant & important - the creator of the universe is a pretty important claim most would agree (who are religious).

Castiel said:
I am not rejecting anything however, I am reserving judgement until I can decide objectively whether I reject or accept the proposition being made.

Yeah - good point.

Castiel said:
It is agnosticism rather than weak atheism...as I neither accept or reject the proposition..I have not the knowledge to do either.

Would you say "Agnostic on knowledge - undecided on belief" would be an accurate label?.

Castiel said:
Indeed, however I think it is important to say that for many theists the evidence they accept is very real to them and the majority of them have come to a very rational and considered position on why they are a theist. No different from those who profess atheism or any other position.

True, but I think if evidence is to be valued it needs to be independently verifiable - as otherwise how could an individual know if they are speaking to god or are suffering a mental lapse?.

Having another validate your belief via independent evidence (real tangible evidence like standard scientific evidence) negates the possibility that everybody who has spoken to god is mentally ill.

If I went home today & heard the voice of god speaking - if I was being rational I'd assume I'd lost the plot - as in situations in which no evidence exists I prefer to use the theory of least assumptions - me having a mental break is considerable more plausible than me having a personal conversation with an inter-galactic magic being.

Castiel said:
Unwavering Faith is not Faith, it is Blind adherence and that kind of Faith without Reason is no Faith at all.

Very true.

Skunkworks · 5 Mar 2013 at 15:26

ringo747 said:
Exactly. The claim presupposes that a person thinks that the existence of a deity is an extraordinary claim. It is possible that people have different views on the plausibility of the deity existing in the first place.

Plausibility comes from evidence, they have none, which is why they have to retreat to faith.

Zatoichi.uK · 5 Mar 2013 at 15:29

Skunkworks said:
Plausibility comes from evidence, they have none, which is why they have to retreat to faith.

This.

Ultimately the conversion will retreat into this anyway. There has never been an argument from a theist presenting evidence for the existence of God, because there is none.

Castiel · 5 Mar 2013 at 15:30

Skunkworks said:
Plausibility comes from evidence, they have none, which is why they have to retreat to faith.

Plausibility comes from persuasion. A person can make even the most extraordinary thing seem plausible if they can conjure a convincing enough argument....it doesn't necessarily require substansive evidence.

Castiel · 5 Mar 2013 at 15:32

elmarko said:
I think most religious people consider 'god' to be extraordinary.

They might consider God to be inherently extraordinary, but Ringo is referring to the claim of existence, which to most theists is self evident and not extraordinary at all.

d_brennen · 5 Mar 2013 at 15:32

I was taken to church as a child by well meaning family, but in all honestly from a very young age, I was just sat there thinking "how have so many otherwise normal people been so utterly brainwashed?".

After a time I realised that the majority were there not for God or their own personal beliefs, but rather to be SEEN there and have their children accepted to some of the best educational establishments in the area. This hypocrisy, along with the guy in a dress up front being a paedophile and embezzler whilst telling everyone they might go to hell, really turned me off religion. I guess some people really do believe it though, crowd mentality :rolleyes: