Which God?

I'm assuming you don't believe in Santa Claus, Zues or Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just write out your proof of why these don't exist. Then use a word processor to replace 'your god' with these entities. You will have the proof.

"...atheist ways"

And tell us what those are, please.

 I too have never met a former atheist. Do you believe in the Science's ,like space,biology etc. Did you fall and hit your head.Lets put the question back in your court,why do you believe in a god.   

Butter, I'm pleased to read your signature.  Yours is one of the first reasonable and mature posts I've read so far.  I'm not sure what Marcus Aurelius considers living a good life is, however.  Such considerations prevent me from abandoning my faith (truth being relative).

OP:  Welcome back to faith!  However, beware of feeling invinceable. 

Peace~

Hmm was just about to sacrifice a little christian baby to Satan (yes I know Dawkins doesnt approve of calling a child christian) then I read your posting about finding god.

Then it all made sense, the lord spoke to me and I havent left church for a week now confessing my sins.

Shit knew there was something I forgot where did i leave the baby!

Just a reminder that this is in the "Kill 'em with kindness" section. So ... the bit about Satan, and talk about gods as "magical" might be a little insensitive for this section.

Perhaps you mistook Atheism for Anti-Theism.

I've no personal interest in changing your belief in whatever you call god, and it
should be rather obvious from the responses that other Atheists feel similarly.

If you want to debate the existence of god with me, then you will need to debste that in another thread.

A child (up to a point) can't make that decision for him/herself so shopuldn't be stuck with a label.

 With a couple of notable exceptions, I am not prone to trying to convince individuals to be atheists.  All I can do is put information out there, and people will either believe it or not.  In your case, I'll be perfectly honest.  I don't think I believe you.  I could be wrong, of course, and perhaps you can help me understand if I am, but here are the problems I have with your story:

1) If you really do believe in god, why do you want to be convinced not to believe?  Do you believe in an evil god?  Are you unhappy with your new belief?  It seems more likely to me that you are not really a former atheist -- at least, you never made a conscious and informed decision that there was no god -- and that you thought you could elicit a more emotional response by claiming to be a former atheist.  After all, look what happened when Anthony Flew became a deist!

2) Your post seems to be quite confrontational.  That is, you're looking for a fight.  Why?  Are you interested in real knowledge or would you rather just win an argument?  If you'd like to know why it makes more logical sense to be an atheist, your best bet is not an internet forum.  It's full length books, where you can explore subjects in depth and without the emotional rhetoric often associated with "internet debates."

Of course, Dawkins' "The God Delusion" is a great book, and you should read it in its entirety.  If you're having problems understanding evolution, you should read "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mount Improbable."

Other great authors include Sam Harris, David Mills, and Christopher Hitchens.  Each of these authors represents the atheist argument from a slightly different perspective, so I have no idea of knowing which approach would work well for you.  

 You cant just say yo my life is screwed up,I think i'll pray to someone Im not sure even exists.You have to actually believe in who you are talking too,He is not just there for convenience.

You are also lying. I don't say this to antagonize you but there is absolutely no such critter as god and you know it. Period, end of story.

Edited to stay with rules set for this forum.

Apperently Luminion is a former atheist.

There was also somebody a while back that converted to Christianity a couple years back IIRC. I have a horrible memory, but I think he posted something in FTA, then had "Christian" for religion on his myspace profile and I think BGH called him on it. I'll try to find it I could be wrong though. [Great, now it's going to bug me to try to remember]

As for me, I apperently took a few wacks to the noggin, as I've dabbled in several stances on the existance of God.

I'm pretty sure that Anders Borg [Who is Sweden's finance minister] converted to Christianity.

Anyway, sans a comprehensive survey, this would rely on ancedotes, and I think would be irrelevant to the actual argument anyway.[Which I believe would be a form of genetic fallacy]

Which is why I asked the questions of the OP, I think you're right he came for an argument given the "Rumble" part.

So I guess he/she is a sadist.

I've never heard of him.  I don't do a lot of business in Sweden.  Like I said, I'm sure there are such people in the world.  With so many people, it would be absolutely shocking if there weren't.

The original argument, if I am refering to the original argument, is that there are no real converted atheists.  I think that's just plain wrong.  I can't think of a way it could possibly be right.  I don't know what fallacy to call it, other than the "Atheists-are-perfect-thinking-machines fallacy."

It's extremely difficult to find a place on earth where someone could be raised to adulthood without any exposure to religion, and any line we draw will be arbitrary so long as there has been exposure.  At what point do we say that a child has been sufficiently influenced by witnessing the existence of a religion?  What weight do we give the presence of other religions?  (There are plenty of people in America who became Muslim after rejecting Christianity.)  Some people are more prone to herd mentality than others.  (Please... for the love of the FSM, read the authoritarian specter.)  Some people are prone to individualism than others.  (We must recognize the chance that someone raised atheist would be compelled by religion because it pissed their parents off.)

I've said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that religion's effect on the mind is not binary.  We simply can't say that if we put John Mustang into a church at age five, that he will be a devoted Christian when he's thirty.  All we can do is look at what is likely to happen.

This has raised an interesting idea in my head.  Pineapple, have you seen the movie "The Village"?  If not, the basic idea is that there's an isolated village that gives every indication of being set in the mid 1800s, but it turns out, it's a group of people who rejected modern technology and chose to live in a simpler state.

Suppose there was a group of people who could live on an island, completely isolated and ignorant of the rest of humanity.  (I know... pretty much impossible, but just run with it.)  Suppose further that everyone was an atheist, and they were committed to establishing a society with not only no gods, but no concepts of gods whatsoever.  The children would be raised completely ignorant that gods or religions had ever existed.

Bear in mind that these people would be very well educated scientific naturalists.  They would teach their children critical thinking and the scientific method, and would explain to them from a very young age about evolution, psychology, sociology, and other "human sciences."  

The question is whether or not religion would come to exist in such a society.  We know that children mis-assign agency at a very young age.  That is, they attribute intent to natural events.  This is certainly a possible beginning for religion, but one of the leading theories of the origin of religion states that it was non-scientific man's attempt to explain the universe based on misattribution of agency.  Would it be possible for such a mistake to be made in a world in which even the previous existence of gods and religions was unkwown?

I don't know, and it's an interesting mental exercise.  I believe that so long as the group remained relatively small, it would be highly unlikely that religion would develop.  Only when it was large enough to support multiple sub-cultures and significant societal hierarchies would there be a large enough "out-group" to embrace something so radically different from the views of the "in-group.

"Not following God's word" does not constitute being an atheist.

"I was angry at god" does not constitute being an atheist.

Being an atheist requires knowing what fallacies are and requires good use of logic. Since you used a 101 logical mistake, you were never an atheist.

I doubt you know what Bentrand Russell's "Teapot" argument is otherwise you wouldn't have started off your thread with this absurd tactic which has been throroghly thrashed.

Do not use the word "atheist" to discribe yourself when it is obvious you have no clue what an atheist is.

So 5 months ago what happened? You got the shit scared out of you? You saw other fan members emotionally happy and wanted to be a part of it? Both bad reasons to join any club.

Magic doesn't exist and an "atheist" rejects all claims of magic/super natural/ superstitious/ god(s) claims. Not just yours, but all.

There is no evidence for disimbodied brains magically manipulating atoms, much less entire galaxies or the thoughts in your head. There is no Superman vs Kriptonite magically making humans do good or bad.

Your god claim belongs in the same category as Minerva and Thor and Harry Potter, and has as much credibility as 4 leaf clovers and Vampires. You were never an atheist otherwise you wouldn't use such a laymen mistake as an argument.

When you can come up with godsperm or god DNA and have it medically reviewed by the AMA you'll have something. BUT PLEASE do not call yourself a former atheist, you never were.

"Rumble"?

No this is not a "Rumble", you are bringing an  intellectual knife to an intellectual gunfight. You'll have to do better than this to impress us.