"I Was Once an Atheist Just Like You"
September 26th, 2008 by Dan KlarmannI have personally heard this claim from several Christian Fundamentalists. It usually doesn’t survive examination. They were raised to the church, had a normal adolescent rebellion and denied everything to do with the authority structure they knew. Then as they matured they experienced the guided hallucination (revelation, dream, epiphany, psychotic break) that returned them to the church with the burning fervor of any new convert. Proverbs 22-6 pretty well promises this return to type.
What was their “atheism” like? Let’s quote one who has recently been visiting us:
“I have lived life apart from God (thinking that I was the center of the universe, not wanting to admit that I was a follower, I was convinced of my uniqueness).”
I don’t know any atheists like that.
“Center of the Universe“? Rational atheists know that the universe is big, and the Earth is tiny. We are as unlikely to be the center of the universe as we are certainly living on a minor planet near a smallish star near the edge of our own little galaxy of 200,000,000,000 or more stars. This is a minor galaxy in our local galactic cluster, that is itself nothing significant in the vast foam of galaxies. All created for “me”? Uh. Huh.
“Convinced of my Uniqueness“? Aside from the statistical uniqueness of any macroscopic assembly of fermions compared to any other, atheists usually know that we are basically interchangeable parts of any social unit larger than their close circle of family and friends. Every individual is unique unto himself. But not to the social matrix in which we live. Any of us might have written this post, allowing for stylistic differences, pleasing or offending the same readers.
“Not wanting to admit I was a follower” is typical adolescence. Sociologically and anthropologically, humans are pack or tribe animals, somewhat like wolves but more like bonobos, who form fractal group hierarchies naturally. Teens are especially prone to forming cliques with leaders and followers within and between. But the followers don’t want to think of themselves as such, so they claim to be individualists, as they carefully mimic the behaviors and accouterments of the current peer leaders while carefully disassociating themselves from the societies of their progenitors and predecessors.
“Life apart from God“? I was never a theist. The faiths in which my parents were raised canceled out before I was born, and they quietly raised atheist kids in a rural Christian neighborhood. We never did drugs, we never were promiscuous. We respected our elders as well as did our peers, and lived by the Golden Rule. Excluding Santa Claus, we never believed in invisible father figures. We never believed in eternal posthumous punishment for our own actions, much less for the actions of our very distant ancestors.
Yes, I was raised apart from God. Never missed him.
Another charge raised (but not in this particular quote) is that Atheists think the world was always as it now is. Nope. Rational atheists know (and most Eastern philosophies have always held) that the world is ever changing. Mountain ranges come and go. Oceans relatively rise and recede. Glaciers come and go, and continents drift gracefully like the slag on ladle of steel. Societies, languages, civilizations, and species are always evolving, even faster than the landscape. The Sahara wetlands (a true Garden of Eden) became a desert in the time that man has lived there. All of this is measurable.
Was I raised with any beliefs? Sure. I always believed in discernible causes for any given effect. I probably believed in Evolution until I had enough education to understand it. Now I know it. Like gravity, electromagnetism, or quantum parity.
Just like Me? I don’t think so.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
First of all you assume that I was raised in the church. Secondly, you assume that I rejected God. Thirdly, the “junk” (guided hallucination (revelation, dream, epiphany, psychotic break)) you speak of is ridiculous. God calls us to Himself through His Word and there is no magic dust or weird event when a person repents. He accepts that his ways are wrong and that God’s are right. He chooses to follow God’s ways.
You have made many assumptions (as is the case with most of you guys on this site) that are just not true. Sorry that you have had some bad experiences with people in the past who called themselves “Christians”. I am not like what you assume I am (I know that is hard for you to imagine).
Athiests have rejected God. When you reject God you have to put something in His place. Man usually puts himself in the place of God (ie I know better than God so I will live the way that I want to and not the way that He says). So you do see yourself as the center of the universe because you reject the One who is the center of the universe.
I hear atheists (free thinkers) constantly saying things like “think for yourselves, do not depend on a god who does not exist”. In other words, you are unique and should not be the way that God wants you to be (that is uniqueness).
People are followers all of their lives. From teens to seniors, all people follow. You follow some philosophy in life (not uniquely created by you because there is nothing new under the soon). As I said, all people are followers, even atheists follow (the idea of rejecting God, you guys did not invent that you know). You admit that you were “raised” an atheists. You are following that teaching.
All of us are apart from God until we repent and return to Him so thanks for agreeing with my argument. I do not have to comment anymore on that.
Yes, I was just like you, apart from God, thinking I was unique and not needing God to tell me what to do. I believed in Evolution too (I know that is hard for you to believe). So, if I can repent and be changed then there is hope for you too. The choice is yours.
By the way, I did not want to believe in eternal judgment because I did not want to be held accountable for my actions (you know, the ones no one sees but you).
my anti spam word was “follow” how appropriate
September 27th, 2008 at 6:19 am
I love that a Christian and an Atheist can have such a discussion jabbing back and forth at each other like politicians, and not stop to think why. Why are you both trying to convince the other? Dan, telling Erik that his beliefs are hallucinations or a psychotic break is not a way to get your point across. Erik, explaining to Dan that he can repent and still be saved is not something to tell an Atheist to convince him to believe in your God. In my opinion, this is whats wrong with religion in general. I have recently embraced an Atheist belief because I feel that religion has done nothing but hurt society throughout history. The last thing an Atheist should be doing is start fighting with a Christian about what he or she should believe in. You then begin to judge everyone around you as all religions seem to do. Atheist strive to believe in truth and logic. To answer life’s questions with real answers driven by science, and not relying on a personal God. So in saying that, how logical is it to start arguments with a Christian.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I did not intend to imply that belief itself was a hallucination. It is the singular event that every “born again” has had, that revelatory instant, the petit mal seizure, the burst of hormones, that I was referring to.
Once we learned something about the brain, such events were no longer assumed to be either demonic possession or divine illumination. Except among those who chose to so represent them.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:59 am
"When you reject God you have to put something in His place" puzzles me. I rejected unicorns, Zeus, gremlins, and elves without replacement. In what way is this God different? Why must there be a replacement for this one invisible, intangible, undetectable being but not all the thousands of others we are raised with?
September 27th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Erik: Are you denying that you ever rejected God, yet still claiming that you were an atheist like me? How does that work?
September 27th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
“When you reject God you have to put something in His place”
Don’t be puzzled Dan. When Erik rejected God HE put other things in His place. Therefore if you reject God, you too will put other things in His place because YOU ARE EXACTLY LIKE ERIK.
That is Erik’s “conceit” that I referred to in another thread. Erik becomes a slave to sin when he loses sight of God, therefore the same must happen to you if you do the same thing! It is the narcissistic egocentrism that drives much of fundamentalist thinking. Erik and his kind can not accept that it’s a big world out there with many different kinds of people and not everyone’s experience of life is like theirs.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Erik said:
“Athiests have rejected God. When you reject God you have to put something in His place. Man usually puts himself in the place of God (ie I know better than God so I will live the way that I want to and not the way that He says). So you do see yourself as the center of the universe because you reject the One who is the center of the universe.”
Can you say this right after accusing others of making sweeping generalizations without any sense of irony? Holy cow, Erik. SOME atheists (note spelling) actively reject the god they were brought up to believe because of negative associations with their religion, but the rest of us are no more “rejecting” god than you are “rejecting” Vishnu. So whom have you put in the place of Vishnu? According to what you just said, you HAVE to put something in place of Vishnu after rejecting him. Now, he’s not the center of the universe, per se, but he rules over it, so in rejecting him, do you now consider yourself the ruler of the universe?
When someone considers himself the center of the universe, it does not naturally follow that he is an atheist. Believe me, I’ve dated a few. Overwhelmingly, I’ve found that atheists think much the way I do - this life is it, no do-overs, let’s make the most of it and be remembered fondly when we’re gone. They do not expect to take care only of themselves without regard for others, they don’t expect special privileges or take advantage of others, they just want to enjoy being alive. Can you equate that attitude with “seeing yourself as the center of the universe”?
The rest of your response serves less to refute Dan’s points than support them, as well. Perhaps if you paid attention to what atheists have to say rather than only what you plan to say next, you might be able to speak with more authority.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
• Dave Caselli
I guess the fact that the Catholic church basically saved Western Society from becoming totally illiterate during the Europe’s dark Medieval period really is not that big of a feat.
By the way, I am not trying to convert anyone here, that is not my job. I am sharing the Truth from God’s Word. You can choose to listen or not.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
• Dan Klarmann
There was not burst of hormones when I was born again, no tingly feeling or anything like that. You obviously do not know what it means to be born again.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
• Dan Klarmann
You are confusing the God of the universe with fantasies. God is very different, He is real. He works in the lives of people. Just because you do not know Him does not negate His existence.
We are born with a desire to know God and when we reject Him we have to fill that void to know Him with something, that is just the way life is like it or not.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
• Dan Klarmann
I lived many years as a person who had rejected God. I had a futile mind (useless or depraved). God had to change me because I was completely lost.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
• Mike Pulcinella
You still misunderstand, you do not become a slave to sin by rejecting God. You are born a slave to sin and remain one until God sets you free. Once you are set free then you are free.
There is a big world out there and I have seen much of it and have met people from every corner of it (corner is an expression, I do not believe that the world is flat). All people in every culture are the same in the fact that people are born as slaves to sin and they are seeking to be set free as they search for God (some call it the meaning of life or the origin of everything). Telling the facts is not being conceited. I know that you do not like the facts because they destroy your desired worldview.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
• Alison
If you would read the Bible you would see that I am just sharing what God says on the subject. If you are upset then please take it up with God and not me, just relaying the message.
I am not talking about a god of a religion. I am talking about the God of the Bible, the only God (He even says that He is the only one saying, “how many of the other so called gods speak with you the way that I do”), the Creator of the universe. You can reject a false god all that you want (in fact that is good because they are not real). Vishnu is from the vain imagination of men (I have already written about comparing apples and oranges so you can read that).
There are no do overs so you only get one chance, you can choose to serve God and have a relationship with Him which leads to abundant life (a life free from slavery to sin). Make the most of it by investing your life in serving God by investing in the lives of others (since people are the only thing eternal), leaving a legacy for others to follow.
As the Bible says, by nature we are selfish until God sets us free from that, so, those who have rejected God claiming to be atheists are selfish.
I read everything that is written thank you very much. I know what they are going to say because they all think the same and respond the same way. I have been down this road more than once.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:16 am
Forget the god/not-god argument. This post won’t be about that.
Mr Brewer said: “I guess the fact that the Catholic church basically saved Western Society from becoming totally illiterate during the Europe’s dark Medieval period really is not that big of a feat.”
The fact that the Vatican was largely responsible for Europe’s backslide into superstition, illiteracy, tortures, executions, witch-hunts, Crusades, Inquisitions and away from knowledge & reason has clearly escaped your attention. The Renaissance, led by thinkers, artists, scientists, writers & inventors (of all religious & non-religious flavours), dragged Europe out of the Dark Ages, often times in stark opposition to the Vatican.
It wasn’t atheists or secularists who convicted Galileo Galilei in the 1600s of heresy for following the Copernican model of heliocentrism, which they judged as contradicting Scripture (and then took until the 1990s to apologise to him). But at least he was only placed under house arrest until he died. Many others didn’t get off as lightly for daring to question the “truth”.
The Dark Ages happened while the Vatican was the supreme power in Europe. The glorious beauty & world-changing discoveries of the Renaissance happened in response to centuries of Vatican imperialism and enforced ignorance of the populace. And it’s still trying: the Vatican, still reeking of the monolithic & sinister Dark Ages theocracy that it once was, continues to this day to deny the efficacy of condoms & other birth control methods and still flatly refuses to allow its subjects the basic human right to decide when they will conceive children, and how many.
I’ll always give credit where it’s due, but citing the Vatican as Europe’s intellectual saviour when it was actually its mental jailer who set the region back centuries is as wrong as you can get. It’s like calling George W Bush a blessed peacemaker.
And then:
“I am not talking about a god of a religion. I am talking about the God of the Bible, the only God (He even says that He is the only one saying, “how many of the other so called gods speak with you the way that I do”), the Creator of the universe. You can reject a false god all that you want (in fact that is good because they are not real). Vishnu is from the vain imagination of men (I have already written about comparing apples and oranges so you can read that).”
FYI: actually, you ARE talking about the god of a religion when you talk about the god of your bible. The god you speak of is the very definition of the god of a religion. The scripture you cite is the scripture of your religion. Gods and religions are like music and instruments. If your god isn’t the god of a religion, what’s he the god of exactly? A book club?
As for false gods: but for an accident of birth, you or anyone could have been born to Hindu parents with a shrine to Vishnu or Shiva or Krishna in their front room and would have grown up “knowing” all their stories as “the truth”. We could have been born to the bin Ladens and now be in a cave somewhere, cursing America. Hell, we could have been born to those Phelps freaks from Westboro (and also, oddly enough, cursing America). The point is you’re a Christian because that’s what you know and that’s what’s acceptable and that’s what’s done around your parts. If you’d been born in Israel, Pakistan or just a different part of whatever country you’re from (I assume the US), I doubt very much you’d be trolling these comment threads with quite the same brand of “truth”.
You finished with “I know what they are going to say because they all think the same and respond the same way. I have been down this road more than once.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself so I won’t even try.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Erik B: About the "junk" that I speak of: Study some basic psychology, basic sociology, basic anthropology, basic folklore, comparative religions, and some basic ancient history. By “basic” I mean first or second year university courses or equivalent. Then add a touch of neurophysiology, neuropharmacology, some fMRI results, do some reading into the relation of all these fields to transcendental experiences.
Then we can talk intelligently about my nonsense.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Hank:
I have to say that your caricature of history is as laughable as Erik/Karl’s caricature of science. Sorry, the Vatican was not responsible for the collapse of the Roman empire, or much of the violence that plagued Europe afterwards, unless you think they were secretly in cahoots with the Vikings, etc. The period 300-1000 in Northern Europe saw many innovations in literature, agricultural technology, government, architecture, punctuated with violence. (Kind of like recent European history, in fact) And, the idea of medieval witch hunts is such a firmly fixed myth in the minds of most people it’s probably hard to dispel, but I have to point out that witch hunts were a phenomenon of the early modern era (1600’s) and as much a result of Renaissance fascination with magic as religious superstition. Official church doctrine through most of the medieval era was that witchcraft was a delusion. The most “successful” professional witch hunters were not prototypes of medieval superstition but of the modern self-appointed expert or “empty suit”, dispensing pseudo-scientific prescriptions for society.
Renaissance proto-science was as much about what we call magic as about science - just have a look at the fantasy/sci-fi section of any bookstore and you’ll see the connection is still deep. Both are about power and control over “nature”, which in turn makes possible more complete control of some humans over others.
As Walter Benjamin says, there is no document of civilization which is not also simultaneously a document of barbarism.
September 28th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Dan Klarmann
I have studied your “basic psychology, basic sociology, basic anthropology, basic folklore, comparative religions, and some basic ancient history”
Been there and done that in a secular University (more than one actually)
I have been talking intelligently the entire time. The problem is that you just cannot accept what I am saying because it destroys your beloved worldview.
September 28th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Vicki Baker:
I ask you to please re-read Hank’s “caricature of history” If you can find anywhere in it that he mentions the roman empire or more specifically any labeled period of time that coincides with the years 300-1000 I will get back to and apologize for calling you crazy. Your crazy.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Erik B: So you do know how the cerebellum, hippocampus and thalamus are affected by rituals, and the way that learning stories guides future perceptions. You also have learned how feelings like “in love” and “certainty” are triggered by known hormones that are themselves triggered by particular combinations of perceptions and experiences. You also know how we know these things.
In what way did God change you that is not covered by these mechanisms?
You are also aware of the way that monotheism evolved from animism via polytheism in the Fertile Crescent, eventually producing the local provincial culture that assembled and edited the anthology that you cite as the only source of truth, as well as the self-contained proof of its own claims.
But you still haven’t shown how you were ever an atheist like me.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Hank wrote:—”The fact that the Vatican was largely responsible for Europe’s backslide into superstition, illiteracy, tortures, executions, witch-hunts, Crusades, Inquisitions and away from knowledge & reason has clearly escaped your attention.”
Gotta quibble with you a little bit, Hank, much as I’d like to agree. When Rome fell (476 C.E.) the only unified (and I use that term loosely) organization left continent-wide (barely) was the church. Most people until Charlemagne were using old scrolls and what-not for kindling. The monasteries preserved an awful lot, but the most important thing they preserved was the ability to read and write, which really took a hit once the Northern tribes had done with good old Rome.
From Charlemagne on (circa 800 C.E.), you have an argument. But the tools of that fight were preserved primarily by the church, up until the Renaissance, but really even up to the Reformation.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Erik wrote:—”I have studied your “basic psychology, basic sociology, basic anthropology, basic folklore, comparative religions, and some basic ancient history”
Been there and done that in a secular University (more than one actually)
I have been talking intelligently the entire time. The problem is that you just cannot accept what I am saying because it destroys your beloved worldview.”
You have demonstrated not one iota of understanding about any of it. If you studied it, it was with your mind already made up that it was nonsense. I keep telling you, it’s not so much that you’re wrong but that you don’t argue very well. Every single one of your arguments comes dow to “You are in error because you run counter to what the Bible/god says.”
That’s not an argument—it’s an assertion.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Matt D. - the period roughly 300-1000 CE was the period the Roman church functioned as the main institution of cultural continuity in Europe, as Mark also pointed out.
(I don’t really see the Carolingian empire as a big watershed, though) After that you get the rise of cities, more trade, the Black Death, exposure to Arabic intellectual currents, and poof quattrocentro Italy.
The idea that the Renaissance was about magic as well as “real” science may be new to you, but read up. If you want crazy, try reading the complete works of Isaac Newton. Was he a forerunner of the modern scientific Enlightenment? Of course! Was he also a magician who believed in transmutation of base metals and even weirder occult doctrines? Absolutely!
History is actually a lot more interesting when you stop trying to read into it some epic struggle between evil black hats and good white hats.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Matt D. wrote “Your crazy.” My crazy what? My crazy theories? Oh, was there supposed to be a verb in there?
September 29th, 2008 at 11:43 am
• Mark Tiedemann
I studied in the secular universities before I became a Christian so no, my mind was not already made up. I soaked it up like a sponge and believed it until I started studying the Word of God. You see, you guys assume that a born again Christian grew up in the church with blinders on. That is an assumption that you must move away from when dealing with me. I use the Scripture to explain where you are mistaken, that is not bad arguing. I am sorry that you do not like it but I will always use the Truth to point our error. Truth is the only thing that exposes error.
September 29th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
• Dan Klarmann
I was a pagan (non Christian, atheist, etc). I did not want to believe in God. I lived in sin (fulfilling the desires of my flesh), very selfish, only thinking about myself, ready to do whatever to get what I wanted. I lived by feeling and emotions (going which ever way that the wind blew). I considered myself a good person (never murdered anyone) that was my excuse.
I began to study the Bible and I realized that I was living a lie. My life was based on smoke and mirrors (none of it was true). I saw what true life was and the need for a real relationship with God. I realized that I was a slave to sin and needed freedom. I realized that freedom is found in Jesus and that I must repent of my sins (admit what sin is, that is was a sinner, turn away from sin, and follow God). I made that choice and God changed my heart (character, the way I think). I was freed from sin (received the ability to say no to sin every moment of every day). There were no warm fuzzy, tingly feelings. I was rational before becoming a Christian and have remained rational since then. I study the Word of God, understand It, and apply It to my life on a daily basis. I changed from a person who could care less about God to a person who wants to know more about God on a daily basis. The way that I look at people changed. I have a tremendous love for people. Not this emotional tingly feeling but a genuine love for people, for their well being, for their salvation, for them to be set free from their slavery to sin etc.
September 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Read Genesis, God met face to face with man. Man sinned so that meeting was separated so the rest of history we have seen people trying to get back to God. The problem is, instead of coming to God His way, they made up their own ways (hence all of the religions of the world). God stepped in and revealed Himself to Abraham and developed the path back to God on His terms. That is why there was polytheism before monotheism (actually monotheism was first, see the Genesis in the Garden).
September 29th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Erik wrote:—”You see, you guys assume that a born again Christian grew up in the church with blinders on. ”
No, I don’t. I assume that what you learned in University—studied in University, I should say—was just too complicated. Combined with other factors, you decided things really shouldn’t be that hard to understand, and what do you know? There’s the Bible with all its nice, homey stories and comfort etc. I know a few people who turned from the secular to the profoundly religious and generally it had to do with some sort of disconnect—often quite striking, sometimes violent—and maybe more than a little overload.
Your assumption is that this thing you believe is all there is and that we have simply never experienced it (otherwise how could we possibly be unbelievers) and are blind to truth, when actually those of us who were quite dedicated just sort of grew out of it. Like growing out of Santa Claus.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
If you knew the depths of the Word of God you would realize that a statement like “I grew out of it” is quite absurd.
I know what it is like not to be able to understand the Bible and be led by what others say about the Bible (been there and done that too).
I understood everything from my university experience (graduated with honors in the top of my classes). I realized that there are 2 radically different world views in the world today (those who are true followers of God and those who are not). You can divide the entire world into those two categories. As I said, I am well traveled and have seen people (met and gotten to know) people from all over the world. All people fall into the category of those who know God and those who do not know Him (know on an intimate level, not just knowing about).
Your assumptions about me are just wrong. I have never checked my logical brain at the door. I take a pragmatic, logical look at the Scriptures. I also know how to critique writing and analyze it as well as the simple process of studying a text. Using all of that I have seen that the Scriptures are the Truth (I believe them because I have tested them and seen that they are the Truth).
I do not know where you have been but I do know that there is One Truth, I know the Truth and follow it. There is no real alternative (it is false because when something is not truth then it is false).
September 30th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Erik wrote:—”If you knew the depths of the Word of God you would realize that a statement like “I grew out of it” is quite absurd.
I know what it is like not to be able to understand the Bible and be led by what others say about the Bible (been there and done that too).”
You’re making assumptions there.
Erik also wrote:—”I do not know where you have been but I do know that there is One Truth, I know the Truth and follow it. There is no real alternative (it is false because when something is not truth then it is false).”
Truth is a process. Once it becomes a static, fixed Thing, it dies. Ergo, while it might have a single descriptor (process) it is never ever One Thing. That is where you slid down the rabbit hole. I understand now.
Go in peace.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Vicki wrote:—”(I don’t really see the Carolingian empire as a big watershed, though)”
Vicki, it was the first widespread attempt by a secular ruler to gather and preserve knowledge (at Aix-la-Chapelle). Charlemagne’s court is, I think, the model for Camelot. He gathered thinkers, poets, engineers, artists. It was the point at which the idea that culture could be preserved and maintained outside the church first took solid form. Granted, it suffered a couple of missteps till the Renaissance, but for me it is representative.