Can atheists convert theists?

[Godhead]

In this mind -

I don't think you understand the distinction between a religion, and a person's personal belief system.

[Autumnlicious]

You are as thick as one of the charming fellows at the Discovery Institute.

[Godhead]

Synackaon -

Why would you say that I'm thick? That's a bit strong.

[In This Mind]

In this mind -

I don't think you understand the distinction between a religion, and a person's personal belief system.

If the personal belief system involves a god, it is called a religion.

[Godhead]

In this mind -

That's not correct.

[In This Mind]

In this mind -

That's not correct.

Provide evidence that contradicts it, from a source other than your personal say so.

[Godhead]

In this mind -

There's no need. It's common knowledge that there's a vast difference between a religion, and a personal set of beliefs.

[In This Mind]

In this mind -

There's no need. It's common knowledge that there's a vast difference between a religion, and a personal set of beliefs.

If it's common knowledge that a personal set of beliefs regarding a god is not a religion, it should be easy for you to find some supporting evidence other than your say so.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's not correct that belief in a god= a religion. Godhead is correct. Because you completely forget about deism for example. And of course you get religions without gods in them too. Like Buddhism, etc..

EvF

[Knight]

I have never seen a theist have an "a-ha" moment about god because of something an atheist said. Therefore, I find myself taking the position of not wanting to even try to "convince" a theist. I wouldn't want the inevitable headache. Ridicule is far less frustrating.

I'm sorry for hijacking this thread, but I actually did have an "a-ha" moment during a debate when I was still a Christian. You can even ask Min--back when EvilBible.com still had a forum, I would actively engage in numerous debates. The breaking point for me was when someone pointed out that the God I believed in was self-contradicting. I believed in this all-loving, omniscient, all-powerful being, and yet the state of our existence doesn't reflect this at all. I tried to fall back on the whole "Man sinned, it's our fault" thing, but I lost the desire to keep playing the mental gymnastics. I knew I was trying to delude myself and do everything possible to keep believing, though at the time I wouldn't have said it quite like that.

Let me get to the point: I was going into the debates with a curious mind. My initial intention was to convert atheists, mainly to strengthen my own faith. I discovered EvilBible.com while searching for evidence for an afterlife--I had, and I still admittedly have, panic attacks when it comes to thinking about death. That said, I was willing to suspend reason to believe anything that gave me hope. Still, though I couldn't explain the feeling at the time, I felt I was being irrational and I started to question absolutely everything. If the God I believed in did exist, what was he doing before creation? How does God exist, or how did he come to exist? Though I questioned how the universe came to be as well, the God in the picture still didn't provide an answer of how or why.

I still haven't blatantly stated the point yet, so I will now, and it addresses the thread's original issue: A theist can only be de-converted if they are going into the debate with genuine curiosity and a desire to learn. There is no perfect argument that works for everyone, because all theists view their God (Gods, Goddesses, etc.) differently.

Here is the view which I now hold (theological noncognitivism):

Theists have the entire process of believing in a God backwards. Instead of deducing what they know of God from God, they invent attributes and apply them blindly. When pushed HOW they know God's attributes, most just turn to their holy book or say they just know, casting evidence aside. The burden of proof lies with the one who claims that something exists. If scientists 500 years ago started talking about dark matter and dark energy, and started giving it attributes, such as omniscience or complete control over gravity, they would be rightfully viewed as insane. Whether the attributes are right or not is irrelevant since, at that time, the postulates in question were not known to exist. In the same respect, there is no way to detect, sense, or in any way at all show that there is a God that exists, and therefore it is irrelevant (and outright absurd) to start giving this God attributes (as theistic religions do).