Of course there are some people who were not believers in God (which is all that atheism means) who later converted to religion. Why this is a surprise to anyone, I'm not sure; I'm even less sure of what your point is, here. Nonbelief is not some magic bullet that repels faith. However, we have a hard time accepting the claims of religious apologists who claim they are "former atheists" because it simply works too well as a way to sell their books, since credulous believers just soak up that kind of backstory. With very, very few exceptions, when you dig into the "I used to be an atheist and now I believe" stories (like my aforementioned C. S. Lewis example), what you find is people raised in faith-traditions who revert to that tradition after a rebellious ("mad at god") or apathetic ("couldn't have cared less about religion") period, as opposed to those of us here who have actually done our research and found that the claims made by Christianity are vapid or false.
While "more likely than not" is certainly a valid part of an argument, I have never, repeat never, seen an argument made that strikes me as more likely than not, when it comes to apologetics. Most of the arguments are "just-so" arguments, requiring major leaps from logic to supposition in order to support them, or else flat-out contradicting things we actually know, and asking the audience to reject the Scientific Method in favor of some form of woo-woo thinking.
And none of this changes the basic premise: arguments themselves are not facts. They will never be facts. They cannot be used in place of facts. They cannot be claims at all unless they encompass every fact that may bear on the question, rather than employing observer bias to shade some of the facts into a favored argument, as every apologist's argument I have ever seen has done. If the arguer's goal is to fool people, to make them draw unfounded conclusions, then yes, I suppose they have done their intended job. But that does not change the issue described above. Arguments. Are. Not. Facts!
While "more likely than not" is certainly a valid part of an argument, I have never, repeat never, seen an argument made that strikes me as more likely than not, when it comes to apologetics. Most of the arguments are "just-so" arguments, requiring major leaps from logic to supposition in order to support them, or else flat-out contradicting things we actually know, and asking the audience to reject the Scientific Method in favor of some form of woo-woo thinking.
And none of this changes the basic premise: arguments themselves are not facts. They will never be facts. They cannot be used in place of facts. They cannot be claims at all unless they encompass every fact that may bear on the question, rather than employing observer bias to shade some of the facts into a favored argument, as every apologist's argument I have ever seen has done. If the arguer's goal is to fool people, to make them draw unfounded conclusions, then yes, I suppose they have done their intended job. But that does not change the issue described above. Arguments. Are. Not. Facts!
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
