Is Atheism to Theism conversion really possible?

[jmars]

I am a former Christian turned atheist and I believe it would be highly improbable that I would ever go back. It is hard for me as well as many staunch atheists to believe it possible or at least probable that very many atheists have converted to Christianity. While many born-agains claim to have previously been atheists, it is, in my opinion, probably because they mostly didn't think about it before. The lack of belief through ignorance is not the same of lack of belief based on evidentiary logic as is the case with me and most atheists who call themselves atheist.

Some christians love to make the claim that "many atheists have converted to Christianity" while unable to name any themselves, so I am curious if any of you have converted from atheism to Christianity, what compelled you to do so, and what were your specific beliefs or non-beliefs before your conversion.

[twobitsmedia]

Wow, another atheist declares himself unable to reason and calls it logical. I am seeing a pattern here...

Ha! I declare no such thing. I declare that I am unable to reason with someone who is incapable of it as is evident by your many other posts.

Are you aware of your contradictory statements: You are able to reason and are unable;
an atheist is not one by degrees, just that they are by degrees...???????

I am seeing a pattern that you are incapable of honest debate.

In other words, "honest debate" to you is that you are right.

For example, symantically picking apart someone's sentences and demanding a definition for something that should be obvious is not debate.

The that is probably why you have such a problem identifying what a Christian or an atheist is. You just pick a definition and expect that everyone is just supposed to know what you mean. But, of course, by your logic, you are right and honest.

From what I've seen, most others here would agree.

And this is supposed to mean something?

Maybe you should pick up a book every once in a while. You should start with a dictionary.

Oh, I do: "Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism." You have been trying to make post after post suggesting that there are real ones and fake ones or strong ones and weak ones or staunch and unstaunch. And logic BTW is "Logic is the study of the principles of valid inference and demonstration." Devoid means: "being without a usual, typical, or expected attribute or accompaniment." So, when you say I am devoid of logic (which can only mean the interpretation of whatever study you put into it), that I do not respond according to your expectation. You are correct. I am devoid of your logic and very proud of it as it turns out.. ...try reading a dictionary some time.

[jmars]

There is no capacity for logical thought in your brain! Is that better? Or are you going to say that the brain is physical and it cannot contain an intangible thing such as logic? How many MA's in English Lit to do you have? None? Well I guess I'm ahead then.

Unable to reason WITH a particular person is different than being unable to reason at all, with anyone. See how you did that again? You tried to make it seem as though I contradicted myself, when actually, you only further displayed your inability to comprehend a sentence.

In other words, "honest debate" to you is that you are right.

No. Read a little further in your wiki definition...

As a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The field of logic ranges from core topics such as the study of validity, fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analysis of reasoning using probability and to arguments involving causality. Logic is also commonly used today in argumentation theory.

Honest debate is that if you say "astronauts are interested in space", I don't say "Define astronaut", or "Define space", or "You're wrong. Astronauts are not more interested in space than astronomers."

Believe it or not, there are actually rules to argumentation. It's called Rhetoric and there are whole books dedicated to teaching the subject.

I don't have to be right. If you presented evidence of the contrary to my belief, I am open to change my belief. But you haven't. Your only tactic is to try to pick apart someone's statements and evidence rather than provide your own.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Kindly read it. Or at least skim it if you must.

My definitions of Atheist and Christianity are perfectly just. Once again I NEVER said there were "real ones" and "fake ones" That is your favorite tactic. Look up "Straw Man" in the link I provided.

And:

logic BTW is "Logic is the study of the principles of valid inference and demonstration." Devoid means: "being without a usual, typical, or expected attribute or accompaniment." So, when you say I am devoid of logic (which can only mean the interpretation of whatever study you put into it), that I do not respond according to your expectation.

You're right. I expected a person on a forum about debate to be capable of honest logical debate. You aren't ,so I was wrong. See how I just admitted to being wrong?

[McCulloch]

Moderator Observtion

This seems to have transformed into a debate about the debaters rather than a debate about the question stated in the OP. Why don't we try to link our comments and responses to the question in the OP? If you cannot relate the comment to the question in the OP, then maybe it is not relevant.

Oh yeah, and do as I say, not as I do.

[twobitsmedia]

There is no capacity for logical thought in your brain! Is that better? Or are you going to say that the brain is physical and it cannot contain an intangible thing such as logic? How many MA's in English Lit to do you have? None? Well I guess I'm ahead then.

If an MA in English lit is the foundation for your logic, then I am not sure what you are ahead of. It says nothing about whether you use it or not or use it well for that matter.

Unable to reason WITH a particular person is different than being unable to reason at all, with anyone.

Anyone can reason with anyone. Is that what you call debate? Finding the ones that agree with you and reason with them? Does not sound like much of a mind challenge to me at all.

See how you did that again? You tried to make it seem as though I contradicted myself, when actually, you only further displayed your inability to comprehend a sentence.

If you did not contradict yourself, can I make you "seem" to?

In other words, "honest debate" to you is that you are right.

No. Read a little further in your wiki definition...

I read it all, thanks.

As a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The field of logic ranges from core topics such as the study of validity, fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analysis of reasoning using probability and to arguments involving causality. Logic is also commonly used today in argumentation theory.

I would be curious the point of that?

Honest debate is that if you say "astronauts are interested in space", I don't say "Define astronaut", or "Define space", or "You're wrong. Astronauts are not more interested in space than astronomers."

Well, we are not debating astronauts so your analogy makes no sense.

Believe it or not, there are actually rules to argumentation. It's called Rhetoric and there are whole books dedicated to teaching the subject.

So your astronaut analogy was an example of rhetoric? Or do you really think it mean some of equivalence to "God."?

I don't have to be right. If you presented evidence of the contrary to my belief, I am open to change my belief. But you haven't. Your only tactic is to try to pick apart someone's statements and evidence rather than provide your own.

You havent clarified your belief. Each time you do then you claim it is sarcasm, or that an atheist is not one by degrees just by degrees?? You restated what "logic" is from the dictionary but I assume by that that you are applying some type of scientific method to your thought and calling it somekind of infallible logic.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Kindly read it. Or at least skim it if you must.

Been there. Done That. Which one of those rules would you like to apply in order to cease your ability to reason and justify it with a rule?

My definitions of Atheist and Christianity are perfectly just.

Which ones ?The real ones (which I dont see) or the sarcastic ones?

Once again I NEVER said there were "real ones" and "fake ones" That is your favorite tactic. Look up "Straw Man" in the link I provided.

Strong ones or weak ones. You mentioned staunch and unstaunch. Your premise was that it is improbable that an atheist can convert, at least not a real one.

You're right. I expected a person on a forum about debate to be capable of honest logical debate. You aren't ,so I was wrong. See how I just admitted to being wrong?

You have admitted you were wrong about me agreeing with you because if someone is not capable of agreeing with you they are not honest. I already said that and you disagreed but then you restated it.

[twobitsmedia]

Moderator Observtion

This seems to have transformed into a debate about the debaters rather than a debate about the question stated in the OP. Why don't we try to link our comments and responses to the question in the OP? If you cannot relate the comment to the question in the OP, then maybe it is not relevant.

I agree.

Oh yeah, and do as I say, not as I do.

I try and overlook that:-)

[RedMasque]

A Question to former Atheists turned Theists, would you have classified yourselves as weak atheist or strong atheists before? What were your thoughts and mindset when you were atheists, and what had made you turn back and go against them?

[Ayah5768]

A Question to former Atheists turned Theists, would you have classified yourselves as weak atheist or strong atheists before? What were your thoughts and mindset when you were atheists, and what had made you turn back and go against them?

Hi! I wasn't sure if I should chime in since the conversation shifted, but since you asked....

First, some history. I was raised in a Christmas-Christian household. At the age of 13 I had a (potentially) horrible accident which resulted in a re-commitment to my faith and I attended church regularly and read my Bible for ~3 years. At 16 I became involved in a Pentecostal church, I "got the Holy Ghost" as evident by "speaking in tongues." I was very dedicated to my religion until I was 23 or 24. At that point, my sister started having doubts and I, as the researcher in the family, went to work to "prove" something to my sister and "save her soul." The result? I had no choice but to walk away from my faith. It was devastating to me. I "tried on" some other religions but ultimately concluded that it was all superstition. It was at that point that I started debating religion online. My religious history looks something like this:

[center]Strong Theist (fundamentalist Christian)--->Weak Atheist--->Strong Atheist--->Secular Jew---> Agnostic Theist[/center]

My pre-atheist time was (after the age of 13) always very strong theism. My weak atheist time was a period of about a week. Strong atheism lasted several years. Secular Judaism was a choice I made to re-connect to my heritage. Agnostic theism faded in, almost without my noticing it, over the past year or so becoming an acknowledged position in the last couple of weeks.

As an atheist, I found religious people laughable, their arguments silly. That is actually still a position that I maintain most of the time. I did have a weak moment here and there during the first year, which I think came from the fact that I had been brainwashed by a cult-like church and that takes time to recover from. Looking back, I see my atheism as a cleansing period that was absolutely necessary for any real growth on my part.

What made me turn back? Complicated. First let me say that, just as the OP says, I could never go back to Christianity. It was a logical and rational study of the religion that destroyed it for me and I simply can't un-know what I know.

Now, to answer the question--The first thing that happened was a new interest in philosophy. I started getting into all of those questions which are so fun to ponder. My discussions with some of my atheist friends about these questions led me to the conclusion that a lot of atheists (or, at least the ones I know) were at times just as ridiculous as the religious folks I spoke of earlier. I mean, their arguments were more founded, obviously. They were, without question, objectively accurate, but they were completely unable to explore any possibility outside of their own ideas. If it couldn't be pointed to, it didn't exist and was something that you shouldn't think about, shouldn't pursue. That is a position that I used to call "not so open minded that my brain falls out" but eventually came to see as not really open minded at all. To better explain this, lets compare it to mathematics vs. art. Which one is more important? Which one has more value? If one group says it is art and they ignore math, they have gone too far. If the other says it is math and they ignore art, they have also gone too far. Neither side is reasonable, in my opinion.

I had promised myself when I left the church that I would never again be so stuck in my beliefs that I couldn't see anything else. About a year ago I might be able to argue that God called me on that promise. I wouldn't... but I might be able to. In retrospect, that is the time frame during which my fading back began.

At some point during the past year I felt very drawn to my heritage. Particularly, my Jewishness. This happened several times during the course of my life, but never at a time when I could really pursue it. I became really fascinated with the idea that you can't know who you are without knowing where you've been which lead to a dedicated study of the past that is hiding in my DNA.

My intention was to study under a rabbi and become a secular Jew. I didn't know at the time that I would ever claim theism again. I had my naming/commitment ceremony a few months ago (after several months of intense study with a rabbi), but it wasn't until a couple of weeks ago when I found this site and read some posts by a couple of people here that I realized I had become a theist at some undefinable point. It happened without my permission.

I call myself an "agnostic theist" because, as previously stated, I will never be so stuck in my beliefs that I can't see anything else. I will always be attached to Judaism because "Jewish" is who I was before I was, but if the question is "Will you have the same beliefs about God tomorrow that you have today?" The answer is "I'll tell you tomorrow." Why? Because I don't KNOW, I believe. Thus, agnostic theism.

What made me turn back? I don't want to be all cheesy and say "God," but... I really don't have another answer.

[Random Mind]

I am a former Christian turned atheist and I believe it would be highly improbable that I would ever go back. It is hard for me as well as many staunch atheists to believe it possible or at least probable that very many atheists have converted to Christianity. While many born-agains claim to have previously been atheists, it is, in my opinion, probably because they mostly didn't think about it before. The lack of belief through ignorance is not the same of lack of belief based on evidentiary logic as is the case with me and most atheists who call themselves atheist.

Some christians love to make the claim that "many atheists have converted to Christianity" while unable to name any themselves, so I am curious if any of you have converted from atheism to Christianity, what compelled you to do so, and what were your specific beliefs or non-beliefs before your conversion.

Well I'll apologize for the mocking you seemed to have received by a poster or two. That being said, I'll keep this simple and just answer (what seems to me) the core questions.

I have met some atheists in my short life, but their names won't mean much to you. I believe you're correct in the sense that it's very hard to come back to Christianity, after knowing it and then leave it for Atheism. Regardless of what is true, if you reject a line of thinking and pick up the complete opposite line of thinking, I don't imagine you would have much desire to ever go back. I'm not saying you won't, or any atheist wouldn't, I'm just saying it's probably unlikely. The book I've listed below is actually a very well educated man, that went from Christianity, to Atheism (studied at Oxford) back to Christianity.

I'd also like to add, it might be a different experience if a life long Atheist converted to Christianity. Keeping in mind that this person didn't have a negative encounter, it's likely they'd be more open minded about the belief. I'm not in anyway suggesting you're close minded, but you left the belief for a reason, so there is obviously something keeping you from picking it back up.

I hope that made sense! I apologize for poor grammar or any possible ramblings. I've had a fairly long day and am entirely exhausted.

C.S. Lewis - Surprised By Joy
-This is an account of his journey from Christianity, to atheism and back again to Christianity. Hope that's helpful.

More modern day, I don't have a book to reference, but I know Ravi Zacharias was Atheist turned Christian.

[Vladd44]

Wow, another atheist declares himself unable to reason and calls it logical. I am seeing a pattern here...

Ha! I declare no such thing. I declare that I am unable to reason with someone who is incapable of it as is evident by your many other posts.

Are you aware of your contradictory statements: You are able to reason and are unable;
an atheist is not one by degrees, just that they are by degrees...???????

What a misleading methodology, Please show the contradiction now that I have corrected the quoting.

Wow, another atheist declares himself unable to reason and calls it logical. I am seeing a pattern here...

Ha! I declare no such thing. I declare that I am unable to reason with someone who is incapable of it as is evident by your many other posts.

Are you aware of your contradictory statements: You are able to reason and are unable;
an atheist is not one by degrees, just that they are by degrees...???????

I would hazard a guess that the inability to reason is due to your unwillingness to be reasonable.

[Vladd44]

Never underestimate the devastation that life's events can inflict on one's emotional and cognitive state.

This can also result in people turning away from God. Some emotional event can happen that will cause them to leave God. And if I were to fall away, this would most likely be the reason for me. And it would be highly unlikely that I'd fall away by being confronted with a good argument that God was not real (primarily cause I've never seen one yet).

If you have never seen one yet then how could you presume a specific reaction to the possibility? Past experience would have no bearing since you by your own admission have never come across such a thing. Or are you simply excluding the possibility of a good argument exists?

I think there are literally hundreds of reasons already posted on this forum that any christian with the ability to honestly evaluate the data should run screaming from their god.

I was a weak atheist prior to becoming a Christian. There were no major traumatic events going on when I decided to follow God when I was a freshman in college (unless you count finals as traumatic). The initial evidence for me that God was real was backmasking. A Christian group presented a seminar on it and asked how did it get there. To make a long story short, I accepted that a supernatural answer was the best explanation. Then awhile later, I started the journey of exploring Creationism. And the more I studied it over the years, the more sense it made to me than a purely naturalistic explanation.

Your initial reason to believe in god was a recording technique? Or do you suppose that the supposed "satanic" messages of 80's rock music were put on there supernaturally by the boogie-man aka your Devil?

The follow-up was that it was more sensible to accept the word of creation/ new earth [strike]science[/strike] quackery over hundreds of years of data?

I am just trying to understand. I must confess that I doubt the legitimacy (or sanity) of anyone claiming to go from non-theism to christian. I just don't see how such a thing is possible without either a traumatic event or a severe head injury.

Most atheists I have known who later converted to the insanity of religion were in fact more non-religious than non-theistic. Often considering themselves atheists more by default than any course of deductive reasoning.

And believe me there is a vast gulf between presuming non-theism and simply being ignorant of the subject.

Had you spent 1/10th of the time on the subject of religion prior to your conversion? Or did the bulk of it come after you realized that god or the devil was hiding subliminal messages in songs?