Question

[Kpfp]

Hi everyone!
I've asked this question on CF before, but thought I'd try it here. Have you ever encountered someone who went from christian to atheist to christian before? The reason I ask is it seems IMO that once one deconverts, their chances of reconverting are slim...at least I've never met anyone that has. Even though I miss the comforts of religion sometimes, my mind just won't let me go back believing....or maybe it's just me. I'll be interested to hear everyone's experiences. Thanks for any input! :)

[Teshi]

Hi everyone!
I've asked this question on CF before, but thought I'd try it here. Have you ever encountered someone who went from christian to atheist to christian before? The reason I ask is it seems IMO that once one deconverts, their chances of reconverting are slim...at least I've never met anyone that has. Even though I miss the comforts of religion sometimes, my mind just won't let me go back believing....or maybe it's just me. I'll be interested to hear everyone's experiences. Thanks for any input! :)

I think there was a guy on Uberchristians who had.

[seebs]

A good question.

I may or may not count. I was raised Lutheran, but I don't know that I actually believed any of it. I was definitely a non-theist for a number of years, and I'd say I'm a Christian now.

But I don't think I really counted much as a Christian before. I went to things like confirmation classes, but I refused to do the ceremony because they hadn't convinced me.

[ronin]

Well, after many years of religious discussions...I just don't think that there is a single definition for "Christian" as there is a single definition for "atheist" for us to find stable grounds for discussion.

These words address different topics.

Seebs, as far as I know, still considers himself more of an "agnostic/theist" who walks the cafeteria line with his tray and plastic utensils wrapped in plastic and picks the things he likes from the Christian mythos while discarding the yucky bits.

"What is a Christian?" is a question that each person defines for themselves.

There simply isn't any evidence for the existence of any of the God(s)ess(es) and one must "believe" in whichever one chooses to assert they "follow" by name (aka "Christian").

I've never known a fire and brimstone "Christian" return to evangelical fundamentalism from atheism.

[seebs]

Eh, I'm agnostic, but then, I'm also agnostic about questions like "is the gravitational constant universal" or "do cats think". I am just not much inclined to claim knowledge.

I don't accept the "cafeteria" categorization at all. There are things some Christians do that I don't, but it's not because I think those things are Christian things which are wrong; it's because I think those things are tacked on by temporal power structures and not actually essential to the faith. (Or, indeed, even compatible with it.)

If you start with the assumption that the fundamentalists are the true center of the faith, I look like I'm pretty far out. If you don't start with that assumption, though, it's just as easy to make a case that the fundamentalists are rejecting components of Christianity that they find inconvenient. Easier, perhaps. My religion is a lot less convenient for me than theirs is for them. I actually think things are wrong which I am otherwise inclined to do. It has never turned out that a particular thing is exceptionally awful, much more serious than anything I do, and conveniently also biologically uninteresting to me.

[ronin]

Eh, I'm agnostic, but then, I'm also agnostic about questions like "is the gravitational constant universal" or "do cats think". I am just not much inclined to claim knowledge.

I don't accept the "cafeteria" categorization at all. There are things some Christians do that I don't, but it's not because I think those things are Christian things which are wrong; it's because I think those things are tacked on by temporal power structures and not actually essential to the faith. (Or, indeed, even compatible with it.)

If you start with the assumption that the fundamentalists are the true center of the faith, I look like I'm pretty far out. If you don't start with that assumption, though, it's just as easy to make a case that the fundamentalists are rejecting components of Christianity that they find inconvenient. Easier, perhaps. My religion is a lot less convenient for me than theirs is for them. I actually think things are wrong which I am otherwise inclined to do. It has never turned out that a particular thing is exceptionally awful, much more serious than anything I do, and conveniently also biologically uninteresting to me.

Was that post actually addressed to anything I said, seebs?

Don't accept whatever you want.

I've been discussing things with you long enough to know that you love to dance around the issue and move goalposts.

I stand by my assessment of how you approach the issue of your "Christianity" and religious belief.

I don't think I was being offensive about it and actually see it as fairly accurate.

Who is "them" in any event?

;)

[seebs]

"them" would be the fundamentalists and evangelicals.

And yes, it was addressed to your comment "Seebs, as far as I know, still considers himself more of an "agnostic/theist" who walks the cafeteria line with his tray and plastic utensils wrapped in plastic and picks the things he likes from the Christian mythos while discarding the yucky bits."

I view it as a very inaccurate description. It waffles around the edges of asserting intellectual dishonesty.

I'd be very interested in your assertion that I like to "dance around the issue" and "move goalposts". I've heard that claim before, but on investigation, I've usually found that what's really going on is a more fundamental communications problem. I am not much of one to dance around an issue -- but I am one to not agree that a given statement even describes an issue.

To give a concrete example: Many of the evangelical churches view "being saved" as an event which occurs at a particular instant when someone converts. People from these traditions will then insist that a "real Christian" ought to be able to identify "when he was saved." They, of course, think I dance around the issue when I won't identify a single point event -- because I don't share their underlying belief that this is a point event which occurs at a particular time and is then done. I'm not dancing around the issue; I'm disagreeing with them on one of their premises.

[ronin]

"them" would be the fundamentalists and evangelicals.

Define what "they" actually believe is an accurate depiction of "Christianity" and how "they" support such an interpretation.

Please be all-inclusive with your assessments regarding what "they" believe.

And yes, it was addressed to your comment "Seebs, as far as I know, still considers himself more of an "agnostic/theist" who walks the cafeteria line with his tray and plastic utensils wrapped in plastic and picks the things he likes from the Christian mythos while discarding the yucky bits."

I view it as a very inaccurate description. It waffles around the edges of asserting intellectual dishonesty.

Well, do you not claim to be an "agnostic/theist"...that was where I last left you as you defined your beliefs.

Please specify how you would support the implication that I am being intellectually dishonest (without directly making such an abhorrently impolite assertion...of course :rolleyes:).

This methodology makes my point very nicely.

I'd be very interested in your assertion that I like to "dance around the issue" and "move goalposts". I've heard that claim before, but on investigation, I've usually found that what's really going on is a more fundamental communications problem. I am not much of one to dance around an issue -- but I am one to not agree that a given statement even describes an issue.

In over five years, seebs, you know this isn't accurate at all.

Further investigation has you jumping all around the issue of the OT war god ethics/behavior and how you simply don't accept them v. a better choice...aka your interpretation on how Jesus provides a different/better ethical map to your liking.

To give a concrete example: Many of the evangelical churches view "being saved" as an event which occurs at a particular instant when someone converts. People from these traditions will then insist that a "real Christian" ought to be able to identify "when he was saved." They, of course, think I dance around the issue when I won't identify a single point event -- because I don't share their underlying belief that this is a point event which occurs at a particular time and is then done. I'm not dancing around the issue; I'm disagreeing with them on one of their premises.

Another nice way to make my point for me.

Shall we discuss the issue of an eternal Hell...or have we already beat that horse to death, you and I?

:wave:

[seebs]

"them" would be the fundamentalists and evangelicals.

Define what "they" actually believe is an accurate depiction of "Christianity" and how "they" support such an interpretation.

Not interested in going that far out. :)

And yes, it was addressed to your comment "Seebs, as far as I know, still considers himself more of an "agnostic/theist" who walks the cafeteria line with his tray and plastic utensils wrapped in plastic and picks the things he likes from the Christian mythos while discarding the yucky bits."

I view it as a very inaccurate description. It waffles around the edges of asserting intellectual dishonesty.

Well, do you not claim to be an "agnostic/theist"...that was where I last left you as you defined your beliefs.

No, I claim to be an agnostic theist. It's the cafeteria part that's untrue, unsupported, and IMHO offensive.

Please specify how you would support the implication that I am being intellectually dishonest (without directly making such an abhorrently impolite assertion...of course :rolleyes:).

Well, so far as I can tell, there's never been any support for the "cafeteria Christian" line; it's just a thing that gets rolled out to wave at people when they don't conveniently line up in front of whatever arguments are in vogue.

I'd be very interested in your assertion that I like to "dance around the issue" and "move goalposts". I've heard that claim before, but on investigation, I've usually found that what's really going on is a more fundamental communications problem. I am not much of one to dance around an issue -- but I am one to not agree that a given statement even describes an issue.

In over five years, seebs, you know this isn't accurate at all.

No, I don't.

I do not think I dance around. I do not think I move goalposts. I think sometimes people make assumptions about what goalposts I ought to have been using, but that's not me moving goalposts.

Further investigation has you jumping all around the issue of the OT war god ethics/behavior and how you simply don't accept them v. a better choice...aka your interpretation on how Jesus provides a different/better ethical map to your liking.

I don't understand this sentence.

I certainly agree that I tend to reject Hebrew notions of a warlike God. But then, so did the early Christians.

To give a concrete example: Many of the evangelical churches view "being saved" as an event which occurs at a particular instant when someone converts. People from these traditions will then insist that a "real Christian" ought to be able to identify "when he was saved." They, of course, think I dance around the issue when I won't identify a single point event -- because I don't share their underlying belief that this is a point event which occurs at a particular time and is then done. I'm not dancing around the issue; I'm disagreeing with them on one of their premises.

Another nice way to make my point for me.

I have no idea what you think this means.

I am pointing out what strikes me as a characteristic example: People who start with an assumption demand that I answer a question which makes no sense, and when I explain why the question has no answer, they accuse me of "dancing around the issue".

No case has been made that they are right, or even arguing coherently.

Shall we discuss the issue of an eternal Hell...or have we already beat that horse to death, you and I?

I have seen good cases made for annihilationism, universalism, and eternalism. I've not seen convincing evidence that anyone who adopts any of these positions is necessarily doing so dishonestly or without coherence. About all I'd say is that I tend not to take people seriously if they insist that only theirs could possibly be a reasonable interpretation; all three are clearly defensible, and all three clearly have some weaknesses in that defense.

[TransverseWave]

Hi everyone!
I've asked this question on CF before, but thought I'd try it here. Have you ever encountered someone who went from christian to atheist to christian before? The reason I ask is it seems IMO that once one deconverts, their chances of reconverting are slim...at least I've never met anyone that has. Even though I miss the comforts of religion sometimes, my mind just won't let me go back believing....or maybe it's just me. I'll be interested to hear everyone's experiences. Thanks for any input! :)
Well, my deconversion happened in two stages: a really awful year in which my viewpoint was unsettled, and varied uncertainly from believing that God existed but wasn't good, to near-nihilism; and then a return to faith which eroded over the next few years.

I came back to faith because I was under pressure from my family, and also was experiencing internal psychological pressure of a titanic and astonishing nature; exactly what caused the manifestation, I can't tell you. I couldn't deal with everything crashing at once. I came to a point where I could only see a metaphysical choice between Christianity and nihilism, and chose Christianity on moral grounds.

However, I don't think there was ever any real chance that this renewed faith would last. I'd spent a year thinking the unthinkable, and when I came across more reasons to ask, "Is it true, after all?" I didn't have the reflexive strength of conviction I had once had.

I regard the whole experience as one long process of deconversion, because I don't think thing my return to faith could ever have held.

[epepke]

Even if this were rare, it wouldn't necessarily mean anything. Conversions/deconversions, at least beyond the age where brainwashing works the best, may be rare things. Two would be rarer than one, and three would be even rarer. This might have nothing to do with the merits of the arguments.

[Boro Nut]

I'm not dancing around the issue; I'm disagreeing with them on one of their premises.I'm surprised they even let you set foot on their premises.

Boro Nut

[Alethias]

I'm not dancing around the issue; I'm disagreeing with them on one of their premises.I'm surprised they even let you set foot on their premises.

Boro NutAmen, Brutha Nut.

What about de-converting and then becoming something else entirely?

I spent most of my life as a serious-as-shit christian. Then I was a serious-as-shit agnostic. Then I was a serious-as-shit atheist. Then I was a slightly-vaguely committed humanist.

Now? Mostly I just like to play with different ideas and concepts and belief systems. The skeptic perspective is pretty useful for somethings, but it ain't the only way of looking at life that has value. There just might be things out there that are useful to believe in that no skeptic would ever discover or experience. I figure it might be fun to flip-flop between some o dat shit and some o da skeptic shit every now and then and see if I find anything interesting in some new outlooks. So what if it ain't real. Imaginary numbers aren't real and mathematicians find them terribly useful.

You can make rules about how you access the energies of chaos. Makes life intriguing.

Maybe someday i'll go back to being a serious-as-shit atheist or a slightly-vaguely-committed humanist. But regardless I figure I'll have fun in the meantime.

Reconvert to christianity? Sure, I'd try it if I thought it'd be fun. But I don't think it'd be possible for me to take it seriously anymore.

[PhiloKGB]

I remember a vacillating young lady at CF... Holly, maybe?

[VoxRat]

I went to a "memorial service" for a recently deceased friend today.
Aside from the stuff I could relate to - the friends and colleagues sharing their memories - there was a lot of "prayerful" stuff. All very nondenominational, but definitely theist. I found myself trying to "metaphorize" what was being said. As in "well, this could be construed as true - or as meaning anything at all - if we take 'The Lord' as a metaphor for... something or other, and if we take 'God's, love, protection, grace... etc.' as a kind of metaphor for... something or other." In the end... well, I guess people feel the need to say something, and yet there's nothing really to say.

Maybe the religious stuff is just a formalized way of saying nothing when form or duty requires that you say something.

[ck1]

Hi everyone!
I've asked this question on CF before, but thought I'd try it here. Have you ever encountered someone who went from christian to atheist to christian before? The reason I ask is it seems IMO that once one deconverts, their chances of reconverting are slim...at least I've never met anyone that has. Even though I miss the comforts of religion sometimes, my mind just won't let me go back believing....or maybe it's just me. I'll be interested to hear everyone's experiences. Thanks for any input! :)

What about Glenn Morton?

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

He was a YEC who became a geologist and realized that he had been lied to. He was devastated and seriously considered atheism, but eventually returned to Christianity and is now an OEC.

[Loki]

I remember a vacillating young lady at CF... Holly, maybe?

Holly isn't typical of theists or non-theists, though. She'd be an outlier projected into a different axis than everyone else.

[umop apisdn w,I]

I remember a vacillating young lady at CF... Holly, maybe?

Holly isn't typical of theists or non-theists, though. She'd be an outlier projected into a different axis than everyone else.

And she is also not the same person as the "Holly" registered here, in case anyone was wondering...

[Kpfp]

great responses everyone! Holly (of CF) has BPD and so I wouldn't consider her a good example. I agree about the different definitions of christian, atheist, etc. I suppose I was using myself as an example.....raised secular -> serious as shit christian -> now nothing. The role religion has played in my life over the last 20 years has been a difficult thing to let go of, yet I don't see how I could ever return to christianity knowing what I know now....

[Goldie]

Anne Rice, the writer, converted to Christianity after being an Atheist,. I have no idea if she was a Christian to begin with.

There go all of the good vampire books! Goddammit! :(

;)

[Ray Moscow]

Anne Rice, the writer, converted to Christianity after being an Atheist,. I have no idea if she was a Christian to begin with.

There go all of the good vampire books! Goddammit! :(

;)

Anne Rice was apparently raised Catlick, became an unbeliever because her (now late) husband was, then went back to being Catlick recently.

You can see the change in Memnock -- a bunch of religious bollocks instead of her pretty good storytelling earlier.

[ronin]

"them" would be the fundamentalists and evangelicals.

Define what "they" actually believe is an accurate depiction of "Christianity" and how "they" support such an interpretation.

Not interested in going that far out. :)

But that is part and parcel of the issue, seebs.

"Your Christianity" is somehow different from "their Christianity" and I would like a Christian (any Christian) to explain how that isn't picking and choosing what to believe ala carte at the Chez Bible Bar and Grill.

No, I claim to be an agnostic theist. It's the cafeteria part that's untrue, unsupported, and IMHO offensive.

Firstly, it isn't "untrue"...it is a well articulated, fully supported opinion.

Secondly, how is it "offensive"?

Well, so far as I can tell, there's never been any support for the "cafeteria Christian" line; it's just a thing that gets rolled out to wave at people when they don't conveniently line up in front of whatever arguments are in vogue.

Then you "tell" different than I "tell".

Christians being "cafeteria style" is a reasonable assessment of the various interpretations of what exactly "Christianity" actually states as an ideology and what the assorted bible verses actually "mean" to each and every "Christian" who has an opinion.

It usually enters a discussion when a common Christian assertion is examined. All of a sudden the discussion becomes about how Christianity isn't monolithic or that the "common Christian" would never dream of asserting what we all see asserted by Christians on a daily basis.

Come on, is this all that even liberal Christians have left as an apologetic?

No, I don't.

I do not think I dance around. I do not think I move goalposts. I think sometimes people make assumptions about what goalposts I ought to have been using, but that's not me moving goalposts.

That's just funny!

Further investigation has you jumping all around the issue of the OT war god ethics/behavior and how you simply don't accept them v. a better choice...aka your interpretation on how Jesus provides a different/better ethical map to your liking.

I don't understand this sentence.

I certainly agree that I tend to reject Hebrew notions of a warlike God. But then, so did the early Christians.

Would you like fried okra or french fries with your catfish plate lunch?



Another nice way to make my point for me.

I have no idea what you think this means.

I am pointing out what strikes me as a characteristic example: People who start with an assumption demand that I answer a question which makes no sense, and when I explain why the question has no answer, they accuse me of "dancing around the issue".

No case has been made that they are right, or even arguing coherently.

Well, the argument is certainly been argued coherently...you just don't agree with it, fair enough.

Shall we discuss the issue of an eternal Hell...or have we already beat that horse to death, you and I?

I have seen good cases made for annihilationism, universalism, and eternalism. I've not seen convincing evidence that anyone who adopts any of these positions is necessarily doing so dishonestly or without coherence. About all I'd say is that I tend not to take people seriously if they insist that only theirs could possibly be a reasonable interpretation; all three are clearly defensible, and all three clearly have some weaknesses in that defense.

Well, you must have posted this by mistake seebs. It doesn't seem to apply to anything we're talking about.

:wave:

[Jobar]

Kpfp, this is a topic which has interested me for years. Let me give you some links to stuff I or others posted on Internet Infidels.

Did II deconvert you? (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=135182) (Especially see post #117 in that thread.)

Internet Infidels deconverts: the asymmetry of conversion at IIDB (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=172452)- many good links from that thread; in particular, look at Steve Locks' Asymmetry of Conversion (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/%7Eslocks/conversion_asymmetry.html) page.

added- I was reviewing some of those, and found that you posted there last year! So obviously you've read most of those- but you might look over Locks' site.

[Kpfp]

thanks Jobar! I'll look at those again!

[GenesisNemesis]

I went from New-Age to atheist to almost Christian to atheist to misotheist to rationalist to pantheist... etc. Don't know anyone who went from Christian to atheist to Christian, though. I think there was someone on IIDB a while back.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi everyone!
I've asked this question on CF before, but thought I'd try it here. Have you ever encountered someone who went from christian to atheist to christian before? The reason I ask is it seems IMO that once one deconverts, their chances of reconverting are slim...at least I've never met anyone that has. Even though I miss the comforts of religion sometimes, my mind just won't let me go back believing....or maybe it's just me. I'll be interested to hear everyone's experiences. Thanks for any input! :)

Peter Kirby (once a prominent IIDB user). As far as I know, he was a Roman Catholic to begin with. He then became an agnostic for a while and then he reconverted to Catholicism a year or two ago. I invited him to TR by the way, so perhaps he'll show up soon.

[lpetrich]

At IIDB, there's also Atheist Gal, who became A Theist Gal, and then windsofchange.

A sort-of case at IIDB is Heathen Dawn, who had earlier been devnet and emotional.

He started out a nominal Jew, then became an ultra-Orthodox Jew (a Jewish fundie), then an atheist, and then a believer in some New-Age-ish/neopagan-ish religion that he invented for himself. His most recent known conversion was because he was being driven nuts by his fear of death.

And in the broader world, it is hard to find any serious examples; the biggest I know of is a certain Cyril Edwin Mitchinson Joad. Though raised in some strict Xian sect, C.E.M. Joad had been an agnostic or an atheist for much of his life. He was a philosophy professor, and a professional expert on everything in the BBC's Brains Trust call-in radio show during WWII. He became well-known for saying "It all depends on what you mean by..."

But in 1948, he was caught doing something that he had bragged about in an earlier book, riding a train without a valid ticket. This caused a big scandal, and he was fired by the BBC, which made him feel crushed and depressed. He got religion as a result, writing apologetics that he would earlier have quickly seen through and dismissed. Bertrand Russell had a debate with him, and reportedly won.

"He found his God when he lost his ticket", one wit commented.

[Jobar]

It's been my experience that conversions from belief to unbelief are driven by reason; even when someone has been a lifelong believer, if they consider the logical difficulties, historical quandaries, and the internal contradictions of their belief, they may eventually find the cognitive dissonance so strong that they reject what they were taught and believed.

OTOH, going from a position of firmly held unbelief to belief is always driven be emotion; see the discussion from here (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3574728#post3574728) on down.

Obviously, if anyone could come up with a rational reason to believe, that would in essence constitute a valid proof of god(s); given the fact that no such proof has ever been made, we can thus presume all re-conversions are emotional, not rational.

[lpetrich]

Jobar, is it fair to say that both Heathen Dawn and C.E.M. Joad both fit your profile?

Heathen Dawn was provoked to deconvert because he noticed that the writers of the Bible seemed to have much less knowledge than an omnimax entity would have -- only the sort of knowledge that one would expect unassisted people of their place and time to have. Like believing that the Sun moves around the Earth, being lackadaisical in counting a grasshopper's legs, not knowing about the Chinese, etc.

So it was rational arguments that made him deconvert. However, his reconversion was provoked by his fear of death -- and he converted to a religion that he invented for himself, not to Orthodox Judaism again.

I don't know what made C.E.M. Joad deconvert, but his reconversion was provoked by the collapse of his career that was caused by his fare-beating scandal. And though some Xian apologists have claimed that he is proof of how rational it is to believe in Xianity, his reconversion seems rather irrational to me.

[Jobar]

Indeed, both of those are prime examples. As, I think, is Peter Kirby.

Do you remember BH Manners, who invited David Mathews to II? He became a Muslim, last I heard- see the II sticky thread. I haven't found any discussion where he goes into any depth about his change of belief; I'd be very interested in talking to him about it, if the opportunity ever arises.

[David B]

....I came to a point where I could only see a metaphysical choice between Christianity and nihilism, and chose Christianity on moral grounds....

I find this interesting, because something similar happened to me.

After abandoning Christianity when I was very young, about 12, I later came to believe that atheism implied nihilism. Mistakenly, I now think.

Finding nihilism distasteful, I sought out any way to escape it, which led to my exploring Eastern religions.

I've long suspected that, in at least a significant number of cases, the rationale for belief runs something like

'Atheism implies nihilism

Not nihilism

Therefore not atheism.'

What kept me taking eastern religion seriously for too many years was my experiences, first on being initiated into meditation, and then during meditation (particularly in a group).

I suspect that what might lead to some re conversions to Christianity would be experiential, too - the sort of experience that seems to be the result of something like the Toronto Blessing, or a Catholic mass, a pilgrimage to Mecca with lots of ritual and group reinforcement......all circumstances where experiences can be induced by suggestibility, to which people are more or less susceptible, by group reinforcement, and which can be induced in many subjects by a competent stage hypnotist.

David B