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]

Yes, the impact is a personal measurement of one is doing the right thing. However, a positive outcome is not always the measurement as to what will get me closer to my goal. A correct choice might end of with a negative impact on me. An incorrect choice might have a temporary positive impact but be deadly long term.

Example: In the 1940's Jehovah's Witness were imprisoned, beaten and murdered for refusing to accept Hitler as their salvation. All they had to do is renounce their God and the Bible by signing a piece of paper saying so. When most refused they were taken to concentration camps. There many died from starvation, disease, exhaustion, exposure and to beatings. 273 died from refusing to join Hitler's army. All of these brave people died to the right thing and they will see the Earth free of such things in their future because of their choices, even though it had a negative impact on them. There is an account of one Witness that did sign the papers and while they did not die in a prison, they did die in the air raids over Germany a couple of years later in a state of denying Jehovah as their God. Will that person see the promised paradise Earth? I don't know.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... -witnesses

Therefore, you seem to be acknowledging where it is possible to learn from other people's mistakes in that you observed where the consequences of their actions did not ultimately function to achieve the intended goal. So, would you agree that it is reasonable to abductively infer from the long-term consequences a particular action whether that action should continue or not regardless of what the short-term consequences may have been for the people who initiated the particular action?

[2timothy316]

Yes, the impact is a personal measurement of one is doing the right thing. However, a positive outcome is not always the measurement as to what will get me closer to my goal. A correct choice might end of with a negative impact on me. An incorrect choice might have a temporary positive impact but be deadly long term.

Example: In the 1940's Jehovah's Witness were imprisoned, beaten and murdered for refusing to accept Hitler as their salvation. All they had to do is renounce their God and the Bible by signing a piece of paper saying so. When most refused they were taken to concentration camps. There many died from starvation, disease, exhaustion, exposure and to beatings. 273 died from refusing to join Hitler's army. All of these brave people died to the right thing and they will see the Earth free of such things in their future because of their choices, even though it had a negative impact on them. There is an account of one Witness that did sign the papers and while they did not die in a prison, they did die in the air raids over Germany a couple of years later in a state of denying Jehovah as their God. Will that person see the promised paradise Earth? I don't know.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... -witnesses

Therefore, you seem to be acknowledging where it is possible to learn from other people's mistakes in that you observed where the consequences of their actions did not ultimately function to achieve the intended goal.

Are we speaking of the goal of living to see a world free of violence, famine, etc? If so, mistakes are not guaranteed to keep the person from that goal. That is why I said "I don't know" if a person that denies God when they are in fear of their life will lose out on the their goal of reaching a paradise Earth. Because now reaching that goal is in the hands of God's judgement of their heart. Did they never care about following God's commandments? Or were they caught at a moment of weakness? The apostle Peter denied he knew God's Son Jesus on the night of Jesus' death. Yet Peter was forgiven. It is clear Peter was judged not by his single moment of weakness and it apparently didn't keep him from his goal of being one of Christ's brothers. On the other hand if a person killed because of their loyalty there will be no judgement for that person. It's a 'get out of jail and move directly to Go!' card for those that are faithful to the end, their salvation is guaranteed. It's just when a person is not faithful to the end, their salvation is not guaranteed and yet neither is their failure to attain their goal guaranteed.

So, would you agree that it is reasonable to abductively infer from the long-term consequences a particular action whether that action should continue or not regardless of what the short-term consequences may have been for the people who initiated the particular action?

I am no sure how to answer this. It's a bit confusing as to what it is you're asking.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #163]

If your theistic belief encourages a particular action, is there any quantity or quality of evidence demonstrating the facilitation rather than the resolution of the problems you've identified that would cause you to responsibly refuse to take the particular action?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #163]

If your theistic belief encourages a particular action, is there any quantity or quality of evidence demonstrating the facilitation rather than the resolution of the problems you've identified that would cause you to responsibly refuse to take the particular action?

The best way to describe this is the yellow light of a traffic light. Sometimes we need to hit the break, sometimes we need to step on the gas and sometimes no change in speed is needed. Much like a yellow light, God's commandments are on principle. They are not set in rigid stone like written law is. In the example of drunkenness, that is one that one should always hit the brakes on. However, even though it is ok to have an alcoholic drink sometimes or just cruse through the yellow light, there are times when it's not ok to drink at all. For example one should not drink around a person that struggles with alcoholism. This would be a violation of the principle of loving one's neighbor or friend. One wouldn't want to tempt a person that has a weakness around alcohol. So hitting the brakes at the yellow light would be best.

Yet how about a time when pressing on the accelerator is the best coarse of action? There is a commandment in the Bible to follow the rules of the government of the land one is in. However, that commandment can be zoomed passed if they make a law that goes against one of God's commandments. For example, I believe that to love one's neighbor and one's enemy. The Bible says I should be a peacemaker and as long as it is up to me, then I should seek peace. Therefore I would never join the armed forces. If there were a draft and my number was called I would refuse and I would likely be put in prison or worse. That being said, if a stranger is coming toward me with a gun with the intent to shoot me dead, if I can't run away, then I have the right to defend myself.

The examples above have been proven over and over again they are the best coarse of action. Folks that don't get drunk live longer. Those that don't drink around recovering alcoholics save their friends from guilt or worse. Those that have loved their enemies have actually changed hearts from violent to peaceful and hatred to loving. All of these things are beneficial for us. However, these actions will not bring about the paradise all mankind would like to see. These actions could however help a person see that day come true.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #163]

If your theistic belief encourages a particular action, is there any quantity or quality of evidence demonstrating the facilitation rather than the resolution of the problems you've identified that would cause you to responsibly refuse to take the particular action?

The best way to describe this is the yellow light of a traffic light. Sometimes we need to hit the break, sometimes we need to step on the gas and sometimes no change in speed is needed. Much like a yellow light, God's commandments are on principle. They are not set in rigid stone like written law is. In the example of drunkenness, that is one that one should always hit the brakes on. However, even though it is ok to have an alcoholic drink sometimes or just cruse through the yellow light, there are times when it's not ok to drink at all. For example one should not drink around a person that struggles with alcoholism. This would be a violation of the principle of loving one's neighbor or friend. One wouldn't want to tempt a person that has a weakness around alcohol. So hitting the brakes at the yellow light would be best.

Yet how about a time when pressing on the accelerator is the best coarse of action? There is a commandment in the Bible to follow the rules of the government of the land one is in. However, that commandment can be zoomed passed if they make a law that goes against one of God's commandments. For example, I believe that to love one's neighbor and one's enemy. The Bible says I should be a peacemaker and as long as it is up to me, then I should seek peace. Therefore I would never join the armed forces. If there were a draft and my number was called I would refuse and I would likely be put in prison or worse. That being said, if a stranger is coming toward me with a gun with the intent to shoot me dead, if I can't run away, then I have the right to defend myself.

The examples above have been proven over and over again they are the best coarse of action. Folks that don't get drunk live longer. Those that don't drink around recovering alcoholics save their friends from guilt or worse. Those that have loved their enemies have actually changed hearts from violent to peaceful and hatred to loving. All of these things are beneficial for us. However, these actions will not bring about the paradise all mankind would like to see. These actions could however help a person see that day come true.

None of the examples you gave demonstrate where you would responsibly refuse to take an action that your theistic belief encourages. For instance, if your life and the lives of other people in your community were under a demonstrably immanent threat from a foreign military force after all other efforts to secure peace by diplomatic means have failed, would such a circumstance justify a decision to join the armed forces since the threat would be effectively equivalent to someone coming toward you with a gun? If this would not be a justifiable example, then please describe an example where you would not take an action that was encouraged by your theistic belief.

[2timothy316]

For instance, if your life and the lives of other people in your community were under a demonstrably immanent threat from a foreign military force after all other efforts to secure peace by diplomatic means have failed, would such a circumstance justify a decision to join the armed forces since the threat would be effectively equivalent to someone coming toward you with a gun?

It would not justify it. During WWII Jehovah's Witnesses were conquered by Nazi Germany and they did come after them with guns. They still did not meet them with guns. Instead they accepted them as conquers. Because of that courage, the name of God, Jehovah, brought to an exulted position because they non-violently stood up to a murderous man. What they did went beyond themselves and lowly men and women became righteous in the eyes of God and people. The owner of the piece of dirt I stand on doesn't change my loyalty. I do not mind dying for peace if it comes to that, but I will not kill for it. What are minds changed to by those that kill and die by war? What are minds changed to by those dying for peace? The JWs, though some 1000 did die, many more didn't and the Bible principles they lived by survived and Nazi Germany didn't.

http://learnandremember.org/pdf/jehovahs-witness.pdf

If this would not be a justifiable example, then please describe an example where you would not take an action that was encouraged by your theistic belief.

I do not know of a justifiable one. Seeing Jehovah is the God of Justice, He sets all justifiable standards. If it is not set my Him then what right do I have to set what is just?

[bluegreenearth]

I do not know of a justifiable one. Seeing Jehovah is the God of Justice, He sets all justifiable standards. If it is not set my Him then what right do I have to set what is just?

Do you detect any logical or ethical problem with committing to or justifying an action based on the claim that a God commands the particular action be taken despite the fact that this claim cannot be demonstrated as true or false?

[2timothy316]

I do not know of a justifiable one. Seeing Jehovah is the God of Justice, He sets all justifiable standards. If it is not set my Him then what right do I have to set what is just?

Do you detect any logical or ethical problem with committing to or justifying an action based on the claim that a God commands the particular action be taken despite the fact that this claim cannot be demonstrated as true or false?

I'm shocked you're asking what I use as a demonstration of proof if something is true or false! Didn't you tell me not to ask for proof?

At any rate, I do not find anything illogical or unethical. While not everything has been proven to me about all actions, what proof has been demonstrated has all come back as the best course of action to see a better world. My personal experience combined with that of other accounts of those that have proven it to themselves indeed does point that God's commandments are the way to go if one wants to see a better world. That course also does more, as it reaches out to others to follow those commandments as well. For example, when a persecutor sees a person refuse to kill and they are treated with kindness, they wonder why that act that way. Hearts have been turned toward better ways of living because of one person's actions of kindness. Commandments from God are for the benefit of all mankind, I do not see that as illogical or unethical. Going to war is not a promise that anyone will be saved for a better world. Not going to war is a promise of a better future for a person.

[bluegreenearth]

I'm shocked you're asking what I use as a demonstration of proof if something is true or false! Didn't you tell me not to ask for proof?

I didn't ask you for proof that your claim was true. My question included a statement identifying the fact that your claim cannot be demonstrated as true or false. Therefore, given this fact, I was asking if you detected any logical or ethical problems with basing a life or death decision on a claim that you have no way of knowing is true or false when there are other demonstrably falsifiable reasons available for which you could base your decision.

At any rate, I do not find anything illogical or unethical. While not everything has been proven to me about all actions, what proof has been demonstrated has all come back as the best course of action to see a better world. My personal experience combined with that of other accounts of those that have proven it to themselves indeed does point that God's commandments are the way to go if one wants to see a better world. That course also does more, as it reaches out to others to follow those commandments as well. For example, when a persecutor sees a person refuse to kill and they are treated with kindness, they wonder why that act that way. Hearts have been turned toward better ways of living because of one person's actions of kindness. Commandments from God are for the benefit of all mankind, I do not see that as illogical or unethical. Going to war is not a promise that anyone will be saved for a better world. Not going to war is a promise of a better future for a person.

I didn't ask you about whether a particular action itself was illogical or unethical. I asked if it was logically justifiable (not theologically justifiable) to take an action (regardless of what the action might be) based on nothing more than an unverifiable claim that a God commanded the action be taken. To take an action based on previous observations of the action manifesting outcomes that functioned to help achieve the intended goal would be a logically justifiable reason to take the action regardless of whether you believe it was commanded by a God or not. So, if you can demonstrate where taking a particular action is reliably predicted to produce beneficial results for humanity and the planet, then why is it even necessary to reference an unfalsifiable claim about God commanding the action be taken?

[2timothy316]

I'm shocked you're asking what I use as a demonstration of proof if something is true or false! Didn't you tell me not to ask for proof?

I didn't ask you for proof that your claim was true. My question included a statement identifying the fact that your claim cannot be demonstrated as true or false. Therefore, given this fact, I was asking if you detected any logical or ethical problems with basing a life or death decision on a claim that you have no way of knowing is true or false when there are other demonstrably falsifiable reasons available for which you could base your decision.

At any rate, I do not find anything illogical or unethical. While not everything has been proven to me about all actions, what proof has been demonstrated has all come back as the best course of action to see a better world. My personal experience combined with that of other accounts of those that have proven it to themselves indeed does point that God's commandments are the way to go if one wants to see a better world. That course also does more, as it reaches out to others to follow those commandments as well. For example, when a persecutor sees a person refuse to kill and they are treated with kindness, they wonder why that act that way. Hearts have been turned toward better ways of living because of one person's actions of kindness. Commandments from God are for the benefit of all mankind, I do not see that as illogical or unethical. Going to war is not a promise that anyone will be saved for a better world. Not going to war is a promise of a better future for a person.

I asked if it was logically justifiable (not theologically justifiable) to take an action...

There is no difference to me. Something theologically justifiable is also logically justifiable. If a person has been proven to be wiser and more knowledgeable than me and says a certain action is best, then despite what I might think is the right action, isn't it logical to follow the direction of the wiser and more knowledgeable person? Is it logical for one to think they are greater and knows the best course of action than the person that has been proven wiser and more knowledgeable than they are? Not to mention that everyone that has ever done the actions of the wiser person correctly has benefited 100% of the time. Is it not logical to do what the wiser person says?

Example: I have been in a car accident and a piece of glass has penetrated my leg and it is sticking out of my leg. I am about to pull it out, because that seems like the logical thing to do. Then a doctor that witnessed the crash rushes over tells me not to pull the piece of glass out as it is a matter of life and death. Is it logical to reject the doctors advice?

In my view Jehovah God is that doctor trying to save my life by instructing me in the actions I should follow. So theologically justifiable actions are always logically justifiable actions. Yet actions based on my idea of what is logical are not always theologically justifiable actions.