You're not supposed to try to convert people away from their religion, per the forum rules, fyi.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do people convert?
- Thread starter Cooky
- Start date
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Hi @Pipiripi
The Qur'an is to me like the bible is for you. I found a lot of love and obedience in the teaching in the Qur'an and the more i read the more sure i am about my conversion.
I know muslims has converted to Christianity too, that is of course their own choice.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
a) When young and "dragged" into the religion of your parents, it seems obvious that people, once getting older, make their own choice.
b) Some religions on the outside look much different than on the inside; this is a good reason to change, when you find out it's not for you
I could follow any (non)religion, that does not belittle other (non)religion
Because I always go for the "inside" Path, not the "outside" Path
Last edited:
GardenLady
Active Member
The same person unknown hangs my glasses from my neckline on a regular basis.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Very good question... one that I am woefully unsuited to answer. Apparently I am simply not capable of comprehending the theist mindset. As someone who was never indoctrinated to believe any religion the only way that I personally could ever 'believe' is if I'm presented with sufficient verifiable evidence for belief. I always assumed that theists were the same, but that they simply had a far lower threshold than I do for what they consider to be verifiable evidence.
But then I hear about people converting to a new religion or ones who are searching for a new religion and I'm completely baffled. How can a person have sufficient verifiable evidence to hold a belief that any one religion is actually true and then suddenly lack that belief? Do they suddenly realize that what they thought was sufficient evidence was really lacking because it could not be verified as true? If so, what prompts them to go searching for another religion that has the same lack of verifiable evidence to back it up? I would think that if they have already gained the awareness that they were able to delude themselves into thinking they had sufficient verifiable evidence for their previous beliefs that they would resist jumping into another religion until they received genuinely verifiable evidence.
Which leads me to think that maybe it isn't a matter of theists having a lower threshold for what they consider to be evidence, but rather that evidence isn't really a factor in how they determine their beliefs.
MNoBody
Well-Known Member
religions are like maps, which define positions
but the map is not the territory which often gets confusing for folks
in that sense, religions, like maps are equally true, take your pick, none of them shows the way out of the existential prison, they just give people something to do in the meantime, and something to imagine....wait 'n see.
pick your coping mechanism up at the bar.
but the map is not the territory which often gets confusing for folks
in that sense, religions, like maps are equally true, take your pick, none of them shows the way out of the existential prison, they just give people something to do in the meantime, and something to imagine....wait 'n see.
pick your coping mechanism up at the bar.
New evidence?
New information?
New outlook?
New experiences?
Not all religions are theistic.
New discoveries?
New approach?
ecco
Veteran Member
You got that right!
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Here's something I found.
Enjoy
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
So if you have 'new' evidence that makes you question the 'old' evidence then that suggests that the old evidence that you THOUGHT was verification that your old beliefs were true was actually flawed. Unless you change your standards for verification of evidence, how can you be sure your not deluding yourself into thinking that this 'new' evidence is somehow more reliable than your 'old' evidence?
From my perspective it seems that what theists do is start off with the assumption that there MUST be a god and that surely there's SOME religion that can verify it. Personally I would require the verifiable evidence that there even IS a god before I could ever devote myself to trying to figure out which religion might best defines this god.
And if a persons 'religion' isn't theistic then I clearly wasn't addressing them, since I said I don't understand the THEISTIC mindset.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't say that Pipiripi is attempting to convert anyone. The entire topic of the thread is why do people convert and Pipiripi simply provided a suggested resource that explained why someone decided to switch from one religion to another.
Yes.
New evidence is evidence that didn't exist in times past. New evidence is what makes people change their minds about all sorts of things. We never stop coming across new things in our world. A decent person, when presented with evidence that wasn't known about before, adjusts his understanding accordingly. Like new evidence that so-and-so vaccine works for Corona, or new evidnece that x mask is better than y mask.
Pretty basic stuff.
Or unless you are presented with new evidence that didn't exist before.
Because if it's new you never had a chance to look at it before because it's....new. It may or may not be reliable.
So?
And?
Yes, and believe it or not, a lot of people do believe that there is a God based on what they see as evidence. No-one cares if that evidence isn't good enough for you.
Last edited:
MNoBody
Well-Known Member
attending any introductory university course that exposes the big picture of their discipline and how long it has been ongoing and how many minds have engaged it on so many levels, ought to open the average person's mind to the idea that they don't have even more than a sliver of awareness of the old data, and all it comprises....
let alone new information.
let alone new information.
That's not how it came off but we'll see.
Once in a while, we are privileged to hear some perfection. Glory be! Nobody knows for sure if today's right will be tomorrow's wrong. So, just be FREE and try to enjoy that.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
No.
New evidence is evidence that didn't exist in times past. New evidence is what makes people change their mind about all sorts of things. We never stop coming across new things in our world. A decent person, when presented with evidence that wasn't known about before, adjusts his understanding accordingly. Like new evidence that so-and-so vaccine works for Corona, or new evidnece that x mask is better than y mask.
Pretty basic stuff.
What do you mean, no? You just agreed with what I said. People change their minds due to new evidence because they realize what they believed was true based on their old evidence was flawed in some way. What they had convinced themselves was verified evidence of truth turned out to not be as verified as they had thought.
Now, if they continue to access the new evidence using the same standards for verification that they used for the old evidence they risk convincing themselves that they've now verified some new truth. But this new truth is no more reliable than the old truth if you're using the same flawed standards for determining what is verifiable evidence.
Using your Corona virus example. A person is convinced that injecting the drug hydroxychloroquine is an effective way to not get the virus and their evidence for believing this is that a president who probably couldn't pass a high school biology class insists that it is. And then they alter their beliefs and are now convinced that instead it's better to inject disinfectants into your system, but their standard for verifying this new evidence is simply that the same uneducated president claimed it was so, do you really think that you've come any closer to learning the genuine truth about how to effectively combat the virus?
When we finally do come up with a vaccine it's going to be based on a reliable standard for determining what constitutes verifiable evidence.
People convert for many reasons, none of which are particularly revealing about what it means to really have "faith."
There are those, like one of our members, who (on the surface) appears to be converting to satisfy a likely mate.
Many convert because whatever it is they think they believe now isn't quite meeting their needs, and so they think if they believe something else, there needs will be better met.
This is very unlikely. As a Canadian living in Toronto, I have known many unhappy people here who have finally moved to Vancouver, on our left (west) coast, presuming they'll be happier there. They have pretty much universally not achieved that goal. They have instead remained unhappy, only now they are moister -- it's rainforest country, after all.
There are those, like one of our members, who (on the surface) appears to be converting to satisfy a likely mate.
Many convert because whatever it is they think they believe now isn't quite meeting their needs, and so they think if they believe something else, there needs will be better met.
This is very unlikely. As a Canadian living in Toronto, I have known many unhappy people here who have finally moved to Vancouver, on our left (west) coast, presuming they'll be happier there. They have pretty much universally not achieved that goal. They have instead remained unhappy, only now they are moister -- it's rainforest country, after all.
Sorry, I meant yes. I was too busy yelling at my crappy internet connexion.
Why are you under the impression their standards are low? Everyone has different outlooks and criteria. They're not all based on the same thing.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
I base it one two things.
1. Whenever I have asked any theist what their verifiable evidence for their beliefs are they either admit it's not based on verifiable evidence, but rather faith, or what they present as being the verifiable evidence they use to come to their beliefs is in my opinion a very low standard for verification.
2. If I were to ever come to a belief that religion A is true, based on my standards of verifiable evidence, and then I suddenly encountered evidence that actually it's religion B that is true, I would have to conclude that my method for judging that the evidence I had that religion A was true was actually verifiable evidence must have been flawed. I convinced myself that it verified a truth, but I was wrong. Consequently I would be VERY wary of using the SAME standards for verification in judging the new evidence I have that religion B is actually true. Since using those standards led me down the wrong path to religion A, wouldn't using those same flawed standards have the same risk of leading me down the wrong path to religion B?
But they were smart enough not to move to Edmonton.
Of those two, I prefer Toronto.
People who convert for shallow reasons don't usually last long.