Former atheists that found religion??

[Zarathustra]

While debating with Karakara, I noticed that he claimed to be a former atheist that found religion - in his case sikhism. Now I must admit that I am very skeptical of such a claim. For several reasons:
1) It is not the first time I have encountered people claiming that on forums like this. Usually when asking into it they are at best revealed as former agnostics. At worst they are merely religious people, fishing for intellectual empathy of some kind. ("Once I thought as you, but then I saw the truth... open yourself likewise.")
2) Most atheists are atheists, exactly because they have given this a lot of thought. They know a little too much about science and cohesion of argumentation, to just accept a deity at random. How can they assume it is true, all of a sudden?
3) I have a hard time understanding how they can align, their new beliefs with their rational knowledge.

I'd like to know if anyone else have similar thoughts or hope that people like Karakara (who does seem genuine) and others explain this to me.

[Asmodean]

Per default, every theist has been an atheist at very young age. So technically there is truth in their claims. However, I have yet to meet ONE atheist-by-choice over the age of 10 who converted to a religion and did not bounce back to atheism after a short time.

[DennisK]

I sometimes question my belief in atheism when prominent people (like Kirk Cameron) convert from atheism to fundamental christian. Mike Seaver from Growing Pains sure was a rascal.  

Seriously, the only people I can see that would truly convert to theism from atheism are schizophrenics or maybe those with serious brain trauma.  If you really don't believe there is a god and see how delusional religion is, I find it hard to believe one could move toward unreason.

[Sophus]

Ah, yes. I'm most interested in hearing Titan's testimony of how his hidebound attitude didn't hinder him from taking a leap of faith. Oops I'm making gender assumptions again. Titan are you a man?  

[Mister Joy]

Seriously, the only people I can see that would truly convert to theism from atheism are schizophrenics or maybe those with serious brain trauma. If you really don't believe there is a god and see how delusional religion is, I find it hard to believe one could move toward unreason.

Belief in omnipotent beings or higher orders, I don't have much of a problem with. I wouldn't say that those ideas, in and of themselves, are hugely unreasonable. I say this because I've spoken to deists and most of them arrived at their beliefs, it seems to me, through fairly rational stages. Not perfectly rational, otherwise they'd have convinced me, but sensible enough to be respected & refreshingly straight forward compared to the Christian tactic of debate: create a web of subverted logic and increase its size exponentially until it becomes too exhaustingly elabourate for your opponent to bother picking apart. Then act smug.

[jrosebud]

I know some children of Atheist parents who became Deists and Christians.  They found something in the community and rules of religion that helped them deal with their personal issues.  They're happy to tell people that they used to be Atheists, but I don't equate their former unreasoned position with my pain-stakingly thought-through philosophical point of view.

[Zarathustra]

I know some children of Atheist parents who became Deists and Christians.  They found something in the community and rules of religion that helped them deal with their personal issues.  They're happy to tell people that they used to be Atheists, but I don't equate their former unreasoned position with my pain-stakingly thought-through philosophical point of view.

So actually the went from "haven't given it a thought" to "OK, that deity sounds great. No need to ask further!"?

[Zarathustra]

I say this because I've spoken to deists and most of them arrived at their beliefs, it seems to me, through fairly rational stages. Not perfectly rational, otherwise they'd have convinced me, but sensible enough to be respected & refreshingly straight forward

This is interesting. I have never met anyone that went there through rationality. (Unless you think Pascal's wager, Augustins ontological- or Anselms teleological proof is rational.The quote below entails otherwise to me.) Would you care to elaborate?

compared to the Christian tactic of debate: create a web of subverted logic and increase its size exponentially until it becomes too exhaustingly elabourate for your opponent to bother picking apart. Then act smug.

:hail:  
Perfectly phrased!

[karadan]

I guess anyone can be susceptible to brainwashing techniques - even atheists.

[rlrose328]

I think a lot of "former atheists turned Christians" were those who just assumed they were atheist because they had no religion at all.  No religion DOES NOT EQUATE to atheism, in my opinion.  Atheism is a hard-fought, well-reasoned worldview, not simply a lack of exposure to religion or god(s).

[DennisK]

I think a lot of "former atheists turned Christians" were those who just assumed they were atheist because they had no religion at all.  No religion DOES NOT EQUATE to atheism, in my opinion.  Atheism is a hard-fought, well-reasoned worldview, not simply a lack of exposure to religion or god(s).

Exactly!

[Kyuuketsuki]

While debating with Karakara, I noticed that he claimed to be a former atheist that found religion - in his case sikhism. Now I must admit that I am very skeptical of such a claim. For several reasons:

Thanks for raising this ... I've been a bit busy over the past few days and didn't visit HAF but I'm back now

1) It is not the first time I have encountered people claiming that on forums like this. Usually when asking into it they are at best revealed as former agnostics. At worst they are merely religious people, fishing for intellectual empathy of some kind. ("Once I thought as you, but then I saw the truth... open yourself likewise.")

As you already know I am very suspicious of these kind of claims and I genuinely suspect that such individuals weren't atheists at all ... the trouble is, of course, that declaring such a thing flies very close to invoking the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

2) Most atheists are atheists, exactly because they have given this a lot of thought. They know a little too much about science and cohesion of argumentation, to just accept a deity at random. How can they assume it is true, all of a sudden?

I didn't give atheism much thought until I realised I was one but I certainly gave the things which led me to it a great deal of thought.

3) I have a hard time understanding how they can align, their new beliefs with their rational knowledge.

Exactly ... whilst atheism is not a choice or a philosophy, it arises from things that are so I ingrained (reason. logic, scientific method) that I cannot simply stop being an atheist, I would have to stop thinking the way I do (in essence move from a position or logic & reason to one that not characterised by either).

I'd like to know if anyone else have similar thoughts or hope that people like Karakara (who does seem genuine) and others explain this to me.

Genuine? Genuinely what? Irritating?

Yes, I feel much the same as you appear to about this.

Kyu

[Will]

You're right to be skeptical. I myself have been faced with similar claims from people. I can assure you that after taking steps to look into their pasts, I found no atheism whatsoever. I spoke to family, friends, etc. and found nothing.

It's a common tactic: blatant dishonesty.

[Zarathustra]

You're right to be skeptical. I myself have been faced with similar claims from people. I can assure you that after taking steps to look into their pasts, I found no atheism whatsoever. I spoke to family, friends, etc. and found nothing.

It's a common tactic: blatant dishonesty.

I didn't find anything when asking into this either. And this blatant dishonesty can even be a theist pretending to be an atheist. This pretension is usually revealed by the way he/she argues, and especially makes assumptions.

By the way: karakara has promised me he would contribute to this thread... Please do so Kara - just because we want a different p.o.v.  

[Mister Joy]

You're right to be skeptical. I myself have been faced with similar claims from people. I can assure you that after taking steps to look into their pasts, I found no atheism whatsoever. I spoke to family, friends, etc. and found nothing.

It's a common tactic: blatant dishonesty.

Blatent dishonesty in various forms, yes! "I used to be an atheist" and "when it comes to science, I know my stuff" being chief among them. The latter is always the more infuriating, in my opinion. Mostly because I don't really know much about the science surrounding evolution. I know enough to simply accept it as the most viable theory that we have and beyond that it really doesn't interest me, particularly. I'm a book-worm, not a sciency guy. I study language, literature and the philosophies and movements that surround them.  Regardless of this, however, the junk that 'scientific' Christians come out with will seem ignorant, uninformed and transparrent even to me. Which says something. I know a guy in N. Ireland doing joint hons. Biology and philosophy, or something along those lines. He made an argument like this on one occasion: "DNA is information, yeah? Information can't just come from nowhere! Macroevolution requires that new genetic material just spawns every so often! When SCIENCE actually shows that it deteriorates!". That's the gist of it, anyway. I'm assuming you'll have heard it before but I hadn't. It's stupid. I know it's stupid. I know why it's stupid. But if I argue with him he can always fall back on his trump card: "I'm doing a scientific degree, English literature boy, and therefore I'm right and you have to agree with everything I say." It really winds me up.

It's a problem I've always had with academia. They took a step in the right direction when they undermined the position of money and family in the who-get's-to-have-prestigious-qualifications equation. But they went overboard and took intelligence out of the mix as well. Understanding is irrelevant, so long as you can memorise the correct terminology and arrange it in the right order. Representation and synchronata are key and reality itself is obsolete. It's very postmodern! And because of that, I think, we see legions of inept thickies piling out of university with qualifications that they don't really deserve. Hence we get creationists with scientific degrees. One of the reasons I'm attracted to English and writing is that it's kind of immune to that development because it's all about representation in the first place.

Sorry for the rant. Moving on...

This is interesting. I have never met anyone that went there through rationality. (Unless you think Pascal's wager, Augustins ontological- or Anselms teleological proof is rational.The quote below entails otherwise to me.) Would you care to elaborate?

I love Pascal's wager. There's a certain level of retardation that surpasses being irritating and just becomes cute. Applied practically: my cousin's son, who's four, wants to be a wizard. He'll say things like "buy me some jellybabies or... or I'll turn you into a frog!". Oh no! What if he really can turn me into a frog?

I've spoken to deists over the internet and I know one in person. He has a slightly obscure view of the consciousness. It's to do with the concept that sub-atomic particles are not in singular positions but infinite probable positions at once; unless we're directly observing them. Apparently it's a viable idea though don't ask me. He believes that 'reality' is something that is determined by the conscience, even to the point where we can shape the workings of our own brain and I can see where he's coming from. We can excersise different ways of thinking to build stronger bridges between certain neurones and weaken the already established ones. It's a very complicated idea and I couldn't possibly do it justice without a fourty-thousand word essay but it basically leads to a pantheistic world view. We are God, essentially. And nothing that we do or say can be 'against God' because it's all part of him. Which makes for a very atheistic lifestyle; accepting responsibility for one's own moral compass. I watched a film fairly recently which seemed, from my point of view to be similar (though I wouldn't hold me to that; he might disagree):

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/

There are problems and misunderstandings in it, certainly. And I'm sure most people here will be able to see even more holes than I can. But it isn't dogma, that's my point. Deists, in my experience, tend to have the same sincere desire to understand the universe that atheists have. They don't just cling to an ideal and sing 'la la la' whenever someone else talks to them, they don't feel the need to twist everything up into knots and they're actually prepared to listen and reason and consider alternatives. They're intellectually free, even if they're mistaken. And since someone can arrive at a belief in some form of God while remaining mentally unrestrained, then that kind of belief, in itself, can't be lumped into the 'delusion' category. It may come about through erronious logic but not necessarily through 'brainwashing'. Am I making sense?

Also, I have more respect for that idea than for Christianity on the simple basis that it has a lot more respect for me. It's refreshing dissimilar to the standard "you're going to burn in Hell for not conforming."

Note to self: learn to write more refined postings.