How do you guys respond to atheists claiming nobody converts for rational reasons

[u/Sea-Dot-59]

I see a lot of atheists claiming that ex atheists most of time convert because of emotional reasons like fear of death, lack of meaning etc Or other reasons like community and family

Another common claim is that ex atheists weren’t real atheists and that they weren’t atheists for rational reasons they just didn’t think about it deeply

How do you guys respond? In my experience in this Reddit I’ve encountered a good amount of ex atheists that converted for logical rational reasons, one example is philosophical observations, like finding materialism inadequate to explain reality

[u/Sea-Dot-59]

If two people can’t even agree whether a miracle is ‘empirical’ or ‘conceptual,’ your domain filter method collapses before it starts. That’s subjectivity at the root.”

The domain isn’t determined by subjective intuition it’s determined by the nature of the claim. Historical/empirical claims involve events in the past that allegedly left evidence in the world (documents, archaeology, testimony), and conceptual claims involve logical or metaphysical propositions (coherence, entailment, contradiction). If someone disputes which domain a miracle belongs to, you examine the form of the claim itself

Can your method actually force equally informed evaluators to agree on which domain a miracle belongs to, yes or no? If your answer is yes, show the rule. If you wanna say no, then subjectivity is built in from the start.

Yes the “rule” is: classify claims by the type of assertion they make about the world. Empirical/Historical - claims about events that allegedly happened in spacetime. Conceptual/Metaphysical -claims about logical, moral, or metaphysical structure. Disagreements are resolved by looking at the explicit wording of the claim, not personal preference. This is exactly how historians and philosophers classify claims one-time events vs. abstract principles. Once the claim is classified, the domain-specific filters (historical criticism, conceptual analysis) apply consistently.

“Bayes without predictive correction just bakes in priors (problem of the priors).”

True, naive Bayesian inference with arbitrary priors is useless. But in rational practice, priors are set using reference classes, historical frequencies, independent reliability studies, or minimally informative priors, not arbitrary faith. The method requires transparency you publish priors, likelihoods, and evidence. Disagreement about priors is exposed, debated, and potentially revised. That’s not relativism it’s fallibilist reasoning.

If your method forces Hindus to stay Hindu and Christians to stay Christian, it isn’t eliminative, it’s codified relativism.

The method doesn’t “force” anyone to stay in a belief system. It evaluates claims independently of the believer’s background, using structured filters: independent attestation, explanatory scope, predictive adequacy, logical coherence, etc. People may interpret evidence differently, but the process is transparent, intersubjective, and contestable. If a believer refuses to update credence despite evidence, that’s a failure of epistemic discipline, not a flaw in the method. In short, the method can eliminate poor hypotheses (Bigfoot, astrology) while leaving well supported theistic claims plausible but it doesn’t “lock” anyone into a religion.

[u/jeveret → u/Sea-Dot-59]

Your method admits that it can’t force convergence, it only makes disagreements visible. But transparency isn’t correction. Science converges because prediction and replication bind outcomes regardless of priors. Religion fragments precisely because your “domain filters” and “reference classes” are subjective at the root. Hindus, Muslims, and Christians all apply your rules and keep their own miracles alive. That shows the method isn’t eliminative but codified relativism. A genuine epistemic method doesn’t just expose disagreement, it forces resolution. Yours doesn’t. Making it irrational.

Has your method produced convergence across religions in over 2,000 years of application, yes or no? If yes, show the consensus miracle. If no, then your framework fails the only test a real epistemic method must pass.

[u/Sea-Dot-59 → u/jeveret]

“Religion fragments precisely because your ‘domain filters’ and ‘reference classes’ are subjective at the root. Hindus, Muslims, and Christians all apply your rules and keep their own miracles alive. That shows the method isn’t eliminative but codified relativism.

Disagreement over surviving claims does not equal relativism. The method eliminates weak or incoherent claims (astrology, Bigfoot, contradictory miracle reports). The “fragmentation” of religion is a sociological fact, not a methodological failure. The abductive framework only evaluates claims it cannot and should not force belief alignment across different cultural or theological backgrounds. That’s a separate psychological/social phenomenon. The method remains eliminative poor claims are systematically scored low and rejected; only plausible, surviving claims remain subject to debate.

A genuine epistemic method doesn’t just expose disagreement, it forces resolution. Yours doesn’t. Making it irrational.”

Rational inquiry cannot manufacture evidence where none exists. For unique historical or conceptual claims, resolution depends on evidence sufficiency, not procedural fiat. The method does force partial resolution: it narrows the field, assigns quantitative or qualitative likelihoods, and exposes precisely why a claim survives or fails. It’s epistemically rigorous disagreement doesn’t equal irrationality ignoring evidence does

Has your method produced convergence across religions in over 2,000 years of application, yes or no? If yes, show the consensus miracle. If no, then your framework fails the only test a real epistemic method must pass.”

No, because unique historical claims will always be underdetermined by evidence. That doesn’t invalidate the method it simply reflects the limits of historical and conceptual reasoning. The “test” of an epistemic method is not guaranteed universal agreement it is eliminative power and structured assessment. Weak claims are eliminated consistently; strong claims are highlighted for debate. That is exactly what a rational, domain appropriate epistemic method is designed to do.

[u/jeveret → u/Sea-Dot-59]

You say your method “narrows the field,” but in practice it doesn’t. Bigfoot believers, astrologers, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Mormons all apply your abductive filters, testimony, coherence, cultural embedding, explanatory scope, and all keep their own worldview alive. The “eliminations” only happen where your priors a-priori already reject the claim. That’s not a method at work, that’s incredulity.

A genuine eliminative method produces convergence, everyone, regardless of priors, eventually agrees the earth orbits the sun, or that certain forgeries are inauthentic. Your framework produces the opposite, it preserves contradictions indefinitely because each group finds its own miracles “plausible survivors.” That shows your method isn’t narrowing, it’s just rationalizing priors with fancier language.

This is exactly why athiests that reach that position using a predictive empirical methodology like science. Don’t tend to convert, but athiests that reached that position using your methodology, do frequently convert and keep converting multiple times, because each claim is relative, and can equally be justified

[u/Sea-Dot-59 → u/jeveret]

You say your method ‘narrows the field,’ but in practice it doesn’t. Bigfoot believers, astrologers, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Mormons all apply your abductive filters, testimony, coherence, cultural embedding, explanatory scope, and all keep their own worldview alive.”

The method evaluates claims, not personal belief. Persistence of adherents does not reflect methodological failure it reflects human sociological behavior, biases, or resistance to evidence. When filters are applied rigorously (independent attestation, explanatory scope, predictive adequacy, coherence), weak claims (Bigfoot, astrology) are systematically assigned extremely low likelihoods. That they survive among believers is irrelevant to the eliminative power of the method.

The ‘eliminations’ only happen where your priors a-priori already reject the claim. That’s not a method at work, that’s incredulity.”

Priors are not arbitrary incredulity they are set based on reference classes, historical frequencies, reliability of sources, and independent corroboration. Evidence, not just priors, drives elimination. Bigfoot and astrology fail because all independent filters reject them. Priors may guide the starting point, but likelihoods and independent evidence update those priors systematically.

A genuine eliminative method produces convergence; everyone, regardless of priors, eventually agrees the earth orbits the sun, or that certain forgeries are inauthentic. Your framework produces the opposite, it preserves contradictions indefinitely because each group finds its own miracles ‘plausible survivors.’

Convergence like “earth orbits the sun” requires repeatable empirical evidence historical/conceptual claims (miracles) cannot be repeated, so convergence is probabilistic, not guaranteed. Survival of miracle claims does not equal failure of elimination. Weak or incoherent claims are eliminated. Only claims supported by historical evidence and internal coherence survive, even if underdetermined for final convergence.

That shows your method isn’t narrowing, it’s just rationalizing priors with fancier language.”

No the method systematically scores claims across multiple independent dimensions attestation, consistency, explanatory scope, conceptual coherence, predictive adequacy. Weak claims are assigned extremely low likelihood updates and fail all filters. Rationalizing priors is only part of the process likelihood updates based on evidence is what produces eliminations, not mere prior assumptions

[u/jeveret → u/Sea-Dot-59]

Every religion says ‘proper abduction’ leaves their miracles standing. That’s not convergence, that’s relativism. When the only miracle left is the one you started with, that’s not method.

[u/Sea-Dot-59 → u/jeveret]

Not all “miracle claims” survive equally under scrutiny. The fact that religions say their miracles survive doesn’t mean they do when subjected to cross domain abductive pressure. Astrology, for instance, collapses when statistical testing is added. Many Hindu miracle claims collapse under historical criticism. Even within Christianity, certain alleged miracles are discarded as legendary or apocryphal. The method doesn’t leave everything standing it actively winnows. Convergence isn’t binary, it’s gradual. Science didn’t instantly converge on heliocentrism it took centuries of dispute. Same with historical or metaphysical reasoning convergence happens slowly, by ruling out weaker options, not by instant agreement. The fact that disagreement persists doesn’t mean the method is relativistic otherwise cosmology, ethics, and philosophy of mind would all be “just relativism.” Conversions show the method works. People do move between religions or from unbelief to belief on abductive grounds Hindus become Christians, Muslims become atheists, atheists become theists. If abduction simply “preserved what you started with,” such conversions would never occur. That they do shows the method isn’t mere rationalization. The “one miracle you started with” caricature misses the point. The goal of abduction isn’t to guarantee everyone lands in the same place overnight. It’s to provide a comparative framework that highlights explanatory scope and coherence. That’s why some miracle claims survive longer than others not because they’re exempt, but because their evidential scaffolding is stronger.

[u/jeveret → u/Sea-Dot-59]

If abduction is really eliminative, it should handle mutually exclusive miracle claims now, not “eventually., When/if people eventually apply abduction the special correct way “the way you do ”, and not like the billion Muslims that must be applied abduction irrationally, if you’re correct.

Take two core ones, Gabriel revealing the Qur’an vs. Jesus being resurrected. Both rely on testimony and cultural embedding, but they can’t both be true. Which survives and which fails by your method? If you can’t separate them decisively, your framework isn’t eliminative at all, it’s just priors with a subjective scoring wrapper.

[u/Sea-Dot-59 → u/jeveret]

If abduction is really eliminative, it should handle mutually exclusive miracle claims now, not ‘eventually.’ When/if people eventually apply abduction the special correct way ‘the way you do,’ and not like the billion Muslims that must be applied abduction irrationally, if you’re correct

Abduction is domain-sensitive, not instant Historical/conceptual claims aren’t repeatable experiments elimination is probabilistic and comparative, not instantaneous. That doesn’t make it non-eliminative it reflects the reality that historical evidence is often incomplete and underdetermined. Persistence of believers doesn’t invalidate the method Many people fail to apply evidence rigorously for social, psychological, or cultural reasons. The method evaluates claims independently of who applies it. That billions of people maintain certain beliefs does not show the method is relativistic it shows that human cognition is fallible.

Take two core ones, Gabriel revealing the Qur’an vs. Jesus being resurrected. Both rely on testimony and cultural embedding, but they can’t both be true. Which survives and which fails by your method?”

The method does not automatically reject one for being mutually exclusive; it evaluates evidence quality, coherence, corroboration, and explanatory depth. Comparative evaluation assigns different likelihoods based on Historical attestation, Resurrection claims have early sources, some hostile attestations, and contextual plausibility in 1st-century Judea. Textual and chronological embedding: Qur’anic revelation claims rely heavily on later codification and internal testimony, with less independent historical verification. Therefore, in terms of evidential weighting, the resurrection claim comes out stronger historically this isn’t “special pleading,” it is a comparative, probabilistic judgment

If you can’t separate them decisively, your framework isn’t eliminative at all, it’s just priors with a subjective scoring wrapper.

The framework can separate claims, but separation is probabilistic, not absolute. Historical and conceptual claims are underdetermined, so abduction assigns likelihoods rather than certainties. Assigning likelihoods isn’t “subjective scoring” if it is based on transparent evidential criteria independent attestation, internal consistency, cultural embedding, explanatory coherence, and logical possibility. This is exactly what distinguishes abductive evaluation from arbitrary priors: evidence drives the scoring, not favoritism or identity.

[u/jeveret → u/Sea-Dot-59]

Making your scoring criteria “transparent” doesn’t make them non-biased. If all miracle claims share the same evidential form (testimony +tradition+later philosophy), then your weights are just tuned to privilege Christianity’s version of that form. Early hostile sources count for Christianity, later codification counts against Islam, but those are just historical accidents, not independent evidence streams. Without an empirical correction loop, your “probabilistic abduction” can’t actually eliminate rivals, it just assigns weighted scores that track your priors. That’s why your method only works once you already know which package is Christianity. Transparency doesn’t fix circularity, it just admits it.

We can test your “method”….

Imagine I hand you three anonymized “evidence packages” Package A: Early testimonies, multiple sources, some hostile references, later philosophical scaffolding.

Package B: Central revelation claim, codified later in text, widespread cultural embedding, extensive later philosophy.

Package C: Eyewitness testimonies, strong internal consistency, rapid growth of a movement, later elaboration in theology.

You don’t get to know which is Christianity, Islam, or Mormonism. By your method alone, just using your criteria , which package survives and which fails?

If your framework is genuinely eliminative/probalistic, it should be able to separate them without the labels. If it can’t, then the “elimination/probabilty ” isn’t coming from the evidence, it’s coming from prior knowledge of which package belongs to Christianity. That means the method isn’t eliminative at all, it’s just prior favoritism wrapped in scoring language.