How I became a theist.

[Bubblepot]

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   I think what I stated is what being a free thinker is really about. Unfortunately most atheists can't seem to understand that, and even try to hijack the word, as they hijack other words such as "logic" and "science" to justify their own beliefs when they probably don't even know the definitions.

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

I agree.

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?

It means what I say. Are you saying you don't know what "hardcore atheist" means?  roflol

...Controlled...?

Yes. Controlled and/or brainwashed into believing in something that doesn't exist, ie. evolution.

"Atheism" doesn't give any arguments or evidence.

Thank you. Good to see we're on the same page.  roflol

?

Oh my god, stupid atheists exist?!?  :shake:

Ad hominem.

I disagree.

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

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... intro.html

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

None at all. I de-converted for absolutely no reason. http://answers.org/atheism/debate.html
Also that link isn't an example of how atheists debate; like you said I de-converted for no reason. In fact don't even look at the link; just close your eyes, cover your ears and say "atheism is true" three times to automatically cleanse yourself from horrible, horrible reality. Having been atheist, I once detested the stuff myself.

[Asmodean]

Not a few- a lot. And no atheists that were ever good at debate. If that's not a good reason to drop a philosophy I'm not sure what is.

Oh, many atheists are good debaters. However, debating religion with religious lunatics is pointless, and so many of us do not. Some, like me, just do it for personal amusement though.

[Whitney]

Not a few- a lot. And no atheists that were ever good at debate. If that's not a good reason to drop a philosophy I'm not sure what is.

Considering that I know both theists and atheists who are very good at debate regardless of how valid their point may be, I don't see debate skills as a good indicator of the validity of a position.

Not to mention that atheist isn't a philosophy....your calling it one indicates you don't know what you are talking about.

[elliebean]

Not to mention that atheist isn't a philosophy....your calling it one indicates you don't know what you are talking about.

Exactly. That, and probably lying.

[Asmodean]

Exactly. That, and probably lying.

Wouldn't be the first "free thinker" to claim having been a "hardcore atheist" in the past and therein lie...  :pop:

[Davin]

Exactly. That, and probably lying.

Wouldn't be the first "free thinker" to claim having been a "hardcore atheist" in the past and therein lie...  :pop:

Hardcore? How can anyone be hardcore at not believing in something?

"Dude, I just not believed in pega-gerbils so hard right now!"

[AnimatedDirt]

Not a few- a lot. And no atheists that were ever good at debate. If that's not a good reason to drop a philosophy I'm not sure what is.

Oh, many atheists are good debaters. However, debating religion with religious lunatics is pointless, and so many of us do not. Some, like me, just do it for personal amusement though.

It's a good thing this forum allows lunatics...otherwise where would I go to meet such nice people with differing thoughts...err, non-lunatic.

[elliebean]

Exactly. That, and probably lying.

Wouldn't be the first "free thinker" to claim having been a "hardcore atheist" in the past and therein lie...  :pop:

Apparently not if you do it for Jeebus.

Anyway, idk where lying is specifically condemned in the Bible. There's a commandment not to "bear false witness", which I take to mean commiting perjury, or literally bringing a false testimony against someone in a court of law, and even then only "against thy neighbor", which I take to mean other Jews, if you're a Jew, and "I wasn't talking to you", if you're not.

[elliebean]

Not a few- a lot. And no atheists that were ever good at debate. If that's not a good reason to drop a philosophy I'm not sure what is.

Oh, many atheists are good debaters. However, debating religion with religious lunatics is pointless, and so many of us do not. Some, like me, just do it for personal amusement though.

It's a good thing this forum allows lunatics...otherwise where would I go to meet such nice people with differing thoughts...err, non-lunatic.

Stop taking everything personally. Are you a religious lunatic? No? then he wasn't referring to you. If he has said "religious people, who are all lunatics, every one, without exception", then I'd be defending you right now, instead of him. If we thought you were a lunatic, most of us wouldn't bother to debate you either. See, what you took as an insult was actually a compliment!  

[Asmodean]

"Dude, I just not believed in pega-gerbils so hard right now!"

I guess it's something like that, yes... Me, I don't like the expression, therefor I quoted it, as you can see  

It's a good thing this forum allows lunatics...otherwise where would I go to meet such nice people with differing thoughts...err, non-lunatic.

LOL! As far as lunatics go, I fit the description quite well. I'm just not a religious lunatic.

[LegendarySandwich]

Not a few- a lot. And no atheists that were ever good at debate. If that's not a good reason to drop a philosophy I'm not sure what is.

1. Atheism is not a philosophy.
2. People with the same "philosophy" not being able to debate decently is not a good reason to drop a philosophy; a good reason would be realizing it lacks sufficient evidence for its claims, or finding a better philosophy to put in place of the previous one.

Of course not; because he'd require evidence and thus be revealed for the idiot he is.

Just for fun, how is Dawkins an idiot?

Thanks  lol

I'm asking you to define it to me as what it means to you. If that's asking too much of you, I'm sorry.

How so?

I have serious problems accepting that you were "probably the most hardcore atheist in the world".

You might find this link interesting. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/se ... o=ED184953

You might find this link interesting.

Why did you put "de-convert" in apostrophes?

Because atheism isn't a philosophy.

It would be more accurate to say when I saw how they debated I slowly realized the ludicrous nature of those perspectives and beliefs. Or in terms you might better understand, I was brainwashed by atheistic dogma but restored to the truth by observable evidence; or at least came closer to the truth, whatever it may be.

How are the atheist "perspectives and beliefs" ludicrous? And if you really were in an atheist home, then I'm guessing you were simply brought up to be an atheist and never thought much about the arguments for either side.

Atheism doesn't have dogma.

What "observable evidence" lead you to theism?

Can't say I do. Why do you ask?

You said it yourself that the reason you became a theist was because of how all the atheists you saw debated.

roflol to your

I'm glad you're finally ceding that atheism isn't a philosophy.

Don't worry; I don't expect atheists to accept fact.

Sure. How about this?

"Atheism" doesn't give any arguments or evidence.

What's your point?

?

How is "...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"?

Take Richard Dawkins for example.

How is he stupid?

Not necessarily: you just have to be willing to accept logical evidence.

Damn. I guess I can't become a theist now.

But the difference is: some theists actually *have* a premise.  

...?

I disagree.

You just admitted to judging a position by the defenders of that position, instead of the actual arguments for and against the position themselves.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

What were you trying to prove with that link?

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

None at all. I de-converted for absolutely no reason. http://answers.org/atheism/debate.html
Also that link isn't an example of how atheists debate; like you said I de-converted for no reason. In fact don't even look at the link; just close your eyes, cover your ears and say "atheism is true" three times to automatically cleanse yourself from horrible, horrible reality. Having been atheist, I once detested the stuff myself.

[Asmodean]

Stop taking everything personally. Are you a religious lunatic? No? then he wasn't referring to you. If he has said "religious people, who are all lunatics, every one, without exception", then I'd be defending you right now, instead of him.

Quite correct.

AD: I was talking about religious lunatics. If you lump yourself into that cathegory of your own free will, it's your choice. I, however, was not looking at you when I made my statement.

[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"

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).

No, sorry, the dude is being extremely specific with regards to the reason for his de-conversion.

And no atheists that were ever good at debate. If that's not a good reason to drop a philosophy I'm not sure what is.

Personally, I don't care if he is an atheist or a theist, what business is it of mine. I have no personal vested interest. I just thought his reason was particularly strange and did not relate what so ever to the meaning of the term Atheist. I am actually surprised that you are supporting him. I would have thought a theist would have liked to see his reason to be more aligned to a belief in god (maybe jesus) rather than not liking some atheists debating skills.

[Stevil]

In all honesty the OP is purely a TROLL post and given bubble's history on this forum and recent week banning, this was not to be unexpected.

[Asmodean]

SANDWICH:

Please resize the bullshit images a little. Scrolling through the already long thread is something of a pain without half a meter of pictures