Former Atheists - What convinced you?

[rikuoamero]

What I'm writing here is for those people who consider themselves to be former atheist i.e. at one point in life, they either lacked a belief in a god of any kind, or actively disbelieved there is a God (there's a difference between the two).
I'm hoping that at least some people who are of this group (and hopefully joined the usergroup called 'Former Atheist' on this site) are/were also skeptical, in that they demanded evidence for religious claims.

My question is - What is it that convinced you? If you were to somehow go back in time and meet your previous, atheist (hopefully skeptic) self, would you or could you use whatever it is that convinced you to convince that version of you? Or would your past self be skeptical and dismissive of what it is you present?

Just to be clear - This isn't restricted to Christians only. You can be a Muslim who considers him/herself former atheist or whatever religion or belief you subscribe to. I want to hear from you.
I also promise NOT to debate in this thread. All I want are responses and your thoughts on this question. I will probably debate elsewhere, but not on this thread. This thread is solely for me to gather information.

[bluegreenearth]

Meanwhile you die from a disease....

What you're suggesting is not a wise course of action.

My course is file something now in either true or false based on what I have learned. Base actions on what I currently have on file. Keep it there until there is proof to suggest otherwise. If something is found then adjust. This method has worked really really well. Rather than being so skeptical that I become inactive when it comes to needing a critical choice to be made.

While you might be stuck where to go in what you will believe to be true, I have already made a choice and followed where the evidence is pointing. What I great choice that ended up being. Just knowing the layout of a ship is not what will keep a person from drowning if it is sinking. Knowing basics like how to read, knowing where they are on the ship and how to get to a lifeboat will not save them either. Acting on the knowledge will. Really all I see in your philosophy is how not to choose and how not to act. I call it "inaction-man". It's what happens when a person is so overwhelmed with choices or so concerned with information that they make no choice or move to any action at all.

Sure, when on a sinking ship, there is a justification for taking short-cuts in order to make a quick decision. However, the question of what caused life to begin existing on Earth is not so time sensitive that a decision must be made immediately.

[2timothy316]

Yet we can't live our lives in a holding pattern while waiting for every single fact to make critical choices. It fine if you need to see how much money to take with you to buy an apple. Yet there are times in life where you can't wait for every single piece of information before you make a choice and act. If I was on a sinking ship I do not have the luxury learning every single bit of information about the ship I'm on. I need to know only a few things to make a best choice of action. I will be looking for signs to direct me in the right direction though I might not know the lay out of the whole ship. So this philosophy is great when you have all the time you'd want, but disasters and time in need of critical action do not consult philosophy.

Yes, for time sensitive choices, there may be a justification for taking short-cuts in some circumstances. However, I do not perceive the question of life's origins to be time sensitive such that a short-cut would be justified.

I do perceive it to be extremely time sensitive as death follows us all so we have limited time to figure out a lot of stuff. Is the life all we have? Or is there a way to keep living?

If one doesn't care about their death, then what are we leaving behind for the future generations of people? Should we look to human governments to make the right choices for mankind? For the planet? Should I be supporting one form of government over the other? Is there a correct way to carry out justice? How should life be lived? How and what should children be taught? Should we even care about anyone else?

What if there is a shortcut to navigate these things or better yet road to follow to address them all?

How a person answers these questions and many many more will be determined in some part by what a person believes about the origins of life and mankind. The atheist might put their energy into politics and science to make their life and future generations lives' better. Why? Since mankind is here by accident and to them there is no God, they might feel this life is all they have and they better make the most of it. Because to them, no one is coming to help and they will not live forever. The agnostic person might do nothing but live by their own code and let the answer come to them. They might not get involved with politics or the future of the planet or they might do just the opposite. Like a boat with sails and no rudder they might just go wherever the wind takes them. Why? They don't perceive the origin of life as all that important. The theist might put all of their energy into living a life with ritual and service to others hoping to extend their life perhaps to eternity by pleasing a deity. Why? Because they might feel that they owe it to their creator or they are in fear of what their creator might do.

So if you feel the answer to origin of life is not critical that is completely up to you. I on the other hand do find it time sensitive. I am not getting younger and I care very much about the people around me, those in the whole Earth and those that will come after me. I'm on a sinking ship of a planet that can't sustain what we are currently doing to it. Mankind needs this planet. My family and friends need this planet. I need this planet. I need the truth on the best way to use my life for myself and everyone else.

So yes, I'm moving forward as a person that needs to make time sensitive choices. I cannot wait for every piece of the puzzle that might not ever come in order to choose how to live my life and serve my fellow man. Thus have filed "Is there an Intelligent Creator" under yes. Because filed under no was a completely dead end as was not being filed at all. Moving that file to yes and acting on it turned out to be the best choice I have ever made.

[bluegreenearth]

I do perceive it to be extremely time sensitive as death follows us all so we have limited time to figure out a lot of stuff. Is the life all we have? Or is there a way to keep living?

If one doesn't care about their death, then what are we leaving behind for the future generations of people? Should we look to human governments to make the right choices for mankind? For the planet? Should I be supporting one form of government over the other? Is there a correct way to carry out justice? How should life be lived? How and what should children be taught? Should we even care about anyone else?

What if there is a shortcut to navigate these things or better yet road to follow to address them all?

How a person answers these questions and many many more will be determined in some part by what a person believes about the origins of life and mankind. The atheist might put their energy into politics and science to make their life and future generations lives' better. Why? Since mankind is here by accident and to them there is no God, they might feel this life is all they have and they better make the most of it. Because to them, no one is coming to help and they will not live forever. The agnostic person might do nothing but live by their own code and let the answer come to them. They might not get involved with politics or the future of the planet or they might do just the opposite. Like a boat with sails and no rudder they might just go wherever the wind takes them. Why? They don't perceive the origin of life as all that important. The theist might put all of their energy into living a life with ritual and service to others hoping to extend their life perhaps to eternity by pleasing a deity. Why? Because they might feel that they owe it to their creator or they are in fear of what their creator might do.

So if you feel the answer to origin of life is not critical that is completely up to you. I on the other hand do find it time sensitive. I am not getting younger and I care very much about the people around me, those in the whole Earth and those that will come after me. I'm on a sinking ship of a planet that can't sustain what we are currently doing to it. Mankind needs this planet. My family and friends need this planet. I need this planet. I need the truth on the best way to use my life for myself and everyone else.

So yes, I'm moving forward as a person that needs to make time sensitive choices. I cannot wait for every piece of the puzzle that might not ever come in order to choose how to live my life and serve my fellow man. Thus have filed "Is there an Intelligent Creator" under yes. Because filed under no was a completely dead end as was not being filed at all. Moving that file to yes and acting on it turned out to be the best choice I have ever made.

The scientific method for acquiring knowledge, when appropriately understood and applied, has achieved more progress towards resolving most of the concerns you've mentioned above than any other proposed method to date. As such, it is only reasonable to abductively infer from the overwhelming, undeniable, and continued success of science that it appears to have the most reliable method for acquiring the knowledge we need to achieve our goals. This isn't to suggest that we shouldn't continue to consider and test other methods. If the methods of theism were to ever demonstrate more reliable results for acquiring the knowledge we need to achieve our goals, then it would be reasonable to prefer theism over the scientific method in those circumstances. However, theism currently exhibits an unfortunate track record of having most of its explanations for real world phenomena replaced by scientific explanations. This trend has even inspired a logical fallacy known as the "God of the gaps" fallacy.

As for extending our lives, science has also been the only method thus far that has exhibited achievements in this area. Had we stuck to theistic methods, the world might still be consulting exorcists rather than medical doctors to help them survive the common cold. There has even been credible speculation on our potential future technological ability to extend human lives to the point where people would more likely die at a moment of their choosing rather than die from natural causes. Of course, the question of whether anyone who previously desired immortality would eventually regret it if they found themselves in a situation where they could never cease to exist is a topic for another thread.

Lastly, I never claimed all the puzzle pieces were required to make reasonable abductive inferences. Sure, we should continue searching for and collecting data where possible. However, there will be some questions that we'll probably never have satisfactory answers for during our lifetime. I've learned to be comfortable with the fact that I'm not likely to ever receive answers to some of those questions. Nonetheless, I do continue searching for those answers using the most responsible and reliable methods at my disposal. Since science is the most demonstrably reliable method thus far for acquiring a functional knowledge base, I'll defer to scientific abductive inferences over theistic abductive inferences until theism is able to provide falsifiable hypotheses that survive all the tests designed to try and disprove them.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #144]
All of what you said is directed by your view of the origin of life. No matter the answer you give for that question, God, no God, God of the gaps, scientific abductive inferences over theistic abductive inferences etc etc it affects your actions and how you effect your fellow man. Even inaction affects you and the world around you. Apparently you have chosen mankind to give mankind it's best chance of survival. So be it. I decided that to trust mankind to save itself is a fallacy.

If you feel no sense of urgency, this is also dictated by your answer to the origin of life. Even no answer because you're waiting for an answer is an answer because truth doesn't depend on what you or I know. Truth is objective not subjective. There is either no intelligent creator/s or there is one. If there isn't then we better get to work as a human race to get this planet right to stand a chance of survival. If there is a God then we better figure out what actions we need to take in order to keep living. Either way we need to commit to something and act on it. However, if we all choose nothing and do nothing then disaster for the entire human race is 100% guaranteed.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #145]

I never claimed to be taking no actions. In fact, the majority of my personal and my entire professional life thus far has been dedicated to environmental protection and civil service. It is admirable that you also profess a passion for maximizing the well-being of your fellow humans and our natural resources. If your belief in a god is a positive influence for you in that respect, that is fine by me. Our different perspectives on the topic of abiogenesis do not prohibit us from cooperating towards achieving our shared goal.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #146]

Action is great, now the question is are they the right actions?

[bluegreenearth]

Action is great, now the question is are they the right actions?

If my actions are not functioning to achieve our common goal, then I expect the observable consequences of my actions will function to falsify my claim that they are.

[2timothy316]

Action is great, now the question is are they the right actions?

If my actions are not functioning to achieve our common goal, then I expect the observable consequences of my actions will function to falsify my claim that they are.

Except if the 'observable consequences to falsify their claim' is major harm or death is not a good.
In other words if a person places their trust in mankind for salvation of mankind only to back the wrong thing when that person should have been backing Almighty God. As they are about to die only then do they understand they were doing the wrong actions. They had plenty of warning too but because they ignored the 'more likely answer' that there was an intelligent creator of the first life form, they chose all their actions as if there wasn't one.

[bluegreenearth]

Except if the 'observable consequences to falsify their claim' is major harm or death is not a good.
In other words if a person places their trust in mankind for salvation of mankind only to back the wrong thing when that person should have been backing Almighty God. As they are about to die only then do they understand they were doing the wrong actions. They had plenty of warning too but because they ignored the 'more likely answer' that there was an intelligent creator of the first life form, they chose all their actions as if there wasn't one.

The question being asked was how would I know if my actions towards achieving our common goal were the right actions. My response is that, if I were taking the wrong actions, the consequences would be observed to detract from our common goal. So far, most of my actions have not been observed to detract from our common goal. Therefore, it is reasonable for me to abductively infer that most of my actions are functioning to help achieve our common goal. Is there an equivalent method for determining if actions taken in this life to back a particular god are not functioning to help achieve our common goal? Would you discontinue taking an action to back a particular god if that action is observed to detract from our common goal? Would it be rational for someone to continue taking an action if it is routinely observed to detract from a common goal?

Logic dictates that neither of us can know if a god does not exist. You are arguing it is better to base our decisions on the assumption that a particular god exists. Equivalently, neither of us can know that we aren't being monitored by an extra-terrestrial intelligence using advanced technology at some undisclosed location. Using your reasoning, should we base our decisions on the assumption that an extra-terrestrial intelligence is monitoring our activity because the possibility cannot be ruled-out? Should we all start wearing tin-foil hats on the unlikely chance that it might possibly block alien technology designed to read our thoughts? Conversely, do we choose our actions as if there isn't an extra-terrestrial intelligence monitoring our behavior?

Should we take seriously the warnings about extra-terrestrials abducting humans in their sleep? Will it be too late when we suddenly find ourselves being teleported to an alien space ship? As an extra-terrestrial intelligence is about to implant a probe in our brains, will we realize that our actions were wrong? Say what you will about this ridiculous analogy, but it directly mirrors your logic.

[2timothy316]

Except if the 'observable consequences to falsify their claim' is major harm or death is not a good.
In other words if a person places their trust in mankind for salvation of mankind only to back the wrong thing when that person should have been backing Almighty God. As they are about to die only then do they understand they were doing the wrong actions. They had plenty of warning too but because they ignored the 'more likely answer' that there was an intelligent creator of the first life form, they chose all their actions as if there wasn't one.

The question being asked was how would I know if my actions towards achieving our common goal were the right actions. My response is that, if I were taking the wrong actions, the consequences would be observed to detract from our common goal. So far, most of my actions have not been observed to detract from our common goal. Therefore, it is reasonable for me to abductively infer that most of my actions are functioning to help achieve our common goal. Is there an equivalent method for determining if actions taken in this life to back a particular god are not functioning to help achieve our common goal? Would you discontinue taking an action to back a particular god if that action is observed to detract from our common goal? Would it be rational for someone to continue taking an action if it is routinely observed to detract from a common goal?

My goal is to back who is most likely to end violence, sickness, hate, famine, destruction of the earth but rather bring peace, end all hate, bring security, and health to all mankind. From my abductive reasoning, it is not mankind that is going to make this happen. Mankind for it's thousands of years of rule hasn't brought an end to these bad things but brought more.