This is as much IMHO as anything, but I understand religious debates are supposed to be here, so here we are. Sorry if this isn’t very articulate, I’ll be happy to clear up anything. I’m more confused than poetic this morning.
I can understand switching from religion to atheism. Usually, the atheistic claim is evidence based, and can cite specific reasons to switch. We have evolution, factual errors in biblical text, the lack of evidence. These are fact-based claims that come into play in reason, and thus, you can convince someone into a human logic-minded thought with logic.
But you can’t logic someone into a different faith. If religion is faith-based and its reason is outside of our reasoning abilities, how can you be convinced one is wacky and switch to the next? That process is the entire process that religion is supposed to eschew!
So really, I’d like to hear from converts. What was your reason? Did you just “feel” the other more strongly?
None of the reasons you stated are reasons to switch to atheism. They are reasons to switch away from Christianity. Also, not all Christian sects believe in biblical inerrancy. Lack of faith is a perfect reason to switch, but if you lacked faith to begin with then you were probably already an atheist, just one who lacked the cojones to take the plunge.
One person’s switching-experience could be very different from another’s, but for one perspective on it, think of a handful of religions as descriptions, in human verbal terms, and of a person who considers Religion X to be the best approximation as a set of descriptors; the that person, over time, comes to think that the descriptions provided by Religion Y are actually better approximations. Or comes across Religion Z for the firs tiime, having never read up on it before, and says “Hey, this is an even better encapsulation of it!”
Now that’s a switching-experience based on the theology of the religions, and which assumes that the individual in question has a personal understand or experience to begin with and are seeking a name to put on it and perhaps some like-minded people to identify with as well.
A totally different person could “switch religions” for reasons having nothing to do with the theology because the theology isn’t of paramount importance to them: “They have a better choir, and I like the people better, and I think they do more good with their charitable good works, they do that program for homeless women and children, you know”.
Or a person could switch for reasons that are theological but without having any personal experiences or understandings, i.e., someone who is “looking for answers” rather than someone who is “looking for the best aggregate description of the answer they’ve found”: “I was originally really into born-again Christianity because they said if I accept Jesus into my heart as my personal lord and savior I am saved, but then I started reading up on Wicca and how they worship nature and consider nature to be sacred, and well they aren’t so judgmental it’s all just ‘do as ye will an it harm none’, so I switched”
Given the fact that people do indeed switch religions, it seems that your premise is wrong. IOW, religious faith is *not * “outside of our reasoning abilities”.
Reason? There can’t be a reason. The decision was based on mindless, irrational, unfounded, blind faith. Right? :dubious:
Or maybe I just thought that there was an alternative that made more sense, to me. Then I formulated another alternative that made even more sense. To me. And now I no longer have “religious faith”.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. What kind of evidence could there be for God not existing?
I’m not sure what you mean by that last sentence. But you’re underestimating the possible reasonableness of religion, possibly because you’ve only been exposed to the more unreasonable varieties.
It is in fact the case that reason and logic have played a role in some people’s conversion to a religion (either from atheism or from a different religion). They may not have been won over by an airtight logical argument, but, in their eyes, the claims and teachings of that religion make more sense, or seem to better fit with the world as they have experienced it, than what they used to believe. (If you want examples, some of these people have written about the reasoning that led to their conversion, like St. Augustine in his Confessions or C. S. Lewis in Surprised By Joy.)
Of course, there are other reasons people convert. One biggie, I suspect, is by seeing other people—friends or loved ones—for whom that religion “works”: it seems to make them happy or give their lives meaning or make them better people.
Could you, using entirely reasoning and evidence, convince me that a specific religion or statement about god is correct? I doubt it. There’s not much evidence on the side of religion.
I’m sorry, but “it sounded good” is the pinnacle of faith. If you feel as if your choice was bad since it didn’t involve evidence, that’s your domain, not mine. I don’t have a problem with it. We simply have different preferences for authentication.
You’re absolutely right. But I felt it was important to include some specific details, and simply chose the religion I’m most familiar with.
There isn’t any. But the statement “god exists” is very much a factual one without any evidence to support it. Believing in something in spite of any evidence of it other than something as difficult to quantify as “how you see things” isn’t reason, it is faith.
Once again, I don’t look down upon this. We have simply chosen what is more important to us, individually, and acted upon that.
You may not have meant it this way but because it’s a pet peeve of mine I’d like to point out that it’s not cut and dry that atheism is based on logic and reason and religious beliefs are not. People change their religions and beliefs for various reasons some of which are based on logic and reason and the processing of new information.
To explain I’ll answer that last question. Years ago I had a powerful experience when experimenting with prayer. My interpretation of what that experience meant was heavily influenced by the people I was around at the time. I became a member of their church. They were basically good people and I liked the sense of purpose and direction that came with being in their group so I accepted most of their beliefs as true without a lot of questioning. Some tears went by and because of other experiences I stopped attending. I didn’t reject their beliefs all at once and join another religion. Over the years that followed I did a lot of reading and talked to people from other religions. I started asking questions of myself about what was true and what wasn’t. What was meaningful and what wasn’t. Assuming God is, what do I think is true about him and how does that fit into the belief systems I was learning about.
I don’t belong to any specific religion although I still count myself a believer. I think all religions are an imperfect expression of people trying to relate to God, and the world around them. Lately I’ve been enjoying the local Bahai center. I enjoy the spirit of the people there and don’t find anything offensive about what they teach.
Although I’m sure there are other reasons I think some people change religions, or maybe just denominations within the same religion, because their understanding and beliefs have changed. You might start out as a fundamentalist and become more liberal as you study and experience. Someone might have a bad experience with Christianity and decide Buddhism is a better expression of their spiritual feelings. IMO it’s a combination of changing beliefs and an emotional connection to the group. Groups and beliefs change so people respond.
God belief, IMHO is a response to certain subjective experiences filtered through the lens of our previous experience and what influences us both consciously and subconsciously. It is indeed faith to embrace our personal interpretation of those experiences and act on them as if they are true. The thing is, everyone does that. Some label it god and some don’t but IMO the inner event is essentially the same for the believer and the non believer.
Sorry, cosmosdan, but all I’m hearing is “enjoy” “meaningful.” These are very subjective, personal things. When I think of trying to convince someone of something, I think of calling in evidence and things both parties can look at the same way, and using that information to make a decision.
But everything everyone is describing to me is personal and can’t be brought out and pointed at as a “see, this is why A is better than B!” It seems to me that the process seems to be much less of convincing someone, than just providing the information and hoping they see things similarly.
Sure, we all believe a few things without evidence. I believe my friend Dave went to see Spiderman 3, I don’t ask to see his ticket stub and have his friends who went vouch for him. But the difference lies in that I have direct proof that it was very possible, and my knowledge of Dave points that he in all likelihood is not lying. And, if I wanted to, I could prove him wrong if he’s lying.
It boils down to that old saw I’m sure everyone is tired of hearing, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
There are a lot of differences between the ways Catholics and Methodists practice their religions. For one thing, divorced people are not generally welcome in the Catholic church. So that’s one reason why people change religions.
I’d say that was a fair description. It is subjective for the most part although beliefs should be weighed with objective evidence as well. Was there a flood? Is the earth 6000 years old? Where did the Bible come from, who wrote it and why? How did we get it in it’s present form? All questions with objective answers that can affect belief. Other than that a lot of it is just discussion and a sharing of concepts and ideas. Someone becomes uncomfortable with angry judgmental God and finds , through a discussion with a friend, a religion that feels more in line with their beliefs. So what? Does it prove anything? No? I thought you were just wondering how it happened.
Is this thread about proving anything? If it is I didn’t see it in the OP. To sway someone from one religion to the other , or even from religion to atheism or atheism to religion, doesn’t require objective proof does it?
What in the world makes you think that religious, (or, better, spiritual) things are anything other than personal? You are the one who is insisting that a religious person “convince” you of anything. Turn it around: “convince” the religious posters to give up their beliefs. I am pretty sure you will fail for anyone who has a strong spirituality. Atheism is based on exactly the same process as theism (or religion). A person looks around at their life experiences and decides that this or that model of the world resonates in his or her life. (This is NOT a claim that atheism is a religious belief or that atheism, in general, is a belief in no god. Let us not go down those false paths.)
Rather, it is an observation that a person who comes to a belief in a/some/many god(s) will have done so based on a world view in which some aspect of divinity appears to make the world s/he encounters make sense. An atheist does not believe in any god because that person has encountered the world in a way that makes the concept of a/some/many god(s) irrelevant to his or her world view. These are fairly primal understandings, far below the level of facts, logic, or argumentation.
Do you believe that people are basically good? Do you believe that people are basically evil?
The answers to those questiions cannot be found in simple examinations of fact and logic because they represent your personal world view. Another person who experienced nearly the same things you have will come to different conclusions and no amount of argument will change those views.
Putting forth “logical” reasons to believe or to not believe are really irrelevant to the discussion, because no person makes such judgments based on pure logic–any more than a person chooses a mate based on pure logic.
Do you actually see anyone in this thread pointing to his or her belief and claiming that that belief is better than that of another? People who hold up personal beliefs as “true” or “best” will do so in one of two ways: by expressing it as the best representation of their personal world view; or by declaring some outside truth that they cannot support with anything other than the belief, itself, making a tidy and unconvincing circular argument.
The premise of your OP is in error, (as are several of your ancillary assumptions), and until you recognize that, you are simply going to be frustrated by the responses you get.
Just because you take some parts of your religion on faith doesn’t mean you take everything on faith: someone may have faith in the existance of a omnipotent, omniscient creator God, but find the evidence for the divinity of Jesus, or papal infalibility, or predestination to be thin: people may put less emphasis on dogma and mpre on practice, and switch because they find the rituals, customs, and social strutures of one religion more satisfying than another.
I’m a convert. About three years ago, I converted from atheism (baptized episcopalian as a child but parents utterly uninterested in religion, took up childishly militant atheism in high school) to Theravada Buddhism when I was in Thailand. The way I see it, there’s nothing illogical or intellectually stunting about accepting the Four Noble Truths, which I now consider to be somewhat radiantly clear.
I don’t think my religion is an intellectual failing. I don’t believe in the Rigvedic creation stories, and I’m certainly aware that the universe is a number of billions of years old not more than 30 but not less than 5 (but I forget how many).
However, I do believe in cyclical time and the kalpa system, and while I’m not ready to ascribe specific names or personalities or powers to them, I have a hunch that there is some kind of incorporeal intelligence out there . . .
The “lack of evidence” one applies to all religions. That’s why they call it “faith” after all.
As for why people can switch religions ? It’s all zero evidence nonsense to begin with; if one is silly enough to be a believer in the first place, there’s no reason not to switch every other week or believe in three religions at once. It has about the depth of switching from Coke to Pepsi.