Having found myself a theist who accepted there was no empirical test which would determine whether that belief was true or not, I figured the best way to test my belief in God (and my religious position more generally) was to argue with smart people. A "Science Maths and Philosophy" forum on a poker web-site seemed to me to have a decent level of filtering ensuring I'd get confident critique from intelligent people so I started posting there.

Over about six or seven years, my theism clarified a little but didnt really shift substantially*. I basically held the view that theism could be rational although a choice of religion was irrational (and forced). I went the usual rounds with the usual suspects and ended up predominantly arguing with other theists.

Over time, the spiritual experiences which had sustained my theism began to be less infrequent and to be less compelling. I suspect that the ongoing criticism (from Original Position and a guy called luckyme who hasnt posted much since RGT was formed unfortunately) contributed to that, but eventually it just kind of faded away.

One day I realised that not only had I not had any kind of "prayer experience" for a few months, but the whole thing seemed far more plausibly to have been caused by conditioning/parental rebellion/etcetera. It wasnt any particularly big deal - I just went back to being a strong atheist. I argued with atheists for a bit longer (I think weak atheists are just epistemological wusses) but couldnt see much point.

I dont have much interest in arguing with theists other than Jibninjas (since he seemed willing to debate minutiae and had a number of strangely irritating viewpoints ). I'm curious about what they think but dont see any reason to persuade them they're wrong.

End of story really - ended with a bit of a whimper (becoming a believer was far more traumatic!)

*

This.

I have to be careful how I phrase this question because I don't know exactly what you believed but how did you go from feeling and accepting the aspects of religion that most people find comforting, that fulfill the psychological need that we've touched on in other threads, to not having those things?

Is it possible that you never really believed in the first place?

My theism was always grounded in my personal experiences of prayer - without those, it no longer seemed even remotely plausible.

Fwiw, I didn't believe in intercessionary prayer, biblical miracles nor an afterlife, so I was relatively unusual (I also would have preferred to be an atheist - my theism was always reluctant).
No, I had a pretty strong belief. It persisted (or arose) through several years of skepticism and then for several more years while posting here fairly regularly and arguing/thinking about it lots.

Do you ever qualify your belief or lack of belief in terms of probabilities?
Do you ever think you'll return to theism?
Is your atheism as reluctant as your theism?

If you were on your death bed and found what you think to be true to be false would you prefer to be a theist or atheist? Should it matter.

Sorry if they are a bit vague I'm in one of those periods where I'm reflecting on my own faith a lot.

Never. I think people who try are kidding themselves, to be frank (or have bought one too many books by DS).

We don't have enough information to make any kind of estimate. Even calling it a guess is flattering, in my view.
No, but I would have laughed at the idea before I became a believer the first time. I don't see it as impossible now.
No. An atheist world has always appealed to me - seems somehow neater.
My preference is aesthetic. I don't think it really matters one way or the other. (I've never valued "ultimate meaning" particularly. Nor eternal life - a hundred years isn't enough but I wouldn't want more than a few hundred.
No worries. Just promise you won't put too much store in my opinions. Spirituality/theology is not my forte.

Would you say your beliefs now are substantially different from those you held before?

Thanks for the answers, I agree with the probabilities thing it just made sense when I was trying, unsuccessfully, to explain my strength of belief at different times.

The rest makes sense though I found myself as reluctant an atheist as I do a theist. Which probably explains why I'm lousy with theology and science despite having a passing interest in both.

Not other than the obvious one. (I'm not as morally careful as I used to be, but I suspect that's habit and social ease more than anything).

Cool, thx

Can you say more about the personal experiences you say dwindled out?

That makes me wonder what you thought of the Your Brain On God thread, I can't find any posts on it from you.

What was the purpose of your prayer then? If you didn't believe in an after life or intercessionary prayer, how did your belief manifest itself, what did you believe in?

Was there one particular issue that broke the camels back?

can you expand on what moral issues you have changed on? has it been hypothetical or practical?

I am interested to see you write this, as I am firmly of the opinion that the only way to spiritual truth is direct insight, and that debating and philosophising hold no weight whatsoever. To borrow a paragraph;

It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what you can argue. The truth doesn't care who believes in it, it remains unchanged if a billion people believe in it wholeheartedly the same as if a billion were to rubbish it completely. Your argument for it can be flawed, your argument against it impeccable: it doesn't matter. It still is.

Mystical concepts are notoriously impossible to put into words, whereas arguments constructed from logic, science, etc. are by their nature explanatory, clear, precise; what made you think you could successfully back and forth in this manner with smart people on this particular subject?

What was your original conversion experience btw?

To summarize the previous four posts, keep writing and don't stop until your fingers bleed

The title of this thread should include an "AMA" in it somewhere!

Echo the request for more info on the prayer experiences. Also, (assuming you know the passage), which type of 'seed' from the parable do you think you would be characterized as by Christians: the fast-growing/shallow-soil, the stolen-by-birds, or the choked-by-thorns seed? (The reason I ask is that oftentimes we Christians, in order to comfort ourselves when hearing of someone 'de-converting', like to compartmentalize their loss of faith into one of these categories. )

IMO the parable question is not relevant.
(Correct me if I am wrong Bunny)
Bunny was never a Christian, he believed in God as a creator in a very broad sense.

Edit:

to clarify I think the parable is about how people respond to the message of Christ, but I don't think Bunny ever believed in Christ as an Evangelical Christian would.

Whoops. I assumed that his faith experience was Christian church-based. (perhaps from his brief mentioning of his wife sharing his experiences, but remaining faithful?)

I guess this is why we have the AMA, hehe.

I was never particularly good at explaining it, but it was essentially an experience of communing with some other entity. I generally described it as akin to the experience of sharing a whiskey with a friend in silence. Although there's no externally perceptible difference between sitting next to a stranger both having a drink and sitting there with a friend sharing a drink in silence - the subjective experience of companionship is quite different. Prayer (to me) was kind of like that, but without the friend or the whiskey.

I spent many years presuming it to be a delusion, a wish for friendship, rebellion against my (passionately atheistic) family or one of the various other obvious explanations. Ultimately though, I discovered that I had come to believe it was God - that was kind of irritating, but it didnt go away. Having come to that belief, doing something about it is obviously mandatory (where "doing nothing" is one specific case of doing something).

I read a little about various religions. Found that eastern religions left me cold, the biblical literalists seemed irrational and eventually found that I could use a fairly allegorical reading of the bible as a framework for my spiritual experiences. I never regarded the bible as a book of factual statements but rather a poetic attempt to express the inexpressible.

As a theist, I didnt regard the choice of religion as a rational one - although I think rational theism is possible, I didnt think one can apply rational principles to select a religion (other than by weeding out all the nonsensical ones). Nonetheless, having discovered a belief in God - a choice of religion is forced (my definition of religion being "how one responds to a belief in God" - I dont consider membership of an organised religion to be mandatory, obviously). I muddled through as basically a heretic and found the bible a useful way to frame my spiritual beliefs and an inspiring springboard for meditation/consideration of various concepts.

I have no interest in brainscans and what people think they imply. I'd pay attention to comments from someone like tame_deuces (although it may not be his exact field, I think he's quite cluey about stuff like that) but wouldnt treat those kinds of studies as indicative of very much at all.
I believed that there was a creator of the universe who I could interact with in a subjective way. Doing so gave me a great deal of inner strength (not that I needed it terribly often), clarified my views on life/morality/relationships and was an act of grateful worship for making everything possible.
Probably but I dont really remember. If you ever bump into luckyme I would heartily recommend pursuing debate with him. He's frustrating (because he refuses to play along with people when they detour into things he's not interested in) but he's amusing, challenging and intelligent.

He whittled me down over the years and Original Position finished it off (or provoked the last little bit of critical analysis which finished it off, anyhow).

I'm afraid the loss of faith was pretty much a non-event - I dont really remember it very well. My faith was always quite different from what most report (although I maintain it was still quite strong - just with a different scope).

Purely practical. I dont hold any different moral views (that I'm aware of anyway) but the practise of weekly churchgoing (with, for example, group prayer for the unfortunates of the parish and of the world) keeps one focussed on how fortunate you are and how you can make a difference in other people's lives.

I spend far more evenings playing on my Ipad, watching junk on television and generally not thinking about the disadvantaged than I used to as a believer. I think I was a nicer person in one-on-one conversations too (although that's a little harder to measure).

Tithing was a good habit too - I never found it to become thoughtless. Every week I would consider what we were giving to, how that would help and if there were other worthy charities we could perhaps support. Nowadays we sponsor a few children, make annual donations to half a dozen charities but it's all a bit out-of-sight-out-of-mind really.

Gotta run for a bit, but two quickies. One, thanks for the thread, it is everything I wanted. Second, pretty cool IMO that honest intellectual debate with people everyone can respect like Original Position helped develop you into who you are now.

I would say that what you have put here is correct if spirituality is, in fact, true.

I was more concerned with what to do about things if it were all false. I was still going to church, reading my books, praying, and doing all that stuff - if it were true, I wasnt neglecting that side of life. I recognised though that the world would look exactly the same if it were all nonsense and I was, in fact, deluded.

In the case of me being mistaken about spiritual truths, the best way to catch myself out would seem to me to be to have smart people point out logical inconsistencies in my position. You're correct that the truth just is, irrespective of our beliefs about "it". Nonetheless, if my religion turned out to be inconsistent - that would be a good clue that I should reject or amend it. I didnt see any empirical way of testing it, so logical analysis seemed like a decent alternative.

(For example - if you believe God knows everything in advance but that the fall was a surprise to him then you have made an error and you should rethink your position.

If you think God exists and he actually does then logic isnt going to help you. It's purely a negative result - I could demonstrate myself incorrect, I didnt hold any hope for being able to prove myself right).

I think I was never a Christian as americans generally understand the term. I did go to a Christian church (the Uniting Church of Australia) and framed my beliefs in Christian language. We're a bit more laid back about such things here. The priests I spoke to basically regarded me as a well-meaning heretic.

Cool thread bunny, thanks for taking the time.
You have mentioned previously you base your morality on axioms

Definition of AXIOM
1: a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate 1
3: an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
See axiom defined for English-language learners »
See axiom defined for kids »

The more I discuss philosiphy/religion in RGT the more I think ones views are largely made up of axioms, or things one sees as self evident.

In a sense IMO it seems pointless to debate re God because God is self evident (or not depending on your viewpoint).

Take for example the beauty of a sunset. The sunset's beauty is an axiom which cannot be refuted and is highly subjective in nature. It seems senseless to debate agianst an axiom another person holds.

I share your experiences of having that silent companionship to varying degrees in my life. It is interesting how that sense is very strong at times an at other times is non existent.

Anyway I am not really making any real arguments in this post, kind of just rambling re some conclusions I have arrived at.

Christianity aside, I still think it is more likely there is intelligent design than not. I am not sure what would be necessary to change this axiom/belief I hold.

No worries. My interactions with Original Position were not quite debates really. I think that's giving me too much credit, to be frank. I see him as much more of a teacher in RGT rather than as an "equal participant" - I think we're lucky to have him. Ultimately though, I did my arguing with atheists like luckyme, Lestat and a bunch of others from SMP (before RGT existed) - by the time Original Position arrived on the scene I was spending most of my arguing time with theists.