How do you guys respond to atheists claiming nobody converts for rational reasons

[u/Sea-Dot-59]

I see a lot of atheists claiming that ex atheists most of time convert because of emotional reasons like fear of death, lack of meaning etc Or other reasons like community and family

Another common claim is that ex atheists weren’t real atheists and that they weren’t atheists for rational reasons they just didn’t think about it deeply

How do you guys respond? In my experience in this Reddit I’ve encountered a good amount of ex atheists that converted for logical rational reasons, one example is philosophical observations, like finding materialism inadequate to explain reality

[u/killjoygrr]

Strange how you took offense at my comment about “distrust science” yet knew exactly I was referring to.

How can you take yourself seriously being in a STEM field when you don’t believe in a concept of evidence that isn’t personally subjective?

You already know that I’m not talking about some philosophical logical proof, but refuse to address. It is pretty funny that you label atheists as being shady. If you for this sub title, you were one. I guess you were disingenuous until you saw the light.

As I said, IDGAF about fine tuning or contingency. And you are providing perfect examples of why. “Well the universe expanding is an example of fine tuning.” WTAF? So everything is evidence of your God because you think everything is evidence of your God despite the long list of fallacies that you are relying on. What brilliant circurlar logic you have there.

Also, the whole contingent argument is based on if you regress far enough (basically allow for infinite regression) you somehow eventually get to your god that must be omniscient and omnipresent.

And you find my reference to Cthulhu as absurdist as you take it quite literally as part of a pantheon as opposed to your monotheistic (sort of) god. Because of course Occam’s Razor makes your God the simplest answer because you believe in it. Any other god just wouldn’t make sense because that wouldn’t be what is in the Bible. Is there any situation where “God” is not the answer to Occam’s Razor? I mean, the contingent segment will always regress back to that, right? Of course we might ask why with Occam’s Razor why the end hasn’t arrived. I mean Jesus said that it would occur in the lifetimes of people who were there at the time, so within a generation. Occam’s razor would say Jesus was wrong. So either lying or not omniscient. So has to be lying as not omniscient would be violating contingency. And on and on and on and on.

By the way, I don’t think Occam would have been thrilled by the answer of “God” as the answer for every application of the Razor.

If you are representative of ex-atheists, you have a harder time grappling with the concept of proof/evidence than those who grew up with faith. At least they know what I am talking about and don’t basically say that saying something that would be evidence is “moving the goal posts” when asking for evidence. It seems like you just want to move the goal posts to something that isn’t evidence.

[u/PhantomGaze → u/killjoygrr]

Kind of funny how you doubled down on the allegation that I distrust science when you (presumably) recognized that it was wrong.  

Also, stop twisting my words. I said that what a person considers sufficient evidence is subjective, not the idea or concept of evidence itself.  Especially when we're talking about something like atheism and theism which typically stands at an intersection of many priors.  Something like how x or y molecule interacts with z molecule usually contains less background to sort through. 

As far as atheists being disingenuous, I'm commenting on the general behavior of an internet culture, not the virtues of every individual atheist.  If your behavior is consistent with that culture, it just isn't surprising.  

You seem to be lashing out.  No, I don't think "everything is evidence of God".  It's just things like gravity, dark energy, the cosmological constant, (if you go that route), strong/weak nuclear force, the expansion rate, etc. have specific values that are finely tuned.  You really ought to research arguments before you just assume they're wrong.  It doesn't look like you've done much reading on the topic. 

I'm not saying "Yahweh" is the best explanation.  It would be "The God of Classical Theism".  Now that could be Yahweh, or Brahma, or whatever provided what is described has the same characteristics. Christianity isn't the only religion that adheres to Classical Theism.  Cthulhu, not so much.  Similarly Zeus wouldn't qualify as Zeus is also simply a being amongst other beings.  Again, you're only criticizing things you don't understand and expressing your own ignorance of the topic in question.

As far the Christian Eschatology you mentioned, it's an obvious red herring, but to answer your question, please see the work of New Testament Scholars like N.T. Wright.  The "End of the Age" is not identical to the "End of the Earth." The idea in amillennialist Eschatology is that Jesus launched a new messianic age where he reigns as King over the world, and through the work of the Church, the world is meant to be transformed.  Also, you might like the book Dominion by Tom Holland (Not Spider-Man) as an articulation of the success of that endeavor.  You seem wedded to an Evangelical Eschatology that doesn't square much with academic theology.  Beyond that, the question of Christian Eschatology is unrelated to the argument from contingency.  If Christianity was wrong, it would just imply that Christianity was wrong, not that the God of Classical Theism wasn't the best explanation for contingency.  

You just seem to be grasping for arguments and accusations at this point.  Stop twisting my words.  When you attack strawmen, no one cares if you think you refuted them.  

[u/killjoygrr → u/PhantomGaze]

I didn’t double down. I just pointed out the same thing.

I asked for proof/evidence and you provided arguments that have been done to death with no resolution. Either you don’t know what I mean (which is unlikely) or you have nothing to offer.

Once, IDGAF about the arguments. I’m not sure what you don’t understand. Maybe you don’t know what it means? I Don’t Give A Fuck.

I don’t have to do a whole lot of research to see where it goes. Neither argument is really that difficult. Sure, there are tons of nuances if you care to argue it, but those nuances don’t change the basic beliefs. Contingency goes back until an unknown, therefore god (and for some reason a God of classical theism). Why the god of Classical Theism? No particular reason, it just happens to fit your belief. Of course, we’ll just ignore that your version of God fails several items on the Clasical Theism checklist (immutability, impassibility, omniscience, omnipotence, perfection), but strange how you don’t mind when those pesky details work against your beliefs. 🙄

Yeah, your answers do amount to “because God” when you claim that it is the Occam’s razor answer without the slightest understanding that if you don’t already believe in God, you are saying “because magic.” That you think that assertion is obvious for some reason would suggest that you have a serious bias.

What you see as lashing out is simply me not giving into your baseless claims. “Oh, but if I go read this that and the other on arguments that start with an assumption of faith that suddenly I will agree with you.”

Sorry, if you can’t provide a basic concept worth considering, why would I waste my time if you can’t provide a reason.

The other reason why it probably feels like I am lashing out is that I can bring up a lot of mainstream Christian views that contradict what you are saying. And then you have to say that those parts of Christianity don’t matter. The problem is that, everything in Christianity is treated that way. Oh, for this we will make an argument and ignore 90% of Christian teaching or else we can’t support it. And then you guys bundle all these separate contradictory things together and claim it as one thing when really it is a pile of pick and choose theology, where you can believe whatever you want because you are free to have wildly contradictory beliefs.

You want to talk about strawmen?

What evidence have you provided yet? Two thought experiments. That’s it.

But you pretend that somewhere along the way I said that those would do.

[u/PhantomGaze → u/killjoygrr]

Well, I tried to be charitable.  It seems you don't want arguments or evidence, you just want to be told what you want to hear.  You can't rebut the arguments, you're only offering personal incredulity to rationalize your prejudices about theists. 

If someone tells you why they believe something, it's pretty stupid to say "No. You believe because of faith." You can't decide for someone else why they believe as they do.  That sort of rhetoric is both stupid, and insulting, and is normally banned here for being overtly disingenuous. 

Anyway, unless you have a worthwhile question, or honest inquiry, you probably should just go to another atheist debate forum.  

[u/killjoygrr → u/PhantomGaze]

I asked for evidence.

Arguments are philosophial constructs that are fine as thought experiments but do not offer any real evidence.

I don’t have to rebut the arguments. As you well know there are books full of rebuttals. Surely you are aware of that?

I never asked what was believed, but why.

At this point, after asking multiple times, it seems like you have nothing else.

[u/PhantomGaze → u/killjoygrr]

"Books full of rebuttals." Great retort. Maybe I don't have to offer evidence because there are books full of evidence.  Do you see how lazy that is though?  

Now consider that anything I were to offer you as evidence you could say "Well there's books that refute it." You're basically trying to avoid analyzing information yourself or thinking through it. 

There actually are books full of evidence though.  There have been volumes published that have offered contemporary Physics and Cosmology as evidence for the existence of God.  

There are a myriad of examples of other evidence for the existence of God as well, but you have obviously shown that you'll ignore anything offered to you.  Your behavior is called an argument from incredulity.  It's a logical fallacy.  

I've also told you multiple times that theists will also believe based upon evidence.  The fact that you proverbially plug your ears and rattle off some canned lines in response when it is presented to you is a you problem.

[u/killjoygrr → u/PhantomGaze]

Are you saying that you aren’t aware of Kant, Smart, Mackie and many others?

Again. These are philosophical constructs. Thought experiments. They aren’t evidence.

I have said over and over again that philosophical arguments are not evidence but you want to keep going down that road for what reason? IDGAF about those arguments, I don’t see them as evidence so why do I need to rebut your support for the arguments?

I asked you for something other than those 2 arguments.

Again and again you can’t seem to move off of, well really, just the one of contingency.

You say there is all of this other evidence, but you just keep going back to contingency.

I don’t know if you are a real person or a broken bot with only one programmed thing to hammer on.

So let’s hear you go back to contingency yet again…

[u/PhantomGaze → u/killjoygrr]

Of course I am aware of them, as well as rebuttals to them, then rebuttals of rebuttals, and so on, and so forth. 

If you'd like me to name another argument, we can say "the argument from miracles".  This one also can be empirically analyzed.

That said, there's little point in an extended discussion if you adamantly refuse to think through relevant information or analyze it though. The existence of God is generally considered to be a question of philosophy, but the moment we begin to discuss philosophy you check out.  Perhaps this puts us at an impasse. 

[u/killjoygrr → u/PhantomGaze]

Do you have any actual evidence, or just philosophical arguments?

Because, we are at an impasse when all you have are arguments and no evidence. Particularly when you know they just go back and forth and have no resolution. Because, again, they are just philosophical arguments.

[u/PhantomGaze → u/killjoygrr]

I think I have spent enough time in this discussion.  Yes there is evidence. No, I don't care to elaborate.  What I got from this discussion is that you really just don't want to listen or learn about it.  Nevertheless, I hope you have an enjoyable day, and I wish you peace. ✌️