Can atheists convert theists?

[Edwardo Piet]

Now, just for the sake of argument, if you were to press me with specifics, such as "Do you believe in a Supreme being in which created the universe and (insert infinite possibilities which people apply)?" My response would be "No" which would make me an atheist towards what someone is defining.

That's the definition of "God" that I reject the existence of - a very common definition - and hence why I call myself an atheist. I can relate, agree and understand there.

As a theological noncognitivist, though, there is a more serious problem than whether or not we believe in what was defined. What was defined, was defined improperly as it is based upon quite literally nothing.

So what? What's the problem there? You can take each definition thrown at you one at a time... and ask yourself whether you believe it or not.

I incorrectly called this "meaningless" earlier, and you were right to call me out on this.

Thanks. Of course it's not meaningless because all definitions - or IOW meanings - mean things no matter how vague.

I recant the word meaningless, and I'd like to replace it with "futile." It is futile to state one's position on the existence of a being which you cannot deduce attributes without assuming you already know them.

Why is it futile? That's a matter of personal subjective values, not a factual matter. It's entirely a matter of personal taste whether it's "futile" or not. If I don't feel it's futile then "to me" it isn't futile. In the sense that - at least as far as I know - there is no objective purpose or value(s) to the universe. I'm sure you'd agree there...?

So if this comes down to a matter of personal choice then how does this original claim of yours stand?:

Classifying myself as an atheist implies too much knowledge of the God in question

EvF

[Knight]

So if this comes down to a matter of personal choice then how does this original claim of yours stand?:

Classifying myself as an atheist implies too much knowledge of the God in question

Because I chose to stay on step one since I refuse to take any assumed definition of God. Without a God to in any way detect to gather attributes from, I refuse to take even the traditional view of what "God" would be. Yes, a a bunch of humans sat down one day and made up a definition, but the definition is based upon common assumptions, not reality. If I called myself an atheist alone, then that implies that I accept the baseless definition (well, based on assumptions, but it has no basis in reality). When someone presents the traditional definition of God and asks if I believe in it, I say no, just like you. I leave it to the believers to drag out the absurdities before rejecting them automatically. Yes, I could, as you say, keep rejecting an infinite amount of Gods. Still, it is up to the person claiming there is a God first of all provide an ontological proof, and second of all to demonstrate how they derived God's attributes. If the second is possible, the first shouldn't be an issue, which is why I was focusing on that.

Just because there is a definition for God doesn't mean it is a sound proposition as to what God is---yes, it sums up what most people think of God, and that's what words do--provide some basic commonality so people can understand each other. Fine, I'm not disputing that. The fact of the matter is, language is limiting, by its very nature of applying words to represent things and concepts. It is futile to reject "God" outright because there isn't even a reason to consider it--the definition is based upon nothing more than blind assumptions (in this case, a blind assumption by the masses).

[Edwardo Piet]

Classifying myself as an atheist implies too much knowledge of the God in question

If I called myself an atheist alone, then that implies that I accept the baseless definition (well, based on assumptions, but it has no basis in reality).

You can accept any definition you like without actually claiming any knowledge that the thing defined actually exists.

When someone presents the traditional definition of God and asks if I believe in it, I say no, just like you.

So you are an atheist in the same sense I am. You reject the existence of the traditional "God" and therefore are traditionally an atheist.

I leave it to the believers to drag out the absurdities before rejecting them automatically.

Which is not a factual matter. So where am I assuming knowledge of something I don't actually believe in which would in fact make me a theist?

Yes, I could, as you say, keep rejecting an infinite amount of Gods. Still, it is up to the person claiming there is a God first of all provide an ontological proof, and second of all to demonstrate how they derived God's attributes.

Well that's a choice. The burden of proof is on those who make a claim... but there's nothing to say that atheists can't choose to simply listen to the God definition given and then disbelieve it. Or, go by the traditional usual definition and disbelieve it.

All this talk of guessing definitions.... I know exactly what God I don't believe in that makes me an atheist. And that is any God whatsoever that fits into the category of a supernatural creator of the universe and a deity.

The fact of the matter is, language is limiting, by its very nature of applying words to represent things and concepts. It is futile to reject "God" outright

I don't. I am not a strong gnostic atheist. I just disbelieve in the existence of God due to being unconvinced due to lack of evidence. It's very simple.

because there isn't even a reason to consider it--the definition is based upon nothing more than blind assumptions (in this case, a blind assumption by the masses).

Of course its built on blind assumptions which is why I don't believe in God. If it actually had any evidence to support it I'd believe.

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

---

But that all changes when a serious assessment of the proposition is asked for, for instance when the claim entails that all methodically shared facts of reality suddenly no longer hold.

Why does it? If I know of no evidence for a concept defined by whoever whenever and disbelieve it... what's the problem there?

Projected from tradition by you, isn't it?

Yes but it's still a definition. And the existence of the actual Easter bunny defined by tradition+me through my projection still lacks evidence. So I disbelieve it.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Sorry I thought you were implying your acknowledgement of the existence of the common traditional definition of the Easter Bunny.

Because the definition was not given. You lured yourself into thinking it was given.

I thought I've already defined the Easter bunny? The common traditional definition. An unspecific/undetailed definition is still a definition it's just a unspecific/undetailed one.

That's just too easy on the proposers of the proposition because you and the proposers don't address any specifics of the claim.

What relevance has easiness got to do with this argument? Aren't we going from facts to values there?

The result will be, as is manifested all over this forum, that you are chasing ever changing meanings of the concept.

Only when the concept's meaning is changed by being redefined.

Can you give me your criterion on how vague a concept is allowed to be before you don't consider it as a sound proposition?

Well it's sound if there's evidence supporting the truth of the claim, regardless of vagueness or specificness I would think? So long as the definition is understood... however general or specific it is.

Or is it the case that anything goes? For some god is love, is a definition too. Is that vague enough for you? Than surely you'll have to acknowledge that god exists.

If defined that way then yes.

The meaning of "the creator of the universe" isn't straightforward at all. Nature might be the creator of the universe as we know it. In that case your atheism is bunk.

Well then it wouldn't really be a supernatural creator and a deity. So that's a different definition.

When you say that it's plain that no natural creator is meant, the trojan horse supplied to you by believers with a vague definition is doing its work.

How so?

Is their divine personal agency in the definition?

Depends how they define it. Either way, whether it's a personal supernatural deity that created the universe (a theistic one) or an impersonal one (deistic) - it lacks evidence, hence my disbelief, hence my atheism.

Is omnipotence in the definition?

Often.

Is care for humans in the definition?

That's common.

Your attribution to all this is a free ride for the believer and the believer at any time can stop you with: "Hey, that's not my god!".

Aren't we going from facts to values again? Free ride for them or not what has that got to do with the fact I don't have to hold any knowledge of God's existence in order to disbelieve and be an atheist.

What is and what should be are two different arguments. Facts and values are separate - wouldn't you agree? Aren't you kind of mixing the two there?

That would not be an assessment under the rules of predicate logic. When a strong claim is made, a strong definition must be given up front. Giving in to assessing vague claims is nice to kill time, it's no serious debate.

Sounds like you're speaking values here too. Where is the relevance to this argument there?

Assessing unseen and vague general claims is for fools.

How is your judgement that it is for 'fools' relevant? Isn't that just values ... again?

I am an atheist because no sound propsition on the meaning and definition of god has been presented to me.

I thought you were a theological noncognitivist like Knight? How is it not unreasonable for you to disbelieve in God but it's unreasonable for me to disbelieve in God? If you claim that no meaningful definition of God can be given then how can you disbelieve it and be an atheist? If you agree that a definition that can be disbelieved in can be given then you rebut yourself do you not?

I make no assumptions about the meaning of the god concept. That is up to the believer.

That's a choice again, values we're talking here again... that's not a factual question.

I agree that you don't need to make no assumptions about the god concept, but by guessing what is meant by god you in effect indeed do just that.

Guessing definitions is just giving what I think a definition is... I can then disbelieve in the existence of the thing defined quite happily. What's the problem there? However God is defined it doesn't really matter, I don't have to assume any "knowledge" - I just have to define something and then ask myself if I think there's any evidence for it. I disbelieve certain types (it happens to be, concepts of a supernatural deity creating the universe, etc.) and due to lack of evidence I call myself an atheist as a label for that. That is all. What assumptions are required?

Exactly, but the definition was not given. You guessed it.

So how wasn't it defined - whether it's guessed or unguessed it's still a definition that I can ask myself if there's evidence to support it or not.

You are leaving out the soundness of the claim in terms of logical coherence, completeness and consistency as a criterion. I argue that a big claim demands logical robustness in this sense or you'd be chasing gods of rubber in no time.

Claims can be ordinary or extraordinary.... and the more extraordinary the claim the more extraoridnary the evidence required (if we are to be rational)... as you know I'm sure. However vague the proposition is, once a definition for something is given and you ask yourself if there is evidence of it.... the more extraordinary the claim the more evidence you expect and the less probable it is to be true... unless enough evidence can be provided.

[quote='EvidenceVsFaith' pid='80040' dateline='1278964974']

If the Easter Bunny is not defined you
Definitions don't need to be guessed they just have to be, well, defined.

[quote=PR]Go on then and chase those figments of your own imagination.

I think what I said stands and you didn't refute it. Not that I'd expect you too since it's kind of tautological!: Definitions just have to be defined, that's obvious. Who does the defining and what definitions are "reasonable" is a value judgement, not a factual one, and a matter of personal preference. Subjective, not objective.

EvF

---

Crucial in this discussion is the distinction between cognitivity or meaningfullness of a proposition and truth of a proposition in the real world. The theological non-cognitivist makes a sharp distinction between the two and argues that only a cognitive proposition can be evaluated. With cognitive is meant meaningfullness as in reducible to empirical factual knowledge, intelligible, comprehensible, well-formedness, and internally consistent.

To stress the difference consider the following statement: Every uydkhdujdk is a lkdldjnldjl.

This claim is not cognitive because both uydkhdujdk and lkdldjnldjl are non-dictionary words that lack definition. The claim can be made cognitive however by supplying a well-formed intelligible definition. It is clear that a definition such as “ a uydkhdujdk is a car” will do and that a definition such as “ a uydkhdujdk is a hdhdhh” will not.
Please observe that we are not assessing the truth of the claim yet, we’re simply evaluating the structure and meaningfullness of the statement being made. The evaluation whether the statement is true is quite another matter.

In the case of a proposition on the existence of god this distinction is crucial since there are more notions of god than humans on the planet. That fact alone is reason enough to demand a meaningfull (set of) definition(s) along with the proposition that god exists from the proposer of the claim. Since the statement made is one about existence, the definition amongst other things should make clear how this entity called god can be distinguished from other phenomena that we might encounter in reality. I already gave you an example where the definition seems to simply relabel existing phenomena. Furthermore the definition should make clear up front which attributes/capabilities are present, how its existence in reality can be perceived and whether the entity is a personal (as displaying any personal character and preferences) one or impersonal one. For each attribute given it should be made clear what these attributes are and by what they are bounded. The combination of attributes should not lead to logical contradictions. Though these are fairly common criterions from the logical perspective, of course these are my criterions to judge cognitivity on. You don’t have to comply to them. But this is not uncommon reasoning for both theological non-cognitivists and other atheists. Any theistic or atheistic position ultimately is a personal choice. In fact the fairly common argument that omnipotence and benevolence don't add up in a meaningfull way in my view really is an argument that principally attacks the meaningfullnes of the claim not it's truth. And not making a choice on cognitivity of the statement is a choice also. So you can choose to guess the definition of god that is referred, but that comes at a price. It’s a Trojan horse for common not well formulated notions of god.

I am not stating that the only way to be an atheist is to be a theological non-cognitivist. I don’t deny you your atheism at all. As I’ve explained before I am OK with the short hand general label “atheist” for theological non-cognitivist. Theological non-cognitivism simply is another reason for lack of belief in deities. It states that no meaningfull proposition has been presented at all and it refuses to validate propositions that are not meaningfull. A theological non-cognitivist is an atheist, but not every atheist is a theological non-cognitivist because not every atheist rejects the notion of god on basis of meaningfullness of the proposition.

However God is defined it doesn't really matter, I don't have to assume any "knowledge" - I just have to define something and then ask myself if I think there's any evidence for it. I disbelieve certain types (it happens to be, concepts of a supernatural deity creating the universe, etc.) and due to lack of evidence I call myself an atheist as a label for that. That is all. What assumptions are required?

To me it indeed matters how god is defined. And imo the definition should be given by the believer not guessed by the one who is asked to evaluate the claim. Making no assumptions up front is exactly the reason why one should proceed in this way.

[Edwardo Piet]

A theological non-cognitivist is an atheist, but not every atheist is a theological non-cognitivist because not every atheist rejects the notion of god on basis of meaningfullness of the proposition.

Understood.

To me it indeed matters how god is defined. And imo the definition should be given by the believer not guessed by the one who is asked to evaluate the claim. Making no assumptions up front is exactly the reason why one should proceed in this way.

Well I personally think that regardless of how many millions of definitions of God there are.... the most common one is any definition that fits into the category of some "deity" that is "supernatural" (or omnipotent - powerful enough to create a universe) and created the universe.

The way I approach it is I don't think there's any harm in assuming that the above definition is the definition of God the believer is using unless they state otherwise - because it is the most common definition encountered and can be found in dictionaries. God generally = deity. And generally one that created the universe. I only have a problem with making assumptions if the odds are stacked against it being right. We can't expect to always avoid assumptions - I just expect to avoid the assumptions that are less likely to be correct than not. And if they turn out to be wrong - can always step back and question the believer.

EvF

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Please let's not have a discussion solely about my beliefs or any other theist's beliefs as there are other threads where that can be discussed, this is specifically to see if you can convert me or any other theist.

We're not discussing how atheists would ridicule theists, or vice versa, and we're not discussing how you or I would consider the other person's views and disagree. We know that we disagree.

So, if you (atheists) were to attempt to convert a theist, how would you do it? Which methods would be most effective? Have you ever done it? If so, how? And which methods are least effective? Can you convert me?

A person's beliefs in their faith of choice is a very personal one from the get go - ingrained into them by their family and community of followers. Needless to say, I don't think anyone can really be converted by a single conversation, no matter how skilled the orator or damning the evidence.
I think this is why really it's so difficult to change these kinds of religious beliefs and why when, say, an atheist even merely becomes known, that person can become an abberation. It's why I think the reaction of a deeply religious family to discover that one of the children is an atheist is rarely anything other than negative.
It rarely helps that atheists seem to often come off to many of these folks as having something of a elitist attitude. (From what I hear, atheists, liberals, and democrats share this trait.) Regardless of how benign we as non-believers may be, our unspoken and outspoken position on matters of faith that matter so much and so personally to many people that when someone tells you that god doesn't exist is akin to telling someone that everything they believe - their entire view of everything - is wrong.

Some people get used to this notion quickly, while others choose a much uglier reaction. Some people have seriously devoted their entire lives believing in a being they imagine as the embodiment of love and compassion professionally and personally.

It's easy to imagine why the very notion of atheism and the existance and words of atheists invokes such powerful emotion from many, but I count myself lucky that America has not devolved into the theocracy that the religeous right in this country is trying to transform this secular nation into.

As such, purposefully un-converting someone from a religion works much like conversion from one faith to another. It first requires an open mind that is willing to listen, understand, and accept the differing view of things. It requires understanding and knowledge of everything being discussed by all parties. When someone has both of those things, then that person must make the leap and give up everything he or she ever thought she 'knew' as 'absolute truth' or whatever.

Beyond that, I don't think there is much that can be done. There is no real trick to it to my knowledge. Some people can be more stubburn than others to change their mind, but there will undoubtedly be people who will just never see things they way I do or you do.

As for you, I don't know if I can convert you. Would you be willing to be converted? What brought you to your faith and why?

[Godhead]

Darkness of angels -

It's funny really, here I am inviting people to try and convert me, but I know that the odds of that happening are as close to nil as you can get. I've never heard any argument that adequately addresses the reasons why I believe in god. It's always the same ones, which are not convincing at all. The undercurrent of this thread, for me, is to show that converting and deconverting is not purely a matter of words and arguments. It involves something else, and that something else applies to everyone. Not for one moment do I agree when people say or imply that logic and reason (as used by most) are the ultimate means of assessing reality.

I've posted quite a fair bit on my beliefs, but briefly, I'm a panentheist, which means that I believe that the universe is part of god, but that god extends infinitely beyond it. I don't believe that god creates anything in the sense that we think of creation, I believe that god manifests, and that everything in existence is that manifestation. I came to that conclusion myself. Also I'm not involved in any religion. Good luck.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Darkness of angels -

It's funny really, here I am inviting people to try and convert me, but I know that the odds of that happening are as close to nil as you can get. I've never heard any argument that adequately addresses the reasons why I believe in god. It's always the same ones, which are not convincing at all. The undercurrent of this thread, for me, is to show that converting and deconverting is not purely a matter of words and arguments. It involves something else, and that something else applies to everyone. Not for one moment do I agree when people say or imply that logic and reason (as used by most) are the ultimate means of assessing reality.

I've posted quite a fair bit on my beliefs, but briefly, I'm a panentheist, which means that I believe that the universe is part of god, but that god extends infinitely beyond it. I don't believe that god creates anything in the sense that we think of creation, I believe that god manifests, and that everything in existence is that manifestation. I came to that conclusion myself. Also I'm not involved in any religion. Good luck.

It sounds something like a mix between the idea of a christian god and a more old-school spiritualism. Interesting.

I was sort of hoping to integrate myself into the conversation without needing to backtrack across the long thread, but I suppose with something specific to look for, it can speed things up a bit should I choose to learn more about your view of things, but given your first statement:

"I know that the odds of that happening are as close to nil as you can get."

I seriously doubt anything anyone will say will change your mind of anything. I've also scoured the entirety of this 16-page thread and found the following posts concerning your religious views:

I'm convinced that it's how I think it is because I've spent a lot of time thinking about it, and it makes sense to me, so I go with it. My belief and also the feeling that everything is god causes me to see evidence of god's existence by the fact that things exist. You could say that my premise contains the conclusion. It would also be fair to say that I'm stuck i that and I don't mind either being stuck in that or the fact that one could say that I am. My belief has created a cycle in which I see the evidence and nothing can change that, unless I one day elt differently. However, even if that happened, the "logic" (or whatever you want to call it) of my belief would remain uncontradicted (is that a word? never mind) and I'd probably g back to my belief. I've never in my life come across anything which contradicts my belief. No argument at all, ever. However I don't mind being challenged (that means finding myself questning my beliefs) and I'm open to that.

No worries. In my belief system (although you must understand that since I joined this forum I've been tempted to say that "I know" (which I'd certainly say in a casual face to face conversation), but hey, that's faith for you), there's no heaven or hell, I love everything, there's no need to even convert as I don't even care what others believe or disbelieve (although it's always interesting to discuss it), and everyone has the right to teach anything, no matter what it is or who agrees or disagrees. Do I think you're ignorant? Only in the nicest sense, merely in that I think I'm right and I think you're wrong and that you don't consider hings that I consider but that's life and it's fine, I do the same (and let's be honest, many people here think I'm ignorant. And I am). For not accepting my conclusions you're certainly not ignorant / stupid. I admire atheists, but dissapointingly, and from experience, I find a lot of atheists difficult to engage with peacefully (they get so agitated), which was a huge shock the first time I experienced it. I was expecting to be respected more, even if just for thinking for myself and not blindly following a religion. If nothing else, we have that much in common and I believe on building on positives. I admit that my views are faith based, but I also think that that's valid. I'll read your post on page 9 at some point.

Now, although you stated your intention of having anyone attempt to convince you of your incorrectness concerning your religous views (more on that later), you never actually stated those beliefs until much later in this discussion.
Prior to that, the thread seemed much more concerned with the use of english terminology in describing the beliefs you never talked about until much more recently, except, of course, that you believe in god.

People who are sensitive about something do not put themselves in a position to be damaged. That's why shy people who are afraid of rejection in high school rarely get very far with women in high school. That's why someone is afraid of having their love or trust in someone broken choose not to trust or love in anyone for the reason that they do not want to be in a position of vulnerability.
You've entered this thread to have people try to convert you, but you've already chosen not to be converted. You've stated that you're a believer but more than half of this thread is a useless back-and-forth between you and those who are essentially taking blind shots at making you reject your fait because you've not really put your faith up for discussion.

Now that I have a greater understanding of what has been going on in this thread, I would normally simply dismiss this as an effort in futility. You've deliberately set everyone up here to fail and because of that, you really aren't as open to a legitimate discussion as you appeared to be in your first post in the sense that you've remove any possibility that you could be converted.

However, I still wonder why you've chosen to surround yourself with atheists. Apparently this is due to the fact that you view us as ignorant.

So with all that mind, I do have the following questions:

What am I, as an Atheist, ignorant of?
Even if the term 'ignorant' wasn't what you intended to use to describe me, what is it that you believe you have that I lack that makes my understanding of the world lacking where you have something.
Personally, I do not view you as ignorant. That implies that you are not aware of something or knowledgable of something when I have no evidence of what you are ignorant of. I view that you are deluded, which implies that you believe in something than is different than it actually is or there is something where there is nothing.

What are you afraid of?
As I've gone on about before, you've put yourself here to see our take on the de-conversion of those of religion, spirituality, mysticism, and etc and attempt to convert you when you haven't really put yourself 'out there' to be converted. If you really, truely, had any desire to change your world-view and de-construct your system of beliefs, then you really need to be willing to have your beliefs challenged. More importantly, you need to come to terms with the fact that you may be completely wrong.
If this is merely an attempt to force atheists, who do not believe in the existace of god, to convince you that god doesn't exist, then you really need to see the problem in telling atheists to convince you that god doesn't exist when you choose not to accept lack of physical evidence as evidence that god doesn't exist.
This is why the thread has turned out the way it has. To be fair, though, I may have been the first person to bother to ask instead of jumping to conclusions, but there's fault on both sides in this case.

In any case, I believe that's all my questions for now, but before I hit the 'submit' button, there is something I do really need to point out based on some of the previous arguments of this thread.

You are a religious person. You have religious beliefs. What this means to you is that you believe in god. Nothing more. Nothing less. Being religious does not imply that you are a part of a religion. Being a part of a religion implies something completely different than what you've gone on at length about - that you share your beliefs according to a social organization of individuals with similar beliefs.
For example, everyone who believes in a god or pantheon of deities, regardless of their church affiliation, is religious by nature, but not everyone who is in a religion is necessarily religious. There are spiritual faiths that lack deities that can still be considered a religion.
That is how the term is defined, no one has implied that your views are part of an established religion in the sense that your personal beliefs are anything but personal.

Anyway, I hope this clarifies things a bit.

[theVOID]

It's funny really, here I am inviting people to try and convert me, but I know that the odds of that happening are as close to nil as you can get.

Keep stroking yourself!

I've never heard any argument that adequately addresses the reasons why I believe in god. It's always the same ones, which are not convincing at all.

Oh yeah keep going!

The undercurrent of this thread, for me, is to show that converting and deconverting is not purely a matter of words and arguments.

Ooooh, Yeah!

It involves something else, and that something else applies to everyone. Not for one moment do I agree when people say or imply that logic and reason (as used by most) are the ultimate means of assessing reality.

Keep going! Stroke! Stroke! Stroke!

I've posted quite a fair bit on my beliefs, but briefly, I'm a panentheist, which means that I believe that the universe is part of god, but that god extends infinitely beyond it. I don't believe that god creates anything in the sense that we think of creation, I believe that god manifests, and that everything in existence is that manifestation.

Almost there! Almost there!

I came to that conclusion myself. Also I'm not involved in any religion. Good luck.

Contratz, you just idiot-jizzed everywhere.

[Godhead]

Darkness of angels -

You have to be careful when using the word ignorant. As you know, I made it clear that I meant it in the nicest possible way, as quoted in your post. Anyway to answer your question, I think that atheists are ignorant of the role of intuition in perception. I've had conversations in which the atheist acknowledges that intuition can be useful and even accurate, but only in certain areas, yet not in others. It's my view that intuition plays a far bigger role than atheists recognise. Just as it is perfectly possible to "sleep on" a problem and wake up with the solution, it is perfectly possible to have knowledge of things through intuition. If I asked you to prove that your intuition is or can be effective, you wouldn't be able to do it, yet it is common knowledge that intuition exists, and works. And some people have a more advanced intuition than others. So the question isn't does intuition exist and does it work, because it does both. And the question isn't can I prove what I claim through my intuition, as that is the kind of question that people don't tend to ask as it is not really possible to do that. So the question is : Given that intuition is effective, and given that it's not always realistic to ask someone to prove what their intuition tells them, why do atheists still insist on asking for the impractical and the impossible? We all know that my intuition of god's existence can't be proven, so the question is futile. I believe that when atheists ask such a futile question, all they're doing is reaffirming to themselves their prejudices. And all of that is what I think atheists are ignorant of. And that issue has never adequately been addressed by atheists.

The purpose of this thread, which I started, is to demonstrate how atheists react when challenged to convert theists. Now you say that I'm not open to be converted. But actually, whenever I've come across an argument against god's existence, I have given it sufficient and sincere thought. The fact that I haven't been convinced doesn't mean that I'm closed to the possibility. To say that the former equals the latter is to miss the point that I have another way of seeing things, as do you. So when I say that you will probably fail in making me an atheist, that is an expression of my current position and opinion, not a literal statement of fact, because who knows, you might just do it. I'm hardly going to say that you probably will succeed, am I? That would mean that I'm on the fence or having doubts. But that's not the case. Maybe you were expecting that a theist starting a thread saying try and convert me meant that I'm on the fence. No, that's not what it means, it means, I want to see if anyone can come up with an argument against god's existence which I could find convincing. I don't have to agree with you in order to be open to the possibility. In other words, if you fail to convince me, then I'm sorry but it means your argument wasn't convincing in my view. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't chew over an argument which I saw some potential in. It's just that to date, I've come across nothing remotely convincing. Even the god delusion has nothing, which I found surprising as Dawkins is a bright guy. I think his book should have been called "The Organised Religion's (mainly christian) God Delusion".

To use your words, I'm putting myself out there to be deconverted. But I'm not having doubts, so you're not going to find it easy, and so be it. Again, good luck.