Jan Ardena:
Sometimes the obvious has to be stated, so we have a good basis for discussion.
Always remember there are two fundamental perspectives. Atheist, and theist.
Only in the bluntest possible sense. Obviously, there are many differences of opinion within atheism, and just as many differences in opinion within theism. It's just a matter of whether you want to call those differences "fundamental" or not, which is just playing around with language.
The atheist perspective is not the universal starting point.
Right. Babies start with no knowledge of religious ideas at all. No ideas about God. No ideas about philosophy. No political views. And so on an so forth. All that stuff is cultural knowledge that they have to learn. You have to have some understanding of what words like "atheism" and "theism" mean before you can properly start calling yourself one. The starting point is that you know no language.
Every atheist who has accepted, and believe in God, becoming Christian, expresses their atheist position as rejection, and denial of God.
No they don't. Some of them merely claim to have been unaware of God, then at some point they learn about it and the idea seems like a good fit for them.
Your description of atheists, of whatever stripe, as denying or rejecting God shows that you've never really got to grips with the alien atheist mindset. See, the thing is this:
atheists don't believe God exists. Read it again, slowly. What follows from that? One cannot "reject" a thing that does not exist.
Now, you're right that some theists will tell you stories like "I suddenly realised that, all along, God was right there in front of me, but I was blind! Then I saw the light, and became a Muslim/Christian/Hindu/insert religious affiliation of your choice. Now I realise that I was turning away from the wonderful Glory and Majesty of the Almighty, whose magnificence now fills my every waking hour. I didn't know what I was missing! Let's all join in a song of Praise in His Glorious Name!" These people are reassurring themselves. You can see the insecurity, right there. They've drunk the Kool Aid and they need to tell themselves a story about why they did that. So they make up this thing about realising they were in denial all along yada yada yada and it makes them feel better about their choice. Additionally, this is the kind of conversion story that their co-theists will endorse - one of a several acceptable "born again" narratives that play well with the devout. It's also a narrative that helps build in-group cohesion and protects against out-group ideas that might threaten the faith.
Those ideas are the dangerous ideas that must be quickly dismissed if they are raised at all.
I don’t think your atheism is as bleeding obvious as you would have us believe.
I didn't say atheism was bleeding obvious. If it was, then you wouldn't be a theist, for example - not unless there was sufficient payoff (in psychological or other terms) to offset the denial of the obvious.
On the other hand, maybe that's the explanation for theism. The idea that there's no God has always been hypothetically available to everybody. But there have historically been strong social and cultural forces working at suppressing that dangerous idea. In our current Age of Information, suddenly we're seeing change among those who have ready access to this kind of information (bear in mind that many in the world have no such access, still). Still, I don't see theism going away any time soon. It has its attractions, undoubtedly, even if it isn't true.
Atheists pretend to want evidence so they can can accept, or even believe in God.
Rational people want evidence before they will commit to believing in
anything wholeheartedly, let alone with the kind of single-minded devotion that apologists like yourself display. Why should belief in God be subject to special rules and exempt from the kind of examination given to any other knowledge claim?
But former atheist never accept God on the basis on the evidence they pretended to want.
Right! Hold that thought!
Now run with it: if they aren't accepting God on the basis of evidence, then why
are they believing in God? They must be motivated by other considerations than objective truth. Right?
That's the problem. Understand? You'll remain stuck unless and until you can broaden your horizons.
It's a flippant term for gods. Were you unaware? Not too far from the mark, however. The gods used to live among us. Then they moved to the sky. Then we lost the ability to point to exactly where they are. And now, for some of us, they are undergoing a Total Reality Failure.
Would they?
Don’t you think they could simply be correct?
Maybe they hold the key as far as you being able to give up your denial and rejection. A lot of them were just like you, always trying to hide behind science, learning a whole lot of logic, so they can appear to bring something to the table. They used the same tactics, but they managed to overcome it.
It's a rosy picture you paint, but I think it's a bit of a fantasy. I'd wager that a tiny, virtually insignificant proportion of people who are learned in science, logic and philosophy have ever converted from atheism to theism. The flow is in precisely the opposite direction more often than not, for those people. The atheist converts to theism are mostly to be found among those uneducated in matters like critical thinking and the scientific method. They are also found among those who have an existing affinity with the supernatural - the ones who describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious". Those people often drift around among fringe beliefs, then suddenly discover one of the major religions and have an epiphany. They might tell you they were atheist in the past, and it won't be a lie. But don't kid yourself that these people were "hiding behind science" or "learning a whole lot of logic". They never did that.
They overcame their denial, rejection, and arrogance.
Ah, arrogance. Now we get to it. Is that what upsets you about atheists, especially, Jan? You being lily white and all in that department? I have to chuckle just a little.
By the way, don't think that I'm unaware that
my posts on the topic of your theism have been a little arrogant of late. Unfortunately, through spending quite a lot of time on internet forums like this one, I have developed something of a habit of tone matching. It's not something I'm especially proud of, but I'm not above meeting arrogance with arrogance. And you, Jan, have spent a
lot of time preaching about "the atheist mindset" being this or that, about the atheists believing this or that, about the atheists denying this or that. That's when you have been able to drag yourself away from preaching deepities like "God Is" and "Theism is a fundamental position" and "Theists
just know that God is Real".
We
could talk about our respective positions with more respect, in good faith, with the aim of understanding the other's position better, but you insist on setting a particular tone. So here we are.
Nobody can convince anybody that God is real.
In the bluntest sense, you're right. Nobody can convince anybody of anything, unless the person receiving the information "realises" that it is true (i.e. comes to believe it is true).
You would have it that religious indoctrination is a waste of time, then, I take it? And yet, all the evidence shows that it appears to work, which tends to refute your claim.
I don’t believe you think I [pick and choose] with the bible.
I do think that. You quote verses from the bible to support your views, but then you turn around and say that Christianity, which is based on the New Testament, gets a lot of things wrong. That's just one example.
I'm confident that you're just as selective about the
Baghavad Gita and your other favorite "scriptures". Take certain parts to heart, ignore other parts, put a particular spin on yet other parts to make yourself comfortable about them, mix and match from various religious writings and ideas. In the end, you have a one-man religion, tailor made.
Having said that, I'm not that familiar with ISKCON beliefs, and your beliefs seems to be very closely aligned with that particular faith, so maybe that was where you started.