For all the 'ex-atheists' around here...
Posted Jan 12, 2013, 11:22 PM UTC
012
You're a silly pony.
4
Notice how not a single ex-atheist can elucidate the atheist belief system? Not one... Yet, they want us to believe that they were once atheists.
But, of course, they never were atheists - they are liars.
3
What atheist belief system?
3
Some call it science. Others call it reality...
0
Hey, your name even has the right number of syllables! Awesome!
1
If I was wrong - you'd just point out how I was wrong.
But, you had to resort to personal attacks instead. That strongly implies that I'm right...
-1
You're so wrong that English cannot convey how wrong you are. You're also very likely a troll, and if not you're too mired in self-delusion to be shown how wrong you are. Either way, you're a silly pony.
2
It's entirely possible for someone to be born into a non religious family, never really think much about religion or philosophy and be an atheist asa just their neutral stance. Then they engage with some religion and become religious, ex-atheist.
Also, it's entirely possible for someone to be born into a religious family, reject their religion for atheism, and then, after engaging in philosophy or reevaluating their religion, or another, return to a belief in a god.
See the oft referenced CS Lewis as an example of a [Christian, ex-Atheist]
Also, it's incredibly arrogant, presumptuous and bigoted to, especially on a debating forum describe your beliefs as "knowledge" and differing beliefs as "ignorance".
1
Also, it's entirely possible for someone to be born into a religious family, reject their religion for atheism, and then, after engaging in philosophy or reevaluating their religion, or another, return to a belief in a god.
And, as I said, it's possible for someone to be a Santa-believer, former-Santa-disbeliever.
Doesn't mean it happens with any regularity...
t's entirely possible for someone to be born into a non religious family, never really think much about religion or philosophy and be an atheist asa just their neutral stance.
That's not an ex-atheist. That's having no religious affiliation ---> religion. Big difference. They were never an actual atheist.
describe your beliefs as "knowledge" and differing beliefs as "ignorance".
Science describes those beliefs as ignorance. Reality describes those beliefs as ignorance. I'm a realist (if god actually existed, I'd be religious, but he doesn't exist, so I'm not), so I describe those beliefs as ignorance. Virtually every top scientist agrees with me. There's no arugment about this stuff in academia. Academics virtually all realize that religion is bunk.
Just because people don't realize how ignorant they are, doesn't make me wrong. It just makes them ignorant.
-1
Science describes those beliefs as ignorance. Reality describes those beliefs as ignorance. I'm a realist (if god actually existed, I'd be religious, but he doesn't exist, so I'm not), so I describe those beliefs as ignorance. Virtually every top scientist agrees with me. There's no arugment about this stuff in academia. Academics virtually all realize that religion is bunk.
0
Excellent rebuttal, do you have a newsletter I could subscribe to?
0
[deleted]
1
From reading many of their posts I agree with you that many of them seem to be lying... most of them do not understand what Atheism even means... One "ex-atheist" was caught rallying against atheists because we demand proof for god but cannot provide "proof for atheism"... an "ex-atheist" would know damn well that the notion of providing proof or evidence for Atheism makes no sense.
However, because I don't think a good Christian would outright lie I have to believe that most of them are using the loophole that we are all born Atheist. No one is born with a religious conviction or a belief in God, it is taught to them.
The "ex-atheist" label should only apply to those people that were "intentional atheists", not "incidental atheists".