Age of Deconversion

[Mister Agenda]

I had been an agnostic theist for quite a while when I finally deconverted completely around age 35-36, over 20 years ago. I didn't decide to be an atheist, I just realized that I was, that at some point along the road that little bit of belief I had been holding onto had evaporated. I came from a lower-lower working class background and didn't complete my bachelor's degree until I was in my 30s. Along the way I had dropped many beliefs I once embraced (cryptids, ghosts, ufos, etc.) due to further research. I learned more about science, in particular that there were possible natural explanations for the origin of our universe. The defining moment was the semester when I took Intro to Religion from an Orthodox Christian professor who thought he could prove God at the same time I was taking Logic 201 and learning about fallacies and the burden of proof. I couldn't help but notice that ALL of his arguments were fatally flawed. All that was the end of the corner of my mind I was keeping belief in at least a Creator in. I still don't believe today because God doesn't seem any more likely an explanation for anything now than it was then. Maybe the only thing that's changed is that then I might have considered a flawless argument for God convincing then, now I don't think a perfect argument can overcome a significant lack of confirming evidence for the argument's conclusion.

[EgoDeath]

The thing youll find about us atheists is that we are very simple in the sense that we would require probably very little empirical evidence to at least consider the idea of a God or Gods existing.

To be completely convinced of the idea is another story... But to just consider the idea as a possibility, a small amount of empirical, verifiable evidence would do.

So far we've seen absolutely nothing even resembling empirical evidence when it comes to God.

[arewethereyet]

The thing youll find about us atheists is that we are very simple in the sense that we would require probably very little empirical evidence to at least consider the idea of a God or Gods existing.

To be completely convinced of the idea is another story... But to just consider the idea as a possibility, a small amount of empirical, verifiable evidence would do.

So far we've seen absolutely nothing even resembling empirical evidence when it comes to God.

Who appointed you the official spokesperson for all atheists?

No one did...

[EgoDeath]

The thing youll find about us atheists is that we are very simple in the sense that we would require probably very little empirical evidence to at least consider the idea of a God or Gods existing.

To be completely convinced of the idea is another story... But to just consider the idea as a possibility, a small amount of empirical, verifiable evidence would do.

So far we've seen absolutely nothing even resembling empirical evidence when it comes to God.

Who appointed you the official spokesperson for all atheists?

No one did...

I think you know what Im trying to say. But okay.

Youre telling me that some amount of empirical evidence wouldnt at least get you to consider the possibility that a god exists?

[LastPoet]

Who appointed you the official spokesperson for all atheists?

No one did...

I think you know what Im trying to say. But okay.

Youre telling me that some amount of empirical evidence wouldnt at least get you to consider the possibility that a god exists?

Some? define the amount.

[Macoleco]

19 years old

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The thing youll find about us atheists is that we are very simple in the sense that we would require probably very little empirical evidence to at least consider the idea of a God or Gods existing.

To be completely convinced of the idea is another story... But to just consider the idea as a possibility, a small amount of empirical, verifiable evidence would do.

So far we've seen absolutely nothing even resembling empirical evidence when it comes to God.

I must be the odd man out.  I wouldn't require any empirical evidence to consider the possibility that God exists.  I'd settle for an argument that doesn't dissolve into a morass of tautological tail-biting and invalid assumptions.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Right? We consider the possibility here all the time, without a shred of empirical evidence.


-and I just can't help but point out that this turn of phrase is a bit redundant, that which is evident is, by definition, empirical.

[LastPoet]

The usual posited gods are a physical impossibility, simply due to the fact that believers can't even accept reality and have to resort to philosophy to support their beliefs. Philosophy in itself is useless without empirical evidence. While advantageous to help with science, these days, philosophy its just all about thinking about thinking. it can't stand alone.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Right?  We consider the possibility here all the time, without a shred of empirical evidence.


-and I just can't help but point out that this turn of phrase is a bit redundant, that which is evident is, by definition, empirical.

In the broadest sense, that's perfectly true, as 'empirical' means of or relating to the senses, and we acquire such evidence via our senses.

In practical, terms, though, 'empirical evidence' as come to mean evidence that is physically demonstrable to the observer.  While this is probably the most valuable evidence, it isn't complete as it leaves out 'anecdotal evidence'.

Boru