Has anyone discovered a successful way to make religious people atheist?

[AFTT47]

Give their lives meaning. Give them something to strive toward. Give them hope.
Thats the real enemy. That emptiness. Religion is just a symptom, an infection that occupies that gaping wound.

Absolutely.

I've been into internet atheism since the early 90s, before the web. The newsgroup alt.atheism was the thing then. I remember the first people coming out with the radical idea that logic doesn't work with theists. You have to appeal to their emotions. They were right. We should have a FAQ about this.

Do you ever watch Star Trek? Aren't the Vulcans cool? I don't know if a race like that is even possible (nevermind desirable) but here is one fact: Humans cannot be like that. It doesn't matter your understanding of logic, your intelligence or your desire to be impartial. Humans are inherently emotional. All information going into your brain goes through an emotional filter. It is impossible to overcome that through intelligence or will. It is hard-wired. You might do better than your fellow man. You might even be hard-wired in such a way that you are emotionally predisposed to logic and science. I'm sure I am.

I was first exposed to Genesis at ~ 6 years old in Catholic Catechism. I utterly rejected it. It wasn't because I was employing critical thinking at that age. Indeed, I later eagerly bought up the idea of UFOs as alien visitors and artifacts like the pyramids as being of alien origin. This was AFTER I had rejected the idea of the Christian God and self-identified as an atheist. I was not emotionally attached to the idea of God while I WAS emotionally attached to the idea of alien visitors. I later saw a documentary explaining in detail how the pyramids could have been built with primitive techniques. My view of alien pyramid builders collapsed. But that's not because I am particularly smart of logical. It's because my brain is emotionally predisposed to scientific arguments. They resonate with me.

So what makes us better than those who are emotionally predisposed to religious arguments? NOTHING. But we do have an advantage. It can be demonstrated that the scientific method is the most reliable method ever developed for establishing whether a proposition is true or not. But emotion can blind one to that truth.

[Goosebump]

Give their lives meaning. Give them something to strive toward. Give them hope.
Thats the real enemy. That emptiness. Religion is just a symptom, an infection that occupies that gaping wound.

So what makes us better than those who are emotionally predisposed to religious arguments? NOTHING. But we do have an advantage. It can be demonstrated that the scientific method is the most reliable method ever developed for establishing whether a proposition is true or not. But emotion can blind one to that truth.

So we sic science dogs on them! Got it!

[Won2blv]

For someone like me that is transitioning as we speak, it really is an individual process. One of my biggest struggles personally is stepping back and looking at things from an outsiders perspective. Not just how I have viewed things the first 28 years of my life. But its extremely difficult to continually be honest with myself. But I also believe in micromanaging almost everything I take in. Every quote, every study, every fact I read I like to vet. For example, I remember when someone used this quote by Socrates to express how people have always been saying the same things about how the world is getting worse, “The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.” At first I thought it was a good point. But then I did some research into and found that it can't really be verified. So it was not that big of a deal, but its just one of those things that I personally believe shows how important it is for us to actually dig into things to a level that we can truly understand what we're digesting.

My biggest gripe with atheist is that they don't have empathy when trying to debate things with theists. They don't have any obligation to, but if you have the goal to make someone think then you have to remember that its a human trait to dismiss something sensical just merely because you don't like the messenger. And atheist are prone to the exact same human qualities.

Also, I think every theist probably has their own specific pressure point. For me, it was learning that the exodus and Joshua stories were greatly fabricated.

*** In quote emphasis mine for below ***

Couple things but before I say them, you be you. Your doing what is right for you and that's great. No qualms there.

That said:

I don't think Atheist can be said to "have a goal". That's a characterization. Some do, like the militant ones. Then that's fair. But by and large I wouldn't paint with such a wide brush. I would say that other groups, religious or secular have much more of a goal then atheists by and large. If we have any at all, I haven't been given the hand shake yet to know for sure. /s

I don't think Atheist "don't have empathy when trying to debate things". Reason is largely outside personal emotional experience. I can have a very profound experience when my niece is born, walks for the first time, says my name as her first word, (she denys it but there is video evidence) that all transcends reason. But I would never use that experience to try to reason an argument. I would never claim I know love more then you because of those experiences. That's subjective and probably a fallacy of appeal to emotion or a composition/division. 

To claim that atheist "don't have empathy" when reasoning is not realistic. They likely have a great deal. And they don't suspend it to reason. They choose to remove it from their reasoning yet feel it all the same. A great burden none-the-less. To reason, with empathy is a rotten tomato. Sweet and rancid at the same time.

I agree that atheists are not a monolith. Thats why I said that IF they have the goal of making a theist think they should show empathy. I use word empathy not in an emotionally concerned way but just as trying to see things from their (the theist) point of view. Some don't really have a goal in mind. Or they do but they only know how to lob missiles. Atheism is not a religion obviously, so from my point of view as a theist that is de-converting, trying to think in the shoes of a theist and reasoning from that point of view is the most powerful.

[Goosebump]

...

To claim that atheist "don't have empathy" when reasoning is not realistic. They likely have a great deal. And they don't suspend it to reason. They choose to remove it from their reasoning yet feel it all the same. A great burden none-the-less. To reason, with empathy is a rotten tomato. Sweet and rancid at the same time.

I agree that atheists are not a monolith. Thats why I said that IF they have the goal of making a theist think they should show empathy. I use word empathy not in an emotionally concerned way but just as trying to see things from their (the theist) point of view. Some don't really have a goal in mind. Or they do but they only know how to lob missiles. Atheism is not a religion obviously, so from my point of view as a theist that is de-converting, trying to think in the shoes of a theist and reasoning from that point of view is the most powerful.

You could make the same request of the theist towards the atheist and it still wouldn't quite work. To see theism as a theist requires, I think most if not all atheists would agree, them to employ cognitive dissidence, which is the exact thing the atheist by and large is trying to undo or remove. Likewise a theist would have to remove their own cognitive dissidence to see the atheist point of view and if they did that they'd turn into an atheist.

[Won2blv]

[/quote]

You could make the same request of the theist towards the atheist and it still wouldn't quite work. To see theism as a theist requires, I think most if not all atheists would agree, them to employ cognitive dissidence, which is the exact thing the atheist by and large is trying to undo or remove. Likewise a theist would have to remove their own cognitive dissidence to see the atheist point of view and if they did that they'd turn into an atheist.
[/quote]

Thats all true, but I am just going along with the theme of the thread. You can't control how another person acts but mimicking them doesn't validate theirs or your behavior. And I agree with what you're saying about cognitive dissonance, but that takes place usually when a deeply held belief comes under attack. So when the other party doesn't feel as threatened then the effects of cognitive dissonance are lessened. Obviously you can't control how they'll react to anything. But if the other party feels non-threatened by your line of questioning or points made, they're much more likely to be less swayed by that cognitive dissonance. Will they admit defeat and disown god in that moment? More than likely not, but they'll be pondering over their deeply held beliefs in a more honest way to themselves

[Goosebump]

 And I agree with what you're saying about cognitive dissonance, but that takes place usually when a deeply held belief comes under attack. 

I would think religion would be a deeply held belief no? If it's not, if your a "weekend" theist then your probably on your way to atheism anyway.

And you don't think arguing with "non-weekend" theist about their theism, be it civil or even lighthearted, doesn't qualify as an attack on a deeply held belief?

If your casually theistic your not broadcasting it, your probably not paying any attention to it. Therefore you probably don't come into any encounters where you have to defend it, or if you do you probably don't care much to defend it.

However if your not the above I think cognitive dissonance is in play.

[Won2blv]

 And I agree with what you're saying about cognitive dissonance, but that takes place usually when a deeply held belief comes under attack. 

I would think religion would be a deeply held belief no? If it's not, if your a "weekend" theist then your probably on your way to atheism anyway.

And you don't think arguing with "non-weekend" theist about their theism, be it civil or even lighthearted, doesn't qualify as an attack on a deeply held belief?

If your casually theistic your not broadcasting it, your probably not paying any attention to it. Therefore you probably don't come into any encounters where you have to defend it, or if you do you probably don't care much to defend it.

However if your not the above I think cognitive dissonance is in play.

Im just giving you my 2 cents. No matter the person, if they feel threatened they'll usually react defensively. In harmony with you OP, I strongly believe that any theist, strong or weak, needs to feel like they're not under attack

[The Valkyrie]

"Has anyone discovered a successful way to make religious people atheist? "

Hit them with a hammer

[Won2blv]

"Has anyone discovered a successful way to make religious people atheist? "

Hit them with a hammer

Thats just mean!

[Goosebump]

I would think religion would be a deeply held belief no? If it's not, if your a "weekend" theist then your probably on your way to atheism anyway.

And you don't think arguing with "non-weekend" theist about their theism, be it civil or even lighthearted, doesn't qualify as an attack on a deeply held belief?

If your casually theistic your not broadcasting it, your probably not paying any attention to it. Therefore you probably don't come into any encounters where you have to defend it, or if you do you probably don't care much to defend it.

However if your not the above I think cognitive dissonance is in play.

Im just giving you my 2 cents. No matter the person, if they feel threatened they'll usually react defensively. In harmony with you OP, I strongly believe that any theist, strong or weak, needs to feel like they're not under attack

But what's an attack? This is going to be very simplistic cause my brain is getting sleepy.

If person A says "you know an orange is an apple."

and person B says "actually an orange is an orange, see here is an orange and here is an apple. You can see they are different."

person A says "Stop attacking my beliefs!"

Is that really person's B's fault for making person A feel under attack?