Former Atheists - What convinced you?

Getting to know more about a particular group

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Former Atheists - What convinced you?

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Former Atheists - What convinced you?

Post #51

Post by Difflugia »

2timothy316 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:49 pmJWs don't associate themselves as being creationists. Not the definition that it is normally associated with. We had to accept that the Earth being created in literal 24 hour days is non-sense.
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesse ... sm-belief/
Duly noted!

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Former Atheists - What convinced you?

Post #52

Post by Tcg »

2timothy316 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:49 pm
Difflugia wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:37 pm
2timothy316 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:36 pmI was arguing this subject before the internet existed.
Amusingly enough, it was a copy of Life—How did it get here? that I found in a used bookstore (while a Christian) in the early 90s that clued me in to the existence of creationists. It wasn't until a few years later that I learned from the internet that there were creationists other than Jehovah's Witnesses.
JWs don't associate themselves as being creationists. Not the definition that it is normally associated with. We had to accept that the Earth being created in literal 24 hour days is non-sense.
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesse ... sm-belief/
What you are describing is Old Earth Creationism:
Old Earth creationism

Old Earth creationism (OEC) is a form of creationism which includes day-age creationism, gap creationism and progressive creationism.

Broadly speaking, OEC occupies a middle ground between young Earth creationism (YEC) and theistic evolution (TE). In contrast to YEC, it is typically more compatible with the scientific evidence on the issues of physics, chemistry, geology, and the age of the Earth.[1] But, like YEC and in contrast with TE, it rejects macroevolution, claiming it is biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record,[2] and the concept of universal descent from a last universal common ancestor.
JWs are clearly creationists who accept some scientific knowledge, but reject it when it contradicts the mythologies their faith relies on.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4161
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 457 times

Re: Former Atheists - What convinced you?

Post #53

Post by 2timothy316 »

Tcg wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:13 pm
2timothy316 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:49 pm
Difflugia wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:37 pm
2timothy316 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:36 pmI was arguing this subject before the internet existed.
Amusingly enough, it was a copy of Life—How did it get here? that I found in a used bookstore (while a Christian) in the early 90s that clued me in to the existence of creationists. It wasn't until a few years later that I learned from the internet that there were creationists other than Jehovah's Witnesses.
JWs don't associate themselves as being creationists. Not the definition that it is normally associated with. We had to accept that the Earth being created in literal 24 hour days is non-sense.
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesse ... sm-belief/
What you are describing is Old Earth Creationism:
Old Earth creationism

Old Earth creationism (OEC) is a form of creationism which includes day-age creationism, gap creationism and progressive creationism.

Broadly speaking, OEC occupies a middle ground between young Earth creationism (YEC) and theistic evolution (TE). In contrast to YEC, it is typically more compatible with the scientific evidence on the issues of physics, chemistry, geology, and the age of the Earth.[1] But, like YEC and in contrast with TE, it rejects macroevolution, claiming it is biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record,[2] and the concept of universal descent from a last universal common ancestor.
JWs are clearly creationists who accept some scientific knowledge, but reject it when it contradicts the mythologies their faith relies on.


Tcg
We reject all myths. Including abiogenesis.
What do you know is myth and what is real? You were not there at the beginning of life. You can't show your myth of abiogenesis happening. I will not be told by a person that has faith in abiogenesis what a myth is.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: Former Atheists - What convinced you?

Post #54

Post by bluegreenearth »

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #54]

Do all inductive inferences qualify as myths in your opinion?

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"We generally think that the observations we make are able to justify some expectations or predictions about observations we have not yet made, as well as general claims that go beyond the observed. For example, the observation that bread of a certain appearance has thus far been nourishing seems to justify the expectation that the next similar piece of bread I eat will also be nourishing, as well as the claim that bread of this sort is generally nourishing. Such inferences from the observed to the unobserved, or to general laws, are known as “inductive inferences”.
Accordingly, if all prior biological mysteries that were formerly explained by proposing a supernatural cause have been subsequently superseded by natural explanations, then it would be an inductive inference to presume abiogenesis will most likely conform to this pattern and eventually be demonstrated as the most reasonable explanation for the emergence of life. However, this inductive inference doesn't claim it would be impossible for the abiogenesis hypothesis to be proven false or claim the supernatural hypothesis couldn't be true. If this qualifies abiogenesis as a myth, I'm curious to know how you would explain the fact that other stories written in the genre of literature traditionally labeled as "myth" do not share any of these characteristics apart from having an inability to determine if the imagined explanations they propose are referring to things and events that actually exist in reality?

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4161
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 457 times

Re: Former Atheists - What convinced you?

Post #55

Post by 2timothy316 »

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #55]

Based on this post, I'm guessing you have only read the last few post and have not read this entire thread and have no idea what I'm looking for.
As far as abiogenesis goes and your quote from the encyclopedia it doesn't fit with issue of abiogenesis. So I don't know why you're quoting it. I'm not looking to prove to anyone an intelligent creator. I'm looking for people like you to prove abiogenesis you're looking to change my mind, or so it appears...because I mean why spend so much time talking and talking and talking with nothing to show for it. So you must be trying to convince me to your view point because I don't care if you take my view point or not. You will not be able to talk me into believing as you do. Show only. Show me abiogenesis happening right in front of my face. Or tell me where I can go to watch it happen. This is not a debating forum either. Note the title of the thread. I answered and like ants to a picnic, here comes the atheist to try to change my mind back. Or do you just want hear yourself talk so as to keep yourself convinced because I need physical proof, not talk to change my mind.

Do I make myself clear? There is nothing you can say that will change my mind.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: Former Atheists - What convinced you?

Post #56

Post by bluegreenearth »

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #56]

Nothing in my response to your post was an argument for you to believe in the abiogenesis hypothesis. I was merely asking a critical thinking question and asking for you to clarify your claim that abiogenesis was a myth. I did not claim abiogenesis had been proven nor would I because science is not in the business of proving anything. The scientific method is designed to acquire a functional knowledge base by attempting to disprove falsifiable hypotheses. At this point in time, the abiogenesis hypothesis is not yet testable for us to know if it is false or not. So, expecting someone to provide proof of an unfalsifiable hypothesis is not only unscientific but illogical. Maybe when the experts finally figure out a way to formulate a falsifiable hypothesis for abiogenesis, it could then be tested for us to know if it is false or not. If a future falsifiable abiogenesis hypothesis manages to survive all the tests designed to try and disprove it, people will be better justified in concluding it is the most reasonable explanation. Until then, the best anyone can do at the moment is make an inductive inference.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Former Atheists - What convinced you?

Post #57

Post by Purple Knight »

Difflugia wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 1:11 pmThe video that 2timothy316 chose to illustrate their position presents a refutation of a seventeenth-century idea of spontaneous generation with the apparent intention of applying it to modern concepts of biogenesis. That wasn't some definitional dodge on my part, but either an honest misunderstanding or intentional straw man on theirs.
If responding only to the video, yes I can understand that. Abiogenesis had to happen at some point. Even if it happened to happen from intelligence once or twice or ten billion times, it is necessary that it happened at least once without intelligence (unless the theists are going to pull out the definitionalism and say God isn't alive).
Difflugia wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 1:11 pmBut that's exactly what it wasn't and that false view is where creationists get their bogus statistical arguments. The "magic moment" would be the presence of a molecule (or complex of molecules) that can catalyze its own replication. Creationist statistical arguments hinge on the probability of something complex appearing de novo, ignoring (or explicitly discounting) the ability of evolution to add complexity over time.
Yes. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the "magic moment" is a simplification, however. (I'm not just saying "I disagree" politely; I'm genuinely not sure.) On the one hand we have a continuum of energy-matter that simply flows rather than truly changes, which is very difficult to conceptualise. I often wonder this myself and I use the example of a cat having kittens. Nothing is created; it's just changed form. All the matter for the kittens came from knowable sources. It's not magic. But on the other hand one has clearly become four, and I'm not sure this is just our limited understanding. Something did happen. It may be that we place undue importance on it due to our limited understanding when it is not so much different than how any other matter behaves, but something did happen, things would be different had it not happened, and since sometimes it doesn't happen, I'm not sure if I can agree with the idea that marking this delineation is, in and of itself, imprecise or inaccurate, though it may be that how we mark it is so.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4161
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 457 times

Re: Former Atheists - What convinced you?

Post #58

Post by 2timothy316 »

bluegreenearth wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:36 pm [Replying to 2timothy316 in post #56]

Nothing in my response to your post was an argument for you to believe in the abiogenesis hypothesis. I was merely asking a critical thinking question and asking for you to clarify your claim that abiogenesis was a myth.
I'm not going to repeat myself. Please feel free to read the entire thread rather than coming in at the tail-end. Thank you!

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4161
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 457 times

Re: Former Atheists - What convinced you?

Post #59

Post by 2timothy316 »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:39 pm
Difflugia wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 1:11 pmThe video that 2timothy316 chose to illustrate their position presents a refutation of a seventeenth-century idea of spontaneous generation with the apparent intention of applying it to modern concepts of biogenesis. That wasn't some definitional dodge on my part, but either an honest misunderstanding or intentional straw man on theirs.
If responding only to the video, yes I can understand that. Abiogenesis had to happen at some point. Even if it happened to happen from intelligence once or twice or ten billion times, it is necessary that it happened at least once without intelligence (unless the theists are going to pull out the definitionalism and say God isn't alive).
Probably be a good idea how I define abiogenesis and biogenesis.

https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/abiogenesis
Abiogenesis: Spontaneous generation, i.e. the previously popular notion that living organisms could spontaneously arise or develop from nonliving matter

https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/biogenesis
Biogenesis: A theory that asserts that living things can only be produced by another living thing, and not by a non-living thing

That word, spontaneously is underlined by me. No one has ever seen this happen. Living things come from non-living matter all the time. But they are made by another living thing. All cells are made using non-living matter. Our bodies make new living cells using the non-living materials we give it. The is what I define as biogenesis. No cell in a person's body ever just popped up by itself. No pond of water has ever been recorded having a single new single celled organism spontaneously come from non-living matter. A single cell spontaneously showing anywhere has never been recorded or seen. The spontaneously made cell is a myth. Which for the definition of myth I'm going with MW 3rd definition. "a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence". However, biogenesis does have a verifiable existence.

Also, thank you PK for being objective in this thread and not insulting my intelligence by telling me "I don't understand" or "I have no idea what I'm talking about." Those that do not insult others because they feel their dogma has been threatened is refreshing.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4161
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 457 times

Re: Former Atheists - What convinced you?

Post #60

Post by 2timothy316 »

bluegreenearth wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:36 pm I was merely asking a critical thinking question and asking for you to clarify your claim that abiogenesis was a myth.
Merriam-Webster's 3rd definition.
"a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence."

Abiogenesis has an unverifiable existence. It only has an imaginary existence.
Biogenesis has a verifiable existence.

In case you want to know what I mean by "imaginary", I will also provide for you the definition for it as well.

Merriam-Webster's 1st definition.
"existing only in imagination : lacking factual reality"

Abiogenesis lacks factual reality. Decades of search and never has it been observed a single time.
Biogenesis is a factual reality as it happens every second of every day and can be observed at anytime.

The spontaneous abiogenesis made cell is an imaginary myth. A person searching for the abiogenesis made cell will find it with the Fountain of Youth where Zeus takes his baths. Interestingly, people made up the imaginary Zeus and the other gods to explain the inexplicable. The abiogenesis cell myth attempts to do the same. Kind of funny.

Post Reply