What Conclusion Did A Highly Educated Ex-Atheist And Ex-Skeptic Come To About God?

[quatona]

I´m not sure what the private beliefs or lack thereof of scientists are relevant for.

 

[FutileRhetoric]

No, it doesn't mean that "roughly 55% are atheist".

You're neglecting deists and agnostics. When you combine the total number of theists, deists and agnostics---you will find that atheists only make up a small minority of scientists.

Since every agnostic is a theist or atheist, it's no wonder the polls on this question cannot be trusted. Deism is essentially theism if you go by this one:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theism

It's just as ludicrious to group deist's with agnostics as it is to even include the option of 'agnostic.' It's simply not a question of knowledge.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Since every agnostic is a theist or atheist, it's no wonder the polls on this question cannot be trusted. Deism is essentially theism if you go by this one:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theism

It's just as ludicrious to group deist's with agnostics as it is to even include the option of 'agnostic.' It's simply not a question of knowledge.

I disagree with your assessment.

Please provide documented evidence to support your dubious claim that "every agnostic is a theist or atheist".

A theist is one who believes in a personal God who has revealed himself to man in the past, has given us Holy Scripture, and who hears and answers prayer.

A deist doesn't believe that God has ever revealed himself to man, doesn't believe that God has given us any inspired books, nor do they believe in a God who hears and answers prayer. They essentially believe that a supernatural God created everything, and just left His creation alone ever since.

An atheist denies all Gods, thus rejecting both theism and deism.

An agnostic quite simply doesn't know if God exists or not, so they qualify as "none of the above".

There's nothing wrong with determining which of these four groups scientists fall into, so I submit that the only thing "ludicrous" here is your own above analysis.

Not to mention that your statement "Since every agnostic is a theist or atheist", is quite simply false. An agnostic is neither theist nor atheist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not to mention that your statement "Since every agnostic is a theist or atheist", is quite simply false. An agnostic is neither theist nor atheist.

By conventional definitions, a person is either an atheist or a theist: one is the logical conjugate of the other.

Conventionally, we call such a person a 'weak atheist' if they neither explicitly affirm nor deny the existance of deities.
Furthermore, someone is an explicit weak atheist if they've sat down, thought about it, and come to that conclusion.
Someone is an implicit weak atheist if they've never encountered the notion of deities before (and, hence, you can't have an implicit strong atheist).

Anyway, the term 'atheist' conventionally refers to both weak atheists ("I neither believe nor disbelieve in gods") and strong atheistis ("I disbelieve in gods").

Coupled with 'theist' ("I believe in gods"), any given person de dicto necessarily falls into one of the twocatagories.

 

[DailyBlessings]

By conventional definitions, a person is either an atheist or a theist: one is the logical conjugate of the other.

Conventionally, we call such a person a 'weak atheist' if they neither explicitly affirm nor deny the existance of deities.
Furthermore, someone is an explicit weak atheist if they've sat down, thought about it, and come to that conclusion.
Someone is an implicit weak atheist if they've never encountered the notion of deities before (and, hence, you can't have an implicit strong atheist).

Anyway, the term 'atheist' conventionally refers to both weak atheists ("I neither believe nor disbelieve in gods") and strong atheistis ("I disbelieve in gods").

Coupled with 'theist' ("I believe in gods"), any given person de dicto necessarily falls into one of the twocatagories.

I disagree. I've known many people among Eastern communities of faith that do not believe in deities, as such, but would not by anyone's definition qualify as atheists.

 

[Hnefi]

I disagree. I've known many people among Eastern communities of faith that do not believe in deities, as such, but would not by anyone's definition qualify as atheists.

If you're referring to buddhists, they are, in fact, atheists (though I hear there are theistic branches of buddhism). Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Nothing more, nothing less. It's possible to be a religious atheist, though it's not terribly common.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I disagree. I've known many people among Eastern communities of faith that do not believe in deities, as such, but would not by anyone's definition qualify as atheists.

On the contrary, an atheist is anyone who doesn't believe in gods. This says nothing about their belief in irrational things (i.e., if they have faith), supernatural things, religious things, etc.

One can have faith and still be an atheist (strong atheists, for instance, take the nonexistance of deities on faith).

One can also have an atheistic religion: many branches of Buddhism are both religious and atheistic, for instance.

Believing in the supernatural does not necessarily mean you believe in deities, the latter of which is the only criteria for the atheism/theism catagories.

 

[uberd00b]

I've heard of Strobel, he wrote an awful book entitled "The Case for Christ" wherein he interviewed lots of believers then came to the conclusion (amazingly) that Jesus was the way etc.

His investigative journalism skills are somewhat lacking.

 

[Christian Soldier]

By conventional definitions, a person is either an atheist or a theist: one is the logical conjugate of the other.

Conventionally, we call such a person a 'weak atheist' if they neither explicitly affirm nor deny the existance of deities.
Furthermore, someone is an explicit weak atheist if they've sat down, thought about it, and come to that conclusion.
Someone is an implicit weak atheist if they've never encountered the notion of deities before (and, hence, you can't have an implicit strong atheist).

Anyway, the term 'atheist' conventionally refers to both weak atheists ("I neither believe nor disbelieve in gods") and strong atheistis ("I disbelieve in gods").

Coupled with 'theist' ("I believe in gods"), any given person de dicto necessarily falls into one of the twocatagories.

^Hogwash!

An atheist believes there is NO God. Agnostics don't know for sure either way, and they clearly aren't ruling out the possibility.

Deists are another group that are neither theist nor atheist.

Your statement that all people are either a theist or atheist is blatantly false.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

^Hogwash!

An atheist believes there is NO God.

Strong atheists, sure. Weak atheists? Not quite. Of course, this all comes down to semantics. I go with the conventional terminology, but you are free to define it as you wish.

Agnostics don't know for sure either way, and they clearly aren't ruling out the possibility.

Agnosticism is a funny term, one which I don't use. The best definition I have heard is that agnostics say "We can never know if deities exist or not".

Deists are another group that are neither theist nor atheist.

Actually, deism is a class of theism: it's the belief that some deity created the universe, but then had nothing more to do with it.

Your statement that all people are either a theist or atheist is blatantly false.

Blatently? I don't think so. I merely espoused my definitions, which I took from convention.

 

[Revelation1217]

I've heard of Strobel, he wrote an awful book entitled "The Case for Christ" wherein he interviewed lots of believers then came to the conclusion (amazingly) that Jesus was the way etc.

His investigative journalism skills are somewhat lacking.

First of all, the book is not awful.

It is quite good actually.

And he started out as a skeptic, an atheist and as an evolutionist.

But he was smart enough to investigate the other side.

You might want to try the same thing.

 

[The Nihilist]

MandM, don't talk down to us like we don't know about christianity. Most of us were christians for years. Also, Strobel is a hack

 

[TeddyKGB]

First of all, the book is not awful.

It is quite good actually.

And he started out as a skeptic, an atheist and as an evolutionist.

But he was smart enough to investigate the other side.

You might want to try the same thing.

I don't care what Strobel says. I've read his books, and I have seen quite clearly what he thinks atheism is. Strobel was once an atheist like Fred Phelps was once gay.

 

[Revelation1217]

Strobel most certainly was an atheist.

You think he is lying?

Believe whatever you want.

You can't change the truth.

 

[The Nihilist]

You know what I love? Being talked down to by someone who isn't as smart as I am.
Personally, my opinion is that guys like Strobel are basically atheists who lie for the money. I mean, there's hordes of Americans dying to throw away their money for this kind of nonsense. If I didn't have a conscience, I'd want a piece of that pie myself.

 

[acropolis]

Personally, my opinion is that guys like Strobel are basically atheists who lie for the money. I mean, there's hordes of Americans dying to throw away their money for this kind of nonsense. If I didn't have a conscience, I'd want a piece of that pie myself.

I can't believe I've never thought of this before... that Strobel's actual revelation was how much money he could make selling books.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Strobel most certainly was an atheist.

You think he is lying?

I think he was depressed and despondent and angry at God. I think he now believes that all atheists are simply depressed, despondent, and angry at God and retroactively labels his previous condition "atheism."

Believe whatever you want.

You can't change the truth.

That rhetoric clashes with your shoes.

 

[Vene]

I think he was depressed and despondent and angry at God. I think he now believes that all atheists are simply depressed, despondent, and angry at God and retroactively labels his previous condition "atheism."

Very possible, and just for reference that is called Misotheism.

 

[TheNewAge]

Lets shed some light on Mr. Strobel, shall we?

First, his credentials:

He had degrees in Journalism and Law, neither of which is authoritative on religion, theology, or any sciences that he claims support his beliefs.
He received an "honorary degree" from the Southern Evangelical Seminary for his contributions to Christian apologetics.

The Case for a Creator
The Case for a Creator consists of interviews with Intelligent Design advocates and Christian apologists who argue for the existence of a creator.

If he were really interested in seeking truth and wished to add veracity to his belief in God, wouldn't it have been better for him to speak with non-believers, rather than "preaching to the choir" (pun intended), and finding out that, SUPRISE, SURPRISE!! Christians share the same beliefs as him and will not challenge him to verify or prove any of his beliefs?
Lets examine some of the sources he interviewed before writing this highly skewed and biased work:

Intelligent design advocate, Discovery InstituteCenter for Science and Culture (CSC) fellow and Unification churchtheologianJonathan Wells presents a case against Darwinian evolution;

Is this the same Discovery Institutue that got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, so to speak, when their "Wedge Document" outlining their dishonest intentions for spreading ID and creationist tripe was leaked onto the Internet?

Intelligent design advocate, CSC fellow and philosopher of scienceStephen C. Meyer discusses the relationship between science and religion, as well as the origin of life, arguing against the likelihood of abiogenesis without the assistance of a creator;

Another cheerleader for ID...

CSC fellow and philosopher of religionWilliam Lane Craig

International Society for Complexity, Information and Design fellow and philosopherRobin Collins

Intelligent design advocates and CSC fellows Guillermo Gonzalez (an astronomer) & Jay Richards (a theologian)

Intelligent design advocate, CSC fellow and biochemistMichael Behe

CSC fellow, philosopher and theologian J.P. Moreland examines the supposed existence of consciousness separate from the brain, including near-death experiences, as an argument for a creator.

No expert holding views skeptical of the historicity of the New Testament was interviewed.

So, this Strobel guy wants to make a case for creationism, while simultaneously denying the opposing viewpoint from being able to voice their opinions in his book so that he can at least pretend to address their points? I detect a lack of intellectual honesty for some reason...

Also, for someone who is seeking scientific justification for his beliefs, it is kinda ironic (moronic?) that he would only interview people who have doctorates in philosophy or theology, rather than any scientific discipline...quack science at its best.

Browsing through each of his videos (I refuse to spend the many hours it will take to wade through all the conceided grandstanding in these videos), he makes many claims and always makes reference to his "evidence", of which he fails to produce even a shred of in any of the videos for anyone to dispute or examine.

Verdict: the man is a pompous know-it-all who really knows not too much about the subject matter and has no interest whatsoever in seeking truth or objective inquiry, not uncommon afflictions in the creationist/ID camps....