sidewinder

Any chance you will be answering my questions? See my last post in this thread. Thanks.

skuwiph

Conversion, perhaps not , but I think it's healthy (if not imperative) for us all to constantly challenge our assumptions/deeply held beliefs...

Personally, I do think we need more Theists on this site, if only because I'm always interested in the other point of view; however my experience of them has always been slightly better. Suffice to say I live not in the land of Falwell or Phelps...

My tuppenorth' worth. I'll return to lurk mode now... BTW, Gurdur, a well-timed intervention...

Ian.

Marduk

A Theist Gal: Theophilus was a hardcore Calvanist/Christian presuppositionalist who used to post here and was a pain in the arse.

hey, thanks Gurdur!

Gurdur

Honk if you like cheeses and Marduck !

skuwiph

What kind of cheese?

I'll honk anyway, in case it's Stilton...

Gurdur

Honk if you like cheeses and Marduck and Skuwiph !

Thanks to you too, mate !

windsofchange

To answer sidewinder's questions:

Which you have the right to do, but I don't. Why? Oh, just because. (Sorry, I'm kinda tired right now!)

<strong>Also, why did you pick the Catholic church? How did you choose that Christian church over all the others under the Christian banner? Why not the Mormon church, or the 7th Day Adventist church, or the Christadelphian church?</strong>

Well, mainly because it's the one I know the most about, having studied it in-depth, and also having entered a religious order (the Dominicans) for a while. To me it just made the most sense.

Will try to write more tomorrow if possible. Have a great evening!

Love,
TG

Secular Pinoy

Alas, as one who respects Gurdur's insights on a lot of occasions, I am dismayed to see his characterization of my post. Was it an attack? No. I posted it more in shock, as I sincerely believed that an atheist has reconverted to the faith. I was not there to question her sincerity. I have read the site and got troubled by her reasons in conversion which has little in resolving the open questions in the theism/atheism debate. It was midnight and I had posted the site, hoping to give a much deeper response in the morning. Instead, I found myself defending my original post.

Yes for me that was shocking. Except for Josh Mcdowell and other apologists (who overstate their former level of nonbelief), I do not have any experience with atheists returning to the fold. No attacks.

I assume that this is the part with the attack. It seems that I fail to convey what I meant. I had just been to the Creation/Evolution forum where the participants have a dim view of creationists' honesty. They misquote and fabricate evidences, for instance.

It is with this mindset that I have brought to this forum, where I myself do not frequent. Having found her website while surfing the net, I chose this forum as it is the most appropriate. I posted the url and added this remark, which most participants in the EvC forum would understand. It might be true, or it might be another fabrication. I myself do not think it is fake. But my baloney detection kit is not at full level in such a late time of the night. I asked the other people here if it is legitimate or not. No malice intended. No attacks.

I never intimated that she was never an atheist. It is Gurdur's uncharitable view of my post, seeing what wasn't there, that made him see what he wanted to see. I guess he'd sooner give the theist gal the benefit of charity than myself. I am sorely disappointed!

Jobar

I too remember the lady from when she was Atheistgal; I think that in my 30+ years of being an unbeliever, she is the first person I have known who has gone from theism to atheism then returned to theism.

In that time, I have known personally some dozens who have lost their faith; through this website I have known hundreds. So the fact that one of them has returned to theism is indeed a bit of a shock.

Despite Gurdur's condemnation of those doubting her, it does make me question how truly she understood what atheism meant, and how much thought she put in to it. I think we are reasonable in doing this; we do not fall for the 'true Scotsman' fallacy if we say that in this case she was never a truly convinced atheist. From her website and her statements here, it seems that all her 'reasons' for both initially saying she was atheist, and now saying she is theist again, are emotions and not actually reasons at all. Kally has put her finger dead on it.

"[Y]ou can't decide for or against the existence of God based on how other people treat you."
Very true. I urge you to consider just how one should "decide for or against the existence of God" though. I respectfully submit that emotions- especially ones suffered during a time of extreme emotional stress- are also inappropriate for making such decisions.

Mad Kally

Thanks. It's painfully simple to understand what happened now.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Mad Kally ]</p>