Topic: A few deconversion questions:

[Angra Mainyu]

I'd like to ask non-theists who deconverted from some religion a couple of questions, as a means of trying to get a little bit more information about the effectiveness of some arguments.

a) Which religion did you deconvert from?

b) Did reading arguments here or in other forums play a part in your deconversion?

If the answer to 'b)' is 'yes', then:

b.1) Where did you read those arguments? (e.g., SGU).

b.2) What are the arguments that persuaded you? (e.g., Evidential Argument from Evil, arguments based on evolutionary theory, geology, etc., arguments against the resurrection of Jesus, moral arguments against Christianity, arguments from religious diversity, etc.)

b.3) Do you remember who made some of the arguments, and/or where I could find the posts?


Thanks

[Eternally Learning]

a) Which religion did you deconvert from?

Christianity.  I was raised in a non-denominational church which become increasingly pentecostal (i.e. gifts of the spirit and revival oriented).  I also attended a very legalistic Presbyterian school from first grade on.

b) Did reading arguments here or in other forums play a part in your deconversion?

Nope.  It was a journey of personal discovery for me.  I really wasn't involved online that much until after I de-converted.

[Xptical]

a.  I deconverted from Mormonism.

b.  Yes.


b1.  I think the SGU was, more or less, my introduction to the skeptical community.  I can't remember how I found it.  Irreligiosophy helped a lot.  Also, the Mormon Stories podcast.

b2.  The main thing that helped me was to see the underlying foundation of Mormonism.  I saw a lot of "mellowing" of the LDS church over the years and, to me, it violated a central principal of the religion; that what was being taught today was the same since Adam and Eve.  i.e. A&E were Mormons, as were Noah, Moses, Jesus, etc.

The short version is that I saw serious changes that had taken place in the Church with no real reasoning as to why those policies existed in the first place.

b3.  The "arguments" I found most effective weren't really arguments.  They were simply people saying, "this is what you believe."  I was able to look at things like obscure passages from the scriptures and read obscure papers from various church leaders.  When I asked other people about them, I was given stupid (non)answers.



To me, it's a simple process of de-conversion.  Just point out things that people are supposed to believe and ask them if they really believe those things.  If they do, so be it.  If not, then why.


My personal favorite tack these days is the 10 commandments.  I ask people if they believe them.  I ask them to name some of them.  I ask them how they think Moses and his people got them.

Most people picture Moses coming down a mountain with tablets of stone written by god.  And that's what they are taught to believe.

It comes from here:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/20.html

But what they don't consider is that *those* were given verbally.  The *real* 10 commandments (the ones Charlston Heston had) are found much later:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/34.html

That set was the second set of tablets carved in stone.  The first set, a few chapters earlier, were also carved in stone but Moses broke them when he saw the people worshiping a golden calf.



Anyway, at some point, people will either *get* that they have been lied to, or they won't.  I did.  It pissed me off.  So I stopped practicing.  It took almost another year for me to become a full-on raging atheist.

[Anders]

I'd like to ask non-theists who deconverted from some religion a couple of questions, as a means of trying to get a little bit more information about the effectiveness of some arguments.

a) Which religion did you deconvert from?

Lutheran Christian. Fairly lukewarm.

b) Did reading arguments here or in other forums play a part in your deconversion?

Thanks

Nope. I studied with the JW's and they convinced that I either had to take the Bible seriously as the word of God or reject Christianity. And considering I actually knew what evolution was it was fairly smooth sailing after that.

[Angra Mainyu]

Eternally Learning, Xptical, Anders, thanks for the replies.

The replies are in line with the evidence I had so far, but I'm trying to get an idea of how frequent 'yes' replies to 'b' are, and in such cases, which specific argument were persuasive;  so, the info is appreciated.

[Desert Fox]

a) Which religion did you deconvert from?

Spent time as a Wiccan however I was a Christian (Lutheran) before then

b) Did reading arguments here or in other forums play a part in your deconversion?

Arguments on forums (not this one) was part of the process but had doubts my whole life

b.1) Where did you read those arguments? (e.g., SGU).

A huge number of sources. . .Arguments from others, various books, various video, etc

b.2) What are the arguments that persuaded you? (e.g., Evidential Argument from Evil, arguments based on evolutionary theory, geology, etc., arguments against the resurrection of Jesus, moral arguments against Christianity, arguments from religious diversity, etc.)

More than anything else, simply there is no good evidence for a god

[Jim S]

Here's my answer to most of this from a previous, similar thread.   I think it answers everything you asked, though not as succinctly.   

http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,19534.msg469610.html#msg469610

[gcason]

I'd like to ask non-theists who deconverted from some religion a couple of questions, as a means of trying to get a little bit more information about the effectiveness of some arguments.

a) Which religion did you deconvert from?

Southern Baptist, but fairly liberal Southern Baptist


b) Did reading arguments here or in other forums play a part in your deconversion?

No.  It happened way before the Internet.

[Cybrmynd]

a) Christianity from the age of 15.

b) No, they didn't.

[Hanes]

a)  Catholic to age 19-ish
b)  No I wasn't doing the forum thing 'till some time after that.

[Angra Mainyu]

Desert Fox, gcason, Cybrmynd, Hanes, thanks for the info.

[Angra Mainyu]

Here's my answer to most of this from a previous, similar thread.   I think it answers everything you asked, though not as succinctly.   

http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,19534.msg469610.html#msg469610

Okay, thanks. I'll take a look.

[Vincegamer]

a) Catholicism

b) no. I deconverted before the internet was a big deal.

and I've said this before: ridicule can work. My first real push toward atheism was being ridiculed in front of my peers by a professor for suggesting that something may have been a miracle.

[MikeHz]

Lutheran. I was a fairly strong believer, until I decided to read the Bible as a teen. Halfway through the Old Testimony, I realized it was just a chaotic collection of “just so” yarns and myths, and crazy lists of ridiculous laws.

I talked to my minister, and he gave me all the usual bad arguments for the existence of God. But, I did some research in the library and found out that philosophers had shredded all of those arguments centuries ago and that no serious philosopher used them anymore.

Bertrand Russell really did it for me. I read “Why I Am Not a Christian,” and that put the final nail in the coffin. Russell showed that belief in untrue things is not only wrong but immoral.

[klintistvud]

a) Catholic

b) Nope. 

Before decoversion my belief had been gradually diminishing. I'd always had a stance that you can or eventually will be able to explain things like ghosts, God or an  afterlife, in a naturalistic way. But i also had a weird taboo of thinking about nonexistence of God (you know: "I confess to almighty God...  that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words..."), which is, I think, pretty common around here; you can question Christian ethics, the afterlife, Church's involvement in politics but don't question God & Co..

About two years ago I stumbled upon a debate about God (Rabbi guy vs. Hitchens) and I was amazed not by Hitchens but by Rabbi's poor arguments, I was like "Seriously, that's the best defence you have for God?" So I started reading about such things and began to feel more comfortable about the label "atheist". Then I found Irreligiosophy and thought "If they are alive after one year of doing that than I'm pretty safe about disbelieving.  " 

Bertrand Russell really did it for me. I read “Why I Am Not a Christian,” and that put the final nail in the coffin. Russell showed that belief in untrue things is not only wrong but immoral.

I find that somewhat unreasonable. For example: if your wife is screwing around with her work colleague and you are ignorant of it, I don't think it's immoral to believe that she has to stay late on Fridays.