The Atheist Blogger

Nick from the forums wants to have a word…

I would like to invite all Christians to have a responsible and peaceful discussion. Although I don’t think a website devoted to Atheism is on the priority list for any Christian, I just want to have a discussion with you.

I will not be cross and will not use offensive (I never do anyway) or sarcastic remarks.

I was a Christian before but had a change of mind. I would maybe like to share my experiences with you.

If you still think I’m a jerk for being an Atheist, that’s fine with me, but if you would like to live a better life with peace of mind, I urge you to listen just as I will to anything you have to say.

Thank you.
~Nick

If you are a Christian and want to take Nick up on his offer, join the forums and reply to his thread.

I was born an atheist, just like the rest of humanity. I was christened when I was 1 and became a Christian. When I was 11 I renounced my faith and became “uncertain” in the existence of gods. A little less than a year later I had converted fully to atheism. 9 years down the line, and I was wondering if “sitting on the fence” was a worthy term for agnostics, and when I had researched the original meaning of the term I realized that I’d been an agnostic atheist all along. A few weeks later, through some persuasive arguments from Kieran Bennett, I realize that whilst I’m agnostic about a so-called “unknown” god (i.e. the non-religious “creator” or “deist god”), I am gnostic about every other god humanity has ever believed in. Now I have no idea what I am. Technically speaking I’m mostly a gnostic atheist since I’m only agnostic about one particular god, but since I’m not fully gnostic I can’t label myself that. Furthermore, due to some recent conversations I had come to label myself as an apathetic agnostic atheist, or “one who doesn’t believe in gods, understands he can never be proved right or wrong, and really doesn’t care either way”. Of course this label is borderline ridiculous in common conversation.

Thus I deduce that labels are annoying, yet I can’t label myself “anti-label” since that would be hypocritical. Therefore I’m doing the most obvious thing. I’m reverting back to a single word:

Atheist

If agnosticism comes up in conversation someday I’ll just run for the nearest exit. I’m keeping my label as simple as I possibly can…

Whether you like the term “deconvert” or prefer “conversion to atheism”, a recent investigative essay by Kieran Bennett has had quite a varied response. In light of this, I thought it might be interesting to run a poll to see how many people attribute their “deconversion” to Kieran’s conclusive factors.

Unlike previous polls, you can select multiple answers since there are probably multiple reasons. I’ve tried to reword a few factors so that ex-Muslims, Jews etc can also answer.

 Loading ...

Kieran Bennett (an atheist blogger and member of the forums) has analysed 117 Christian deconversion stories, and written a very interesting and informative essay on “What works in deconverting Christians?“.

His investigation found that:

• 14.89% were dissatisfied with some of the answers given to them by priests or other religious people.
• 14.89% saw that the religious doctrine wasn’t compatible with science and reality.
• 12.76% came to the realisation that religious dogma was “internally incoherent” and illogical.
• 10.63% read the Bible and found that for the Holy Book of Christianity, it didn’t reflect modern day Christianity at all.
• 8.51% found the corruption and scandals following the church as a persuasive argument against following their doctrine.
• 8.51% gave up on prayer and religion when they realised that nobody was going to listen, let alone answer to them.
• 8.5% thought the similarities of Christianity with so many other religions (and yet so different at the same time) the primary factor of their deconversion.

Surprisingly, less people found that an exposure to atheism / philosophy / skepticism was a factor in their deconversion (I guess we’d better try harder). Likewise, only a couple people saw the association of violence with religion and attributed it to their lack of faith.

As for how we can deconvert more people, Bennett hits the nail on the head, and comes to the conclusion that whilst we can push and prod people towards the big ideas (science, logic etc), a successful deconversion is all down to the individual. We can’t force our ideas onto people, only sow the seeds of doubt by asking the right questions.

I attended a lecture a few months back (before I started this blog) entitled “Enemy in the Mirror: Richard Dawkins, the New Atheists and their Crusade against Fundamentalism”. It was nothing special, and the “lecturer” didn’t actually talk about anything to do with the subject. She just went on a random rant about how everyone should respect the church etc.

However, after the lecture there were a lot of questions asked from the audience, a large majority of whom were openly atheist. One such question was from a theist (towards the atheists) who complained that we argue all the time about religion and yet send our children to catholic schools and CofE schools with no problems. The parents in the audience said they do this because the results from those schools are better than those at non-religious schools, and they wanted the best for their kids.

I’ve got no problem with people doing that, they want their kids to do well. However I personally do not trust education systems that rely on religion to get students. The only reason that these students are getting better marks is because of the high levels of discipline those schools have, and the only thing large amounts of discipline does is inhibit creativity. You are taught what to think and how to think, and completely ignore the principles that freethinking was founded on.

Read more…