Former Atheists - What convinced you?

[rikuoamero]

What I'm writing here is for those people who consider themselves to be former atheist i.e. at one point in life, they either lacked a belief in a god of any kind, or actively disbelieved there is a God (there's a difference between the two).
I'm hoping that at least some people who are of this group (and hopefully joined the usergroup called 'Former Atheist' on this site) are/were also skeptical, in that they demanded evidence for religious claims.

My question is - What is it that convinced you? If you were to somehow go back in time and meet your previous, atheist (hopefully skeptic) self, would you or could you use whatever it is that convinced you to convince that version of you? Or would your past self be skeptical and dismissive of what it is you present?

Just to be clear - This isn't restricted to Christians only. You can be a Muslim who considers him/herself former atheist or whatever religion or belief you subscribe to. I want to hear from you.
I also promise NOT to debate in this thread. All I want are responses and your thoughts on this question. I will probably debate elsewhere, but not on this thread. This thread is solely for me to gather information.

[bluegreenearth]

I have abductive reasoning right? Or should that be abandoned now as a reasonable methoed? It's not about what using what I know to fill in the blanks for you what you and I were not there to witness at the beginning of life. I do use what I know to fill in the blanks for me. What I know is that there are examples of biogenesis and there are no examples of abiogenesis. Based on what I know, I have no reason to conclude that the first life-form was through abiogenesis then the best answer is biogenesis. This points to an intelligence for the first lifeform. To have me change that conclusion I'd need an example of abiogenesis.

Actually, the best and most intellectually honest response is to acknowledge where agnosticism is justified given the available facts and evidence are not sufficient to support any conclusion at this point. We are best served by continuing to try and disprove falsifiable hypotheses until we arrive at one that survives all attempts to falsify it. I'm not sure what value there is in entertaining unfalsifiable hypotheses since we could never discover if they false or not.

[2timothy316]

I have abductive reasoning right? Or should that be abandoned now as a reasonable methoed? It's not about what using what I know to fill in the blanks for you what you and I were not there to witness at the beginning of life. I do use what I know to fill in the blanks for me. What I know is that there are examples of biogenesis and there are no examples of abiogenesis. Based on what I know, I have no reason to conclude that the first life-form was through abiogenesis then the best answer is biogenesis. This points to an intelligence for the first lifeform. To have me change that conclusion I'd need an example of abiogenesis.

Actually, the best and most intellectually honest response is to acknowledge where agnosticism is justified given the available facts and evidence are not sufficient to support any conclusion at this point. We are best served by continuing to try and disprove falsifiable hypotheses until we arrive at one that survives all attempts to falsify it. I'm not sure what value there is in entertaining unfalsifiable hypotheses since we could never discover if they false or not.

Would this involve asking for proof to come to the right conclusion? Also, is the 'likely best answer' before we get all the pieces to the puzzle off the table now?

You mentioned "given the available facts". Have you examined all of the facts? Or like so many, have you dismissed chunks of data as nonsense?

[bluegreenearth]

Would this involve asking for proof to come to the right conclusion?

It would involve attempts to disprove falsifiable hypotheses to arrive at one that is the most reasonable given the available evidence.

Also, is the 'likely best answer' before we get all the pieces to the puzzle off the table now?

In the absence of all the puzzle pieces, the most reasonable explanation will be the one that is falsifiable but continues to survive all attempts to disprove it.

You mentioned "given the available facts". Have you examined all of the facts? Or like so many, have you dismissed chunks of data as nonsense?

I only dismiss falsifiable hypotheses that have been disproved. I neither accept nor reject unfalsifiable hypotheses because there is no way for me to know if it would be a mistake to accept or reject them.

[2timothy316]

Would this involve asking for proof to come to the right conclusion?

It would involve attempts to disprove falsifiable hypotheses to arrive at one that is the most reasonable given the available evidence.

I can't figure out if this is a yes or no..or avoiding to answer..

Then you say,

In the absence of all the puzzle pieces, the most reasonable explanation will be the one that is falsifiable but continues to survive all attempts to disprove it.

Disprove? Are you asking for proof? Your answers are non-committal and contradictory.

[2timothy316]

I have abductive reasoning right? Or should that be abandoned now as a reasonable methoed? It's not about what using what I know to fill in the blanks for you what you and I were not there to witness at the beginning of life. I do use what I know to fill in the blanks for me. What I know is that there are examples of biogenesis and there are no examples of abiogenesis. Based on what I know, I have no reason to conclude that the first life-form was through abiogenesis then the best answer is biogenesis. This points to an intelligence for the first lifeform. To have me change that conclusion I'd need an example of abiogenesis.

Actually, the best and most intellectually honest response is to acknowledge where agnosticism is justified given the available facts and evidence are not sufficient to support any conclusion at this point.

So now you're changing what is acceptable? Quite a moving target you're presenting. Almost as if you're making this up as you go. Now you have added intellectually honest. Honesty is being free of deceit. If I accept that abiogenesis is true without an example to examine then I'm deceiving myself. By you telling it is wrong to ask for proof, to me you're asking me to not be true to myself. This would be likes asking for a puzzle piece and you telling me don't ask for puzzle pieces. This is unacceptable to me. Be honest with yourself, do you honestly never ask for proof of something? If a person you do not know comes to you with a cure-all vaccine do you take it without asking for proof that it works or asking how it works to prove to yourself that it does work? Or do you just roll up your sleeve? Honestly.

[bluegreenearth]

Would this involve asking for proof to come to the right conclusion?

It would involve attempts to disprove falsifiable hypotheses to arrive at one that is the most reasonable given the available evidence.

I can't figure out if this is a yes or no..or avoiding to answer..

Then you say,

In the absence of all the puzzle pieces, the most reasonable explanation will be the one that is falsifiable but continues to survive all attempts to disprove it.

Disprove? Are you asking for proof? Your answers are non-committal and contradictory.

I am not asking for proof because that would leave open the door for confirmation bias. Therefore, in order to mitigate for confirmation bias, the most reasonable approach is to identify what evidence I would expect to find if my claim is false and proceed to look for that evidence. I suppose, in some sense, a disproof is sort of like proving a claim is false. However, the attempt to prove my claim is false mitigates for confirmation bias, but the attempt to prove my claim is true invites confirmation bias.

The problem with expecting evidence to prove a claim is true is also identified as the Problem of Undertermination.

[bluegreenearth]

So now you're changing what is acceptable? Quite a moving target you're presenting. Almost as if you're making this up as you go. Now you have added intellectually honest. Honesty is being free of deceit. If I accept that abiogenesis is true without an example to examine then I'm deceiving myself. By you telling it is wrong to ask for proof, to me you're asking me to not be true to myself. This would be likes asking for a puzzle piece and you telling me don't ask for puzzle pieces. This is unacceptable to me. Be honest with yourself, do you honestly never ask for proof of something? If a person you do not know comes to you with a cure-all vaccine do you take it without asking for proof that it works or asking how it works to prove to yourself that it does work? Or do you just roll up your sleeve? Honestly.

I don't recall asking you to believe abiogenesis is true. In fact, I've spent a lot of time trying to explain how the goal should be to to disprove falsifiable hypotheses because that process functions to mitigate for confirmation bias.

If a person hypothesizes that she/he might be in possession of a cure-all vaccine, the person should first attempt to falsify her/his own hypothesis (presuming it is falsifiable). If the person is unable to demonstrate the claim is false, the next step should be for the person to invite her/his peers to critically examine the evidence and attempt to falsify the hypothesis themselves. If the consensus of experts in the field are unable to disprove the falsifiable hypothesis, then it is reasonable to conditionally accept the claim until such a time someone demonstrates it is false.

[2timothy316]

Would this involve asking for proof to come to the right conclusion?

It would involve attempts to disprove falsifiable hypotheses to arrive at one that is the most reasonable given the available evidence.

I can't figure out if this is a yes or no..or avoiding to answer..

Then you say,

In the absence of all the puzzle pieces, the most reasonable explanation will be the one that is falsifiable but continues to survive all attempts to disprove it.

Disprove? Are you asking for proof? Your answers are non-committal and contradictory.

I am not asking for proof because that would leave open the door for confirmation bias. Therefore, in order to mitigate for confirmation bias, the most reasonable approach is to identify what evidence I would expect to find if my claim is false and proceed to look for that evidence. I suppose, in some sense, a disproof is sort of like proving a claim is false. However, the attempt to prove my claim is false mitigates for confirmation bias, but the attempt to prove my claim is true invites confirmation bias.

The problem with expecting evidence to prove a claim is true is also identified as the Problem of Undertermination.

Yet we can't live our lives in a holding pattern while waiting for every single fact to make critical choices. It fine if you need to see how much money to take with you to buy an apple. Yet there are times in life where you can't wait for every single piece of information before you make a choice and act. If I was on a sinking ship I do not have the luxury learning every single bit of information about the ship I'm on. I need to know only a few things to make a best choice of action. I will be looking for signs to direct me in the right direction though I might not know the lay out of the whole ship. So this philosophy is great when you have all the time you'd want, but disasters and time in need of critical action do not consult philosophy.

[2timothy316]

So now you're changing what is acceptable? Quite a moving target you're presenting. Almost as if you're making this up as you go. Now you have added intellectually honest. Honesty is being free of deceit. If I accept that abiogenesis is true without an example to examine then I'm deceiving myself. By you telling it is wrong to ask for proof, to me you're asking me to not be true to myself. This would be likes asking for a puzzle piece and you telling me don't ask for puzzle pieces. This is unacceptable to me. Be honest with yourself, do you honestly never ask for proof of something? If a person you do not know comes to you with a cure-all vaccine do you take it without asking for proof that it works or asking how it works to prove to yourself that it does work? Or do you just roll up your sleeve? Honestly.

I don't recall asking you to believe abiogenesis is true. In fact, I've spent a lot of time trying to explain how the goal should be to to disprove falsifiable hypotheses because that process functions to mitigate for confirmation bias.

If a person hypothesizes that she/he might be in possession of a cure-all vaccine, the person should first attempt to falsify her/his own hypothesis (presuming it is falsifiable). If the person is unable to demonstrate the claim is false, the next step should be for the person to invite her/his peers to critically examine the evidence and attempt to falsify the hypothesis themselves. If the consensus of experts in the field are unable to disprove the falsifiable hypothesis, then it is reasonable to conditionally accept the claim until such a time someone demonstrates it is false.

Meanwhile you die from a disease....

What you're suggesting is not a wise course of action.

My course is file something now in either true or false based on what I have learned. Base actions on what I currently have on file. Keep it there until there is proof to suggest otherwise. If something is found then adjust. This method has worked really really well. Rather than being so skeptical that I become inactive when it comes to needing a critical choice to be made.

While you might be stuck where to go in what you will believe to be true, I have already made a choice and followed where the evidence is pointing. What I great choice that ended up being. Just knowing the layout of a ship is not what will keep a person from drowning if it is sinking. Knowing basics like how to read, knowing where they are on the ship and how to get to a lifeboat will not save them either. Acting on the knowledge will. Really all I see in your philosophy is how not to choose and how not to act. I call it "inaction-man". It's what happens when a person is so overwhelmed with choices or so concerned with information that they make no choice or move to any action at all.

[bluegreenearth]

Yet we can't live our lives in a holding pattern while waiting for every single fact to make critical choices. It fine if you need to see how much money to take with you to buy an apple. Yet there are times in life where you can't wait for every single piece of information before you make a choice and act. If I was on a sinking ship I do not have the luxury learning every single bit of information about the ship I'm on. I need to know only a few things to make a best choice of action. I will be looking for signs to direct me in the right direction though I might not know the lay out of the whole ship. So this philosophy is great when you have all the time you'd want, but disasters and time in need of critical action do not consult philosophy.

Yes, for time sensitive choices, there may be a justification for taking short-cuts in some circumstances. However, I do not perceive the question of life's origins to be time sensitive such that a short-cut would be justified.