How I became a theist.

[LegendarySandwich]

You do not believe in god, that is your belief. There is no way around this. And not believing in God would need to have explanations regarding objective morality, the purpose in life, the purpose of the universe, etc. As an atheist these things have to be answered to support your belief that you do not believe in God.

Disbelieving in something is not the same as believing in something.
I believe that the Abrahamic gods do not exist, so I have the same type of belief as a theist -- however, my reasons for thinking the Abrahamic gods do not exist are based in logic.

[Sophus]

You do not believe in god, that is your belief. There is no way around this. And not believing in God would need to have explanations regarding objective morality, the purpose in life, the purpose of the universe, etc. As an atheist these things have to be answered to support your belief that you do not believe in God.

No it doesn't. The onus is on you. If I invent my morality around the Flying Spaghetti Monster it is up to me to prove first that he exists and then that he has a direct link to morality. Until then, I cannot call you immoral. This argument that atheists should be amoral is old, daft and begging to be put out of its misery.

Also I fixed the first sentence:

"You do not believe in god, that is your disbelief."

[Will]

That's fair that you are not convinced of any argumentation regarding religion or the Easter Bunny, but that does not escape the fact that you do have a belief in something.

Yes. I'm a humanist. Humanist describes what I am convinced of, atheism describes what I am not convinced of.

For example you said:

An atheist does not believe in god.

You do not believe in god, that is your belief. There is no way around this. And not believing in God would need to have explanations regarding objective morality, the purpose in life, the purpose of the universe, etc. As an atheist these things have to be answered to support your belief that you do not believe in God.

Not at all. I was born an atheist and short of a massive amount of verifiable data supporting the existence of the supernatural, I will die an atheist. I'm unconvinced. I've heard the arguments for believing in gods, and they're unconvincing. And I don't have to explain why I don't believe in god because atheism is null hypothesis. The onus, or burden of proof, is on those making a positive claim, which is the theists.

[Achronos]

Disbelieving in something is not the same as believing in something.
I believe that the Abrahamic gods do not exist, so I have the same type of belief as a theist -- however, my reasons for thinking the Abrahamic gods do not exist are based in logic.

What if your logic is wrong regarding the "Abrahamic" God? But more to the point you are adressing, what I am saying is that if you don't believe in God there needs to be something to replace that belief with. It just can't be nothing, you would cease to exist without a belief in something. That's what I'm getting at.

No it doesn't. The onus is on you. If I invent my morality around the Flying Spaghetti Monster it is up to me to prove first that he exists and then that he has a direct link to morality. Until then, I cannot call you immoral. This argument that atheists should be amoral is old, daft and begging to be put out of its misery.

There are moral atheists, absolutley. Nobody is questioning that. What I am saying is that objective morality must be derived from God. That's a different arguement from what Will and I are discussing.

My belief in God hinges on the Resurrection of Christ, unlike arguments appealing to ontological, telelogical, fine-tuning, etc. arguments.

"You do not believe in god, that is your disbelief."

It's still a belief, as he pointed out "Atheists do not believe in God". I can say I don't believe in inivisble unicorns. An unbelief in unicorns yes, but still held as a belief. I can't prove invisible unicorns don't exist, however that's not to say it's very reasonable to believe such exist, but I still believe they don't exist. Do you get it?

[Yes. I'm a humanist. Humanist describes what I am convinced of, atheism describes what I am not convinced of.

Why are you convinced of humanism as an accurate worldview potrayal?

Not at all. I was born an atheist and short of a massive amount of verifiable data supporting the existence of the supernatural, I will die an atheist. I'm unconvinced. I've heard the arguments for believing in gods, and they're unconvincing. And I don't have to explain why I don't believe in god because atheism is null hypothesis. The onus, or burden of proof, is on those making a positive claim, which is the theists.

What if the approach towards the data for the existence of the supernatural might be carried out in a different way? What I am saying is that there are limits to reason and logic. A fellow once said the man who is a poet tries to get his head into the heavens but the logician tries to get the heavens in his head, and that's where his head splits.

The problem too is you are elavating human reason/logic above God or a trandescedant figure. How can you be so sure that your logic is right regarding God? How far can a man go to rationally prove and disprove the God in the Bible, or any other god out there? We could go back and forth all day on the immorality of the God in the OT, but it has nothing to do with my faith.

I will tell you what I am unconvinced of atheism, it has yet to sufficiently provide answers for the inexistence of God, the "Why?" of the universe. The purpose behind it, or objective morality; one of the reasons why I joined this board was to see if I found any compelling arguments on why atheism is the best choice, the best worldview (Look at the board name). Am I just good without God? Do I need Him? I see all these attacks on the Bible, but I see no alternative in replacement of it. So we drop the belief of God in the Bible, then what next? Because I'll just believe in anything, it becomes subjective. I think therefore, I am. My beliefs are on shifting sands, there is no foundation to them. Since there is no transcendant being, I can freely do what I want with no consequences. Logically it becomes nihilism.

[Will]

Why are you convinced of humanism as an accurate worldview portrayal?

Humanism isn't a worldview portrayal, if I understand your meaning correctly. If you're asking me what philosophy I hold about the mechanisms of the universe, my answer is naturalism. Humanism is about my values, naturalism is about my view of the universe.

I am convinced that naturalism is an accurate understanding of the universe because it's objectively verifiable.

What if the approach towards the data for the existence of the supernatural might be carried out in a different way? What I am saying is that there are limits to reason and logic. A fellow once said the man who is a poet tries to get his head into the heavens but the logician tries to get the heavens in his head, and that's where his head splits.

As charming as that platitude might be, very little science has been pioneered by poets. I can have a heart transplant not because someone feared learning more about the way the universe works, but because they pursued science with an open mind and a hunger for knowledge. You see, there's an objective reality in which we live, a reality which can be tested away from human bias and dishonesty, and that reality is perfectly consistent. Every day, as we unlock more and more about the mechanisms of the universe, more of the real picture becomes clear. We live in a universe in which there's no function for gods or the supernatural. The natural can account for everything we've ever been able to explain.

The problem too is you are elavating human reason/logic above God or a trandescedant figure. How can you be so sure that your logic is right regarding God? How far can a man go to rationally prove and disprove the God in the Bible, or any other god out there? We could go back and forth all day on the immorality of the God in the OT, but it has nothing to do with my faith.

I don't accept the premise of the question. I am not elevating human reason above god (or God), I am speaking to what has been verified and what has yet to be verified. To elevate that which has been verified above that which is not verified is an exercise we all engage in every day. You do it just as often as I do. The only difference is that you have one exception to this rule. I don't.

And I don't have to disprove god. I am unconvinced.

I will tell you what I am unconvinced of atheism, it has yet to sufficiently provide answers for the inexistence of God, the "Why?" of the universe. The purpose behind it, or objective morality; one of the reasons why I joined this board was to see if I found any compelling arguments on why atheism is the best choice, the best worldview (Look at the board name). Am I just good without God? Do I need Him? I see all these attacks on the Bible, but I see no alternative in replacement of it. So we drop the belief of God in the Bible, then what next? Because I'll just believe in anything, it becomes subjective. I think therefore, I am. My beliefs are on shifting sands, there is no foundation to them. Since there is no transcendant being, I can freely do what I want with no consequences. Logically it becomes nihilism.

There's no objective purpose to anything other than that which sentience puts in motion. If there is no god, there is no universal purpose. I am free to choose my purpose, and I am content with my answers.

[Achronos]

One more thing

No it doesn't. The onus is on you. If I invent my morality around the Flying Spaghetti Monster it is up to me to prove first that he exists and then that he has a direct link to morality. Until then, I cannot call you immoral. This argument that atheists should be amoral is old, daft and begging to be put out of its misery.

I was reading something today that echoed an analogy my philosophy professor frequently used:

"Critics discount the value of faith and try to skew the argument toward he scientific (and especially materialist) canon. They argue something like this: Since we can prove a possible natural cause for the occurrence of something, then the onus is on you to show us the proof of your 'supernatural' cause. This implies that any 'proof' of a supernatural cause would have to be scientific in order for it to be considered legitimate or real. But are scientific standards really the only criteria that matter? In his refutation, theologian John Haught describes a concept that he calls 'layered explanation,' which can be illustrated by answers to the question, 'Why does a pot of water boil on a stove?' One answer is to say that the water is boiling because the H2O molecules are moving around and making a transition from a liquid state to a gaseous one. Another answer would be that the water is boiling because someone turned on the stove. A third answer would be that it's boiling because a person wants a cup of tea. All are valid answers but offer very different levels of understanding."  
[The Rite by Matt Baglio p. 205]  (Bold mine)

[Sophus]

There are moral atheists, absolutley. Nobody is questioning that. What I am saying is that objective morality must be derived from God. That's a different arguement from what Will and I are discussing.

My belief in God hinges on the Resurrection of Christ, unlike arguments appealing to ontological, telelogical, fine-tuning, etc. arguments.

Objective morality couldn't exist either way. Even with a God you would still need to explain how morals become objective by mere fiat. "Because he said so" is hardly a dignified answer. If evidence came out today that were to persuade every theist that God is fiction we would still be in the same place; left to answer the same moral questions.

It's still a belief, as he pointed out "Atheists do not believe in God". I can say I don't believe in inivisble unicorns. An unbelief in unicorns yes, but still held as a belief. I can't prove invisible unicorns don't exist, however that's not to say it's very reasonable to believe such exist, but I still believe they don't exist. Do you get it?

That's not necessarily so. One can believe in the likelihood or unlikelihood of something without fully believing in it.

What if the approach towards the data for the existence of the supernatural might be carried out in a different way?

It can't. By definition it's beyond nature, beyond empirical evidence, unable of ever being proved and in some cases even falsified.
 

What I am saying is that there are limits to reason and logic.

Sure, if by that you mean you won't know everything by the application of them. Empiricism is need, sometimes creativity. But wherever faith is needed that is not accomplishing anything reason couldn't unless by that you mean making an otherwise rational person believe something they wouldn't.

A fellow once said the man who is a poet tries to get his head into the heavens but the logician tries to get the heavens in his head, and that's where his head splits.

"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire

The problem too is you are elavating human reason/logic above God or a trandescedant figure.

No, the problem, as mentioned earlier, is that you are pretending to make God "above" reason when he simply cannot survive its scrutiny. You're putting lipstick on a pig.

How can you be so sure that your logic is right regarding God? How far can a man go to rationally prove and disprove the God in the Bible, or any other god out there? We could go back and forth all day on the immorality of the God in the OT, but it has nothing to do with my faith.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense , reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo Galilei

Why would he give us a brain that tells us the notion of his existence is absurd if he wants us to believe in him?

My beliefs are on shifting sands, there is no foundation to them. Since there is no transcendant being, I can freely do what I want with no consequences. Logically it becomes nihilism.

Funny, then God is Nihilist. If he's a nihilist, where does that leave you? God is left confronted with nothingness and meaninglessness so he had to assign his own meaning (to us apparently). You haven't solved the problem, you've pushed it aside. God is in the same boat you are in in his absence. Logical nihilism doesn't mean you have to live like a nihilist. Perfect example: Nietzsche. Existentialism as a whole, really.

[Will]

One more thing

No it doesn't. The onus is on you. If I invent my morality around the Flying Spaghetti Monster it is up to me to prove first that he exists and then that he has a direct link to morality. Until then, I cannot call you immoral. This argument that atheists should be amoral is old, daft and begging to be put out of its misery.

I was reading something today that echoed an analogy my philosophy professor frequently used:

"Critics discount the value of faith and try to skew the argument toward he scientific (and especially materialist) canon. They argue something like this: Since we can prove a possible natural cause for the occurrence of something, then the onus is on you to show us the proof of your 'supernatural' cause. This implies that any 'proof' of a supernatural cause would have to be scientific in order for it to be considered legitimate or real. But are scientific standards really the only criteria that matter? In his refutation, theologian John Haught describes a concept that he calls 'layered explanation,' which can be illustrated by answers to the question, 'Why does a pot of water boil on a stove?' One answer is to say that the water is boiling because the H2O molecules are moving around and making a transition from a liquid state to a gaseous one. Another answer would be that the water is boiling because someone turned on the stove. A third answer would be that it's boiling because a person wants a cup of tea. All are valid answers but offer very different levels of understanding."  
[The Rite by Matt Baglio p. 205]  (Bold mine)

Scientific criteria are the only ones that matter if you're trying to establish verifiable truth. Any standard, when weighed against science, is found wanting in the establishment of objectively verifiable truth. Religion is only internally verifiable (when it's not busy being internally contradictory). It cannot be objectively verified, otherwise it would cease to be faith and it would become science.

"Why does a pot of water boil on a stove?" does not have a religious answer. Think about that.

[LegendarySandwich]

"Why does a pot of water boil on a stove?" does not have a religious answer. Think about that.

This is where you are wrong.

Water boils on a stove because God wants it that way. Duh.

[Achronos]

Humanism isn't a worldview portrayal, if I understand your meaning correctly. If you're asking me what philosophy I hold about the mechanisms of the universe, my answer is naturalism. Humanism is about my values, naturalism is about my view of the universe.

I'll make the point of calling it natural philosophy, because that is what any science is, and it's a peculiar modern fallacy to assume that one can study anything without making some philosophical presuppositions, or that one can divorce the study of the natural world from his understanding of the other spheres of existence. Most of us moderns are accustomed to thinking of modern science as simply an objective methodology for finding facts and thence building plausible models for the way the universe works, a methodology which is inherently reliable so long as the human agents don't disrupt that methodology through ineptitude or dishonesty. But the methodology, like any other, falls apart if one doesn't agree to certain metaphysical presuppositions. The belief that modern science is free of such presuppositions is a great and lamentable propaganda victory for modern secular ideology.

As charming as that platitude might be, very little science has been pioneered by poets.

So are we to disband poetry then? Do you not find anything beautiful? But that isn't in your realm of "objectivity" is it? I think I said this elsewhere, but all the terms used in the science books, (law, necessity, order, etC) are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess.

We live in a universe in which there's no function for gods or the supernatural. The natural can account for everything we've ever been able to explain.

So you're a materialist. And also that you are in prison; in the prison of one thought.

I don't accept the premise of the question. I am not elevating human reason above god (or God), I am speaking to what has been verified and what has yet to be verified. To elevate that which has been verified above that which is not verified is an exercise we all engage in every day. You do it just as often as I do. The only difference is that you have one exception to this rule. I don't.

You verify the how and I'll verify the why. When scientists finally climb up the metaphysical mountain and reach the summit, they will see that theologians have been there for centuries.

And I don't have to disprove god. I am unconvinced.

And I don't have to prove God and I'm convinced. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

There's no objective purpose to anything other than that which sentience puts in motion. If there is no god, there is no universal purpose. I am free to choose my purpose, and I am content with my answers.

How arrogant are you to say that you have a purpose but this whole universe that we are in has no purpose. Again right back to this illusion of subjectivity; I can choose whatever purpose I want for myself which very well could mean slaughtering my fellow man...because that's my purpose. We might as well get Godwin's Law out of the way because that's where it is heading. How do I know your not a brain in a vat for example?

[LegendarySandwich]

I'll make the point of calling it natural philosophy, because that is what any science is, and it's a peculiar modern fallacy to assume that one can study anything without making some philosophical presuppositions, or that one can divorce the study of the natural world from his understanding of the other spheres of existence. Most of us moderns are accustomed to thinking of modern science as simply an objective methodology for finding facts and thence building plausible models for the way the universe works, a methodology which is inherently reliable so long as the human agents don't disrupt that methodology through ineptitude or dishonesty. But the methodology, like any other, falls apart if one doesn't agree to certain metaphysical presuppositions. The belief that modern science is free of such presuppositions is a great and lamentable propaganda victory for modern secular ideology.

Care to state these metaphysical presuppositions?

[Will]

I'll make the point of calling it natural philosophy, because that is what any science is, and it's a peculiar modern fallacy to assume that one can study anything without making some philosophical presuppositions, or that one can divorce the study of the natural world from his understanding of the other spheres of existence. Most of us moderns are accustomed to thinking of modern science as simply an objective methodology for finding facts and thence building plausible models for the way the universe works, a methodology which is inherently reliable so long as the human agents don't disrupt that methodology through ineptitude or dishonesty. But the methodology, like any other, falls apart if one doesn't agree to certain metaphysical presuppositions. The belief that modern science is free of such presuppositions is a great and lamentable propaganda victory for modern secular ideology.

Calling something a fallacy does not make it so. You may believe in whatever spheres of existence you wish, but you cannot demonstrate them objectively. The methodology of science exists primarily to remove human bias. It doesn't fall apart at all, but rather remains intact. If it's been used incorrectly, the mistake is in the incorrect usage, not the methodology.

So are we to disband poetry then?

Poetry is wonderful, but I'd rather have a scientist than a poet to tell me about how the universe functions. I was obviously not advocation for the "disband" of poetry, whatever that means.

So you're a materialist. And also that you are in prison; in the prison of one thought.

From your perspective, I can see what you're saying. On the other hand, from my perspective anyone who gets their life's purpose and strict morality from ancient mythology is in a prison. I don't like putting it that way, though, because it comes off as condescending and rude. Why would I want to say that to someone I'm in a respectful dialog with?

You verify the how and I'll verify the why. When scientists finally climb up the metaphysical mountain and reach the summit, they will see that theologians have been there for centuries.

Please verify why.

And I don't have to prove God and I'm convinced. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

Not quite. This is about justification of beliefs, and Sophus and I have both, I feel explained quite well the concept of null hypothesis and the burden of proof. To remain unconvinced as to the existence of god or gods is the default. You, however, are not in the default position. Some time after birth, you were convinced of the existence of god by some way. Perhaps you were raised in the church or perhaps you were convinced later, but either way you went from being unconvinced to being convinced.

How arrogant are you to say that you have a purpose but this whole universe that we are in has no purpose. Again right back to this illusion of subjectivity; I can choose whatever purpose I want for myself which very well could mean slaughtering my fellow man...because that's my purpose. We might as well get Godwin's Law out of the way because that's where it is heading. How do I know your not a brain in a vat for example?

Freedom is not arrogant. Because I am unconvinced of some overarching authority, imposing his or her or its will on my life in the form of purpose or anything else, I'm free to find my own purpose or even choose not to have a purpose. It's quite wonderful.

I don't murder people for several reasons. The first, and perhaps most important, can be found in evolutionary behaviorism. Our ancestors have been social species going back millions of years. We rely on cooperation and teamwork for survival. This cooperation and teamwork rely on a stable society. If I kill someone without reason or for reasons outside of societally acceptable survival, I am ultimately harming the survival of myself and my society. If I kill a fellow hunter, we are less likely to bring down large game. If I kill a gatherer of nuts and berries, we gather less nuts and berries. So, from an evolutionary standpoint, being a murderer really isn't a good thing for survival.

The second is in dealing with the social contract. We live in a society now where we're consciously aware of what makes for stronger and weaker societies and have created our own laws to regulate behavior within the population. If I murder someone, it's in the best interest of the society to remove me from the population and to deter other would be murders. I would face substantial punishment for murdering someone, so it's not in my interest.

The third reason comes from a combination of the previous two and takes root in personal morality. I do not wish to harm others because I understand that harm done to myself is bad. I therefore treat others the way I would wish to be treated.

None of these three reasons has anything at all to do with me determining my own purpose or lack thereof.

[Bubblepot]

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:

Why certainly. Ask away, my friend, ask away.

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

It would have been about six years ago now. And why is de-convert in apostrophes? How long have you been atheist?

2) What church do you consider yourself affiliated with?

Excuse me? I'm a freethinker.

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?

Define "true".

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.

Well all manner of arguments really. Pretty much everytime I witnessed atheists debate anyone, not just Christians, but anyone, they were constantly outsmarted. Whether they were making arguments against intelligent design or arguments against the existence of gods, they failed miserably and in the end just turned abusive, as they typically do.

Just one note about something you mentioned in your post.  Speaking for myself, I don't consider religious people "evil" at all.

So you're not an atheist- you're a freethinker?

Thank you in advance for answering my questions.

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.

Well if atheists only debate for their own amusement then it's no wonder they're so bad at it.

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.

But if every member of a social group (you don't seem to like the word "philosophy") is bad at debating their own position then there's probably not much of a position there in the first place.

That's a sin though, yes? Lying..?  roflol
That's another thing about atheists. Whenever someone disagrees with them they tend to assume that person must be Christian/Catholic.

Person A: "Pardon me, but I just wanted to question you on such and such a point concerning the validity of evolution."
Atheist: "*gasp*! You're obviously RELIGIOUS! No, worse! You're a (gulp) C-c-c-c-Christian!!!!!!"
Person A: "Umm, no, actually I-"
Atheist: "Stay back! We'll have no evidence here thank you very much, you TRAITOR to SCIENCE!!!! Because guess what- I'm RATIONAL!!!!! And YOU, are just an EVIL THEIST!!!"
Person A: "But"
Atheist: "CONFESS, you evil theist! Lying is a SIN!!!!!"

1. Atheism is not a philosophy.

I disagree.

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.

Right. Hence I dropped atheism.

Just for fun, how is Dawkins an idiot?

So now you're trying to change the subject?

Being open minded? I'd agree that that's basically what a free thinker is.

Glad to see we're on the same page then.

I agree too, because then they'd see that you're probably little more than a troll.

So first I'm accused of being an evil theist for daring to de-convert from the atrocity that is atheism, and now that you've suddenly realised the accusation doesn't hold water I'm labelled as a troll? Lol. Oh, you atheists.

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.

So you actually believe that the definition of a word can change just because one person wants it to? That's both stupid and ridiculous.

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

Of course you do; because I de-converted.

Because atheism isn't a philosophy.

I think you should learn the meaning of "convert". It doesn't just apply to philosophy; even a moron should know at least that much.

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.

Not really; as soon as I turned around and looked at atheism from a rational point of view, however, I realised it didn't hold water.

Atheism doesn't have dogma.

What "observable evidence" lead you to theism?

Yes it does. Oh, are we back to me being a theist now? You've gotten bored of "troll"?

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

So?

roflol

I agree. Sandwhich, please respect the nature of the thread and try actually addressing the points being discussed instead of spamming meaningless images.

This thread is troubling. I've had discussions with Christians and Muslims that claimed to have converted from atheism, and all of them have been marked by dishonesty and deviousness. I'm seeing the same patterns emerge here.

Bubblepot, would you care to provide your own personal definition of atheism? What was it, specifically, that you believed when you called yourself an atheist? Are you aware of the common definition of atheism?

Ahh, now this is very typical...

"Gasp... what? Someone de-converted from *my* belief? B-but... that's impossible... I know! S/he obviously doesn't know what "atheism" really means! That must be it! Yes... Didn't know what it means... Or they're lying! Yes, that must be true, since atheism is right. De-converters from atheism don't really exist. They must all obviously be lying or just never have understood the "true" meaning of atheism."

[Will]

Ahh, now this is very typical...

"Gasp... what? Someone de-converted from *my* belief? B-but... that's impossible... I know! S/he obviously doesn't know what "atheism" really means! That must be it! Yes... Didn't know what it means... Or they're lying! Yes, that must be true, since atheism is right. De-converters from atheism don't really exist. They must all obviously be lying or just never have understood the "true" meaning of atheism."

"De-converters" do exist, but upon inspection they're incredibly rare. Most who make the claim can't back it up, leading to reasonable skepticism. I'm not dismissing that you may very well be an atheist turned Christian. All I ask is how you define atheism.

[Recusant]

By the way, Bubblepot, you still haven't answered my two very basic and straight-forward questions. I really would appreciate the answers. Thanks.

You never asked me anything.

Oh, but I did.  On the very first page of this thread, in fact.  Really, I'm not expecting much in the way of answers from you, but I would like to be pleasantly surprised.  Since I've already thanked you twice in advance, and have gotten nada in return so far, I guess I'll forgo that little pleasantry just now.