Are the Ex-Atheist really Ex-Atheist?

I won't claim to know anything about Kirk Cameron or Lee Strobel.

I would say, however, that these sorts of claims could be true. If you were reared in an a-religious household, but the subject was never discussed; if you learned about evolution in school the same way you might learn any other subject in which you have no real interest (that is, you forget it after the test); you might, in fact, be a cradle-atheist.

In the same way a cradle-catholic considers himself catholic, believes by default in trans-substantiation but has never actually heard the term, a cradle-atheist might believe in evolution because "all" atheists do, but never actually know what evolution means.

It is quite plausible to me that someone might be a cradle-atheist, maybe even embrace the term for notoriety's sake. Then, falling in with a particular crowd that claims to have it together, actually seems to have it together, converts.

Such a person might legitimately claim to have been an atheist, IMHO.

But, this is no claim in favor of religion. Note that a cradle-catholic might convert to protestantism. I've noticed over the years that often such converts know less about catholicism than I do and I've never been catholic. And yet they rail and claim knowledge that clearly contradicts the church's documents.

Over the years I've studied a fair amount (but not as much as I'd like) church history and doctrines. I learned to respect the Christianity of catholics. Nevertheless, I could never become one because I could never assent to things like trans-substantiation or the Immaculate Conception. One born to that faith need never intellectually address those topics. They "believe" by default. But as an adult convert, I'd need to understand those doctrines and give my adult assent to their truth.

Similarly, a cradle-atheist need never address what it actually means to be atheist. I don't think it is fair to say they never were atheists. But, if they weren't raised in intellectual homes -- or at least in homes where the meaning and consequences of atheism were discussed -- then, it is unlikely they are equiped (unless their genes gift them with a healthy dose of skepticism) to deal with a nice group of religionists.

(One of the huge advantages that religion has over atheism with respect to influence is that religion inherently forms communities. If atheism is going to compete, it will need to be able to form equivalent communites -- ways of belonging.)

A "cradle-atheist" that's nice. You do realize that the ONLY criteria for being an atheist is not believing in any god, right? And stop suggesting that evolution is an atheistic theory, it's not. It doesn't address the existence (or lack of) at all. It's as atheistic as other theories, did you know that the germ theory doesn't mention God at all? Neither does relativity. Do you accept relativity? How about thermodynamics? Are those questioned as well? Why is evolution special, why does that theory need to be singled out? The exact same methods are used to form and verify the theory as any other. Oh right, it contradicts Genesis. Big deal, so does Mendelian genetics.

Genesis (KJV) said:

{30:37} And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which [was] in the rods. {30:38} And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. {30:39} And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted. {30:40} And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban’s cattle. {30:41} And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods. {30:42} But when the cattle were feeble, he put [them] not in: so the feebler were Laban’s, and the stronger Jacob’s. {30:43} And the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants, and camels, and asses.

Click to expand...

I am truly puzzled by this post. Whatcha smokin', dude?

Vene said:

A "cradle-atheist" that's nice.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it is.

Oh wait, are you being sarcastic? Do you think that some people are reared without belief in any gods? Do you think that all of them are reared to understand how that impacts their relations with other people in society? Do you think that all of them are equipt to reject pious spoutings?

You do realize that the ONLY criteria for being an atheist is not believing in any god, right?

Click to expand...

Of course. I am one.

And stop suggesting that evolution is an atheistic theory, it's not.

Click to expand...

I never suggested that it was. As such, there is no need to address the rest of your post.

Tinker Grey said:

I am truly puzzled by this post. Whatcha smokin', dude?


Yeah, it is.

Oh wait, are you being sarcastic? Do you think that some people are reared without belief in any gods? Do you think that all of them are reared to understand how that impacts their relations with other people in society? Do you think that all of them are equipt to reject pious spoutings?

Click to expand...

Sarcasm. Definitely sarcasm.

I never suggested that it was. As such, there is no need to address the rest of your post.

Click to expand...

That was me going off topic. It happens. Although you saying "a cradle-atheist might believe in evolution because "all" atheists do, but never actually know what evolution means." does sound like something suggesting that evolution is an atheist theory. As far as atheists converting, yes it happens. But, for people like Strobel and Cameron to claim that they were once evolutionists implies (at the least) that they would actually know something about evolution. I'm not familiar with Strobel's work, but I am familiar with Cameron's. He reduces it to such a simplistic strawman that I can't imagine that he knows anything about evolution, biology, or science.

There was a reason I put "all" in quotes.

What I meant was: If I had been reared atheist but never been taught anything; I might convert and claim to be an ex-evolutionist ... and I might believe I know something about it because I was an atheist.

The paragraphs starting with "But, this is no claim in favor of religion" was to address the idea that just because someone might make that claim -- and, in some sense, it is true --doesn't mean that religion won some intellectual battle. For those such as Strobel and Cameron, I suspect there was neither battle nor intellect involved. (Strobel's writing is terrible, IMHO.)

Tinker Grey said:

There was a reason I put "all" in quotes.

What I meant was: If I had been reared atheist but never been taught anything; I might convert and claim to be an ex-evolutionist ... and I might believe I know something about it because I was an atheist.

Click to expand...

That seems to be more likely than how I first read your post.

The paragraphs starting with "But, this is no claim in favor of religion" was to address the idea that just because someone might make that claim -- and, in some sense, it is true --doesn't mean that religion won some intellectual battle. For those such as Strobel and Cameron, I suspect there was neither battle nor intellect involved. (Strobel's writing is terrible, IMHO.)

Click to expand...

Alright, gotcha, I see your point. No argument here.

Cool.

I agree with Tinker's explination.

I think another one could be a case cognitive dissonance on their part. I've noticed alot of "ex-atheists" say that prior to their newfound religion, they were by all accounts, pathetic individuals wallowing in self-hatred.

From a pyschological point of view, these individuals are depressed because they arnt achieving what they are setting out to do and thus deem themselves failures. Only when someone (who doesnt have to be real) tells them what they ahve to do, do they resolve the dissonance. This is why these individuals claim that they needed God, the army, get back into school, etc.

That said, usually the experience before they found a authority figure is so disconcerting, that they label everything in their past life as wrong. You see in the case of former druggies or alcoholics who may actively lose contact with old friends and family to start a new life so to speak.

My guess is that in the case of former "atheist-evolutists", the phobia of their past existance extends to ideas. They would be less inclined to listen to reason and unconsciously ignore the obvious as they perceive the very ideas as a regression in their emotional and personal development.

Thats my 2 cents worth anyways

Tinker Grey said:

There was a reason I put "all" in quotes.

What I meant was: If I had been reared atheist but never been taught anything; I might convert and claim to be an ex-evolutionist ... and I might believe I know something about it because I was an atheist.

The paragraphs starting with "But, this is no claim in favor of religion" was to address the idea that just because someone might make that claim -- and, in some sense, it is true --doesn't mean that religion won some intellectual battle. For those such as Strobel and Cameron, I suspect there was neither battle nor intellect involved. (Strobel's writing is terrible, IMHO.)

Click to expand...

In a sense I think we are all born atheist, I mean a baby has no concept of god/s other than its parents who in the baby’s eyes are everything. Children are indoctrinated into religions and the ideologies that go with them.

So perhaps a reasonable definition of atheist would be the following; I know there are others.

A person lacking indoctrination into religious ideologies.

As far as Strobel and Cameron are concerned, they are just pawns in a much bigger game of indoctrinating the human population into an extreme Christian ideology

Ick... What's with this Evolution = Atheism, Christianity = Creation hence
Evolution ≠ Christianity nonsense!?

It's tiresome.

ChordatesLegacy said:

In a sense I think we are all born atheist, I mean a baby has no concept of god/s other than its parents who in the baby’s eyes are everything. Children are indoctrinated into religions and the ideologies that go with them.

So perhaps a reasonable definition of atheist would be the following; I know there are others.

A person lacking indoctrination into religious ideologies.

As far as Strobel and Cameron are concerned, they are just pawns in a much bigger game of indoctrinating the human population into an extreme Christian ideology

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said. However, in the context of the OP, I think that it is fair to say that Strobel, Cameron, et al., were in fact atheists. But only in the sense that they were blank slates -- unindoctrinated either in faith or non-faith.

faith guardian said:

Ick... What's with this Evolution = Atheism, Christianity = Creation hence
Evolution ≠ Christianity nonsense!?

It's tiresome.

Click to expand...

To be clear, none of us are asserting this. Strobel, Cameron, et al., assert this. This is how they feel they can debunk evolution -- because they were atheists. All of us in this thread (so far) think they are wrong.

The question is whether they were "real" atheists.

As ChordatesLegacy so aptly put it, if atheist == unindoctrinated in religion, then yes they were atheists.

If we redefine an atheist as one who has examined faith and subsequently rejected it, then no they weren't.

Tinker Grey said:

To be clear, none of us are asserting this. Strobel, Cameron, et al., assert this. This is how they feel they can debunk evolution -- because they were atheists. All of us in this thread (so far) think they are wrong.

The question is whether they were "real" atheists.

As ChordatesLegacy so aptly put it, if atheist == unindoctrinated in religion, then yes they were atheists.

If we redefine an atheist as one who has examined faith and subsequently rejected it, then no they weren't.

Click to expand...

While I agree with much of what has been said on this thread, I am not that enamoured of the "real" atheist point made above. It is skating awfully close to the No True Scotsman fallacy which theists often use when describing deconverted Christians, such as, for example, me.

And I do not think that redefining the word atheist to suit a particular point is all that valid. If we use this sort of argument for Stobel, Cameron, and even somebody as outrageous as Robert T. Lee, it really leaves us nowhere to go. Because when theists then claim such arguments(regularly claimed, and just one of many) as "atheists really believe in God, but hate Him", and we respond, "that's not what an atheist is", we seem to be undermining our own argument, and redefining atheist as we go along to suit a particular person.

To me, atheist = a lack of a belief in any deity. How that lack of belief is arrived at, while it may be of further consequence in the examples given in this thread, should not be used in lieu of a basic definition.

Norm

I have seen a few rather spiteful ex-atheist who have said things like 'Back when I was an atheist I hated God!' In a case like this, one does question the authenticity of their atheism.

But most of the time, people are quite genuine in what they believe in the present, and it is quite possible to change that in the future.

TheKingOfImmortality said:

That not what I was saying at all. I am not an Atheist and I accepted Evolution. What I was pointing out is that the two men that I named claim to be ex-atheist and yet they seem to know nothing about evolution at all. A lot of times now they bin cuaght in a simply flat out lie. For this reason I wonder if they are really atheists or claiming this for other reasons.

Click to expand...

I'm not an atheist either. And I accept evolution too. It just annoys me a lot when certain Christians on one side and certain Atheists on another seem to consider evolution the critical point when it has nothing to do with whether or not God is real.