Has anything made you question your non-belief?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Has anything made you question non-belief/atheism/agnosticism position?

To date no because I take the philosophical position that whilst there are things we cannot explain there is an implicit "yet". Also the thought that there might be a deity (at least any of those so far described to me) is so bloody awful in any rational sense I won't let my mind be perverted by the possibility and it stays an abstract possibility and as such can be easily destroyed by reason.

Kyu

[oldschooldoc]

I would have to irreducible complexity. I mean, every time I try to wrap my head around the subject, I feel God's warm embrace getting tighter as I begin to realize more and more that we had to have been create.....NOT!!! Michael Behe is a douchey windbag. He attempted to disguise the fact that his "irreducible complexity" argument was just Paley's "watchmaker" argument in a large-worded, harder-for-the-laymen-to-understand dress...and lipstick...something about a pig....whatever.

Now to really answer the question. Absolutely nothing. In fact, even the reason some have stated (loss of a loved one) just reaffirmed my non-belief.

[susangail]

Oh yeah...being raised (and still living) in a Christian household and constantly told "God be with you" and "I'm praying for you" makes not questioning my non-belief difficult. (But going to church this passed sunday did confirm my non-belief) so it's all good.

[Kiros]

Has anything made you question non-belief/atheism/agnosticism position?

Simply put, no. A few of my life experiences since I have become an atheist have reaffirmed my conclusions.

The only thing that would make me question myself would be if a god physically appeared before me (and at least a few other witnesses) and either performed a real miracle or explained to me why there was absolutely no proof of his/her/its existence.

[Nazzer]

Not really, though the argument from faith has given me pause, simply because of Pascal's Wager and it's implications. I know very well that it's a horrible argument, though.

[PipeBox]

Titan got me to question it for a few minutes last night.  I was sleepy, his argument was unsound, and now I feel quite bad about letting it slip by and taunt me for the better part of thirty minutes.  

(For those curious, I let him undermine the Law of Non-contradiction, stating that it was accepted by everyone on faith.  I didn't realize just then that a proof is out of the question, but it is falsifiable and rather representative of everything we've seen up to this point.  No single object may occupy two distinct places in space, and no two objects may occupy the same space, for example.  Likewise, nothing we've seen was simultaneously fully black and fully red, or fully 10,000 degrees C while also being fully 2 degrees C.  I'm normally better about the "proof" thing, but I was a bit taken aback by his willingness to gun for one of the most fundamental concepts of our existence.  Dumbstruck, as it were.)

[NearBr0ken]

I was an atheist until I encountered this argument:

If external rationality is rejected (since it's just another point of view and therefore should be questioned) the fact that Christianity is so internally consistent has made me question:  i.e.  "If the Christian God does exist, then I should look at the world through a Christian point of view.  When the world is looked at through a Christian point of view, the entire Christian worldview makes sense.  If I look at the world through an atheistic point of view, the Christian worldview is wrong, but according to Christians this is because I'm not looking at it from their point of view."

I've run into a great big inherent logical falacy:  Reality is the scope through which one views reality.  It's like trying to look at a microscope through the same microscope.  It threatens to lead us into the deep abyss of absolute relativism, stating that what is true day to day really just depends on your mood when you get up because one day you're going to die and it either won't matter at all or it will matter supremely, but there's not a darn thing you can do about it now and it's impossible to discern one from another because of said logical falacy.  see:  Descartes demon

Of course, I'm sure there's a name for this since someone has probably thought of it before, but I'm really too lazy too look it up.

So...I just quit worrying.  I'm agnostic now.  I hope that one day when I die, if God exists, he's decent enough to talk this through with me.  If he's not, I want nothing to do with him anyway  

[AlP]

The only thing that made me question my atheist world view was religious instruction at school. I was too young to have been taught about skepticism and science and yet I was apparently not too young for religious indoctrination. When I started out at school in Scotland the subject was still called religious instruction rather than religious education and it was taught by a member of the clergy, who would "teach" us by reading scripture. We also had to sing hymns and pray. For a brief period I tried prayer outside of school. It didn't work so I stopped. Once I was old enough and educated enough to think in rational terms and understand what it means to think rationally I have not doubted.

There are still questions I have pondered though like:
Am I an atheist or a nontheist?
Should I be a moral person? (I tried on nihilism for a while)
What is morality?
Does life have a purpose?
Am I a spiritual person?
etc

[Ihateyoumike]

"If the Christian God does exist, then I should look at the world through a Christian point of view.  When the world is looked at through a Christian point of view, the entire Christian worldview makes sense.  If I look at the world through an atheistic point of view, the Christian worldview is wrong, but according to Christians this is because I'm not looking at it from their point of view."

I look at people strung-out on methamphetamines and they just don't make sense to me, it's pretty clear to me that they're ruining their lives. If I started using meth, I could see their point of view.
I don't want to do that for the same reason I do not want to see the world from a religious p.o.v. Using my rational mind, I'm convinced it's wrong, so I'm not going to join them.

[Twiddler]

I've had a period of time where I believed in a god (but never specifically a christian god because the only reason I saw to become one is that everyone else was, which is shit) but it was a time of vulnerability and ignorance on my part.  I had read Lee Strobel's The Case For a Creator and I just decided to believe it without looking further into the subjects.  I won't lie, the whole believing in god thing was comforting but that didn't make it right.

[PipeBox]

Nearbr0ken:  Negative.  There are certain truths more foundational than the ones Christians claim, and that even they accept (most of the time).  Science has the virtues of being repeatable, logically consistent, and time-tested and continually proven.  Religion, especially Christianity, lacks thee qualities.  The "absolute relativism" you speak of only applies to things we take to be truly subjective, but things that are experimentally verified cannot be subjective lest we bastardize the meaning of the word.  These are external truths, not subject to the mind and its whims.  Things that don't go away when you stop believing in them, like gravity, not internal truths such as my views on purpose and life.  I'm all about getting as much external truth as possible and keeping the internal truth to a minimum as I have no one but myself to rely on for it.  I find keeping Occam's Razor well-honed is a good policy, but that's just my opinion.  

Anyway, if you don't believe in God, you're still an atheist.  Saying she might exist doesn't mean anything, as I'll tell you the same.  Agnostic just means that you don't claim knowledge, and most atheists are in that boat.  Now, if you actually believe in the Christian God, well, then you're an agnostic Christian, but just from your post you ought to realize that with the logic you used to justify it, any religion would become equally valid.

[NearBr0ken]

You make some interesting points, PipeBox.  You've got me thinking.

[Natsuyaki]

Sometimes I feel like I'm not too sure, but I always end up getting over those moments. Mexico is a really supersticious place... so sometimes you can't help but think to yourself things like "well... what if witchery actually works?". My main reason for being an atheist is the fact that I don't believe in anything that can't be scientifically proven, but sometimes living exclusively among believers can prove difficult. Anyway, I've yet to see something supernatural, and that includes anything God-related.

[Moigle]

I put God on the same level as the Tooth Fairy and the Boogyman.
The chance that I might turn to God is about the same as the chance that a Christian will call of the Tooth Fairy for help.

[Ryytikki]

nothing but being touched by his noodly appendages or feeling the presence of her great invisible pinkness