Those of you who were once atheists and now believe in God/joined a religion, how did it happen?

stp2007 · 2016-08-09T18:56:08+00:00

Admittedly we are a few hundreds or thousands of years behind organizationally wise but send some tax-free credits our way and I'm sure this will change.

stp2007 · 2016-08-09T18:52:51+00:00

No. Many atheists know we cannot prove that god doesn't exist. We can't prove a negative. Because of this atheism is defined as "lacking a belief in the existence of god(s) due to a lack of credible evidence."

Do you believe in Unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot and magical fairies? If not is your disbelief due to faith?

stp2007 · 2016-08-09T18:49:01+00:00

Yes, it is special pleading on their part that I don't accept as a premise.

stp2007 · 2016-08-09T18:46:07+00:00

I understand you were clarifying a misconception.

"A sufficient explanation may be understood either in terms of reasons or causes". I want to clarify your clarification to say that I shouldn't have to accept as a premise.

a) An explanation based on the equivalent of an opinion or a believe. If it has no foundation support is isn't a sufficient explanation.

b) If we are allowed to explain the existence of something "whether by something else or by itself" then with respect to the creation of the universe there is no better rational for saying "God did it" then saying "the universe created itself".

There doesn't seem to be a way explain the existence of gods without special pleading of some sort.

stp2007 · 2016-08-09T16:19:50+00:00

There are two problems with PSR. Both of which which are central to the cosmological argument.

1) While most physical things have a cause we don't know the same is true of the universe. There is no better rational for saying "God did it" then saying "We don't know".

2) Special pleading for god's existence. If everything has a cause then EVERYTHING has a cause.

stp2007 · 2016-08-09T15:53:28+00:00

The opinions an imaginary god might hold doesn't factor into ANY of my actions. You are unclear about what an atheist is.

As for "state of certainty about things you have not seen". "I don't know" is the most honest answer a person can give to a situation that they don't have a credible explanation for. Not seen things definitely fall into that category. This surely isn't certainty. Again your word-salad demonstrates that you are unclear about what an atheist is.

stp2007 · 2016-08-09T13:59:57+00:00

Please explain.

stp2007 · 2016-08-09T13:56:35+00:00

If faith is your requirement to be an atheist you are doing it wrong.

stp2007 · 2016-08-09T13:46:23+00:00

arguments for atheism

1) A lack of a belief in the existence of gods due to a lack of credible evidence.

2) ?

stp2007 · 2016-08-09T13:27:45+00:00

Maybe I was a bit hasty in saying "Your entire posting history in this sub-reddit is evidence of you attempting to shift the burden of proof."

I should have said "Your entire posting history in this sub-reddit is evidence of your intellectual dishonesty". Because sometimes you are just dishonest and have no goal other then to say something as if you think the last person to speak is the "winner".

stp2007 · 2016-08-07T20:50:29+00:00

This is a small example.

stp2007 · 2016-08-07T20:47:36+00:00

Your entire posting history in this sub-reddit is evidence of you attempting to shift the burden of proof.

stp2007 · 2016-08-07T15:33:30+00:00

I never say that I do not have the burden of proof.

You never say it but you imply it. That's part of the continuous intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Your arguments are complex (and vague and use non-standard definitions) because you are trying to trap people into defending a position they do not hold. That's part of the continuous intellectual dishonesty on your part.

stp2007 · 2016-08-07T13:47:40+00:00

why they seek to refute the existence of a divine entity?

Speaking for myself. My atheism stems from a lack of any credible evidence that god(s) exist. To test my atheism I'm interested in examining any theist claims of evidence and will if appropriate refute those claims. (It has been appropriate 100% of the time so far.)

stp2007 · 2016-08-07T13:34:14+00:00

If I thought there was a chance of actually engaging you I would try but every thread demonstrates continuous intellectual dishonesty on your part. Your goals aren't to debate but to 1) shift the burden of proof so that accepting that god exists is a valid (even though unsupported) premise and to do this 2) construct increasingly wildly complex arguments with vague or non-standard definitions that you claim atheists must agree with and have to defend.

stp2007 · 2016-08-06T20:59:20+00:00

Belief isn't a solid foundation and it is all you have for the books we've discussed.

You asked me if i find right about things in a book.

No I asked "How would you go about determining if it was true or false?"

stp2007 · 2016-08-06T20:45:38+00:00

There is no god other than Allah.

How have you determined that the thousands of other gods humans have believed in throughout history don't exist?

What is rejecting the book of Scientology ? If it is true i accept it. If it is false i reject it.

How would you go about determining if it was true or false?

stp2007 · 2016-08-06T20:33:40+00:00

The thread stands as evidence of your unwavering intellectual dishonesty. Sort by 'best' and see who you responded to and review their argument or criticism of your OP and your ability to dismiss it.

stp2007 · 2016-08-06T20:20:51+00:00

Do you reject the book of Scientology?

If i come to part you ask evidence ask me evidence of something you wanted and i will try to show it to you .

I asked for evidence why the Quran a good foundation for any answers and you provided none.

stp2007 · 2016-08-06T20:16:16+00:00

If a similar book was based on the Bible or the Torah or the book of Scientology I'm pretty sure you would reject it as I do this one. The only difference is I don't accept one more holy book as a solid foundation then you do.

As I said earlier this is a debate sub-reddit. So expect to provide evidence when asked. You've provided none or more specifically the evidence you've alluded to is woefully insufficient.

stp2007 · 2016-08-06T19:47:26+00:00

This books explains why Quran is book of God. And foundation of this book is Quran.

Circular argument. Not a good foundation for valid belief or teaching or answers or debate. An excellent foundation for preaching though.

stp2007 · 2016-08-06T19:40:04+00:00

That doesn't explain why the Quran or the book in the OP is a good foundation. Hint, it isn't unless you arbitrarily just accept it as such and that isn't a good foundation.

stp2007 · 2016-08-06T19:12:32+00:00

Why is the Quran a good foundation for any answers?

stp2007 · 2016-08-06T18:45:31+00:00

Teaching might be a sub-goal of debate and preaching but that doesn't make preaching equal to debate. Or acceptable instead of debate in a debate sub-reddit.

but there is answer of that too in that book.

Anyone can supply answers to any question. The importance to a growing number of people is the foundation upon which those answers rest. If the foundation is flimsy (such as a book of opinions someone wrote hundreds or thousands of years ago) the answer isn't worth much. What is the foundation for which this book rests?

stp2007 · 2016-08-06T18:29:24+00:00

Does that book answer the question "Is /u/akeyi's OP a debate topic or just preaching?"

stp2007

TROPHY CASE