This whole idea of conversions is a bit silly, isn't it?
As an atheist, I'm not here to convince anyone my position is correct, because I'm only ever tentatively sure that it is, and willing to change it should new evidence arise. My only concern, when it comes to religious people, is that they do the same; I'm not shilling for godlessness, I'm not trying to make everyone atheist, I'm trying to get everyone to ask a simple question: do my beliefs comport with reality, as closely as I can make them?
That should be one's only motivation, when it comes to claims about reality. It's important. I think it's easy, when we're discussing religion and the atheist side is disagreeing with religious arguments, to think that this is because the atheists have a side of their own, when generally they don't. Let's be clear: if I disagree with you it's got nothing to do with my worldview coming into conflict with your religious ideas. It's because I think your argument is bad.
That's the cool thing about being an agnostic atheist: if you provide me with a good argument, it will be considered, matched up with the facts as best as I can do so, and enclosed within my worldview. This is the way to change a mind, and you can change my mind. Just don't think that means I'm not going to interrogate every argument you make in terms of factual accuracy, motivation, and logical consistency. Kalam won't do it, here.
So there's no conversion going on here, because in this tug of war, the atheist is the rope, not the opposing side. I'm not tugging in one direction, I'm pulling in both. To properly labor the metaphor, reality is the opposing side, and that's what christianity is seemingly pulling against.
As an atheist, I'm not here to convince anyone my position is correct, because I'm only ever tentatively sure that it is, and willing to change it should new evidence arise. My only concern, when it comes to religious people, is that they do the same; I'm not shilling for godlessness, I'm not trying to make everyone atheist, I'm trying to get everyone to ask a simple question: do my beliefs comport with reality, as closely as I can make them?
That should be one's only motivation, when it comes to claims about reality. It's important. I think it's easy, when we're discussing religion and the atheist side is disagreeing with religious arguments, to think that this is because the atheists have a side of their own, when generally they don't. Let's be clear: if I disagree with you it's got nothing to do with my worldview coming into conflict with your religious ideas. It's because I think your argument is bad.
That's the cool thing about being an agnostic atheist: if you provide me with a good argument, it will be considered, matched up with the facts as best as I can do so, and enclosed within my worldview. This is the way to change a mind, and you can change my mind. Just don't think that means I'm not going to interrogate every argument you make in terms of factual accuracy, motivation, and logical consistency. Kalam won't do it, here.
So there's no conversion going on here, because in this tug of war, the atheist is the rope, not the opposing side. I'm not tugging in one direction, I'm pulling in both. To properly labor the metaphor, reality is the opposing side, and that's what christianity is seemingly pulling against.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
