Have you ever converted anyone to atheism?

grizzly

Either intentionally or not, have you? I did (unintentionally) with a young relative. He was curious why I never went to mass and I answered all his questions honestly. His mother still doesn't speak to me.

Dord

I haven't done but if I was in the same situation I would answer the questions honestly. It's up to the person to make their own mind up what they believe. How young was the kid?

Scuid Mhór

i've debated with my friends about religion and as opposed to converting them to atheism, i just made them question their own religions (mostly islam and christianity). i'd never go out of my way to get people to stop believing in a god (i'm agnostic myself) but when they started attacking my beliefs, i had to retaliate.

grizzly

Dord wrote: »

I haven't done but if I was in the same situation I would answer the questions honestly. It's up to the person to make their own mind up what they believe. How young was the kid?

Six, but very smart for a six year old.

Nemi

No need. These guys are doing the job for us.

Shenshen

grizzly wrote: »

Either intentionally or not, have you? I did (unintentionally) with a young relative. He was curious why I never went to mass and I answered all his questions honestly. His mother still doesn't speak to me.

Not intentionally, but I converted two people (on separate occasions) by asking them questions about their faith....
I was honestly curious to understand, and instead they ended up not only not being able to answer the questions, but also questioning themselves, and eventually not believing.

The really amusing thing is that I was converted to atheism by Christians. Talk about an unfortunate accident

sponsoredwalk

About a month ago me and a friend spent the whole night drinking, it
started innocently enough in the park after dark with frostie-flavoured
vodka and ended 29 hours later in a bar. Anyway after a whole night of
listening to music, talking, drinking strange wine's etc... we heard an
unexpected knock around 11am, midway into our busy day

Sure enough it was some Jehovah's witness and my friend, being as
hammered as he was, invites them right in to the kitchen. At that
particular moment we were discussing communism and capitalism,
particularly the black books of such in which both books claim both
ideologies have taken around 100,000,000 lives (give or take a few million).
Anyway we invited the guys in and continued & they joined this
conversation, quickly mentioning that religion had the key to happness :rolleyes:

Basically the guys laid it on thick, that Jesus loves you etc... and while
we listened patiently it was obvious things weren't going to go well :P
After they finished we declared our baby-eating allegiances but asked
questions, particularly I asked about Ezekiel 16 which came up on this
forum around that time & how horrible a verse it is, I mean ghastly!
Basically I asked if god was as good as they have told us why the
hell did he do all these things? Further we discussed the very first line of
the very first page of the bible & what a load of BS that is. Yes the
metaphor question came up but so did the "how can you distinguish
metaphor from reality etc..." questions.

THEN! Then mentions of Charles Darwin, Einstein, FRED HOYLE, etc... came
into the equation. I know of all of these things, particularly Fred Hoyle who
they emphasized. Now Hoyle partly originated the steady state theory
which was shown to be wrong by the big bang so claiming he believed in
god etc... doesn't exactly cut the mustard, needless to say argumentum
ad verecundia aren't exactly my favourite either...

Well as he continued with the scientists names I explained to him what
these people meant, e.g. Einstein, we eventually got around to clarifying
evolution doesn't describe the origin of life and that abiogenesis does.
I tried to show him the famous video on abiogenesis but
instead I wrote down the youtube address.

I explain this because the discussion of answers came up, he emphasized
that science can't explain certain things. I retorted that the book in
his hand can't either, that if you look in the direction of science you've
got answers here, deeper answers here, even deeper answers here etc...
while if you look in that book in your hand you've got Ezekiel 16,
a woman turned into a pillar of salt for feeling compassion for gay people,
talking snakes, sacrificial children, all this fun ancient hatred and it's really
not a question for me, but he was certainly shaken up.

I asked him and they basically get no training nor do they partake in group
discussion, they basically meet up and just do this with no guidance.
I felt really bad for him there, I mean he had no answers for me &
couldn't justify anything he said, I was just being honest when talking
to him but he was really unprepared. I doubt if he converted but I
definitely feel like he's thought strongly about it and questioned what
he was doing. I wasn't trying to convert him I was just questioning
but when you're honest in a discussion like this it can certainly feel
like you're shaking this person up in a bad way, because if they can't
answer your threatening something they hold dear. I kind of felt bad
but honestly you can't feel that way, I mean I think it's more
condescending to humour and let it pass rather than to be honest, to
question and to shake up. Still...

ChocolateSauce

I deconverted my ex from wicca to atheism, but she was 16 at the time and might have stopped believing that stuff in due course anyway. Other than that, I can't say for certain, although I'd be surprised if I haven't at least contributed to someones deconversion.

Galvasean

I don't go out of my way to tell people about my atheism, but if quwestioned/challenged I'll sure as heck give them some food for thought!

Recently a couple of friends of mine were jokingly mocking me for being an atheist. "God isn't happy with you not believeing in him". That kind of stuff. I retorted, "Then why did he make me this way?" The response: "Ooooohhhhh......."

amacachi

Guy stopped going to mass a few weeks after I'd been drunkenly talking about religion with him. He hadn't believe for years but still went, so I don't know how much I had to do with him not going anymore.

liamw

Most people don't need to be converted, they are atheist but just don't realise it. I just try to highlight this to people whenever the subject comes up. It's amazing how many people just don't think about it. Never.

MrStuffins

Of course.

I used to wear a suit and walk door to door with my friend preaching the virtues of Atheism.......... didn't you all?

Goduznt Xzst

My OH is pretty much Atheist because of me, coming from a fairly conservative Christian background.

I didn't actively preach to her, it was more a case of when she would make a statement to me and I would let her know that I didn't agree with it, she would go away and research the doctrine she had been taught as a child in the belief that the evidence would also support it (God said it, it must be true)

The more she researched and learnt about her own religion the less she believed it. She eventually just stopped being able to have faith in it.

I believe this is the case for a lot of western atheists (the studies about atheists knowing the most about religions would seem to confirm this) that they reach a point where they want to know more about their religion from a source external to the priests and believers within it in the hope of making their faith stronger, but end up inadvertantly de-converting themselves in the process.

Dades

grizzly wrote: »

Have you ever converted anyone to atheism?

Not as far as I know!

rational

Dades wrote: »

Not as far as I know!

Now atheism has converts? Question sounds as if could have come from a religious person:rolleyes:

ArtSmart

I tried, but my application was refused

(by the Atheistic Council)

:shrug

Edit Oh, I thought you asked have you tried to convert...etc.

still, I stand by my funniness.

rational

liamw wrote: »

Most people don't need to be converted, they are atheist but just don't realise it. I just try to highlight this to people whenever the subject comes up. It's amazing how many people just don't think about it. Never.

Where you see the word atheist in above post replace with christian.:rolleyes:

Dades

rational wrote: »

Now atheism has converts? Question sounds as if could have come from a religious person:rolleyes:

Eh, to convert can apply with any belief or opinion. Save your rolleyes for a post that warrants them.

rational

Dades wrote: »

Eh, to convert can apply with any belief or opinion. Save your rolleyes for a post that warrants them.

You dont see any irony at all then?:rolleyes:

Save your rolleyes for a post that warrants them

Just took your advice.

strobe

rational wrote: »

You dont see any irony at all then?:rolleyes:

I don't see it. Could you point out the irony?

Dades

rational wrote: »

You dont see any irony at all then?:rolleyes:

What is so ironic about asking [someone with a belief] if the ever converted someone else to [that same belief]?

Belief could be Maradona over Pele, Oasis over Blur, veggies over meat, or no god over god(s). Honestly, just because the word 'convert' is often used with religious connotations does not provide any irony whatsoever.

liamw

The only irony I can see is in his name.

rational

Dades wrote: »

What is so ironic about asking [someone with a belief] if the ever converted someone else to [that same belief]?

Belief could be Maradona over Pele, Oasis over Blur, veggies over meat, or no god over god(s). Honestly, just because the word 'convert' is often used with religious connotations does not provide any irony whatsoever.

Thanks, that answers my question perfectly.

Improbable

No, but I did make one cry once when he got into debate with me about religion.

The Mad Hatter

Dades wrote: »

Eh, to convert can apply with any belief or opinion. Save your rolleyes for a post that warrants them.

That was a post that warranted them. In fact, I can't think of a more appropriate response.

nozzferrahhtoo

I have converted few enough to be counted on most my fingers.

Strangely however I have never converted anyone from arguing the evidence or lack of it.

100% of the people I have converted I did so by actually sitting them down and ensuring they read the Bible that was the core of their faith.

Every one of them came out of that experience with some kind of “I was meant to be believing THAT stuff???” type of comment and they simply never went back to religion of any sort.

Choochtown

Most rational people are athiests. They don't believe in a sky wizard in the same way in which they believe that grass is green or Dublin is the biggest city in Ireland etc.

In the case of catholicism, this partly explains the need for a lot of them to meet once a week and convince themselves it must be true. If enough people meet and chant "Amen" or "The Creed" for years and years from the age of 2 until death, it can become "truth" for them ... but not real truth (green grass etc.)

Just in case rationality gets in the way, we have communion coercerced upon a child at the age when their young logical mind will question faries, santa and sky wizards. We have confirmation a few years later to try to keep them on track.

A few years later the pressure for many is on to marry within the religious ceremony and prepare for this with the guidance of an unmarried self-proclaimed virgin. They must promise faithfully to continue the cycle of "belief" by bringing any offspring up the same way.

I know many posters here underestimate the pressure felt by many to adhere to the above from family and neighbours and even resent people who aren't true to their non-beliefs. Thankfully I'm "out" and haven't succumbed but I know of many who play along because it's easier. They no more believe than I do. They continue playing along because the alternative is falling out with family, being judged by neighbours (rural areas), denying their children school with their friends or their "big day" (communion) etc.

mikhail

rational wrote: »

Where you see the word atheist in above post replace with christian.:rolleyes:

The Pope has condemned the a la carte masses as not really Christian. I think the claim you're quoting is a little too broad, but there certainly seems to be a substantial number of people in this country who are Catholic in name only. They attend weddings, funerals, etc. but almost never mass. They don't read the bible, don't pray very often (mostly when someone they love is sick) if at all and don't really think about their faith. What percentage of those considered Catholics fall into this group, I don't know, and calling them essentially atheist may be a bit of a stretch, but I think the reasoning behind the post is clear enough, and your ridicule is unjustified.

Morrigin

Not that I know have but a discussion I had on a wedding website once convinced an a la carte Catholic to have a civil ceremony instead of getting married in a church.

Gregor Samsa

My mother came to be an atheist (from being a fairly observant Catholic) mainly through conversation and discussion with me.

She was also a huge fan of Carl Sagan, and I think Cosmos (both the book and the TV series) helped her down that path too.

But on her deathbed, she specifically thanked me for helping her shed her fear of death and and ridding her of the burden that a belief in divine judgement brings.

She died peacefully.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I've had arguments with believers but when they start looking upset by holes being torn in their belief system I can't help but feel guilty and change the subject.

I'd make a terrible athevangelicist

Dades

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I've had arguments with believers but when they start looking upset by holes being torn in their belief system I can't help but feel guilty and change the subject.

I'd make a terrible athevangelicist

Ha! I am exactly the same. I feel terribly guilty pulling the blanket off, so to speak.

No doubt we're still a pair of "militant atheists", though.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

What is so ironic about asking [someone with a belief] if the ever converted someone else to [that same belief]?

Belief could be Maradona over Pele, Oasis over Blur, veggies over meat,

BLASPHEMY!!!!

Improbable wrote: »

No, but I did make one cry once when he got into debate with me about religion.

Details? [/sadistic]

c_man

I've never set out to convert anyone. Though I have a few friends who were one-time believers and to my surprise switched sides on the matter. These were the kind of people whom you'd never think would abandon Catholicism. Maybe the auld drunken debates and that made a difference. Maybe not.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

I've had arguments with believers but when they start looking upset by holes being torn in their belief system I can't help but feel guilty and change the subject.

Ah I know that feeling. Happens with discussions on psychics, ghosts etc. aswell!

redfacedbear

Not conversions as such as the the non-belief was already there, but a couple of friends rather wooly thinking on such matters crystalised after some discussions with myself. One in particular was very much the 'not believing in god is one thing, but an athiest!' type before we got talking.

rational

Ha! I am exactly the same. I feel terribly guilty pulling the blanket off, so to speak.

I've had arguments with believers but when they start looking upset by holes being torn in their belief

but I did make one cry once when he got into debate with me about religion.

100% of the people I have converted I did so by actually sitting them down and ensuring they read the Bible that was the core of their faith.

Every one of them came out of that experience with some kind of “I was meant to be believing THAT stuff???” type of comment and they simply never went back to religion of any sort.

Mighty oaks from little acorns grow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwYEAURXpbc


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL0SOHmAo-w


Do you people have any how smug you sound. If the above were quoted by young christian fundemenalists at a christian band camp I would understand but you people are supposed to be rational and non religious. Your smugness reminds me a little of the great man.

Sam Vimes

rational wrote: »

Do you people have any how smug you sound. If the above were quoted by young christian fundemenalists at a christian band camp I would understand but you people are supposed to be rational and non religious. Your smugness reminds me a little of the great man.

The good old Jimmy Carr quote is always appropriate: I'm not arrogant. The word you're looking for is 'correct'.


Tell me, would you still call them smug if you replaced belief in god with belief in leprechauns when considering the above quotes?

rational

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The good old Jimmy Carr quote is always appropriate: I'm not arrogant. The word you're looking for is 'correct'.

Funny

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Tell me, would you still call them smug if you replaced belief in god with belief in leprechauns when considering the above quotes?

Or maybe unicorns??

Yes i'd call them smug and stupid. But they are smug and oh soooooo knowingly clever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJnKm6ftPu0

Sam Vimes

rational wrote: »

Or maybe unicorns??

Yes i'd call them smug and stupid. But they are smug and oh soooooo knowingly clever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJnKm6ftPu0

So, just to be clear, if someone said they "felt guilty at pulling the blanket off" a believer in leprechauns or unicorns, you would call that person smug and stupid?

Is that actually what you are saying to me?

rational

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So, just to be clear, if someone said they "felt guilty at pulling the blanket off" a believer in leprechauns, you would call that person smug and stupid?

Is that actually what you are saying to me?

We really are on different wave lengths are'nt we?

Sam Vimes

rational wrote: »

We really are on different wave lengths are'nt we?

Yes indeed I think we are. It appears your wavelength is one where no matter how utterly batsh!t crazy and ludicrous a belief is, one is smug and stupid if one is of the opinion that one is better informed than the believer in said lunacy, regardless of how well founded and logically, evidentially and experientially supported this opinion may be. Fair enough

Dades

rational wrote: »

Your smugness reminds me a little of the great man.

I'm so glad we remind you of great men.

Must be the reason you hang out here so much.

rational

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes indeed I think we are. It appears your wavelength is one where no matter how utterly batsh!t crazy and ludicrous a belief is, one is smug and stupid if one is of the opinion that one is better informed than the believer in said lunacy, regardless of how well founded and logically and evidentially supported this opinion may be. Fair enough

You set up and you have knocked it down. Well done on creating and winning your own argument. Im not taking part in it. Its not the point of my posts. Im not equating anything with anything else here. Do you get that?? You are!

rational

Dades wrote: »

I'm so glad we remind you of great men.

Must be the reason you hang out here so much.

Oh wow, What a brilliant reposte. Dades how many posts did it take for you to come up with that?? I actually expected more from you. Seriously. So childish.

Sam Vimes

rational wrote: »

You set up and you have knocked it down. Well done on creating and winning your own argument. Im not taking part in it. Its not the point of my posts. Im not equating anything with anything else here. Do you get that?? You are!

I asked you if you would still consider those remarks smug and stupid if they were referring to believers in leprechauns and you said you would. So just how ludicrous must a belief be before you would think that someone could suggest that, for example, someone else is under a metaphorical blanket that could be metaphorically pulled off, without being labelled smug and stupid?

edit: or must one always pretend that someone's opinion is valid and not batsh!t crazy, lest you be labelled smug?

Galvasean

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I asked you if you would still consider those remarks smug and stupid if they were referring to believers in leprechauns and you said you would. So just how ludicrous must a belief be before you would think that someone could suggest that, for example, someone else is under a metaphorical blanket that could be metaphorically pulled off, without being labelled smug and stupid?

Don't you get it? We atheists have to remain quiet and let religious beliefs piss all over us. Otherwise we are militant and/or smug.

rational

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I asked you if you would still consider those remarks smug and stupid if they were referring to believers in leprechauns and you said you would. So just how ludicrous must a belief be before you would think that someone could suggest that, for example, someone else is under a metaphorical blanket that could be metaphorically pulled off, without being labelled smug and stupid?

You can believe yourself to be right about something but not be annoying smug to everyone else about that belief. That goes for all of us. And that goes even if you are right about. IN fact especially if you are right.

Dades

rational - you need to cop on.

You have nothing to offer this thread whatsoever apart from off thread remarks and accusations of smugness. You have no right to get objectionable about glib responses you get to your glib remarks.

If you have an issue with this, take it to PM and do not post about it here or I will remove you. Otherwise post something relevant or not at all.

Sam Vimes

Galvasean wrote: »

Don't you get it? We atheists have to remain quiet and let religious beliefs piss all over us. Otherwise we are militant and/or smug.

rational

Galvasean wrote: »

Don't you get it? We atheists have to remain quiet and let religious beliefs piss all over us. Otherwise we are militant and/or smug.

SO the people being converted to atheism were "pissing over the posters"?

Galvasean

rational wrote: »

You can believe yourself to be right about something but not be annoying smug to everyone else about that belief. That goes for all of us. And that goes even if you are right about. IN fact especially if you are right.

Trust me. It's much worse when someone is smug about something when they are clearly wrong.

*Horrific memories to fourth class when I was trying to explain to my teacher how a crab is a crustacean as opposed to a fish.
"It's called shellFISH for a reason Sean :rolleyes"
Smug bint. :mad: