Excellent comments! Thanks all....going from athiest to megachurch is shady. just my opinion. $$$
Anyone ever went from Athiesm to Theism?
by Silent_Scream 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
mindseye
I went from theist to agnostic to almost-atheist, and now I'm evolving some kind of mystical approach to theism. I came across some ideas lately that have showed me that much in the whole theism/atheism debate consists of false dichotomies. We've been fed a bunch of crap from ideologues from both sides. Process theology, apophatic theology, and a number of other approaches to God have blown me away. And we don't have to choose between the scientific worldview - the evidence for evolution - and a theistic view. The two can coexist and even compliment each other.
-
tec
And we don't have to choose between the scientific worldview - the evidence for evolution - and a theistic view. The two can coexist and even compliment each other.
Absolutely.
I love the sound of your journey, and wish you well on your path!
Peace to you,
Tammy
-
leavingwt
Here is a recent example of a person returning to Christ, after ten years of atheism. A former contributor to John W. Loftus blog, Darren Rasberry is now a Christian.
. . .
The primary motivator in my change of heart from a Christ-hater to a card-carrying Disciples of Christ member was apologetic arguments for God's existence. Those interested in these arguments may pursue them in the comments section, but I don't want to muddle this explanation up with formal philosophical proofs. Briefly, I grew tired of the lack of explanation for: the existence of the universe, moral values and duties, objective human worth, consciousness and will, and many other topics. The only valid foundation for many of those ideas is a personal, immaterial, unchanging and unchangeable entity. As I fought so desperately to come up with refutations of these arguments - even going out of my way to personally meet many of their originators, defenders, and opponents - I realized that I could not answer them no matter how many long nights I spent hitting the books. The months of study rolled on to years, and eventually I found an increasing comfort around my God-believing enemies and a growing discontent and even anger at my atheist friends' inability to kill off these fleas in debate and in writing, an anger that gave birth to my first feeling of separateness from skepticism after reading comments related to a definitively refuted version of the Christ Myth theory, the idea that Jesus Christ never even existed as a person at all. Line after line after line of people hating Christianity and laughing at its "lie," when solid scholarship refuting their idea was ignored completely. It showed that the motive of bashing and hating Christianity for some skeptics wasn't based in reason and "free thinking" at all, although it would be unfair to lump many of my more intellectually rigorous and mentally cool skeptic friends in this way.
As time went on, I reverted the path I traced after giving up Christianity so long ago: I went from atheist to agnostic to … gulp … *leaning* in the direction of God, to finally accepting that he very well could exist, and then to coming out and admitting (quietly) He did exist. After considering Deism (the belief in a God who abandons His creation), Islam, Hinduism (yes, Krishna, don't laugh), Baha'i, and even Jainism briefly, I have decided to select Christianity due to its superior model for human evil and its reconciliation, coupled with the belief that God interacted with man directly and face-to-face and had *the* crucial role in this reconciliation. This, of course, doesn't prove that Christianity is absolutely true (although I can prove that God exists), but rather reflects my recognition that Christianity is exactly what I would expect to be the case given that God exists. There are problems that I have with adopting any specific layout of Christianity, which explains my current attendance at what many of you may consider to be a very liberal denomination in the Disciples of Christ. Their aim is to unify all believers in the essentials, while leaving nonessential beliefs (however important) up to the member to decide. The essentials are about all I can honestly grasp at this moment. At its philosophical core, I prefer the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition, perhaps by a long shot, but there are many very serious practical issues I can't resolve. Conversely, Catholicism is a practical Godsend (pardon the term) but I have problems with their philosophy. And I don't agree with many political issues of either of those branches or the majority of Christian branches in general. I have a long way to go and I know the many problems religion has in general and that Christianity has in specific, but they do not exceed the fatal problems in skepticism.. . .
http://ultimateobject.blogspot.com/2011/11/autobahn-to-damascus.html
-
PSacramento
There are many but I don't think what OTHERS do matters as much as what WE do and WHY.
If Hitchens or Dawkins converted tomorrow it would NOT legitimize whichever view that choose to accept nor would it make their prior views and opinions any less legit.
People are allowed to change their views and opinion on anything.
Christianity is NOT legit ( if it is legit) because of WHO practices it or converts to it, for it to be legit it must stand on it's own merits.
As should any religion.
-
EntirelyPossible
I have decided to select Christianity due to its superior model for human evil
I don't know if Christianity is the most superior model for evil, but it's definitely in the top 3.
-
tenyearsafter
In regard to Lee Strobel, discrediting him because he was a mega-church pastor is a bit of a red herring argument. Lee became a teaching pastor after his conversion to Christianity, not a Christian so he could become a pastor. I have met and talked with Lee, and though you may not agree with the conclusions he has drawn, you cannot deny his sincerity in making the choice he did. For people to infer that anyone who converts to theism from atheism is "mentally defective" (sound familaiar?) or has an ulterior motive is disengenuous. If the same argument was presented against theists converting to atheism, there would be a call of foul made by the atheists out there. Why can't we agree that each person makes their own spiritual (or non-spiritual) journey in life without inferring that the opposing viewpoint is "shady" or in need of psychiatric treatment? In the words of the famous philosopher Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?"
-
Anony Mous
LeavingWT highlighted the weasel words in the typical conversion stories: Lack of explanation means you didn't do enough research or you weren't interested in finding it. It's easier to get the answers from a pastor but that doesn't mean they are true, religion exploits the need for some of these answers by giving a false and unrelated answer that sounds good but is just a bag of hot air. It's instant gratification at it's finest, everything you need answered is answered by religion. There are perfectly valid explanations for the existence of the universe, moral values and our human species, learn about physics and evolution and most if not all of these will be explained. For Darwin's sake, watch freaking Discovery Channel and it will be explained in broad lines to you.
Why do we do something as abstract as mathematics? God gave it to us? No, monkeys do complex math too, not on the human level but they do it on a very rudimentary level. I guess you didn't know that. That's the subject for some of the research they do at my job and one of the greatest proofs for me that humans are not 'specially made by God'. Monkeys also do rudimentary sign language and can also learn to communicate in (nonsense) languages (although, again, very simplified) as can babies.
Then the next step going from "God could exist" to "God does exist" requires some type of valid (imho scientific) proof, such proof has never been established. Atheists don't say God doesn't exist, they say God could exist but there is no valid manifestation of or test for this being therefore there is no valid reason for me to believe in such being, you might as well believe in an invisible pink unicorn.
Then the apologists go on to say "yes, there are problems but they are not unsurmountable". Off course the (good) religionists will say the solution to the problem is God until science finds a better answer. But then we are again at a God of the gaps. Because we don't understand a piece of nature, we fill it with God until something better comes along. Doesn't mean we should stop looking for it or that God even exists, he's only in our imagination because we're not imaginative or resourceful enough to come up with a better answer. Atheists look at the problem and say - there could be another solution, how about we go looking for it instead of filling it with a deity so we can stop looking for it.
-
Silent_Scream
Anonymous: As a person believing solidly in creation, I still enjoy studying science very much. I 've never felt it was sufficient to stop learning simply because God is the answer. But I do feel science explains, not defines.
I agree with the notion that they can and do coexist. Bible has been marred and changed through time, and as advanced as science is, there is still a lot to learn. So they cant be looked at exclusively. Upon each new discovery, there is 100 more questions asked, and upon each one being answered, more questions.
Relying on science isn't the best because of that reason, and humans are still very limited. Thousands of new species are discovered daily, and things the most scientific and brightest minds agree on will be refuted with more advancement in science in the future.
Science can't explain feelings, such as a mother's love which is what even animals posess. Science can't explain how does life start, which is why we have to settle for IBM's Watson despite the fact that satelittes outside the earth can read your newspaper along with you is old news. How else can it be explained?
-
GOrwell
@ Anony Mouse : "Atheists don't say God doesn't exist, they say God could exist but there is no valid manifestation of or test for this being therefore there is no valid reason for me to believe in such being, you might as well believe in an invisible pink unicorn."
I think you're confusing Atheists with Agnostics?
A hard-core, 100%, Level 7 (on the Dawkins scale - Dawkins said he is a 6) will say that God does not exist.