On my conversion from atheism

[jmotivator]

Having been an atheist for a decade or so, I ended up becoming a Christian again in my mid 20s. As with most converts I have known and read, the real conversion was in two parts. The first came from reasoning through my childhood faith, an undeveloped belief system is which there was little to differentiate God and Santa Clause, a catch all for all that was good in my life.As I grew away from my faith I rejected it for all the same reasons you see it rejected here. I was, I now understand, a slave to my five sense. It is a weird thing to hit that rational breakthrough where God makes more sense.. I have since considered the irony of atheist me, both demanding sensory proof of God from the faithful while also lecturing them of the weaknesses inherent in human sensory experience to explain away their own experiences. I had built the theory and a set of demanded proofs that were entirely contradictory.

I find, though language is a limiter in varying degrees for those describing the final awakening experience, that the experience of the convert to have a rather common theme. I have never heard it explained better than it was by author John C. Wright, who went from staunch atheism to being baptized Catholic in 2008. In his retelling, he had been experimenting with prayer as an atheist, a "I know you probably aren't real, but if you are then send me a sign." type of prayer in which he didn't pretend to be a believer in his prayer, he just called into the darkness for what might be there. He explained what happened later as follows:

“Something from beyond the reach of time and space, more fundamental than reality, reached across the universe and broke into my soul and changed me…I was altered down to the root of my being…It was like falling in love.”

I have found that to be as near spot on as I have found to my own experience.

Later after that experience I would begin reading the classic Christian apologia by C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, and again, something hit home with me in C.S. Lewis' book "Letters to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer" where Lewis delves into something that I had never really considered. He asserted in one letter that the most sincere prayer, in his view, is a prayer without words. He saw words as limiting, and asserted that there is a deeper relationship with God than mere words can do justice. He used an interesting analogy with music: He argued that music is a language without words-- and if it were to be forced into words it would be a language comprised entirely of adjectives -- and so faith, for me, more closely resembles an internal symphony than a dialogue.

The music started for me 20 years ago this week, and I have been working on my listening skills ever since.

 

[roughdraft274]

I was, I now understand, a slave to my five sense. It is a weird thing to hit that rational breakthrough where God makes more sense.. I have since considered the irony of atheist me, both demanding sensory proof of God from the faithful while also lecturing them of the weaknesses inherent in human sensory experience to explain away their own experiences. I had built the theory and a set of demanded proofs that were entirely contradictory.

I can see the irony of "we only have out five senses" and "our five senses arent perfect" but im not hearing from you a good system to find out what is true other than the five senses, rationality and evidence. The problem i have seen with any and all evidences presented for religions of all stripes is that using their logic or "evidence" you could also reach the conclusion that any other god or any other thing is true. If a rationale allows for anything and everything its simply not logical.

If someone just feels better belieiving in god or going to church every sunday more power to them. I understand the appeal. But that doesnt present us any legitimate rational reasons to believe.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[jmotivator]

I can see the irony of "we only have out five senses" and "our five senses arent perfect" but im not hearing from you a good system to find out what is true other than the five senses, rationality and evidence.

Well, part of it is in the body of my original post. The experience of my conversion wasn't in any way my five senses. As I tried to explain, it was an experience beyond words. I gave two examples of the best words I have found to explain it, but they still fall short.

The problem i have seen with any and all evidences presented for religions of all stripes is that using their logic or "evidence" you could also reach the conclusion that any other god or any other thing is true. If a rationale allows for anything and everything its simply not logical.

Well, at the root of almost all religions is the same basic tenets of faith (a higher power, be good to one another, do good works). In accepting that faith and experiencing God transcends language it would be silly of me to then confine experience of God to a specific dialect. As a Christian I was taught and have come to trust that God's word is written on every heart. I don't think that being Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist is necessarily a disqualifier to salvation, since Jesus was God's word made flesh, so accepting God's word written on your heart is a belief in the saving message of Jesus.

I do, however, equate faith to being lost in a cold forest, and salvation as a warm cottage in that forest with a fire and a hot meal. While it is possible to stumble through the forest and happen on the cottage on your own, I think Christianity has the best map.

If someone just feels better belieiving in god or going to church every sunday more power to them. I understand the appeal. But that doesnt present us any legitimate rational reasons to believe.

As many former atheists will tell you, we all thought the same thing until it happened.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I am familiar with that overwhelming feeling. I got it when I became a born again Christian in my 20s. I have had similar experiences in shrooms as well. But while I now attribute it all to brain activity, I do agree that language isn’t suited for describing the situation.

 

[RAMOSS]

Well, part of it is in the body of my original post. The experience of my conversion wasn't in any way my five senses. As I tried to explain, it was an experience beyond words. I gave two examples of the best words I have found to explain it, but they still fall short.

The words are 'an emotional experience'.

 

[jmotivator]

I am familiar with that overwhelming feeling. I got it when I became a born again Christian in my 20s. I have had similar experiences in shrooms as well. But while I now attribute it all to brain activity, I do agree that language isn’t suited for describing the situation.

That has always been a weird argument to me, but it isn't the first time I have heard it.

For one, yes, we are a physical being, and our experiences, no matter how simple or how profound, will be connected to physical, observable, changes in our brain chemistry.

Secondly, you could also take Ecstasy and be struck by an overwhelming love of everyone, but that doesn't mean your love of a spouse, or family member, or dear friend isn't real. The former is artificial emotion, the latter is genuine.

 

[jmotivator]

The words are 'an emotional experience'.

Nope. Like I said, the words fall short.

 

[RAMOSS]

Nope. Like I said, the words fall short.

It's emotional, it's just sayiing it's emotional does not invoke the profound influence it had on you.

 

[jmotivator]

It's emotional, it's just sayiing it's emotional does not invoke the profound influence it had on you.

But it wasn't emotional. Your insistence on telling me what my experience was like is a weird hill for you to die on. As an atheist I would assume you would avoid arguments that by their very nature you can't know.

 

[soylentgreen]

Having been an atheist for a decade or so, I ended up becoming a Christian again in my mid 20s. As with most converts I have known and read, the real conversion was in two parts. The first came from reasoning through my childhood faith, an undeveloped belief system is which there was little to differentiate God and Santa Clause, a catch all for all that was good in my life.


As I grew away from my faith I rejected it for all the same reasons you see it rejected here. I was, I now understand, a slave to my five sense. It is a weird thing to hit that rational breakthrough where God makes more sense.. I have since considered the irony of atheist me, both demanding sensory proof of God from the faithful while also lecturing them of the weaknesses inherent in human sensory experience to explain away their own experiences. I had built the theory and a set of demanded proofs that were entirely contradictory.

You, quite obviously, never really got to grips with atheism. because you describe a fairly shallow view of it. The acknowledgement of my senses and the reality around me is not a cause of atheism, it is only a natural consequence. Nor, if you had any real understanding of atheism, would you be as foolish to ask for proof of what is in fact mere imagination. It is not proof that is required, only theists will deal with atheism at that level because only a theist will start from a position that a god must exist therefor proof is required.

I put in bold that particular statement as you have done nothing of the sort to articulate a "rational" explanation or have demonstrated reasoning. Your wright quote is at best poetry at worst an emotional blathering. Your conversion needs the reasoning explained to be deemed reason.

 

[Angel]

You, quite obviously, never really got to grips with atheism. because you describe a fairly shallow view of it. The acknowledgement of my senses and the reality around me is not a cause of atheism, it is only a natural consequence. Nor, if you had any real understanding of atheism, would you be as foolish to ask for proof of what is in fact mere imagination. It is not proof that is required, only theists will deal with atheism at that level because only a theist will start from a position that a god must exist therefor proof is required.

I put in bold that particular statement as you have done nothing of the sort to articulate a "rational" explanation or have demonstrated reasoning. Your wright quote is at best poetry at worst an emotional blathering. Your conversion needs the reasoning explained to be deemed reason.

What is the reasoning behind atheism? You dismiss jmotivator's conversion experience and characterize his former atheism as shallow. By contrast, you profess a deeper purchase on atheism. Fine. Display some of that depth. What reasoning convinced you of the truth of atheism?

 

[Quag]

Well, part of it is in the body of my original post. The experience of my conversion wasn't in any way my five senses. As I tried to explain, it was an experience beyond words. I gave two examples of the best words I have found to explain it, but they still fall short.



Well, at the root of almost all religions is the same basic tenets of faith (a higher power, be good to one another, do good works). In accepting that faith and experiencing God transcends language it would be silly of me to then confine experience of God to a specific dialect. As a Christian I was taught and have come to trust that God's word is written on every heart. I don't think that being Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist is necessarily a disqualifier to salvation, since Jesus was God's word made flesh, so accepting God's word written on your heart is a belief in the saving message of Jesus.

I do, however, equate faith to being lost in a cold forest, and salvation as a warm cottage in that forest with a fire and a hot meal. While it is possible to stumble through the forest and happen on the cottage on your own, I think Christianity has the best map.



As many former atheists will tell you, we all thought the same thing until it happened.

Glad you are happy with you faith. I understand the inability to us words to describe something that appears to be so uniquely personal.
If you were raised in India or Nepal or somewhere where your exposure would more likely be to other religions do you think you would still be Christian? Or do you think you might be Hindu/Buddhist etc. with the same openness to other religions as you appear to have?

 

[jmotivator]

Glad you are happy with you faith. I understand the inability to us words to describe something that appears to be so uniquely personal.
If you were raised in India or Nepal or somewhere where your exposure would more likely be to other religions do you think you would still be Christian? Or do you think you might be Hindu/Buddhist etc. with the same openness to other religions as you appear to have?

That's a good question. I don't think I'd be a different person than I am today, but I would probably have different words to explain it, probably both literally and figuratively!

Also, I wouldn't call it "Happy with my faith" either. It's not really a very easy road. As John Wright points out, you experience more fundamental than reality... it becomes part of you whether you want it to or not. In the duality of Man it simply girds me against the war we all fight against our lower instincts but never shields me from the understanding that, in the moment, those lower instincts are more exhilarating. I'd like to think there is a rush and a self righteous satisfaction that washes over me, but it's probably closer to a smoker who recently quit who turns down a cigarette. You know you made the right choice, but it doesn't make you happy.

 

[Quag]

That's a good question. I don't think I'd be a different person than I am today, but I would probably have different words to explain it, probably both literally and figuratively!

Also, I wouldn't call it "Happy with my faith" either. It's not really a very easy road. As John Wright points out, you experience more fundamental than reality... it becomes part of you whether you want it to or not. In the duality of Man it simply girds me against the war we all fight against our lower instincts but never shields me from the understanding that, in the moment, those lower instincts are more exhilarating. I'd like to think there is a rush and a self righteous satisfaction that washes over me, but it's probably closer to a smoker who recently quit who turns down a cigarette. You know you made the right choice, but it doesn't make you happy.

Interesting most people seem to talk about finding peace and happiness with their faith. Never heard the smoking analogy before. Do you think your faith is typical or uniquely personal in that regard?

 

[jmotivator]

Interesting most people seem to talk about finding peace and happiness with their faith.

Well, it is peace, but it is a long term peace. And it is happiness in so far and anything worth doing makes you happy even though it is hard. It is like a second sight where the path around hardship is revealed, no matter how hard that seems in the moment.

To continue the smokers analogy, it is the twinge of squelched desire in the moment versus the long term misery of lung cancer, if that makes sense. Faith doesn't remove the desire to do bad, it helps guide us away from the consequences of doing bad and into a life we feel more in ..tune with? I don't know, it's more words than I've ever thrown at an attempt at explaining the experience.

 

[soylentgreen]

What is the reasoning behind atheism? You dismiss jmotivator's conversion experience and characterize his former atheism as shallow. By contrast, you profess a deeper purchase on atheism. Fine. Display some of that depth. What reasoning convinced you of the truth of atheism?

I needed no reason for atheism. It is after all nothing more than a lack of belief in a god. It is the realisation that a theist has nothing to offer in the way of good reasoning for a god. That theirs is a dishonesty of always starting from a position that there is a god without bothering to explain why.

I do not dismiss jmovators conversion experience, i point out that it lacks reasons. His explanation is, as said, at best mere poetry. The meaning is a subjective feeling rather than reason.

I am an atheist not because i am convinced of any truth. I am an atheist simply because i do not need a god.

 

[Angel]

I needed no reason for atheism. It is after all nothing more than a lack of belief in a god. It is the realisation that a theist has nothing to offer in the way of good reasoning for a god. That theirs is a dishonesty of always starting from a position that there is a god without bothering to explain why.

I do not dismiss jmovators conversion experience, i point out that it lacks reasons. His explanation is, as said, at best mere poetry. The meaning is a subjective feeling rather than reason.

I am an atheist not because i am convinced of any truth. I am an atheist simply because i do not need a god.

If you have no reason for being an atheist, your atheism is irrational.
If the theist is "dishonest" for his poor reasoning, what is the atheist based on no reason?
We need a stronger word than "dishonest."

 

[Pedestrian]

Well, part of it is in the body of my original post. The experience of my conversion wasn't in any way my five senses. As I tried to explain, it was an experience beyond words. I gave two examples of the best words I have found to explain it, but they still fall short.



Well, at the root of almost all religions is the same basic tenets of faith (a higher power, be good to one another, do good works). In accepting that faith and experiencing God transcends language it would be silly of me to then confine experience of God to a specific dialect. As a Christian I was taught and have come to trust that God's word is written on every heart. I don't think that being Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist is necessarily a disqualifier to salvation, since Jesus was God's word made flesh, so accepting God's word written on your heart is a belief in the saving message of Jesus.

I do, however, equate faith to being lost in a cold forest, and salvation as a warm cottage in that forest with a fire and a hot meal. While it is possible to stumble through the forest and happen on the cottage on your own, I think Christianity has the best map.



As many former atheists will tell you, we all thought the same thing until it happened.

Well your 'experience' has to be beyond words, because there...are no words.

All you have decided is to believe Iron Age fairy tales that such new emotions are necessary, for such beliefs.

 

[soylentgreen]

If you have no reason for being an atheist, your atheism is irrational.
If the theist is "dishonest" for his poor reasoning, what is the atheist based on no reason?
We need a stronger word than "dishonest."

No, you mistake what atheism is. It is a lack of belief. It is and always will be up to the theist to provide reasons for their belief. Mine is to point out the flaws of that reasoning.

You make the mistake of all theists of presuming because yours is a belief then so must be atheism. But atheism is simply a response not a belief. i require no reason to be an atheist. I need only be aware of how poor the reasoning of theists are.

Atheism is not about god it is about reasoning. My reasons for not having a god is not atheism. My reason for not having a god is that i do not need one.

 

[Angel]

No, you mistake what atheism is. It is a lack of belief. It is and always will be up to the theist to provide reasons for their belief. Mine is to point out the flaws of that reasoning.

You make the mistake of all theists of presuming because yours is a belief then so must be atheism. But atheism is simply a response not a belief. i require no reason to be an atheist. I need only be aware of how poor the reasoning of theists are.

Atheism is not about god it is about reasoning. My reasons for not having a god is not atheism. My reason for not having a god is that i do not need one.

If atheism is as you describe, then atheist is incoherent irrational and delusional. Nothing you say in your post makes the least bit of sense.
If atheism is not a belief, it is nothing.

 

[Rich2018]

If atheism is not a belief, it is nothing.

Atheism is not a belief

It is a lack of belief

Specifically, it is a lack of belief in god (and by extension lack of belief in all gods)


Again you make sweeping statements
Are you really saying that lack of belief means nothing?

I have to belief everything you say, because lack of belief is "nothing".


That unless I can categorically prove you wrong, I must believe everything you say ?

 

[Angel]

Atheism is not a belief

It is a lack of belief

Specifically, it is a lack of belief in god (and by extension lack of belief in all gods)


Again you make sweeping statements
Are you really saying that lack of belief means nothing?

I have to belief everything you say, because lack of belief is "nothing".


That unless I can categorically prove you wrong, I must believe everything you say ?

This is New Atheist nonsense -- literally nonsense -- it makes no sense. I must start our thread on this. Save your breath for the thread.
Dor the nonxe, to answer your question: no, I'm saying that the so-called "lack of belief" is in fact a belief (though New Atheists wish to deny this) and that without that denied belief atheism is nothing -- it's an empty name.

 

[Lursa]

What is the reasoning behind atheism? You dismiss jmotivator's conversion experience and characterize his former atheism as shallow. By contrast, you profess a deeper purchase on atheism. Fine. Display some of that depth. What reasoning convinced you of the truth of atheism?

No reason is needed.

The status quo, the default, is atheism.

To believe in 'something,' is to develop, learn, investigate, experiment, etc.

One has to be introduced to an idea of 'something' to take up that interest to learn and believe.

Now, someone can also create a philosophy around atheism as well, but to be an atheist does not require any such foundation.

 

[Angel]

No reason is needed.

The status quo, the default, is atheism.

To believe in 'something,' is to develop, learn, investigate, experiment, etc.

One has to be introduced to an idea of 'something' to take up that interest to learn and believe.

Now, someone can also create a philosophy around atheism as well, but to be an atheist does not require any such foundation.

Yes, I know the New Atheist Playbook. But it's nonsense.
If atheism is not based on a reason to disbelieve, it is irrational nonsense.
There is no default position for human thought. This is New Atheist propaganda.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Later after that experience I would begin reading the classic Christian apologia by C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, and again, something hit home with me in C.S. Lewis' book "Letters to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer" where Lewis delves into something that I had never really considered. He asserted in one letter that the most sincere prayer, in his view, is a prayer without words. He saw words as limiting, and asserted that there is a deeper relationship with God than mere words can do justice. He used an interesting analogy with music: He argued that music is a language without words-- and if it were to be forced into words it would be a language comprised entirely of adjectives -- and so faith, for me, more closely resembles an internal symphony than a dialogue.

Good on you for your "listening skills".
I am not sure that I can classify C.S. Lewis as an apologist, but I will say that his material is one of the things that keeps me from being completely atheist.
I do not subscribe to the notion of an anthropomorphized "God"; a giant white bearded old man who lives in the sky, quick to anger, swift to punish, and deeply involved in every single one of the actions of every single human being on Earth. This is also one reason I don't take stock in organized religion.
That said, his thoughts on "prayers without words" dovetails neatly with my own beliefs on mindfulness and meditation, and yes...even prayer.
From where I sit however, it is the scientists who apparently have a front row seat to God's handiwork and revelations.
It is God that blessed them with the big brains and the curiosity to seek out the lens needed to observe the Universe. They are merely making use of the gifts that were granted them.

So, it might turn out that we're all praying to a Black Hole. What in the Universe could be more omnipotent than a celestial body that is capable of bending space and time almost to a singularity? It might turn out that quantum computing finally cracks the code that unlocks the channel to direct communication with human consciousness, our very souls themselves.

That does not erase the idea of the existence of God, it merely illuminates all of the things that we weren't yet aware of that defines "God" and erases the clumsy and ancient interpretations of things that were beyond the ken of civilizations that depended upon animal skins and burning fat in bowls for light.

If were to discover that our souls were the "molecules" that made up a much larger collective body that functions as a spiritual battery, would we feel closer or further from "God" with that knowledge?

Being in greater harmony with these things as we discover them cannot do us harm, far from it.