1AcceptingAThiest1 Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 what are some practical answers an Athiest can use when answer this christian question......"Why is it that when a Christian says oh if that person did that he wasn't really a Christian is immediately accused of the Scotsman fallacy but if a Christian says he used to be an Athiest they are told they never were an Athiest yet fail to realize they are committing Scotsman fallacy as well. yet won't admit its speacial pleading." whats the best way to answer this from an Athiest perspective and please distinguish the difference between the scenarios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryG Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Do you have some specific examples (and links) of atheists telling christians that they were "never atheists"? I don't believe I've ever heard a non-theist make that accusation -- except perhaps in some very limited circumstance where there's evidence that the now-christian claiming to have been an atheist really never was one. Some christians have been known to make their conversions seem more dramatic by describing themselves as having been godless when, in fact, they were believers all along -- just not very enthusiastic or committed ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Most atheist to theist conversions are folk that rebelled and really never studied church history or bible origins. They claimed to be atheists yet grew up in xian homes, were indoctrinated and then abandoned the religion for whatever reason. Later they come back for whatever reason and proclaim they were atheists when the best was they may have been agnostics but even that does not really fly. Kids growing up in an atheist environment would be agnostic as I doubt parents would spend that much time discussing their lack of religion. These folk can be sussed out by their obvious shallow knowledge of religious topics, commit fallacious arguments and so on. Theists that deconvert usually have done some extensive research and do not do what I mentioned (usually) Being irreligious is not the same as being an atheist. You cannot reconvert an atheist no matter how hard you try. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted November 8, 2013 Super Moderator Share Posted November 8, 2013 Frequently, Christians answer criticism of the religion by asserting that the source of that criticism stems from the actions or words of someone claiming to be a Christian but who is in fact not at all representative of the True Religion. They will argue that our problems aren't with the religion or its doctrines, but rather misrepresentations of same. If only we understood the Real True Relationship the Christian in question has with his Savior, we would accept it. If only we would adopt this Christian's particular views we would have proper understanding and love Jesus too. "All True Christians agree with my personal interpretation." We get that all the time here. All the time. Usually when a Christian claims to be a converted atheist, what he really means is that he simply wasn't religious prior to his conversion. An atheist who has arrived at a thoughtful conclusion after actually studying the religious texts, origins of the accepted canon, and has compared the doctrinal teachings to reality is very unlikely to adopt the religion he has so thoroughly discredited. We are all born without a god belief and are therefore atheists prior to societal and family indoctrination into the local belief system. Some can pretty much ignore the influence because it simply makes no logical sense to them, and others take a serious look at the extraordinary claims Christianity and other religions put forth. I would differentiate those people as thoughtful atheists as opposed to the default atheist who just never adopted religious beliefs. What does all this have to do with words on a page hurting anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 I don't understand your title. There is no reason to capitalize the word atheist. We don't have a club. If you are talking to somebody who happens to be an atheist and he uses a fallacy then the best response is to laugh . . . just like anybody else using a fallacy. As for the issue you raise. All people start out as atheist. Then in most families children are indoctrinated in a religion. The NTS fallacy is just a false excuse. Of course people can think one thing on one day and something else the next day. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Edited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 what are some practical answers an Athiest can use when answer this christian question......"Why is it that when a Christian says oh if that person did that he wasn't really a Christian is immediately accused of the Scotsman fallacy but if a Christian says he used to be an Athiest they are told they never were an Athiest yet fail to realize they are committing Scotsman fallacy as well. yet won't admit its speacial pleading." whats the best way to answer this from an Athiest perspective and please distinguish the difference between the scenarios It's called applying a double-standard. But I'm agnostic so my vote probably don't count. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creative Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Lets assume you believed in the tooth fairy when you were little.You no longer believe in the tooth fairy right?If you truly stopped believing in the tooth fairy and have enough common sense to understand that invisible fairy's with magical powers don't exist could you imagine ever converting back into believing in the tooth fairy is real? The firsts thing going true your mind is probably that you cant compare the tooth fairy with god.But from a none-delusional point of view there is no difference apart from the amount of people believing in it.Both story's provide many books and the same amount of evidence.Some extra credit goes to the tooth fairy story's do, for no being so contradicting.So from an athiest point of view the existence of the tooth fairy might even be more likely then the existence of the bible god.Then again, since we grew up we believe both to be complete and utter nonsense.So how can we ever start to believe in the tooth fairy or god again? When they see a fairy?I doubt it. We would probably google schizophrenia. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1AcceptingAThiest1 Posted November 8, 2013 Author Share Posted November 8, 2013 lol my title is a joke im new here just getting my foot in the door was having a little fun. And thanks for the input. u answered the question. 100 points for all of you except mymistake for poking at my name Muwhahaha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 I agree with most of the other posts here, atheism usually isn't something easily arrived at. I would suggest that a lot of christians really don't understand when an atheists says "I do not believe in god" they mean, "I can't believe in god because there's no evidence for it"... and I suspect that their version of atheism is more like a vague theism. We have seen it here many times, and we have been accused of 'choosing' to reject god for various reasons. That's not atheism, it's rebellion. Watching the 'Atheist Experience' you also see misconceptions about atheists like we are devil worshippers, or pagans, or whatever, but the concept a lot of religious people can't seem to wrap their heads around is that most atheists don't believe in anything supernatural. I'm a deconverted christian, it was a hard road to get here, and I fought it because I was raised in a culture that ASSUMES there is a deity of some sort - but I eventually came to see that christianity (and most woo) is baseless and actually morally repugnant. I didn't 'choose' to not believe, I can't believe anymore because, well... it's ridiculous. My daughter was never a theist, I brought her up to think critically... she rejected the Bible on her own because she read some of it and it didn't make sense to her (actually she read a few chapters of Genesis and laughed her ass off - that was the end of her foray into christianity) she nows calls herself an atheist. BUT, it's less an issue for her than for me because she was never indoctrinated to begin with. I would find it hard to believe that a strong atheist could be converted to any of the judeo-christian religions. Buddhism? sure, Some pagan 'religions' maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 It is a belief system. People can change their minds on pretty much anything. It is easy to understand how someone who wasn't raised in church but wasn't raised in an atheist household can fall prey to religion. It's also just as easy to see how people who are going through a rough spell can go back to religion. Religion seeks out those who have their guard down and are in a vulnerable state. There has been people on here who have deconverted and then for a brief spell went back because they were scared about leaving all they knew, they were conditioned to it. I know, i was one of them. With that said you hear far fewer stories about atheists converting to a religion than you do Christians deconverting to atheism and agnosticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 what are some practical answers an Athiest can use when answer this christian question......"Why is it that when a Christian says oh if that person did that he wasn't really a Christian is immediately accused of the Scotsman fallacy but if a Christian says he used to be an Athiest they are told they never were an Athiest yet fail to realize they are committing Scotsman fallacy as well. yet won't admit its speacial pleading." whats the best way to answer this from an Athiest perspective and please distinguish the difference between the scenarios I've never seen this happen, not even once. I have, however, heard atheists claim that everyone is born an atheist, and then learn religion from others. People go from atheist to theist all the time, as do they theist to atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 It is a belief system. People can change their minds on pretty much anything. It is easy to understand how someone who wasn't raised in church but wasn't raised in an atheist household can fall prey to religion. It's also just as easy to see how people who are going through a rough spell can go back to religion. Religion seeks out those who have their guard down and are in a vulnerable state. There has been people on here who have deconverted and then for a brief spell went back because they were scared about leaving all they knew, they were conditioned to it. I know, i was one of them. With that said you hear far fewer stories about atheists converting to a religion than you do Christians deconverting to atheism and agnosticism. To say that I am always 100% X and that I never stray from X and agree 100% with X would be lying to myself. Sometimes I entertain ideas contrary to X. Sometimes I have doubts about X. So if I have doubts about X, does this mean I was never X to begin with? A true X would never have thoughts or feelings contrary to X, would he? Or do normal human beings flip flop around at times, while still claiming to be within their chosen label? I think you're right about less people converting to Christianity from atheism than the other way around simply because atheism is freedom of thought. Christianity has rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slave2six Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Do you have some specific examples (and links) of atheists telling christians that they were "never atheists"? I don't believe I've ever heard a non-theist make that accusation -- except perhaps in some very limited circumstance where there's evidence that the now-christian claiming to have been an atheist really never was one. Some christians have been known to make their conversions seem more dramatic by describing themselves as having been godless when, in fact, they were believers all along -- just not very enthusiastic or committed ones. I have certainly never seen this accusation made by an atheist to a theist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slave2six Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Most atheist to theist conversions are folk that rebelled and really never studied church history or bible origins. They claimed to be atheists yet grew up in xian homes, were indoctrinated and then abandoned the religion for whatever reason.... That's painting with rather a broad brush, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slave2six Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 I agree with most of the other posts here, atheism usually isn't something easily arrived at. I would suggest that a lot of christians really don't understand when an atheists says "I do not believe in god" they mean, "I can't believe in god because there's no evidence for it"... and I suspect that their version of atheism is more like a vague theism. In my experience, most Christians don't understand Christianity, let alone atheism. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slave2six Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 lol my title is a joke im new here just getting my foot in the door was having a little fun. And thanks for the input. u answered the question. 100 points for all of you except mymistake for poking at my name Muwhahaha. You don't have to be clever or subversive here. Just ask your questions. Your subterfuge is insulting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExCBooster Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 what are some practical answers an Athiest can use when answer this christian question......"Why is it that when a Christian says oh if that person did that he wasn't really a Christian is immediately accused of the Scotsman fallacy but if a Christian says he used to be an Athiest they are told they never were an Athiest yet fail to realize they are committing Scotsman fallacy as well. yet won't admit its speacial pleading." whats the best way to answer this from an Athiest perspective and please distinguish the difference between the scenarios I have to say, I'm thoroughly confused by the question. It seems to make a lot of assumptions about what people think. I think I'd just point out that I'd say both sides are clearly doing the no true Scotsman thing. I mean, why wouldn't someone? Also, what, exactly do you mean "an Atheist perspective"? Given that all that atheist means is "someone who does not believe in (at least one) God" - technically, a Christian is an atheist, when it comes to other Gods. So, lumping people together based on one small characteristic is kind of like saying "the people who don't believe in Bigfoot perspective." There isn't really a unified perspective, here. But, given that I'm an atheist, when it comes to the Christian God, I'd say it's clear that either side is committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. I certainly don't doubt people just because they say they were an atheist, and now they're Christian. I DO get tired of people not seeming to understand what atheist means, though. I think it's very important to understand what other people believe and why, even if you don't agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkillusion Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 I think atheists tend to say that a Christian was never a true atheist when some new extraordinary apologetic book comes out. Like that one book titled "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". Or I know lee strobel has been accused of never really being an atheist. The story is always the same...they are an atheist, then they really decide to take a serious look at religion and become totally compelled by the evidence for Christianity, you know cuz there is just soooo much evidence. Jesus really got ahold of their heart! I personally don't consider that sort of person to have been an atheist...more like someone who never thought about religion or atheism or anything and just went about living their life. But that's up for debate. I think if someone had asked one of these authors, before their conversion, whether they believe in god, I think they would have said yea there is probably one, but I haven't given it much thought. Maybe we need another category of atheism, like an 'educated atheist', describing someone that's researched their position a rejected all other positions, versus a 'default atheist', someone who has never really thought about these things. Why is there a difference? Well I think it's all in the definitions. What is the definition of a true Christian? Ask 10 random Christians and you'll get 10 different answers. Ask 10 different Christians each from different denominations and you will get radically different answers. Being a Christian is such a personal experience and every one has a different idea of what that means. So obviously if you were a Christian turned atheist, you didn't subscribe to their particular brand of Christianity and therefore were not a true Christian. Atheism, on the other hand, has a set definition (although there are varying degrees, strong to weak). There isn't a ritual that an atheist has to follow to be considered an atheist. There isn't a worship style that proves they got it right. There isn't a tingly feeling, a book they have to read everyday, or a prayer they have to say in a certain way. Well those are just my thoughts on why there might be this apparent double standard. I am personally not a fan of calling out the Scotsman fallacy on either parties. It's just such a generalization on such a complicated issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 I think atheists tend to say that a Christian was never a true atheist when some new extraordinary apologetic book comes out. Like that one book titled "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". Or I know lee strobel has been accused of never really being an atheist. The story is always the same...they are an atheist, then they really decide to take a serious look at religion and become totally compelled by the evidence for Christianity, you know cuz there is just soooo much evidence. Jesus really got ahold of their heart! I personally don't consider that sort of person to have been an atheist...more like someone who never thought about religion or atheism or anything and just went about living their life. But that's up for debate. I think if someone had asked one of these authors, before their conversion, whether they believe in god, I think they would have said yea there is probably one, but I haven't given it much thought. Maybe we need another category of atheism, like an 'educated atheist', describing someone that's researched their position a rejected all other positions, versus a 'default atheist', someone who has never really thought about these things. Why is there a difference? Well I think it's all in the definitions. What is the definition of a true Christian? Ask 10 random Christians and you'll get 10 different answers. Ask 10 different Christians each from different denominations and you will get radically different answers. Being a Christian is such a personal experience and every one has a different idea of what that means. So obviously if you were a Christian turned atheist, you didn't subscribe to their particular brand of Christianity and therefore were not a true Christian. Atheism, on the other hand, has a set definition (although there are varying degrees, strong to weak). There isn't a ritual that an atheist has to follow to be considered an atheist. There isn't a worship style that proves they got it right. There isn't a tingly feeling, a book they have to read everyday, or a prayer they have to say in a certain way. Well those are just my thoughts on why there might be this apparent double standard. I am personally not a fan of calling out the Scotsman fallacy on either parties. It's just such a generalization on such a complicated issue. Wouldn't a set definition of varying degrees be roughly similar to 10 different answers from 10 different Christians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 what are some practical answers an Athiest can use when answer this christian question......"Why is it that when a Christian says oh if that person did that he wasn't really a Christian is immediately accused of the Scotsman fallacy but if a Christian says he used to be an Athiest they are told they never were an Athiest yet fail to realize they are committing Scotsman fallacy as well. yet won't admit its speacial pleading." whats the best way to answer this from an Athiest perspective and please distinguish the difference between the scenarios The first thing to realize whenever the Scotsman fallacy comes up is that True Scotsman do in fact exist. Most people completely misunderstand the fallacy. True Christians (as defined by the Bible) do in fact exist, just as true atheists do in fact exist. If someone does meet the definition of Christian or atheist then the fallacy does not apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 what are some practical answers an Athiest can use when answer this christian question......"Why is it that when a Christian says oh if that person did that he wasn't really a Christian is immediately accused of the Scotsman fallacy but if a Christian says he used to be an Athiest they are told they never were an Athiest yet fail to realize they are committing Scotsman fallacy as well. yet won't admit its speacial pleading." whats the best way to answer this from an Athiest perspective and please distinguish the difference between the scenarios The first thing to realize whenever the Scotsman fallacy comes up is that True Scotsman do in fact exist. Most people completely misunderstand the fallacy. True Christians (as defined by the Bible) do in fact exist, just as true atheists do in fact exist. If someone does meet the definition of Christian or atheist then the fallacy does not apply. As usual you miss the point. Stop putting the word true in front of things. Christian exist. Christianity isn't defined by the Bible because Christianity is bigger than the Bible. For starters which Bible would you use? Different Christian sects use different versions of the Bible. And what do you know but each sect's version of the Bible makes that sect defined as Christians, even though other Christian sects might not consider them to be Christian. Stop trying to find the "true" or "real" or "authentic" section of a group and realize the entire group is the group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Most atheist to theist conversions are folk that rebelled and really never studied church history or bible origins. They claimed to be atheists yet grew up in xian homes, were indoctrinated and then abandoned the religion for whatever reason.... That's painting with rather a broad brush, don't you think? Not really. These claimants of former atheists, when you quiz them, they were in a rebellious phase. The church and religion even makes allowance for this phase with their prodigal son stories. The Amish have a traditional exposure to the world called Rumspringa but by then, the indoctrination is complete. Quite a few of my generation were like this and some have migrated back to tradition over the years. Of course the level of rebellion is always dramatacised the more reckless they were with say drugs or alcohol and reach a bottom and come back and are converted. It is why folk think this is what atheists do as a norm and why they think we are angry at an imaginary god. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 I have no problem with accepting that there are sincere christians, but the word 'true' doesn't apply. At least until I see christians who can do as much as Jesus supposedly did, or more... that was the promise, was it not? I studied Jesus' life deep enough to have a pretty good idea what he expected of his followers - it's a pretty stringent example. But I have yet to see a christian do anything that a non-christian couldn't do. (some Hindu and Buddhist holy people kick ass in this regard - making western 'devotion' look like a joke - though I have to give St. Francis of Assisi a nod) I agree with LivingLife, there is a difference between someone who has 'fallen away' (even those who were never churchgoers to begin with) and goes back, and an atheist. It's like how commonly atheism and agnosticism are seen as part of a continuum when in fact they are not synonymous at all. Of course the entire subject depends on definitions. I'll stick with the dictionary ones, and stay away from the colloquial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kolaida Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 I thought the name was read as "Accepting A Theist." As Darkillusion pointed out, the most I've ever really heard of this is from when apologetic books come out (there seem to be oh so many atheists to Christian conversions because I think that's Christians favorites conversion- it's just not as catchy when it's a Muslim, Jew, etc but an atheist!!). Lee Strobel also popped into my mind after reading the question. As for people who aren't trying to sell books, it's probably because most "atheist to Christian" conversions are probably more agnostic to Christian as in the person didn't really consider it one way or the other. Not that an atheist can't convert, I'm sure it happens as I do believe certain people have brains that are simply more receptive to religious beliefs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts