de-conversion

113 Comments Add your own

• 1. doubtingthomas426  |  January 15, 2008 at 12:14 pm

  Prepare for the onslaught, my friend! For you know the believers are a’commin’ for you! Or at least your blog.

  Hey confusedchristian, glad I found your blog. All of your points spoke to me. Frankly, I don’t understand how ANYONE can ignore the things you mention. All stand out in glaring ALL CAPS, underlined, bold print, type face. It’s hard to respect the willfully ignorant, and it IS willful for a Christian to ignore the points you make in this post. The question is always how CAN you believe in a god, not how CAN’T you.

  You should check out my site: http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/
  I think you’ll find it VERY familiar. I’ll leave you with this assurance; You’re Not Alone.

  Take Care. And Keep The Faith! Ha!

• 2. doubtingthomas426  |  January 15, 2008 at 12:16 pm

  BTW, I added your site to my Links (blogroll) list. Hope that’s cool

• 3. confusedchristian  |  January 15, 2008 at 12:29 pm

  Thanks for adding me to your blogroll DT, I agree these reasons are major, among many more I assure you.

• 4. carriedthecross  |  January 15, 2008 at 1:16 pm

  CC,

  You’ve listed a very general synopsis of why (in my opinion) many people have left the faith. When I was a religion major bound to become a pastor in an evangelical denomination, I struggled with these issues and found little support from fellow students or professors. In fact, I was accused more than once of “reasonalotry.”

  It’s too bad that so few Christians even ask these questions, let alone look for answers. It destroys the potential for genuine discussion and debate about the veracity of Christianity between Christians and atheists.

  Anyway, kudos on bringing these points up. If I were to add to the list, I would add, 1. Logical inconsistency in claiming there is nothing uncaused -except- for God. 2. So-called ‘promises’ in the Bible going unfulfilled.

  CTC

• 5. confusedchristian  |  January 15, 2008 at 1:37 pm

  So you’re saying 1. is by saying the only reason for existence is God? and by 2. The promises in the Bible going unfulfilled is definitely a problem for sure.

• 6. artisticmisfit  |  January 15, 2008 at 2:39 pm

  Hell is something you can put your mind in. Belief is a choice, you are right. Nobody compels you to be a Christian. You made your choice to reject Christianity. Do you resent the fact that you were compelled to be a Christian as a child? It seems so. I feel sympathy for you, there are certainly brands of Christianity that I can not swallow, such as Southern Baptism, even though I am friends with Southern Baptist pastors and their flocks, and they send me their sermons… I don’t know what to say to you. I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy from a philosophical background, and from pagan religions, and I am satisfied with Eastern Orthodoxy. If it helps any, we see all other divisions of the Church as heresy.

• 7. TheDeeZone  |  January 15, 2008 at 2:42 pm

  CC,

  I want to address the issue of clashing theologies & demoninations. Due to the subjective nature of Biblical inperertation many differant and often clashing theologies or doctirnes have evolved. Some doctrines are more grounded in scripture than others. As a result many demonations have evolved. The problem isn’t a demonation problem but rather a people problem. It isn’t a new problem either, in fact it goes back to the Reformers. The dispute between Martin Luther & Ulrich Zwingli was infamous and sometimes bloody. It is frustrating to see groups of Christians fighting because they don’t agree with someone elses interpretation of the scripture. They claim to be followers of Christ yet forget the 2 greatest commands 1) Love God and 2) Love others. To me this means I am to repsect others beliefs. I may not agree with them or even want to attend their church but I don’t have to fight with them. Further, I am to respect the rights of others to not believe if God if they choose. Not all Christians choose to act like 3-year-olds and engage in petty fights and name calling.

• 8. LeoPardus  |  January 15, 2008 at 2:44 pm

  1) The Trinity was never a problem for me. At least I can make enough sense of it.

  2,3,4) Bother me too.

  5) is sort of a problem, sort of not a problem.

  6,7) Don’t bother me. It’s not so much that God can’t be proven that bothers me as that the evidence is so strongly against an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being.

  And like you, I have plenty of other issues.

• 9. confusedchristian  |  January 15, 2008 at 2:56 pm

  I’ve made my choice to reject Christianity becuase I have decided to reject any claim that requires a large amount of faith. I’m glad you found a home in eastern orthodoxy, but I see it as another set of superstitions.

  DH, that’s nice and all but itdoesn’t make me feel any better at all, and as a Christian that answer was floated around plenty of times towards me and it did me no good.

  LeoPartdus, thanks

• 10. artisticmisfit  |  January 15, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  confusedchristian,
  I have a very small amount of faith, but I am not going to break the commitment I made when I got baptized 9 years ago. In fact, as taught by St. Isaac the Syrian, I am called to renew it every three hours. That is why the Horologion of the Church has services every three hours. I feel the EO church is full of superstitions. I am afraid to verbalize what I think at this point. I think once I feel secure that my identity will remain personally confidential I may become more bold. But, despite my doubt, I still participate in the rites and services of the church, and even a ministry of the church. And I am open and honest about my skepticism…

• 11. confusedchristian  |  January 15, 2008 at 3:22 pm

  artisticmisfit, so you’re saying that not breaking a commitment is the reason you’re still christian, not because it makes sense but because you made a promise?

• 12. Paul S.  |  January 15, 2008 at 3:29 pm

  Due to the subjective nature of Biblical inperertation many differant and often clashing theologies or doctirnes have evolved.

  Can’t God make it crystal clear?

  Some doctrines are more grounded in scripture than others.

  But since Biblical interpretation is so subjective, all theologies and denominations feel that their’s is the most grounded.

  The problem isn’t a demonation problem but rather a people problem.

  But don’t the people involved determine the denomination? These are all man-made entities.

• 13. artisticmisfit  |  January 15, 2008 at 3:32 pm

  confusedchristian,
  Yes. The whole thing about unclean spirits being in the water and blessing the waters annually doesn’t make any sense to me, but, I just go along with it. I mean it does and it doesn’t. I guess I have been feeling hurt these last couple of years. I divorced, and I kind of feel like a pariah and a danger in the church, but oh well, I am coping. I don’t care if some of the clergy judges me, and I think they do, intensely. I can survive. I am really struggling right now and suffering, but I am not going to give up, I am not going to apostasize even though I desperately want to.

• 14. LeoPardus  |  January 15, 2008 at 3:40 pm

  artisticmisfit:

  Sounds like you’re in a similar place to where I was about 1.5 years ago. I couldn’t reconcile a number of issues anymore but I did NOT want to leave the faith entirely.

  I hope you find peace with it all one way or another.

• 15. artisticmisfit  |  January 15, 2008 at 3:54 pm

  LeoPardus,
  I may not find peace with it, but I am not leaving it. It is good to know I am not alone. That in itself gives me hope. I know that priests suffer crisis of faith, but I also know that some of them are reluctant to go on record with it. I have been feeling quite isolated and alienated lately, like an outcast, but I would rather feel outcast in this life than in the next. Thanks for making my day. Have you seen the movie Ostrov? Fr. Anatoly was not at peace, and yet he was perceived as a living saint. That gave me consolation. Perhaps it is ok not to be at peace.

• 16. LeoPardus  |  January 15, 2008 at 3:58 pm

  Some people at our church saw Ostrov and liked it. I haven’t seen it yet. May get it sometime.

  Yes, being at peace is not requisite. Many live with varying degrees of “lack of peace”. I can see how that even might strengthen faith in ways.

  BTW I posted some thoughts to you in the forum.

• 17. artisticmisfit  |  January 15, 2008 at 4:00 pm

  Leo,
  Thanks. I am definitely suffering from a lack of peace, for personal relational reasons, as regards to my divorce, which I mentioned earlier. I will check the forum later. Thank you so much for taking care of me. I am starving and thirsty. It is unfortunate you left the Church. You would make a superb priest. I hope you come back some day. As I stated, some priests struggle with their faith, yet won’t talk about their struggles in public, and for you to be honest about your struggle is a beautiful thing. I hope you were not a minor clergyman, that’s even more of a loss to the church.

• 18. tobeme  |  January 15, 2008 at 4:21 pm

  All good thoughts that support your belief or is it your disbelief?

• 19. confusedchristian  |  January 15, 2008 at 4:23 pm

  Tthey more or less caused my disbelief then “support” it.

• 20. LeoPardus  |  January 15, 2008 at 4:55 pm

  artisticmisfit:

  Me clergy? Nah. I don’t know what a ‘call to the clergy’ sounds like, but a ‘call not to be clergy’ seemed pretty clear to me. It sounded like my wife saying, “I DO NOT want to be a pastor’s wife!”

  As for me getting back in; all it needs is a miracle, or something of that sort. Basically just a clear reply to Isaiah 41:23 by the god who supposedly issued the challenge.

• 21. Jon F  |  January 15, 2008 at 5:36 pm

  I’ve been slowely building up a similar list here. I would only add that when you say you “no longer believe” you are actually saying you “no longer believe in the version of christianity you came to embrace”. For me, it was a big step forward to realise first that the christianity I had embraced was in fact just one “version” of christianity, and then another even bigger step when I realised that christianity itself was just one model amongst many that mankind has devised to understand the inaccessible reality of God and Man (which may turn out to be the same thing anyway). Wahtever the final outcome, I am just so so happy to be out of christian fundamentalism!
  Jon

• 22. artisticmisfit  |  January 15, 2008 at 6:07 pm

  Leo, Last night or this morning someone who is not Orthodox asked me if I wanted to be a matushka or would be a matushka at any cost.I seem to be attracted to alcoholic clergymen myself, which isn’t a problem to me, but was a problem to people like Fr. Arseny and his spiritual children. A call to be clergy comes from within the Church.
  Jon F, Unfortunately fundamentalism also exists in Orthodoxy and that is apparently the first form of Orthodoxy I was exposed to.

• 23. bmoe  |  January 15, 2008 at 7:02 pm

  God an religion are all things made by human beings. Everything that is made by man can be destroyed. They are all things constructed to control man. Think freely for yourself don’t let religion hold you back expand your mind beyond what you’ve been told is to be true. Your on the correct path to the new way of thinking and the logical answers will come.

• 24. TheDeeZone  |  January 15, 2008 at 8:03 pm

  CC,

  Not trying to make you feel better. Just responding to the statement about confusing doctrines. Not trying to presuade you otherwise. You will believe what you believe.

  Paul,

  Some demomantions are more tolerant than others. Some groups will allow others to disagree with them and still accept them as Christians. Others have no tolerance for others who do not agree with them. Yes people determine demonations. Some people are just nicer than others.

  Dh

• 25. frmad  |  January 15, 2008 at 9:18 pm

  This post is very hot, it is high ranked at our site (daily weblog, weblog post ranking site). See http://indirecttoadminor.wordpress.com/indirect-page-to-blog-report/ for more infomation

• 26. joshm  |  January 15, 2008 at 9:45 pm

  CC-

  I would like to address your last point about how there can be no argument for the existence of God. This is a formal logical fallacy, and therefore cannot be used. Your argument in formal logic would look like “no proof for A exists, therefore A does not exist.” This is sometimes called “argument from ignorance.”

  I have recently (in the last 3 months or so) been wondering if Christianity is not just a form of existentialism (leap of faith), so I feel you there. I would also like to challenge your statement “I have decided to reject any claim that requires a large amount of faith.” I am wondering how much faith is involved in this. Do you are basing this on autonomous reason?

• 27. joshm  |  January 15, 2008 at 10:31 pm

  CC-

  Sorry to comment twice in a row

  I would like to call into question the historical accuracy of your statement “Eastern religions predate Judaism.” Peter Stearns, a well known World History author, once wrote that the Jews “gave the world the first clearly developed monotheistic religion.” As early as 1400 BCE or 1200 BCE at the latest Judaism was crystallized by the writing of the Torah. At the same time, Jewish origins predate this. Abraham came out of Ur (the strongest city state in Sumer) which flourished from about 4000-2200 BCE. Judaism has its origins in Ancient History (10,000-500 BCE). On the other hand, Eastern religions developed (mainly) in the Classical Era (500 BCE- 500 CE).

  I’m not sure what apologists you are listening to, but I would like to give them an earful. A Biblical answer to your question of why other religions developed might be that because man was made in God’s image, he carries knowledge of God with him. Paul wrote about this to the Romans (see chapter 2). To be honest, this does not seem too far off from what some anthropologists might say.

• 28. bry0000000  |  January 15, 2008 at 11:31 pm

  “I would like to address your last point about how there can be no argument for the existence of God. This is a formal logical fallacy, and therefore cannot be used. Your argument in formal logic would look like “no proof for A exists, therefore A does not exist.” This is sometimes called “argument from ignorance.”

  I don’t think CC was arguing that there was no argument for the existence of God, just no way of proving it. Technically, it’s a straw man argument, as your syllogism is in concordance with your assumed postulate, but I’m thinking it was more of an honest misinterpretation on your part. I’m sure more than one of us has been guilty of the same thing in the past.

  In regards to your second post, I couldn’t help but notice the assertion that Judaism had established the first clearly developed monotheistic religion, but not necessarily established the first clearly developed religion in general (I’m thinking polytheism). Ancient history is not my specialty, so I’ll leave that up to someone else better grounded (or research it myself, whichever comes first).

• 29. artisticmisfit  |  January 15, 2008 at 11:48 pm

  joshm,
  I believe Christianity is a form of existentialism as I am a dyed in the wool existentialist, both of my parents are, and my mom is a skeptical Italian Catholic. My dad is an agnostic Russian Jew. It requires more faith to be an atheist than a believer.

• 30. Slapdash  |  January 16, 2008 at 12:23 am

  DeeZone: “Yes people determine demonations.”

  DEMONations?

  Ha ha ha. How has nobody caught that little slip yet?

• 31. Quester  |  January 16, 2008 at 1:22 am

  It requires more faith to be an atheist than a believer.

  Artistic Misfit, what do you mean by that statement? I’ve heard it before, but it makes no sense.

• 32. artisticmisfit  |  January 16, 2008 at 1:33 am

  I mean that it takes more faith to deny God then it does to affirm God. Somebody else told me they did not have enough faith to be an atheist, and that rang true for me as well. Where did you hear it before?

• 33. bry0000000  |  January 16, 2008 at 1:34 am

  I second that Quester. I want an explanation of that axiom.

• 34. artisticmisfit  |  January 16, 2008 at 1:36 am

  I suggest you ask a priest what that means since my explanations have not sufficed.

• 35. frmad  |  January 16, 2008 at 4:40 am

  This post is very hot, it is high ranked at our site (daily weblog, weblog post ranking site). See http://indirect1.blogspot.com/ for more infomation

• 36. confusedchristian  |  January 16, 2008 at 9:00 am

  josh, it’s not that ‘God doesn’t exist’ because of lack of evidence, it’s that we Cannot prove his existence. I’m open to the idea of a God or multiple God’s existing, as anything else unprovable. Anything is possible in this large and vast universe. But in the end, it’s hard for me to be religious because God’s existence cannot be proven.

• 37. cipher  |  January 16, 2008 at 9:48 am

  RE: other religions - the earliest forms of what later came to be called Hinduism (I don’t really like the term; it’s a made-up Western concept - Indian religions are in reality widely diverse) were well underway by the time Abraham and God began having their little chats. If you accept this as historically accurate (which I don’t, speaking as a secular Jew). And, even then, the Hebrews probably weren’t pacticing a pure form of monotheism; there is linguistic evidence in the bible to support this. Even later, during the kingdom periods, it appears that, although they were worshiping Yahweh exclusively (when they weren’t backsliding, of course), they didn’t regard him as the only deity - merely as the most powerful.

  The Indians see the deities within their pantheon as expressions or manifestations of one underlying reality - although, when this attitude emerged, I’m not certain.

  And, prior to Abraham, there were plenty of other Near Eastern religions, largely related by a common mythology, with numerous elements in common with Hebrew/Israelite religion. And this doesn’t even take into account Egyptian religion, which seems to have influenced all of the others. There is evidence that the educated classes had a view similar to that of the Indians, seeing the various deities as expressions of one underlying reality or supreme being.

  And, of course, this doesn’t include the myriad indigenous religions, those of “primitive” peoples.

• 38. Stutz  |  January 16, 2008 at 10:21 am

  As an ex-Christian, I guess I should feel at home here, but once I finally admitted to myself that I did not believe in God, I realized that I didn’t ever REALLY believe all that stuff in the first place, even though I’d been heavily involved in my youth group and had fairly religious parents. I thought I did at the time, but in reality it mostly just scared me to think that God is always watching/judging, that heaven and hell exist, that it is so hard to live normally and be a human being and yet still have to be responsible for my eternal soul. Anyway, the point is that I don’t feel like one of the confused because after just a few short years of clarity and honesty I feel like some kind of seasoned atheist.

  My advice to anyone struggling with faith is not to let your circumstances or obligations dictate your religion. Believe or do not believe because you think it is right, logical, and true to the best of your knowledge. Come to a conclusion after having honestly examined yourself and the issues. Do the mental work. Don’t de-convert because your church sucks, or because you’ve been wronged by a believer, or because it no longer makes you happy. By the same token, don’t stay an unthinking believer just because you were raised that way, or because all your friends are Christians, or because it gives you peace of mind to think about your departed loved ones waiting for you in heaven. I’m not saying to throw your life into a tailspin if a doubt crosses your mind. I’m saying that if that doubt nags at you, don’t repress it–take it seriously. OWN your beliefs, and make them truly yours. Be proud yet humble in the knowledge that, by having thought more deeply than most people ever will, you have avoided living the unexamined life.

• 39. choward  |  January 16, 2008 at 11:18 am

  CC-
  You wrote, “But in the end, it’s hard for me to be religious because God’s existence cannot be proven.”

  And yet, it is not hard for you to be non-religious even though God’s non-existence cannot be proven either. If God’s existence can neither be proven nor disproven (I am assuming, from your posts/comments, that you agree that God’s non-existence cannot be proven…afterall, you said, “Anything is possible in this large and vast universe.”)…where does that leave us? Why choose non-belief over belief? Seems that that would make it an arbitrary, unfounded decision…and if unfounded and arbitrary, then why attack those who believe in God? Why not just let people go about their business of making an arbitrary decision?

  And, yet, the very fact that you attack belief in God shows that you really don’t believe it to be an arbitrary decision. Your 8 Reasons for not believing tell us that you at least think that the question of God’s existence, while perhaps not proveable one way or the other, is at least a question that can be answered to a degree of certainty based on a preponderance of evidence.

  So, now we have non-believers claiming that their evidence leans towards the non-existence of God…and we have believers claiming that their evidence favors the existence of God. How does one decide? If both positions are unproveable, then we have reached the point of faith, either way you go…belief in something that cannot be proven. It does not mean belief in something for which there is no evidence…simply belief in something that cannot be proven. But, how many things are there to believe that can be proven? Some would say experiential beliefs, “Seeing is believing”…but then how do you prove that you can trust your senses, that you have an independent mind, that this “reality” is not all some Matrix-like illusion, that every thought you have is not controlled by chemical reactions in your brain, programed responses to stimuli?

  So, here we are…We all believe in something, many things, that cannot be proven. Like axioms in Geometry, beliefs that can be tested by their use, but must be accepted before we can work any problems. We all establish our world-views based on some basic, unproveable beliefs. We all rely on faith.

• 40. confusedchristian  |  January 16, 2008 at 11:30 am

  choward, you are correct that I say that God’s existance cannot be proven nor proven. You are incorrect though in thinking that somehow proves God exists.

  If you want to believe God exists then go ahead, because freedom of religion is great.

  The 8 reasons why I dont believe are the 8 reasons why I fell from Christianity. If you want to think that one can just walk out of a faith unscathed from emotional distress then you haven’t given deconversion much thought.

  Also, I’m curious as to why you consider me “attacking” a bleif in god when all I am doing is stating what has caused me to doubt blind faith and why I feel that blind faith does not work for me.

  I have never, ever, ever said that I believe in any absolutes. I believe that everything and anything is possible but it is important to recognize those which are most plausible. With the scientific method, which by its own right is in no way fallible, one can really find what is most plausible and confirm things using evidents and tests. It is the best thing we humans have because with it we have accomplished much.

  I believe that NOTHING is 100% certain. I don’t understand how your whole idea that because nothing is certain that any one of these religions (out of millions) is truer than the others. If anything it just shows agnosticism, definitely not religion.

  I would trust a scientific fact with my life, not a religion.(like wearing a helmet while driving a motorcycle will better save me than a simple ‘prayer’ Even though science isn’t 100%, atleast it surpasses all available scrutiny, which is eons beyond ‘blind faith’ (there is a big difference you know)

• 41. confusedchristian  |  January 16, 2008 at 11:33 am

  I meant to say the scientific method is not infallible and it doesn’t claim to be either. I also wanted to state that it has been GREAT to get all these doubts and my deconversion off my chest because the family and friends give nothing but emotional grief. Instead of even reasoning with me they just try to guilt me into believing again.

• 42. Marc  |  January 16, 2008 at 12:37 pm

  > I meant to say the scientific method is not infallible
  I think you mean the results of science are provisional. I doubt any scientist would agree that the method is fallible. Indeed, how could you test this hypothesis?

• 43. notabarbie  |  January 16, 2008 at 12:49 pm

  Well put CC!

  You said, “I also wanted to state that it has been GREAT to get all these doubts and my deconversion off my chest because the family and friends give nothing but emotional grief. Instead of even reasoning with me they just try to guilt me into believing again.”

  Welcome to my world and to the world of most de-converts. Doesn’t it just piss you off sometimes?

  Great post too BTW!

• 44. LeoPardus  |  January 16, 2008 at 1:01 pm

  joshm:

  I would like to address your last point about how there can be no argument for the existence of God. This is a formal logical fallacy, and therefore cannot be used. Your argument in formal logic would look like “no proof for A exists, therefore A does not exist.”

  Point of logic to make here. I think that CC’s argument would be better rendered, “proof for A has not been found, therefore I don’t believe A exists”. I know that’s not in the neatest form for formal logic, but it encapsulates the argument better. Anyway I always hated shoehorning everything into formal forms.

• 45. confusedchristian  |  January 16, 2008 at 1:02 pm

  Marc the beauty of science is its not supposed to be infallible and I’m not sure how you could test the scientific method because the scientific method is itself: testing.

• 46. confusedchristian  |  January 16, 2008 at 1:03 pm

  For the record I believe there is a possibility for God’s existence, but definitely not a God as defined by humans. (like the Bible or Koran, etc)

• 47. joshm  |  January 16, 2008 at 5:17 pm

  LeoPardus-

  Wow, lots of new comments up!!!

  “I think that CC’s argument would be better rendered, “proof for A has not been found, therefore I don’t believe A exists”. I know that’s not in the neatest form for formal logic, but it encapsulates the argument better.”

  I think your rendering is better than mine, however it is still a classic argument from ignorance, and therefore does not hold up.

• 48. joshm  |  January 16, 2008 at 5:18 pm

  CC-

  “The 8 reasons why I dont believe are the 8 reasons why I fell from Christianity. If you want to think that one can just walk out of a faith unscathed from emotional distress then you haven’t given deconversion much thought.”

  I understand that these are your reasons for de-converting, but surely you are willing to call them into question, just as you called “blind faith” (which I also hate) into question. Everything is should be subject to question.

• 49. Doubting Tom  |  January 16, 2008 at 5:41 pm

  I’ve been on a doubting road recently but have come to realise that Christians have got so much wrong. We are taught that because you go to church, don’t smoke or drink heavily, love your neighbour etc…etc…you are a good christian and will get to heaven. It’s true- Christians think that if you read the bible enough or pray enough then you are saved.
  However- if we are saved by grace, then salvation is completely independent of our actions. God’s love is bigger than our feelings, doubts, unbeliefs, actions, words or anything else. Nothing can seperate us from His love. It is only when I feel free to just be who I am - I’ve been created to be who I am- and i’m not aspiring to be anyone else or be better than I am now, that I find the freedom in my salvation. On such lines, I believe that anyone who has been saved is STILL saved. God knows the hurts, the guilt (which I believe He hates just as much as we do), the shame and all the other feelings that we have and truly NOTHING can seperate us from His love. It is unconditional and not dependent on anything that we do, say or believe..

• 50. choward  |  January 16, 2008 at 6:08 pm

  CC-

  Ok, point number 1. I never said that God’s existence was proven by the fact that there is no proof. That was not my point at all. I was simply addressing (primarily) your last Reason for not believing in God…”The existence of God cannot be proven.” I was showing that it is not logical to reject belief because there is no proof, and then turn around and accept non-belief…for which there is no proof. I can just as easily say that I reject atheism because there is no proof that there is no God…an argument I am sure most atheists would not accept.
  I did make an assumption here…perhaps I’m wrong. I assumed you were using “proof” in the sense of a logically sound argument for which it necessarily follows that God exists. If by proof you simply meant to say that there is no evidence that God exists then I have overstepped the boundaries of your language…and I apologize…although I will whole-heartedly disagree since I believe there is plenty of evidence (thought not proof) for God’s existence.
  I also didn’t mean to imply that your deconversion was an easy transition…but that you seem to be certain of your current beliefs (hence…”it is not hard for you to be non-religious”). Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding. Believe me, I know how religious people can be when family members reject their religion.
  Point number 2 - regarding the word “attack”…I certainly did not intend to offend in anyway…I was simply describing what you are doing. You made a post regarding reasons for not believing in God. I thought it was evident that this could be termed an “attack”…afterall isn’t your point to explain why belief in God is not logical/reasonable? You certainly aren’t defending belief, or sitting on the sidelines.
  Point number 3 - you stated in your comments that you do not believe in any absolutes…but then you made this statement in a later comment: “For the record I believe there is a possibility for God’s existence, but definitely not a God as defined by humans. (like the Bible or Koran, etc)” Would you explain your reasons for this, and why you don’t consider it an absolute? Perhaps this is not what you meant, but “definitely not” is absolute language. It would seem that there are some absolutes you believe in….if only this one: that there are no absolutes (again, absolute language, which makes this belief a logical contradiction).
  Thanks for your time and discussion. You have put a lot of thought into your deconversion…I appreciate the thought. Too many people don’t think about what they believe.

  BTW - I don’t believe in blind faith, either…and I don’t believe any Scripture calls us to blind faith. I am saddened by fellow Christians who ask people to believe blindly.

• 51. LeoPardus  |  January 16, 2008 at 6:22 pm

  joshm:

  it is still a classic argument from ignorance, and therefore does not hold up.

  It is an argument from insufficiency or ignorance true. As such it cannot make a conclusive argument. But then it isn’t meant as a conclusive argument. It’s just one in a string of data to support the hypothesis that God does not exist. Just as a theist would put a string of data together to support the opposing hypothesis. Neither hypothesis can be proven conclusively. So no argument will “hold up” if formal certainty is being sought.

• 52. robd  |  January 16, 2008 at 7:52 pm

  choward,
  no proof of God and no proof of no-God are not
  symmetrical positions;
  I do not need to believe the negative,
  I just not believe the positive.

  Also, it is religion that makes the extraordinary claims:
  to believe Jesus did walk on water requires a good deal of faith, because those things don’t happen;
  to believe it is a made-up story requires little faith, because stories are made up everywhere anytime; it’s human nature.

• 53. HeIsSailing  |  January 16, 2008 at 11:48 pm

  Wow, we left Christianity for very different reasons, it seems!! I am going to have to cook up a similar list someday soon.

  #1 I considered a mystery - a paradox. It made no sense, but it never bothered me.

  Also #2, 6, 7, 8 never bothered me.

  #4 was a thorn in my side, but not a real showstopper.

  #3 and 5 were my biggies, but I had several others that you did not list.

• 54. joshm  |  January 16, 2008 at 11:50 pm

  On the issue of argument from ignoracne, I think choward has done a good job outlining the difficulties (see comment 50, point #1)

  From robd-

  “no proof of God and no proof of no-God are not
  symmetrical positions;
  I do not need to believe the negative,
  I just not believe the positive.”

  To not believe that God exists (in other words, deny the “positive”) is to believe in no God (which is the negative). This is a trueism. They are mutally exculsive. If you believe one, you disbelive the other.

• 55. confusedchristian  |  January 17, 2008 at 12:20 am

  joshm, are you sayin that because we can’t prove God exists or doesnt exist we should believe he does? Also, are you talking about the Christian God or just God in general?

• 56. confusedchristian  |  January 17, 2008 at 12:28 am

  choward, I dont think that any religoin or human could understand God and I believe that using a Bible as inerrant is just a way of putting God in a box. I do not believe at all that any religion, or any human being, could understand or fathom a God. Therefore I indeed find that an absolute, so I guess the only absolute I believe in is that there are no absolutes, including an infallible bible or an infallible religion, or an infallible idea.

  On the other points, no, I really don’t believe that the “God” you call “God” exists. I think that there is a shot of a creator or something people could call “God” God, but definately not what the bronze age folks thought, or any other ancient civilization. It just doesn’t really work for me. But I would never say that “God can’t exist” but I could say that “we cannot know if God exists or not” - and I would never turn that into an apologetic argument. Really I think it’s a self-defeating argument from the Christian standpoint because the Christian has to prove that his religion is the right one. It’s not all about Christianity and it’s definately not Atheism vs. Christianity. There are literally millions of other religions out there.

• 57. confusedchristian  |  January 17, 2008 at 12:29 am

  I would consider an attack more like getting a bullhorn and yelling at passer-bys that their world-view could be wrong and they should convert.

• 58. TheNorEaster  |  January 17, 2008 at 12:44 am

  Even as a Christian, I could discuss in detail each of the 8 Reasons you mentioned, but what stands out to me is the clashing denominations experience. But that, I think, is the fundamentalist “bubble,” a closed atmosphere that cannot let in outside light or heat or air. It gets stuffy after a while and so sooner or later one needs a breath of fresh air. When I had finally gotten away from fundamentalism–and I’ve mentioned this several times before–my faith grew tremendously. And I realized that it wasn’t my place to judge (meaning, “to determine value” other denominations, sects, religions, or atheism.

  As for matters of faith, I can only say…Well, faith is faith. Mine works for me. And it is always fluid, always changing, always growing, always freezing, always evaporating, always raining.

  thenoreaster.wordpress.com

• 59. joshm  |  January 17, 2008 at 1:04 am

  CC-

  “Are you sayin that because we can’t prove God exists or doesnt exist we should believe he does?”

  In no way, shape, or form! If I have proposed this at all let me give my deepest apologies. I am merely saying that it is a logical fallacy for this argument to be used by either side. We cannot accept belief in God because of lack of a deductive proof for God’s nonexistence. Conversly, We cannot accept belief in Athesim because of lack of a deductive proof for God’s existence.

  Although this goes for any theistic belief, I do believe in the “Christain God.” However, I believe the concept of the “Christian God” has been greatly misconstrued by the the modern western church. I seek to understand God as he reveals himself to mankind.

• 60. HeIsSailing  |  January 17, 2008 at 6:55 am

  joshm gets formal:

  We cannot accept belief in God because of lack of a deductive proof for God’s nonexistence. Conversly, We cannot accept belief in Athesim because of lack of a deductive proof for God’s existence.

  Gag. This kind of logic talk of whether we should believe this or that based on lack of proof bores me stiff. I see it constantly in these types of blogsites from theists and nonthesists of every kind. We never treat any other part of our lives with this kind of logical rigor and formality, so why do people suddenly turn into Mr Spock from Planet Vulcan when discussing the existance of God and whether or not we should believe based on proof or non-proof??

  The argument goes round and round who has the burden of proof, and the claims that formal logic prohibits absolute proof of a negative claim, etc etc.. Frankly I get bored with such tedious talk.

  This is what I am certain of: God does not exist outside of our brain. Jesus was a man who died 2000 years ago and whose corpse rotted. There is no afterlife for any of us.

  I have no proof of any of this. Yet I am certain.

  I am certain in the same way I am certain about many other things in my life. I just look at it this way - Every evening I have to drive home from work. I am *certain* that I will make it home safely to my wife without getting in a fatal accident or crash. I leave work every afternoon without a doubt in my mind that I will arrive safely. Now, strictly speaking the very slight possibility exists that I may die a horrible death in an auto crash. But I never think about that when I hit the road because that possibility is so remote that I never even consider it. As I turn the ignition key, I can state with utmost confidence and certainty that I will arrive home safely.

  I think of the existence of God in much the same way. I am certain that a supernatural being does not exist. Yes - as certain as knowing I will drive home from work safely tomorrow, I am certain that God does not exist in any way. This is just being practical, like we are practical about every other thing in our lives. Now, I admit that logically speaking, there is a possibility of a supernatural being of some sort that exists. But it seems such a contrivance to me, such a remote possibility, that I don’t waste time wondering what, if anything, this god wants from me.

• 61. John  |  January 17, 2008 at 10:46 am

  When someone says prove God existence they dont mean a formal logical proof. They just want observable evidence thats convincing. Sure atheists might have to full back on the anthropic principle for the fine tuning problem and we dont fully understand how single cell organisms emerged on earth but theres not many gaps left for a god to fill.
  Also some people dont care about science/nature at all or think science its just a tool or whatever but I reakon you’ll the ones who are missing out.

• 62. confusedchristian  |  January 17, 2008 at 12:16 pm

  I’ve pretty much have someone telling me I’ve never been a Christian before because of my cognitive dissonance. I also see them getting offended when I say they let the bible think for them and not themselves. I think it’s quite frustrating when Christians get judgmental. I was also told that the knowledge that nothing is certain with the belief that God doesn’t exist is a contradiction but it’s because they simply do not understand how epistemology works. Rather annoying yet continues to prove to myself how dumb Christians can be. Not saying atheists aren’t stupid either, but man some Christians can be really stupid.

• 63. TheDeeZone  |  January 17, 2008 at 1:03 pm

  Slapdash,

  As I have said before I have dyslexia. I try to catch the spelling errors but sometimes it just happens.

  DH

• 64. carriedthecross  |  January 17, 2008 at 1:27 pm

  “Rather annoying yet continues to prove to myself how dumb Christians can be. Not saying atheists aren’t stupid either, but man some Christians can be really stupid.”

  I try to remind myself that it is in many ways similar to a pathology. How do you deal with a cleptomaniac? You don’t blame him for the root of the problem. But you do correct the behavior.

  Much the same with Christians, many have been set in their beliefs for year, and it can seem very real. And part of the belief system is that everyone else is, by default, wrong. So even if they say and do asinine things, I try to remember that its the behavior that needs to be corrected. Only they can change their beliefs.

• 65. bullet  |  January 17, 2008 at 5:52 pm

  I apologize if this has already been mentioned.

  RE: 2. Clashing theologies, clashing denominations

  Catholics are all saved. Protestants are crazy so who cares what happens to them. Since the Jews don’t believe that Jesus is the Messiah, they will suffer until he comes again to redeem them, but not for eternity.

  That’s the way I learned it. Never had a moment of doubt right up to the day that I decided that the whole mess was bullshit.

• 66. LeoPardus  |  January 17, 2008 at 6:38 pm

  bullet:

  FWIW the EOC position on everyone else was, “We make no declaration about what God, in His mercy, may choose to do with others. We simply, humbly hold that we have the fullest revelation of the Faith given once for all, by Christ, to His apostles.”

  Nice; tame; not out to condemn anyone. Still BS in the end though.

• 67. Jersey  |  January 17, 2008 at 9:22 pm

  Why can’t I believe in God? Anything that demands blind obedience or faith is not reality. Anything that relies on emotion rather than some form of logic is not reality. Telling me to believe or be damned to hell (or constant rebirth/reincarnation) is not reality. And saying anything of the lines “one size fits all” is not reality.

• 68. Hmmmm  |  January 17, 2008 at 11:07 pm

  Jersey,

  I am not sure that you are necessarily correct in saying that anything that demands blind obedience or faith is not reality. To some extent, even believing in atheism demands huge elements of faith. In reality, we all live by faith in something. “Reality”, as we know it, is ultimately explained by humans who are resting their arguments on presuppositions. In the end we all individually choose which presupposition makes the most sense and it is usually that presupposition that shapes the rest of our belief system and the way we view the world. That, my friend, is faith.

  So the big question is “Why?” Why should I believe in Christianity over another belief system? Why should I view the world from as an Atheist? Why should I be Hindu? Why not Islam? Does anyone have an answer for this? Honestly, I have looked at all these different ways to live my life, and I have a hard time figuring out what the heck I should believe. I would jump the boat and simply be Christian or maybe I would be atheist, but why? What makes one better than the other? There is absolutely an element to faith in all of them, and really, there is an element of logic- at least in some form- to most of them. I don’t think the question is, “Why can’t I believe in God”, but “Why should I or why should I not believe in God and if I do, then what?” Can someone help me on this?

• 69. confusedchristian  |  January 18, 2008 at 1:32 am

  Hmmmm, I would suggest to view the world as you. Not as a Christian, not as an atheist, but as to what makes the most sense to you and nobody else. In the end it’s just you by yourself having to sweat out the details. If you are comfortable with any belief system then keep it. If you think that your belief system is wrong then by all means change it. If you are unsure or confused about your belief system, then continue to explore and ask the tough questions until you are satisfied.

  All the best,
  CC

• 70. choward  |  January 18, 2008 at 11:07 am

  Hmmmm,
  I know where you are coming from. If everything is based on basic presuppostions, how do we choose our presuppositions? I will have to say that certainly, from a logical standpoint, some presuppotions have to be right, and some wrong, since many are mutually exclusive. Is there a God or not? Is He this kind of god or that? Did he create the world or have no hand in it? Logically, one position must be right to the exclusion of all others…whether we have all the options is another matter. But, at least we can conclude that there is some kind of truth to pursue.

  So, we pursue it. We test presuppositions. They may not be “proveable,” but they certainly can be tested by experience and logic. What presuppostions best explain the available evidence? Take John’s comments about the anthropic principle and the origin of life…they certainly pose major problems to atheistic presuppositions. Take the problem of pain and suffering…it certainly tries the theistic presupposition (not all theistic views, but those that believe in a benevolent, loving God).

  Don’t ever stop testing and searching. 1Thessalonians 5:21 says, “Test everything; hold fast what is good.” (a little tidbit for all those who think the Bible asks for “blind” faith). These matters are extremely important. They determine how we view life and how we live. And, there is at least the possibility that they will determine our eternal fate…after all, if the majority of theists are right (which represents a majority of humanity), there is some kind of afterlife to look forward to. If there is no God…all’s well that ends well. But, if there is a God…what’s next?

  I appreciate your honesty.

• 71. confusedchristian  |  January 18, 2008 at 11:30 am

  The only part I don’t really grasp is “If there is a God….” then you should be in a religion and all that.. I dont understand how “If there is a God” its time to surrender free thinking and engage in letting a religious text have all the answers or letting leadership do the thinking for you.

  It differs from Person to Person. The most fascinating thing about Religion is that I honestly can say that everyone has their own. Even if you are put in the same room with 10 southern baptists, no single person is a clone to another having the exact same belief system.

  I suppose this is why people can get so offended when you give them reasons why you think their belief system is wrong. It takes security from them, and it’s not pretty.

  IWe as humans have a tendency to be pack animals and “group think”, so its no suprise that when it comes to God we all start combining what we think about this God and saying God is like this or like that yet there’s no for sure way for me to really test it and know.

  I remember in the past seeing prayers answered across different religions and wodnering if demons were answering prayers and posing as a god too. I couldn’t understand how there was no difference between “proofs” and that everyone was so convinced.

  If anything I just need to take a really long break from the whole “If God exists” thing and be more like “If I’m accountable for everything I do in the here and now” - Just as an experiment.
  You never know.. life has it’s way of changing.

  People change.. all the time.. It’s not a surprise that decovnersion or even Re-conversion occurs in people, all supernaturalism aside.

• 72. choward  |  January 18, 2008 at 7:12 pm

  CC-

  Just a quick answer to your question…
  If there is a God that made everything, then He made you.
  The next logical question is, why?
  Why did He make me? And what does He want from me?
  We don’t make and create for no purpose….and certainly the creation would answer to the Creator…even belong to the Creator. We expect no less from our copyright laws.

  Also, give the question you posed a try. Ask, “Am I accountable for my thoughts and actions?” That would be an interesting study. Let me know what you come up with because I have not really delved into that question from a logical standpoint.

• 73. Hmmmm  |  January 19, 2008 at 10:48 pm

  Thank you guys for your input. I’ve been thinking about what I’ve read and have a couple more questions.

  What does it mean to “view the world as you”? What happens when people view the world with the ego in mind? This is one of the biggest challenges to me simply accepting atheism. It seems that our self-centered society has not improved itself a whole lot. (Has anyone tried to do something as simple as driving down the road? We are selfish people!)

  If I were to accept that there is a God, then there could possibly be given a reason for me to be other-person centered. I guess that would depend on which “God” was real and if he expected anything from me such that He would require or ask me to act in any certain way.

  So assuming that there is no God and everyone gets to choose their own way to view the world, what would that look like? I can’t help but think of that dreaded 9/11. (And please, let’s have some respect toward those who choose to believe in God even if that is not how we view the world.) In 9/11 those terrorists did what they thought was the most ethical moral heroic behavior. They thought that their actions would earn them virgins and riches in heaven. Of course, we who have been rocked by the tragedy of 9/11 don’t see that as a moral behavior, and it really doesn’t matter whether it was done in the name of religion or not.

  The point is that we who wish to be our own self and view the world as we choose it will come to odds with those who are doing the same thing when it infringes on our personal comfort or wants. But the worst part is that if God does not exist, then what is my basis to refute the behavior of that person who is simply doing the same thing that I am doing (Many religious people submit to their belief system because the want to. That is how they choose to view the world)- except it happens to cause me pain or discomfort? I guess it would boil down to the survival of the fittest. History has seen this played out in people like Hitler, Sadaam, and other tyrants. But then again, what’s the problem? They are being who they want to be, and at the end of the day when they have tested their own presuppositions, they accept and even desire the outcome, much to the dismay of those who suffer the painful consequences of that person’s actions which are deeply rooted in presupposition. Is anyone picking up what I am putting down? If “immoral behavior” (whatever that is) is OK to me, who is to say that I cannot do what I want to do when there is no Reality to help make boundaries for the choices I make? With this thought, I can see some help in being dedicated to some sort of religion. The instruction manual for determining right from wrong would certainly help bring clarity to the confusion of what is acceptable and what is not, as well as justify the reasoning for what we accept as right from wrong.

  And lets just say that one were to accept a God and that this God happened to be the only one God who gave us a purpose and helped establish some behavioral boundaries for us- more as a service so that we don’t destroy ourselves because he values us. I don’t think that it would necessarily mean that:

  Its time to surrender free thinking and engage in letting a religious text have all the answers or letting leadership do the thinking for you.

  What if that God were to create you and me with the ability to think freely and gave us a resource to help us along the way so that we can live a life that is beneficial and enjoyable?

  At the end of the day, even if that God tried to reveal himself to us, unless we met Him face to face, we would still have to accept his being as faith. And we would have to live understanding that we may not know his every thought.

  So I have to say that religion may not be that bad of a thing, I guess. Who knows? I think I need to go chill somewhere. This is some heavy stuff. Any thoughts anyone?

• 74. Quester  |  January 19, 2008 at 11:42 pm

  So assuming that there is no God and everyone gets to choose their own way to view the world, what would that look like?

  Is there any reason to think that the world would look any different than it currently does? Philosophy, ethics and a reality that helps “make boundaries” for the choices you make all exist in the world as it currently is. If there is no God, they exist independent of God, and the world looks no different than it always has.

• 75. Hmmmm  |  January 20, 2008 at 1:51 pm

  Quester,

  In a great sense we do live in a world where we see one’s philosophy and ethics existing independent of the idea of a God who gave us any such boundaries. There is also a majority of people, a large majority, that believe in a higher being that is directly tied to their moral and ethical system. The reality is that we live in a world that many/most people choose their own way to view the world…thus look at the the world and make some observations. There is some peace and harmony in some places, and there is a lot of discord and strife in many others. People do not always get along and many times it is because there are two opposing or conflicting worldview systems butting heads. The world is not necessarily getting better…it may not necessarily be getting worse. Philosophy is a realm that merely describes our presuppositions. Ethics has no justification in a belief system that does not include a Reason for ethics. If there is no being that is greater than me to define my choices as either right or wrong, then who are you and who is anyone to tell me whether I am right or wrong?Thus, atheistic reasoning for ethics and morality spirals in the sense that it always comes down to what a group or individual thinks is right or wrong. What does that look like? Survival of the fittest. The bigger/louder voice wins. But what justifies that voice? I’m not even saying that there is a God, but if a God does not exist or some sort of Reason that brings accountability and justification for our actions, then why is there morality and how did it ever come to exist? To tell me something is right or wrong is meaningless if there is no standard greater than a human. I don’t really care what you think is right or wrong. It is irrelevant to what I think is right or wrong because in my world, I am deciding what I think is good…and it just happens that I did not think of you when I made that decision. Do you see what I am saying?

• 76. choward  |  January 21, 2008 at 5:24 pm

  Hmmmm,
  Very good point, regarding morality. If there is no God, where did morality come from? If there is no God, why accept any form of morality over another? What right would we have to condemn anyone? And, yet, we do. Every civilization throughout all time has set similar moral limits…and why? Where did their limits come from, and why choose those over any other? But, if there is a God who, as you mentioned, is looking out for us, and trying to help us, then it makes sense that there would be some sort of morality.

  And the current state of affairs says nothing about whether this morality is or is not from God…it only tells us that many people reject morality, make up their own morality, or don’t always act according to their morality. Think about it. If everyone adhered to the basics, put others before self, then we would have a wonderful world. This says a lot about the merits of morality (and the God who made it, if there is a God who made it). Think about it some more…our problems are caused by people who do not adhere to this morality. Therefore, the state of our world says nothing about whether or not there is a God (at least not from this angle), but only tells us about people and their choices.

  Good thoughts on this. I know exactly what you are saying. Why should I feel wronged when someone does something to me if there is no God who gave us morality? My judgment of right and wrong becomes arbitrary.

• 77. Rachel  |  January 21, 2008 at 5:40 pm

  confusedchristian:

  You bring up some really great points. I’m just wondering where the idea that God is “unchanging” came from. I can’t recall hearing that at all in any theology class or church homily that I’ve slept through.

  Just wondering!

  – Rachel

• 78. karen  |  January 21, 2008 at 7:00 pm

  I’m just wondering where the idea that God is “unchanging” came from.

  “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever.” Hebrews 13:8

  If there is no God, where did morality come from? If there is no God, why accept any form of morality over another?

  There are many, many theories about where morality comes from, absent an all-powerful deity who handed it down from the mountaintop. Check out Wikipedia’s take on secular sources of morality. That’s just a start. There’s been a ton written about this topic.

  In other words, you don’t have to have god to be good.

• 79. kerrin  |  January 21, 2008 at 9:58 pm

  CC,

  what happened to your blog? everything all right?

• 80. Hmmmm  |  January 22, 2008 at 1:16 am

  Thanks Karen,

  I understand what you are saying. This has been a primary thought among my many thoughts these days. I absolutely agree with you. You don’t have to have god to be good…in a sense that goodness is not contingent on personal belief. The greater disturbance I am having is justice and accountability in goodness in the absence of God…or maybe not necessarily” God”, but something greater than human. There is nothing to define right from wrong in a meaningful way other than the survival of the fittest. A history teacher of mine quoted Hitler who once said that if you tell a lie loud enough and long enough people will begin to believe it. (I am not the smartest person in the world, so if this is the wrong person who said this and I am attributing this quote to the wrong source, please correct me…I am just quoting a history teacher of mine and trusting that he gave credit to whom credit is due) Anyway, the point is that I am not so sure that I am willing to bet my life on people as the highest authority. This is a huge struggle I have right now. We get it wrong too often, and the worst part is that it our wrong is committed in the form of “goodness”. Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor. Osama & Obama think the same. So does Sadaam. So does Hilary Clinton. So does Huckabee. So does Ron Paul. So does President Bush. So does your mom. But on their best days none of them are good enough for me to bet my life on. And depending on your personal views on each of the above mentioned, you may want to think again to entrusting yourself to the leaders that this world have esteemed or currently favor. It doesn’t matter which side of the fence you are. Man cannot define morality by measuring himself/herself. Your opinion based on presupposition will be different than John Doe’s opinion which is based on presupposition. Take a look at the Wikipedia site you referred me to and study the rationale:

  A few possible axioms in morality are:

  Every person has their own feelings and desires, and they are more or less similar since they are based on the same brain chemistry.
  When I look inward to my own desires, I fundamentally desire to pursue happiness and avoid pain and suffering.
  Other people have these same basic desires, and these desires are valuable to them.
  With all else being equal, it is better for people to be happy than not be happy.
  Conflicts arise mainly because people’s desire to be happy and avoid suffering conflict with each other. The goal of secular morality is to resolve those conflicts in the best possible way for all concerned.

  These are all less than weak in explanation.

  One quick question that popped in my mind is, “What does it mean to be good or happy? or What is true suffering/pain? Can suffering/pain be good?

  My favorite axiom of all that were mentioned is the last. It is painfully obvious that the natural consequence of that axiom is survival of the fittest. Who do you determine is worthy to live and what world view survives? Hitler believed that the Arian race was supreme. He was merely living out what it looks like when one resolves a conflict in the best possible way for all concerned. “All concerned” in this context boiled down to “All concerned who have the resources and power to dominate (and sometimes destroy) the life of the one whose opinion is different than mine and whose lifestyle does not mix with mine.”

  Taking a higher standard than human out of the equation in morality has created a big problem for those who do not want to submit to such a being. I am interested to see how arguments develop in this area. There is no consistency in morality without a higher being. It is like having a ruler that stretches or shrinks every time it is used.

• 81. Hmmmm  |  January 22, 2008 at 1:18 am

  Clarification:
  You don’t have to have god to be good…in a sense that goodness is not contingent on personal belief.

  I mean that one’s personal belief in whether or not God exists is independent in the reality of the ability for good to be accomplished.

• 82. thinkdeep  |  January 22, 2008 at 8:54 am

  Well, a book could be written, and many have so I’ll just comment on one item, #8.
  God’s existence can not be proven. You are correct. It also can not be disproved.
  Some times I wonder, if God exists, if maybe God is like the CIA. He operates on the concept of “Plausible Deniability”. All that “free will” stuff. ;^)

• 83. cawoodm  |  January 22, 2008 at 10:50 am

  Whatup with CC? Been lifted?

• 84. choward  |  January 22, 2008 at 11:25 am

  Karen,

  Certainly some kind of morality (regulation of behavior) could exist independent of God…I suppose we’d have to admit to that. But, the point is, as Hmmmm has pointed out, how do you choose a morality if there is no God? If we are all the products of chance, natural forces, however you want to look at it, then, as Hmmmm has put it, survival of the fittest would be the moral law. And, if that is true, then, essentially, each individual can make their own morality based on their survival and that of their progeny. And, if that is true, then how can we make judgments regarding someone else’s morality? I would have no right to judge someone or some action as good or evil because their actions would be based on their morality, which can neither be right or wrong.

  Here’s what the problem comes down to: in order to determine good and bad we must have a standard. If there is no standard, then all judgments in these matters are subjective and arbitrary. But, if there is an objective standard, then we have reason to make judgments regarding good and bad.

  If there is no God, then the standard is developed by individuals or societies (as your resources regarding the origin of morality claim). If it is developed by people, then why should I accept one standard over another? What right do I have to judge another’s standard? Who’s to say that Hitler was wrong for adopting his moral standard?

  And, yet, we object to Hitler’s actions. You could say it is because of the moral standard of our society, but that still doesn’t make it logical or reasonable. Why is your standard the basis of judgment and not his? There is no proper way to make such a choice without a universal standard.

  But, atheists and theists make these judgments all the time. Even those who deny a universal standard operate as if there is one. If there is no universal standard then those who deny it but act like it are being illogical and unreasonable. If there is a universal standard, then we have to ask where it came from. If you admit it, but say it came from society (people) or nature, then how are we to determine if it is the standard, and how are we to determine that it is good or right? Only when we entertain the idea that the standard exists because of some Higher Being do any judgments of right or wrong, good or evil make any logical sense.

• 85. karen  |  January 22, 2008 at 4:37 pm

  Hmmm, I empathize with your struggle. It is no doubt comforting to believe that there’s some divine entity by which we measure morality and who exists to mete out cosmic justice in another life where the good are rewarded and the evil get their comeuppance.

  You may well feel differently, but I cannot believe in something just because it is comforting or because it “feels right” to my own sense of justice. I cannot base all kinds of supernatural beliefs on such a flimsy foundation.

  Choward: I disagree with your statement that judgments of right and wrong must come from the standards of a higher being. I don’t think we need the supernatural in order to understand why we have an innate sense of how we can all thrive if we treat each other with respect.

  Morality (as best as I understand it and my understanding is very provisional) developed out of the tendency of our mammalian ancestors to bond with their kin through affection. This led them to develop empathy through their highly developed brains. We have something called “mirror neurons” that allow us to feel emotional pain when we see someone else suffering. This is well-documented not only in human beings but in many other mammals, including in a recent rodent study.

  Combine empathy with the human and primate tendency to form social groups that share common DNA and you have the inklings of moral societies that evolve rules and taboos. If a member of the group breaks the rules or commits a taboo, such as murdering a clan member, that person may be driven off to a certain lonely death by others who had emotional bonds with the victim, shared his DNA or felt empathy watching him suffer. This example strongly impacts the other group members, who are less likely to murder because their brains are developed enough to link cause and effect and imagine their own future censure if they let their tempers get the best of them.

  Over time (we’re not talking just a few generations, we’re talking about over the scope of human development) the clans who have developed a primitive morality thrive and spread, at least in part because they aren’t killing each other all the time! As those groups become more successful and more established, their taboo “thou shalt not murder” becomes codified in religious theology and government legislation.

  Just because we see morality codified in religious tradition does not mean that humans didn’t recognize that murder was bad long before Cain and Abel. If society understood murder was evil before god condemned it in Genesis, where did that morality come from? Many evolutionary biologists propose that morality arose naturally over time along with human evolution and social development. I find their explanations more plausible than the “god did it” explanation I bought as a Christian.

• 86. Hmmmm  |  January 22, 2008 at 7:55 pm

  Karen,

  That was somewhat insightful. But I am not sure that I completely understand. Everything you mentioned is based on theory and more important, presupposition. Development of morality over time certainly takes greater faith to believe than the simplicity of “god did it.” Also, it is incorrect to equate emotional pain/suffering with morality. Pain is amoral, but is often cause by immoral behavior. Pain can actually be good sometimes. I.E. when I place my hand on a hot stove. Pain tells me to move it. Suffering is not necessarily bad either. People who train for a marathon suffer, but those who suffer and endure their training will benefit from their suffering when they run the race.

  If a member of the group breaks the rules or commits a taboo, such as murdering a clan member, that person may be driven off to a certain lonely death by others who had emotional bonds with the victim

  This is clearly survival of the fittest: I.e Hitlar is a great example why this doesn’t work.

  The aid of Religion/God providing a basis for morality is much more than comforting and provides a much more stable basis to explain morality and justify morality and provide accountability for morality. It is clearly based on presupposition: faith. But as you have explained to me such a grande idea involving evolution and survival of the fittest, and theory about what is more or less “learned behavior” patterns in response to pain/suffering, I now see a world view based on incredible presupposition which takes an extraordinary amount of faith to believe. In fact, it is so amazing to me that it almost makes me lean more toward the very idea that there is a God or something that must justify the morality that we cannot escape. Natural science doesn’t seem to solve the problem, it seems that it creates a more glaring picture of great faith.

  Just because we see morality codified in religious tradition does not mean that humans didn’t recognize that murder was bad long before Cain and Abel. If society understood murder was evil before god condemned it in Genesis, where did that morality come from?

  Actually, that is so interesting that you brought that up because I totally agree. What a great point! I have this friend that I asked that question to once and he provided me with an interesting answer. He was a Christian though, but His response was nonetheless interesting or at least entertaining. I remember him explaining his view (again, faith based on a presupposition of God). He referred me to Romans 1 and then explained about people being made in the “image of God” in Genesis 1. He said that means we would take on a lot of His characteristics and act in many ways as God does. Basically my friend said that morality in a nutshell love. Love God and love people. When you don’t, then that is immoral. But then again, this would require an element of faith to believe. But there seems to be structure, reason, purpose, accountability and justice for morality. None of the former are provided in Natural Selection. We all have to admit that. So is that really a flimsy foundation? It’s based on faith, but there is an element of reason to it. Natural Selection is not based on reason, provides no justice or universal standard (well put Choward). Natural selection is at the heart of what Hitler based his actions on. It doesn’t work. Natural selection leads to death in many ways.

• 87. HeIsSailing  |  January 23, 2008 at 12:19 am

  CHoward says:

  If there is a universal standard, then we have to ask where it came from. If you admit it, but say it came from society (people) or nature, then how are we to determine if it is the standard, and how are we to determine that it is good or right?

  CHoward, Hmmmmmm… anyone else interested,

  See http://de-conversion.com/2008/01/25/there-is-no-universal-standard-of-morality/

  Well, that’s my lousy opinion anyway. Hope that helps.

• 88. Quester  |  January 23, 2008 at 1:37 am

  Hmmm and Choward,

  You both seem to be expressing the thought that if there is a god, and thus a source for a universal morality, then we have a right to make value judgements over conflicting moralities. If not, the only other option is social darwinism, with all its faults.

  This presumes that the divine source of universal morality has revealed that morality clearly and in a way that can not be mistaken, which is clearly not the case.

  This week, my town is celebrating the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. This year marks the one hundredth anniversary of this week of prayer. Sadly, after one hundred years of dedicated prayer, Christians still argue over what god has revealed to be proper, moral and righteous. And when we include non-Christian religions who feel they have received a clear revelation from a divine source of universal morality, things get even more muddled and your image of a social darwinist approach to morality where the loudest voice wins appears to be the goal of the theists- each depending on their god to give them the loudest voice.

  But let us set god to the side for a moment, along with evolution, since that seems to be a red herring in this search for universal morality.

  Hmmmm, you described as morality, in a nutshell, as loving God and loving people. If we take God out of the nutshell, we are left with ‘love people’. It can be hard to define a word like ‘love’, but if we define it as ‘treating others as you would like others to treat you’, we may indeed be approaching a universal principle of morality that does not require a god to derive.

  Simply speaking, a creature can be considered to have some level of intelligence when it shows itself capable of learning what can benefit itself, what can hurt itself, and begin to seek the former and avoid the latter.

  A creature can, arguably, be considered to be sapient when it can apply the above education onto others, and realize that they, too, would seek to benefit itself and avoid harm.

  So far, so good.

  I argue that a creature can be considered moral when it has reached the levels of intelligence and sapience described above, then goes further to treat others as it would like to be treated.

  And thus, in issues such as slavery and personhood of women, for examples, instead of going to a set of scriptures written for a certain culture to help it define itself in contrast to other cultures around it (to list one purpose), we look instead at how we would feel if we were denied personhood for any reasons.

  Yes, there are mental disorders that keep even an ethic of reciprocity from being a universal guideline, but advances in psychology help us reduce that issue.

  We do not need an external source for morality, let alone a divine or supernatural one. All we need is to know what can help or hurt us, the ability to generalize this knowledge to the point that we understand others may seek to have or avoid these same things, and the will to treat another in such a way you would wish for them to treat you.

• 89. karen  |  January 23, 2008 at 3:00 pm

  Everything you mentioned is based on theory and more important, presupposition. Development of morality over time certainly takes greater faith to believe than the simplicity of “god did it.”

  Says you. For my part, it’s much easier to accept that morality developed alongside of and as a necessary element to successful cultures than it is to believe in an all-powerful being who lives up in the sky and used to communicate with people but for some reason is in hiding right now.

  And yes, my theory is indeed theory. I don’t hold to it with any kind of iron-clad “faith” and I’m perfectly willing to be persuaded otherwise if new evidence comes in from the folks who study this kind of thing. And I agree with HIS that morality is not a universal and it’s developed with different priorities in different cultures.

  Still, I think in our modern world we can probably get a majority to agree on a basic standard of morality, like “do unto others” (which did not originate with Jesus, btw) or the humanist philosophy of “reason and compassion.”

  The aid of Religion/God providing a basis for morality is much more than comforting and provides a much more stable basis to explain morality and justify morality and provide accountability for morality.

  Yes, but comfort and stability is not a reason to believe something, for me. Just because an idea makes me feel good doesn’t mean it’s true. I require more than that. If I didn’t, I’d believe all kinds of crazy nonsense that “feels good” but can’t be proven to any satisfaction.

  In terms of your equating natural selection (a biological evolutionary process) with Hitler’s campaign of genocide, you’re completely off base. Hitler’s insane ideas about eugenics have long ago been completely repudiated by reasonable people. Besides, Hitler was a Catholic, not an atheist.

• 90. TheDeeZone  |  January 23, 2008 at 3:01 pm

  CC,

  What happened to your blog?

  DH

• 91. Hmmmm  |  January 24, 2008 at 12:40 am

  Karen,

  In terms of your equating natural selection (a biological evolutionary process) with Hitler’s campaign of genocide, you’re completely off base. Hitler’s insane ideas about eugenics have long ago been completely repudiated by reasonable people. Besides, Hitler was a Catholic, not an atheist:

  You miss the point completely. How about this? Hitler wasn’t wrong. Hitler was morally just and pure in what he did. Is that a correct statement? Besides who were the reasonable people? Try Winston Churchill and a western-minded civilization (America) built on Biblical principles. (I am in NO way saying America was ever “Christian”, but History without a doubt suggests that our founding fathers held high esteem for the Bible)

  You wrote:
  Still, I think in our modern world we can probably get a majority to agree on a basic standard of morality

  You wrote exactly what Hitler believed. It makes no difference whether he was catholic or atheistic or whatever. That was never the point intended. The point is that humanism based on atheism has no way to refute that Hitler was wrong. There is no consistent standard to hold Hitler accountable to. Do you get it? How in the world can you say he is “insane”? If there is nothing to define sanity or morality then your statements about Hitler are meaningless because who are you to impose your beliefs on Hitler? Or me or anyone else? (**By the way, this is all rhetorical and not my personal beliefs, but I am pointing out the huge problem that atheism cannot address**)
  Hitler believed in Arthur de Gobineau’s ideas of struggle for survival between the different races, among which the “Aryan race”—guided by “Providence”—was supposed to be the torchbearers of civilization. That is natural selection. It turns out that I wasn’t ‘off base” in my comments.

  Yes, but comfort and stability is not a reason to believe something, for me. Just because an idea makes me feel good doesn’t mean it’s true:

  I agree and live by what you say on that one. You miss the point that the faith that one lives by is just as great, if not much greater than one who gives credit to a higher being for morality. Everything you pointed out is based on your presuppositions. You, my friend, live by faith. And going back to some of my very first comments on this blog, what makes your faith better than anyone else’s?

• 92. karen  |  January 24, 2008 at 3:23 am

  You miss the point completely. How about this? Hitler wasn’t wrong. Hitler was morally just and pure in what he did. Is that a correct statement?

  It doesn’t take biblical principles to understand that genocide is wrong. If we live by basic standards like “don’t do anything to someone that you wouldn’t want them to do to you” then mass murder, bigotry and banishment are off-limits.

  Really, c’mon. It doesn’t take a genius to get this. I’m starting to think that you’re being deliberately obtuse because you can’t find any way to legitimately press your point.

  The point is that humanism based on atheism has no way to refute that Hitler was wrong. There is no consistent standard to hold Hitler accountable to. Do you get it? How in the world can you say he is “insane”? If there is nothing to define sanity or morality then your statements about Hitler are meaningless because who are you to impose your beliefs on Hitler? Or me or anyone else?

  Yes, I get it because I heard it a thousand times myself. It’s a common (and cheap) Christian talking point that tries to prove that without god there’s no standard for goodness.

  But that’s just nonsense, and if you think about it you’ll “get it” yourself. Many philosophies do not include god - Buddhism, for example. And yet they are able to define good and bad perfectly well, just as humanism is able to. There are standards for behavior that govern humanists without any belief in the supernatural, just as there are standards for religionists who do believe in god.

  The god-belief part of it doesn’t make one bit of difference in the validity of the moral code and it also doesn’t make one bit of difference in whether people follow that moral code or not. In fact, studies have been done that show fundamentalist religious people are MORE likely to be in prison than non-religious people are.

  Hitler believed in Arthur de Gobineau’s ideas of struggle for survival between the different races, among which the “Aryan race”—guided by “Providence”—was supposed to be the torchbearers of civilization. That is natural selection. It turns out that I wasn’t ‘off base” in my comments.

  No, that is not natural selection and if you think eugenics is equal to natural selection you don’t understand either one. Eugenics is a sick and twisted idea - long ago repudiated - that takes its cue from natural selection but has nothing to do with the theory, which simply posits an explanation for how organisms evolve.

  You, my friend, live by faith.

  I don’t hold to anything on faith alone, especially not fairy stories about invisible supermen up in the clouds.

• 93. Quester  |  January 24, 2008 at 3:46 am

  If there is nothing to define sanity or morality then your statements about Hitler are meaningless because who are you to impose your beliefs on Hitler? Or me or anyone else? (**By the way, this is all rhetorical and not my personal beliefs, but I am pointing out the huge problem that atheism cannot address**)

  I can’t see why atheism can’t address this. I can’t see why a standard for morality and sanity have to be externally defined, let alone by a divine arbitrator. You did not respond to my post above, Hmmm, about the common sense approach of “Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you” as Socrates said somewhere around five hundred years before Jesus of Nazareth was born. It’s a simple principle, though philosophers and psychologists can argue about specific applications. It does not require a god, an evolution of morality, nor an ability to shout down differing viewpoints. I can’t see any point of western law or ethics that some may claim to be biblical that can’t be naturally derived from this principle.

• 94. Hmmmm  |  January 24, 2008 at 12:45 pm

  Karen,

  You live by faith. The way you interpret the world is based ultimately on your presuppositions. In the end you live by faith. Your faith is no better than anyone else’s. I agree that it doesn’t take a genius to prove that Hitler was wrong, but in the end the faith you live by is defining what you believe is right or wrong. Your standard for right and wrong is a lot different than other people’s standard, as well is mine. Hitler thought that he was doing moral good; not only did he, but so also did the multitude that followed him. Osama thought he was doing moral good (and he still does) and so did those people who crashed into the towers. In the most sincere part of their heart they believed that they were doing good. The way they define morality, like you, is based on presupposition. If you do not believe that morality is related to your presuppositions in life, you do not know reality and are in denial. I do not know why it is so hard for so many people to recognize that. It is simply living in denial if you do not believe that. It has nothing to do with being obtuse, but a simple question to help people understand that there are serious problems because people live their life by different presuppositions. People all live by faith and when one’s faith interferes with another’s then there will be conflict, sometimes minor while others catastrophic.

  And just food for thought…Humanism is a recognized religion by the US government. Humanist institutions have non-profit status and are self-acclaimed religions. I would be happy to provide you with literature printed by different leading Secular Humanists to support this. Also, there are several universities (probably a majority) that have humanist chaplains. The military has humanist chaplains. If that does not sound like religion, I don’t know what does. Feel free to Google “Humanism, religion”…you’ll figure it out.

  Quester: atheism does indeed address the point you made. It has a way to answer the moral dilemmas we face. But what makes anyone think that way is superior to another belief system that answers moral dilemmas? This has been my original struggle that I had been dealing with.

  Also, I like your point, “Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you”. But then again, that’s something you choose to live by but who are you to push your beliefs on another? You live by that because you believe in something that is based on presupposition. There is ultimately something that cannot be proven- and the way that you use science and factual evidence can be used to support your ideas in the way you want them. On the flip side of the coin, other people can use any data set you come up with to help support the way they interpret the world to be. Does that make sense?

• 95. Quester  |  January 24, 2008 at 4:37 pm

  Actually, Hmmm, no. It doesn’t make sense. My presupposition is that others want to be treated as I do. In the actual act of application, this presupposition should not be taken on faith, but should be tested. If I liked strawberry ice cream and therefore gave you some, you could respond by saying that you did not like strawberry ice cream. I would then have new information to return to my moral standard and realize that I would not like others deciding for me what I would and would not like, and next time should ask. You could say that I’m taking it on faith that others are telling me the truth, that I can understand what they are expressing, that any of us know how we want to be treated, or that any of us even exist, but all of that can be tested, if not proven one hundred percent beyond a shadow of a doubt. It can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Entire schools of thought, including anthropology, sociology and psychology, study, among other things, what it means to be human. As we learn more in these fields, we are better able to use this common sense principle of treating others as we wish to be treated. No faith is necessary. No beliefs are required. Everything can be tested, then looked at again in the light of the results of those tests. More than that, everything should be tested, and looked at in the light of the results of those tests, lest we all end up stuck with strawberry ice cream.

  This isn’t just something I choose to live by. It is the base minimum required for anything to be described as ‘moral’.

  If you can use any of the premises I’ve listed in a way that supports any other viewpoint more than it does the one I’ve described, feel free. Don’t just tell me it can be done. Show me.

• 96. Quester  |  January 24, 2008 at 4:40 pm

  As a side point, an interesting completely fictional<