Anyone ever become an atheist after believing?

[Castiel]

Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent would be a good umbrella that would catch most of people's criteria of a God.

Around 55% of population is either Muslim or Christian, they both have the same God and have a specific definition for him.

Go for it, give me that definition....be precise.

Can you apply your reason and knowledge to tell if Muslim/Christian God has equal 50% chance to exist and 50% chance not to exist?

For a way to lean either way there has to be a possibility of evidence either way. If we take 55% of population definition of God, he can not be disproved. As I mentioned earlier, it doesn't sound to me like a balanced position either way, I think it's slightly biased towards existence of God as there is no information that will ever lean your view towards non-existence of such God.

I am not assigning any sort of percentage of validity to anything however...why can you not simply accept that I have yet to make up my mind, why do you want me to conform to your idea of what I should or should not believe?

I favour no particular bias, I entreat each opposing opinion with equal consideration, a consideration that is ongoing.

 

[ringo747]

I've watched many discussions on the topic yes.

You seem to have it slightly backwards.

Theism. The belief in a deity.
Atheism. The rejection of this belief.

Most atheists do not claim there is no God, only that there isn't sufficient evidence to believe in one. It is the theist that must provide evidence as they are the ones making the claim.

I'm confused as to what evidence you think atheists have provided to support their claim. We're not making a claim, we simply reject your claim based on the lack of evidence.

Yes I know what you mean, let's try explaining this better. I suppose that is why I asked what sort of evidence would be required to prove the existence of God? I'm not sure it is possible.

In these debates what you will have is supporting evidence. In itself a particular piece of evidence may not prove that the existence of God is true, however, it may mean that the existence of God may be more plausible/implausible. I think the best we can hope for is a solid cumulative case for either side.

 

[Urgannagru]

Gonna go with it again; dragons are real, you cannot prove that they are not.

And more importantly are awesome!
Also have their own documentary "evidence"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UovE4fMNwiQ

 

[Castiel]

Gonna go with it again; dragons are real, you cannot prove that they are not.

Neither would I want to....however I could offer evidence that the antiquarian expression of Dragons is based on evidence of what we would now consider Dinosaur fossils and large predators that actually existed, many of which could fly, does this mean that Dragons did not exist, or does it mean we have with more understanding come to call Dragons, Dinosaurs. Anthropologists also see the expression of Dragons as being partially linked to Human instinctual fear, as in many cultures dragons are portrayed, not as animals on theoir own, but as hybrids of predators that each culture may have feared at one time.

Do or did Dragons exist?....it depends.

 

[Skunkworks]

What about them...if you are asking whether I am a Christian, Muslim or are Jewish then the answer is no, if you are asking whether I believe or disbelieve in their God, you will first have to offer a cognisant and coherent definition of the Abrahamic God.....and even then that would not necessarily impact on whether I believe or disbelieve in the Concept of God, it would simply mean that I would either accept or reject that particular definition, which unless universal and within the aforementioned criteria would be meaningless.

Do you think Jesus was the son of god?

 

[Nerusy]

Go for it, give me that definition....be precise.



I am not assigning any sort of percentage of validity to anything however...why can you not simply accept that I have yet to make up my mind, why do you want me to conform to your idea of what I should or should not believe?

I favour no particular bias, I entreat each opposing opinion with equal consideration, a consideration that is ongoing.

It has been given: omnipotent omnibenevolent omniscient.

There is no need for defensive stance and false accusations, I don't want you to take any stance. Merely pointing out that I personally do not feel such stance is fair like you claim it to be. To elaborate, ignostic is fair but it's a safe word to escape semantics. But I do not think agnosticism is a fair balance stance like it claims to be because as I mentioned there can be no disproving of non-existence. Hence to me it seems as biased as any other label out there.

 

[DampDog]

And more importantly are awesome!
Also have their own documentary "evidence"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UovE4fMNwiQ

Plus the narration is by Patrick Stewart, and he's Capt. of the StarShip Enterprise... How can it not be true?? Err just a minute, StarShip??

 

[Urgannagru]

Plus the narration is by Patrick Stewart, and he's Capt. of the StarShip Enterprise... How can it not be true?? Err just a minute, StarShip??

Oh that other documentary from the future about space?

True though, his voice is like Morgan Freeman's seems to give anything some gravitas and truthfulness

 

[DampDog]

Oh that other documentary from the future about space?

True though, his voice is like Morgan Freeman's seems to give anything some gravitas and truthfulness

Morgan Freeman, is God!!! The circle is complete..

 

[aln]

Neither would I want to....however I could offer evidence that the antiquarian expression of Dragons is based on evidence of what we would now consider Dinosaur fossils and large predators that actually existed, many of which could fly, does this mean that Dragons did not exist, or does it mean we have with more understanding come to call Dragons, Dinosaurs. Anthropologists also see the expression of Dragons as being partially linked to Human instinctual fear, as in many cultures dragons are portrayed, not as animals on theoir own, but as hybrids of predators that each culture may have feared at one time.

Do or did Dragons exist?....it depends.

Vampires too. The Castiels of 4013 will be debating whether the scripture know as twilight is supposed to be taken literally or not.

P.S. Dragons breath fire and are totally real. Not used to be. Are.

I will accept that Morgan Freeman probably is god though.

 

[ethan]

I'd personally be more interested in anybody who came a believer after being an atheist since the original title, along with it's very many responses, becomes somewhat predictable

Edit: Here are a few

Author Anne Rice (of "Interview with a Vampire" fame.)
Author C.S. Lewis (of "Narnia" fame.)
Reporter Lee Strobel.
Atheist Philosopher Antony Flew (though Flew is a deist.)
Philosopher Mortimer J. Adler.
Journalist Malcom Muggeridge.
Nobel Laureate Sigrid Undset.

There are many more. They're not hard to find.


Geneticist Francis Collins.
Biologist Alister McGrath.
Biologist George R. Price
Biologist Mark Eastman

 

[Castiel]

Do you think Jesus was the son of god?

I have no idea.

 

[Castiel]

It has been given: omnipotent omnibenevolent omniscient.

That is not a definition, it is only a set of characteristics that could be applied to anything.

There is no need for defensive stance and false accusations, I don't want you to take any stance. Merely pointing out that I personally do not feel such stance is fair like you claim it to be. To elaborate, ignostic is fair but it's a safe word to escape semantics. But I do not think agnosticism is a fair balance stance like it claims to be because as I mentioned there can be no disproving of non-existence. Hence to me it seems as biased as any other label out there.

I disagree, I think it is perfectly acceptable to reserve any judgement until one has fully considered and researched the issues and is ready to commit...I have yet to reach that point. I find it rather depressing that you cannot accept that and feel that I need to make some kind of commitment in order to be unbiased...which seems contrary to me.

 

[Skunkworks]

I have no idea.

You have abdolutely no opinion on the likelihood of that claim being true or false, it's 50/50?

 

[Castiel]

You have abdolutely no opinion on the likelyhood of that claim being true or false, it's 50/50?

I didn't say that...you are attributing truth values that I have not made any suggestion of...."I have no idea" is precisely that...not 50/50 or 60/40 or any other value you might want to ascribe to it.

 

[Nerusy]

That is not a definition, it is only a set of characteristics that could be applied to anything.

Those characteristic define God. Don't dodge the question.

I disagree, I think it is perfectly acceptable to reserve any judgement until one has fully considered and researched the issues and is ready to commit...I have yet to reach that point. I find it rather depressing that you cannot accept that and feel that I need to make some kind of commitment in order to be unbiased...which seems contrary to me.

I find it depressing that you can never see anybody's point but yourself, I never said you should make any commitment did I, could you stop putting words in my mouth, can you ever have mature conversation?

 

[Justintime]

I believed to the extent that my parents told me to, after 12 or so i really didn't. I might be more agnostic in that i hope there is some higher power or reincarnation etc.. but am very dubious about either.

 

[Skunkworks]

I didn't say that...you are attributing truth values that I have not made any suggestion of...."I have no idea" is precisely that...not 50/50 or 60/40 or any other value you might want to ascribe to it.

I'd hazard a guess that you're just being obtuse rather than having in writing that you think it's very likely untrue.

 

[elmarko]

I admit I did not like praying either, I was always self conscious about it as a child and I still don't do it even when I attend Church with my wife or when I spend time in places that hold such requirements (research for work). As a child I don't thing I really thought about it conceptually, I just didn't like doing it. Much like I didn't like rugby.

Yeah, it's quite an odd concept even inside of belief.

I think group praying is silly even now, I feel that a relationship with God is something between an individual and God, that doesn't mean not attending Church, listening to sermons, even singing and so on...just the praying part...I think that is something that should remain personal.

Can't disagree here.

The problem with that is one of interpretation...we see all kinds of evidence (scientific) that is interpreted according to how said evidence is expressed. For one expert it may indicate one conclusion, for another it may indicate the opposite (climate, linguistic and criminal science are all subject to this)....we can try to define good evidence from bad, but again that would be subjective to some degree as well......

I'd say it being available to all means greater trust can be put in it - the final point I made was in reference to a single person being certain they are indeed contacting a diety or losing their mind (having the ability for a third party to verify in theory allows for them to do that).

But I agree, it's subjective.

You have abdolutely no opinion on the likelihood of that claim being true or false, it's 50/50?

It's impossible to ascribe probability estimates to a scenario in which no data exists & no measurable variables exist.

 

[Castiel]

Those characteristic define God. Don't dodge the question.

They don't define God in any Abrahamic faith....they are characteristics attributed to him, not a universal definition. Abrahamic faiths such as Christianity and Islam in particular, the true nature of God is indeterminable and unknowable by mankind.

I find it depressing that you can never see anybody's point but yourself, I never said you should make any commitment did I, could you stop putting words in my mouth, can you ever have mature conversation?

I see and respect your point, I accept your perspective, but you are asking me to commit to something as well as agree that my position is something I dont agree it is......if you are not asking such then what are you asking?

As for calling me immature...if that is the way you wish to debate then I an no longer interested in continuing, you have already said I made false accusations, of what I do not know, and now I am immature because I disagree with you that my view is biased toward one particular position. I think it is best if we simply leave it there.