I found this blog via a post about abortion in a catholic magazine linked by a Facebook friend, wanting to get some background on someone who claimed to argue from an “ex-atheist” standpoint. From reading, it appears that you were not, as you claim, an atheist (as the term is currently most commonly used, by the likes of Dawkins and Myers and Harris), but instead simply a more common, run-of-the-mill non-religious person.

For those of you who are believers who actually wish to converse on these subjects with personally avowed atheists, there are a few things to keep in mind.

1) At least in America, there is still a bit of a stigma attached with not only being a non-religious person, but going the opposite end and being an atheist. Those of us who have “come out” as atheists have a sense of personal involvement with being so, and claiming that anyone who is merely non-religious is the same as someone who is positively atheistic (not passive) would be the same as an atheist claiming that someone who attends Sunday Mass every week and actively thinks about scripture in their life is the same as a holidays-only churchgoer.

2) It is not, as an early commenter claims, a “No True Scottsman” argument to claim the above. I’d love to hear any arguments otherwise, but please at least explain any difference between an active churchgoer and a holiday attendee fits within your definition.

3) Most current/modern atheists claim to be so due to being skeptics or rationalists. If you are going to claim that you are an ex-atheist, but you did not come to that conclusion via skepticism or rationalism, please be sure to mention that. This is where Jennifer’s story falls apart – she does not appear to have been anything close to a skeptic or a rationalist, seeming to give her personal experiences no deeper reflection due to her newly assumed biases. That’s fine and dandy, but you were either not a skeptic, or very poor at overcoming personal bias.

4) I realize this has been mentioned already, but seriously? Pascal’s Wager? I had a lifelong Catholic Priest (I think he is a step or two below a bishop, I don’t remember) who taught a course on the philosophy of religion. Pascal’s Wager came up in class, and he thoroughly eviscerated it, pointing out innumerous flaws, the most glaring being that any God who was not a complete imbecile would not be fooled (and likely would even be insulted) by the idea of someone simply choosing to believe in him because “it was a safer choice”. Pascal’s Wager is entirely about completely disregarding intellectual honesty – it’s saying “I don’t care about determining what is actually true about the world, I simply want to think nice, happy thoughts.” I realize (hope, at least) that this was likely simply a throwaway phrase, but at least realize how intellectually foolish even mentioning this makes you appear.

By the way, I don't think you should call yourself a skeptic. I mean, you can question evidence if you have a rational basis for doing so, but if you question evidence only on the basis that you are a skeptic, then you're really not after the truth. I was conversing with a skeptic and he was bending over backwards to come up with conspiracy scenarios that would explain away the evidence I presented to him. What kind of B.S. is that? :p

It's a shame that she has to conclude with an attack on the sincerity of an ex-believer, like myself. But backed into that illogical corner, she is obliged to do so.

Jennifer has probably examined some or all of the proofs, but what I think she is saying in THIS post is that, in the final analysis, Christianity is most persuasive in how its truth affects your life.

My skepticism towards the ex-atheist trope continues to be well founded, based on the poor quality of evidence ex-atheists seem to settle for.

That seems to have been your experience.

If this is so, why do so many apologists spend so much of their time focusing on arguments and evidence?

Certain truths do not have proofs. They are intuitive. That is why she uses the word ''obvious'' sometimes.

For an example, you do not have proof in your sense of the word that someone other than you exist apart from your imagination. But you have an ''intuitive'' proof that they do.

God is one such proof. You know its true because when you believe there is a God, you see the absurdity of life without God