Why do some people call themselves a former athiest? Did they find proof of a god and decide not to share it?

Because they probably are "former atheists."

Atheism is just a lack of belief in claimed gods. There's no requirement that such a lack of belief *has* to arise from a rational examination of evidence for or against claimed "gods." So if someone lacks belief in any "god," then for whatever irrational reason they start to believe in one (or more), then they are indeed "former atheists."

There aren't very many, and belief in any claimed god is still irrational and rather silly, but let's not pretend there aren't any people who lacked belief and then started believing. There are.

I was an agnostic/atheist until I was 33. By this I mean that I didn't know much about God and did not care; therefore, I lived as if God did not exist (which is atheism). (Not only did I not care, I was rather put-off the idea of God by more than one religious person.)

So, yes, I do describe myself as a former agnostic/atheist.

>Did they find proof of a god ... <

That depends on your definition of "proof". But, yes, I began to question if God exists and did my research and come to the reasoned conclusion that God does exist. Seeking God since then affirmed that conclusion. I have found that most people who want "proof" will settle for nothing short of a personal appearance from God. It gives them the air of being open minded while at the same time knowing their standard will not be met.

> . . . and decide not to share it? <

I share it with anyone who wants to listen.

<I don't think they ever really were an atheist, because real proof of a deity to an atheist should be proof to anyone ... <

That position makes assumptions that are not evidenced - that everyone will accept and/or be convinced by a particular set of evidences. Such rarely happens anywhere in human interaction. All scientific data requires interpretation and not everyone comes to the same conclusion(s).

The prince of the Heavenly Host or it could be because I don't believe in a deity or it could be because I actually had a role model and that was the mother of God or it could be because people got divorced and he once had to be an atheist but because of what the Muslims are doing now again he had it back out and nobody really has any religion anymore no one's going to share it and you're just going to tell me to grow up and you don't even know what it meant because I didn't tell you good for you for putting up with all this Yahoo answers for Yahoo

There is real proof. I think you meant to say that real proof to an atheists is something you can look at under a microscope and test it many times. Proof of god, other than the natural forces, comes to people individual, or in masses. Doesn't mean the whole world has to see it. There's a difference between proof, and tangible evidence which is what atheists want.

The A-THEIST is refusing God. To refuse God you have to believe in God in the first place or why would you be refusing something that does not exist.

A person does not become Christina by seeing "light" since that will doi them no good.

A person becomes Christian by embracing the person of Christ and accepting HIS death in their place on the cross.

For the gospel message that brings salvation WWW.SAVED.COM

No one is a former atheist.

That is a lie they tell to themselves to make them feel "special".

An atheist is a person who understands there is no evidence a god exists.

For one to become a "former atheist", they would have, as you say, found this evidence, yet, they say the same old crap and nonsense that ALL theists say:

"I had an experience, that no one else can appreciate".

An atheist would not accept that as "evidence".

People who once believe the assumption "no God exists" is true, now believe the assumption "God exists". In short they changed their minds.

For a statement to be provable (using Aristotelian Logic, the same logic used in the scientific method) a statement or its negative must be true, that is statement A or statement Not A is true.

Suppose a statement about God is true, that means that either the statement "God exists" or its negative statement "no God exists" is true where the notion of God is defined in the Bible in verse Genesis 1:1. This verse states that God existed before God created the Universe, the space-time continuum. From the scientific theory of the Big Bang, we know that the space-time continuum has a beginning, so the notion of God as defined is before the space-time continuum. Using the scientific method, any scientific theory about God must explain the scientific facts of God, but scientific facts require observers independent of location (space) and independent in time (time) meaning that the observers are in the space-time continuum. To have scientific facts about God would require observers in space-time continuum before the space-time continuum, that is, observing the unobservable. A contradiction, so the statement "God exists" is false.

Because we suppose a statement about God is true, this means that statement "God does not exists" must be true. However, by the same argument there must be an observer not in the space-time continuum leading to same contradiction, so that statement "God does not exist" is also false. Since both the statement and its negative is false, the statement is not provable, that means that God (any aspect of God) is assumption.

Everyone's a former atheist. Everyone who believes in a god had to be taught about it at some point.

It may be like the artist formerly known as Prince.

Sometimes it is a name change and no one knew you would be paying close attention.

Because they lacked a belief in god then started to believe in god, so they were no longer atheists. Hence, they were former atheists. People don't need evidence of a god to believe in one. If they did, well, they'd have evidence for their god.