• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

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;
  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.

The most amusing reconvert that I know of was philosophy professor C.E.M. Joad. In his "Testament of Joad", he talked about how he sometimes would ride a train without a valid ticket. During World War II, he answered questions for BBC radio, becoming known for "It all depends on what you mean by...". But in 1946, he was caught doing some fare-beating, and the BBC fired him. He got religion, and he even wrote some Xian apologetics. Bertrand Russell reportedly debated him, and he reportedly looked silly in comparison.

Another interesting case is that of Annie Besant. She was a secularist activist for a while, but one day she got assigned to write about Helena Petrovna Blavatsky and her works. She was the author of a massive proto-New-Age woo-woo synthesis called Theosophy, and AB ended up converting to it and becoming a big-name Theosophist.
 
He had a hard time finding anyone.
I'm curious to know if this is still the case, considering (so far as I can tell) this study seems to be more than 10 years old. If this is still the main statiistical source for the "common theist argument" standard , we are then in need for an overdue update.
 
He had a hard time finding anyone.
I'm curious to know if this is still the case, considering (so far as I can tell) this study seems to be more than 10 years old. If this is still the main statiistical source for the "common theist argument" standard , we are then in need for an overdue update.

Do you tjink there have been major advances in the evidence for gods in the last decade?
Or an improvement in the arguments, godwise?
Streamlining of familial/peer pressure?
A decline in ghe apparent availability if prospective mates among the farious flavors of Faithful?

What would support an update?
 
The church could increase the the number claiming faith if they would empower a new Spanish Inquisition....

....No one expects the Spanish Inquisition....

...or their horrible torture device, the comfy chair! :(
 
He had a hard time finding anyone.
I'm curious to know if this is still the case, considering (so far as I can tell) this study seems to be more than 10 years old. If this is still the main statiistical source for the "common theist argument" standard , we are then in need for an overdue update.
I haven't seen the "I used to be an atheist" used online in a long time, but on the rare occasion that I get someone talking about religion in the real world, it is still fairly common, although it's usually easy to get them to admit that they weren't atheists in the sense that they thought about it and came to a conclusion. At best, it was always "I didn't really think much about religion", and at worst (and frankly more common), it's an outright lie.
 
Put it this way, I've stumbled across one or two scientists (ex-atheist) by accident ,without trying, by watching a different video on youtube, IOW's "it wasn't so hard to find, at least one"".
 
More important than what a person used to be is the reason why they changed.

One highly sceptical, clear thinking, rational atheist who finds God is worth two dozen brainless irrational moron faith heads (that's what they call us) whose commitment to God temporarily gives way to the temptation of atheistic hedonism and living like there's no God/afterlife.

Atheism is a very enticing worldview - if only it was believable.
 
Put it this way, I've stumbled across one or two scientists (ex-atheist) by accident ,without trying, by watching a different video on youtube, IOW's "it wasn't so hard to find, at least one"".
How do uou know they are ex-atheists?
Strobel maintains that he was an atheist who found god by research, but his statementts of 'what atheists believe' strike me more like theist strawmen of atheist beliefs.
 
Why is it so hard to conceive of a thinker who can go from atheism to theism? I've done it many times. I swing back and forth, like a pendulum, between belief and non-belief.

I was raised without religion. I found religion in my own heart and mind later on, through intense reading and study, music, art. Then I found reason to abandon belief.

I don't know where I am now. Perhaps God knows.

These are not offered as arguments, but merely as sentences, from a conflicted mind.
 
Put it this way, I've stumbled across one or two scientists (ex-atheist) by accident ,without trying, by watching a different video on youtube, IOW's "it wasn't so hard to find, at least one"".
How do uou know they are ex-atheists?
Strobel maintains that he was an atheist who found god by research, but his statementts of 'what atheists believe' strike me more like theist strawmen of atheist beliefs.

Why would that matter? While I disagree with Strobel, I don't find him to be someone who's deliberately disingenuous or lying about his beliefs. He's just someone who's swayed by what I feel are poor arguments.

If he was an atheist who's research led him to these arguments and he found these arguments to be compelling enough to convert to Christianity, then he's an ex-atheist who found God by research. It's his own opinion of the validity of those arguments which would be relevant, not a dispassionate analysis of how valid they actually are.
 
Put it this way, I've stumbled across one or two scientists (ex-atheist) by accident ,without trying, by watching a different video on youtube, IOW's "it wasn't so hard to find, at least one"".
How do uou know they are ex-atheists?
Strobel maintains that he was an atheist who found god by research, but his statementts of 'what atheists believe' strike me more like theist strawmen of atheist beliefs.

Why would that matter? While I disagree with Strobel, I don't find him to be someone who's deliberately disingenuous or lying about his beliefs. He's just someone who's swayed by what I feel are poor arguments.

If he was an atheist who's research led him to these arguments and he found these arguments to be compelling enough to convert to Christianity, then he's an ex-atheist who found God by research. It's his own opinion of the validity of those arguments which would be relevant, not a dispassionate analysis of how valid they actually are.

I think Keith is saying that Strobel's comments show he doesn't actually know what atheists think, and therefore he wasn't one (otherwise he would know what they think).

Given the rampant intellectual dishonesty of almost everything Strobel says, it is highly plausible his atheism claim is just another of his lies. It is a rhetorical tactic used to make it seem like one's theism was the result of intellectual progress and that atheism is a result of ignorance.
 
I think Keith is saying that Strobel's comments show he doesn't actually know what atheists think, and therefore he wasn't one (otherwise he would know what they think).

Given the rampant intellectual dishonesty of almost everything Strobel says, it is highly plausible his atheism claim is just another of his lies. It is a rhetorical tactic used to make it seem like one's theism was the result of intellectual progress and that atheism is a result of ignorance.
Almost right. I don't think it's intended as rhetoric.

I think it's marketing. Saying, 'ah thinks these here argyments are pretty good' would sell fewer than 'these argyments is SO GOOD they turned me into a newt b'liever!'

But it does work as rhetoric. I once pointed out some problems in one of his tales and the counter that was offered was 'if the evidence was that bad, he wouldn't have been saved!'
 
You call Lee Strobel intellectually dishonest in a thread where your best argument against him is;
He was probably never a real atheist, no true atheist thinks that...
 
You call Lee Strobel intellectually dishonest in a thread where your best argument against him is;
He was probably never a real atheist, no true atheist thinks that...

That is not the best argument about Stobel's apologies being nonsense. This is merely an observation about his claims to have been an atheist, whether he is sincere or just confused about what atheists think. Strawman!
 
You call Lee Strobel intellectually dishonest in a thread where your best argument against him is;
He was probably never a real atheist, no true atheist thinks that...
Where do I claim it's my best argument?
Are you reading things into my post to satisfy your agenda?
How unusual for you, Lion!
Never would I have expected you to misstate someone's position in order to claim moral superiority!
Never, I say!
 
I think Keith is saying that Strobel's comments show he doesn't actually know what atheists think, and therefore he wasn't one (otherwise he would know what they think).

Given the rampant intellectual dishonesty of almost everything Strobel says, it is highly plausible his atheism claim is just another of his lies. It is a rhetorical tactic used to make it seem like one's theism was the result of intellectual progress and that atheism is a result of ignorance.
Almost right. I don't think it's intended as rhetoric.

I think it's marketing. Saying, 'ah thinks these here argyments are pretty good' would sell fewer than 'these argyments is SO GOOD they turned me into a newt b'liever!'

But it does work as rhetoric. I once pointed out some problems in one of his tales and the counter that was offered was 'if the evidence was that bad, he wouldn't have been saved!'

But the reason that it works as rhetoric and a marketing tool is because people do actually buy these arguments. There is no reason to assume that Strobel is not actually one of these people. He says that he was once an atheist and is now a Christian and these types of arguments for Christianity are the reason why and there aren't any indications I've seen that this is a lie on his part. There is a rather large difference between accepting bad logic and being dishonest.
 
Back
Top Bottom