So you're saying that for all of the following conversions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_nontheism
absolutely NO evidence was involved?
False. I am saying it's not necessarily involved. Any person's conversion or deconversion doesn't tell you anything about the existence of god without knowing the basis of the belief. For use in arguments, it doesn't matter who believes what, it matters why they believe it. You're skipping the 'why' part, which is an appeal to authority fallacy, and which is a common apologist way of thinking. You may be new atheism and so haven't gotten out of old bad habits.
I'm talking about that kind of evidence not necessarily something that you need in a formal debate, etc.
Doesn't matter. The logic is the same whether in formal or informal debate.
I haven't 100.00000000000% ruled out Christianity yet. i.e. I'm not 100.000000% certain yet. That doesn't mean I'm 10% sure of Christianity, etc.
If you're not even 10% sure of Christianity, that would mean you should have much greater doubt about the evidence than how your presenting it here. You seem to give it much more credence than if you only gave it 10% certainty.
"Yes a lot of his reasons aren't convincing but some apologetics authors are to some extent - depending on the subject."
I haven't looked into it much but some archaeological type things.
This is a very unclear answer, but sounds like you're falling for some other fallacy. I'm not sure what archaeological evidence you are referring to, but generally apologists will say that, for instance, a town mentioned in the Bible has been found to be real. Do you really not understand why that's weak evidence for the bigger theistic claims? That
Harry Potter mentions London doesn't make it reliable history. And this also ignores all the Bible accounts that are disputed by archaeology. This usually doesn't have to be explained to an atheist, since it is so very obviously a bad argument.
"This thread involves asking a question of non-believers."
So, aren't you a non-believer yourself? You should be able to answer it yourself.
I have already - see the first post. Now it is the turn for others.
Yeah, you strangely said you haven't tried. Just takes a few seconds, if you're really so interested. And it's pointless anyway as you should already understand the experience as I explained subsequently.
"The point of this thread is for people to share their opinions and experiences. It isn't all about me."
That's a dodge of the question. And any thread topic is open for challenge.
Well I'm getting tired of endless questions demanding I explain why I'm not 100.00000000% convinced of atheism, etc.
That wasn't my question. I said,
blastula said:
And your OP is a bit confusing since you've said you were a believer, which means apparently god was shown to you in some way such that you believed. When preachers talk about praying for god to reveal himself, that's all it means, that you end up believing in some way, in exactly the same way you once believed. You've already done what you are asking about here. Taking your word at face value, you later came to believe that your belief about god was mistaken. So, what is the point of your thread? You are unsure of your disbelief now? Or is this all a ruse?
You already were a believer, so you already know what it feels like to believe God has revealed himself to you. It didn't make a difference for you when you deconverted apparently. So, it's a pointless exercise for anybody, especially the deconverted. Well, it could work to talk yourself into believing simply by continuous suggestion, but that doesn't sound like a very worthy enterprise.
I just had to know mathematical formulas, etc, not know about philosophy and logical fallacies, etc.
So it was kind of pointless to bring up, and not to mention, gauche.
BTW during the end of grade 12 I questioned creationism seriously and the next year I gave up belief in it. It would have been quicker if it wasn't for anti-creationist books like "Telling Lies for God" being so full poor arguments. I mean I was aware of counter-arguments for most of the book.
OK, so here you do seem to understand the problem with argument from authority. It matters why they say it, not who says it.
I was talking about what is good evidence, and if you go to those links, you will see the weaknesses of those types, briefly discussed.
Personal experience - Wikipedia
An early belief of some philosophers of
Ancient Greece was that the
mind was like a
recording device and simply kept somehow-objective records of what the
senses experienced. This was believed in the Western world into the 20th century until
cognitive psychology experiments decisively proved that it was not true, and that many events were simply filled in by the mind, based on what "should be". This, among other things, explained why
eyewitness accounts of events often were so widely varied.
Testimony - 5 Philosophy - Wikipedia
In
philosophy, a testimony is known as statements that are based on personal experience or personal knowledge. A statement is accepted on the basis of person's testimony if his or her asserting it renders it acceptable. We can also, rationally accept a claim on the basis of another person's testimony unless at least one of the following is found to be true:
- The claim is implausible;
- The person or the source in which the claim is quoted lacks credibility;
- The claim goes beyond what the person could know from his or her own experience and competence.[4
From the above, you should be able to see the problems in appealing to someone else's personal testimony or experience as evidence on the god question.
Scientific evidence also has its limitations. It all depends on context.
I'm a weak atheist - I prefer to call myself an agnostic.
I understand, and if I take you at your word, it's apparent you just haven't engaged in the arguments or the philosophy very deeply. Nothing wrong with that by itself, everyone starts from somewhere.
