Irritation

[Locnar]

I would like to discuss one of the most irritating statements/dismissals of atheist books/movies/arguments (usually directed at so called new atheists) that I keep hearing over and over. It goes something like this:

"They are just preaching to the converted."

or

"Dawkins never converted anyone."

It's such an annoying straw man because they seem to think that these arguments have failed if:

A) No complete and total fundamentalist read them and had an instant conversion to atheism
B) Reading that one book or argument instantly converted someone to atheism

These arguments are bogus. There are plenty of people who are "on the fence" and books like The God Delusion are a valuable tool in making the journey. I doubt anyone would say one book or one person made them convert. I'd go as far to say that if you claim that, you should probably do some more homework. I think for most people, coming out of theism to atheism was a process, and people like Dawkins or Harris can be an important part of the process.

[SleepingDemon]

Conversion from one dogma to another tends to be an easier transition than that of theist to athiest. People usually change religions because some part of the new religions dogma appeals to them. However going from the belief in something, to the belief in nothing is most often a big jump. As children most of us have some early idealism ingrained into us about god and angels. We see the imagery, read the fables, when a relative dies, people talk about prayer and heaven, so the realm of belief is a big part of us from an early age. Making the transition to atheism is a big move however, because you have to set aside all preconceived notions. You basically have to accept that human beings aren't special anymore, that you won't see grandma or grandpa again, and for most people, these are poignant hurdles to overcome.

For myself personally, it came down to existentialism. The knowledge that were it not for some cataclysm 65 million years ago, we in all likelihood would not exist was earthshattering at the time. Our existence became something of a stroke of luck, not some divine plan, not some ideological fallacy, but pure chance. It's a big step for most people, and I doubt any one book or speaker could take full responsibility for it.

[Minimalist]

One wonders if those people ever read Dawkins or Hitchens, Loc. There is an amazing tendency among of theists to critique books they haven't read.

I suppose that is better than burning them which they would do if they could.

[Autumnlicious]

One wonders if those people ever read Dawkins or Hitchens, Loc. There is an amazing tendency among of theists to critique books they haven't read.

I suppose that is better than burning them which they would do if they could.

They would, but they need to put on their brown shirts first.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

One wonders if those people ever read Dawkins or Hitchens, Loc. There is an amazing tendency among of theists to critique books they haven't read.

Indeed.Not just theists. EG some who criticise Marx and Darwin or perhaps Islam or even Christianity.

I've read Hitchens and would be amazed if he deconverted anyone. I think Dawkins is a better thinker,but they both lose me when they begin expressing their personal opinions.

I got my basic ideas about theism from "Why I Am Not Christian' by Bertrand Russell in about 1971. Those views were part of what was for me a very long journey from devout Catholicism to agnostic atheism.

I think theists miss the point when they start rabbiting on about deconversion. Yes, some atheists are obnoxiously militant and proselytise believers,with the stultifying arrogance that they are right and believers are wrong. It bemuses me that such people are able to behave thus with no obvious sense of irony.


No atheists I know gives a flying flunggel about the personal superstitions of others. I simply decline to discuss religion most of the time except on forums..

Ten thousand monks ten thousand religions (Buddhist saying)