I was speaking with a friend (Christian) a while back, and he asked me a question - "when did you convert"? I told him how and when I became a Christian. But since that day, I've been thinking about the terms we use to describe becoming Christian/Muslim/Atheist. When non-religious people become religious, we speak of them as having been "converted". But when religious people become non-religious, we think of it as a "deconversion". After I had been thinking about this, I tried a while back to turn the tables around during a discussion with some non-Christians, so instead of speaking of my conversion to Christianity, I spoke of the deconversion from my old beliefs. I was ridiculed, told I was being stupid, and if I wanted to speak about conversions then I could do so, but don't try and make it out like a deconversion. Likewise, if an atheist spoke of their conversion to atheism, people would think it strange.

Etymologically speaking, to "convert" is to transform. So why is it that turning to religion is given in the positive - Converting to *insert faith here*. Compared to turning away from religion which is in the negative - my deconversion from *insert faith here*. In the modern context, the word "convert" and "conversion" means exactly the same thing - to change from one thing to another, UNLESS it is in the context of religion, in which case there is a specific way to say things and if you don't, people look at you funny. Why is our language structured in such a way when it comes to our beliefs, but not to anything else?

Just a few rambling thoughts to consider. Discuss away

Negativity is in the eye of the beholder.

I can see how it can be taken in a negative light. I think because it is putting emphasis on what you found to be wrong. Whereas if you were to put emphasis on what you converted to, it is focusing on a positive.

In Islam, while many of us (even myself) are guilty for using the word conversion, it isn't considered entirely accurate. We believe that we were all born Muslims, but as we grow older we are influenced by the other beliefs around us. So when one converts to Islam, the correct usage would be "revert" because we are reverting back to our original state.

In common usage to convert would generally mean 'changing your religion to another one" so an Athiest would be considered to deconvert when he gets rid of his religious beliefs. Most atheists don't consider Atheism a belief so your not converting your old beliefs to new ones but getting rid of beliefs all together.

When switching beliefs your converting and deconverting at the same time, you toss out the old ones and pick up the new ones.

Also:
Deconverting=Bad
Converting=Good

The definitions of words and how they are used is often not the same.

I think the interesting thing is the reaction you got to saying you were deconverting from your previous beliefs. Maybe the reaction comes because it implies shedding something, outgrowing a no-longer necessary protective shell. Look at the way even those here on UM who have left a religious belief to become atheist or agnostic speak (or write), they are very intent on showing that they outgrew their need for religion. So when you attempted to talk about your growth to a spiritual relationship with God as a deconversion, you stepped on the toes of those who see their lack of a relationship with God as indication of their maturity.

I don't know why the terms seem to have different connotations, PA. As far as I'm concerned no-one is born with any beliefs so all beliefs are learned behaviours...conversions if you will. The term 'deconversion' would seem to be an oxymoron in fact. If conversion is a change there could never be such a thing as a 'deconversion' unless your beliefs never change!!!

Interesting. I've always thought that to deconvert is to renounce a religious belief and return to previous beliefs whilst to convert is to accept a new religious belief. Changing beliefs would require both, I guess, though people usually speak in terms of converting to a new religion.

If I became a Christian again from my current atheist position - would I be deconverting from atheism or converting to Christianity? Both?

I agree. It is a stupid word and one that I will not use.

Would "deconverting" imply your atheism had been some sort of religious belief?

I would say Both, or perhaps just put it as "change". As mentioned in my first post, converting is to change or transform, so I was wondering why the need to separate conversion as a religious practice. Thanks for the response *that goes for everyone else too - thanks

How can a person deconvert? I suppose they could reconvert.

Ah. The "is Atheism a religious belief system" question.

Everything is a belief system, Iams. At least - I believe that to be the case. I think I'd probably classify atheism as an anti-religious belief, rather than a religious one. A religious belief tends to make me think more of sacred teachings, deities and /or a belief in an afterlife, but if you're happier calling it that, then I have no real objections, either way.

I still get evil looks when I mention I 'deconverted ' away from christianity. It makes christians pause and then stumble for words. usually words like ' how sad. I'll pray for you. ' to ' you know your going to hell now don't you ?'

they can get pretty angry too ..... they can react as if your 'deconversion ' should mean they should. paranoia ?

In some ways deconversion from one way of thinking is expanding into a wider range of thought. I tend to think there are at least two reasons to deconvert from a religion or a particular school of thought.

The first example is that the teaching(s) did not stand the test for some real world experience. This led to anger/frustration when the reality perception was shattered. The result - loss of faith.

A second would result through reflective thought. This is similar to the first but without the real world experience. It would lead to an expanded reality thought construct. The result - new faith.

John

mhm. I like this thread PA.

How people speak is a good way to understnad them. Particularly when they do so unconciously. I would say that the reason that the aethiests had a difficult time with the idea of you 'deconverting' from Aethiesm is that most think of Aethiesm as being something other then a belief system. Or at least most Aethiests do.

I would say that Aethiesm is more of a DisBelief system but thats really just a matter of splitting straws.

Personally I would say that the two terms are just a matter of opinion. Were I a Christian then moving away from christianity would be a deconversion. As an Aethiest I can see how moving towards Christianity is a deconversion. Something to think about definately.

I'll post again when I have had the time to consider this completely.

Glad you're enjoying it. I'm just here to share my thoughts, and if they make sense to others, then so be it

Just to clarify, the people I were speaking to at the time of this conversation were not atheists. They were simply non-religious. Nor have I ever been an Atheist. I generally shifted between Agnosticism (I acceped the possibility that there may be a God), and a stronger Theistic/Deistic belief (I believed that God did exist, but had no concept of what this god would act like if it did exist). All the best, AR

Atheists and Christians can both either act like their beliefs are religion and at other times they can act like it is something less. Depends on the person really. The term indoctrination comes to mind. There is also the factor of how much we let either atheism or religious belief affect our world view. Some people let it become their life.

The term 'conversion' in referring to religious conversion has historically been seen as adopting a new faith from after discarding an older one held by the convert. As in all differences of opinion especially one that affects society there will always be a shuffling and reshuffling of definitions since words and their meanings have political value. For that reason societies and governments and even movements from with attempt to change the definitions of words or assign new meanings to them.

That is true. Although language and meanings definitely change for more benign reasons as well. In fact it changes all the time, in one sense it 'evolves' lol.

Sorry,I guess it would have been easy to interpret my post as a dig that atheism is a religious belief. I meant in general, if a person used the conversion/deconversion language to talk about their atheism, would it imply the person had seen their atheism as a religious belief?

I've spoken to enough atheists on UM to know most of you do not, but would the language used lead to those implications?

If Atheism is a religion ,then should it be taught in schools along side the other religions ?


fullywired

Ehn. I wouldn't call it a dig. I've heard good arguments for both sides - It's definitely a belief and it's a belief related to deities and afterlife, both religious themes.

Presumably if someone were to say that they had converted to Atheism or deconverted from Atheism, I guess it's more indicative that they see it as a religious belief. I'd imagine it would be more common to say "I lost my faith", "I became an atheist" or "I converted to XYZ'ism".

You know Tiggs, you have a great point one I think I concur with....Athiesm is a beleif just a s much as religion is ( I also beleive everything is a beleif including mathematics) actually in the early pagan cultures athiesm was a term coined for those that beleived in one god instead of multipkle gods, it then evolved to a beleif in no gods yet it takes a leap of faith on both sides...

We Pagans don't use the term Conversion. It has connotations of someone's beliefs changing by persuasion which is a no no in most Pagan beliefs. If someone changes from a Christian to a Pagan (which happens a lot) we would say they have changed their Path. If they change the other way around Pagan to Christian it is the same. As we say, each person to their own Path.

Atheism is as valid a belief as any other; that's a fact, not an opinion. It is the belief that there is no [G-d]. Check the O.E.D.s definition.

"Denouncing" is more 'fitting' than "deconversion," in that 'transformation' implies a forward-moving process, whereas 'deconversion' implies a reversal or returning or backwards-moving process. Semantics, too often, just complicates.

indeed, evolvement can go in both directions....good point...

ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION OR A FAITH!

Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism. If you cannot say "I believe in a Deity/God/Supreme Being" then you are an atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.

As mentioned in the Introduction page, there is a subtle but important difference between "believing there is no God", and "not believing there is a God". The first is a belief, the second is a lack of that belief. I don't know any atheists who "believe" God (take your pick, there are plenty) does not exist. All the atheists I know simply do not believe God does exist.

There is a big difference between positively believing that a thing does not exist, and simply lacking belief in it's existence. In many cases, atheists will say "That God does not exist", not because they choose to do so, but because, from the description of the God, it cannot exist due to contradictory attributes. In the same way that a square circle cannot (and therefore does not) exist, a God defined as (for example) all-knowing, yet cannot see into the future, cannot and does not exist because the definition is self-contradictory. If you describe your God with self-contradicting attributes which make it logically impossible, then I may safely say that such a thing does not exist as described. This is not faith - this is reason.

If someone asked you about unicorns, would you say "I believe there are no unicorns", or would it be more honest to say "I do not believe in unicorns"? These are two different answers. Nobody disbelieves in unicorns purely as a matter of personal faith.

Again, apply the same reasoning to the Gods of other religions. Example : if you are a Christian, do you believe the Hindu God Ganesh does not exist? Or do you not believe in Ganesh?

If you believe that unicorns do not exist, then may I say that you a member of the "No unicorns" religion? Is it a matter of faith that unicorns do not exist? Can I come along to your non-unicorn church with you tomorrow?

If you are a Christian, do you believe Ganesh does not exist? Why, then you must be a devout follower of the "No Ganesh" faith!

Do you see where this is going? [ Sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit, but it's excellent for getting a point across. 8-) ]

If me not believing in your God is a faith, then you not believing in other Gods is an equal faith. How many Christians do you know who would say they do not believe in other Gods as a matter of faith?

If my atheism with respect to your deity is a religion, then your atheism with respect to other deities is also a religion.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html

You are right but why do you bother? : >
You know the mindset of many of the people who argue atheism to be a faith you even made a quote that shows it pretty well earlier "What people believe prevails over the truth" *shrug*

I would agree Atheism is not a religion, there is no authoritative body setting Atheistic tenet and thus it does not, to my mind, qualify as a religion. If faith = belief, however, then Atheism is a faith.



Nonsense, I could not truthfully make this statement, yet I am not an Atheist - I am Agnostic. I do appreciate what the article is trying to convey, however it seems the author doth protest too much.



The operative word in this passage is the penultimate one - "that". Atheists lack belief of the gods we have described in the world's religions, true, yet they still have belief. The position of Atheism is not brought about by evidence, thus it must be a belief.

Can any Atheist truthfully state "There can not be a god of some, unknown, description"?

If not then the position of Atheism is faith-based that there can not be a god.

You know after much consideration and research myself( searching out tthe roots of atheism ) I also agree Athiesm is a "faith" based "belief.."

I am also agnostic...

Leo, you nailed it Athiesm is not brought about by evidence, therefore its faith based... ...

let me be the first to remind us all that this was argued fervently by our very own brave.....

brave it seems you were on to somethihng..


i have to say also the best, best arguement I have ever seen as a counter was from truethat...I have to say I miss her arguments....

Atheists disbelieve not believe,I don't need faith to disbelieve


fullywired

Its about picking the fights that are worth taking

I, too, disbelieve the various gods described in world religion/mythology exist. That does not mean I can say "There is no god", because there could be some god of unknown description out there.

Athesim is the belief there is no god - not the belief there is no god of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

Are you a spaghettimonsterist? How about pinkelephantist? or maybe the oposite since neither thing has been proven or disproven we should label both sides of both religions for different types of faith.

No, I am not a Pastafarian.

If anything I am a member of the UCTAA.

If I could be bothered, that is!

No it isn't, it's a disbelief that there are any God or Gods



fullywired

How dare you deny his noodley appendage

This is from a like-minded colleague's blog: http://blog.case.edu/singham/2005/07/28/agnostic_or_atheist

Mano Singham: a theoretical physicist and currently Director of UCITE (University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education) at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. I am the author of two books: Quest for Truth: Scientific Progress and Religious Beliefs (2000) and The Achievement gap in US education: Canaries in the mine (2005). Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are my personal ones and are not those of UCITE or Case Western Reserve University.


July 28, 2005
Agnostic or atheist?

I am sure that some of you have noticed that you get a more negative response to saying you are an atheist than to saying that you are an agnostic. For example, in a comment to a previous posting, Erin spoke about finding it "weird that atheism is so counter-culture. Looking back at my youth, announcing your non-belief in God was a surefire shock tactic." But while I have noticed that people are shocked when someone says that he/she is an atheist, they are a lot more comfortable with you saying that you are an agnostic. As a result some people might call themselves agnostics just to avoid the raised eyebrows that come with being seen as an atheist, lending support to the snide comment that "an agnostic is a cowardly atheist."

I have often wondered why agnosticism produces such a milder reaction. Partly the answer is public perceptions. Atheism, at least in the US, is associated with people who very visibly and publicly challenge the role of god in the public sphere. When Michael Newdow challenged the legality of the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance that his daughter had to say in school, the media focused on his atheism as the driving force, though there are religious people who also do not like this kind of encroachment of religion into the public sphere.

In former times, atheism was identified with the flamboyant and abrasive Madalyn Murray O'Hair whose legal action led in 1963 to the US Supreme Court voting 8-1 to ban "'coercive' public prayer and Bible-reading at public schools." (In 1964 Life magazine referred to her as the most hated woman in America.) I discussed earlier that the current so-called intelligent design (ID) movement in its "Wedge" document sees this action as the beginning of the moral decline of America and is trying to reverse that course by using ID as a wedge to infiltrate god back into the public schools. Since O'Hair also founded the organization American Atheists, some people speculate that the negative views that Americans have of atheism is because of the movement's close identification with her.

I think that it may also be that religious people view atheism as a direct challenge to their beliefs, since they think atheism means that you believe that there definitely is no god and that hence they must be wrong. Whereas they think agnostics keep an open mind about the possible existence of god, so you are accepting that they might be right.

The distinction between atheism and agnosticism is a bit ambiguous. For example, if we go to the Oxford English Dictionary, the words are defined as follows:

Atheist: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

Agnostic: One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

The definition of atheism seems to me to be too hard and creates some problems. Denying the existence of god seems to me to be unsustainable. I do not know how anyone can reasonably claim that there definitely is no god, simply because of the logical difficulty of proving a negative. It is like claiming that there is no such thing as an extra-terrestrial being. How can one know such a thing for sure?

The definition of agnosticism, on the other hand, seems to me to be too soft, as if it grants the existence of god in some form, but says we cannot know anything about she/he/it.

To me the statement that makes a good starting point is the phrase attributed to the scientist-mathematician Laplace in a possibly apocryphal story. When he presented his book called the System of the World, Napoleon is said to have noted that god did not appear in it, to which Laplace is supposed to have replied that "I have no need for that hypothesis."

If you hold an expanded Laplacian view that you have no need for a god to provide meaning or explanations and that the existence of god is so implausible as to be not worth considering as a possibility, what label can be put on you, assuming that a label is necessary? It seems like this position puts people somewhere between the Oxford Dictionary definitions of atheist and agnostic. But until we have a new word, I think that the word atheist is closer than agnostic and we will have to live with the surprise and dismay that it provokes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree.

!

Very interesting article... it seems that the great concern of the theist is the athiest,( actaully if memory serves me this was the reason for the ID argument and the reason the fundie theists have such issue with sceince , it can render god extinct..... the theist may just be wrong....In a construct that relys so exclusively on the right and wrongness of things i can understand its apprehension with athiesm.....if i lived in the shadow of right and wrong i must say i jsut might fight tooth and nail and make stuff up myself to save face oy vey.....

I limit the use of labels myself as you well know but agnostic for me is honest( probably to the thiest and open invitation to try and convert now that i think about it...) but its just honestly where i am at.....


Micheal you would be surprised at the reactions i harness by saying I don't know... stammering and shock and stunned are just some of them... ............Being an athiest back in the day was fun IMO.....

Or we can simply go on not concerned with our own lives and not with what atheist or an agnostic believes knowing they have a right to their views as we do to ours. Not all of us want to convert others. Far from it. That belief is a construct of your own as much as it is of the few vocal minority who wishes to proselytize. Which I might add proselytization is not a monopoly of the theist alone for quote a few atheist would love nothing more than to destroy theism and have as many believe as they do. Science will never do that and neither will an atheists' argument. Why? Because some theist accept science as much as the next guy.

Do you guys really go around thinking we have your conversion on our minds all day? Such a self centered view.

Not all of you, but sometimes when a Christian sees one of us Pagans they just can't seem to help themselves. Like those wonderful tracks ya'll leave in the bathrooms at Walmart. Gross like I am going to pick up anything in a Walmart bathroom.

I doubt those people leaving tracts at Walmart have Paganism in mind when they do so. Do you really think so? Have you seen one or are they all in reference to Paganism?

I don't know about the ones in the bathroom cause I don't touch them, but I have seen them directed a Paganism. I was on my way to ritual on night and I stop at a store for a drink to take, as I was getting out of my car a woman in a van nailed me. She could see by the way I was dressed I was a Pagan. I am a nice guy so I listen to what she had to say. She gave me a track on Satan and told me to the effect if I went to their church I would be healed. I told her no thanks and she started crying. I am sorry that is just nuts. I told her there are lots of Christians in my MS group and none of them have gotten up and walked because they went to church. I guess it says a lot about their personal faith that they keep going.

Do not be sorry for she does not reflect me or my values. I can understand her emotional position and what maybe she was feeling at the moment she started crying. I too at times feel bad for nonbelievers but hear me out. It might sound cold hearted but many places within scripture says there will be disbelievers in God. It is expected so I do not worry for the world even if at times I have.

Matthew 10 says Christ will bring division and for those who love others more than Him are not worthy. Many see this passage that we should hold contempt towards nonbelievers but au contraire it merely tells us to be prepared when others hate us for our beliefs and to keep our eyes on the greater reward.

John 17:9 and 20 illustrate that Jesus is praying not just for believers but all future believers as well. He does not pray for nonbelievers so trust me I am not going to waste my time, effort, and energy into feeling bad for them. Not only is that condescending towards them but foolish for us.

This is why I can respect nonbelievers especially the ones who are believers in their own forms of spirituality. Worshiping nature as you do is so beautiful it just is not my way but I could easily do so. I feel comfortable around pagans especially because of their beliefs and because I can tell some truly care in what they believe in.

As far as that woman you should have informed her that pagans have no intentions of worshiping Satan. Tis a pity you did not take that as a chance to allow her to hear you out in all kindness that you showed her. Either way much respect mate. Cheers.

As a religious group, Christians most certainly see it as a mission (to convert). Therefore, it is on the 'collective Christian mind' constantly. Nothing self-centered about that.