Raf

"Please tell your father [in sign language] it's nice to meet him." "I have." "Well then, thank him for the lovely birthday cake." "I have." "Then tell him his daughter's an EPIC shag." "He can read lips."

Thank you for the input, all. Let me add something from a more positive approach: You know all those people who believe they could never have improved their lives, conquered their demons, achieved their goals and ambitions, quit drugs, quit being violent, quit drinking, reformed, renounced a life of crime, ALL those people who say they could NEVER have fixed their lives without God? Atheists believe you fixed your life without God. And we're f-ing proud of you in a way that we cannot express without picking a fight. But when you give God the glory for the change YOU made happen, we might nod politely, but in our hearts we're thinking: You Rock! P.S. You found your own damn keys and parking spot.

Yes, Bolshevik. That is correct. But there's a subtlety to it. There are those who believe a conversion experience is only possible in one direction. "Oh sure, you can go from atheist to Christian, because that's how it's supposed to work. But to go from Christian to atheist? No way! I have no choice but to question the genuineness of your Christian faith. No true Christian could ever turn away." That's nonsense. More accurately, it's a defense mechanism to protect people of faith from even having to consider whether the departing Christian might have a point. Easier to shrug off the loss of a not-true-believer than it is to weigh the argument he presents and put your own faith to the test. Why, "the test" itself is anathema! And yes, it goes the same in reverse: Some atheists can't stand the idea that a real atheist might be persuaded that there is a God, that His name is Yahweh, and that He was incarnated/represented/expressed/whatevered as the man Christ Jesus. Not a real atheist. Except, of COURSE a real atheist could come to that conclusion. The question in each case is HOW? And let me add, there are WAY too many Christians who like to say "I was an atheist too" when, in fact, they were not. You can hear it in their testimonies. They'll say things like "I hated God because He allowed such and such to happen." That's not how atheists would talk about it. We don't hate God anymore than Christians hate Odin. But "I was an atheist" makes a much better testimony than "I always believed in God because my parents told me He was real but they didn't teach me how to worship Him the way THIS COOL CHURCH GROUP did!" I can tell you that my earliest memories relate to the Kingdom Hall and the conviction that there is a God, Jesus is His Son and that the Bible is His Word. To me, until who knows when, the ONLY question about God was not whether He existed, but who got the Bible right! Had I started my quest with the mental ability to even consider whether this God story was fundamentally true, it might have changed my life. I thought critical thinking meant comparing what people said about God to what God said about Himself. It never even occurred to me that "what God said about Himself" was the mother of all presuppositions resulting in reasoning that circled and circled and circled until the tank refilled. But none of that means an atheist can't convert to Christianity, or vice versa. Of course they can. It happens all the time. Sometimes the change is precipitated by a "significant emotional event." Sometimes the change precipitates significant emotional events. I humbly submit that significant emotional events are too ubiquitous to identify as either a cause or effect of such a change, and it's probably more accurate to say the relationships between changes and events is symbiotic. Then again, Rocky may be completely, 100 percent right without equivocation. After all, he did allow for exceptions, and our only disagreement is over how prevalent those exceptions are.

I think my main point was that beliefs, worldviews, etc. can all fall under the general category of "thought" without damaging the point I was trying to make. T-Bone, thank you. Rocky, in the Law of Believing thread there was an implication that "truth be known" people who walk away from Christianity probably were never really believers to begin with. This thread was supposed to explore what it takes to change your mind. Your contribution has been priceless.

Rocky, I chose not to quibble with this summary of my position. The idea is what was important here, not the word choice. If you would like to be more precise in recognizing that changing a worldview is far more complex than a "thought," I would certainly agree with you. But I don't need to parse that in order to make my overall point: changing your [word we're arguing about here] can BE the significant emotional event rather than BEING CAUSED/PRECIPITATED BY such an event.

You're correct. I think you said ME specifically and I thought it was safe to extrapolate. You might not even have meant me, come to think of it. But my observation is off what you said, not who it was directed at.

Read the law of believing thread. Then come back here.

We're quibbling over words. Let's not.

Bolshevik mentioned something about how atheists value life. I try not to quantify such things, but economics 101 tells you scarcity increases value. No atheist ever flew a plane into a building with the expectation of a reward in paradise. But that works both ways. The flip side is, unless an atheist has an independent reason to believe a "sin" is wrong, there's nothing to stop him from committing it. Good news, in most cases there are plenty of independent reasons to believe a sin is wrong. Like murder. Rape. Stealing. Slavery. Executing people for shtupping the wrong person with consent. You know, things we can all agree is wrong. You know what sins are stupid? Sabbath breaking. TF? Shellfish. Bacon. Turning around because the city you've called home is being consumed by literal fire and brimstone and, I don't know, you're maybe worried about your house or your pets or an actual friend. Cooking a baby goat in its mother's milk. Not saying Yahweh unless you mean it. Those are stupid sins. My point? I'm sure it's around here somewhere. Oh, yeah: I think "who values life more?" would be an interesting thread. But even if I have made statements to the contrary, I can honestly say they are presumptuous. I do not believe there is a simple answer to that question. Mourning is different when you're an atheist. Goodbye really is goodbye. I think I mourn the deaths of children more painfully than believers do. You believe they'll get the fulness of life they deserved. I don't. You think they'll awaken in perfect bodies that will never know pain. I don't. Does that mean I place a greater value on their lives? No. But I put a greater price tag on their deaths.

Shifting a worldview is a little more traumatic than realizing you like La Bamba better than West Side Story. Realizing consciously that you're never going to pray again, coming to grips with the meaning of mortality, recognizing that [motives and intentions aside] prayer is a meaningless gesture... these are things that change how you live and how you approach your friends in need. It magnifies your appreciation for those who "give all" or risk all, especially those who do so with no expectation of eternal reward [news flash: there ARE atheists in foxholes]. So yeah, a change in "thought" can be a seismic event.

Or, as I mentioned, the change in belief can BE the traumatic event. Which is why so many keep it to themselves for so long.

I have to take this one only because I savor it so. The Silence of the Lambs.

Ok, first, we're looking at two things here that are very different. One: Can a person with a deeply held belief change his mind about it? Second: What would be the consequence of such a change from a particular theological framework? That is, can salvation be lost? The second question is clearly doctrinal, which is fine, but it is outside the scope of this thread, unless you want "nothing: salvation is a made-up solution to a made-up problem" to be within the realm of answers. Just kidding. But it is off topic for this thread (and possibly for this subforum). Back to question one, though: What would it take for someone with a deeply held belief to change his/her mind about it? I personally do not believe a "significant emotional event" is required, as there are [I suspect] too many exceptions to make the rule meaningful. I would more readily concede that such an event would easily work as a catalyst rather than a cause. I don't recall a specific catalyst in my life, but I can point to dozens of debates and discussions that caused me to be in a state of constantly "proving all things," which is to say, putting all things to the test. For me, the breaking point came after I could no longer reasonably accept a literal Biblical Adam and Eve in any meaningful sense, couldn't reconcile a regional flood with the Biblical account of Noah, couldn't find any evidence for Exodus that did not accept the account as true a priori, etc. This is personal to me and may in fact be a straw man, but I used to believe that the resurrection of Jesus was the best way of explaining why First Century believers, given the choice between renouncing their faith and death, chose death. Now, I know some people are willing to die for a cause I do not believe to be true. But I know of no one willing to die for a cause they know to be false. I mean, seriously, the majority of you would renounce my existence if the alternative was death, and you know I exist! So to tell a witness of the resurrected Christ to renounce it or die, and have him choose death, was always taken by me to be the strongest proof of the resurrection I could imagine. Except it never happened. And when I realized that, there was no turning back. Again, I'm oversimplifying it, and yes, there is a certain strawman element involved (which is why I am being clear that I am speaking for myself and my journey, not raising this is my "gotcha" evidence to persuade YOU of anything). However, if you want to go in depth on why I'm not persuaded by "what about the empty tomb?" I would be more than happy to engage on a separate thread. My bottom line is, none of this journey had anything to do with a significant emotional event. We ALL have traumatic significant emotional events in our lives, and they don't all result in a change of faith. Ad hoc, ergo procter hoc is a fallacy for a reason. What about when that person got sick and we all prayed and she died the next day? Or my kid's autism diagnosis? Or that other guy whose kid obviously had Down Syndrome but no one wanted to admit it? Or my sister's ALS diagnosis? Or my brother's sudden death? All traumatic. And some coincidentally close to my "deconversion." But catalysts at most. Certainly not causes.

I can name that tune in one. Oh, sorry. Too loud? I can name that tune in one.

I think Rocky could have been a little more generous than he was with the "there may be exceptions" observation. I know a good many people who changed their minds absent a specific "significant emotional event." For me, for example, the change WAS the significant emotional event. At some point, a person may decide to confront a degree of cognitive dissonance that had been building up for years. More tk

Yes

“Men should be explorers, no matter how old they are. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm going.” *** "With the way nature's been cheating us, I don't mind cheating her a little."

It's older than Twilight.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/entertainment/abe-vigoda-dead-obit-feat/index.html

Cast a wide net! I get it, because that's how you ... clever! Funny story how I ended up in the guy's obit, seeing as I never met him. They quoted me even though my connection to him was nothing personal.

The rug matches the curtains. So I guess that means they're telling the truth. But I still can't process it. So no. I feel better if they're lying, so I'm gonna stick with that.

I think if you look deep down, truth be told, the curtains weren't that red. I can't process it. Therefore it cannot be true. The curtains weren't red. They were lying. But that's my opinion.

By the way, nice to see you posting again, Oakspear!

"I don't want to live forever if you're not going to be with me." *** "But I promise you, you will all lead productive lives." "Forever?" "We don't know what forever is." *** "If this is foreplay, I'm a dead man."

Paul and his acolytes were never big on the intellectual legitimacy of [anything, really, but especially] dissent, were they? "Now the Spirit, being completely devoid of confidence and unable to hold its own in a rational discussion weighing the merits of its premises against observable facts, expressly states than in later times people who approach its claims honestly will scrutinize those claims and have legitimate reasons to conclude that they are, indeed, false, but unable to counter with facts we will demonize reason (and rationalists) as deceitful spirits, demons, influenced by the hypocrisy of liars and having a conscience seared with a hot iron. Because nothing like namecalling when you're almighty and STILL can't back up your claims with the facts." Fixed the verse for Paul. He can thank me at the Bema.