Can atheists convert theists?

[Edwardo Piet]

Well I just think of the fact that any being supreme enough to create the this universe... do you believe it at all probable that it exists? No? Then why believe it? You don't believe it? Oh, you're an atheist.

People define God differently but more or less the most common definition is a deity or "supernatural being" that created the universe. This is not at all probable. That is why I disbelieve it and hence why I'm an atheist.

If the God that is defined cannot be disproved, then it can neither be accepted or rejected--in fact, it shouldn't even be defined at all without falsifiable evidence, and that's the point. It is a backwards way of thinking to do so.

The easter bunny can't be disproved. Maybe we just haven't found him yet. Maybe this is all a dream and in fact in the real reality we're all bunnies that just love the Easter holidays! This cannot be disproved either. But it can be defined as can God be defined as some "being" that created "the universe" since we know that a being just means an entity of some kind whether human-like or not... the universe - well, we all know what that means its in the dictionary. And likewise to such a being "creating" the universe.

So the Easter bunny and "the creator of the universe"/God can be defined. But neither are at all probable.... and so I think it would be highly irrational to believe in either. Since I don't believe in the Easter bunny that doesn't mean I claim any knowledge of it. I merely am unconvinced by the statement "A furry little bunny rabbit that gives you chocolate eggs on Easter while you asleep" exists. As with God - no knowledge required there... it merely means "I am unconvinced by the rather popular religious concept that some super magical being created the universe. Very improbable I say. I disbelieve it. So that makes me an atheist."

The God which is defined that actually defies evidence should not be defined either due to the lack of falsifiable evidence, but at least with this God an outright rejection is reasonable.

You can define anything you want. How could you ever say that something "should not be defined"?

I could say that there's this thing that exists called a Squgroar.... it is a ball of energy and can take many shapes. I have given a definition however vague. I mean that could be almost anything. But the more complexity and ridiculousness I add to the definition without evidence the more reasonable it is to disbelieve it.

And "a being created the universe" is ridiculous and complex enough already to be considered improbable enough to disbelieve. Since a most people define God as a deity, a supernatural being that created the universe, whether deistic or theistic - to disbelieve this improbability is to make me an atheist by the common definition.

EvF