Conversion Story.

Last Sunday night when I was at work in a homeless shelter in Minneapolis, which happens to be in a church because city law requires that all shelters be in churches, a woman came to the door with a donation of sandwiches. While waiting for me to fill out the paperwork for the sandwiches she asked me what denomination I am I told her that I am a "nothing" She had a hard time believing this at first and then asked me why I am here then. I run into this sentiment frequently at the shelter and it never fails to piss me off. Obviously if there are people who care about the homeless in their community they must be christian. I told her that the homeless have never cared that I don't believe in god. I knew what was coming next, but I was hoping she would drop it but she clearly wasn't the type.

For the next ten minutes I was forced to listen to her "talk" me into believing in god while I filled out the previously mentioned paperwork. She had two arguments in her conversion repertoire. The first was the common, "How do you explain all of this then, making a sweeping gesture with her arms." I assume she meant the Earth and its inhabitants rather than a dirt parking lot in a bad neighborhood of Minneapolis. The second argument, if it can be called that was, "It takes more faith to not believe in a god than it takes to believe in one."

The first is one I hear almost everytime someone feels the need to save me. What I have a hard time understanding is how the people who use this line of thought believe that their belief in god is a superior explanation to my "I don't know" What science has not already explained god does not simply take care of the rest. In fact, not only does belief in god not explain the things our society does not understand it adds one more really big idea that needs explaining, which is the existence of god itself. I chose to ignore this line of thought because I felt that the argument would go no where, but now I wish I would have began the debate.

Her second argument was truly ridiculous. By making the statement that, "It takes more faith not to believe in god than it does to believe," a person is already assuming that the evidence for god is overwhelmingly in their favor. It may be the case, but if I already don't believe in god obviously I don't feel the same way about the evidence or what you take to be evidence. 

After simply ignoring her for much of the conversation she started repeating, "Think about it." This was when I finally started to respond and then she quickly left. This is another type of thinking that I face from this type of person frequently. Obviously, if a person is an atheist they must have never actually thought about the topic before. They then feel that if they merely lay the simplest arguments at my feet a revelation will take place and I will finally see the error of my ways. All I said to her on this topic was, "What makes you believe that after knowing me for only a few minutes that this is the first time that I have ever thought about the existence of god?" She said "think about it" one more time not realizing how much that pisses me off and left.

This story isn't remarkable nor is it uncommon I would guess for many of us. I post it only because it would be interesting to hear what you all have to say on this topic and if you wish to post interesting conversion stories of your own.

George

I'll have to think about it.

Just as an aside - there's paperwork if someone donates sandwiches?

Interestingly enough, yes. It is not all that much nor is it all that complicated, but it is a form so the shelter can know what it is taking in and how much it is valued at and it allows the donor to have proof of their contribution for a tax write-off.

My latest is to ask them to explain why Paul, who was a contemporary of Jesus didn't know any of the details of his life.  All Paul talks about is the crucifixion and his theology, not a word about the actual man Jesus.  I explain to them (most of these people are ignorant about the basis of their own faith) that Paul wrote his letters at least 20 years before Mark was written, and knew nothing of the gospel stories (because he never references them).  Paul was intensely interested in Christianity even before his conversion, yet he is unaware of the 'oral tradition' of the gospels that supposedly was circulating for the 40 years before Mark was written.  In other words, I explain that their faith is based on false belief and illogic and is no different than any of the other superstitions that have controlled man for thousands of years.

I'll also bet that what these christians in your shelter have trouble with is that an atheist cares for and loves others.  They think that only christians feel that way.  My guess is they find this deeply troubling on some level

I know that there are many issues with the stories told in the bible, thank you for relating one I hadn't heard of yet. One of my favorites is that of the four gospels only two tell of the virgin birth. That seems like a pretty important part of the story to be left out.

In the shelter I have definitely gotten the sense that my religious views make them uncomfortable in that environment. There are two main sets of volunteers at the shelter. Volunteers who stay overnight to supervise the men and volunteer groups that come in every night to serve dinner. The dinner groups are almost all church groups and the volunteers have a bit more variety,but I would say that it is 50% christians/30% college students forced to be there for credit/20% are there for other reasons.

Too much background perhaps, but I think that the christians suffer from the false belief that morality is provided by faith and this belief seems to be justified when they look around at the other volunteers in the shelter. The shelter would be in a pretty bad place if those who are motivated by christian beliefs stopped coming, buy I think it would be just an inconvenience if all of us motivated by personal moral concerns stopped coming through the door.   

Yes, I think the problem is that these people have genuinely been taught that atheists have no morals and don't care about the other people in the world.  I don't mean those ideas have been implied to them in some vague way; I mean that their religious leaders have actually said those specific things about atheism.

So, for you to be donating your time at the shelter is more than just a surprise to them, it is directly contradictory and challenges the teachings of their faith.  For them to accept that you are an atheist with morals, they would have to accept that at least one of the church's arguments is false, which makes them deeply uncomfortable.

Luckily for them, they have been given a tool to deal with this kind of paradox when it arises, and that tool is the ability to ignore reality and view it as a test of their faith.  Make no mistake, this has been very deliberate and careful conditioning, taught to them since early childhood as a way to keep them from questioning the church. 

When they meet you, a moral atheist, they (perhaps without a lot of conscious thought) believe that God put you there to test them; If they give in and say "huh, I guess not all atheists are amoral", He will punish them for their blasphemy.  She's not trying to convince you that God exists, she's trying to convince God that her faith is strong enough to ignore what's right in front of her.  She doesn't think she won an argument, she thinks she passed a test.

The last two sentences of the concluding paragraph are not only well thought out, but they are a joy to read. Well said!

I'm a newcomer here but am very interested in these topics. I consider myself an Agnostic. I can't quite take that final step and say "There is no god" simply because I don't think that is knowable. How can you prove something does not exist? However, I have categorically rejected any definition of "God" that I have come across in my life, though it took me many years to get to that point. My contention is that if there were a "God", it would be quite impossible for us to define him. It would be like the ant trying to understand and define the human.

Raised a Baptist, I always wondered, as a child, how we Baptists, among the millions of people on earth, happened to stumble on The Truth. How did we manage to get a stranglehold on Truth? Though I was so proud to be among such an elite group, it puzzled and troubled me.

Believe me, it was not easy to break away from the hold religion had over me. Those Sunday School teachers know how to grab you and threaten you. But once I did, I went to the other extreme -- hating religions, denouncing anything remotely connected with god, and vociferously proclaiming my denials to anyone who would listen. You might say this was the "teenage" behavior of my life.

Eventually, I modified my stance, acknowledging that people have a right to their beliefs, however misplaced they might be, and there was no reason for me to get upset about that. Indeed, my "preaching" that their religions were silly and antediluvian was no better than the proselytizing that religious people engaged in. Once I calmed down, I was able to live much more peacefully with my agnosticism.

Has anyone here read (and I assume at least a few of you have) Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion? Though he makes powerful arguments against the existence of god, he is very arrogant (don't you think so?). And I certainly don't like the mocking way he talks about agnostics, as though they're simply afraid to take that last step to atheism.

Do any of you subsribe to Free Inquiry? I just did and am looking forward to my first issue.

I'm afraid I've been rambling. Forgive me. This is all quite new to me and very exciting.

Anda, quite enjoyed your rambling, no need to appologise!

Regarding this:

"I consider myself an Agnostic. I can't quite take that final step and say "There is no god" simply because I don't think that is knowable. How can you prove something does not exist? "

Atheists by and large don't claim to KNOW that there is no god - nor do most think that any such thing is knowable. Atheism isn't about a claim of knowledge that god does not exist, it is a lack of belief in the existence of gods.

Agnosticism only addresses what you know - I am an agnostic too, because I do not claim to know either way. I am also an atheist, because while I don't claim to know, I also don't believe in gods. Like almost all atheists I know, I am an agnostic atheist.

What you, and many people who describe themselves as agnostics only seem to be thinking is that atheism = gnostic atheism, i.e. the claim that "I know there are no gods". I don't think that's a position that's actually held by any atheist who's spent any time thinking about epistemology, and the nature of knowledge; I don't think that gnostic atheism is much more intellectually respectable than gnostic theism.

By your description of yourself, you seem to be a de-facto agnostic atheist, as you've rejected all the notions of god you've encountered as too implausible to believe.

That's all that any atheist can do - I can't say that I won't encounter a definition of God some day that I can, or even must believe in, though I doubt very much that that God definition would be in any sense traditional. (If someone defines God as the "keyboard you are writing this on", then obviously I do believe that that "God" does exist, though I would say that defining a keyboard as God is kind of silly and pointless.)

I've too seen, among those who are reluctant to describe themselves as either theists or atheists, an implicit or explicit belief that it is somehow a superior position (in that it is a more reasonable opinion) not to commit to any belief regarding the existence of a deity, but I think that this is false. This is because a belief doesn't have to be the dogmatic, absolute belief of a fundamentalist. Beliefs that are tentative, and subject to change with evidence, that you are truly willing to reconsider should the evidence warrant it, are entirely reasonable, and even "pure" agnostics would presumably agree that such tentative beliefs are necessary in many questions of practical life.

I believe that the plane I get on is soundly engineered and inspected, and will carry me to my destination without serious incident. I do not claim to KNOW that this is the case, and will quickly change my mind if, while on the air, the pilot instructs the passangers to prepare for a crash landing.

I believe that it will be a sunny day tomorrow, on the basis of the weather forecast, but I do not claim to know any such thing - should the evening forecast predict something different, I'd be likely to switch to another tentative belief, as I'd consider the latter forecast to be more probably accurate than the earlier one.

This is how I treat my belief that there are no deities - it is a tentative belief subject to change with evidence, and thus entirely reasonable. Most atheists are atheists in this manner. I do not see why one should withold from forming any belief regarding this one question, while happily forming beliefs regarding other questions.

I can only think that this reluctance might be true to the practical experience of seeing people's beliefs on gods often be dogmatic, and at least seemingly closed minded, and not realizing that it is entirely possible to have a tentative, non-dogmatic belief regarding the question of gods, no different from my belief in a sunny day tomorrow or that the plane I step on works as intended. 

When reading this thread, it hits me what different worlds we live in, you're mostly Americans in this thread, and I'm a Swed, one of the most atheists countries in the world, where it's pretty much the opposite, atheists try to talk religious people into atheism. (Granted, most of these are young adolescent boys who still believe they know everything there is to know.)

I liked your story Anda, allways interesting to see how people leave their faith.

Myself, I'm an Atheist, and I have actually read the book you mentioned, Dawkins The God Delusion, but I liked it, to a great deal, a little bit of arrogance and wit is often needed to bring something into the light. If he had been another bland atheist telling us that moderate belief is okey, would you really know his name? I know I wouldn't.

I would say I know there is no God to the same degree that I know there isn't an green orange elephant outside my window, everything points to that there is no elephant there. If this isn't knowledge, I would atleast call it a "qualified guess".

I'm also interested, you actually have to fill out paper work for a few sandwiches?

And finally, in true atheist style, I'll finish with the moral code for all of us, Have sex! Kill Babies! Rock n roll!

To a person that truly has 'faith' there is no need for scientific explanations....they already have the answer GOD, to them god created science, & everything else. The faithful are waiting for the atheists to catch up & realise this.

 The mind is a very powerful tool

I think the original post would generate some interesting/amusing feedback if copied to the 'open forum'.

I was thinking of posting a thread entitled 'The Bottom Line'...which challenges believers to state once & for all what 'reason' they have for belief in God.

As I see it, believers usually fall back to the 'God of the Gaps' explanation that only God explains that which we humans cannot explain with science...and many believers are extremely ignorant of science & its methods.

The other group put faith in the scriptures...

I have spent very little time in this area but I get the idea that this group are so impressed with the quality of these ancient writings, with the intricacy & interweaving of the stories & events that are mentioned within the pages of scripture, that they feel compelled to conclude that such 'Holy Books' are indeed proof of a higher power we call God.

For me, in my 15-20 minutes of Bible Study...scripture just sounds like ancient political propaganda trying to prove who owns which piece of land, and who is decended from royalty! All pretty basic shit...

What do you guys think. Is it worth putting such a 'Bottom Line' challenge to all believers or what? Does anyone want to craft the words as I think my style is too confronting for many believers...others like steg or einsteinfan write with greater respect than I can muster.

Regarding why people believe, I think that the reasons they give in a debate (Biblical - or Quranic - prophesy validating the claim that their holy book could only have been divinely inspired, and the various philosophical arguments for god) are not the true reasons at all. Or at least they are not the reasons why they came to believe.

And this is the more interesting question - "why and how did you come to believe?". For most believers the answer is akin to "I was raised that way", or "x and y happened to me, and it could not have been chance, and made me realize that God had just intevened".

In other words, most believers (as far as I've asked this question) came to believe because they were raised to believe, or because they don't understand probabilities, and things like the law of very large numbers; or if they do, then they don't apply that knowledge to coinsidences that affect fortuously things relevant to their personal lives.

After that come the rationalizations, which are the philosophical arguments and Biblical/Quaranic study.

Some were actually convinced by a philosophical argument, but those cases tend to be cases where that philosophical argument was their first encounter with grapling with fundamental questions in anything remotely more than a superficial manner - they became convinced because they couldn't think of an answer, and didn't think to, or bother to look for one, to get a balanced picture.  

If only everyone believed or did not believe whatever he/she wanted to believe or not believe and not worry about converting everyone else! Think of all the wars this would have saved!!!!! It's the insistence that "I'm right and you're wrong" that gets us into trouble.

For those who believe, no explanation or proof is necessary, and for those who do not believe, no explanation or proof is enough.

Having said that, I must add that I have a spot in my heart for Christians (only because I am more familiar with their way of thinking) who go out and try to convert others. Think about it a minute. If you were convinced that everyone who hasn't accepted your particular brand of belief is doomed to an eternity of hell, wouldn't you feel it absolutely a duty to try to convert everybody, by whatever means, in order to try to save them? It's a terrible nuisance for the non-believer, but necessary for the sincere believer. It is the Christian who says in that namby-pamby way, "Oh, I believe, but I can accept it that others don't." That, to me, seems less understandable than the devout Christian who proselytizes ad nauseum.

At any rate, I am so glad to be free of the fetters of religion. I really do see it as being quite evil, especially in earlier years (though the Far Right Christians even these days scare me!).