[
Replying to William in post #512]
Nope. You still seem to be changing ideas and labels about, like nontheism is a new name for 'thinking atheist' and an atheist is something else. Apparently a default position of ignorance, which is the same way of saying the logically mandated belief - position based on agnosticism, which is what I or we have been saying all along. Why not accept the simple, logically sound, definition and model of agnostic - based atheism and so you won't have to waste your time and ours redesigning reality to try to justify a non -belief that isn't called 'atheism' as a logical default.
Isn't that what's it's all about? You needn't be ashamed of admitting it, it's a condition that is well known and understood.
[
Replying to oldbadger in post #518].
Very good. I suspect our pal prefers to debate with you rather than me as he suspects that you might be easier to bamboozle with waffle. Clearly he was wrong. You are less tolerant of hogwash even than I am.particularly I like this:
in reply to "
We can change our minds and shift from non-theism, theism or neither, but we cannot go back to being atheist, because we are no longer ignorant about the question."
You wrote:
And you got that wrong, as well. The students, scholars and professors of Historical Jesus that began their journeys as theists (mostly Christians) and who deserted to atheism as their investigative journeys continued, show that the above is quite wrong. There are no rules about how a person can change mind, even reverting to a previous mindset later on.
Given that people can convert and deconvert, I do not find much of "Thinking" atheists who reconvert back to religion. not once they know both sides of the argument. Sure, 'tabula rasa' (which is not a perverted abuse across a table, but means 'clean slate') or unprepared atheists can be bamboozled with One side of the argument (1). True, Anthony Flew was persuaded to Theism by the 'evidence' - which turned out to be garbage, but Flew jumped too soon. A lesson well learned when the theist side tried the same swindle with NDE's.
And a forum colleague was persuaded by First cause. I don't see the other high profile 'conversions of atheists' as valid, even if true (there was one who was filmed making a rather odd speech at an atheist conference and then declared being converted shortly afterwards) and Peter Hitchens (Brother of the Hitch) converted because he hated communism and then terrified himself into Christianity with thoughts of hellfire. I am Not impressed. There was the son of O' Hair who converted, apparently because he disliked his mother and was impressed by how nice Christians looked. Still haven't heard any good evidence for it.
Now
our poster girl is Rachel Slick (d. of Matt) who deconverted because when she went to college, she tried to convert atheists and had to make the Bible stand up to atheist disbelief. She realised that it didn't. Sure, believers have come up with excuses for themselves and their Faith, but they are tissue thin to atheists or indeed to anyone not already brainwashed into Faith. I promise you, friends, Godfaith as a given and Basic Faith is the explanation of the whole theist apologetics thing, and explains all those odd and puzzling actions by theists, their back to front logic, and fallacy- based arguments. God -faith as a given is the basis and the explanation of it all. Once that is gone, there is no way back to theism.
Thank you for your attention...now I'll take questions...Yes? Why do we-all atheists eat babies?...."
(1) aside from the Strobel syndrome (assuming it's true as he relates it) there was a poster on my previous board who posted a religious propaganda video which was the dismally familiar - "I used to be an atheist, like you, until...." and the usual wretched theistic arguments which showed that he had never heard the atheist rebuttals. Now, either he is an ex - atheist who had never heard the arguments both sides or he was a longtime theist who was posing as a deconverted atheist so as to try to pull the vile and infantile gambit of ''I was persuaded by the evidence for Christianity, so maybe you should be, too". But to those who have seen all the theist apologetics shot down in flames, this is a hoot. Arq atheist axiom no....11, possibly "Once you have seen through a trick, you won't be fooled by it again."