Salam (peace) everyone,
Seeing that there are many Atheists becoming Theists and vice versa a question came to mind.
I have a question here mainly for Atheists, not trying to single them out or put them on the spot but, I feel like I already what the Theist answer would be. Theists are also welcome to jump in if they want.
Based off my understanding of Atheism (please correct me if I am wrong) for the most part, everything outside of science is subjective. So my question is how do you explain or justify when an Atheist becomes a Christian, Jew, Muslim or part of any other faith? For me as a Muslim, since I believe in God and an objective standard, the simplest explanation would be “he lost his way”. Please do not misquote what I am saying, I said that is the simplest explanation, I know sometimes it’s far more complex than that but, that’s the simplest and most brief answer without diving too deep in to the details. As an Atheist, since almost (if not everything) is subjective, how do you “come to terms” with what that individual has done or become?
Obviously, at the end of the day I am sure you don’t care and it has nothing to do with you and you do NOT need to justify what one atheist does but, this is a question simply for the sake of conversation. I personally know 2 Muslims that have left Islam, one became a Christian while the other became an Atheist.
In case anyone is doubting what I am saying about Atheists becoming theists and vice versa, a quick google and YouTube search will prove what I am saying. Heck, there is even someone that calls himself an Atheist Muslim, talk about someone trying to have it both ways.
This question/conversation is not meant to try to prove who is right or wrong, what religion is right or wrong or anything else. It’s meant to be a simple and hopefully a civil conversation.
So to summarize, since most atheists believe that almost everything is objective, how does one explain an atheist becoming a theist? Your answer could be a simple 1 sentence answer or it could be a few paragraphs, please feel free to answer it any way you see fit.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Not a postulate of atheism, and I certainly don't believe that.
---------------------------------------------------------------
People is dumb.
“So to summarize, since most atheists believe that almost everything is objective, how does one explain an atheist becoming a theist?”
Most atheists believe that?
@OP by Searching for Truth
At least for me this is not how I would describe it. For me everything that cannot be evidenced objectively is subjective. Or pretty much I follow the common english definition of "subjective." While science (more specifically the scientific method,) is a great tool, it is not limited to just what science can answer, although I would say a large majority of everything that can be evidenced objectively falls within the realm of science.
Actually those thoughts occur to me to anyone that is theist, (I consider everyone to be born atheist, and through human contact may end up becoming theist.) That all theist, including people that stated they were atheist then became theist as "lost their way."
While I am the more rare atheist that was never theist, even I understand the allure of what religion has to offer. It offers a lot of very nice warm answers, where reality can be at times very cold and harsh, especially if one views life that way, which I can see many people doing that. When I was younger I really did struggle with nihilism and when I did not have an answer for that, the allure of religion was very real even to me, even if I never allowed my self to consider the various religions as a real possibility for me.
At the risk of upsetting theist everywhere, I compare religion a lot of ways to a credit card. With a credit card you can get something you want now, and worry about the cost later. Except religion one ups that, and puts the "cost" at afterlife. What is the cost? A finite life perhaps not fully realized.
Well I gave ya a few paragraphs but I will also sum up in one sentence:
An atheist chose to become a theist due to their preference and the conclusions they have reached.
I am actually always very curious what decision making process an atheist made to become theist.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@LogicFTW
Based off your reply and Cyber’s it seems I might be mistaken here. Once this thread has run its course I will start a new thread to see what people consider to be objective and why.
Understandable.
Interesting because Muslims believe that everyone is born a Muslim.
Another interesting comment. Let me ask you this, without an objective standard how can you really say someone has “lost their way”? what is the correct “way” or path for them?
Thank you for that
@Searching for truth
A discussion/debate I am always interested in doing. I learn plenty on those kind of conversations.
I would like to think the stance of "born atheist" is a different claim then "born" Muslim. As it is the negation of, lack of. Kind of like the lack of 6 feet in height, babies simply are born NOT 6 feet tall. But perhaps the claim is not all that different then the muslim claim in the subjective realm.
A good question. Of course the question goes both ways, (theist asking the question to atheist and atheist asking the question of theist.) For me, the path is prioritizing testable, repeatable real world evidence to make conclusions over conclusions that lack those traits. Additionally for something that is not testable, repeatable, open to scrutiny and lacks world evidence should be regulated to "theory" and conclusions being drawn from those theories to be considered weak at best.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@LogicFTW
"I am actually always very curious what decision making process an atheist made to become theist."
I am interested in hearing explanations both of the move to atheism and away again. So many times I have heard the Christian refrain that I must not ever have been a true Christian, and though I certainly wasn't as devout as some of them it still took me six years to move from the first doubts to total disbelief. Sarah Haider, for example, said that journey took her only a few months, but I think for most of us the loss of faith can take years.
I strongly suspect that a lingering fear of being wrong and suffering the consequences in the afterlife has brought some back to their childhood faith. I lost that fear myself, but maintained a belief in an afterlife for some years after becoming an atheist. What are your thoughts on the matter?
@Bob L.
Thanks for sharing your own experiences, as well as what you learned about other people. This is exactly the sort of information I am always interested in learning. For me the motivations that drive people on large life decisions helps me understand everyone better.
I assume you are asking what are my thoughts on the matter of afterlife? Both my thoughts about common religious view of the afterlife. As well as my own afterlife view?
My personal afterlife view: Based on all the evidence available, the brain starved of oxygen eventually follows a (currently) irreversible chain reaction of decay and destruction. Consciousness is lost and the rest of the bodily functions beyond the brain quickly follow suit. We decay and die and cease to be an organized working unit of cells and break apart (with the help of other forces) down to our more base components. There is no "afterlife" where the personal consciousness hosted by the brain organ "survives."
When I was younger and did not know as much and read/watched too much fiction I considered the possibility of some sort of afterlife, not really the typical religious conclusion of life with god, or purgatory or hell or whatever, more a sci-fi Gaia like energy transfer.
When death and the finality of it really bothers me, I always allow myself to consider that this life is just a simulation being played out by a bored super intelligent being that creates "scenarios" to keep it self from getting bored, that temporarily suppresses it's total memories to play out the scenario. Completely unprovable either way, but the possibility of it can be nice compared to contemplating finite life that can end at any second.
In a lot of ways, I consider most of the religious afterlife thoughts to be similar fancy notions of afterlife people tell themselves and others to make eachother feel better. But that unfortunately many religions took advantage of fear of death and leverage the happy fanciful thoughts as a way to get people to "buy in" to their religion and perpetuate the con, where the religious folks on top of large religions benefit greatly.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@LogicFTW
Hi Logic, thanks for your reply. I completely agree with your assessment of an afterlife, a belief I held on to till I was about twenty-five. Given that I was sixteen when I firmly abandoned God my surrender to an afterlife was something of an anomaly, but it shows that belief in a deity is only part of the supernatural structure we humans create. I have family members who are atheists, but who still believe in ghosts, and others who are practicing Christians yet subscribe to ghosts and fortune telling even though their Catholic faith does not allow for that type of thinking. Heck, I even dabbled in seances with my friends in high school.
I've also had discussions with friends on the possibility you raised of human life being a simulation in the mind of an all-powerful Being or even in a Matrix type simulation. It makes for interesting speculation.
I also wondered what you thought of my conjecture that it is fear of Hell that drives some atheists back to religion? I know this was the case with Peter Hitchens. Francis Collins (American head of the Human Genome Project) found his way back to God after staring for a while at a beautiful frozen waterfall. Not quite sure how that turned him into an evangelical Christian, but this is his claim.
Thanks again for the response.
"I strongly suspect that a lingering fear of being wrong and suffering the consequences in the afterlife has brought some back to their childhood faith. I lost that fear myself, but maintained a belief in an afterlife for some years after becoming an atheist. What are your thoughts on the matter?"
Let us examine this issue from two distinct viewpoints.
The first is ego. History has shown that mankind once held the belief that he was the center of the universe. As science expended this little world from a little flat disk/whatever to a globe, to circling the sun, to being part of this Milky Way, the theme has always been the same.
Our egos wants us to matter, to be important, rather than a species on one planet on a galaxy containing at least a hundred billion stars (and planets), in a universe populated with over a hundred billion galaxies. All of a sudden we have gone from the most important thing in the universe to a very minuscule speck. And most people would rather believe we are still very important to this universe.
The second factor is fear. This is one of the prime tools for advertisers. Sex and fear can leverage people to buy refrigerators in the Arctic. We see this in politics, fear being used as leverage, a means to scare the populace and get them active on an issue.
So despite all the information, one moving towards atheism first has to get their ego in check, then deal with that very powerful fear that has been deeply ingrained since they opened their eyes.
The easy way out is not to challenge your ego, allow yourself to believe you are more than a speck of dust in the grand scheme of things. And the easy way out is not to challenge yourself to stare fear down and truly accept that we all live, we all die. And that death is absolute. The insurance policy of a soul is an invented figment.
@ SfT
Why would I need to explain or justify another persons decision? Nothing to do with me. There are a myriad of reasons people join or leave faiths or in the case of atheists decide to either believe or fake the belief. In any case not my business.
I certainly would not take the Abrahamic religions approach and either burn, torture and mutilate them until they recanted and then kill them...or, as in Bangladesh and elsewhere, just kill them for leaving their faith.
Searching for Truth, I wouldn't get too hung up on the subjective vs objective truth claims. I don't think that is the route to understanding the way atheists think and it won't help you in your search to comprehend what creates an atheist. What draws Jews, Christians or Muslims to atheism is a very diverse set of circumstances. Personally, I gradually turned from Christianity for two main reasons. Firstly, I'd been taught that the Bible was the literal word of God, but once I began reading it in earnest to shore up my faith I discovered that Genesis did not match the findings of astronomers (for example, like the Koran the Bible teaches the world is flat; but there are numerous other problems I encountered). Secondly, like the Koran the Old Testament is full of violence committed in the name of God, and no amount of juggling washes away that stain. I was willing to look upon the OT accounts of Creation, etc., as metaphoric, but the violence in God's name destroyed the last shred of my faith. It was clear to me that violent men wrote accounts of a violent god to justify their own actions.
Why do some atheists return to their faith? I suspect that a lingering fear of Hell fire is one explanation. That is true certainly for Peter Hitchens who returned to the fold after viewing a Christian painting of the damned in Hell (see his book The Rage Against God). I have talked with a few atheists who'd given up belief in a god but for whom there remained that lingering uncertainty of Hell . "What if I am wrong?" they ask themselves (what we are taught as children is often difficult to dismiss. Think of the ex-Muslim who can't quite bring himself to eat pork). I personally no longer believe Hell exists. I can't think of any of any route that could bring me circling back to the Christian fold.
@Bob L.
Thank you for you reply. Just 2 quick things
1) "like the Koran the Bible teaches the world is flat" While i definitely do not want to get in an argument about this but, the Quran does not state the earth is flat. While yes, i have seen some translations in English that say that while other don't, however, if you look at the Quran 79:30 and translate the last word in Arabic (pronounced Dhaha) it actually translates to spherical. I also ran in to this while researching Islam.
2) "ex-Muslim who can't quite bring himself to eat pork" I actually like this point. I personally never ate pork prior to becoming a Muslim simply for the fact that its an animal that eats filth, and the studies that have suggested how bad it is for us did not help.
So are you calling Mohammed a liar when he said in Surah 18:86 that the sun sets in a pond of murky water?
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=18&verse=86
@Searching for truth
"... the Quran does not state the earth is flat. While yes, i have seen some translations in English that say that while other don't, however, if you look at the Quran 79:30 and translate the last word in Arabic (pronounced Dhaha) it actually translates to spherical.:
Hi STF, technically you are correct, neither the Bible nor the Koran say the Earth is flat, but both imply that this is the case. I have seen a number of examples from the Koran describing the Earth as a carpet (carpets are flat). Following is one such instance, but there are quite a few: 20:53 "He Who has, made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; has enabled you to go about therein by roads (and channels); and has sent down water from the sky.” My version of the Koran leaves out the words "like a carpet" so the text says only that the earth is spread out. Perhaps the translator of this edition did not want to convey an image of a flat earth to his readers. Verse 79:30 in my copy simply says, "and the earth, too, He spread out...." The word 'dhaha' in Arabic apparently has a number of meanings which must be seen in the context of the sentence to get the meaning so I really can't address this point, except to repeat that the Earth is so often described in the Koran as 'like a carpet' that one should concede, I think, that a flat world is implied. Also, since so much of Islam is derived from the Bible, where the world is also described in terms that indicate flatness, what else should we expect?
On your 2nd point, one of my uncles ran a farm. He fed his pigs corn and apples, some of that he set aside for his own family. What else the pigs ate, I can't say, but I never saw the critters outside of their pens. I don't think they ate filth (how would you define the word?), though they did get the left over apples that were bruised, blemished, or had grubs. None of this affects the quality of the meat. I suspect Mohamed borrowed the prohibition against pork from the Jews. Some scholars suggest pigs were important animals in specific cultic practices of the Canaanites thus making them unpalatable to the Jewish priesthood.
@SfT
Pigs actually prefer not to eat or live in filth, they are only forced to in many places where they are raised as livestock. A common theme for all livestock. If you do not want to eat things that eat/live in filth you probably need to cut out just about all meat unless it is truly free range and very well cared for, (read, very expensive meat that is typically 3-10 times more expensive then what you find in most stores including "free range" at least in the US, the term free range written on a label can mean little if anything at all as there is no governing body that ensures the veracity of the claim on the label.
I do agree that pork, (really any meat,) is not healthy in large quantities, especially meat from mass production farms. Plus the huge environmental cost of most mass produced meat places on the environment are very valid reasons to not eat pork or really any meat,
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@LogicFTW
"I do agree that pork, (really any meat,) is not healthy in large quantities, especially meat from mass production farms. Plus the huge environmental cost of most mass produced meat places on the environment are very valid reasons to not eat pork or really any meat,"
Logic, now this is the first time I perhaps disagree with you. I concur we probably cannot trust "Free Range" labels and I agree that factory raised animals are probably not the healthiest for us to eat (all those antibiotics), but the plants we purchase have been doused repeatedly with insecticides, which leaves us only the more expensive "Organic Grown" section to select from. I can't recall who it was but someone recently made the case for beef production being more sustainable than the 13 million acres in the USA devoted to a corn mono-culture.
PS. Mikhaila Peterson, interviewed on Joe Rogan, has been eating nothing but beef for a year and has gone from sever ill health (perhaps dying) to perfect health. Her's is an amazing story.
A year ago an episode of Joe Rogan put me on the path to the Keto diet and I began investigating the dangers of polyunsaturated oils when they are exposed to high heat during the cooking process. Corn oil may actually be a killer if what I've been learning turns out to be true. Anyway, that's off topic, the suggestion was that if corn fields were converted to grasslands they'd support not only cattle but also all the species you'd typically find on a grassland. Anyway, it is something to think about.
I was raised a christian, spent over 40 years searching for spiritual guidance, and became an atheist when I realized that there was no spiritualism or any woo woo. And the deal was sealed after reading the bible from cover to cover. That is one messed up book.
Searching for truth the only thing you know about atheism with certainty is that they lack a belief in a god or gods.
Yes and no. Yes, because the obvious. No, because based off the top 3 religions (Christianity, Islam and Hinduism) as well as others, they all believe in an objective standard due to their faith and belief in God. If Atheism is a lack of belief in God then, I think it’s a logic conclusion to say that based off that lack of belief that, there really isn’t anything objective (outside of science) or at least there isn’t an objective standard go with or against. This is how I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong. Objective standard (outside of science) for Theists comes from God. If you don’t believe in God (atheism) therefore, you don’t have an objective standard therefore, Atheism goes beyond simply a lack of belief in God it also stands for a lack of an Objective standard. I am not trying to argue your point of view rather, simply trying to make sure I understand where you are coming from.
Searching for truth you are generalizing, and that asserted assumption is easily disproven. North Korea is an atheist state, and it's citizens base many of their moral decisions and actions on objective standards.
You made an assertion, and could not back it up. That is the point.
I suggest you stick to the only thing you can assert about atheism, that they lack a belief in a god or gods, else you wander off the path and into quicksand. Again.
I don't know why you decided to drag moral standards into this conversation but since you did, hey, objective moral standards are inferior to subjective moral standards.
Is raping a 9 year old child immoral?
I disagree, that is not the only thing that can be asserted about Atheism. While you would like to say the only thing atheists have in common is lack of belief in God you are leaving out the rest of the “package” that comes with that lack of belief. Anyway, I won’t argue with you what the “package” is as you have made it clear what you think it but, there’s what you are saying and there’s the reality of the matter.
I did? Where?
@Searching for truth
"I did? Where?"
Then please explain what standards you were referring to in the following statement you made.
"Objective standard (outside of science) for Theists comes from God. If you don’t believe in God (atheism) therefore, you don’t have an objective standard therefore, Atheism goes beyond simply a lack of belief in God it also stands for a lack of an Objective standard."
@David
No thanks as that will be taking us off topic. The intention of this thread was not to talk about objective standards
Do not be so evasive when you run across any tough questions.
Your posts are littered with references to standards, thus they are not off-topic.13
"No thanks as that will be taking us off topic. The intention of this thread was not to talk about objective standards"
Another dishonest and cowardly evasion. Fine lets talk about the objective standard you have set. Is it moral or immoral for an adult in their 50's to have sex with a nine year old child, as your prophet did?
What is your objective standard here, do you think raping children is, or is not, moral?
I predict yet another scornful sneering retreat from the cowardly lion.
Is it objectively moral for a man in their 50's to rape a nine year old child?
You can't claim to have objective morality, and now objective knowledge, but keep dodging this question without us noticing the dishonest hypocrisy.
@David Killens
"Searching for truth the only thing you know about atheism with certainty is that they lack a belief in a god or gods."
I once meant one atheist who rejected evolution for some strange theory he'd concocted (he was an otherwise very smart guy); but I'd say for the most part the majority of atheists do accept evolution, the Big Bang and all that other science stuff. So in that sense many theists might correctly postulate than they can surmise this about us as well -- don't you think? I say this, I confess, even after admitting I too have made this same claim as yourself.
I don't know if this notion of mine explains any of SFT's claims about atheists and objectivity. I also confess that I don't quite grasp his argument. I don't understand where he thinks it is taking him.
@ Bob L.
Thank you, Bob. This kind of stuff is exactly what I was talking about when I said the Atheist “Package” and I am sure there are more things that can be added but, you get the idea.
I am not talking about nor was this thread intended to be about objectivity vs subjectivity. I also do not have an argument I am trying to make. The main goal of this thread was simply to answer the question in my OP. However, as usual, the majority of people here can never stay on topic.
"However, as usual, the majority of people here can never stay on topic."
What a shocking piece of duplicitous hypocrisy, from YOU, of all people, given how shamelessly you ditched the subject of morality, and have avoided it,, and my question, ever since you realised your claim Islam provides objective morality would be exposed as false if you gave an honest answer.
You really have no shame at all do you, or are you now prepared to say whether it is ever moral for a man in his 50's to have sex with a nine year old child? Come on "lion" grow a pair for once.
NOT Searching for truth: "However, as usual, the majority of people here can never stay on topic."
Why does this statement not shock me? How ironic since you are guilty of derailing more topics than any other person here except AJ777. However, I think it may be a tie. This is perhaps the most incredible lie you have ever told. In your OP you actually state, "Based off my understanding of Atheism (please correct me if I am wrong) for the most part, everything outside of science is subjective," which is a complete and utter and total and absolute misunderstanding of what atheism actually is. As forever every statement you have ranted like a maniacal illiterate about atheism is so completely wrong. Here are four definitions for you to memorize.
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
For if you ever state any of these as anything other than these definitions, then you prove your statements to be nothing more than ignorant lies. Do you think you perhaps can wrap that thick skull around these definitions? Is your mind capable of learning anything other than your Islamic beliefs? Then later in your OP, you state, "For me as a Muslim, since I believe in God and an objective standard…" You are the one to bring up the subject of "objective standard" thus giving us the right to request from you your definition of your "objective standard."
Remember, that is the whole premise of debate. We are allowed to request clarification of ANY terminology you use in your schpiel. Now you are throwing bullshit about why you do not have to clarify anything because "it is not on topic." You are the weeniest and whiniest little baby I have ever seen. At least AJ777 has tons more dignity that you do. Although he is just as good at dodging answering questions as you are.
NOT Searching for truth, you are still so damned dense. Accepting the Theory of Evolution, Theory of Universal Expansion, and other sciences is NOT part of this supposed "atheist package." How can you be so damned dense that you cannot understand that the only thing common amongst all atheists is the "lack of or disbelief in any claims of any deity." How come you have so brainwashed yourself with that book of garbage, nonsense, and lies? There are many atheist who are Flattards (believe the Earth is flat and not an oblate geoid). There are many atheists who are not scientists. In fact, I dare say there are more atheists who are NOT scientists, than there are that are scientists.
You saying there is anything to an "Atheist Package" beyond the "lack of or disbelief in any claims of any deity" makes any statement your write/speak a lie. Of course, what else is new. You have yet to post anything that is actually true, let alone truth.
And I still say you are too afraid to answer the questions put to you many times by Sheldon before I have taking it upon myself to attempt to get an answer from you. And DO NOT say this post is an answer. That post is nothing more than a perfect demonstration of a theist too afraid to answer truthfully questions that completely undermine and disprove his religious beliefs. And to be completely honest, your unwillingness to answer the below questions also makes Muslims look bad. Ond bad apple does spoil the whole bunch.
All you ever do is dodge these question because of two reasons:
So much for "searching for truth" when you are too afraid of it.
Now you can see why I have changed your screen name to better fit who and what you are, NOT Searching for truth. In one of your posts you requested that we research the above questions ourselves. However, I know for a fact Sheldon and I KNOW the answers to these questions. I am betting a $100 you also know the answers and are too afraid and cowardly to answer these questions because you know the answers would prove your ideas and religion and your precious religious text are full of lies. I am also betting a $100 there are more here who know the answers to these questions besides Sheldon and I. Care to make a bet?
You asked me several questions and I answered you. However, after answering, you turned tail and disappeared for days on end before reappearing like a cockroach that just won't die.
Are you going to be a man and answer the questions truthfully, or be like the image?
rmfr
EDIT: Image removed due to insult to our good buddy Leo.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@Bob L
"So in that sense many theists might correctly postulate than they can surmise this about us as well -- don't you think? I say this, I confess, even after admitting I too have made this same claim as yourself."
Yes, we can postulate that many atheists also accept many scientific theories. We can state "many", but not "all". And if just one genuine atheist does not accept evolution, then it can never be stated that atheists accept evolution.
The thing is Bob, accepting a generalized assumption can lead us down the road of muddy thinking that many theists desire to lead us down. In a debate, every proposition must be fully valid to support the next proposition that is a result of the first.
Because such dishonest apologetics use this tactic in their arguments, hoping to slip in a few unproven assertions along the way to a false conclusion.
In fact, for this very topic I am exchanging posts with SfT, he is attempting to slip in this incorrect assumption to prove another point.
Pages