My thoughts on a "completed skeptic".

[Proverb2717]

My phrase "completed skeptic" comes from the slang for a Jewish person who accepts Jesus Christ as the messiah.

A completed skeptic is one who had spent a majority of their past as an atheist, agnostic, or theist who has come around to being a Christian. This tends to be a long process starting with the studies of sciences such as physics and the origins of humans. This involving research into archeology of all religions and historical facts of all religions. This involves reading into other religons. This involves the probabilities of God versus No God, and the "meaning of life". This most heavily involves philosophy.

As if it isn't a large enough jump for a person to turn from being an atheist to believing there is a God, for a person who was once an atheist to turn into a Christian is just incredible. For a one time atheist to believe that God returned to Earth in the form of man as Jesus Christ to pay a sin debt on the cross and to resurrect on the third day is as good as "predestination" gets for me.

To me, a completed skeptic is my favorite person to have conversation with. I enjoy intelligent discussion of the faith and I easily relate to the position.

The turning point is also a two part concept, the scientific acceptance of something, and the faith belief in something. If you accept that historical records and eyewitness accounts outside of the Bible show that the events of Jesus Christ's life indeed happened, you have scientific acceptance. To have faith acceptance is what changes you. For the completed skeptic to do this, you must cross the boundries of science, into faith. You must humble yourself into doing something that has no scientific foundation- Prayer. The complete skeptic finally reaches the point where he or she says "God / Jesus if you are real I need you to show me your exsistance in some way... I need some sort of sign to believe, if you can show me this ______ then I will believe in you and I will have faith and give my life over"

The strangest part of seeing that sign that only Jesus could have put there for you to see is the feeling. It is the feeling of completion.

 

[Davian]

I do not see why the word 'skeptic' would be used in this context.

 

[Paradoxum]

I was brought up Christian and always believed in God. I guess it was around 13 that I might be considered a proper Christian. Then a few years ago I started doubting and now I guess I don't really believe. How do I vote in the poll?

I do disagree with the post, but what is the question for the thread?

 

[Elioenai26]

To me, a completed skeptic is my favorite person to have conversation with. I enjoy intelligent discussion of the faith and I easily relate to the position.

I could not agree with you more!

I simply love readng the works of Christians who were at one point in time professing atheists and skeptics. It provides so much rich insight into the minds and hearts of these people and is indespensible in understanding how they think and feel. That is why C.S. Lewis is one of my all time favorite authors.

Great thread.

 

[Gadarene]

The turning point is also a two part concept, the scientific acceptance of something, and the faith belief in something. If you accept that historical records and eyewitness accounts outside of the Bible show that the events of Jesus Christ's life indeed happened, you have scientific acceptance. To have faith acceptance is what changes you. For the completed skeptic to do this, you must cross the boundries of science, into faith. You must humble yourself into doing something that has no scientific foundation- Prayer. The complete skeptic finally reaches the point where he or she says "God / Jesus if you are real I need you to show me your exsistance in some way... I need some sort of sign to believe, if you can show me this ______ then I will believe in you and I will have faith and give my life over"

The strangest part of seeing that sign that only Jesus could have put there for you to see is the feeling. It is the feeling of completion.

Yeah, many sceptics tried that, it didn't work.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yeah, many sceptics tried that, it didn't work.

You speak of it as if it is a formula or a method or better yet as a pair of shoes one "tries on" and if they dont "work", you simply discard them and try on another.

This could not be further from the truth.

 

[Gadarene]

You speak of it as if it is a formula or a method or better yet as a pair of shoes one "tries on" and if they dont "work", you simply discard them and try on another.

This could not be further from the truth.

Why? That it is how it is usually presented.

Then when it doesn't work, the goalposts are moved, although never without actually saying anything definite about how one tries this method any differently.

That said, nothing I said particularly backs up your assertion that I meant it as a method, despite it being blatantly described as one. Many sceptics were former Christians, and tried this systematically and earnestly, and heard nothing back.

And the response of still-Christians is either denial or character assassination - and it seems like that won't change this time, either.

 

[Elioenai26]

Why? That it is how it is usually presented.

Then when it doesn't work, the goalposts are moved, although never without actually saying anything definite about how one tries this method any differently.

That said, nothing I said particularly backs up your assertion that I meant it as a method, despite it being blatantly described as one. Many sceptics were former Christians, and tried this systematically and earnestly, and heard nothing back.

Goalposts never need be moved. Those kicking the football are not kicking it towards the goalposts at all.

In saying this you are asserting that Christians say what they say and do what they do essentially for no other reason than to win an argument.

Also when using words like systematically, you do so only to illustrate my point. Accepting Christ as one's Savior is not something one can sit down and intellectually and systematically do. One may survey the evidence for the claims of Christianity in such a manner because they are subject to being proven or disproven in that manner, but Christ is a person, not a set of data, and as such must be approached as a person.

And the response of still-Christians is either denial or character assassination - and it seems like that won't change this time, either.

Denial of what? And who has assassinated someone's character?

 

[Gadarene]

Goalposts never need be moved. Those kicking the football are not kicking it towards the goalposts at all.

In saying this you are asserting that Christians say what they say and do what they do essentially for no other reason than to win an argument.

Yeah, pretty much. That is what they do.

Confront them with personal testimony of someone earnestly seeking and not finding? Cue the constant refrain of "oh, well you must not have been seeking properly". Deny, deny, deny.

It's funny how at altar calls etc no-one ever seems to make out that seeking Christ is this difficult. The claims about how finicky God is to seek "properly" only come out once one presents an attempt that's failed to work.

Also when using words like systematically, you do so only to illustrate my point. Accepting Christ as one's Savior is not something one can sit down and intellectually and systematically do.

Oh for....repeatedly, then. Heartfelt, repeated cries to feel the presence of God, and not receiving it. I can't make this any clearer to you without resorting to pop-up books.

One may survey the evidence for the claims of Christianity in such a manner because they are subject to being proven or disproven in that manner, but Christ is a person, not a set of data, and as such must be approached as a person.

Yup, heard this before, DONE THIS TOO. It did not work.

What's your next excuse going to be?

Denial of what? And who has assassinated someone's character?

Denial of the testimony that show God to be very selective - arbitrary, even - in which earnest seeking prayers he responds to - (charitably) assuming of course, for the sake of argument, that he exists.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yeah, pretty much. That is what they do.

Confront them with personal testimony of someone earnestly seeking and not finding? Cue the constant refrain of "oh, well you must not have been seeking properly". Deny, deny, deny.

It's funny how at altar calls etc no-one ever seems to make out that seeking Christ is this difficult. The claims about how finicky God is to seek "properly" only come out once one presents an attempt that's failed to work.

Oh for....repeatedly, then. Heartfelt, repeated cries to feel the presence of God, and not receiving it. I can't make this any clearer to you without resorting to pop-up books.

Yup, heard this before, DONE THIS TOO. It did not work.

What's your next excuse going to be?

Denial of the testimony that show God to be very selective - arbitrary, even - in which earnest seeking prayers he responds to - (charitably) assuming of course, for the sake of argument, that he exists.

You speak as if God should be what you want Him to be. But I am glad for all of our sakes that He is not.

You speak as if God is somehow bound to act according to the way you act, think like you think, and reason as you reason. You are one of billions of people in this world. Remember that.

Once again, I am glad for all of our sakes that God is not like us. We are at best: selfish, arrogant and prideful. I am saying we because I fit in there as well. I know how I am and how I was before Christ began working in me. I still fall short. We all do.

 

[Proverb2717]

Yup, heard this before, DONE THIS TOO. It did not work.

Hello, Gadarene. Although I mostly made this thread as a just a collection of my thoughts and opinions as a former skeptic, I also do care about the skeptic that feels that coming earnestly to God does not work. I would like to request that you keep personally seeking him and keep in prayer. You really never know what a new day can bring.

 

[Gadarene]

You speak as if God should be what you want Him to be. But I am glad for all of our sakes that He is not.

You speak as if God is somehow bound to act according to the way you act, think like you think, and reason as you reason. You are one of billions of people in this world. Remember that.

Once again, I am glad for all of our sakes that God is not like us. We are at best: selfish, arrogant and prideful. I am saying we because I fit in there as well. I know how I am and how I was before Christ began working in me. I still fall short. We all do.

Ok, I - and other sceptics besides - did exactly what you and the OP are talking about. How in the world is it not wanting God to be what you want him to be when you recommend it, but it's me wanting him to be what I want him to be when I attempt that same advice (and it doesn't work, of course)?

This is exactly what I was talking about. Evade and deny.

 

[Gadarene]

Hello, Gadarene. Although I mostly made this thread as a just a collection of my thoughts and opinions as a former skeptic, I also do care about the skeptic that feels that coming earnestly to God does not work. I would like to request that you keep personally seeking him and keep in prayer. You really never know what a new day can bring.

Nah, I'm done until better reasons are forthcoming. He's had his chance.

 

[Stoneghost]

I know you think that an atheist becoming a Christian is a sign of the validity of your religion. But also consider sometimes atheists become Muslims and sometime Christians become Muslims and sometimes Muslims become Christians.

I am really skeptical of anyone who changes their ethos Christianity, Islam, atheist, whatever, after their late teens to early twenties. Being raised in an religion or ethos is no guarantee someone won't get exposure to an ethos they like more as they mature. But mid to late lifer religion change is odd to me. I expect them to be as good as a Christian as they were an atheist, which not very good at all.

I think a lot of these late-life religion switchers are doing it because of psychological (to include emotional) or even psychiatric issues. Who are the biggest religion switchers later in life? Criminals, addicts, people who have experience tragedy etc... Also people with certain types of psychiatric issues have a propensity to switch religions later in life. And their change in religions, or becoming an atheist, has little to do with the problems of their current ethos or the virtues of their new one. It has to do with their state of mind and they are going to ship no matter which ship they are on.

Whatever personal reason C.S. Lewis had for changing his ethos I think he just as easily could have written a books called Mere Islam or Mere Hinduism. If he were a Christian he would have written Mere Atheism. His conversion isn't miraculous it is suspect.

 

[Proverb2717]

I know you think that an atheist becoming a Christian is a sign of the validity of your religion. But also consider sometimes atheists become Muslims and sometime Christians become Muslims and sometimes Muslims become Christians.

You KNOW what I am thinking? In that one starting phrase you assumed more than I did in my entire thread. As I stated before, these are a collection of my thoughts and philosophies. -1 for you.

I am really skeptical of anyone who changes their ethos Christianity, Islam, atheist, whatever, after their late teens to early twenties. Being raised in an religion or ethos is no guarantee someone won't get exposure to an ethos they like more as they mature. But mid to late lifer religion change is odd to me. I expect them to be as good as a Christian as they were an atheist, which not very good at all.

Strange to me that you don't understand the progression of thoughts, maturity, and that people change over time. In fact, I would suggest that people who become religious in mid to late in life understand the change better than when they're younger, as with all choices in growing up. -1 for you.

I think a lot of these late-life religion switchers are doing it because of psychological (to include emotional) or even psychiatric issues. Who are the biggest religion switchers later in life? Criminals, addicts, people who have experience tragedy etc... Also people with certain types of psychiatric issues have a propensity to switch religions later in life. And their change in religions, or becoming an atheist, has little to do with the problems of their current ethos or the virtues of their new one. It has to do with their state of mind and they are going to ship no matter which ship they are on.

Hmm... What is your citated sources for these statistics. I mean you can't just say "the biggest religion switchers later in life are criminals addicts and people experiencing tragedy" without some sort of cited scientific source of statistics. BIG -1 for you.

Whatever personal reason C.S. Lewis had for changing his ethos I think he just as easily could have written a books called Mere Islam or Mere Hinduism. If he were a Christian he would have written Mere Atheism. His conversion isn't miraculous it is suspect.

But C.S. Lewis didn't write Mere Islam or Mere Hinduism did he? And C.S. Lewis is a man recorded in history as intelligent and an excellent author. For you to find C.S. Lewis "suspect" is much more "suspect" on your part. -1 for you.


Now, as I stated before, original post is a simple collection of thoughts from a fromer skeptic. Not assumptions on the superiority of my faith.

 

[Gadarene]

You KNOW what I am thinking? In that one starting phrase you assumed more than I did in my entire thread. As I stated before, these are a collection of my thoughts and philosophies. -1 for you.

To be fair, this is no less presumptuous than how most Christians respond to apostates. Not that it makes it ok to do in return.

But C.S. Lewis didn't write Mere Islam or Mere Hinduism did he? And C.S. Lewis is a man recorded in history as intelligent and an excellent author. For you to find C.S. Lewis "suspect" is much more "suspect" on your part. -1 for you.

There are plenty of other intelligent authors who weren't Christian, so this is not really here nor there. Are you saying that no-one can criticise an author just because they are rated by someone as intelligent? Not criticising someone because of an appeal to authority is arguably suspect in turn, so careful with the grading there.

 

[Stoneghost]

Looks like I hit a chord with you proverb.

 

[Proverb2717]

Looks like I hit a chord with you proverb.

You played me like a bass!

 

[Elioenai26]

I know you think that an atheist becoming a Christian is a sign of the validity of your religion. But also consider sometimes atheists become Muslims and sometime Christians become Muslims and sometimes Muslims become Christians.

I am really skeptical of anyone who changes their ethos Christianity, Islam, atheist, whatever, after their late teens to early twenties. Being raised in an religion or ethos is no guarantee someone won't get exposure to an ethos they like more as they mature. But mid to late lifer religion change is odd to me. I expect them to be as good as a Christian as they were an atheist, which not very good at all.

I think a lot of these late-life religion switchers are doing it because of psychological (to include emotional) or even psychiatric issues. Who are the biggest religion switchers later in life? Criminals, addicts, people who have experience tragedy etc... Also people with certain types of psychiatric issues have a propensity to switch religions later in life. And their change in religions, or becoming an atheist, has little to do with the problems of their current ethos or the virtues of their new one. It has to do with their state of mind and they are going to ship no matter which ship they are on.

Whatever personal reason C.S. Lewis had for changing his ethos I think he just as easily could have written a books called Mere Islam or Mere Hinduism. If he were a Christian he would have written Mere Atheism. His conversion isn't miraculous it is suspect.

And what do you believe in Stoneghost?

 

[Stoneghost]

You KNOW what I am thinking?

I think you're abusing my terminology a little, but you're right I don't KNOW. That said people generally take convincing other people of the correctness of their arguments as a form of evidence for their arguments being correct. Getting someone to embrace a new ideology is probably gonna make people think that ideology has merit. So even though you seem to deny that you think an atheist becoming a Christian doesn't support the validity of Christianity I am a little skeptical that this is indeed the case.

Strange to me that you don't understand the progression of thoughts, maturity, and that people change over time. In fact, I would suggest that people who become religious in mid to late in life understand the change better than when they're younger, as with all choices in growing up.

I do understand a lot of quite well in fact, and most of the reasoning for what I say lies in psychological phenomenon. People actually don't change their core beliefs and thought processes much after their 20's, by the 30's peoples behaviors are pretty much crystallized. This is commonly accepted knowledge in psychology and while I have a lot of problems with psychology I think the evidence for this is good enough to make a generalization about people. There isn't a name for this phenomenon and there isn't a wikipedia page and I'm not going to go digging through pysch and political journals to find you articles that show peoples opinions don't change in their mid to late life. I have been exposed to this opinion and seen both source and summary information during my studies. You can decide whether or not you think I am accurately reporting the consensus in the literature and the research community. You can then also decide whether or not you believe that consensus is valid or not.

As I said, yes, people will legitimately change their beliefs, behaviors, opinions, at any time in life. But generally not, and there are reasons to treat someone who makes a major philosophical change mid life with some skepticism and I most certainly do. To me it indicates either strong emotions or a failure to understand their old philosophy or their new one. And as I stated there are a lot of people who change their religions and what not for irrational or even pathological reasons. Changing ones religion is not necessarily a good thing.

But C.S. Lewis didn't write Mere Islam or Mere Hinduism did he?

There are all manner of books by smart people who are good writers that are basically Mere Islam and Mere Hinduism and all manner of other religions.

People all over the world throughout time haven't been in one religion and then prayed or whatnot as you suggest and found completeness or whatnot. I don't KNOW just what that indicates to you but to me it indicates that as far as humans go if you're looking for religion you're going to find it no matter where you look. Which is the point that speaks to your main point. On a side note I am also expressed skepticism at the motivations for conversions later in life.