Dear Former Atheists, We Are Not The Same:

[rug]

February 4, 2017
by Luciano Gonzalez

A relatively new tactic by some Christians that I’ve seen online is that they’ll say they were once skeptics. This could be true, but it’s irrelevant. The whole point of this argument is to convince us skeptics that there’s got to be something to the arguments used by believers. They want us to think that because they were skeptics, they must have been JUST like us. It’s nonsense.

As a skeptic I don’t think any other skeptic is JUST like me. I don’t think all skeptics are the same. Because we aren’t. The thing about atheists, agnostics, and any other skeptic is that what we have in common with others in our “camp” is that we lack a belief. We aren’t going to be the same if the thing that unites us is skepticism, or that we collectively don’t believe in what many others do believe. The reality of atheists and other skeptics is that we’re a diverse bunch. We have massively different opinions and we fight a lot, even with others who are “like us”.

I don’t believe people who smugly claim they were once atheists and are thus JUST LIKE ME. I don’t believe them because I’d like to believe if they were once skeptics they’d understand that atheists and other skeptics aren’t homogeneous. If there is a sort of cultural skepticism like there is a cultural Christianity it is undergoing a metamorphosis because skeptical leaders are emerging all over the world and not just in the United States and not just from former Christians. Now not all out and open atheists and agnostics are white. Now there are former Muslims who openly discuss leaving Islam. There are Asian and Arabic agnostics and atheists. There are indigenous nonbelievers. There are Hispanics who are good without God, like me.

Skepticism doesn’t just look like Bill Maher, Tim Minchin, and Christopher Hitchens anymore. Skepticism in the real world looks like Heina Dadabhoy. Skepticism in the real world looks like David Osorio. Skepticism looks like Faisal Saeed Al Mutar. Skepticism looks like Neil Degrasse Tyson. Skepticism looks like Jorge Ramos. Skepticism in the real world is beautifully diverse and appears in a variety of locations, oftentimes unexpectedly, and occasionally in really neat ways. As a skeptic I am not just like Heina Dadabhoy and I think either of us would be rightfully annoyed if the other claimed that they were. As a skeptic I am not even like Jorge Ramos or David Osorio, despite the fact that the three of us are all Latin-American. These claims are reductionist and never somehow result in a miraculous conversion from the listeners.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/singod/2017/02/open-letter-former-atheists-arent/?ref_widget=gr_trending&ref_blog=grails&ref_post=nonreligious

[IndianaDave]

1. I'm a strong believer in Christianity,

and I really wish a bunch of my fellow Christians would back off, and simply grant atheists basic RESPECT. You are entitled to your intellectual and philosophical integrity, and if we Christians would look to the founder of our faith for an example, we would be more caring, more accepting, and more respectful of those who have differing perceptions of reality. I could go on and on and give examples, but I wrote what I wanted to say. And - in case others respond negatively to what I have just written - I will not get into an argument with anyone. I've heard it all before - the Biblical quotes, the rigid demands, the judgmental statements. I stand by what I have written, and I support our atheist friends. eom!

[manicraven]

4. Wish more were like you, but I have had some really upsetting experiences with believers.

I personally try to live with tolerance. I do nothing to disrespect anyone's religious beliefs (unless they aim to teach fake science in science class or erase the separation of church and state); however, as soon as believers discover I'm an atheist/secular humanist, they always go out of their way to pounce on me. They can't seem to resist. I even left my last job because of religious harassment (in a secular workplace). I'm also estranged from many family members who were extremely rude and judgmental as soon as they discovered that I'm not a believer--I guess they just aren't happy if someone else doesn't believe the same thing they do.

[IndianaDave]

8. I know I don't have the right to speak for all Christians

but I do apologize for the intolerance you have endured. As someone once said (and I just can't remember who) "There are always some people on your side that you wish were on the other side." That's the way I feel about judgmental Christians. They really don't get it!

[50 Shades Of Blue]

76. Thank you! I'm a heathen now, for want of a better word. Some of my closest friends are not.

They live the way their faith calls for them to and I can respect that.

[manicraven]

2. I don't believe there can be "former" atheists unless someone finally found testable proof

of a god's existence. So far, there's nothing. Why is that so hard for the believers to realize? I will remain a skeptic until there is hard evidence and that's not the Bible or faith or "feeling" such and such, so they just "know god is real."

[rug]

5. People don't believe for many reasons.

It could be evidentiary, it could be philosophical, some simply never believed.

It's not a one-size-fits-all conclusion.

[IndianaDave]

9. I've been thinking, and although I know a whole bunch of Christians,

And, I mean thousands - since I have worked in several parishes and religious schools in my lifetime - I have never actually met a "former atheist" who decided to become a Christian. From my experience, I would say that those folks are EXTREMELY rare, if not nearly non-existent. I could be proven wrong, I guess, but I seriously have never encountered such a person. For whatever that's worth.

[Girard442]

3. Skeptics tend to be reality-driven. That we have in common.

Although if you want to be a mystical skeptic, feel free.

[J_William_Ryan]

6. The Arrogance of Theists

“I don’t disrespect priests [by] going up to them and saying that I was once where they are in terms of my beliefs. I don’t even do that to children. Why is this considered an okay thing to do?”

Because theists are, for the most part, arrogant – Christians in particular.

And that arrogance (which is in fact fear, insecurity, and self-doubt) compels theists to continue to attempt to proselytize, that because they were once free from faith and later ‘found religion,’ you too still have hope of ‘being saved.’

[rug]

7. That statement, without qualification, is itself arrogant.

[guillaumeb]

10. Again with the belief-phobia!!

From the article:

The thing about atheists, agnostics, and any other skeptic is that what we have in common with others in our “camp” is that we lack a belief.

No, you do not "lack a belief". You simply believe differently. So your (unprovable in a scientific sense) belief is different from mine but your atheism is still a belief.

[Bretton Garcia]

11. I know for sure as a fact, and not mere "belief."

That the God who promised us "all" the physical miracles we "ask" for (John 14.13), is false.

Just try it: ask for an incredible specific miracle, soon. Then stand by to see if it comes true.

Soon you will see that specific religious promise was factually false.

That's not a mere "belief." It's a proven fact. A factual claim was made. And quickly proven false.

The dictionary definition of belief includes holding to things not supported by evidence.

But my conclusion, being based on evidence, is therefore better known not as "belief." But as something stonger. As, say, "knowledge."

[guillaumeb]

12. You are interpreting the Bible and demanding that the Creator

abide by your particular interpretation.

So you believe that your interpretation of this specific passage is the correct one. Why do you feel that your belief is correct?

[Bretton Garcia]

17. A few books by Woodbridge Goodman...

... convincingly demonstrated the correctness of my reading. Finding hundreds of biblical citations and logical arguments and factual information, that confirms it.

The standard for "convincing" here is not mere "belief," but the accepted definition in Philosophy and science - and now I add, the Bible - for something proven by science, to be a fact.

Which rather than calling it a "belief," we should call a "scientifically proven fact."

[guillaumeb]

18. The books, which I have not read, might correspond to your

previously held beliefs. Thus providing what you consider to be affirmation of the essential correctness of your view.

And if these books rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible, the argument would prove, at least to some, that not all of the Bible is literally true.

[Bretton Garcia]

21. Here's the dictionary definition of belief

Here's the key part, again: "FAITH...FAITH almost always implies certitude even when there is no evidence or proof [An unshakable faith in God]"

In this way, by standard definition, religious "belief" is not the same as a scientific belief; which is far more attached to physical material proof.

So your French lit/existential attempt to assert that religious beliefs and confidence in scientific findings are cut from the same whole cloth, are the same kind of thing, twists words past the breaking point.

[guillaumeb]

22. I separate science from faith.

And science does demand proof for any theory. Or a search for proof.

Faith demands only faith. The willing suspension of disbelief if you will.

So I do not attempt to twist words, but I do ask that words have actual meaning. And the word belief seems to be avoided by some non-theists. Especially when non-theists insist that they have no beliefs.

If I say that I believe that there is a Creator, I am making a faith-based observation. Faith based because it is unprovable.


If a non-theist says that they do not believe in a deity, that can also be stated as "I believe that there is no deity". Those statements are identical in outcome even if phrased in different ways.

So we are left with two opposite and equally unprovable beliefs.

[Bretton Garcia]

23. To say religion and atheism, or anti-theism, are all faith-based "beliefs," is an evil sophistry

This is why Mr. Blur was helpful. He continually made the invaluable point that needs to be made on this blog, daily: that for many, atheism and anti-theism are based not on subjective "belief", but on science. And furthermore, when science says parts of religion are false, science should prevail.

So the criticism of religion is not just another subjective belief, but has some solid knowledge and fact behind it. Mr. Blur was right.

I add furthermore, that the attempt to assert that religion, specifically Christianity, should be just belief or "faith," separate from - and therefore immune to - the counterclaims of science, is a hugely popular but wrong idea. LeMaitre did that. The Church does that, with its non-overlapping magisterial notion. But they are wrong. The Woodbridge Goodman books show that actually, the authors of Christianity intended it to be based not on faith, but on science (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; 1King 18.20-40). And the Bible itself finally held that the apparent factual claims of religion that are contradicted by science, should not be held onto tenaciously, with "faith." But should be seen to have been the warned-about false religion: false prophets, false Christs, false words, bad priests. So that most of religion, Christianity, should be abandoned as false.

I submit that even the Bible itself, warned about huge sins and errors even in our holiest leaders, apostles. And therefore, the Bible told us NOT to have such "faith" and "belief" in them. But to "test everything" (1 Thess.) with "science" (Dan.1.4-15 KJE; Mak. 3.10).

And if Christianity, and its many factual claims, fails, is thereby found factually false? Then far from being held to forever, with belief and faith, anyway, it is supposedly be abandoned. As the foretold false religion.

Today, many priests suggest the Bible is entirely about spiritual metaphors, and not matters of physical fact; and that it is therefore immune to scientific disproving. But Goodman and others show that Christianity is an "historical religion"; one that claims to be based on physical, historical facts. And those claims by Christianity can be addressed, criticised, by science.

And if they are found to be wrong? Then Christianity is just, after all, simply, wrong.

[guillaumeb]

24. If I had said what you claim I would agree with you. But I did not.

What I said was:

If I say that I believe that there is a Creator, I am making a faith-based observation. Faith based because it is unprovable.
If a non-theist says that they do not believe in a deity, that can also be stated as "I believe that there is no deity". Those statements are identical in outcome even if phrased in different ways.

So we are left with two opposite and equally unprovable beliefs.

So your first argument rests on a straw man characterization of my actual position.

I have not read enough of Mr. Blur to make an assessment, but what I did read does not reflect well on the poster's style of debate.

As to the non-overlapping magisteria argument that you reference, we shall have to disagree.

Your argument here, and similar arguments I have read elsewhere, depend on the debater (you in the instant case) insisting that the Bible must be taken literally. That argument cannot prevail if a metaphoric reading of the Bible is pursued. I would say that you have obviously convinced yourself of the correctness of your argument, so congratulations on that.

[Bretton Garcia]

25. You've allowed that some beliefs are more credible than others?

Below...

[guillaumeb]

29. Any believer defines what they believe.

I have consistently said that. In my opinion, a metaphoric reading of much of the Bible seems correct to me.

[Bretton Garcia]

34. But not all opinions are equal?

[guillaumeb]

36. Why do you say that? eom

[Bretton Garcia]

38. #20: "not all beliefs are equal."

[guillaumeb]

39. What I said in, in part, that post:

And I agree with you that not all belief is equal. If, for example, 99% plus of climatologists believe in anthropogenic climate warming, the beliefs of non-trained, non-climatologists are of little value.

And if some Biblical literalist believe that the universe is approximately 5800 years old, I can accept the sincerity of their belief without sharing in it.

I think my meaning is clear.

[Bretton Garcia]

41. If some beliefs seem better than others...

then even if all human ideas are "beliefs" as you insist, still however, maybe belief in science say, is better than belief in religion. And we should weigh the evidence on this subject.

[guillaumeb]

43. I think your response goes to the meaning of belief.

Science concerns itself with the physical, religion concerns itself with the spiritual.

[Bretton Garcia]

44. But there are "false spirits"

So we are to "test the spirits"

[guillaumeb]

45. Again, your question goes to interpretation.

And everyone has their own personal interpretation.

[Bretton Garcia]

46. But you acknowledged that not all beliefs ...

Or here, interpretations ... are equal.

[guillaumeb]

47. I said that some religious beliefs apparently conflict with science. eom

[Bretton Garcia]

48. So when the Bible says "test the spirits"?

How do you read that? Is it supporting a critical, even scientific examination of spirits, spirituality ... or not?

I'm worried, among other things, that your spirituality is vague and evasive and inconsistent. Can you try to give a rather firm answer here?

At times you seem 1) to want to imply that religion and science are in equal footing, as being both, "belief". Other times though, you 2) seem to feel that when some literalist wants to say the world is 6, 000 years old,you might prefer the scientific belief (as I do myself).

Or, you often seem to want to have things two ways.

[1965Comet]

28. "So we are left with two opposite and equally unprovable beliefs."

Except the existence of a deity is of course provable. The deity could prove it to us, especially if he is omniscient.

[guillaumeb]

31. The key word is "could".

But the ability to do something cannot be equated or conflated with the desire to do something.

One does not automatically assure the other.

[Bretton Garcia]

33. But in 1Kings 18.20-40, God says he will prove himself

On the spot. And seems to do so.

Would you address this specific passage?

[guillaumeb]

35. No I will not.

I am not a literalist, so my interpretations would not fit within your wished for narrative. Sorry.

[Bretton Garcia]

37. So offer a metaphorical reading.

I think it will visibly war, conflict, with the material.

And will be impossible to defend.

[tonedevil]

13. Do you think there is any circumstance...

in which a human can lack a belief?

[guillaumeb]

14. If we define belief literally as "believing in the truth of something",

do you think that there are people who literally believe nothing?

[tonedevil]

15. I can't imagine...

a person who believes nothing. I am more interested in lack of belief in a specific thing. Can I lack belief in the Loch Ness Monster or do I have to believe he isn't real?

[guillaumeb]

16. Semantics.

One can believe that there is a Loch Ness monster,
or one can believe that there is no Loch Ness monster.

Expressing it as do not believe is no different.

[tonedevil]

19. You have pretty well...

convinced me that everything is belief. I am not as convinced that all belief is the same or equal.

[guillaumeb]

20. Not my intention.

I was merely pointing out that there are two ways to describe things.
Positively:
I believe that there is no Loch Ness monster.

and negatively:
I do not believe that there is a Loch Ness monster.

And both convey the same information.

And I agree with you that not all belief is equal. If, for example, 99% plus of climatologists believe in anthropogenic climate warming, the beliefs of non-trained, non-climatologists are of little value.

And if some Biblical literalist believe that the universe is approximately 5800 years old, I can accept the sincerity of their belief without sharing in it.

[1965Comet]

27. Isn't there a third way here:

"One can believe that there is a Loch Ness monster,
or one can believe that there is no Loch Ness monster. "

Isn't there a third way here? One could, in the alternative, drain Loch Ness and discover once and for all whether or not there is a Nessie...

[guillaumeb]

30. But that would take all the mystery out of it.

And reduce tourism in that area.

[1965Comet]

32. The tourists are all a bunch of religious nuts anyway! ;)

"But that would take all the mystery out of it."

Lol, what else is science for?

[edhopper]

40. Sorry

if we don't go alongbwith not accepting the existence of omething for which there is no evidence, a deity for example, is just another belief.
It is not a phobia, as you so condescendingly put it. It is a different way of seeing the world, one based in critical thinking.
I for one reject this false equivalency you continue to promote

[guillaumeb]

42. If:

If I believe that there is a Creator,

and you believe that there is no Creator,

explain to me the essential difference. Both positions are unprovable, so knowledge does not apply.

[edhopper]

49. I don't believe there is no creator

I dont accept the existence of one, since nothingbin the Universe leads to that conclusion.

I also don't accept in the existence of fairies, unicorns, bigfoot, ESP or angels. For the same reason. Not a belief.

[guillaumeb]

50. Semantics.

Why the avoidance of the word belief? Do you feel that the word belief has a religious connotation?

[edhopper]

51. belief can be used in many ways, but n this context yes.

When faith is invoked.

I don't believe the either isn't real, or that n-rays or cold fusion don't exist.

I don't have faith that God isn't real. I just see no reason to accept the existence of such beings.

I don't need faith to not accept something due to lack of evidence.

[sammythecat]

52. So, acknowledgment of a fact, any fact, is simply a "belief"?

OK, I "believe" there is absolutely no evidence of a supernatural being. None whatsoever. The reason I "believe" that is because it is true. There simply is no evidence. That is most certainly NOT the same belief as believing there is a supernatural being despite a complete and total lack of evidence for the existence of such a being.

On edit: Nevermind. I should have read the entire thread before posting. I see others have done a better job stating my position on this. This is all about semantics. We all know what the other really means when they use the word "believe".

[guillaumeb]

53. Knlowledge is not equivalent to belief.

And facts do not need to be literally known by everyone to be facts.

I know that water will freeze at sea level at 0C. That is knowledge and is testable.

I believe that there is a Creator. That is belief and unprovable, therefor untestable.

Alternatively, one could say that:
I believe that there is no Creator. That also is belief, and unprovable, therefor untestable.

[Bretton Garcia]

54. The creator is testable in 1 Kings 18.20-40; Mal. 3.10;

Dan. 1.4-15 KJE, etc.

Where we are told to use early science, to test whether he exists or not, etc..

[guillaumeb]

55. Define what was meant by science.

You are comparing a Bronze Age definition to a 21st Century definition.

[Bretton Garcia]

56. Early on, Daniel describes roughly, an early form

Of the experimental method. In Dan. 1.4-15. Which KJE translators chose to call "science."

Even to make bronze, you need to be able to experiment with different ingredients and procedures, and observe the effects they have on the final result.

[guillaumeb]

57. Farmers also experimented with seeds, and probably with animals.

All part of free will and creation.

[Bretton Garcia]

58. Roots of Science: Early Agriculture

In our era, emphasis has shifted from a Creator, to what was called his Creation. Though now we call it the material universe. Or say, Nature.

This emphasis, some claim, does not necessarily cancel religious, metaphysical speculations about the origin of this universe. But it very definitely shifts the emphasis.

[guillaumeb]

59. In the fields where science fills a need, science is used.

In fields where faith fills a need, faith is used.

In my opinion, this is as it should be.

[Bretton Garcia]

60. But faith is inferior to knowledge.

And? Many things that Faith feels are its own permanent, proprietary turf - the origin of the world, even ethics - are ofen better investigated by the new sciences.

In between: how do you feel about French existentalism?

[guillaumeb]

61. There is no ranking of faith and knowledge.

SO terms like inferior and superior simply do not apply. Different tools are used for different purposes.

Would you use a screwdriver or a hammer to drive a nail?

If you chose a hammer, does that mean a screwdriver is inferior to a hammer?

[Bretton Garcia]

62. Science and technology definitely are fantastically useful

Religions on the other hand? In their own spiritual sphere? Are hugely vain; they claim to be "perfect" and "holy." But that is the spirit of ... Vanity.

Specific example? As others note, you yourself or believers in general, use the notion that things asserted with "faith," need no defense or explanation or proof. But this, we note, again caters to Pride. Since believers arrogantly assert they don't have to prove the things that claim God - and yourselves - claim. Since thanks to to rules of "faith," your beliefs are above criticism. Beyond - "above" - proof. Or disproof.

So? If we evaluate faith-based, spiritual religion, even in its own separate sphere or "magisterium," we find that it fails, even there. Even by its own, say "spiritual" standards. Even the vaunted spirit of "faith," is a false spirit. It is actually the spirit of arrogance, given a new name; a new alias or disguise.

[guillaumeb]

63. Your attempted framing of what believers in general assert is interesting, the straw, shall we say,

is useful no doubt to your construction of a straw man argument.

I assert that religious belief rests on faith because religious belief is unprovable. Where you find pride and/or arrogance in this assertion, and how you find it so, puzzles me.

[Bretton Garcia]

64. Faith says it is true, but asserts it does not need to prove its claims

There is a hidden arrogance there.

Like a person who asserts he should never be questioned. Who asserts he never has to offer any proofs for what he says.

It makes hundreds of claims. And holds to them. And never allows the validity of criticism.

It is the height of bullheadedness.

[guillaumeb]

65. Faith says that the believer believes that it is true.

And asserting that something is unprovable is not the same as your saying there is no need for proof.

[Bretton Garcia]

66. Faith is more humble, when it calls itself uncertain

But many believers trumpet it, as if it was certain. Or the equal, or better than, all other beliefs or kinds of ideas.

And? Since it asserts its beliefs or nature should be in that way honored? Even without conventional proofs?

Then in effect, it tells us there is no real need, in its own case, for it to prove itself to be true.

But what gives it this special, privileged exemption from having to prove itself, the same as everybody else?

[guillaumeb]

67. I feel that all beliefs should be respected.

But not given special privileges.

But in science class, only science should be taught. Creation stories have no place in a science curriculum.

[Bretton Garcia]

68. So faith often Trumps or displaces science?

[guillaumeb]

69. Was this comment addressed correctly?

[Bretton Garcia]

70. Maybe not. Took #67 as sarcasm.

[guillaumeb]

71. No. I meant for it to be taken as my opinion. eom

[Bretton Garcia]

72. Many demand faith privileges

Churches get tax exemptions.

Many demand that creationism should be taught in school.

Some assert their antiAbortionism should become law.

Worse, wars are started on the basis in part, of religious demands.

Gays are denied service.

Even if you yourself don't do that, the defense of faith is used as one pillar of justification underlying much of that.

Faith asserts special privileges. Even as it often denies any need for any rational justification or proofs, for its claims, it's actions.

[guillaumeb]

73. No argument on numbers 1-6.

As to 7, faith in itself demands nothing except that a person believe in the message.

And belief, whether religious or political, often asserts special privileges. A very human attribute.

[Bretton Garcia]

74. You may be an enabler for bad religion

As a typical liberal Christian, your religious views are better than fundamentalists, evangelicals. But your defense of "faith," will be assimilated by evangelicals, as support for all the bad, unproved things they derive from faith.

Subjective beliefs, faith, are found in religion and politics. Where they do some damage. But because of their problems, science long ago began to follow only ideas that can be proven to be true by empirical tests.

Today, much of atheism follows that scientific breakthrough.

You can't prove the existence of your god. Furthermore, it is obvious that religious beliefs have caused believers too do many very, very bad things. Therefore? We will not follow religion. Instead we will follow more provable, good things.

[guillaumeb]

75. People also use scientific knowledge to do terrible things.

Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, bacteriological weapons are all based on scientific discoveries.

The same types of scientists who create weaponized anthrax can create things to cure diseases.

So is science itself to blame, or the motives of the scientists?

[Bretton Garcia]

82. Their motives, or former religious philosophies

[50 Shades Of Blue]

77. I JUST DON'T KNOW. That is not a belief.

[guillaumeb]

78. Uncertainty is understandable.

But knowledge is not necessary for a faith based belief.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

79. I have no faith-based belief.

[guillaumeb]

81. DO you have any beliefs?

Or are you certain of everything?

[Jim__]

26. Its too bad Gonzalez didn't give us specific references.

Without a reference, it’s somewhat difficult to judge the correctness of his assertion: These “former atheists”, some of whom are probably being genuine, think that because they were once atheists that they and myself have something in common and they claim to me and people like me, atheists who like to debate with Christians and other believers, that we were “the same”.

If anyone made such a claim, I agree with Gonzalez that it is presumptuous. But his argument doesn’t actually state that anyone explicitly made such a claim. It appears to be an inference that he draws. Without a reference, I’m not sure such an inference is correct. Even if his inference is correct in some cases, it is an invalid generalization to claim that therefore it is valid to infer in any case where someone makes the claim that he was once an atheist, he is claiming that we were “the same”.

[Tikki]

80. When I was born, I didn't believe in a supernatural superior power of any kind....

then on and on and on and on...as I die, I will not believe in a supernatural superior power of any kind...then I am dead.

Tikki

[Humanist_Activist]

83. I've noticed that for a lot of Christian "converts", they think being angry at God, or not being...

active in a church is the same as being atheist. Neither involves a disbelief in a deity, in fact one of them requires theism to work, the other is a matter of scheduling and motivation rather than belief.