Former Atheists

[Confused]

This week has hit me with 2 surprises that I may have already known, but they didn't register until now and I am trying to better understand it.

Earlier this week, I saw the "Former Atheist" usergroup tag under one member here, reposting and reviewing posts in a debate with another poster, I found in the first page, he actually had a point in which he became agnostic then returned to Christianity, as did the previously mentioned poster. Around the same time, I finished a book that was making comparisons between C.S. Lewis and his stint in atheism returning to Christianity and Freuds rejection of religion in favor of atheism

Now, my confliction is that some of the Christians that I seem to have gained the most respect for, as well as the most perspective from have had periods in which they have not only doubted their faith, but rejected it, and returned to it at a later time. Why this surprised me is easy to see, logically, I fail to understand how one can go from faith to no faith, then return to the same faith they logically rejected. Now, I can see wavering between a Christian God, to a generic God, then back to a Christian God, but what I would like to look at here is for those who at one point in their life, honestly turned their back on their faith to no faith at all, yet at some point regained it.

To clarify here, for discussion:
For those believers who had lost their faith and found it again:

1) How old were you when you lost your faith and why do you think you did?

2) When you lost your faith, did you become atheist (firmly rejected any notion of a God) or agnostic? If you were atheist, what logic or reasoning actually made you return to God? This is the one I am most interested in. I fail to understand how someone can reject a God, while being honest with themselves (ie.. not just rejecting Him because they were pissed off at Him, rather rejecting the notion of one due to lack of evidence to support the existence of one), then somehow, as they mature in life, they all the sudden find this God again. IMHO, if you reject the notion of God out of inquiry and logical reasoning, how can this logic change despite the lack of anything knew in the past 2000+ years to change your logic.

3) Based on your response in #2, did you ever really lose your faith, or just take a siesta from it? Were you ever really atheist? Can you claim "former atheist" then try to logically explain how you are now no longer atheist?

[Furrowed Brow]

The lack of response to this thread is interesting. The silence telling.

I too find it very difficult to see how anyone can truly be an atheist and return to Christianity. To be honest I think that journey is impossible. But that is just me; and I was never a theist let alone a Christian in the first place.

I suspect many confuse their doubt or rejection of christianity for atheism.

[achilles12604]

My apologies. I didn't really see this one and so didn't respond to it until furrowed brought it back to the top of the page.

1) How old were you when you lost your faith and why do you think you did?

In my teens and early college. The reason I stopped believing was because of the problem of evil. I could not reconcile what I was taught about God with the amount of evil I saw in the world. The old reply of "this world is fallen" just didn't cut it because it did not address the issues brought up by a hand's on, intervening God who would still allow all this to happen.

I was also much more interested in who I was going to spend the night with then God anyway at this point.

2) When you lost your faith, did you become atheist (firmly rejected any notion of a God) or agnostic? If you were atheist, what logic or reasoning actually made you return to God? This is the one I am most interested in. I fail to understand how someone can reject a God, while being honest with themselves (ie.. not just rejecting Him because they were pissed off at Him, rather rejecting the notion of one due to lack of evidence to support the existence of one), then somehow, as they mature in life, they all the sudden find this God again. IMHO, if you reject the notion of God out of inquiry and logical reasoning, how can this logic change despite the lack of anything knew in the past 2000+ years to change your logic.

I came back to belief in God during my trip to Iraq. At first it was emotion and need. When you are all alone, one can disregard logic to find a friend. This was the foot in the door and it was as dishonest as you can imagine. Well it was dishonest at first. But later, I started becoming VERY close with God again and I decided that even though I didn't understand him, or the various illogical errors which caused me to stop believing, I would believe out of choice until I either found an answer to my unknowns, or found absolute proof he didn't exist.

So at first, I believed but I didn't really believe. I just wanted to believe in something. But then I started to really believe again as I saw things and felt things that I had trouble explaining any other way.

Then, I began my journey into apologetics to seek answers to the questions which had previously convinced me that God was impossible.

3) Based on your response in #2, did you ever really lose your faith, or just take a siesta from it? Were you ever really atheist? Can you claim "former atheist" then try to logically explain how you are now no longer atheist?

Knowledge is a funny thing. None of it and a person is ignorant. To much of it and a person is arrogant. And neither of these people is right, or wrong 100% of the time.

I made an assumption based on what knowledge I had. I assumed that the errors I found in the logic of God had no answers. Therefore, God was likewise impossible. But this assumption, when given additional knowledge, was shown to be incorrect because I found answers to the questions which plagued me. I learned that no matter how certain you are about something, new facts can always change the mind of someone who is willing to honestly look.

Many of the answers I have now, I did not find in any apologetical book. And many of the answers in those books are lacking. But I now know that there are really answers to some of these questions and to assume a position is 100% accurate based on incomplete knowledge is foolish. And none of us have complete knowledge.


Was I really an atheist? Yes, I think so. Cephus, McCulloch, Furrowed Brow, The Duke, and everyone else do not believe in God because of facts and problems which they percieve as impossible given God. Likewise, I rejected God out of logical impossibility given my accepted facts.

[Furrowed Brow]

Was I really an atheist? Yes, I think so. Cephus, McCulloch, Furrowed Brow, The Duke, and everyone else do not believe in God because of facts and problems which they perceive as impossible given God. Likewise, I rejected God out of logical impossibility given my accepted facts.

I can’t speak for the others but this does not quite capture my brand of atheism. Yes I reject many things for lack of evidence and problems to do with logic. But if that was really all there was to it then my state of non belief would be different to the one I inhabit.

Being an atheist is a demand to strive for clarity of logic, thought and evidence; and admit for conversation and discourse only that which can be said clearly; and then admit all beliefs as tentative. Atheism - for me- is to accept that the instability of our knowledge. The “truth” and “certainties” provided by religion are an anathema . How can I be so certain that everything is uncertain - well I can’t. I’m uncertain about that. And around and around I go until I find a still place at the eye of the storm. Here there is no God or sense of God. And the uncertainty makes complete sense. I can’t say as a point of knowledge that there is no God, I just feel there is no God. I have on various occasion said I am an irrational atheist. By that I mean I do not reach this conclusion as a point of logic. I reach and sustain the stillness by the way I am orientated. The direction and thrust of my intellectual and emotional engagement with the world in which I find myself gives me peace and brings the world into clearer focus. The times things start to go blurry are when I only have a loose grip on self honesty and rigour.

This is why I cannot imagine how it is possible to journey from being an atheist to being a Christian. It is to let things go blurry. So to make that journey requires the non belief you had, to feel completely different to the way non belief feels to me. On another thread I think Cathar has said that some theists wear their religion well - or something like that - and I agree. I think that would be you Achilles. But if you were an atheist it obviously did not wear well on you and failed to bring things into focus let alone give you peace.

So I guess I am saying there is more to atheism that sceptics, or empiricism, or dissatisfaction with the tenets of organised religion. It is a way of being.

[realthinker]

This is why I cannot imagine how it is possible to journey from being an atheist to being a Christian. It is to let things go blurry. So to make that journey requires the non belief you had, to feel completely different to the way non belief feels to me. On another thread I think Cathar has said that some theists wear their religion well - or something like that - and I agree. I think that would be you Achilles. But if you were an atheist it obviously did not wear well on you and failed to bring things into focus let alone give you peace.

So I guess I am saying there is more to atheism that sceptics, or empiricism, or dissatisfaction with the tenets of organised religion. It is a way of being.

What we believe is the basis for our reasoning. Its a set of facts and ideas that let us solve the problems we're faced with every day. As we mature our understanding of the problems change. One poster recognized the problem of evil and religion was not satisfying that problem, so he abandoned it. As he matured, I'm supposing, his understanding of that problem changed, so he could once again accept his religion.

Furrowed, I think you've likely reached a level where your understanding of life's problems is probably pretty static. That understanding makes atheism a viable part of your beliefs. Those religious who, "wear their religion well," have likely found the same stability in their understanding of life's problems, but it's different. Religion is what's viable for them.

It's the matter of differing notions of "truth". Truth is a set of facts that we observe directly, plus the set of consistent ideas, genuine or otherwise, that completes our basis of reasoning. That's all we're ever arguing on here. "What does your version of the truth contain?" If we could enumerate the objective facts and then our further beliefs we could sort it out very nicely. The problem is, there are a LOT of both facts and ideas. We don't live long enough to do that.

[Furrowed Brow]

Furrowed, I think you've likely reached a level where your understanding of life's problems is probably pretty static.

More like jogging and gyrating on the spot. Though I’m going no where I’m hopefully getting fitter.

That understanding makes atheism a viable part of your beliefs.

Well I’ve always been an atheist of one colour or another. Never been a believer. All I kind say is that I’m getting clearer to why I’m an atheist, and why I can never be a believer

And this is perhaps my original point. Atheism is itself a journey of a sorts. To be an atheist you are saying the world is this way and not that. To do that requires a sincere commitment to intellectual honest and self honesty otherwise any conclusion reached is dishonest. And then it requires going over and over things making sure you are not kidding yourself. This process is perpetual. The “static” part is the sense that anything else is an inadequate effort. You've got to raise a sweat to be an atheist.

It's the matter of differing notions of "truth".

I’m not so sure. I think it is more a commitment to an intellectual movement. A commitment to methodology. I reject say the resurrection because I find the Christian methodology for accepting the resurrection woefully inadequate. Put it this way - even if the resurrection were true I could not accepted it as true because this is what the Gospels say. However I come to a different conclusion because my methodology and the motivations for my methodology are of a completely different hue. I reject the act of faith as intellectually and emotionally flaccid - even if those with faith give witness to the personal experience being powerful and moving.

Truth is a set of facts that we observe directly, plus the set of consistent ideas, genuine or otherwise, that completes our basis of reasoning. That's all we're ever arguing on here.

I think this leaves something out. Methodology. What is true is true. It is how we arrive at our conclusions that defines us. What divides us is the route we take to arrive at our conclusions. I don’t mind being wrong. I just can’t abide the thought of ever adopting the theist methodology. Bbrrr!!

And this is my point. Once atheism has been tried on for size, I can understand the compulsion to reject the world view it provides for it is indeed lacking in narrative and symbolism, but I can’t understand how anyone can go back to scripture and accept the certainties it offers.

[achilles12604]

Was I really an atheist? Yes, I think so. Cephus, McCulloch, Furrowed Brow, The Duke, and everyone else do not believe in God because of facts and problems which they perceive as impossible given God. Likewise, I rejected God out of logical impossibility given my accepted facts.

I can’t speak for the others but this does not quite capture my brand of atheism. Yes I reject many things for lack of evidence and problems to do with logic. But if that was really all there was to it then my state of non belief would be different to the one I inhabit.

Being an atheist is a demand to strive for clarity of logic, thought and evidence; and admit for conversation and discourse only that which can be said clearly; and then admit all beliefs as tentative. Atheism - for me- is to accept that the instability of our knowledge. The “truth” and “certainties” provided by religion are an anathema . How can I be so certain that everything is uncertain - well I can’t. I’m uncertain about that. And around and around I go until I find a still place at the eye of the storm. Here there is no God or sense of God. And the uncertainty makes complete sense. I can’t say as a point of knowledge that there is no God, I just feel there is no God. I have on various occasion said I am an irrational atheist. By that I mean I do not reach this conclusion as a point of logic. I reach and sustain the stillness by the way I am orientated. The direction and thrust of my intellectual and emotional engagement with the world in which I find myself gives me peace and brings the world into clearer focus. The times things start to go blurry are when I only have a loose grip on self honesty and rigour.

This is why I cannot imagine how it is possible to journey from being an atheist to being a Christian. It is to let things go blurry. So to make that journey requires the non belief you had, to feel completely different to the way non belief feels to me. On another thread I think Cathar has said that some theists wear their religion well - or something like that - and I agree. I think that would be you Achilles. But if you were an atheist it obviously did not wear well on you and failed to bring things into focus let alone give you peace.

So I guess I am saying there is more to atheism that sceptics, or empiricism, or dissatisfaction with the tenets of organised religion. It is a way of being.

And this is a very honest reply. Well done indeed.