Thread: Your deconversion story?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

How can I bash a lack of something?! Thats just silly. Are you upset that I don't respect your lack of belief?

Not upset, amused. Somehow someone always has to bring the semantics topic which is really irrelevant, because absence of belief in god is really the same as belief in the absence of god.

But I gotta admit Jeff with the attempts at personal stuff always amuse me more.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

But I gotta admit Jeff with the attempts at personal stuff always amuse me more.

I aim to please.

Originally Posted by ClassyElf

My family believes I'm possessed by the devil and I have a pastor sending me letters to my house regularly telling me he's praying for me to come back to God.

This is something that I can feel. Because it's not only that they are praying for you. Because when someone says they are praying for you, it actually means a very different thing. What it means is that they feel sorry for you. Because you do not know the Truth (TM). It is a form of sympathy for the real truth that you do not know. This is demeaning. Not only demeaning but insulting at the same time.

I had to act as a surrogate for my partner talking to my father to tell him that he was not going to go anymore family gatherings. Why? Because of the above paragraph. Whatever any religious person wants to say, they feel SORRY for us. If they just said "I'll pray for you" with a non bias approach, then it would be fine. But they feel sorry for "non believers" because they KNOW that we are all doomed to hell. This is not productive, and it does not get anything accomplished on either ends.

To start the acceptance and understanding between atheist,deists and theists, we need to start respecting each others beliefs. But, can that happen? No it can't. I don't respect theists. I think they are idiots (not trying to bash you theists, this is just how I feel) because of me analyzing theology. Theists don't respect me because of their theology. So where can we find common ground? I don't know. So someone please post and tell me, because it is a conflict that I am willing to resolve.

Sorry, atheism is not a lack of belief. You can say it a thousand times and feel like your position is more credible because of it but it will never be true. The lack of belief only amounts to the statement, "I don't know" and even that could be called a belief from some perspectives. Anything more than a statement of ignorance is a belief, end of story.

Then what is the atheist doctrine or system of beliefs?























There is none.

It is a term used to describe someone who IS NOT a theist. Hence, atheist. Like asexual, or asymmetrical.

Dawkins has a part of his website devoted to stories such at these:

Converts Corner



As for me, I was lucky. My parents went against my dad's side of the family, who wanted to raise my brother and I as Catholic. They wanted us to grow up free from indoctrination, and allow us to decide what was best for us when we were old enough. When I was 15 I decided to go to an Assembly of God church for a couple of weeks just to get a glimpse at what I was 'missing out on' (truth is I was trying to get in good with this girl I knew, but that went tits up when I realised God was the only man for her). The last straw was when the preacher there said that animals don't have souls, and told a little 6-yr-old girl that her dog won't be waiting for her in Heaven. I thought that was sick.

I won't say I was agnostic most of my life because that is not a proper use of the term. Contrary to popular belief, 'agnostic' doesn't mean "I don't know" - it means "that is unknowable" (a-, without; -gnostic, knowledge). I will instead say that I was undecided either way, and only so far as to say that I had not researched either side of the debate with any dedicated level of scrutiny. I was going on my 'gut' instinct and intellect which held that it was 'possible' for a God to exist in the broadest sense of the term. Looking back now, I see my previous 'wishy-washy' stance as an ignorant one, much in the same light that I regard many theists. The use of the term 'ignorant' doesn't have to carry a negative connotation with it either. It just means one lacking knowledge on a particular subject. I feel that many theists (or at least people who go to church because that's what they have always done) haven't taken the time to properly examine the evidence. Faith is not a virtue; it is a false claim of knowledge, skipping over the important part - evaluating the evidence. This is intellectual dishonesty at its core.

Two years ago when I picked up The God Delusion in an airport, and read it cover to cover three times. Now I've read everything by Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris, spent 2 years reading Talk-Origins and watching over 2,000 youtube videos by theists and atheists alike, learned all the philosophical arguments for/against the existence of god(s) and where they all fall down, and have molded myself into what I believe to be the best stance on the universe: a skeptic.

Show me the 'money' (evidence)!

I was born atheist, eventho raised in a christian family and forced to go to church each sunday, I have never believed in this bullshit they called God, until recently I came to the realization they had no clue what they were talking about! So I deconverted from an atheist into a believer, but I don't have any religion or anything, to me they are all the same, they all have the same underlying purpose and message. Too bad everyone concentrates on everything else except the purpose and message, making todays religion pointless.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

I was born atheist

We're all born atheists until someone fills our head with gobbledegook

Lol... yeah of course, I meant, I was atheist since birth.

Btw, it is you who let your head be filled with gobbledegook. It is you who is so convicned that the people who talk about God and tell you what God is, that those people have it right! Have you never thought about the possibility, that maybe, just maybe, your concept of God is completely false? What makes you so convinced that your concept of God is correct? You first need to have a concept of X before you can decide weather X exists or not. But atheists completely skip this first step... why is that?

Btw, it is you who let your head be filled with gobbledegook. It is you who is so convicned that the people who talk about God and tell you what God is, that those people have it right! Have you never thought about the possibility, that maybe, just maybe, your concept of God is completely false? What makes you so convinced that your concept of God is correct? You first need to have a concept of X before you can decide weather X exists or not. But atheists completely skip this first step... why is that?

You seem to not realise that so called 'strong' atheists reject the concept of a god altogether. They don't have a concept of God that they don't believe in. They don't believe in Gods, period.

In short, you are completely and utterly wrong, and don't seem to grasp the concept of atheism.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Lol... yeah of course, I meant, I was atheist since birth.

Btw, it is you who let your head be filled with gobbledegook. It is you who is so convicned that the people who talk about God and tell you what God is, that those people have it right! Have you never thought about the possibility, that maybe, just maybe, your concept of God is completely false? What makes you so convinced that your concept of God is correct? You first need to have a concept of X before you can decide weather X exists or not. But atheists completely skip this first step... why is that?

Atheists have a concept of God just as theists do. Most atheist's concept of God is as a nonexistent spirit that humans believe in without evidence.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Two years ago when I picked up The God Delusion in an airport, and read it cover to cover three times. Now I've read everything by Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris, spent 2 years reading Talk-Origins and watching over 2,000 youtube videos by theists and atheists alike, learned all the philosophical arguments for/against the existence of god(s) and where they all fall down, and have molded myself into what I believe to be the best stance on the universe: a skeptic.

You're my new hero.

All I read are The God Delusion and Breaking The Spell. To lazy to read more... But then again, I am already completely atheistic. Have been for as long as I remember. I didn't have to break free from an dogmatic upbringing or something. My upbringing was completely neutral, actually. We just never really talked about religion or 'god', and if I asked about it, they would be pretty objective about it. I still don't even really know or my mom isn't just deistic or something.

My dad did grow up in a pretty hard-core Christian home. I kind of respect it that he managed to think for himself despite growing up there. He still doesn't mind rolling along with some formalities such as 'praying', but he certainly isn't a dogmatic silly Christian like my grandparents and uncles.

Was christian, evidence and lack of any influence of God in the world problem.

Became pseudo-taoist thing and new in my heart I was just grasping at straws for meaning in life.

Became agnostic. At this stage started studying A-level religious studies and philosophy. Became Atheist very quickly, due to Religious Studies.

End.

I stopped being catholic and became spiritual seeker. I find atheists that hold science text books as the absolute truth as dangerous as christian that clings to the bible. the real truth is in neither places.

I find atheists that hold science text books as the absolute truth as dangerous as christian that clings to the bible. the real truth is in neither places.

*sigh*

Atheists/scientists don't hold anything as absolute truth.

Are you even aware of how science works? By constantly correcting errors and refining things?

Yet another ignorant statement that misses the point.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

*sigh*

Atheists/scientists don't hold anything as absolute truth.

Are you even aware of how science works? By constantly correcting errors and refining things?

Yet another ignorant statement that misses the point.

sigh..learn to read

I said atheists that hold science as absolute truth. not that scientists up hold it as absolute truth, obviously, any good scientist knows better

and there are many atheists who think whats in their text book is absolute

Originally Posted by juroara

and there are many atheists who think whats in their text book is absolute

I don't know any that do, although I do know many atheists.
If anything, atheists generally veer towards the opposite of absolution. Most atheists welcome change with open hands and are glad to know the truth even if it means they have to change their previous knowledge to fit it in.

and there are many atheists who think whats in their text book is absolute

Really? This sounds like a huge generalisation to me.

I personally don't know a single atheist who believes science is the absolute truth. And I know a fair few atheists.

whats in their text book is absolute

Usually atheists have the ability to think for themselves, and don't blindly believe anything.

I'd like to know where you're getting this from, because it sounds like you're talking out your ass, and trying to project dogmatic characteristics on to those that don't subscribe to dogma.

Slightly off topic, I always found the projected argument "atheists don't believe in God because of pride" (or some crap like that) amusing. There seem to be many many theists out there who simply can't comprehend why some do not believe.

Although I don't agree with Juroara, I think I understand what she is trying to get at and I think it applies in some cases. A lot of people I know (especially ones that were religious at one time) take what they are taught about the world through the scientific disciplines as truth without question. They see this frame work of a deterministic materialistic world that does not allow room for god built up for them by teachers and professors in the realm of the physical sciences and the paradigm is accompanied by so many numbers that its hard to deny.

So, what they do is they trade one belief system for another. They give up their devotion to their religious leader, and instead offer it to the nebulous community known to them only as 'scientists'. All of a sudden, if something is said by a scientist, it must be true. They still aren't thinking for themself, they still aren't examining the options and looking at the evidence; they are merely submitting themselves to a different form of authority.

There are those out there and here on this forum who believe 'science has all the answers' or even just 'science is capable of obtaining all of the answers', but what a lot of people don't realize is that science isn't even designed to be capable to ask all of the questions.

This is why I make the distinction of saying that converting to atheism is a trade off of beliefs and not a 'deconversion'. To say that you believe there is no god requires just as many baseless assumptions as the belief that there is one (or many). No one system of belief can hold all the answers and no one system of inquiry can find them all with any amount of time.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

There are those out there and here on this forum who believe 'science has all the answers' or even just 'science is capable of obtaining all of the answers', but what a lot of people don't realize is that science isn't even designed to be capable to ask all of the questions.

I'll almost agree with this, but with one important difference. Science is at its core, the usage of our five senses to make sense of the universe infront of us, as science is the study of nature itself. Any knowledge that science 'can't obtain' would have to be supernatural by definition (outside of nature). Now, normally this would put the subject of the existence of a non-interfering deity out of the reach of science, however one can extrapolate how probablethat deity (or any) is using the tools of logic.

But at the end of the day, that's all you're ever left with - a probability. Like the issue of Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle, I don't believe there will ever be a time when we can say "Ah huh! We've solved it!". That's not going to happen simply due to the nature of the problem - you can't measure the immeasurable.

I have evaluated the probability and found it wanting. Others weigh the same evidence and disagree. If I was shown rock solid evidence for the proof of a deity I'd convert in a heartbeat. But dealing in absolutes without proof is not intellectually honest, and any true skeptic or science will tell you the same thing.

I think it applies in some cases.

We're in agreement, there will always be someone out there who holds a set of beliefs, no matter how bizarre. Just look at some of the cults out there!

I would agree that blind belief in *anything* is bad, be it religion, patriotism, science, whatever. Blindly believing in anything is dangerous. But trying to imply that "many" atheists blindly believe in science without anything to back it up, even if a few do actually blindly believe, is not an argument. It's a hasty generalisation at best.

A lot of people I know (especially ones that were religious at one time) take what they are taught about the world through the scientific disciplines as truth without question.

It sounds as if these people haven't been taught to think critically. Personally, all the people I know reject religions, not because they've been indoctrinated in to atheism, but because they were given the chance to make up their own minds, and after looking at various religions, and atheism.

There are those out there and here on this forum who believe 'science has all the answers' or even just 'science is capable of obtaining all of the answers', but what a lot of people don't realize is that science isn't even designed to be capable to ask all of the questions.

(Physical) Science cannot tackle ethical issues as an example; there is no scientific proof that abortion is right/wrong for instance. But it can provide facts - such as the fact that many foetuses will abort naturally, and that there is no ability to sense things up until a certain week of pregnancy - which can impact the outcome. So it certainly has a place in such decisions.

To say that you believe there is no god requires just as many baseless assumptions as the belief that there is one (or many).

Untrue.

It actually requires less, as the only thing being considered is "is there a creator of the universe". It doesn't make any assumptions about characteristics of said creator, such as being loving, being omnipotent, that he made a son, and so on.

The only assumption that is made, is that given what we have learnt so far, there is no need for a creator. And if there is no need for a creator, then by Occam's razor it is the more likely solution. As science advances still further, the need for a creator is reduced even more. It's also not a baseless assumption.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Really? This sounds like a huge generalisation to me.

I personally don't know a single atheist who believes science is the absolute truth. And I know a fair few atheists.

Usually atheists have the ability to think for themselves, and don't blindly believe anything.

I'd like to know where you're getting this from, because it sounds like you're talking out your ass, and trying to project dogmatic characteristics on to those that don't subscribe to dogma.

holy crap, don't be hypocrite

you just generalized non atheists by saying we don't think for ourselves and are blind. spiritual seekers are truth seekers and think for themselves, thank you.

where am I getting this from??

THIS FORUM

seriously so many atheists here pop a blood vessel or two if you even suggest text book science doesn't have all the answers. so you guys can thank yourselves for projecting this close minded view of atheists to me. Like I said, most people in my life have a religion or a spiritual view of reality. Most atheists I know, ARE YOU GUYS.

go on, give yourself a big round of applause

you don't like this point of view? look at yourselves and change the attitude you present to others on this forum with a different point of view.

I was left to make my own decision by non-religious parents. The lack of any deluding psychological factors quickly led me to the blatant conclusion that religion is primitive superstition.

The fact that there are so many conflicting religions and the fact that the hugely dominant factor in deciding which set of stories you believe is what your parents told you was true when you were a child made my conviction concrete.

As Bill Maher points out, if, when you were a toddler, your parents switched the Bible with Mother Goose, would you notice the difference? No, you'd gobble it up just as voraciously. And then you'd be writing letters to George Bush asking him to convert to Redridinghoodism.

Ok so...

To Xaq.
Atheism is a lack of beliefin a diety...go ahead and look at wikipedia or the ACA website. It is deconversion because it is removing a system of beliefs. Once you remove this belief you must assert that what you have been shown as evidence of God (in the case of the pure definition of atheism) is not good enough. You can at this point start making assertions that the gods who you have been presented with are in fact not real based on the evidence. It isn't a conversion because you aren't filled with something new to believe in. Once you get to a point where the gods you have been introduced to have been found to be frauds, you can't really go past that. I suppose you could "make up" a new definition of god, but the evidence for your new definition would be just as unreasonable. This is why even people like Richard Dawkins say he is only something like 99.999999999999% certain that there is no God. Because you can only say "this god I have been presented is false." There is no undefined God which you can say I believe this god that hasn't been presented to me is false. But you can say, absolutely, that you do not believe in any undefined being. The main reason is because you can't definitively say "the supernatural doesn't exist." The supernatural is beyond natural, if it exists we can not access or observe it naturally.

To Chayba.
You bring up the same argument every time and it is sadly so old it isn't even funny. You assert that we believe that "they got the definition of God right." You don't seem to understand that a definition, by definition /snicker, is what the person using it applies to it. God, though not often realized by the user as a noun, is a noun, and in terms of religion is a name. Any and all names are allowed to be defined by the user. What an atheist is in opposition to believing is a diety, the common definition of the name God. If you want to say that a sock full of spit is God, fine by all means, but that doesn't make you a theist. You are still an atheist. Now, unless you assert that a god (lowercase) exists as your "God" character, then you are still an atheist. Without belief in a diety you are an atheist. Another thing, which I find interesting, is that you seem to say "God" is this undefinable thing...which by its very nature makes no sense. You can't speak about "God" without having some sort of definition attached to it.

To Jura
I don't see what you are talking about... The community here in DV when met with scientific problems (unless they are tools which some of the people here are but, imho, those are usually the religious nutz) will give information about how it is wrong, cite documentation that supports it, and will clarify why what they are saying is more logical based on the supporting evidence. If you would search, you will find, that many, for lack of a better descriptive word, "scientific" debates have been had in d.v. in which different supporting scientific evidence is given for opposing view points. I find that most of the atheists here when having a civil conversation with someone else over scientific understanding reach an eclectic point of view over the information given.


As for me. When I was a child I believed in God and santa clause. Then one day I grew up. Hahah just kidding. I grew up till about 4th or 5th grade without really even caring about religion it was this unimportant side note. Well at least after my grandmother moved. She was the only real religious person in family, the rest believe but didn't pay much attention to it since most of their days were spent working like dogs to pay the bills. So anyway, from kindergarden up I was non-religious but only because I didn't think about it. When I was in 6th grade I was at that point an atheist since I didn't really see any evidence of God anywhere, though I didn't say anything to anyone. Then when I when to Jr. High I was a full blown atheist who when posed the question would respond as such.