What causes Atheists to convert?

[Twiggy]

So every now and then I come across people, usually christians, who claim to have at one point been "Atheists".

My theory is that many of these people were never truly atheists and are instead confusing being mad at god, or disappointed, sad with god, with atheism.

As for the one's who were actually atheists under the "lack of belief in a god(s)", from what I have seen, including a recent conversation I have had, their standard of evidence seems to have dropped, or someone somehow managed to talk them into accepting something on poor evidence.

The recent conversation I had, with a christian, former atheists friend, let me know that he became christian because "people witnessed the resurrection", "people wouldn't die for a lie" like somehow people claiming something, is enough evidence of a literal supernatural miraculous event. It's an extraordinary claim, which needs extraordinary evidence, yet somehow he accepts it based on flimsy weak, "evidence". He tried saying "you accept the existence of Ceaser based on documentation" - sure, but Ceaser was just another man, like all other men, it's not comparable to a claim of a resurrection.

So I guess the real question is, for those who actually were atheists at one point, what causes their standard of evidence, and ability to different claims from each other, to slip?

[Belacqua]

So every now and then I come across people, usually christians, who claim to have at one point been "Atheists".

My theory is that many of these people were never truly atheists and are instead confusing being mad at god, or disappointed, sad with god, with atheism.

As for the one's who were actually atheists under the "lack of belief in a god(s)", from what I have seen, including a recent conversation I have had, their standard of evidence seems to have dropped, or someone somehow managed to talk them into accepting something on poor evidence.

The recent conversation I had, with a christian, former atheists friend, let me know that he became christian because "people witnessed the resurrection", "people wouldn't die for a lie" like somehow people claiming something, is enough evidence of a literal supernatural miraculous event. It's an extraordinary claim, which needs extraordinary evidence, yet somehow he accepts it based on flimsy weak, "evidence". He tried saying "you accept the existence of Ceaser based on documentation" - sure, but Ceaser was just another man, like all other men, it's not comparable to a claim of a resurrection.

So I guess the real question is, for those who actually were atheists at one point, what causes their standard of evidence, and ability to different claims from each other, to slip?

I found this documentary helpful in understanding why some Christians believe:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/p...index.html

In part of the series, actors playing C.S. Lewis and Freud make their respective cases, quoting words from the real people. (I liked that fact that the actor playing Freud is in the real Freud's office and consulting room.

The rest of the documentary consists of interviews with Ivy League people in various fields: there are scientists, legal scholars, psychiatrists, etc. They're all smart people, obviously, and they have to be well-educated to practice whatever profession they're in. So it's not a panel of dummies arguing "My grandma told me it's true.)

I was surprised to see that those who believed in God didn't generally rely on any kind of evidence or logical argument (for example, of the Aristotelian/Thomist type). All of them seemed to say, in the end, that it comes down to a very strong feeling that they have.

Naturally, simply having a feeling will not be persuasive to those who are looking for empirical evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

So I guess the real question is, for those who actually were atheists at one point, what causes their standard of evidence, and ability to different claims from each other, to slip?

Illness and death are productive.

[Twiggy]

I see, and that is true.

But I am specifically wondering about what causes legitimate atheists to become christians, or muslims, or X religion?

Not just simply why christians believe.

Of course as I said in my OP, their standard of evidence probably fell, or someone managed to convince them for some reason to accept something on bad/weak evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Challenging life circumstances and personal experiences are pretty much the whole enchilada. Basically, they saw a god or really wish they did. The idea that people argue themselves into (or out of) theistic ideation doesn't have much evidence going for it. Sure, there are people who report having done something like that, but you're likely to find that, for example, if they say they were convinced by weak or bad evidence and argumentation..showing them strong evidence and logical defeaters doesn't produce disbelief. Works the same way for atheists who report having deconverted because -insert bad argument here-. Showing them it's a bad argument doesn't turn them back into theists.

[Angrboda]

What exactly is an illegitimate atheist?

[Twiggy]

Challenging life circumstances and personal experiences are pretty much the whole enchilada. Basically, they saw a god or really wish they did. The idea that people argue themselves into (or out of) theistic ideation doesn't have much evidence going for it. Sure, there are people who report having done something like that, but you're likely to find that, for example, if they say they were convinced by weak or bad evidence and argumentation..showing them strong evidence and logical defeaters doesn't produce disbelief. Works the same way for atheists who report having deconverted because -insert bad argument here-. Showing them it's a bad argument doesn't turn them back into theists.

Ah, I see.

So basically he probably had a "personal experience" and believes it for a non-rational reason, and is now just trying to make it seem rational?

[Twiggy]

What exactly is an illegitimate atheist?

A person who calls themselves an "atheist" but doesn't actually match the basic definition, like I already explained in my OP. Not liking god, or not trusting god, or whatever, is not the same as not believing in a god.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's pretty good reason to suspect that we rationalize changes in our mental and emotional states after the fact, yeah. Truth is, he may not actually know why he started believing...but that's not the kind of report he's going to be internally satisfied with or communicate externally. If he had a personal experience he'd likely have said that. The question in this particular example would be more likely to do with theistic ideation servicing an emotional or existential desire. It's your friend, you'd be in a better place to know..but he's likely aware that people do die for lies and every religion claims there are witnesses to this that and the other thing. It's also highly unlikely that your atheist friend was just then exposed to "documentation". He was already aware of it and it hadn't had that effect before.

Was there a girl involved?

[Rev. Rye]

My understanding from what I’ve been able to read, there seem to be a few factors (ranked by increasing levels of importance):
1) insufficient intellectual rigor (the kind that evidently had Kirk Cameron believing there had to be some sort of crocoduck in the fossil record in order for evolution to be true)
2) some personal crisis that seems to find relief when exposed to religion.
3) An encounter with a congregation that gives the convert a sense of community that had been previously lacking.

That’s what I keep finding in conversion stories.