My friend came up to me two days ago (March 25) and said that it was me that converted her to atheism. I showed her a couple of books, websites, and some of my favorites on youtube about a month ago, when she asked me about Atheism. I didn't really intend to convert her purposely, we were just casually yapping in my house about nothing and the subject came up. She thanked me too! This is the first person I ever converted!

If anyone has similar or great stories, please share.

Views: 1445

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

How about awakening someone to Atheism?

That's how it felt to me those months/years of coming to terms with it myself. Kinda like coming out of a dream state.
Yes, you are probably right, although I need to check on exactly how Muslims use the word. They certainly use it as a noun ("He/she is a revert." "Reverts are easily conned by fundamentalist preachers", etc.) and whilst I have never noticed Muslims stating "I reverted him/her", I have often seen them say "I reverted in ".

Given the increasing trend in the Anglophone world over the last couple of decades to turn many nouns into verbs and the OED's emphasis on common usage rather than strict etymology, the problem you state is not insurmountable.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a strong proponent of using the word "revert", merely throwing an idea into the mix and then playing devil's advocate with your response, which made perfect sense.
I'm not sure how anyone could be converted to a non-system of no-beliefs. Atheism, as it is used today by many self-proclaimed atheists, is the lack of belief in deities. A great many cosmological perspectives would fall into the atheism umbrella, but it in itself doesn't describe any beliefs, values, or ways of thinking. It is a negative description, not a positive one. Some take that so far as to say that we are born atheists (IMO, a tad ridiculous). Anything to grow a group, right?

Personally I don't see the value in 'deconversion' or 'deprogramming.' Theists and atheists are much more than their beliefs (or lack thereof). Chosen cosmologies or mythologies play a role in identity, but that role is neither necessarily beneficial nor harmful. However, extremists from all camps tend to be obnoxious, and sometimes even harmful. And for some people, religion is an almost essential structure for morality and meaning in life. Taking that away and giving less in return seems unneighborly.
The 'lack' and 'absence' distinction is a good one.

Personally I don't use 'atheist' to describe myself since there are more precise, positive terms. And there seems to be a lot of confusion over even the basic definition of the term among atheists.
I'm agreed on your first two paragraphs. When asked my religion I reply "none" and would describe my predominate philosophical position as either material rationalist or rational materialist (with a healthy dose of other ideas thrown in).

The third paragraph just makes me so glad I was born and live in the UK rather than the US. Although, the desecularisation of our country over the last ten years is becoming frightening.
Instead, again, by definition; from the Greek, "a" means no or without. Therefore, "atheism," in its purest and most basic form, is the absence of belief. Nothing is lacking in the mind of the atheist.

I'd actually go slightly further than this in the purest form; atheism is without a specific definition of deity. Both deists and pantheists could strictly be called atheists. I'm certainly far more agnostic about the later two forms of deity than I am about theism, although I tend to see both as being ultimately irrelevant to the human condition.

IOW, I could probably describe myself as a nearly gnostic-atheist and an agnostic-adeist and agnostic-apantheist.
No converts yet but it's not for a lack of trying. People don't care to listen to me for some reason...
Not that I know of. (And, I too, don't like the word "converted.") But I do have a Facebook friend who is on the fence and says that my manner has helped him deal with the real questions and not get involved in a personality fracas. I did directly pose a question to him awhile back that he said occupied most of his thinking on a long drive for a family outing: For what question is "God" the answer?

Still a work in progress, I believe.
I've converted a co-worker to agnosticism. It's a start. And he's still reading books on atheism.
I didnt converted anyone to Atheism.Iam living in a place where many religious people are there. Its not because of that.I dont use to interfere in others business and i dont like anyone interfering in mine.
It is my view that the key to "converting" people to atheism is to get them to think critically for themselves.

I grew up a fourth-generation Mormon from a pioneer family in Idaho. The town in which I grew up was solidly Mormon, and outside ideas were decidedly unwelcome if they conflicted in any way with church doctrine. And while attending BYU, I actually heard a General Authority come right out and say in front of the entire student body of 25,000 students, "Don't think for yourself. The thinking has already been done for you!"

The undoing of my faith came as a result of hearing constantly from my professors of the need for critical though and self-introspection, and yet hearing that comment caused a cognitive dissonance that set me down the road of critical analysis of Mormon doctrine. It didn't take me long to figure out that it was a cult, and it didn't take long after that to realize that Christianity itself had similar doctrinal problems and inconsistencies.

So the upshot is that it was critical thinking that made the difference for me, as it has for most people who have left religion. I think that our best shot at undermining religion is to get people to think critically for themselves - and that pays society many other benefits besides just the undermining of superstitious belief.

So if we really want to "convert" people to atheism (and I think that word is a poor choice for a variety of reasons), we need to encourage critical thinking skills in the public education system. The Christians can't oppose that for the obvious reason that it is so beneficial in so many ways - and they don't realize that it would undermine their "faith"-based education. That is why they all pay lip service to the need for it. Well, let's take them at their word and promote it.

After that, as a movement, we need to start breaking down the stereotypes that religion tars us with, such as the hedonist, nihilist stereotype. We need to convince people that they really won't become morally squalid because they have lost religion. We need to educate people to the fact that people are good because they see themselves as good, and that they obey laws and moral principles because they see themselves as contributing members of society, not because they fear some sort of divine retribution. We can back that up with statistics that show that, for example, subscriptions to pornographic web sites are higher, per capita, in places where religion is strongest, as are teenage pregnancies - demonstrating that religion has no real moralizing power.

First, live as an example. Then teach the importance of critical thinking, reason, logic and understanding basic philosophical principles. With that, people will see there is no reason to fear a loss of "faith" and will discover that there are lots of good reasons to welcome it.
I think you are right on this (that critical thinking and development of that ability). For me, it was exposure to Nietzsche, Harris, et al., but also to the semanticists and philosophers who examined belief from the standpoint of logic. Probably a major influence in this realm was the Aussie philosopher, John Leslie Mackie, who approached the subject with the argument from evil. He posited that an omnipotent god who is "good" is a logical impossibility since such a deity would not allow evil to befall man. Alvin Platinga came along and countered with the familiar answer of many Christers: "God gave man freedom of will and it is man who chooses to disobey God and commit evil acts." To this, it is only necessary to ask, "Then why didn't this omnipotent, good god see to it than man always chooses good?" They have no answer.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service