Greetings,
I have not visited this forum in a considerable amount of time, but I would like to share a common quote I hear many believers/theists often say:
"I was just like you, I was an atheist. I was convinced/ knew that God does not exist, and I knew there was no such thing as some of the stories from the Bible or the Quran, until I had an experience".
These kinds of charlatans will give any kind of experience as proof. Some examples are: "miracles", dreams, psychic mediums, near death experiences, after death communications, "realizing" that the cosmos could not have come from nothing, going to bible/quran class and having an "expert" interpret the books for them in a way that makes sense, losing a debate to a close friend, having had "contact" with God or Jesus or Krishna while "totally sane and awake in full consciousness", and the list could go on forever.
I have only listed a few of the reasons people give me as to why they were "once like me" and now they believe. While I am an agnostic, they still file me into the "skeptic" drawer.
There are so many issues with this claim! First, how can they say they were like me? They are not me, so they have no idea what it's like to be me.
Second, if it is in fact true that they had some sort of supernatural experience and are completely accurately relaying what they saw/heard, how can they expect anyone who has not had the "privilege" of that experience to believe them? And how can they be so sure they are interpreting this correctly?
Third, we are all born unbelieving. A three month old toddler has no concept of religion, or the supernatural, etc, same as a cat, a dog, and a chicken do not. I feel that when these people patronize you by saying "I was like you", they are implying that your position is not normal. I think that everyone was once a non believer, so the person with the testimony is no special case.
Fourth, saying "I knew there was no God, and I knew the bible/quran were false" is just lying. Even an agnostic or an atheist does not "know" or claim to know for a fact that there is not a supernatural creator, or that the religious texts are false. In fact, if these people "knew" that it was all fake, then it is a fact. If it is a fact, then they are simply lying that they are theists. Once you "know" something to be true, you cannot change that. I feel it is somewhat insulting actually.
Ratburn
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.
"I was like you, I was an atheist until..." is just simple psychology. It is an attempt to create sympathy, to identify. And they hope that some fool does sympathize, then on to phase two, "but I saw the light, will you also give it a try?"
"I was like you until ." ( fill in blank)
Really? You were a serial killer who hunted religious zelots"???
That sends ' em off...
:D
I was an atheist, like you....
You wish sunshine, unfuckinglikely though.
That ought to do it...
@ Sheldon
"You wish sunshine, unfuckinglikely though."
Stealing it...
No one can doubt religion fills in a void. Things happen, perhaps a person is depressed, and they want a happy easy answer.
The atheist staring at the scientific answer that essentially says: There is no plan, you are completely insignificant, bad things happen and their is no cosmic justice to balance the bad things that happen, all you are is transfer of energy in a very complex form that so happens to gain a very rough sense of self and greater environment awareness.
To me the "i was an atheist/agnostic" people just points to the incredible seductive siren call of religion. It is a warm comfy blankie. Probably far more people will have the: "I was islamic now I am roman catholic" or any variation of the various religions. Sometimes by choice, and sadly, all to often, by force or tremendous social pressure.
"For me the "i was an atheist/agnostic" people just points to the incredible seductive siren call of religion. It is a warm comfy blankie."
The woods are lovely dark and deep,
but I have promises to keep.
And miles to go before I sleep.
And miles to go before I sleep.
Beware the numinous, however seductive.
Every single person is born an atheist. It takes brainwashing to become a god believer.
The same way some atheist will also claim, "I was once like you, a Bible believing Christian, ..."
The difference JoC the atheists are not lying!
How easy it is to call those with whom we disagree, liars.
Many outspoken religious apogists are pathological liars. This is not an unfounded accusation. Telling lies for Jesus is quite a common tactic that many apologists don't even seem to view as dishonest. The end justifies the means so to speak. I've encountered such dishonesty too often to ignore the phenomenon.
Look at your behaviour on here, it's thoroughly dishonest. I'm hardly alone in noticing.
@ Sheldon
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pious_fraud
"Pious fraud is a term applied to describe fraudulent practices used to advance a religious cause or belief. This type of fraud may, by religious apologists, be explained as a case of the ends justify the means, in that if people are saved from eternal damnation then it's perfectly fine to tell a few fibs and perform some magic tricks. This line of argumentation is prone to outcome bias. To draw a non-religious comparison - pious fraud could be compared to a parent using the threat of Santa withholding presents, or delivering a lump of coal, if Santa should hear that the child in question has been naughty.
It may at times be difficult to differentiate pious fraud, which requires intent to deceive, from delusion and ignorance. Such a decision must be based on a case-by-case evaluation of the claims being made, the persons making the claims, and certainly the intent behind the claims."
I think Breezy, probably unaware of the pedigree of other such fraudsters in history is attempting to reinvent their Modus Operandi.
As many do thinking it is an original ploy.
Pious Fraud does fit admirably well.
Always wondered, is it lying if the person thinks it is true?
How about if the person states something where they do not research to find a conclusive answer, and they are unsure, and it turns out to be a lie, but they think it is true, still not lying? I vote willful ignorance in this scenario.
When some atheists say, “Once a theist like you...” how do they know what the theist has been through. That’s exactly how the OP was stated.
It's not the same. You can demonstrate no objective evidence for your belief. So atheism is the rational position. Claiming to have gone from disbelief to belief requires objective evidence for that belief. He provided none of course.
Fallacies left and right. The only true default or rational position is “I don’t know”. Science actually does this all the time when it makes neither a positive nor a negative claim.
Yes, one of the great merits of science is many scientist will readily admit when they do not know, even when they spend their entire lives studying and learning about one narrow subject.
However a rational decision is born out of gathering all the available evidence, deep, careful critical thinking and examination of both sides. Upon doing that, the rational conclusion is clear. There is no god of any kind. No greater being that requires devotion and worship and is capable of "miracles" and great power.
Agreed. In my case, however, I went the other direction and concluded that God definitely exists.
But you went a stage further and now posit that a specific infallible 'catholic' god exits. I cannot see any justification or logic in that position.
If we look at just this thread and the arguments relating solely to the topics in this thread, then I agree with you that concluding the Catholic religion is the true religion is a big jump.
I arrived at the Catholic faith by examining the question, “Has God revealed himself to man?” And “Who is this Jesus?”
Those topics however would just muddle this thread.
Start your own thread and include all objective evidence you have for your conclusions. Though straight away I can see massive problems fro your conclusions. It is demonstrably obvious that unless a deity has revealed itself to me I can't answer the first question in any objective way and the claim is made by too many people of conflicting religions to take seriously, and the second question already makes an assumption that for the existence of Jesus, and whilst I think it might be possible a real person existed, I can't see any conclusive evidence, and none at all for the claims associated around this name, the supernatural claims are simply no more credible as real events to me than the legends of Hercules, or that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse, claims you would I imagine be happy to dismiss as well.
Do you general believe claims you can know nothing about and have no objective evidence for, and which use fallacious arguments to assert it's existence? Once again since this a startlingly common mistake that I see theists make all the time, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.
I am an atheist because I do not believe a deity exist because it has not met it's burden of proof, note the expression does not imply absolute proof please. Any arguments that use logical fallacies I dismiss, as a logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning which cannot be shown to be rationally true. If a claim is made that is unfalsifiable then epistemology demands I am agnostic, and again I reject the assertion as it can't be shown to be true, and if it were false there would be no way of knowing. An unfalisifiable claim that something exists would make it indistinguishable from something that did not exist.
Example, there is an invisible unicorn in front of you, ti can't be detected in any empirical way, but you can "experience" it spiritually and have a relationship with it if you accept it exists. This then is an example of an unfalsifiable claim, and I would have to remain agnostic about it, but of course I would also not believe unless objective evidence could be demonstrated to support it.
"The only true default or rational position is “I don’t know”. Science actually does this all the time when it makes neither a positive nor a negative claim."
Does science then believe the claim after they have correctly asserted they can't know if it is true? Of course they don't, and the default position in such a case is to withhold belief of such a claim.
Satan used the opposite foundation of the reverse trap to take you back to the original lie on a subconscious level. In the Bible in the garden of eden it was 2 trees, tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. If you put the original lie at the root of the tree symbolically, Surely you will not die when you eat therof, your eyes will be opened, ye will become as god, knowing good and evil. That's the bait, the trap to get them to eat. What was produced on the exterior was sin, death, wickedness, fall of man, nakedness. Now remove Gods tree of life and replace it with the dummy modern day tree of life(tree of evolution) The root and bait is fact, logic, reason, science, intelligence. Once you eat and become atheist what's produce on the exterior is the original lie within your inner psychie. Your eyes are opened(something came from nothing) ye will become as god(remove god you become own god) Knowing good and evil(you can be a good person without believing in god) surely death will be cut off. Opposite foundation, reverse trick, to tak you back to the original while giving you a false illusion that you are enlightened.
Rubbish. No god. No garden. No satan. No trees. It's just a fairy story written by bronze age nomads, with some influence from Egypt and Babylon.
What you call the "dummy modern day tree of life(tree of evolution)" is far more interesting and awe-inspiring than your mumbo-jumbo. I'm related to every living thing, including every person, in the world.
Kinda sucks when you realize you are also related to this jazzy guy. I try to focus on more positive things like I am related to Neil Degrasse Tyson or something.
Whoops double post.
That was no lie. That's just what happened in the story, as Yahweh acknowledged later: "They have become like us, knowing good and evil."
The original lie was Yahweh's, who told them they would die the very day they ate the magic fruit. Read your myths straight! ;-)
Which text are you reading where it says they’ll die the very day they ate the fruit?
Re: Jazzy - "Satan used the opposite foundation of the reverse trap to take you back to the original lie ......."
What the...??? Is anybody else having a very strong sense of deja vu???
God was like you until he took an arrow in the Nietzsche.
Pages