I presume many here are not believers. So, for those who believe—and in the spirit of open and genuine curiosity—I’d love to know what made them change their minds.

I have a PhD in STEM. I started believing in my late 20s in graduate school. Readings that were influential included: accounts of high profile scientists who were also believers (e.g., Freeman Dyson), Tolstoy's "Confession", poets like William Blake and thinkers like Simone Weil, philosophers like Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard, and apologetics from C.S. Lewis and GK Chesterton.

My motivation to read any of this was downstream of some other internal feeling that I couldn't shake and slowly began to gnaw at me in my 20s -- that what I could sense around me (or sense at all) couldn't be all that "is". I suppose one way to phrase this is that I became increasingly disturbed by my inability to answer fundamental "where?" or "why?" questions (e.g., "why did the Big Bang happen?", "where is the singularity?", etc.). The standard retorts that some things are simply mysteries didn't satisfy me. Instead I started to suspect that much of what I thought was "territory" was actually just various "maps" that people have created in their minds to help navigate the territory. Around this time I stumbled onto Immanuel Kant's antinomies and realized that many people had thought along these lines in the past. Once I was on this trail, I've never strayed.

Natural scientist by education and degrees and raised in implicitly atheistic soviet family in my pursuit of truth I started noticing more and more evidence of the world picture without God not making much sense and fundamentally incomplete, flawed in many ways. Also it is heavily pushed down modern western people’s throats with very little real scientific support for its foundational claims.

Also noticing people pursuing their own agenda and manipulating others with “atheism” religion.

A lot of thinking, logical reasoning and a sprinkle of personal unusual experiences eventually made obvious for me that there is much more to all this than meets the eye. And there must be some deity.

Nobody knows for certain what or who he is, but world with him is much more credible model of reality than without. And by definition he can’t be “proved” so I believe in him technically, though it feels like I know.

Also on a personal note (as you see from many comments here) - many so called atheists are arrogant people (in same way as religious radicals), while most true believers I met are more humble about their faith. Though it is definitely a biased perspective. But still Id rather be associated with best religion thinkers (like for example vast majority of mideveal thinkers that shaped our modern civilization) rather than with so called atheists who tend think they are the center of the universe.

I don't subscribe to God.

Humans have been inventing gods since the beginning of time as a way to control/exploit the masses or soothe the over active mind.

There are thousands of dead religions, but this round of current popular religions has hit the nail on the head... right?

A truly powerful and kind super being would not allow child abuse, cancer, famine, or rape to happen. Even if there is a god, I don't want to worship something that allows those things to happen.

Also, the term god is relative. To an ant, we are gods. Any sufficiently advanced being would appear god like to us. Should ants worship us given how little we care about them?

For every moment of beauty that must prove God's existence, there are an equal number of atrocities that must prove God's absence. We just don't see them as often, because humans hide that sort of stuff from polite society.

It's far more healthy to accept our mortality and short lifespan, packing it with things that make us happy. Masking your fears of death with a religion is a mistake.

Rather than devoting my life to worshipping something which may or may not reward me in the next life, I plan to spend my time doing and feeling positive things (because they feel good).

If I had to pick a religion, I think I'd choose Buddhism. It just seems like a good way to be peaceful.

Started at, idk, 2yo because everyone around me believed. Stopped at 18yo once I was old enough to actually understand reality.

Grew up in the faith, but never made it my own. I fell away for some years after I left home, with psychedelics, and ‘free’ sexuality before I realized that I had been desperate to fill an emptiness and the find answers to the plaguing questions that plagued me of who I was and what I was for and why I should continue living. It took a night of experimentation in witchcraft to snap me to the realization that if there WAS a god, maybe it was possible that it could be the God that came to be with us as man. “If he is there, if he is all powerful and loving, then surely you will let me know you are there, that you are Truth, because that is what I have been searching for“ was the essence of the prayer that night and the rest is history. I have an M.Sc. in the earth sciences. I loved learning previously about the beautiful and intricate interplay of factors across discrete systems in our physical world and, from the start of my reversion, I have looked for something that I can’t accept in the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that is logically inconsistent or incoherent within an all-encompassing view of reality, physical and otherwise… something I can unequivocally view as bullshit so that I don’t have to believe it, so I don’t have to impose upon myself everything that would be entailed if religion were indeed all true. Instead, The book has instead been wonderfully illuminating and found it to be a great primer for learning about the spiritual and human side of our metaphysical reality.

Regardless of religion, creed, or motto, it is human to seek the truth and understand it.

I’m all for the truth, or even anything resembling the truth.

You can choose to study physics, or sociology, or how the human body works, or the mind, and how to fight diseases etc.

Questions bigger than that seem too big to me, but if trying to find an answer to those questions makes people feel good and/or live good lives, why not?

Reading Christian mystics, Orthodox apophatic theology. It's correct and all very real despite the language they use. Zen etc is a better starting point, achieve kensho then go read the New Testament and watch your brain meltdown.

I had an atheist phase when I was like 15. Probably lasted until my early 20s. I blame that on Carl Sagen, Richard Dawkins, et al. I obsessively read science books, and all of these smart people were telling me there isn't a God. They made sense; I believed them.

I think around age 20-21, I read Descartes' Meditations on Philosophy, which forced me to evaluate all of my beliefs about existence. Digging further into other philosophers (and religions), I realized there's not a whole lot I really know... about anything.

Eventually, I came to the belief of there being a creator, although who or what this creator is, I have no idea.

Yeah it’s funny to compare yourself now when you touched some real thinkers and real wisdom and years ago when you thought charlatans like Dawkins were worth trusting :)

Which god?

I’m a fan of Ra the sun god.

What could be more reasonable than to worship the source of all heat life and light in this world? Unfortunately I grew up in the wrong era/continent for that.

Wagyl FTW here.

Once you've climbed a tree or cliff face and fallen free into the embrace of Wagyl's creation you'll not see the world in the same way again.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagyl

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djEqLRdqScM

Joe Pesci

I was told to when I was a toddler, but by the time I turned 12 or 13, I had outgrown the phase.

There is absolutely no god(s). It is a false fabrication of the human mind.

what created the universe?

Don’t know, but religions created to reign in the masses probably don’t explain it.

There were many religions before the Abrahamic ones.

how does religion being wrong disprove the existence of god?

There are monsters with human faces though. A great many.

I built a more solid foundation for life after discovering spirituality in my mid 30s, but I still do not believe in a God the way religious people do. The existence of a prime mover from which the universe expanded (pretty difficult to refute) doesn't require my worship.

The first few chapters of Alan Watts' "The Way of Zen" opened a completely new world to me outside of rationality which I sorely was ignorant about, and I desperately needed. Having a spiritual perspective from which to view the world is probably the most valuable part of the religious experience. The fantasies people have over the centuries built on top, I really can do without.

Using his name instead of his title/position helps. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Psalms-83-18/

It is my understanding that we don't really know how this is pronounced and that this is just another instance of the Tetragrammaton [1] that is normally rendered as LORD with a few exceptions like this. This could just as easily be Yahweh instead of Jehovah.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton

Or maybe you're not allowed to!

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-tetragrammaton/

Chalk this up as one more disagreement between believers (that they really should have settled by now, given their interactions with an unbiased, omniscient third-party)

I fail to see how.

Ahh, as in “om namah Shivaya” then?

Almost every human being started believing in god(s) because they were introduced to the idea by their parents or other family members or teachers in stories and rituals and songs, usually long before they had the capacity to focus on objects more than two feet away. Every human society I’ve ever visited is saturated with the trappings of some religion or another, often many, and the messages and symbols of history’s many mythologies resonate in everything from the architecture to the money.

Those who don’t believe are usually the ones who have changed their minds, not the other way around. It’s not surprising that some number of those change their minds again.

Why the limitations to one God?

Because of divine simplicity, the absolute maximum of perfection logically excludes the possibility of more than one.

if there were two gods, they would have to differ from each other in some way. But a being that is pure act (without any potentiality) and absolutely simple (not composed of parts) cannot have any accidental differences. They could only differ in their very “whatness” (essence). However, if they differ in essence, then one has a perfection the other lacks. The one lacking that perfection would not be absolutely perfect, and therefore would not be God. Thus, you cannot have two beings each claiming to be the maximum of being.

Couldn't you suppose these gods had the same one-many property as the Trinity and say that it's whole essence is perfect?

If you need a god to explain where the universe came from, induction would like a word with you

My understanding of God is not “one more thing in the universe that explains an earlier thing.” It is closer to God as the ground of being itself: the reason anything exists at all, including matter, energy, spacetime, causality, and whatever laws describe them.

Then explain evil

Loaded (and begging) questions are a fundamental part of circular reasoning.

Occam's razor ("Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity")?

I mean, God, isn't one enough? Honestly, it's too much for me!

Let's settle on having three then.

(If you had just one, it would look pretty silly calling himself father and praying to himself.)

By that argument zero is sufficient.

In nature everything has a opposite or opponent. That would make at least two.

Show me the opposite, or the opponent, of a black hole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole

I said show me, not point me at a hypothetical entity with no known pathway to reified existence.

> hypothetical entity with no known pathway to reified existence.

More realistic than god.

> More realistic than god.

No argument there, but “in nature everything has an opposite” is just as illogical; many things have no opposite, thus it’s not “at least two” it’s zero asshole gods in a nihilistic atheistic universe, one asshole god in a true monotheistic universe, one neutered god and one not-quite god representing the bit that’s been neutered off in a false monotheistic universe, one good god and one bad god in a morally balanced duotheistic universe (looks identical to the zero god(s) option), or a variable number of variably asshole gods in a polytheistic universe.

[flagged]

For me it was that the implications of atheistic materialism contradicted basic empiric knowledge. Atheistic materialism is an onthologic monism, the ultimate implication of it is that nothing can be defined since everything is a continuum. yet we can discriminate concrete objects and things. No essence can be defined in Mat-Ath, When I was an atheist I argued that the essence of things can be defined in their composition and geometry (arrangement) of constituent parts. But that is a weak argument since "objects" constantly lose atoms and gain new ones. Think about the atoms you lose and gain through all your life (throwback to the greek boat paradox)

Ultimately it was that in MatAth the person could not be defined, yet we are persons. Also the concept of specie was broken too, every animal would be its own specie.

Then I realized that atheists have no explaination for quantum probabilities, i thought that for God to not exist everything had to be explainable with mechanisms. But when we measure the spin of a particle, whether is spin up or spin down, there is a 50/50 perfect chance? what mechanism makes the choice? There is none, and atheists have no answer other than "thats just how the universe works, period" I realized that since there is no mechanism the only thing that remains to explain it is Will, and if there is will there is a person behind that will.

> atheists have no explaination for ...

So? Better to not be able to explain something, than a glib "god did it".

> atheists have no answer other than "thats just how the universe works, period"

I've never heard an atheist say anything like this. Or a physicist. They're more likely to say "that's how it appears to be. We don't know why. It's a bit of a mystery."

> the ultimate implication of it is that nothing can be defined since everything is a continuum.

What does this even mean?

That entire post, run through ChatGPT, gets summarized as “WOO!!!!”.

Not sure the fourth big bang was necessary.