(I have to got to figure out how to "quote" text in a thread)

blockquote tags

brgulker says: "I thought atheism was simply a non-belief in God. I didn't realize intellectual engagement was a criterion and prerequisite.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I sincerely think I don't have a very thorough understanding of what people mean when they self-identify as atheists."

(I have to got to figure out how to "quote" text in a thread)

Durmphoto: Most atheists I know have carefully considered the questions that come from religion. There is a difference between "not caring about religion, or others" and "carefully considering what religion purports to do, and where it fails - and finding a purpose and meaning to life without the need for a invisible supervisor". You can be self-centered, not care about anyone or anything beyond yourself and call your self an atheist - but the two are not the same.

Sock, a lot of these apologists say they were mad at God, so that's not technically atheism.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. If you're mad at a god, you can't be an atheist.

If you haven't thought about belief in gods, you're probably not an atheist.

I'm not going to question A.N. Wilson's conversion because he demonstrated that he did not have a belief in gods, and now he does. That is pretty straightforward.

I am going to be suspicious when people who seem to have not thought about it at all or believed in a god but didn't practice their religion say that they were atheists for the sake of their credibility.

So they're not true atheists, Tele?

Let's not use that argument, even if it does make sense.

brgulker, I think going through the details of Cameron's story, it would be more honest to say that he was an apatheist, who didn't really care or think about religion, than to say that he was an atheist.

Thunderf0ot (on YouTube) doesn't even use the word atheist, but he uses the term Pearlist (Physical Evidence and Reasoned Logic).

It seems that many Christian apologists like to say that they were atheists for shock value or credibility when they really only didn't think about religion, believed in a god but hated their god (?), or simply didn't follow the rules they thought they should be following. That's not atheism, and the issue here is that Cameron and other evangelists such as Lee Strobel should be honest enough to admit the difference.

If you look at Cameron's history, you can see a self centered, thoughtless young man (in his own words). However, there is no intellectual engagement in the idea of morality, religion, or our perception of the world. Admittedly, he did not look beyond his own narrow needs. It was his "religious awakening" that gave him his new world view.

I thought atheism was simply a non-belief in God. I didn't realize intellectual engagement was a criterion and prerequisite.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I sincerely think I don't have a very thorough understanding of what people mean when they self-identify as atheists.

DonnyPauling says: "As far as I can recall, in John 3:16 Jesus didn't say, "...that whosoever believes in me and doesn't believe in 'magic underpants', believes the eucharist contains my literal body and blood, doesn't believe X, believes Y, but totally stays away from Z - will not perish but have everlasting life." – A "true Christian" is one who accepts Jesus as the perfect substitute for his/her imperfect life."

DurmPhoto says: So those who murder in the name of Jesus are "true christians"? Those who rape little boys in the back room of the church are "true christians"? Priests who use fraud to steal the estates of their elderly, dying congregants are "true christians"? Pastors that transport little girls across state lines to be sexual slaves are "true christians"? They claim to be christians as you do. "Accepting Jesus" can be twisted to mean anything. (Trials and convictions can be linked to each of these examples if you desire to see them)

Christians don't have a monopoly when it comes to criminal behavior. But they often claim a high moral ground and a special purpose in the name of "Jesus". This idea has never really held water except in the mind of the faithful. But lately, even that cup seems to be leaking.

<i>"A 'true Christian' is one who accepts Jesus as the perfect substitute for his/her imperfect life."</i>

Many true Christians disagree with you. In fact, it's a major source of disagreement called "substitutionary atonement", which tends to be stressed by Protestant and evangelical sects, but not accepted by the Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox.

It is obvious to me that all religions are made-up. I don't see how I could possibly be convinced that any religion is true. I am hypothetically open to the idea, but I really cannot conceive of what possible circumstances would convince me. (Perhaps some impossible ones, but I understand what the word means.) I don't think someone could be an atheist "like me" and subsequently reconvert.

But of course, (to paraphrase) there is only one "right path", the others are not "true christians".

As far as I can recall, in John 3:16 Jesus didn't say, "...that whosoever believes in me and doesn't believe in 'magic underpants', believes the eucharist contains my literal body and blood, doesn't believe X, believes Y, but totally stays away from Z - will not perish but have everlasting life."

A "true Christian" is one who accepts Jesus as the perfect substitute for his/her imperfect life.

Within "trendy" churches, the current popular term for the unchurched is: pre-Christian. :)

I agree "unchurched" is a much better term. They are also relatively easy to convert once their current/former lifestyle collapses or becomes boring to them.

@Daniel: I've also found when people say they used to be "atheists" they seem to be talking about something very different than what I am.

"Unchurched" is what I call it. People who just don't think much about it. It's an old term for those who live in religious population but don't partake in the rituals. If you push them, they'll mutter something vague about believing in a God, but it just doesn't seem that important to them.

There's an article in the NYTimes today, "Some X Games Bad Boys Turn to the Bible". These guys were heavy into extreme sports and the image and lifestyle that went with it. At some point, that stopped working and they converted. But I don't think you can say that they were atheists. They were just so involved with their lifestyle that religion didn't seem important. I'd call them "unchurched".

I've also found when people say they used to be "atheists" they seem to be talking about something very different than what I am. It often seems to be a label for not caring much about spiritual things, and perhaps a doubt about God, but often they believed in some kind of higher power.

Of course, there really are atheists "like me" who convert to Christianity. But I haven't met one. People who are evidence-based skeptics are the hardest people to convert, IMO.

Nearly everyone who makes this claim, when pressed on what it actually means, usually winds up talking about their self centered phase of drugs/sex/whatever before they found Jayzuz.

phrankygee - you are correct about over generalizing. In fact when Donny began posting I had to wonder, what kind of christian is he? Bible literist? or Only believes in the New Testament? or Fire and Brimstone (no dancing allowed) Baptist? or Magic Underpants Mormon, etc - the list goes on and on. Only when the conversation devolves to minutia, are we able to define the specific type of christian we are conversing with. It is different every time.

But of course, (to paraphrase) there is only one "right path", the others are not "true christians".

I guess I need to be careful not to flip that around and use "I was once a Christian like you" on anyone.

It has its uses, when referring to specific points of view on specific topics, but it would be really easy to overgeneralize.

I don't know how all atheists think any more than I know how all Americans think, or how all men think, or even how all thirty-something white Tennessean married atheists think. Just because I am a member of a group does not make me a typical member of that group. In fact I try very hard to avoid being typical.

well said.
most people who claim that they used to be atheists were of the mindset that god has done nothing for ME so i don't believe him.

I have heard Kirk Cameron famously use this line. Donny used the same line in his "used to be a porn producer" thread.

I don't buy it.

If you look at Cameron's history, you can see a self centered, thoughtless young man (in his own words). However, there is no intellectual engagement in the idea of morality, religion, or our perception of the world. Admittedly, he did not look beyond his own narrow needs. It was his "religious awakening" that gave him his new world view.

In my youth I was also self centered, and not really interested in the larger questions of life. But I was also an unquestioning catholic.

Where I am now comes from considered thought, lots of reading, lots of conversation, insatiable curiosity, and my own observation. My life now is more enriched by my understanding of the world (albeit limited), by my relationship with my wife and daughter, and my photographic work in Natural Science (if you want to experience something amazing, try tracking spotted bats in the Grand Canyon under the milky way at 2AM).

I am not what Kirk Cameron claims to have been. I suspect I am not whatever Donny claims he once was.

The default assumption by christians seems to be that atheists are selfish, thoughtless, "anything goes" troglodytes.

I refute that very idea.