How I became a theist.

[Bubblepot]

I also have a de-conversion story. Some years ago I was a pretty hard-core atheist; probably the most hardcore atheist in the world. I'd read entirely through Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" more than once, studied various sciences and theories and, strange as it probably sounds, actually enjoyed memorizing formulas of quantum physics and reading through dictionaries to memorize the vocab. (Still do actually)

I was born and raised atheist, lived and grew up in a pretty atheist family, was very open to all kinds of science etc.

So what was it that de-converted me from atheism? Was it the fact that the more I studied, desperately clawing for just one piece of observable evidence for evolution, the more I was disappointed and the theory was revealed to be false? Was it the fact that in many debates I observed there were always those painful evangelical arguments (eg. ID) that gave me an uncomfortable feeling at the back of my mind, which I would at first ignore and forget about, until one day I began to really think- is there something more? No and no.

The thing that de-converted me from atheism, was simply the fact that I observed the way atheists debate. Now before I'm labeled as an evil theist I'm going to say that I'm actually a freethinker; that is, open to any suggestion so long as it has observable evidence, but not strongly one way or the other. Basically I'm willing to accept many possibilities, whether reincarnation, heaven and hell, gods etc., however I'm not willing to be controlled by atheism or anything else, and I feel that any of these possibilities are more valid and more supported than any argument or evidence atheism could possibly offer... in a million years. Keep in mind I'm saying this *because* I've been atheist; not because I don't know anything about evolution or atheism.

For an example, if a religious person came onto any atheist forum, not necessarily Christian, but perhaps Buddhist, Hindu, Satanist, whatever; (anyone who believes in something higher really) and set forward an argument for his/her beliefs, it would probably be better than all the combined arguments for atheism. I mean honestly: the atheistic position is so pathetic I can't actually wrap my head around how any sane person could possibly believe the garbage it sputters, and it's enough to convince me of the power of Miracles that atheists aren't labeled as schizophrenic today. I once witnessed someone with religious beliefs present the hated "intelligent design" argument to an atheist, and the atheist could only respond with "do you even have an education?", without giving any actual evidence to support himself. The religious person put forward his simple logical point again and again and again, while the atheist got angrier and angrier, to the point he started crying something about how Muslims are persecuted by churches. When he was asked what he meant by this, he responded with "Look it just means I don't have to believe bullshit okay!?" when asked why he was so angry and offended, and if he would stop changing the subject and just address the point at hand, he replied with something like "It's your fault I'm angry because what you're saying is the most evil load of crap I've ever heard and I'm shocked at how stupid and wicked you are" Keep in mind this religious man had done absolutely nothing so far except state the basic argument of intelligent design and ask the atheist what he meant when he said the church abused Muslim people, to which the atheist himself didn't seem to know the answer to.

This wasn't just one guy I witnessed; I've witnessed many different atheists act this way... a lot. Yet these same people are very quick to coin words like logic, rationality, and my all-time favorite, "critical thinking" as though constantly shouting words they don't even know the meaning of will somehow justify their position. Some quick research online, and I found more than one debate where atheists lost shamefully and did nothing but use every dirty trick in the book to support their position; as soon as they saw their position was being torn to pieces by logic, they turned abusive to anyone and everyone they were debating against, and I was convinced that every belief and every philosophy in the entire world must have more ground in fact and reality than the absurdity that is atheism.

So, long story short, I de-converted. My family didn't mind too much; I guess it wasn't so much that they were hardcore atheists (like I was) but more that they just didn't really have any specific religion or philosophy, even though they call themselves atheists (I'd actually call them agnostics but... *shrugs*)

So let me just say again: even though I've looked at evangelical arguments and found they have more basis in reality than atheism and evolution, I wouldn't call myself religious perse, since, to be honest, pretty much *every* philosophy, religion, belief, doctrine and science is more logical than atheism.

Anyway this has been a long post so thanks for reading my humble de-conversion story. Cheers.  

[Whitney]

so your reason for being a theist is because you witnessed a few atheists you don't think were very good at debate....wow, how enlightening  

[AnimatedDirt]

I'm inclined to clap, but not only for the post entirely, but about the debate thing.  I find it so funny that Dawkins will not debate Craig on the supposed point that Dawkins doesn't even know who Craig is (I'd call a lie for that) and that Dawkins simply "doesn't have time"...  If Craig is a nobody and easily dealt with, why not get it out of the way?  Why not run him over with the steam roller that Dawkins is?

[lundberg500]

The thing that de-converted me from atheism, was simply the fact that I observed the way atheists debate.

Really?? You are willing to give up everything you once believed in because of how "some" atheists lack the ability to properly debate? Now you are open to the existence of gods just because of how "some" atheists debate?

Some years ago I was a pretty hard-core atheist; probably the most hardcore atheist in the world.

I somehow seriously doubt that. This, to me, is a very strange conclusion that you have come to. I personally, would never give up everything that I believe in because "some" people cannot properly debate.

[Sophus]

I'm inclined to clap, but not only for the post entirely, but about the debate thing.  I find it so funny that Dawkins will not debate Craig on the supposed point that Dawkins doesn't even know who Craig is (I'd call a lie for that) and that Dawkins simply "doesn't have time"...  If Craig is a nobody and easily dealt with, why not get it out of the way?  Why not run him over with the steam roller that Dawkins is?

On another thread I mentioned that Dawkins has said he will not debate Creationists of any kind. Can't say I blame him. It's a huge waste of time trying to get someone to understand science who doesn't even want to. Plus, by even debating them you're inadvertently attributing some sort of credibility to them they've not earned.

[AnimatedDirt]

I'm inclined to clap, but not only for the post entirely, but about the debate thing.  I find it so funny that Dawkins will not debate Craig on the supposed point that Dawkins doesn't even know who Craig is (I'd call a lie for that) and that Dawkins simply "doesn't have time"...  If Craig is a nobody and easily dealt with, why not get it out of the way?  Why not run him over with the steam roller that Dawkins is?

On another thread I mentioned that Dawkins has said he will not debate Creationists of any kind. Can't say I blame him. It's a huge waste of time trying to get someone to understand science who doesn't even want to. Plus, by even debating them you're inadvertently attributing some sort of credibility to them they've not earned.

Of course this means Christians absolutely cannot be scientists, or doctors, or anything of any intelligence.  I get it.  Now I understand why Dawkins will not debate Craig.

Credibility is Atheism, Atheism is Credibility.  Gotcha.

I guess the OP has more "credibility" than I originally had given it.  (notice the small "c")

On another thread I mentioned that Dawkins has said he will not debate Creationists of any kind.

Which is interesting considering his latest book...

[Whitney]

I'm inclined to clap, but not only for the post entirely, but about the debate thing.  I find it so funny that Dawkins will not debate Craig on the supposed point that Dawkins doesn't even know who Craig is (I'd call a lie for that) and that Dawkins simply "doesn't have time"...  If Craig is a nobody and easily dealt with, why not get it out of the way?  Why not run him over with the steam roller that Dawkins is?

On another thread I mentioned that Dawkins has said he will not debate Creationists of any kind. Can't say I blame him. It's a huge waste of time trying to get someone to understand science who doesn't even want to. Plus, by even debating them you're inadvertently attributing some sort of credibility to them they've not earned.

I don't debate young earth creationist either (theists who are creationists yet accept evolution don't want to debate evolution)...I just direct them to where they can find articles and other source materials to educate themselves.

I'm not even that familiar with Craig so it wouldn't surprise me if Dawkins really doesn't know who he is...also Dawkins is really supper busy; it's hard to get him to show up for freethought events let alone some debate on creationism that he would view as a waste of time as even the courts agree creationism isn't scientific.

[pilchardo]

Well done Bubblepot, you truly are a free thinker.

[Whitney]

anyone praising bubblepot might want to look at his post history before giving him too many pats on the back...

[LegendarySandwich]

I also have a de-conversion story. Some years ago I was a pretty hard-core atheist;

What does that mean? Are there "soft-core" atheists? Or do you mean you were once what many people refer to as a "militant" atheist?

probably the most hardcore atheist in the world.

Bullshit.

I'd read entirely through Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" more than once, studied various sciences and theories and, strange as it probably sounds, actually enjoyed memorizing formulas of quantum physics and reading through dictionaries to memorize the vocab. (Still do actually)

Are those the things that make you a "hard-core" atheist?

I was born and raised atheist, lived and grew up in a pretty atheist family, was very open to all kinds of science etc.

So what was it that de-converted me from atheism? Was it the fact that the more I studied, desperately clawing for just one piece of observable evidence for evolution, the more I was disappointed and the theory was revealed to be false?

Was it the fact that in many debates I observed there were always those painful evangelical arguments (eg. ID) that gave me an uncomfortable feeling at the back of my mind, which I would at first ignore and forget about, until one day I began to really think- is there something more? No and no.

Well, at least you didn't "de-convert" for those reasons.

The thing that de-converted me from atheism, was simply the fact that I observed the way atheists debate.

...Really? You became a theist because you didn't like how some people with similar perspectives and beliefs as you debated?

So, do you like how every theist debates then? Are there no bad theists?

Now before I'm labeled as an evil theist I'm going to say that I'm actually a freethinker; that is, open to any suggestion so long as it has observable evidence, but not strongly one way or the other. Basically I'm willing to accept many possibilities, whether reincarnation, heaven and hell, gods etc.,

I'm pretty sure that every here is also.

however I'm not willing to be controlled by atheism or anything else,

...Controlled...?

and I feel that any of these possibilities are more valid and more supported than any argument or evidence atheism could possibly offer... in a million years.

"Atheism" doesn't give any arguments or evidence. It's not a philosophy; it's not an ideology.

Care to give some examples?

Keep in mind I'm saying this *because* I've been atheist; not because I don't know anything about evolution or atheism.

Simply having been an atheist doesn't automatically give you any credibility.

For an example, if a religious person came onto any atheist forum, not necessarily Christian, but perhaps Buddhist, Hindu, Satanist, whatever; (anyone who believes in something higher really) and set forward an argument for his/her beliefs, it would probably be better than all the combined arguments for atheism.

Care to give some examples?

I mean honestly: the atheistic position is so pathetic I can't actually wrap my head around how any sane person could possibly believe the garbage it sputters, and it's enough to convince me of the power of Miracles that atheists aren't labeled as schizophrenic today.

:crazy:

I may have to become a theist now.

This wasn't just one guy I witnessed; I've witnessed many different atheists act this way... a lot.

Hey, guess what? Many theists act this way too!

Yet these same people are very quick to coin words like logic, rationality, and my all-time favorite, "critical thinking" as though constantly shouting words they don't even know the meaning of will somehow justify their position. Some quick research online, and I found more than one debate where atheists lost shamefully and did nothing but use every dirty trick in the book to support their position; as soon as they saw their position was being torn to pieces by logic, they turned abusive to anyone and everyone they were debating against, and I was convinced that every belief and every philosophy in the entire world must have more ground in fact and reality than the absurdity that is atheism.

Ad hominem.

So, long story short, I de-converted. My family didn't mind too much; I guess it wasn't so much that they were hardcore atheists (like I was)

Once again, what does that mean?

but more that they just didn't really have any specific religion or philosophy, even though they call themselves atheists (I'd actually call them agnostics but... *shrugs*)

You have to have a specific philosophy or religion to be an atheist?

So let me just say again: even though I've looked at evangelical arguments and found they have more basis in reality than atheism and evolution, I wouldn't call myself religious perse, since, to be honest, pretty much *every* philosophy, religion, belief, doctrine and science is more logical than atheism.

I guess you don't have any evidence or examples to prove your point or anything.

Anyway this has been a long post so thanks for reading my humble de-conversion story. Cheers.  [/quote]

[Tank]

Well done Bubblepot, you truly are a free thinker.

If he thinks there isn't any evidence for evolution he's pretty ignorant and very un-educated.

[Stevil]

The thing that de-converted me from atheism, was simply the fact that I observed the way atheists debate.

Lets see.
Definition of atheist from Wiki
"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"

Bubblepot's implied re-definition
"Atheism , in a broad sense, is the acceptance of the way some atheists debate, In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that one always enjoys the way all other atheists debate"

[AnimatedDirt]

The thing that de-converted me from atheism, was simply the fact that I observed the way atheists debate.

Lets see.
Definition of atheist from Wiki
"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"

Bubblepot's implied re-definition
"Atheism , in a broad sense, is the acceptance of the way some atheists debate, In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that one always enjoys the way all other atheists debate"

While noting Bubblepot's history here, I will simply say, the words posted don't say what you are inferring here.  They say this is some of what brought about the conversion, not that THAT SPECIFICALLY brought the conversion (granted, poorly stated).  It was a point among points, possibly a beginning point, maybe the point that broke the camel's back, if you will.  It seems you're reading and interpreting through the eyes of an Atheist that is appalled...a bias of sorts.

[Recusant]

Welcome back, Bubblepot. I read your OP, and found it interesting. If you don't mind, and if it wouldn't be too much trouble, before I address specifics elements of that post I'd be quite grateful if you could answer a couple of very basic questions:

1) How long ago did you "de-convert"?

2) What church do you consider yourself affiliated with?  I see that in your post you mention evangelical arguments, so perhaps that's a clue.  Is there a particular evangelical congregation which you believe is the true church of Jesus?  If there isn't any particular church that you belong to, which type of Christianity makes the most sense to you? You say you aren't religious per se, but since you say that it was evangelical arguments which convinced you that atheism is absurd, I'd love to know what specific variety of Christianity presented the arguments that you found so compelling.

Just one note about something you mentioned in your post.  Speaking for myself, I don't consider religious people "evil" at all.  There are some who believe their religion compels them to do things which I consider quite harmful, but as a class, I think that theists are no more evil than any other large group of people.

Thank you in advance for answering my questions.

[elliebean]

(Bullshit)

Bullshit.

Enough said.

I'm an atheist... if  I see some other atheist presenting a poor argument in a debate with a theist, I might conclude that atheist is not much of a debater. I might even come up with a better argument myself.

What I will not do, and cannot do, is suddenly believe in the existence of a god without ANY good arguments or evidence to support that position.