So, if you are no longer a Christian...

[Hall]

I'm just saying you don't believe for whatever that sufficient reason is that would put you there. The type (in my case, a literal interaction) is irrelevant.

Like if I asked you to imagine a scenario involving you meeting a unicorn. Despite too many no-proofs ever for them, and your current lack of belief in them, I assume you could imagine your reactions.

I didn't offer the killing-blow-proof for why you became an atheist, because that is a) going down the path of de-conversion and b) would have rebuttals and non-acceptance of said proof.

A thought experiment gets clogged up if you have to justify how you got there, before doing it.

You wouldn't find such an issue the unicorn scenario because you're too overwhelmed with the proof against it, would you?

Some of my proofs are complete physical healing of my body, complete healing of my fallen thoughts, angel appearance in which a photo was taken, God speaking to me through His word through my wife's mouth while she sleeps, God opening a lighted tunnel through fog for my wife to see while she drives, and more...

 

[Non sequitur]

You do realize that I'm agnostic about Christianity, I hope. All I could fully commit to is that the original followers sincerely believed something happened, which is not really an issue of faith. And I am a theist, so open to the possibility that their experiences were real. I don't expect to wake up one morning convinced that Peter and Paul made the whole thing up, so rejecting Christianity due to a lack of belief absolutely would be a choice. You should look at what someone like Blaise Pascal has to say on the issue of passions inhibiting belief.

Now, if I woke up and decided I wasn't a theist, that would be less of a choice. But if I wasn't really an authentic atheist when I actually considered myself an atheist, it'd be very difficult to end up there now.

Because humanity is insane. If there is no God and we've just been grasping at shadows for the entirety of our existence, there's something tragically mad about us.

Ever read Camus? Not all atheists are blithefully unaware of the absurdity of their belief system.

No, I'm just trying to answer your question. You seem to not like the response.

Wasn't aware I had a belief system.

Humanity being insane has nothing to do with what the reality is or is not.

You're trying to work your way back to how you could not be/arrive at being an atheist.

"I don't expect to wake up one morning convinced..." I think I've found the problem; you're playing out the scenario, from where you are to where you would be.

The thought experiment assumes that whatever it would be (not how believable nor plausible) has occurred and there you are with a/your new reality. Thought experiments don't work if you start out expecting them to not work.

 

[Non sequitur]

Some of my proofs are complete physical healing of my body, complete healing of my fallen thoughts, angel appearance in which a photo was taken, God speaking to me through His word through my wife's mouth while she sleeps, God opening a lighted tunnel through fog for my wife to see while she drives, and more...

Why are you talking about proofs?

You wouldn't find such an issue with the unicorn scenario because you're too overwhelmed with the proof against it, would you?

I doubt you'd be listing proofs for why they don't exist.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I don't think there is really a word for how I would feel. Mainly because I went through this when I went into a dark period of my life where as a christian I hated God. I yelled out loud He didn't exist. I told Him off. I even threatened to burn my bible. I did all this because I thought He didn't care about me and I assumed I must be hell bound since my life wasn't going anywhere.

I guess I felt confused really. Then after years of this I got back on track as a christian thanks to people who helped me. To be fair I never stopped believing in Him though. Deep down past all my rage and hate I feared Him still because I knew I was going to go to hell since I had abandoned Him. Obviously if I truly didn't believe in Him I wouldn't have worried about hell because I wouldn't have believed it was real.

So I can with almost full certainty could say I would never become and atheist at this point. And trying to say I would is just so impossible for me to comprehend since I have no reason to become one at this point since all my doubts are gone.

For some though there is no coming back. The world filled their head with so much negative stuff that they essentially put up a barrier in their mind blocking anyone elses answers to show their doubt was wrong. I feel for those people but its how life is. Some find it hard to accept answers no matter what views they have.

Actually my mom is a good example of this. While I cannot claim to know if shes really saved or not, I do know she has so many doubts and anger towards God. She feels life is not fair. God is not fair at times. I don't understand her views on this, even though she tries to say its not the case. And maybe this is why for some who start to doubt God and become atheist, they start to enjoy life more because not being a christian tends to mean life is easier since as time goes on being a christian means things become harder for us.

Not saying we are persecuted to levels like in other countries where we are beheaded. But the more pressure on us to not share our views online or off because of attack makes us want to not be a christian because we see (or at least think we see) life seems to be easier for non-christians. Though obviously thats not the truth. Life is not easier one way or the other. Trials happen to everyone.

 

[Non sequitur]

So I can with almost full certainty could say I would never become and atheist at this point. And trying to say I would is just so impossible for me to comprehend since I have no reason to become one at this point since all my doubts are gone.

I'm not trying to gauge the likelihood or even can one fathom what that evidence would be.

Because in this scenario you have already become one, by/with whatever sufficient new evidence you obtained that changed your view of reality.

It sounds like you are having issues with likelihood, over the situation.

 

[Strathos]

Falling away would indicate that it is being viewed from your current position.

I'm curious as to why you would feel depressed, since depression would seem counter-intuitive to your current mindset. To me it seems like you would feel something other than a negative one.

You're asking people to give their opinions from a PoV they don't have... I don't see how that's a reasonable request.

It's like asking 'If you were a communist, how would you feel about China's government?'

 

[Non sequitur]

You're asking people to give their opinions from a PoV they don't have... I don't see how that's a reasonable request.

It's like asking 'If you were a communist, how would you feel about China's government?'

Not really.

My scenario asks about dealing with the immediate change of what you thought was real (and all that entails) vs what you now think is real (and all that entails).

I don't think communism is a universal truth/reality, so that analogy wouldn't work.

 

[Silmarien]

Wasn't aware I had a belief system.

This would indicate a lack of awareness on your part, nothing more. Atheism is not a neutral position; it relies upon certain metaphysical presuppositions. Those form a belief system.

Humanity being insane has nothing to do with what the reality is or is not.

No, but it has everything to do with why my response would be depression.

You're trying to work your way back to how you could not be/arrive at being an atheist.

"I don't expect to wake up one morning convinced..." I think I've found the problem; you're playing out the scenario, from where you are to where you would be.

The thought experiment assumes that whatever it would be (not how believable nor plausible) has occurred and there you are with a/your new reality. Thought experiments don't work if you start out expecting them to not work.

The problem is that you think that our current beliefs are not at all shaped by the path we took to get where we are. This is simply not true. I started taking Christianity seriously because I realized it diagnosed and addressed a problem that I already knew existed. I was not quite an Absurdist beforehand, but if I were to reject Christianity, I would most certainly become one.

 

[Non sequitur]

This would indicate a lack of awareness on your part, nothing more. Atheism is not a neutral position; it relies upon certain metaphysical presuppositions. Those form a belief system.

If I were to throw out certain metaphysical presuppositions (I'm not a brain in a vat, I appear to be autonomous, my reality is what it appears to be, etc ), then every position following that would be unfounded and pointless.

You're calling the necessity of accepting certain things, that are required to form a useful thought or opinion about anything, a belief system?

The problem is that you think that our current beliefs are not at all shaped by the path we took to get where we are. This is simply not true. I started taking Christianity seriously because I realized it diagnosed and addressed a problem that I already knew existed. I was not quite an Absurdist beforehand, but if I were to reject Christianity, I would most certainly become one.

I don't think that all; actually the opposite.

If the logistics of how you got there prevent you from imagining and accepting that, yet, still you are there, that's ok.

 

[Earatha]

Atheism is not a neutral position; it relies upon certain metaphysical presuppositions. Those form a belief system.

I'm going to take a minor issue with this.

When I finally admitted I was an atheist the only thing that changed was that I didn't believe there was some agent behind the universe. That was it. Nothing else changed. For a while I even considered calling myself an atheistic Christian because there were many things about the church I liked. The only disagreement I had was that the supernatural claims had not been demonstrated to be credible. But I felt it was dishonest to call myself a Christian if I didn't believe in the divine inspiration of Jesus' message.

There were no other changes to how I viewed the world. As such I don't think that my change in position can realistically be called a change in world view.

 

[Strathos]

Not really.

My scenario asks about dealing with the immediate change of what you thought was real (and all that entails) vs what you now think is real (and all that entails).

I don't think communism is a universal truth/reality, so that analogy wouldn't work.

But what you're asking is for me to make a comment from a perspective I not only don't hold, but can't conceive of holding. The hypothetical atheist me would not be me, it would be a completely different person.

 

[Silmarien]

If I were to throw out certain metaphysical presuppositions (I'm not a brain in a vat, I appear to be autonomous, my reality is what it appears to be, etc ), then every position following that would be unfounded and pointless.

You're calling the necessity of accepting certain things, that are required to form a useful thought or opinion about anything, a belief system?

None of those things have anything to do with theism and atheism. And the metaphysical presupposition that reality is what it appears to be is actually significantly more problematic for atheism than theism, at least for those who do not toss out materialistic theories of mind. Things get pretty wild over there, people start declaring that consciousness is an illusion, and then rationality goes out the window as reliable and every position is unfounded and pointless.

The idea that God is a proposition that can and must be tested scientifically is itself a metaphysical claim. Once we're dealing with metaphysics, we're in the realm of beliefs.

I don't think that all; actually the opposite.

If the logistics of how you got there prevent you from imagining and accepting that, yet, still you are there, that's ok.

You seem to have decided that if I approach atheism differently than you do, clearly I am still thinking from my current perspective, because otherwise I would agree with you.

I'm going to take a minor issue with this.

When I finally admitted I was an atheist the only thing that changed was that I didn't believe there was some agent behind the universe. That was it. Nothing else changed. For a while I even considered calling myself an atheistic Christian because there were many things about the church I liked. The only disagreement I had was that the supernatural claims had not been demonstrated to be credible. But I felt it was dishonest to call myself a Christian if I didn't believe in the divine inspiration of Jesus' message.

There were no other changes to how I viewed the world. As such I don't think that my change in position can realistically be called a change in world view.

Not believing that there's an agent behind the universe is a metaphysical belief. I'm talking about that rather than ideals--it's pretty normal to maintain Christian values even after leaving the church. Whether they can be rationally defended is another question, but I think it's pretty common for people who leave Christianity to still view the world through something of a secular Christian framework. I wouldn't be able to, but many can. Which is good--nihilism is no fun.

What I mean about "belief system" is a bit different, though. If you examine why you came to the conclusion that there is no God, you'll likely find presuppositions about the role of science in inquiry, the possibility of miracles, and so forth and so on. You may not have had a change in worldview, but you likely had a very modern worldview to begin with. Which is not a criticism at all--there are reasons that atheism has flourished in the modern age and was really just an oddity beforehand, and it's because of the way we moderns look at the world. The problem is that our viewpoint is subjective and we've decided it's objective.

It is very hard to have a conversation when one side will admit to subjectivity and the other won't. This is why I dislike the atheistic claim to somehow being the default, because there's no such thing as a default position. There are different paradigms at work here in how we assess truth.

 

[Non sequitur]

None of those things have anything to do with theism and atheism. And the metaphysical presupposition that reality is what it appears to be is actually significantly more problematic for atheism than theism, at least for those who do not toss out materialistic theories of mind. Things get pretty wild over there, people start declaring that consciousness is an illusion, and then rationality goes out the window as reliable and every position is unfounded and pointless.

I see no reason to why reality appearing to be reality is problematic. Going past that point could equally be problematic or not.

The idea that God is a proposition that can and must be tested scientifically is itself a metaphysical claim. Once we're dealing with metaphysics, we're in the realm of beliefs.

I was not aware of anyone saying that proposition can nor must be tested.

If we were trying to, since that claim was made, we can only do so within the limits of how one can do such a thing.

Saying that "metaphysical presupposition" poses a problem is disingenuous, because operating any other way would be illogical.

You seem to have decided that if I approach atheism differently than you do, clearly I am still thinking from my current perspective, because otherwise I would agree with you.

If the reality of the situation needs to be plausible, before you can entertain it, then that's not something you can do.

That's ok.

Not believing that there's an agent behind the universe is a metaphysical belief. I'm talking about that rather than ideals--it's pretty normal to maintain Christian values even after leaving the church. Whether they can be rationally defended is another question, but I think it's pretty common for people who leave Christianity to still view the world through something of a secular Christian framework. I wouldn't be able to, but many can. Which is good--nihilism is no fun.

What I mean about "belief system" is a bit different, though. If you examine why you came to the conclusion that there is no God, you'll likely find presuppositions about the role of science in inquiry, the possibility of miracles, and so forth and so on. You may not have had a change in worldview, but you likely had a very modern worldview to begin with. Which is not a criticism at all--there are reasons that atheism has flourished in the modern age and was really just an oddity beforehand, and it's because of the way we moderns look at the world. The problem is that our viewpoint is subjective and we've decided it's objective.

It is very hard to have a conversation when one side will admit to subjectivity and the other won't. This is why I dislike the atheistic claim to somehow being the default, because there's no such thing as a default position. There are different paradigms at work here in how we assess truth.

There's a lot to address, so I address main points.

Nihilism can only be labelled "fun" or "no fun", because you exist and have emotions. It, inherently, is neither.

My viewpoint can only be a mix of subjectivity and objectivity. I can't be objective about something not testable or demonstrable, only have a belief that exists on a spectrum.

I agree, it is difficult having a conversation with you.

 

[Silmarien]

I see no reason to why reality appearing to be reality is problematic. Going past that point could equally be problematic or not.

How does reality appear? Does its appearance match up to how we perceive it? How a bat perceives it? How a wasp perceives it? It seems self-evident to me that reality is not necessarily what it appears to us to be.

I was not aware of anyone saying that proposition can nor must be tested.

If we were trying to, since that claim was made, we can only do so within the limits of how one can do such a thing.

Saying that "metaphysical presupposition" poses a problem is disingenuous, because operating any other way would be illogical.

It would be illogical to not operate under the presupposition that scientific evidence is required to tackle theological questions? Would it be equally illogical not to expect physics to answer biological questions or use mathematics to analyze poetry?

If the reality of the situation needs to be plausible, before you can entertain it, then that's not something you can do.

I have no idea how this has anything to do with the fact that I view atheism differently than you do, and would continue to view it differently even if I were an atheist. If you were really asking us, "If you became Non sequitur tomorrow, what feelings would you have?" you should have said so up front.

My viewpoint can only be a mix of subjectivity and objectivity. I can't be objective about something not testable or demonstrable, only have a belief that exists on a spectrum.

If you're admitting that your atheism is a belief and not a lack of a belief, then there's no problem. This whole conversation started because you were offended at the idea that you might actually have a belief system yourself.

I agree, it is difficult having a conversation with you.

You're the one fighting me because you can't accept that I would not have a positive mindset towards atheism even if I were an atheist. I'm sorry for being difficult when you're telling me I couldn't possibly react the way I'm telling you I would.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I'm not trying to gauge the likelihood or even can one fathom what that evidence would be.

Because in this scenario you have already become one, by/with whatever sufficient new evidence you obtained that changed your view of reality.

It sounds like you are having issues with likelihood, over the situation.

True. I just can't see myself becoming one after all I have gone through to realize God is real. Does this mean its impossible? No. I do remember when I found out my kidney was dead I screamed at God and asked why He let this happen. Perhaps moments like that can change someone, no matter how strong they are. I know others who find out devastating health news and quit believing in God.

 

[Non sequitur]

How does reality appear? Does its appearance match up to how we perceive it? How a bat perceives it? How a wasp perceives it? It seems self-evident to me that reality is not necessarily what it appears to us to be.

Reality appears as it appears.

We can't know if it matches up, only have an opinion on it.

Is seems to me you believe reality is not necessarily what it appears to us to be. And that's cool. Unfortunately you can't know whether is is or not. If you claim one way or another, I don't know how you claim to know.

Your perception has zero to do with reality. It would only make sense that you held the position that "it is possible".

It would be illogical to not operate under the presupposition that scientific evidence is required to tackle theological questions? Would it be equally illogical not to expect physics to answer biological questions or use mathematics to analyze poetry?

Correct, if the theological questions involve testable claims.

I have no idea how this has anything to do with the fact that I view atheism differently than you do, and would continue to view it differently even if I were an atheist. If you were really asking us, "If you became Non sequitur tomorrow, what feelings would you have?" you should have said so up front.

I'm not, but if you see it that way then no need to comment.

I clearly stated that in my original post.

If you're admitting that your atheism is a belief and not a lack of a belief, then there's no problem. This whole conversation started because you were offended at the idea that you might actually have a belief system yourself.

Interesting.

Are you claiming to know if I was offended or not?

You're the one fighting me because you can't accept that I would not have a positive mindset towards atheism even if I were an atheist. I'm sorry for being difficult when you're telling me I couldn't possibly react the way I'm telling you I would.

And you are confusing me. but I'm fine with that. Ok, let's go with even if you were an atheist.

If you were, and all that it inherently entails, why would you "not have a positive mindset towards atheism"?

I'm not understanding how you could arrive at that, without cognitive dissonance. Which means you wouldn't be one.

 

[Non sequitur]

True. I just can't see myself becoming one after all I have gone through to realize God is real. Does this mean its impossible? No. I do remember when I found out my kidney was dead I screamed at God and asked why He let this happen. Perhaps moments like that can change someone, no matter how strong they are. I know others who find out devastating health news and quit believing in God.

So you can't "get out of your own head"?

That's interesting. I was able to do so with your poll.

Even though I have never seen any evidence for a god, and currently believe it does not exist, I can imagine myself meeting one. Even in your scenario, I assumed that I am not hallucinating or it's secretly a test by another god, etc (which in reality I could not know), because I accepted your conclusion. My new reality is my new reality; can't do anything about that.

 

[Silmarien]

Reality appears as it appears.

We can't know if it matches up, only have an opinion on it.

Is seems to me you believe reality is not necessarily what it appears to us to be. And that's cool. Unfortunately you can't know whether is is or not. If you claim one way or another, I don't know how you claim to know.

Your perception has zero to do with reality. It would only make sense that you held the position that "it is possible".

I said that reality was not necessarily as it appeared to us. "Not necessarily" implicitly means that we're in the realm of possibilities, not stating absolute facts. I'm really not sure why you would read anything else into my comment.

Now, saying that perception has nothing to do with reality is a much stronger statement. And assuming that there is actual sensory input from the external world shaping our perceptions, terribly difficult to maintain.

Correct, if the theological questions involve testable claims.

Theological questions are not open to science specifically because they are outside of the purview of the scientific method. Science can't tell us how an orca whale perceives the world, it can't tell us what the difference between good and evil is (assuming there is any), and it can't tell us anything about theology. Science can't even address why the scientific method is useful at all--that's a philosophical question.

Interesting.

Are you claiming to know if I was offended or not?

It's not uncommon to see atheists flip out whenever anyone dares to suggest that they might actually have a belief system. You may not have been offended, but you certainly reacted in stereotypical fashion.

And you are confusing me. but I'm fine with that. Ok, let's go with even if you were an atheist.

If you were, and all that it inherently entails, why would you "not have a positive mindset towards atheism"?

I'm not understanding how you could arrive at that, without cognitive dissonance. Which means you wouldn't be one.

Because atheism inherently entails that life is absurd, morality is meaningless, and humanity a maddened animal that, due to the whims of evolution, cannot help but grasp for a transcendence that ultimately does not exist.

It's entirely possible to think that all of that is true and not be happy about it. There's no cognitive dissonance, unless you're going to claim that any atheist who ever dabbled in Absurdism is not a real atheist.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

So you can't "get out of your own head"?

That's interesting. I was able to do so with your poll.

Even though I have never seen any evidence for a god, and currently believe it does not exist, I can imagine myself meeting one. Even in your scenario, I assumed that I am not hallucinating or it's secretly a test by another god, etc (which in reality I could not know), because I accepted your conclusion. My new reality is my new reality; can't do anything about that.

Well part of it is many christians don't believe in entertaining such thoughts because it may create doubt or it may show doubt on their end. Actually this poll is like something I did years ago on here (without the poll part really) and many christians messaged me saying its bad to do. Just like when I use the 50/50 chance of there being nothing or there being hell. I mean I am not saying there may be nothing. I'm just trying to describe it for them in a way that makes more sense.

If the poll was "You were shown God wasn't real, what would you think?", perhaps I could answer easier since I can wrap my head around trying to put myself in that position.

 

[Non sequitur]

Because atheism inherently entails that life is absurd, morality is meaningless, and humanity a maddened animal that, due to the whims of evolution, cannot help but grasp for a transcendence that ultimately does not exist.

I had to delete and rewrite this 5 different times, because I feared I would be banned if posted them as-is...

You are projecting.

I would tell you how I don't think life is absurd (and how it's an invalid statement), and address the rest of what you said... but I get the feeling you aren't interested in a finding out if what you think is true, merely confirming your biases.

If I said Christianity inherently entails that someone is delusional, etc, you would find that incredibly offensive and patronizing. Would you now?

Whether I believed those things or not, I most certainly would never say those things nor use it in a defense to an answer. I don't tell you what meaning you get from things, nor do I pretend.

I cannot help that you can't fathom not being a so pitifully morose if you were an atheist, nor your lack of creative ability.

But that doesn't excuse your ill chosen words.