How to Convert a Christian to Atheism

56

Many people ask me how to convert their christian or religious family / friends to atheism. Becoming an atheist does not happen overnight, and it can’t be forced. This is my advice on how to talk to deeply religious people. Let me know your advice in the comments below!

Atheist Hangout: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdO6NeBVl2Y
Talk on amygdala hijacking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_7YXVC5hyU

ATHEIST / LOGIC shirts: http://www.jaclynglenn.com
BE MY PATREON! http://www.patreon.com/Jaclyn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Main channel: http://www.youtube.com/Jaclyn
Vlog channel: http://www.youtube.com/JaclynVlogs
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jaclynglenn
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/JaclynGlenn
Tumblr: http://jaclynglenn.tumblr.com/
Google +: https://plus.google.com/+JaclynGlenn
Instagram: http://instagram.com/jaclynglenn

I only accept friends that I know, but this is if you want to follow my personal facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JaclynLovesCats

BUSINESS INQUIRIES ONLY: jaclynglenn@gmail.com

Special thanks to Dave for my outro song: https://www.youtube.com/davedays
Free download: https://soundcloud.com/jaclynglenn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BE MY PATREON! http://www.patreon.com/Jaclyn

*Please help support this channel!*
Use the email jaclynglenn@gmail.com to donate via PayPal, or go to https://www.youtube.com/user/JaclynGlenn?feature=watch and click the “donate” button at the top right corner. =)

Send me snail mail!
PO BOX 643051
LOS ANGELES CA 90064

Thanks for watching my video on how to convert a christian to atheist. I hardly ever hear of an atheist converting to christianity, so I’m hopeful that the number of atheists will continue to grow. No christian or creationist is unworthy of a civil conversation about atheism and religion. If I was able to deconvert, anyone can :)

SIMILAR ARTICLES

56 COMMENTS

  1. Seeds of doubt?

    My approach, if I attempt an approach. Recently on one of my question and answer sites a religious type has been touting a youtube video on the archaeological evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah. Since this ” evidence ” really screws up the biblical time line ( by thousands of years ) one can plant a easy seed of doubt. The religious type that posted the question with ” evidence ” is probably not going to change, but the articles showing the time line screw up might get some of those less committed to think things out.

    • just about every story in the bible was put together by the first council @ nicea in 325 AD for emporer Constantine upon his mothers urging rome was the mightiest power on the flat earth at the time and she wanted to change that states religion so they built one! mostly by using older myths and legends and even making up stuff for the mindless masses and they will believe under the penalty of death ..I think the story of ” Sodom and Gomorrah” comes from what happened in 79 AD mt. versuvious with Pompeii and Herculaneum in Italy where it looked like all the dead were statues incased in SALT (stone)..lots wife turned and became a pillar of salt! oh so that ‘s what happened GOD DID IT many people believe the bible was written at the beginning of time or that Christianity started 2012 yrs ago ahh no rome wouldn’t have even bothered itself with a guy walking around with a few others telling them there is a better life ahead the only catch is you got to die first moses..no Hebrew myth,,noah..no ancient Mesopotamia epic of Gilgamesh many stories of virgin births to GODS,RISIN GODS miracles beyond belief ..in the story of David and Golith..Hebrew the savior was to be born in THE CITY OF DAVID which is Jerusalem not Bethlehem so on and so on we’re not mindless anymore we live in the info age and the basis for EVERY story can be found today they were clever but evidently never did any proof reading the one I really like is Moses he walked with the Israelites for 40 years to go 400 miles about 1200 bc the Egyptians had already finished their pyramid buildings 800-1000 yrs earlier and the prince of egypts name was never carved in granite because MOSES was a term that meant “son of” as in tut-moses the son of tut or it’s plural MASES was a term that meant belongs to as in ra-mases belongs to ra the sun god..so go forth and tend thy flock and preach the word to all corners of the world we need more money..wonder if these guys ever get embarrassed by begging for money on tv every week..what a gig

  2. In the past I’ve been spectacularly unsuccessful in changing the mind of any theist despite using the best methods at my disposal. I’ve tried the Peter Boghossian method of refuting the faith claim to knowledge; I’ve tried pointing out the absolutely horrible lessons in morality and so on. All to no avail! Not that I really care what anyone believes, but I object to the assumption that I’m missing out on some important bit of knowledge.

    • You may have had more success than you realize. It takes time. In 10 years see how they are. This is not a fast process even though I would like it to be. As for caring what people think/believe, I think we should all care very much. The “Live and let live” concept is flawed. People who believe in imaginary friends are dangerous to us all. They halt medical research, and space research and the list goes on. They with their thoughts and beliefs could very much doom the human race. So please start caring about them and their thoughts and beliefs and convert convert convert. This is a war for humanity and we are not yet winning.

      • I guess you’re right. They’re able to throw rationality to the wind and somehow think they’re the better for it. Religion (of all types) constantly gets in the way. We are well able to come to ethical conclusions without the intrusive influence of any particular set of superstitions.

        Perhaps the cumulative effects of reasoning has long term results. I’ve noticed attitudes change in a lot of different areas. All for the good! I’d like religious belief to simply fade into irrelevance in my lifetime. I can see the trend, though it’s far from a reality as yet.

        • Nitya you’re absolutely right most of the churches in Europe are closing and in disrepair in fact in Ireland only one church is still open Ireland got fed up with the child abuse and stated closing them done one by one..looks like they’re coming here to get on the big boat being built by Ken Ham and hopefully sail off the edge of the earth..president George Bush senior had the opportunity to help with stem cell research ( which by the way comes from the umbilical cord and basically gets thrown away) and in his Christian mind the devil scientists wanted to build new people for parts..only god can build people…what kind of mindset would even think of such a thing..scientists can’t be moral only the choosen few can decide right and wrong..2000yrs ago a scratch would kill you by infection if not for science that’s why most of humanity is still here I really don’t have a problem with the people of faith but the corporations of faith

          • Corporations are people….. and the faith people have is the faith the corporation will have. Don’t let a person slide because they are just “one” who believes in gobblygook we must fight each and every one who believes in faith. It is a disease that we can cure.

  3. You can’t convert Christians to atheism. It all comes down to how people process and interpret their environment. Christians will always interpret their environments as if it was controlled by some purpose.

    The change from faith to empiricism will come when a person dares to rid them selves of the idea of a celestial benefactor. It is frightening to let go of your “celestial parent”, and some people will never leave the comfort of being told what to do by that “parent”.

    The only thing you can do is to appeal to the fact that God is a superfluous hypothesis.

  4. @ “denonde”

    Quote :

    “You can’t convert Christians to atheism.”

    …I’m inclined to agree, and remain suspicious of any “true believer” who makes such superficial claims of conversion.

    They tend to deliberately mask, but they slip up all the time. Their masks are readily transparent and easy to remove.

    I’ve already caught a couple pretenders here on this DF blog; a simple turn of phrase or vague declarations. It really surprised me when no one caught on to Virginia Heffernan, early in her game.

    They can be very dangerous saboteurs, especially when they are educated. Heffernan is no dummy.

    Ivy league “education” is the most egregious mask creationist use; they really believe their sheepskin credentials gives them a final authority and moral license to spin.

    What’s scary is how many of the truly educated are duped by them. Would not surprise me in the least to find a creationist mole or two, right here among the DF staff. I already have my suspicions, 3000 miles from the “scene of the crime”.

    Staff : Eyes wide open !

    • james ballard – I’ve already caught a couple pretenders here on this DF blog; a simple turn of phrase or vague declarations.

      From time to time, pretenders turn up at RDFS.
      “Agnostic” is a favourite term for “theist with a couple of minor doubts”!

  5. @ “Alan4discussion”

    Quote :

    ” ‘Agnostic’ is a favorite term for ‘theist with a couple of minor doubts’! ”

    Yes it is. And I jump on that immediately because it’s been my experience that most don’t understand the term, even after they google it !

    I AM an agnostic… sometimes…usually… at least by dint of it’s superficial definition, and have so declared myself on my DF blog “profile”, although that’s probably also disappeared along with what few comments I’ve made here in the recent past.

    I’m really loathe to pigeonhole myself, because of the uniformed who tend to throw their debris back at you should you dare admit to anything…All the more reason for being an agnostic.

    In my sandbox, anyhow… :)

  6. [ MODERATORS : This keeps being blocked as a "duplicate comment" ! ]

    @ “Alan4discussion”

    Quote :

    ” ‘Agnostic’ is a favorite term for ‘theist with a couple of minor doubts’! ”

    Yes it is. And I jump on that immediately because it’s been my experience that most don’t understand the term, even after they google it !

    I AM an agnostic… sometimes…usually… at least by dint of it’s superficial definition, and have so declared myself on my DF blog “profile”, although that’s probably also disappeared along with what few comments I’ve made here in the recent past.

    I’m really loathe to pigeonhole myself, because of the uninformed who tend to throw their debris back at you should you dare admit to anything…All the more reason for being an agnostic.

    In my sandbox, anyhow… :)

  7. @James Ballard

    . They tend to deliberately mask, but they slip up all the time. Their masks are readily transparent and easy to remove.

    Another mask frequently adopted by the deceiver is that of a deist. They generally start with a vague position of having no belief in specific dogma and gradually reveal a set of beliefs that can readily identified as belonging to the lunatic fringe.

  8. @ “Nitya”

    …Yes…I’ve seen that as well. Usually a couple challenge sentences with them and you’ve spotted them. They mysteriously go away…Until they find another avatar.

    This thread reminds me of my vigilant (and lonely !) stance against cyber anonymity…But that’s another blog…

    • …Yes…I’ve seen that as well. Usually a couple challenge sentences with them and you’ve spotted them. They mysteriously go away…Until they find another avatar.

      Indeed. They initially scoff at the foolish belief of an elderly fellow in the sky and in the blink of an eye start quoting Thomas Aquinas and support the notion of a 6k y.o. Universe…..but we’re not fooled! ;-)

    • Atheism is indeed a creed. As an atheist, you make a determination that “there is no God”. In some sense this is just as silly as stating that “there is a God”. In both cases you make a statement asserting something for which there is no evidence yet.
      Personally, I prefer to call myself an Agnostic, or sometimes a Teapot Agnostic (as a nod and a wink to the late, great Bertrand Russell). As an agnostic, I will only be convinced by evidence, and the evidence for a creator are so far non existent.

      • I can appreciate what you (denonde) are saying here, but I have to respectfully disagree (not about the end part). Generally the term creed refers to a specific faith and there is no faith in Atheism. If you want to define the term “creed” by limiting it to mean simply “belief” then it is my creed that hot dogs are delicious.

        • Thank you for your reply Jamie, I do think I agree with you on the subject of hot dogs.

          The word creed means a “statement of faith”, among other things. The context of the word is indeed that of a religious community.

          Depending on how you interpret the word Atheism you can understand it as a statement of belief that there is no God. I use the word God for brevity, but I include it to mean any past present and future deities we care to mention, separate or arranged in bunches, including pixies and unicorns.

          Admittedly, you can find other meanings in the word Atheism, but I feel that some atheists have all the behavioural hallmarks of a religious sect. I see the lust for winning arguments and luring people over into the light.

          I don’t think it furthers the cause of Atheism or Agnosticism to try to best of finesse people you are in debating with. Ones Theist opponent will just close his or her ears and you will stand there blabbing all alone. It has happened to me many times. I found that the best strategy is to engage, clarify rather than enrage and challenge.

          This off cause doesn’t mean that I advocate letting false and misleading statements and actions pass unchallenged. But I do see a big difference between someone who claims that the world is 6000 years old, and someone who seeks comfort from a universe they don’t understand. One makes a counter factual statement, and should be told so. The other is just alone and afraid in the dark and wants to find a small fire to warm his hands by.

          As Atheists and Agnostics, let us not adopt the tactics of the zealots. Let us accept humans of in all their frailty. We can grow our ranks if we act with love rather than righteousness.

          Atheism might not be a religion or a creed in the traditional sense, but I feel like some of us act like it was, and that is counter productive.

          • denonde – Depending on how you interpret the word Atheism you can understand it as a statement of belief that there is no God.

            This as I pointed out earlier, is the fallacy of absolutes. (Alan4discussion Jun 30, 2014 at 1:46 pm)
            It is a false equivalence to suggest that a recognition of the lack of evidence for gods, (and refuting evidence against some of them) equates with the blind faith of assuming a particular god.
            A 99%+ probability does not equate with a 0% probability (or a 0.000000001% probability) because it is not an absolute proved 100% certainty.
            We do not take the claims of a “FLAT EARTH” seriously, simply because we do not have a specification for every planet in the Universe.

            The theist use of the term “no god”, almost always means “denial of their particular god”.
            Look in the archives.
            (You will find numerous examples of, “Science cannot DISPROVE some vague thingummy in the big bang, THEREFORE atheists can’t refute Jesus is god” – God with a capital “G”!) Atheists can refute the historical claims about the god with a capital “G” and legitimately claim no such god exists!

            I use the word God for brevity, but I include it to mean any past present and future deities we care to mention, separate or arranged in bunches, including pixies and unicorns.

            That is the earlier point I made about the onus of proof and the hiding of gods behind a lack of definition of the term “god”.(Alan4discussion Jun 30, 2014 at 1:46 pm)

            Admittedly, you can find other meanings in the word Atheism, but I feel that some atheists have all the behavioural hallmarks of a religious sect. I see the lust for winning arguments and luring people over into the light.

            Scientific education is about combating ignorance and misconceptions, to establish evidenced understanding. Mistaken views cause real problems in the real world. Winning arguments and gaining social/political support for evidence-based decisions and law-making, is very important – especially in the face of dogmatic opposition.
            Acquiescing to dogmatic nonsense, for a quiet life, does not make a constructive contribution to society!

            I don’t think it furthers the cause of Atheism or Agnosticism to try to best of finesse people you are in debating with.

            That depends if you are holding an individual conversation, or if there is a wider audience. Refuting false claims in front of an audience is not the same as a personal conversation.

            One’s Theist opponent will just close his or her ears and you will stand there blabbing all alone. It has happened to me many times. I found that the best strategy is to engage, clarify rather than enrage and challenge.

            The dogmatic faith-thinkers are probably not going to listen anyway, as the bigoted ignorant regard even the best explanations of subjects they can’t understand, as “babble”! – but those whose compartmentalisation leaves them open to evidence and reasoning, can have their scientific / rational compartment, gradually expanded, and their areas of ignorant assumption, reduced.

      • denonde – Atheism is indeed a creed. As an atheist, you make a determination that “there is no God”.

        This is pandering to fallacy of absolutes, – and for it to have any credibility it requires the absence of a credible definition of the term “god”!
        Even strong atheists would normally claim: ” On the basis of probability, the absence of evidence for gods and supernatural claims, means there is no reason to believe in their existence”.

        In some sense this is just as silly as stating that “there is a God”.

        What? No Thor, No Zeus, No Vishnu, No Ra No Asherah, No Aphrodite? Seriously? – Is stating a lack of belief in these silly?

        Not at all! – Once theists are pressed to define their god(s) and its (their) supposed supernatural properties, these gods are easily refuted.

        In both cases you make a statement asserting something for which there is no evidence yet.

        The lack of a refutation of gods is usually dependent on the lack of a definition of something to refute. – A vague entity with no definable properties is identical to the definition of “nothing”!
        (You can’t refute my vague, infinite, omnipotent, invisible undefined, magic thingummy!)

        Personally, I prefer to call myself an Agnostic, or sometimes a Teapot Agnostic (as a nod and a wink to the late, great Bertrand Russell). As an agnostic, I will only be convinced by evidence, and the evidence for a creator are so far non existent.

        The term “agnostic atheist” has been used by Richard and others, but that is probably a too advanced a concept for most believers.

        Once claims are made that these (theist) gods interfere in any way with the material world or universe, they become refutable by science.
        Only the vague (deist) non-entities hidden in the meaningless use of obfuscating language, are irrefutable, due to being unidentifiable, lacking defined properties, and hidden in gapology!

        We can therefore be agnostic to remote possibilities of vague, distant, unidentifiable deities, which do not interfere in the operation of the universe, while being atheistic, towards the theist gods with their attributed meddling supernatural activities here on Earth.

    • Wouldn’t the term “Biblical ignoramus” apply to the great majority of Christians? A friend of mine who was brought up in the Catholic church told me that Catholic Sunday school has very little Bible reading in their curriculum. She claims that the mainline Protestants know their Bible much better than Catholics do. I (forcibly) attended Methodist Sunday school until mid to late teens and I spent many excruciatingly boring hours reading and discussing that crappy book so I couldn’t disagree on my end of the claim. I asked her, “If Catholic kids aren’t reading and discussing the Bible in class then what the hell are they doing then?” She said, “talking about ethics.” …sound of crickets chirping…

      • I’ve had catholic friends and my catholic husband say the same thing. Actually it gets them out of a lot of holes. If an inconsistency is pointed out, they have a Get out of jail free card up their sleeve. Even though I’ve spent most of my life as an atheist, I’ve still managed to pick up a great deal of biblical knowledge (this is before I set myself the task of reading the text).

        When I was at school, religious instruction classes were all but compulsory. If my parents had chosen to request my exclusion, I would have been set apart from everyone else. My personality was not strong enough to take on this degree of alienation from my peers.

        PS my parents would have removed me from the scripture class had they known it was an option, as it is today. In retrospect, I’m glad that I attended because I know what I’m up against.

        • I know what I’m up against.

          Very valuable indeed. I am happy to have that basic Bible knowledge available when I need it. I only wish I could have all those Sunday mornings back again so I could spend them doing something better than Bible reading. Something like a walk in the woods or on the beach or maybe making some progress on the classics or visiting with old folks in the nursing home. Many better ideas come to mind. As an adult I could read through the stupid book, take notes and file them away on a dusty shelf and be done with it in a fraction of the time it took me through childhood and teens.

          Also the Koran is another book that must be read if one has any hope of holding their own in discussion with it’s deluded fans. A painful literary slog but useful nonetheless.

          • I’ve made a couple of vain attempts at the Koran, but unfortunately the sheer, mindless repetition got the better of me. It would take a great deal of faith to see any value in the text.

            Perhaps I should have a go at reading the Hadith? It hard to know where the wisdom is hiding.

  9. If I’m having a “discussion” about the existence of God with a believer:
    1. Try to remember to respect their beliefs and recognize that these beliefs are important to them. That focus helps prevent a discussion from devolving into a shouting match where no minds are ever changed.
    2. Realize that you are probably not going to change their mind, as these are core beliefs that are very difficult to let go of.
    3. THE BIG TIP… frame your points in the form of questions. Statements make people defensive; questions keep people’s guards down. Questions allow you to direct the dialogue, but it’s so subtle that the other person typically doesn’t realize it.

    For example, if someone says they believe the Earth is only 5,000 years old, you can STATE, “look at all of this evidence that contradicts this”… The typical response is to ignore your point and for the other person to try to rationalize their’s. On the other hand, if you ASK, “if the Earth is only 5,000 years old, how do you explain this evidence?”, you are more likely to prevent the discussion from becoming confrontational AND you force them to address the weakness in their argument.

    It is important to listen to their response and acknowledge if they make a good point. If you find holes in their response, point them out in the form of additional questions.

    • Very good strategy, David. A bit like playing the children’s game of Hot Potato. The goal is not to hit the opponent with the potato, but making sure the hot potato stays in their hands so they have to deal with it.

    • I like what you said David but the god believers of all religions have done despicable things to humanity by way of murdering them god grants them the right and obligation to pick up arms and kill others with no remorse these thoughts and people have to be the most violent animals that have ever lived on this planet no other animal has killed another for it’s belief system animals will kill for survival.it’s food source and protection of it’s young..even the dinosaurs had more morals than religions

      • …god believers of all religions have done despicable things to
        humanity by way of murdering them god grants them the right and
        obligation to pick up arms and kill others with no remorse…

        Do you believe killing is moral when motivated by a person’s internal standards? Should morality be judged situationally and subjectively or can it be measured by universal “objective” external standards?

        Hitchens stated he would under no circumstances take part in a dialog with Muslim extremists and people holding such beliefs should be extirpated until those beliefs no longer exist.

  10. I recently had a discussion with someone who believes in God, Evolution AND the bible. They believed the part in the bible about Adam and Eve being created and were surprised at their own confusion when I asked how Evolution fitted into that picture. Then it dawned on me that as a child, even though I believed humans had evolved, I took my grandmother’s opinion without question that God made Adam and Eve as the first ever humans. I too believed in both opposing views without question.
    How weird is that?

    • Hi Trish, It is fair to say that the Gospel writers portray Jesus as one who believed both that Adam and Eve were historical and that their disobedience changed things for us. For Evangelical Christians Jesus is God and their God is infallible. Without a real Adam and Eve there would have been no fall. In a world without sin, why would the world need a saviour?

    • That is not weird at all. Humans can hold diametrically and competing beliefs with ease. We use context to rationalize our beliefs.
      While in your grandmothers context, it was beneficial to believe in Adam and Eve.

      We evolved to be able to react in context rather than obsessing about the complete logical solution to a dilemma. For our simian forefathers it made sense to find a quick solution to an approaching predator, rather than working out a complete and consistent, albeit slower solution.

  11. If you want to make a difference it’s important to present in a nice manner. So get a lavalier microphone and smooth out some of your edits. Every successful preacher I see on TV is polished and just looks nice, even though they are speaking crap. You have great advice to give but too many will turn off because of the presentation. Hope this helps.

    Michael

  12. It takes a village (like the RD Foundation) and not just an atheist to convert a theist. Now if Hillary had written a book like that, I would be a lot more enthusiastic about her.

    Hoping we’ll have an atheist president within my lifetime,

    Thomas

  13. One thing that I hate about that girl is that I don’t understand when she talks. She speaks too fast and with a flat accent which makes it all gibberish to non-native speakers like me.

    So that’s one more interesting video that I’m not going to watch.

    I really think that anything of importance should be WRITTEN DOWN. She would have spent less time publishing an article, plus written information is much easier to read in depth.

  14. Until it’s more fully understood what causes belief it will be difficult to dissuade the believer.

    A couple of thoughts on that:
    In light of the vast array of current and previous religions with their pantheon of Gods, innumerable stories and creeds, it could be concluded that the actual content of a religion doesn’t matter and that the plausibility of the various stories of the prophets, deities are irrelevant to the success of the religion. If this hypnosis is correct then pointing out the fallacies of their sacred books will be fruitless.

    So if the compelling nature of any given myth isn’t the cause of unwavering belief, what is? I will suggest a couple:

    A) Its all True.

    This is not possible as many faiths have as a fundamental tenant that they are the only true religion.

    B) There was an evolutionary advantage to ‘faith’.

    It isn’t too hard to put together a hypothesis that religion had an evolutionary advantage. Historically it added cohesion and order to the social group. It often dispensed rule to the clan leader through divine right. So we may have evolved a propensity to accept this structure for its survival benefits. We evolved superstitious minds for a reason. Was the sound in the bushes the wind or was it a leopard? Well it was probably the wind, logically it is a little windy and we haven’t seen any leopards recently but if it wasn’t the wind you’re dead.

    If the state of belief is operating at a genetic level, this will change your task somewhat. We are not dealing in the world of the rational. In theist vs. atheist debates they are not in the same room or playing by the same rules.

    We have many other things to overcome from our genetic past that no longer serve us, such as the ‘greedy monkey’ that wants all the bananas for itself. We may run out of time before we develop the necessary social memes to overcome that one.

    Knowing what you are up against is the first step.

    • Ernest Jun 29, 2014 at 7:15 pm

      Until it’s more fully understood what causes belief it will be difficult to dissuade the believer.

      The neuro-psychologists are working on it!

      Researchers find brain differences between believers and non-believers – http://phys.org/news155404273.html

      Compared to non-believers, the religious participants showed significantly less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when attention and control are needed, usually as a result of some anxiety-producing event like making a mistake. The stronger their religious zeal and the more they believed in God, the less their ACC fired in response to their own errors, and the fewer errors they made.

      Apparently believers are less likely to be bothered, stressed or panic over making mistakes.

  15. Suggestions on this topic: 1. Is be really well read on the topic of Religion. This doesn’t mean you have to be Religious at all, or even read the bible, as its mostly in code anyway, meanings lost over time. It takes an indifferent scholar to truly bring forth its true writings and intentions, but what Religion actually is, is Human history. And its fascinating, and highly entertaining as well! Better than most novels! Its imbedded in all Human activity going back into Antiquity, and as a historical topic, is inseparable from it.
    So….Why does this help in the so called “Converting someone from Religious to Atheism” if that is important to you? Because, then you will actually know “MORE” than the religious person you are taking to. You will know how to answer directly to their chosen faith belief with a direct answer. You will know the origins of their belief systems, and they will not. You will know when certain beliefs were invented, or when they came about, and for what reasons. Knowing the history of many things help too, like Astronomy, Astrology, which, before church intervention, were one body of study, and not that long ago. Why is that important? Because modern religion is based on, and permeated with this topic, and is ya…., actually based on it and of its origins. I became a non believer, through knowledge. Learning about History itself. I was looking for answers in many ways, I was fascinated with the mystery of why so many stories in the bible could not be answered, or found, or explained. Even by the Clergy themselves could not answer! Their only answer is, just have faith, or the devil did it. lol Sigh, so lame and tiresome. Like a child, “I know you are, but what am I” Has about as much weight as that answer. So. What did I read, to come to this conclusion akin to Atheism, or non belief? I encourage everyone to read Lawrence Gardner’s books. He has an unbelievable grasp on Human Ancient history, the origins of religion, belief, and human knowledge. Book after book, page after page, you will find the lid of your head slowly coming off. lol Also, Ahmed Osman, has many fascinating books, and through his Authorship of finding the facts, I learned the true origins of the bible itself, and even who the characters actually were in history within them. The big stories mostly originate in Egypt. For instance, Moses, who is considered the Grandfather of Modern Monotheism, is actually in fact Akhenaten, a Hebrew/Egyptian descended Pharaoh of Egypt, father of Tutankhamun. Learn about how the life of both these characters in History, actually more than mirror one another, but are in fact, an exact match. Why is this important? Because it shows, he was King of Egypt, and if so, then what other stories are in code, and covered up in the bible, and why? It shows Moses not as a profit, but as a King, trying to arrest power from a people. It shows that he took the ten commandments from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, which predates him by 3000 years or more. This is fuel, for the real truth, it helps open people’s eyes, where others would work and venture to close them.
    2. Simple beliefs in Modern religion, that their foundations are built on, can be taken down, with simple facts from True history, and from Astronomy itself. Watch Zeitgeist the movie on youtube, to get many of these facts. Like, who were the 3 kings? They were Stars in the sky, not men bearing gifts. and the same exact tale is told in dozens of “Sun Kings” that predate Jesus. Walking on water? A supposed Miracle? Or handed down as an ancient saying of the “Chosen ones” as to allude to their relationship to the Sun (God) in the sky itself. as in , when the sun reflects on the waters, it seems to walk across water. With all my reading, which has been fascinating, I have found an answer in history for virtually every Christian “Faith” based belief. They are all explainable. Including, virgin births, Jesus’s resurrection is explainable, and dismissible. All from books. So, have some reading enjoyment! and, be able to battle, or dismiss, that is the real word, dismiss, any babble that has been handed down to any believer, of which they have whole heartedly taken as the truth. Remember, we all once believed in Santa Claus as well. And, we survived it. ;) Knowledge changed that.

  16. Breaking News: Talking about her forthcoming tour of the Middle-East, former Christian fundy Jaclyn Glenn said she is very confident of coverting the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, Isis, and Al Qaeda to atheism. She is expected to round off her tour with a visit to Tehran, where she will present a signed copy of her latest video to the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah ali Khamenei.

  17. The argument to convert someone from theism to atheism is a slippery sloop. The arguments pro-atheism suffer from the same deficiencies as the arguments pro-theism. Both sides of this argument are faith based rather than reasoned from evidence. Atheism, lacking supporting evidence just becomes another religion.

    • Gregory Jun 30, 2014 at 9:48 am

      The argument to convert someone from theism to atheism is a slippery sloop. The arguments pro-atheism suffer from the same deficiencies as the arguments pro-theism.

      Not at all! The “arguments for atheism” are not arguments FOR atheism at all. They are arguments against the false assumptions of the multitude of theist cults, and the damaging effects these have on people in societies.
      They are also arguments against the proven-to-be-flawed method of blind “faith-thinking” belief, as a means of making decisions, along with the anti-science attitudes which this engenders.

      Both sides of this argument are faith based rather than reasoned from evidence.

      This is a false dichotomy. The successful record of scientific methodology and logical reasoning is not simply based on “faith”. Unlike most dogmatic “faith-claims”, it is what can be tested and shown to work in the real world.

      Atheism, lacking supporting evidence just becomes another religion.

      Atheism (non-belief in the thousands of gods people have invented) does not need “supporting evidence” (whatever that is?) anymore than “non-stamp-collecting”, or “non-smoking” needs “supporting evidence”. The onus of proof is on those making claims, and most historical religious claims, have already been refuted by science, or by historians using scientific methods.

      It is a strange characteristic of believers, that they think atheists are in denial of their pet god, rather than the reality of atheists being people who are aware of the lack of credible evidence to support ANY of the gods, people do follow, or have followed.

      Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. – for theist gods

  18. Why sink to their level ? There is no reason to ‘convert’ someone to atheism , it’s not a believe and there is nothing to convert as such. Trying to do so puts you on the same level as the door to door ‘can we tell you about Jesus Christ our lord and savior’ people. Let them be and if they want to argue about them just let them , if they are smart they will come to their own conclusions , if not they are not going to change their views anyway.
    Pointless video and in the end damaging for ‘normal atheists’. People like Jaclyn just make it seem like they are all ‘fundies’ trying to convert believers to their ‘religion’ which is not something that should be encouraged.

    • I essentially agree, but many disagree. The tactics people choose are an indication of whether their core belief is atheism or anti-theism.

      I just viewed Dawkin’s Voices of Science DVD, episode 2, and was most impressed with Steven Weinberg’s views on science and religion. His was a refreshing change of pace from the more militant advocates of atheism.

      • How many atheists actually push their views onto the unsuspecting? I would imagine the number to be very low. Usually the views of the atheist are aired in response to the believer actively pushing their own views. Our adversaries don’t see it that way of course. They’re doing me a favour by acquainting me with The Word.

        The topic doesn’t come up as a rule, unless someone of faith sees fit to bring it into the conversation. I would never refer to my lack of belief as an opening gambit with someone I’d just met. The chances are that they would not share my view so why alienate a potential friend by introducing our differences?

    • Joe – Let them be and if they want to argue about them just let them , if they are smart they will come to their own conclusions , if not they are not going to change their views anyway.

      The problem is that we can’t “let them be to” to use their dogmas to meddle in other people’s lives. Community decisions need to based on evidence, reasoning, and empathy with other people – not empathy with imaginary gods. Their supernatural delusions are not harmless to others!

      Examples like this, well illustrate the point of their opportunist seeking to impose their dogmas on everyone else whenever they are entrusted with positions of power! (Company directors, managers, judges etc.)

      http://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/hobby-lobby-hates-women-loves-jesus/

      The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of allowing Hobby Lobby to maintain the right to discriminate on others under the guise of “religious freedom”.

      . . . . . .To deny company responsibilities to provide medical services to US employees.

    • I somewhat agree with you. There is no need to actively try to “convert” people to atheism. However, I would say that people need to be taught more knowledge about science and the real reasons we are here. I think that this will naturally progress to atheism. My own realization that Christianity is not a valid viewpoint came from doubts about its truthfulness and also scientific curiosity. Even Richard Dawkins has said that the teaching of evolution leads to atheism. This may not be a very popular thing to say, however, I do believe it is the case. I have no respect whatsoever for Christians who once said that evolution is a lie and then (when all the evidence contradicted them) said that “evolution is true but god did it.”
      The evidence naturally points to atheism. In fact most people are atheistic to 99% of all gods that have ever existed. Atheis merely go one god further.

  19. I am now an atheist. However, this is a conclusion that I have come to very recently. I am 1 of 6 siblings and my entire family is very religious. In fact, if you had come up to me about a year ago and told me that I would have a massive change of views I would have thought you were crazy.
    I think that most religious people are very closed minded to many other arguments except for their own.

  20. I am now an atheist. However, this is a conclusion that I have come to very recently. I am 1 of 6 siblings and my entire family is very religious. In fact, if you had come up to me about a year ago and told me that I would have a massive change of views I would have thought you were crazy. I was a leader in my church youth group. I was also the lead guitarist and a vocalist in my church worship team.
    I think that most religious people are very closed minded to many other arguments except for their own.
    Because of this blind faith, there is no amount of evidence that anyone will be able to give to convince them that they are wrong. I was able to change my views simply because I had doubts about my faith. Now, I didn’t set about to lose my faith completely, however that is what happened. When you look at the amazing world before us, how could anyone say that a god made it? Looking back now I can’t even believe this is what I believed.
    Over the past year I have read many books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, & Daniel Dennet. I also really enjoy listening to their debates.
    When I first began listening to these debates I was rooting for the religious debater. But all of a sudden, one day I realized that I was rooting for the atheist debater. This was a major turning point for me. And also, it seems to me that no religious debater ever wins any debate. If their religion were true why can’t it hold up against science?
    It wasn’t until about a month ago that I finally decided that I’m an atheist. Well, I guess a better way to put it would be a tooth fairy agnostic. I can’t prove that god doesn’t exist. But he’s probably just as likely as the tooth fairy, unicorns, or the “flying teapot.”

Leave a Reply