Common theist argument: "You know, I used to be an atheist myself..."

[Rhea]

It would be interesting if an atheist on the forum, who was also originally from a religious background, would be classed in the same way as a fake atheists (so to speak) like Strobel, if he or she went back to religion?

I don’t think so. We’ve had some who did. No one called them fake. Because while they were atheists, they ACTUALLY did not believe that gods existed. And the way they spoke made this clear, unlike the way Strobel speaks of his “atheistic” days.

 

[Learner]

I don’t think so. We’ve had some who did. No one called them fake. Because while they were atheists, they ACTUALLY did not believe that gods existed. And the way they spoke made this clear, unlike the way Strobel speaks of his “atheistic” days.

Yes I thought that too i.e. they "do" exist and they're "not" hard to find.

 

[Rhea]

I don’t think so. We’ve had some who did. No one called them fake. Because while they were atheists, they ACTUALLY did not believe that gods existed. And the way they spoke made this clear, unlike the way Strobel speaks of his “atheistic” days.

Yes I thought that too i.e. they "do" exist and they're "not" hard to find.

I find them very hard to find. There just happen to be quite a few HERE, because they either came here when they deconverted looking for companionship, or they deconverted here; then when they reconvered, they were still here and told us.

So they aren’t hard to find here,. But in real life (non-segregated by an atheist forum) there are not so many at all.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It would be interesting if an atheist on the forum, who was also originally from a religious background, would be classed in the same way as a fake atheists (so to speak) like Strobel, if he or she went back to religion?

So the criteria for the method is: religion > atheist > religion again > fake atheist.

Yeah, nope. That is not what happened, though.
No one said he's fake atheist because of a prior state of grace.

So roll your sad eyes back in their sockets.

 

[skepticalbip]

It would be interesting if an atheist on the forum, who was also originally from a religious background, would be classed in the same way as a fake atheists (so to speak) like Strobel, if he or she went back to religion?

So the criteria for the method is: religion > atheist > religion again > fake atheist.

Quote Originally Posted by Strobel himself
But that’s all I had ever really given the evidence [for atheism]: a cursory look. I had read just enough philosophy and history to find support for my skepticism – a fact here, a scientific theory there, a pithy quote, a clever argument. Sure, I could see some gaps and inconsistencies, but I had a strong motivation to ignore them: a self-serving and immoral lifestyle that I would be compelled to abandon if I were ever to change my views and become a follower of Jesus.

He does sound a little more agnostic if not atheist then. (Atheists have been known to say agnostics are atheists too)

I don't think you understand what is being said, or maybe you are working under a different definition of the word atheist.

Atheist means no belief in supernatural critters like gods. It doesn't, as Strobel uses the word, mean partying, fornicating, sinning, etc. There are certainly theists (meaning believing there is a god but not necessarily wallowing in all the religious shit like attending church or constantly thinking about god) for who doing things the church calls sins makes doing them much more attractive. It is the thrill of rebellion. Thinking of themselves as a 'bad girl' or 'bad boy' is attractive and exciting for some Christian girls and boys. For atheists, there is no sin against god since they don't believe there is a god so no such extra thrill of rebellion.

What Strobel describes is someone who enjoys rebelling against god (or as you are describing it a 'fake atheist'), not an atheist who doesn't believe there is a god... there can be no rebellion against god by someone who doesn't think there is a god.

ETA:
Getting some distance from emotionally driven belief, let's try an analogy.

Assume that there is this story about this really bossy and demanding person, Wimlet. He happens to really hate people that suck their thumb and declares that he will kick anyone in the balls that does it. Some people really believe the story so avoid putting their thumb in their mouth. Some people believe the story but get a kick out of sucking their thumb to show their independence. Some people believe the story is nothing but a scare tactic created to make children stop sucking their thumb - since they think nothing of the story, they think nothing of putting their thumb in their mouth when they get some jelly or peanut butter on it but feel no reason to otherwise. Strobel's description is the second group. The last group is more akin to atheists' thought process.

 

[Copernicus]

Yeah, you know, possible mercenary, financial motive of the author was NOT on my list of criticisms of The God Delusion or A Universe From Nothing or God Is Not Great or....etc etc.

I don't know what Strobel's motives were in promoting his book. There are certainly a lot of priests, preachers, rabbis, etc., who make a living from their ministries, so I suppose they could also be challenged on those grounds. As for Dawkins, etc., do bear in mind that atheists could make a LOT more money by publicly converting to Christianity (or whatever prevailing popular religion) and then selling their conversion to masses of believers (far more numerous than atheists in the population), who want to hear why a former atheist gave up and finally joined the fold. Dawkins has certainly made money from his publication of The God Delusion, but he had other sources of income from his publications and work as a biologist. He could make much more money now by giving up atheism and joining the Church of England or even the RCC. Publishers would be chasing after him in droves with bags of money.

 

[Lion IRC]

I think that (by orders of magnitude) more Christians than atheists bought Dawkins God Delusion book. Same goes for just about any 'New' Atheist stuff.

But as I said, it's lame to use an authors book sales success against them.
Intellectual integrity demands that you should just stick to the arguments IN the book.

 

[Copernicus]

I think that (by orders of magnitude) more Christians than atheists bought Dawkins God Delusion book. Same goes for just about any 'New' Atheist stuff...

Not relevant to the point I was making.  The God Delusion sold roughly 3 million copies by 2014. That figure is dwarfed by religious book sales by authors like Rick Warren (The Purpose of Driven Life--33 million copies). You may be interested in finding out what atheists have to say about religion, but most people of faith are looking for ways to strengthen their belief system, not weaken it. I find that most of the believers I encounter on the internet who denigrate The God Delusion base their comments largely on reviews or word of mouth. Very few actually read it cover to cover. There is more money to be made from selling religion than selling skepticism.

That said, I am in general agreement with you that the more interesting discussion here is about the arguments, not the motives of authors. The best books tend to be written by people who are passionate about the subject matter, not the money they will bring in.

 

[Learner]

I find them very hard to find. There just happen to be quite a few HERE, because they either came here when they deconverted looking for companionship, or they deconverted here; then when they reconvered, they were still here and told us.

So they aren’t hard to find here,. But in real life (non-segregated by an atheist forum) there are not so many at all.

Sorry, I missed a few pages while away but I was refering back to a study by Brian Holtz (where I left from, still in mind) borrowing from Ipetrichs list below:

Asymmetry of Conversion - Leaving Christianity -- someone has explored this issue, and he has found that atheists who understand atheist arguments and use them rarely convert to some religion. I make those qualifiers to distinguish such people from people who were mostly indifferent to religion.

Atheist Deconversion is another page on that subject. Brian Holtz looked for people who converted for purely intellectual reasons, reasons not contaminated with reasons like these:

1. 
   [*]example or pressure from parents, professors, or any authority figure;
   [*]desire for fellowship with some religious person or social group;
   [*]desire to rebel against parents, professors, or any authority figure;
   [*]negative personal experience with anti-religious people or institutions;
   [*]distaste for the historical or distant actions of anti-religious people or institutions;
   [*]distaste for the evils that might be mitigated by belief in god(s);
   [*]emotional dissatisfaction with the logical implications of atheism;
   [*]personal injustice or victimhood;
   [*]personal misfortune such as disability, injury, illness, or the misfortune of a loved one;
   [*]personal failure or crisis related to substance abuse, gambling, guilty conscience, imprisonment, etc.;
   [*]personal dissatisfaction with one's social, romantic, or vocational circumstances;
   [*]desire to reform (or excuse) one's morality or behavior;
   [*]desire for hope in divine reward.

He had a hard time finding anyone.

I just thought imo, an update was due.

 

[Rhea]

I find them very hard to find. There just happen to be quite a few HERE, because they either came here when they deconverted looking for companionship, or they deconverted here; then when they reconvered, they were still here and told us.

So they aren’t hard to find here,. But in real life (non-segregated by an atheist forum) there are not so many at all.

Sorry, I missed a few pages while away but I was refering back to a study by Brian Holtz (where I left from, still in mind) borrowing from Ipetrichs list below:

Asymmetry of Conversion - Leaving Christianity -- someone has explored this issue, and he has found that atheists who understand atheist arguments and use them rarely convert to some religion. I make those qualifiers to distinguish such people from people who were mostly indifferent to religion.

Atheist Deconversion is another page on that subject. Brian Holtz looked for people who converted for purely intellectual reasons, reasons not contaminated with reasons like these:

1. 
   [*]example or pressure from parents, professors, or any authority figure;
   [*]desire for fellowship with some religious person or social group;
   [*]desire to rebel against parents, professors, or any authority figure;
   [*]negative personal experience with anti-religious people or institutions;
   [*]distaste for the historical or distant actions of anti-religious people or institutions;
   [*]distaste for the evils that might be mitigated by belief in god(s);
   [*]emotional dissatisfaction with the logical implications of atheism;
   [*]personal injustice or victimhood;
   [*]personal misfortune such as disability, injury, illness, or the misfortune of a loved one;
   [*]personal failure or crisis related to substance abuse, gambling, guilty conscience, imprisonment, etc.;
   [*]personal dissatisfaction with one's social, romantic, or vocational circumstances;
   [*]desire to reform (or excuse) one's morality or behavior;
   [*]desire for hope in divine reward.

He had a hard time finding anyone.

I just thought imo, an update was due.

Oh. To be clear, the ones who re-converted that we know here, DID usually do it for emotional reasons. I’m just saying we didn’t call them fake atheists because when they were atheists they were genuinely not of the belief that gods existed. But yeah, the return to eligion has been typically for emotional reasons.

 

[Learner]

Several pages back there were several posts that implied Strobel and the like were lying when they said they were atheist, hence "fake atheist". Plus I was being a little ironic (a tad sarky) in my previous post #120.

 

[Lion IRC]

I think that (by orders of magnitude) more Christians than atheists bought Dawkins God Delusion book. Same goes for just about any 'New' Atheist stuff...

Not relevant to the point I was making.  The God Delusion sold roughly 3 million copies by 2014. That figure is dwarfed by religious book sales by authors like Rick Warren (The Purpose of Driven Life--33 million copies).

Sure. A Purpose Driven Life dwarfs TGD both in terms of usefulness and sales. It actually is eleven times better.

You may be interested in finding out what atheists have to say about religion, but most people of faith are looking for ways to strengthen their belief system, not weaken it.

Agreed.
I too want to See Him more clearly. Follow Him more nearly. Love Him more dearly.
...day by day

I find that most of the believers I encounter on the internet who denigrate The God Delusion base their comments largely on reviews or word of mouth. Very few actually read it cover to cover.

I've read it cover to cover.
And none of my criticisms of it relate to whether Dawkins made money from its sales.

There is more money to be made from selling religion than selling skepticism.

How do you sell skepticism? How do you make money from non-stamp collecting?
Like I said, criticising Lee Strobel personally just because his book was popular is making him a victim of his own success. And it's a total red herring. A logic fail which folks around here would call out in two seconds flat if I said Dawkins was only in it for the money - therefore his book should be received with great skepticism as to motive.
Even if Dawkins WAS only doing it for money, his fact claims and logic might still deserve our agreement.

That said, I am in general agreement with you that the more interesting discussion here is about the arguments, not the motives of authors. The best books tend to be written by people who are passionate about the subject matter, not the money they will bring in.

Agreed. And books by passionate authors might be what we prefer to spend our money buying.

 

[Learner]

Edit:
So roll your sad eyes back in their sockets.

Consider it done.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yeah, nope. That is not what happened, though.
No one said he's fake atheist because of a prior state of grace.


So roll your sad eyes back in their sockets.

Consider it done.

Whoa. Wait up there.
Strobel was accused of not (ever) being a real atheist.
There is no other interpretation than that he was merely a waivering Christian, a Prodigal Son,
still under Grace - and who never made to full blown strict orthodox atheism.
That nobody used those exact words doesn't make Keith&Co right.

 

[Learner]

Cheers Lion, post re-edited.

 

[lpetrich]

Atheist Deconversion is another page on that subject. Brian Holtz looked for people who converted for purely intellectual reasons, reasons not contaminated with reasons like these:

1. example or pressure from parents, professors, or any authority figure;
2. desire for fellowship with some religious person or social group;
3. desire to rebel against parents, professors, or any authority figure;
4. negative personal experience with anti-religious people or institutions;
5. distaste for the historical or distant actions of anti-religious people or institutions;
6. distaste for the evils that might be mitigated by belief in god(s);
7. emotional dissatisfaction with the logical implications of atheism;
8. personal injustice or victimhood;
9. personal misfortune such as disability, injury, illness, or the misfortune of a loved one;
10. personal failure or crisis related to substance abuse, gambling, guilty conscience, imprisonment, etc.;
11. personal dissatisfaction with one's social, romantic, or vocational circumstances;
12. desire to reform (or excuse) one's morality or behavior;
13. desire for hope in divine reward.

He had a hard time finding anyone.

CEM Joad is clearly #10 with his fare-beating.
Heathen Dawn is clearly #7 with his fear of death.
Annie Besant is not a very clear case.
Antony Flew is the only rational one, though to a variety of deism.

 

[Lion IRC]

Hands up all the True Atheists here ??? Come on. Out you come.
Now, how many of you are former Christians who are simply having a Doubting Thomas moment?
Once an atheist, always an atheist?
I think not.

 

[Learner]

I don't think you understand what is being said, or maybe you are working under a different definition of the word atheist.

Atheist means no belief in supernatural critters like gods. It doesn't, as Strobel uses the word, mean partying, fornicating, sinning, etc. There are certainly theists (meaning believing there is a god but not necessarily wallowing in all the religious shit like attending church or constantly thinking about god) for who doing things the church calls sins makes doing them much more attractive. It is the thrill of rebellion. Thinking of themselves as a 'bad girl' or 'bad boy' is attractive and exciting for some Christian girls and boys. For atheists, there is no sin against god since they don't believe there is a god so no such extra thrill of rebellion.

What Strobel describes is someone who enjoys rebelling against god (or as you are describing it a 'fake atheist'), not an atheist who doesn't believe there is a god... there can be no rebellion against god by someone who doesn't think there is a god.

Hopefully by now its understood, this is not why I used the term "fake" atheist.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Hands up all the True Atheists here ??? Come on. Out you come.
Now, how many of you are former Christians who are simply having a Doubting Thomas moment?
Once an atheist, always an atheist?
I think not.

I have always been an atheist. I attended a Catholic school and at age 6 I intensely did not believe. I have since then gotten even more sure that there is no God because God is a self defeating set of incoherent claims. I have no more doubts about the issue than you have doubts that leprechauns might exist.

 

[skepticalbip]

Hands up all the True Atheists here ??? Come on. Out you come.
Now, how many of you are former Christians who are simply having a Doubting Thomas moment?
Once an atheist, always an atheist?
I think not.

I don't know what you are looking for or even what you mean. But my grandfather was a Methodist minister and founder of the First Methodist Church in my home town. I was spoon-fed the Christian faith from childhood and, as all children, accepted what they were told as absolute truth especially from adult authority figures. By the time I was old enough to begin reasoning, I needed to understand rather than merely accept what I was told. I was even disciplined for taking clocks and such apart to see how they worked. Questioning my grandfather about his 'truths' so I could understand them wasn't much help, he wasn't able to enlighten me on the contradictions I found in the teachings. Intense reading of the Bible a bit later in my life in search for clarity only revealed even more contradictions. By the time I was in my mid-teens, I realized that the teachings in Christianity made no sense even though I had never heard of atheism by that time. That was over fifty years ago and the conviction that I developed as a teen-ager that the god myth is only a fable has only been reinforced over time through reading the 'Holy Books' and teachings of other non-Abrahamic religions. I now find looking at religious beliefs as a fascinating look into the thinking of the individuals that hold religious beliefs and am constantly amazed at the hand waving, usually contradictory, justifications they offer.

Is that an example of the 'once Christian (as a child) now atheist (as an adult)' you are looking for? If so, then this true atheist's hand is up.