I question if there is such as thing as former atheists

Sorry for another video, last one I promise. These just seem to pop up on my youtube when I search for atheism. But listening to this guy I got the impression that he was never really a former atheist, or his version is so flimsy as to not really mean anything.

So far I haven’t really heard convincing arguments from theists for god. They all just seem to stem from incredulity that naturalism or the world formed as it did and not due to some will or agency. Like…I know it’s hard to believe but that is what seems to be the case. I think that just upsets people.

1 Like

[quote=“inthedarkness, post:1, topic:10845, full:true”]
So far I haven’t really heard convincing arguments from theists for god. They all just seem to stem from incredulity that naturalism or the world formed as it did and not due to some will or agency. Like…I know it’s hard to believe but that is what seems to be the case. I think that just upsets people.

In a way I should like to know what a religious person believes what an atheist is.
Atheists can imagine abstract concepts, they just have nothing factual to do with Scripture.

But Atheist can certainly entertain that : “In the beginning One emerged from Nothing”. Fundamentally that’s what the BB is all about.

All “intelligent Design” driven religions claim truth, but none agrees perfectly with another in xome fundamentals.
Non- Deterministc

OTOH, all Pseudo- Intellgently driven mathematical sciences claim some truths, and science- books agree everywhere in some fundamentals.
Deterministic.

How many theists do you have to listen to before you know there is no convincing argument for God? Scientific methods say you can’t be 100% sure. I’m fine with 99.9999%.

It’s interesting to me to hear their story, their personal story, but that’s it. I’m not expecting a coherent factual argument.

I don’t know. If one could go from being a theist to an atheist, why couldn’t the opposite way be true? Maybe they grew up in a non-religious home or went a Unitarian Universalist Church and considered themselves atheists and then because they weren’t actually raised non-religious something struck home with them and they decided they were no longer atheist.

Well the argument being offered in the video is this: The Anthropic Argument For Theism - by Bentham's Bulldog

Which I don’t think means anything. I really don’t think the possible number of humans able to exist would point to a god. To assert to probability of something I would have to at least know it exists or is likely to. I think they call it abductive reasoning which to me is a terrible excuse to believe in god.

Good one found it and God can be found in all percentage. Really God exist and one atheist found out and he knew one being created all. Really if Einstein can believe in one God and talked about it. God exist and he exist in this universe.

Why is a God necessary for creation? We see things naturally being created and changing every day without the necessity of an imaginary motivated agency.

I used to be an atheist. Now I’m a deist.

Ultimately, atheism appeals to certain personality types more than others. It’s never about reason – although it seems like it is.

Not really. The natural laws that we observe are mysterious. It’s impossible not to wonder how it got that way.

1 Like

Not really, just because Einstein thought so means nothing. Plenty of smart people are atheists too.

Or maybe that’s just how it is? Like it doesn’t need to have a designer for that to happen and there is nothing to suggest a designer. To think of it needing some intelligence behind it is…human.

1 Like

No, compared to Theism and even Deism, Natural laws are not mysterious at all.

Natural laws are based on logic that can be observed, codified, and symbolized with human mathematics. All much more logical than the concept of an “willful” extraterrestial intelligence that doesn’t know what it is doing.
Is a Super Nova the result of divine interference or of a mathematical threshold?

I have posted this before, but I believe Ricky Gervais’ explanation to Stephen Colbert is absolutely right and definitive.

Too bad none of that can be proven so we’re back to wondering.

Of course we can study the laws of nature, but we can’t explain why they exist or how they got there in the first place. That’s the mystery.

Nope, we pretty much know there is no designer so there is nothing to wonder about.

It’s not a mystery, it just is. Simple as.

Really the best place to start. There are different viewpoints, if you don’t know, you don’t know. Also different approaches, curiosity vs making up stuff.

The scientific consensus on this topic is that there seems to be a limit to what we can know, so I can’t agree.

In my experience it reminds me of that fake open mindedness in that forum that gave me issues.

Using the gaps in our knowledge to insert their own unfounded ideas rather than simply admit that we don’t know. I really don’t see how you can fit in god or theism into the I don’t know since we have not shown gods to be real.

The concept of Universal mathematics clears up all questions about observable orderly patterns in the universe .

1 + 1 = 2 is not mysterious, it is descriptive of a truth.

God = ? is mysterious, is not descriptive of anything other than a mystery.

“God works in mysterious ways” is descriptive of a truth.

Admitting we don’t know is mystery.

If it’s an observable pattern, then it’s not a mystery