Happy Atheist Forum

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.  

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'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?

QuoteThe 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?

QuoteSome 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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "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")

Quote from: "Sophus"On another thread I mentioned that Dawkins has said he will not debate Creationists of any kind.

Which is interesting considering his latest book...

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "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.

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.

Well done Bubblepot, you truly are a free thinker.

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

Quote from: "Bubblepot"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?

Quoteprobably the most hardcore atheist in the world.

Bullshit.

QuoteI'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?

QuoteI 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.

QuoteThe 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?

QuoteNow 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.

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

...Controlled...?

Quoteand 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?

QuoteKeep 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.

QuoteFor 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?

QuoteI 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.

QuoteThis 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!

QuoteYet 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.

QuoteSo, 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?

Quotebut 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?

QuoteSo 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]

Quote from: "pilchardo"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.

QuoteThe 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"

Quote from: "Stevil"

QuoteThe 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.

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.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Bubblesnot"(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.

Quote from: "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  :) 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.

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

I agree.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"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

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"...Controlled...?

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

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich""Atheism" doesn't give any arguments or evidence.

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

?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Oh my god, stupid atheists exist?!?  :shake:

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Ad hominem.

I disagree.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You have to have a specific philosophy or religion to be an atheist?

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

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"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 (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.

QuoteNot 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.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"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.

Quote from: "Whitney"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.

Quote from: "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:

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "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:

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

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

Quote from: "Asmodean"

QuoteNot 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.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Asmodean"

QuoteNot 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!  

Quote from: "Davin""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  

Quote from: "AD"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.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"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.

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

Just for fun, how is Dawkins an idiot?

QuoteThanks  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.

QuoteHow so?

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

QuoteYou might find this link interesting. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/se ... o=ED184953 (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED184953&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED184953)

You might find this link (http://tinyurl.com/yzh2stc) interesting.

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

Because atheism isn't a philosophy.

QuoteIt 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?

QuoteCan'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.

Quoteroflol to your :)

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

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

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthescarletpimp.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F07%2Fbull.jpg&hash=8bfe670b24b94fbfcc017e67cf50a32adb15bc65)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sillyjokes.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fp-jokes%2Ftoilet%2Fcat-crap-big.jpg&hash=94f721686a5e4b6bc4504a4735dd050c7963f580)

QuoteSure. How about this?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich""Atheism" doesn't give any arguments or evidence.

What's your point?

Quote?

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"?

QuoteTake Richard Dawkins for example.

How is he stupid?

QuoteNot necessarily: you just have to be willing to accept logical evidence.

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

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

...?

QuoteI 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.

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

What were you trying to prove with that link?

Quote

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"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 (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.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthescarletpimp.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F07%2Fbull.jpg&hash=8bfe670b24b94fbfcc017e67cf50a32adb15bc65)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sillyjokes.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fp-jokes%2Ftoilet%2Fcat-crap-big.jpg&hash=94f721686a5e4b6bc4504a4735dd050c7963f580)

Quote from: "elliebean"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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Stevil"

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteAnd 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.

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.

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  

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

While I don't think you're a lunatic, this brings up a good point, which I took to be implied in your previous post: It's useless to try to debate lunatics, regardless of their stance on religion. For example, try debating with Fininho or Hvargas.  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "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.

Craig is not a biologist. What's worse still is that most other creationists that would be in these debates are just ministers or reverends. There's a reason you won't see any of their names on a peer reviewed paper in a publisher like Nature: they're not biologists.

QuoteCredibility is Atheism, Atheism is Credibility.  Gotcha.

No need to put words in my mouth.
Also, surely you know, belief in evolution does not equate to atheism.

Quote

Quote from: "Sophus"On another thread I mentioned that Dawkins has said he will not debate Creationists of any kind.

Which is interesting considering his latest book...

The book was about evidence. The evidence is and so are the results. There is no debate. Would you debate a flat earther? If so, why? I guarantee you they'll have they same stubbornness toward evidence as a creationist.

Quote from: "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  

yes, like only using them once and having them be like 300px wide would be sufficient.

(keep in mind it is only okay to use those images since you are responding to a troll)

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"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.

Craig is not a biologist. What's worse still is that most other creationists that would be in these debates are just ministers or reverends. There's a reason you won't see any of their names on a peer reviewed paper in a publisher like Nature: they're not biologists.

It would be more appropriate to ask why Dawkins has not debated Behe since Behe is actually a scientist (biochemist).  But I'm pretty sure the reason he hasn't is because irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance...we can't know how this could be more simple therefore something supernatural is going on; that's not a scientific position.  If I remember correctly Behe thinks god kick started evolution and doesn't actually deny the process.

here is some guy I've never heard of debating Behe:

[youtube:uifwd3qm]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtP020hXiAU[/youtube:uifwd3qm]

Quote from: "elliebean"While I don't think you're a lunatic, this brings up a good point, which I took to be implied in your previous post: It's useless to try to debate lunatics, regardless of their stance on religion. For example, try debating with Fininho or Hvargas.  :P

Quote from: "elliebean"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!  

Thanks.  I appreciate that.  However, in light of what I do hold as belief, this forum as a whole would say I'm foolish/deluded at best and a lunatic at worst.  Well, I find I don't like either option as acceptable.  A fool able to convey his/her thoughts or beliefs in a sensible manner makes him no less a fool or lunatic that holds the same ideas.

Example:
Lunatic--  "You are all going to Hell because God hates you Atheist sinners!"

Fool--  "Anyone that chooses death is going to Hell, but God would rather you choose Him and not go to hell.  In fact, there is no way to avoid hell no matter how good one is.  The crime demands a punishment and death is that punishment.  However, God has made it legally possible to be a sinner, avoid hell, and still gain that which is reserved only for the good/perfect/righteous...and it's a gift!  It's free.

Now...which are you more likely to engage (granted if at all) in dialogue rather than a reply of, "You, sir, are an idiot!"?  Anyway, I hope you understand my point, while I really do understand yours and appreciate the compliment.

Quote from: "Stevil"No, sorry, the dude is being extremely specific with regards to the reason for his de-conversion.

If you are correct, then it is much like someone who loves NASCAR racing but because one person doesn't win a race (not even necessarily their favorite driver/team) this person gives up or rather rallies and speaks against racing all together.  This is quite silly and the logical end to what you seem to be promoting as the correct interpretation.

Since this is complete and utter nonsense, to rally against NASCAR for that specific reason, I reject that your interpretation of those words mean exactly as you take them to mean...rather I interpret them that these specifics were points among other points, among personal research, investigation.  It can go either way...Atheist --> Christian or Christian --> Atheist.

Quote from: "Asmodean"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.

Thanks for not looking specifically at me, however while I may not hold ALL the same ideas of a "religious lunatic", the basics seem to be well in common.  God and Afterlife.  The ground level contention Atheist/Atheists hold in opposition to religion.

Quote from: "elliebean"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 bearing false witness is not "also" simply lying...
thefreedictionary.com - False Witness (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/false+witness)

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"A fool able to convey his/her thoughts or beliefs in a sensible manner makes him no less a fool or lunatic that holds the same ideas.

I disagree.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"A fool able to convey his/her thoughts or beliefs in a sensible manner makes him no less a fool or lunatic that holds the same ideas.

Example:
Lunatic--  "You are all going to Hell because God hates you Atheist sinners!"

Fool--  "Anyone that chooses death is going to Hell, but God would rather you choose Him and not go to hell.  In fact, there is no way to avoid hell no matter how good one is.  The crime demands a punishment and death is that punishment.  However, God has made it legally possible to be a sinner, avoid hell, and still gain that which is reserved only for the good/perfect/righteous...and it's a gift!  It's free.

I wouldn't necessarily describe that person as a fool, depending upon how they presented their case. At worst, until proven otherwise, I'd desribe them as someone who holds some arguably foolish ideas with which I disagree.

Quote

Quote from: "elliebean"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 bearing false witness is not "also" simply lying...
thefreedictionary.com - False Witness (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/false+witness)

Well that's a modern definition of a phrase appearing in a 17th century translation of an earlier translation of... at this point, one must ask: was that even an accepted definition (let alone the intended one) at the time it was written, or did popular misinterpretations of it later on give rise to that usage over time? I'm not saying I know, I'm just saying it's a question and I don't feel like digging up the answer right now.  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"This is quite silly and the logical end to what you seem to be promoting as the correct interpretation.

Agreed, very silly. Bubblepot is a known troll. He is on a forum where atheists (and non atheists) debate. He has made a silly statement that no atheists are good debaters, aimed to provoke an emotional response. Pure and simple troll dome. Your attempt to see the best in him and to interprete a more sensible meaning to bubble's words comes with good intent but I don't think any interpretation is necessary. Bubblepot is a troll and is simply attempting to provoke. He must be very bored and gets his kicks from this trash. Waste of space and waste of time if you ask me.

Dr. Craig actually recently had a debate with Dawkins, although not in a one vs one debate, but a group debate. Craig discusses his encounter here, in a Part 1 segment: http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/R ... _Craig.mp3 (http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/Richard_Dawkins_Meets_Dr_Craig.mp3)

Quote from: "Achronos"Dr. Craig actually recently had a debate with Dawkins, although not in a one vs one debate, but a group debate. Craig discusses his encounter here, in a Part 1 segment: http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/R ... _Craig.mp3 (http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/Richard_Dawkins_Meets_Dr_Craig.mp3)

Is there not a recording of the whole debate?

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Achronos"Dr. Craig actually recently had a debate with Dawkins, although not in a one vs one debate, but a group debate. Craig discusses his encounter here, in a Part 1 segment: http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/R ... _Craig.mp3 (http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/Richard_Dawkins_Meets_Dr_Craig.mp3)

Is there not a recording of the whole debate?

Not that I know of (it's not on his site), am looking forward to it.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The ground level contention Atheist/Atheists hold in opposition to religion.

Atheists never outgrew their childhood naivete that caused them to believe the magician was actually pulling the rabit out of the hat from thin air. The rest of us, Christians, have come to realize that something actually does not come from nothing. But I can sympathize with the atheists, because it's fun to believe in magic.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The ground level contention Atheist/Atheists hold in opposition to religion.

Atheists never outgrew their childhood naivete that caused them to believe the magician was actually pulling the rabit out of the hat from thin air. The rest of us, Christians, have come to realize that something actually does not come from nothing. But I can sympathize with the atheists, because it's fun to believe in magic. :verysad:

LOL

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?

Quote from: "Will"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.

I think so too, though I'm curious how you would define those patterns. To me it's like they build up the typical strawman of what they are taught the atheist is and then lament about how much they loved themselves and hated the world as a desperate rebellious atheist. Thanks C.S. Lewis (I doubt his sincerity as well).

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Will"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.

I think so too, though I'm curious how you would define those patterns. To me it's like they build up the typical strawman of what they are taught the atheist is and then lament about how much they loved themselves and hated the world as a desperate rebellious atheist. Thanks C.S. Lewis (I doubt his sincerity as well).

I agree.

I'll add that there probably really are people who were atheists who later became religious.  There might even be people who fully understood all the arguments for and against god who later became theists.  But I've never met one who could talk about their past as an atheist without sounding like they know nothing about what an atheist is.

It would be like I claimed that I use to be christian then went on and on about how all Christians hate their fellow man and that I sure am glad I saw through that idiocy.

What's this about C.S. Lewis' sincerity?

I had 3 atheists (one of them classified himself as militant) convert to Christianity at my parish, maybe they'd like to share their personal testimonies one day.

Quote from: "Achronos"What's this about C.S. Lewis' sincerity?

I had 3 atheists (one of them classified himself as militant) convert to Christianity at my parish, maybe they'd like to share their personal testimonies one day.

My impression of C.S. Lewis's deconversion account was that he was an unruly youth who was mad at god rather than of a reasoned atheist who later discovered Christianity was true; yet he tried to equate his experience as an atheist with all other people who are atheists (how these people who convert then later pretend like their experience is just like that of all atheists is the problem, I really can't contest whether he really didn't believe at one point or not as that is personal)

Quote from: "Whitney"My impression of C.S. Lewis's deconversion account was that he was an unruly youth who was mad at god

Hey maybe there is hope that Hitchens will convert one day.

Quoterather than of a reasoned atheist who later discovered Christianity was true;

I don't know, his Christian apologetics showcase a man who is very reasoned. I don't know too much about his atheist background, I'll have to look into it this weekend. I'll have to paraphrase him by saying that you can't come to God only by logic or reason. Even he admitted faults with things accounted for in the Bible (Such as the Judas death potrayal in the Gospels).

This is the book where I read about C.S. Lewis' comments on how he went from atheist to Christian.  

The Question of God:  http://www.amazon.com/Question-God-Sigm ... 0743202376 (http://www.amazon.com/Question-God-Sigmund-Debate-Meaning/dp/0743202376)

I made notes and such in the book, I should find it sometime and read it again...probably would be interesting to compare my thoughts then and now; esp since I had not yet taken any philosophy classes at the time I read the book.

btw, I think both Lewis and Freud came across very poorly in The Question of God (was also a PBS special, but I haven't seen the video version).

http://www.unitednothing.net/content/an ... ssful.html (http://www.unitednothing.net/content/animation/trollissuccessful.html)

I don't even get why this thread wasn't deleted in a heartbeat. If this was from anyone else i'm sure the thread would be more than warranted but this is Bubblepot. He is a bonified troll, here, let me give a link to some of his classic works.

search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author_id=3975&start=15 (http://happyatheistforum.com/search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author_id=3975&start=15)

Guys, no matter how superior your arguments are against him, he's going to continue to post nonsense because he wants you to post, his trolling levels are on the same scale as BIgmac's were, just let this thread die, ignore Bubblepot, he gets his jollies from this. Unless of course you guys just enjoy replying to the little genius, then by all means, go ahead.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Guys, no matter how superior your arguments are against him, he's going to continue to post nonsense because he wants you to post, his trolling levels are on the same scale as BIgmac's were, just let this thread die, ignore Bubblepot, he gets his jollies from this. Unless of course you guys just enjoy replying to the little genius, then by all means, go ahead.

I think a decent side discussion came out of it, though at no thanks to bubblepot....but I agree that Bubblepot is to be ignored I just prefer to have a more solid reason to point to when I ban someone permanently.

Big Mac and I were online friends well before this forum started and it was really hard for me to decide to perm ban him (completely different guy when he's talking one on one)....but yes, they are similar.

Quote from: "Whitney"But I've never met one who could talk about their past as an atheist without sounding like they know nothing about what an atheist is.

It would be fun to look for one although I suspect it would be difficult to tell if they're being honest or not since the deconversion is almost always due to social reasons. The cynic in me suspects that for some of these more well known deconverters who have had a feeling tugging at their heart is actually in part the intuition that there is money to be made from writing apologetic books under the newfound facile authority that they were once an atheist. Or at the very least, popularity to be gained from a welcoming religious community eager to have the other side and all its dark mysterious ways explained to them. There's a whole community you can see once every week, waiting to praise you just for aligning your beliefs with theirs. If someone's feeling lonely and unloved and depressed and bitter toward the world, why not blame it on atheism and go be "reborn"?

Quote from: "Achronos"I had 3 atheists (one of them classified himself as militant) convert to Christianity at my parish, maybe they'd like to share their personal testimonies one day.

Atheists or agnostic apatheists?

QuoteI don't know, his Christian apologetics showcase a man who is very reasoned. I don't know too much about his atheist background, I'll have to look into it this weekend. I'll have to paraphrase him by saying that you can't come to God only by logic or reason. Even he admitted faults with things accounted for in the Bible (Such as the Judas death potrayal in the Gospels).

The two contradict. When apologists try to demean reason and make it seem as though their way of thinking is transcendent of it, it's a trick that hopes to make you forget they're just saying "throw reason out the window here." A weak attempt to make themselves untouchable without reason.

Quote from: "Sophus"It would be fun to look for one although I suspect it would be difficult to tell if they're being honest or not since the deconversion is almost always due to social reasons. The cynic in me suspects that for some of these more well known deconverters who have had a feeling tugging at their heart is actually in part the intuition that there is money to be made from writing apologetic books under the newfound facile authority that they were once an atheist. Or at the very least, popularity to be gained from a welcoming religious community eager to have the other side and all its dark mysterious ways explained to them. There's a whole community you can see once every week, waiting to praise you just for aligning your beliefs with theirs. If someone's feeling lonely and unloved and depressed and bitter toward the world, why not blame it on atheism and go be "reborn"?

Yes, yes..I can see the headlines now...Happy Atheist converts to Evangelical Christianity.  

Quote from: "Ultima22689"...his trolling levels are on the same scale as BIgmac's were...

I'm going to step up to defend Mac's honor here.  He was definitely not just a troll.  He contributed some quite thoughtful and thought-provoking posts during his long membership here.  Sure, he also went off the reservation on numerous occasions, but there's no merit in comparing him to the OP, in my opinion.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"...you guys just enjoy replying to the little genius...

Actually, I for one do enjoy observing and interacting with the "little genius."  I have no illusions about his intent. Nor have I had any illusions regarding his nature since he made his debut here.  There is some entertainment to be had though, as long as one manages to dodge the occasional spatter of nasal mucous.  I know that you're not supposed to feed the troll, but I've found that sometimes good fun can be had from doing what one is not supposed to do.  Don't worry, no doubt he'll manage to get himself banned soon enough.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

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

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"...his trolling levels are on the same scale as BIgmac's were...

I'm going to step up to defend Mac's honor here.  He was definitely not just a troll.  He contributed some quite thoughtful and thought-provoking posts during his long membership here.  Sure, he also went off the reservation on numerous occasions, but there's no merit in comparing him to the OP, in my opinion.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"...you guys just enjoy replying to the little genius...

Actually, I for one do enjoy observing and interacting with the "little genius."  I have no illusions about his intent. Nor have I had any illusions regarding his nature since he made his debut here.  There is some entertainment to be had though, as long as one manages to dodge the occasional spatter of nasal mucous.  I know that you're not supposed to feed the troll, but I've found that sometimes good fun can be had from doing what one is not supposed to do.  Don't worry, no doubt he'll manage to get himself banned soon enough.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

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're right and I didn't mean to insinuate that Bigmac was a simpleton in any fashion, he brought enjoyable topics and even when he went overboard they were at many times entertaining and at the least well thought out.

I'd be lying if this thread hasn't made me laugh like a hyena at times, so, if it's your pleasure, please do indulge Bubblepot. XD

Quote from: "Sophus"The cynic in me suspects that for some of these more well known deconverters who have had a feeling tugging at their heart is actually in part the intuition that there is money to be made from writing apologetic books under the newfound facile authority that they were once an atheist.

I think it might be fun to do a pool on when S. E. Cupp inevitably (I think) does her big, "I seen the Light!  I seen the Light! Praise Jesus, I finally seen the Light!" routine.  I think it'll probably be another couple of years...

Quote from: "Sophus"Atheists or agnostic apatheists?

Atheists

QuoteThe two contradict. When apologists try to demean reason and make it seem as though their way of thinking is transcendent of it, it's a trick that hopes to make you forget they're just saying "throw reason out the window here." A weak attempt to make themselves untouchable without reason.

What I think C.S. Lewis was getting at was that logic/reason alone cannot be the only way one comes in contact with God; God, as I mentioned in another thread is not merely just an intellectual exercise. Is that to say C.S. Lewis can't reasonably believe what he believes? Certainly not!

But there are limits to reason.

My Atheist Pretend Meter just went off the Charts!! That OP reads "Bull Shit" all over it.  

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Sophus"The two contradict. When apologists try to demean reason and make it seem as though their way of thinking is transcendent of it, it's a trick that hopes to make you forget they're just saying "throw reason out the window here." A weak attempt to make themselves untouchable without reason.

What I think C.S. Lewis was getting at was that logic/reason alone cannot be the only way one comes in contact with God; God, as I mentioned in another thread is not merely just an intellectual exercise. Is that to say C.S. Lewis can't reasonably believe what he believes? Certainly not!

But there are limits to reason.

There it goes again. "Mere" intellectual exercise. There's no nice way to put this: by throwing reason out the window you are not transcending anything. There isn't a single moment outside of religious belief you wouldn't use reason to determine what's real. It has no application and no use beyond one's prejudices.

I know I'm getting a tad off topic but this is something that is really obvious and annoying. Abandoning reason is not a virtue above reason itself. As I recall, when a similar discussion arose you snarked "The only ones here abandoning reason are the atheists." No, you're the one "transcending" it. Rather not adhering to it.

Who said anything about throwing out reason?

Quote from: "Achronos"Who said anything about throwing out reason?

Well this should approve amusing.  

Quote from: "Achronos"Atheists never outgrew their childhood naivete that caused them to believe the magician was actually pulling the rabit out of the hat from thin air. The rest of us, Christians, have come to realize that something actually does not come from nothing. But I can sympathize with the atheists, because it's fun to believe in magic. :| Would have been way cooler if he actually did it." And then I explained to her how he managed to appear to hover above the floor, and was told that I was "no fun at all. None. None what so ever.   "

I seem to vaguely remember giving magic some credit (Believing in it, perhaps), but those were my pre-school years. I'm not sure what changed, how and when, but I know I regarded illusionists and magicians as skilled performers of variably elaborate tricks and stunts when majority of my peers viewed them as having supernatural talents.

Quote from: "Achronos"What's this about C.S. Lewis' sincerity?

I never had the opportunity to speak with Lewis, but I'm quite familiar with his story (having been raised Christian on the Narnia books). While Lewis claimed to once be an atheist, his description of his own atheism actually demonstrates conclusively that he was not. If you've read Surprised by Joy, you'll be familiar with this passage: "I was at this time living, like so many Atheists or Anti-theists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry at God for not existing. I was equally angry at Him for creating a world."

An atheist is incapable of being angry with god. I am no more capable of being angry with god than I am angry with Zeus or Ba'al or any other fictitious character.

C.S. Lewis was never an atheist.

So Will according to that logic then Hitchens isn't an atheist, so what is Hitchens exactly?

It's not "that logic", it's the most basic and fundamental description of atheism. An atheist does not believe in god. I, as an atheist, cannot feel anger towards god any more than you can be angry at Zeus. Are you angry at Zeus? Do you understand and accept this concept?

And Hitchens is not angry at god. His anger with god may have started him on the path to atheism once, but one cannot be angry at gods as an atheist. Hitchens is not angry at god now, particularly not in the way C.S. Lewis articulated his anger.

Quote from: "Will"It's not "that logic", it's the most basic and fundamental description of atheism. An atheist does not believe in god. I, as an atheist, cannot feel anger towards god any more than you can be angry at Zeus. Are you angry at Zeus? Do you understand and accept this concept?

And Hitchens is not angry at god. His anger with god may have started him on the path to atheism once, but one cannot be angry at gods as an atheist. Hitchens is not angry at god now, particularly not in the way C.S. Lewis articulated his anger.

If there is no God then there are no atheists.

And come on it's vintage Hitchens to be high on hate and light on logic. For him ridicule is the tactic of choice, not reason.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them;" -Thomas Jefferson

He will talk about what outrages him morally, yet never gives a basis for that moral outrage given an atheistic view on reality.

Quote from: "Achronos"If there is no God then there are no atheists.

Atheist describes what one is not. The majority of people on the planet are theists, so we have a term to differentiate ourselves from theists. If god doesn't exist, theists and atheists still exist.

Quote from: "Achronos"And come on it's vintage Hitchens to be high on hate and light on logic. For him ridicule is the tactic of choice, not reason.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them;" -Thomas Jefferson

He will talk about what outrages him morally, yet never gives a basis for that moral outrage given an atheistic view on reality.

Please don't try to change the subject. You asserted that Hitchens hates god specifically, so I expect you to support that.

Quote from: "Achronos"If there is no God then there are no atheists.

Uh oh! Then God doesn't exist. God doesn't believe in gods. So God is an atheist. God exists, therefore atheists don't exist. Therefore God doesn't exist!  

Here's a hypothetical reverse CS Lewis: Someone who says they knew they did not or could not believe in God before becoming an open atheist. Someone who - for whatever reason - felt they had to feign belief, perhaps even to themselves. They do exist. There is research being done on clergy who don't believe.

Quote from: "Will"Atheist describes what one is not. The majority of people on the planet are theists, so we have a term to differentiate ourselves from theists. If god doesn't exist, theists and atheists still exist.

What I meant is that if there was no God to disbelieve in then their would be nothing to be atheist about. My point being that atheism is an active belief.

Quote from: "Achronos"Please don't try to change the subject. You asserted that Hitchens hates god specifically, so I expect you to support that.

Well let's see, there was a Frank Turek debate with Hitchens awhile back which the moderator of the debate told Hitchens "Well I guess we can sum up your argument, 'There is no God, and I hate him!'"

He debated with Jay Richards 3 years back on the topic regarding intelligent design which was classic Hitchens as I mentioned above. He debated with Dr. Craig 2 years ago on if the God of Christianity exists, but of course resulted to an appeal of emotions which ended up in an overly insulting debonair argument. He rarely engages to refute the arguments presented, and like I said resorts to a bout of rage. In that debate showed an example of Hitches breaking his own moral values showing that objective moral values don't exist in atheism, since objective moral values don't exist without God. Oh let's not forget the classic summation of another debate with Hitchens "People do bad things,therefore God does not exist."

Should I go on? To say Hitchens isn't angry at a God who supposes doesn't exist is laughable. His debates prove otherwise.

Quote from: "Achronos"What I meant is that if there was no God to disbelieve in then their would be nothing to be atheist about. My point being that atheism is an active belief.

I'm afraid not. Atheism is being unconvinced of something. I'm an a-fairy-ist, a-ghost-ist, a-Easter Bunny-ist right along with being an atheist. I remain unconvinced of the existence of all of these things. The fact I have to call myself an atheist is only a reaction to living in a world where the majority is theist. If the majority of people on the planet believed in X, but I did not, I would self-identify as a-X-ist.

If you lived in ancient Greece, where the majority of people were polytheists, would you not be an apolytheist? Yes or no.

Quote from: "Will"I'm afraid not. Atheism is being unconvinced of something. I'm an a-fairy-ist, a-ghost-ist, a-Easter Bunny-ist right along with being an atheist. I remain unconvinced of the existence of all of these things. The fact I have to call myself an atheist is only a reaction to living in a world where the majority is theist. If the majority of people on the planet believed in X, but I did not, I would self-identify as a-X-ist.

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.  For example you said:

QuoteAn 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.

QuoteIf you lived in ancient Greece, where the majority of people were polytheists, would you not be an apolytheist? Yes or no.

Yes. I could be a theist.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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."

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"For example you said:

QuoteAn 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.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"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.

Quote from: "Sophus"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.

Quote"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?

Quote from: "Will"[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?

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

One more thing

Quote from: "Sophus"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)

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

QuoteIt'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.

QuoteWhat 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.
 

QuoteWhat 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.

QuoteA 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

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteHow 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?

QuoteMy 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.

Quote from: "Achronos"One more thing

Quote from: "Sophus"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.

Quote from: "Will""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.

Quote from: "Will"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.

QuoteAs 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.

QuoteWe 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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteAnd 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.

QuoteThere'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?

Quote from: "Achronos"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?

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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?

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "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:

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

Quote from: "Recusant"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?

Quote from: "Recusant"2) What church do you consider yourself affiliated with?

Excuse me? I'm a freethinker.

Quote from: "Recusant"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".

Quote from: "Recusant"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.

Quote from: "Recusant"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?

Quote from: "Recusant"Thank you in advance for answering my questions. :)

Quote from: "Asmodean"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.

Quote from: "Whitney"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.

Quote from: "Asmodean"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!!!!!"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"1. Atheism is not a philosophy.

I disagree.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"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.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Just for fun, how is Dawkins an idiot?

So now you're trying to change the subject?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"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.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"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.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"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.

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

Of course you do; because I de-converted.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"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.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"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.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"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"?

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

So?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"roflol

:P

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

Quote from: "Will"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."

Quote from: "Bubblepot"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.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"

Quote from: "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 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6704#p100406).  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.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"

Quote from: "Asmodean"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.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Some, like me, just do it for personal amusement though.

QuoteBut 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.

Not necessarily; and to dismiss a position simply because of those who hold it is intellectually lazy.

QuoteThat'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!!!!!"

Yeahhhh...sure.

QuoteI disagree.

How is it a philosophy?

QuoteRight. Hence I dropped atheism.

I thought you said you dropped atheism for the former reason. Which is it?

QuoteSo now you're trying to change the subject?

You're the one that brought Dawkins up.

QuoteSo 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.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whiteandblack.co.nz%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F11%2Fbullshit-stamp.jpg&hash=6bc6e0004406f0f314868d65565fd289d65b84ce)

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

No, I'm asking you what a hard-core atheist is to you. So far, you seem to have trouble answering.

QuoteOf course you do; because I de-converted.

Well, yeah. I don't think "the most hard-core atheist in the world" would become a theist because he thought all atheists were bad debaters.

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

It implies a belief system.

QuoteNot 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.

How does it not hold water?

QuoteYes it does.

Like what?

QuoteOh, are we back to me being a theist now? You've gotten bored of "troll"?

It's funny how you just keep proving you're a troll while saying things like that.

QuoteSo?

That's a bad reason to "de-convert".

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

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whiteandblack.co.nz%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F11%2Fbullshit-stamp.jpg&hash=6bc6e0004406f0f314868d65565fd289d65b84ce)

QuoteAhh, 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."

Since I don't want to use the same image too many times in one post, I refer you to the above image.

QuoteYou never asked me anything.

Again, above image.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Bubblepot"

Quote from: "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 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6704#p100406).  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.

Recusant, I answered your questions at the very top of my last post. I'd appreciate it if you didn't lie by pretending I didn't, and I'd especially appreciate you not writing your own sentences and then falsely posting them as being quoted by me. Anyone can compare this apparent "quote" of mine you've posted, look back at my previous post and see how you're being deceptive here. Thanks.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"Recusant, I answered your questions at the very top of my last post. I'd appreciate it if you didn't lie by pretending I didn't, and I'd especially appreciate you not writing your own sentences and then falsely posting them as being quoted by me. Anyone can compare this apparent "quote" of mine you've posted, look back at my previous post and see how you're being deceptive here. Thanks.

I think I might start taking your own advice and ignoring you. You're being too obvious of a troll now, Bubblepot; the subtle trolls are the best.

I'd appreciate it if we all just took a few deep breaths before continuing.

Quote from: "Will"I'd appreciate it if we all just took a few deep breaths before continuing.

You can't be serious, Will. I mean, just look at him. He's not even trying in the least to hide he's a troll now.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"Recusant, I answered your questions at the very top of my last post. I'd appreciate it if you didn't lie by pretending I didn't, and I'd especially appreciate you not writing your own sentences and then falsely posting them as being quoted by me. Anyone can compare this apparent "quote" of mine you've posted, look back at my previous post and see how you're being deceptive here. Thanks.

  lol  lol   I'm going to respond to your answers, but I don't think we'll get to play this game much longer.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"

Quote from: "Recusant"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?

So you were lying earlier on this site when you posted as an "atheist".  Why did you do that?

To answer your questions in return (fair is fair, after all):

1) I put de-convert in quotation marks (get the names of punctuation correct and people may be fooled into thinking that you know what you're talking about, which is what you want, isn't it?) for two reasons.  A: I don't actually believe your story as presented in the OP.  For all I know, you're actually an atheist who has decided to have some fun by playing at being a Christian who plays at being an atheist, then changes his story to say that he's actually an ex-atheist who has become a "free thinker." :P )

Quote from: "Bubblepot"

Quote from: "Recusant"2) What church do you consider yourself affiliated with?

Excuse me? I'm a freethinker.

Define "freethinker."

Quote from: "Bubblepot"

Quote from: "Recusant"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".

Yes, it doesn't surprise me at all that you have trouble understanding the concept of "true".  lol  You really are trying aren't you?  I'll give you a B for effort, C+ for style and a C for execution.  As you can see, I'm a tough grader.  But to answer your question:  You can easily read my "worldview" descriptor below my name and avatar.  I am what I say I am--an infidel barbarian.

 I mean this sincerely; it's been fun, Bubblepot, take care, and wipe your nose more often.

(Edited for grammatical and code errors.)

Well, after reading those last couple of posts, I think i've done the old mac a very large disservice.

This is one entertaining troll post, please go on.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You can't be serious, Will. I mean, just look at him. He's not even trying in the least to hide he's a troll now.

There's good conversation to be had if the trolls aren't indulged too much.

Bubblepot, reading your posts did make me laugh. I don't think you're a troll, I don't think you're the problem at all.

Quote from: "pilchardo"Bubblepot, reading your posts did make me laugh. I don't think you're a troll, I don't think you're the problem at all.

My sock-puppet detector is going off.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "pilchardo"Bubblepot, reading your posts did make me laugh. I don't think you're a troll, I don't think you're the problem at all.

My sock-puppet detector is going off.

Really? If you think I'm a sockpuppet of Bubblepot, I suggest you tell it to a moderator in private. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to check my IP address and compare it to Bubblepot's. I know it's quiet here and there's hardly anything going on but if you're bored, how about you do something else rather than posting your misguided suspicions publically, thus derailing the thread.

How dare you derail this troll thread LS! You should be ashamed!

Wait, when did Bubblepot get banned?

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Wait, when did Bubblepot get banned?

He was banned today. See the thread he started regarding trolling, here:  viewtopic.php?f=48&t=6719 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=6719)

Quote from: "pilchardo"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "pilchardo"Bubblepot, reading your posts did make me laugh. I don't think you're a troll, I don't think you're the problem at all.

My sock-puppet detector is going off.

Really? If you think I'm a sockpuppet of Bubblepot, I suggest you tell it to a moderator in private. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to check my IP address and compare it to Bubblepot's. I know it's quiet here and there's hardly anything going on but if you're bored, how about you do something else rather than posting your misguided suspicions publically, thus derailing the thread.

Considering that your IP changes every 4 posts or so I really can't base it off IP...and I know this because I already checked for a match before LS even said anything.

You must watch a lot of Columbo, Whitney. Did you see the one today with Johnny Cash? "Oh, one more thing...", I love it when he says that. He's in his 80's now, and still looking good. He's a good painter, too.