Atheists and agnostics, have you ever gone to being a religious person again?

[Princess__Serene]

Just curious 😊

[wheist9095]

Yes... Kind of. I was largely atheist growing up, it just didn't feel like it held any water to me and the way the people in the church and other religious people around me acted made me have a large distaste for it overall.

But, During a particularly awful bout of depression I tried to kill myself multiple times, And at the end of it I felt as if there was a higher power and I came to have a belief in that higher power. Technically it's not religion, it makes me a deist. A Deist is someone who believes in a higher power or a God but does not follow a specific religion or doctrine, but hey that's close enough to me

[ImproveEveryDay]

I grew up religious and had trouble understanding why so many terrible things would occur in so many lives, including my own. When I came to believe that there was no one looking out for me, no higher power, I started taking greater control of my life. I believe I grew up generally expecting things to work out well due to me being nice and God being on my side, but I've come to find far more greater things come by my life when I focused on making change by my own hands and expecting nothing from God. I no longer believe in God and no longer care about whether or not there is one. If anything, ever since I've left religion, I've felt my mind more clear, I've become more successful, and I've become healthier in both mind and body. But that's just my story and don't expect everyone to feel the same way.

[Ez-Bri-Z]

I went from religious to agnostic and honestly I think for the moment I'm fine with it. I'm sure there are places that will accept my wife and I but it's kind of hard to want to be part of a religion where it preaches love and acceptance but its followers condemn and tell us we are going to hell.

[Julielamar2]

no never, to be honest i have some anger against religions lol

[TurboKid]

I'm too much of a skeptic. I demand too much of a pile of irrefutable evidence to confidently believe in anything. But I find many religious philosophies very beautiful. I lump them into the realm of arts. Sometimes I even wish I was religious because I think that inspires very beautiful things and cultures in people:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/nEjFIiGMXOk

[TurboKid]

I am also a very peaceful type of atheist. I am okay even with using words like "God" if I am speaking to a religious person. I interpret "God" as "design or the laws of the universe", almost like a deist, and maybe what was intended to be for human beings to thrive. And I am okay going to churches and Mosques and respecting the beliefs. I do not like these militant atheist types who want to ruin something like Christmas and bring down Christmas trees. I just see them as miserable people who want to ruin everyone else's good time.

[TurboKid]

But I can't really believe much in the supernatural based on evidence that can't withstand the challenges of the most skeptical. That's not just limited to religious claims. I also cannot accept paranormal ones, or conspiracy theories, or anything like that.

[Silas_153]

Yes, I have. When I was in primary school I was a fanatical atheist, but later on, around the age of 13, I came to the realisation that atheism couldn't possibly be true. I've been a non-atheist ever since (though not particularly 'religious' either).

[OfDeath]

Lol what do you mean by "atheism couldn't be true"?

[Silas_153]

@OfDeath It just doesn't make sense. An entire reality spontaneously springing into existence for no reason whatsoever, from literally nothing? Our presence here being just the end result of a very long sequence of 'happy accidents'? A universe where nothing ultimately matters, or has any inherent value and meaning? That's what atheists believe.

[OfDeath]

Oh. So you don't mean atheism count be true, you mean atheists are wrong. Atheism can't be true or false since it is a state of mind.
But alright. So you say you don't see how existence can spontaneously appear ex nihilo. Answer this then: how can god spontaneously appear ex nihilo?

[OfDeath]

*couldn't not count. The last was the result of autocorrect.

[Silas_153]

@OfDeath God didn't "appear ex nihilo". God has always been, because "He" (or it - whatever) transcends the material realm where time has a hold. God created time, space and all else that we associate with the physical, because God is above and beyond what "He" (or it) was ultimately responsible for.
In asking the question you do, you clearly demonstrate that you just don't understand the theological arguments for God's existence.

[OfDeath]

Yeah, that's what I thought you would say. So you said god was always there and then you went on to imagine even more features of god like he is outside time and created everything etc. This is what we call the argument from ignorance or the "god of the gaps" argument. You don't know something about reality therefore you posit "god did it". With god being an imaginary being only existing in human imagination and completely unknown to actual understanding of reality.

Ok. So if god was always there, why couldn't existence have always been there without god? In this "other realm" outside time, how did god get THERE?

[Silas_153]

@OfDeath Oh for God's sake (pun intended), how the HELL is this an argument from ignorance? And if you "knew" I was going to respond in the way I did, then why did you even leave a comment? Instead of embarrassing yourself here, do yourself a BIG favour and actually bother to investigate this. Look into the Contingency Argument for God's Existence, because you clearly do not have a clue.

[OfDeath]

I'm not embarrassing myself so don't worry about that. And it definitely is an argument from ignorance since you claimed yourself that you couldn't see how existence could spontaneously appear ex nihilo and then you proceeded to invoke a supernatural explanation which has no empirical evidence backing it up whatsoever. That is basically the definition of "god of the gaps". You admitted ignorance. It's right there in your answer. And so you should, since nobody knows the actual answer.

Look, I've seen the contingency argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument etc etc. They are ALL arguments from imagination and none are convincing.
By the way, you haven't answered my question: if god has "always been" then why couldn't existence have always been without god? Do you have a valid reason for why it couldn't?

[Silas_153]

@OfDeath You're looking for "empirical (i. e. scientific, i. e. PHYSICAL) evidence" for a purely philosophical concept (i. e. God), an entity that transcends the reality He/It was ultimately responsible for bringing into being in the first place, in a manner similar to how an author can create an entire world within the confines of a novel.
Do you see how misguided your line of reasoning is? Science (the method) itself is built upon certain philosophical assumptions being true and axiomatic, the most notable being the belief in an objective reality that is completely independent of observation, that reality is "just there" regardless of anything else.
The question of God's existence/non-existence has got nothing to do with science. Science is irrelevant to all of this, because this isn't something that the method of science can address, because that's not its function. What you are committing is a category error, and yet (like virtually all atheists) you don't even see that.

[OfDeath]

Misguided? I'm going by the only proven line of reasoning ever found. Even a priori reasoning doesn't include the purely imaginary. Category error? No. Science is the best tool we have to ascertain actually reality. If you say god is "immaterial" and can't be ascertained, you're doing nothing but make believing. In which case, how can you say it exists and is an explanation worth taking seriously when the whole idea comes straight from human imagination and nowhere else. Just like the Hafgufa or leprechauns or telepathic wind or any other thing you can imagine does.
And still, you have not answered my question: if you say God has "always been", why couldn't existence have always been? And how does god even exist without an existence to exist in anyway?

You think I don't understand, but people like you are really the ones who don't. You see, creator god is philosophical self contradiction. God needs to either be A) infinite in which case infinity needs to exist and god needs to use it or B) god needs to be self caused and use self causation in order to exist or C) god needs to BE infinity and/or self causation in order to remain relevant. The problem with that is infinity or self causation is not necessarily reliant on a god existing but a god is reliant on those to exist or to be them. To say god is those things is just playing with semantics. Verbal gymnastics. Contorting literary meaning. A form of special pleading. A reliant entity by definition cannot be a first cause. Therefore god as an explanation for existence is a contradiction of itself.

[OfDeath]

But let's put all of that to one side for the moment and just probe the integrity of your "contingency argument" (I still want an answer to my previous question by the way): if everything is contingent, why would the first cause have to be god? Out of the infinite imaginary possibilities, why would it HAVE to be god?

[Silas_153]

@OfDeath "God needs to be self-caused". Nope, God is what is known as being 'necessary', or non-contingent.
It's clear to me that you just don't understand the philosophical arguments for God. I suggest you familiarise yourself with them.

[OfDeath]

I understand the arguments as I said but they are flawed arguments as I have pointed out. There is nothing about god which proven it to be necessary and there is also nothing about god which is proven. It is an imaginary concept with nothing to do with known reality.
You still haven been able to answer my questions by the way. By this point, it's safe to assume it is because you can't. Which brings me to my main point. If you can't come up with a valid reason for why someone couldn't believe in god, you don't have a valid reason for why atheists are wrong.

[genericname85]

no. you can't go back. cause once you know religion isn't true, you can never "forget" that. it's like you can't ever unsee things, once you've seen them.

the only thing that reliably gets people back to faith is severe traumatic events that litterally shatters an individuals wold. then people turn to face as a replacement for suicide. and in this case, i guess it's a better solution.

[genericname85]

turn to faith...*

[NoLookingAtSoleil]

All it seems to revolve around is the Mongol conquests and how to be peaceful while someone rapes your girl. And then God will avenge you/her blah blah.
So, no, no plans of going religious. I'd rather we cut off India and China and the Middle East and Africa and lived our happy lives. They are mostly useless anyhow.

[TheFlak38]

I was always religious. I am a Jedi like my father before me.

[BlacklightShade]

No. I went from being religious to not having sufficient evidence to support my religion.

[FunkyMonkee]

I can't answer the question, it doesn't make any sense.

[In_Trance]

Once you start asking questions, I don't think there's any going back

[scorpion2662]

they already found an excuse to leave religion and became atheists. they won't be religious again

[weysally]

no, there are too many unexplained things about it

[Hanrej]

What do you meen "again"? I've never believed.

[Kingofkings1992]

Nope, not even close.

[Blaine999]

I'm not an atheist, neither am i religious

[CountessSarah]

Those are mutually exclusive. Either you believe a god exists or you do not. If you believe a god exists, you are definitionally religious.

[Blaine999]

@CountessSarah sorry I'll clarify, I believe there's a god but he's a heartless bastard

[Astarlessnightsky]

No. never.