de-conversion

501 Comments Add your own

• 1. writerdd  |  April 7, 2008 at 11:41 am

  That’s a great list and I agree with most of them. Here are two more:

  I stopped going to church and didn’t become a prostitute or drug addict as I was told I would if I “backslid”.

  I read other things besides the Bible, including a lot of science books, and the other books made more sense.

  Plus, I would revise #6 to say:

  The God depicted in the Bible is NOT loving, merciful, good, just, etc.

• 2. karen  |  April 7, 2008 at 1:00 pm

  Nice job, Leo. Thanks for doing this – it’s a keeper.

• 3. Quester  |  April 7, 2008 at 1:50 pm

  *Applause*.

  er- what’s with 14?

• 4. GoDamn  |  April 7, 2008 at 2:10 pm

  Im guesing 14 was intentional? Coming right after ‘its a mystery’. Heh Heh, good one.

• 5.  |  April 7, 2008 at 3:10 pm

  #14 = ???

• 6. mysteryofiniquity  |  April 7, 2008 at 3:54 pm

  How about:

  “No matter how much money I give to churches, preachers, or prosperity-gospel ministers, I’m never blessed with abundant health, wealth, or prosperity other than what I work my ass off for.”

• 7. LeoPardus  |  April 7, 2008 at 4:26 pm

  Well 14 was a boo boo. But it has now garnered such interesting speculation……

  I think I’ll be updating this list soon though as there are already a couple new ones. I’ll fix the numbering then.

  OR…. I could just leave it as it is and insist that the meaning of it is “a mystery”. or that it can only be “spiritually perceived”.

• 8. ED  |  April 7, 2008 at 6:51 pm

  Original sin, The notion that 6000 years ago, being omniscient, God, chose a man, Adam, to be the federal head of all humanity, knowing that he would fall, and that all of mankind would be born with a predisposition towards sin; that these creatures, born with a proclivity to sin, due to Adam’s transgression, would act in accordance with their fallen nature, and as a result would be tortured and tormented forever and ever, and that the church would call this just. There is absolutely no way that an omni-benevolent being, came up with that nonsense.

• 9. Rose / Intergalactic Huss&hellip  |  April 7, 2008 at 6:51 pm

  Great points everyone!

  I don’t know of a good one to add, but I feel like saying this here anyway:
  I was raised Jewish, where Heaven and Hell are thought to be distance and/or closeness to/from god. And no one ever talks about Hell at all anyway. Heaven isn’t even mentioned all that much.

  As a young child, I was certain that Heaven and Hell were myths, something campy and cliche people said for fun or to ease mental hardships. I would say things like “I don’t know about god, but as well all know Heaven and Hell are bullshit”, not even considering or realizing for a moment that people really believed such things and would take offense. Kids say the darnedest things!

  I just felt the desire to add my little story, showing that ones who are brought up without faith (at least in certain areas), have no problem saying calling them out.

  Well, after this, I do have one to say:

  Where is Heaven & Hell, anyway? Now that we know the Earth is round, is Hell no longer below but at the Earth’s core?

• 10. Jersey  |  April 7, 2008 at 7:48 pm

  I just woke up and smelt the coffee and realized that I was living without religion regardless.

  Plus, 8, 9, 13, 19 (only in DC rather than NYC), and 20 hit me best.

• 11. gmcfly  |  April 7, 2008 at 9:14 pm

  How about this: To be a good Christian you must continually defer your own judgment to that of a book as interpreted by your church.

  In college I learned about Stanley Milgram’s experiment and how good people are led to do terrible things if they defer their judgment to others. If you add in 3 and 7, you can see how I quickly lost my appetite for any religion (as well as religion-like organizations).

  Oh, and the whole antigay thing was personally offensive. I guess you might call this, “Christians’ preoccupation with stuff that’s none of their business.”

• 12. Kim  |  April 7, 2008 at 10:44 pm

  47. I had sex for the first time and then I knew I’d been lied to.

• 13. The Apostate  |  April 7, 2008 at 10:46 pm

  How about that the core of Christianity is a rejection of the Jewish tradition, not the fulfillment that it declares to be, and the history of this Christian religion has only proved to be an overtly anti-semitic one.

• 14. George  |  April 8, 2008 at 3:15 am

  OK, I got one…

  How about… They are all hypocrites in the church… no one is living what they are preaching… Wait… neither am I… hmmm… God must not be real.

• 15. HeIsSailing  |  April 8, 2008 at 7:01 am

  Intergalactic Hussy sez:
  “Where is Heaven & Hell, anyway? Now that we know the Earth is round, is Hell no longer below but at the Earth’s core?”

  Believe it or not, questions like this helped my de-conversion. When I was a kid, Heaven and Hell were still thought to be literally, up there for heaven and down there hell. I remember speculation that Heaven was somewhere on the other side of Jupiter, or someplace like that.

  Well as technology and space exploration and observation continued, and we have discovered more and more about what is ‘up there’, I don’t think there is a single denomination left that still teaches that Heaven is ‘up there’ (I know I am wrong, I am sure there are some, but I am un-aware of them). Most now slip into weird language from science fiction novels, stuff about Heaven being in another parallel dimension, a ’spiritual realm’, or some other alternate reality.

  Just observing for myself how science and understanding forced Christian thinking to change so fast on this subject, and into something so contrived to boot, showed me that Christians were frankly making this stuff up as they went along. And yeah, I bought it hook line and sinker too.

  Hell, on the other hand is still routinely taught to be in the center of the earth or the center of a star.

• 16. bipolar2  |  April 8, 2008 at 12:23 pm

  ** You want autonomy — to become who you are **

  Becoming-who-you-are or “individuation” (to use Jung’s terminology) is the goal of personal growth. It cannot occur without self-doubt or without doubting authority and authority figures.

  When you’ve made a “leap of faith” into hyper-religious space there is no return except by self-assertion, and doubt is just a form of it.

  It’s not surprising that even attempting to leave a near-eastern religious culture which demands ’subordination’ or ’submission’ to someone else’s interpretation of an alleged “will of god” adversely affects the psychological well-being of the so-called apostate.

  You’d rather emulate defiant Prometheus and not submissive Jesus. The hero labors, struggles, succeeds, or dies trying; but throughout remains human.

  bipolar2

• 17. exevangel  |  April 8, 2008 at 4:25 pm

  I realized my parents lied to me about everything else too.

  Question everything!

• 18. Journeyman  |  April 9, 2008 at 8:46 am

  Socrates!

• 19. Frreal  |  April 9, 2008 at 10:34 am

  I learned the books of the Bible were written by and assembled by MEN who also chose not to include some books because MEN decided they did not satisfy their agenda despite the fact that the excluded books are referenced by the included books.

  The Lost Books of the Bible

  The Johannine Comma.

  Sargon of Akkaad

  Iron Chariots

  Hills of foreskins and talking snakes and donkeys.

  The overwhelming LACK of archaeological or written evidence to prove the flood, the Exodus, the plagues, Sodom and Gomorrah, Solomon and his great wealth, Herod and the killing of first borns but the escape of John the Baptist, Herod and the census, the telephone game played by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the errors in the geneology of Jesus, the Easter Challenge, the absence of any account concerning the dead rising and walking around following the death of Jesus.

  The fact that of all the ways God could communicate with me he chooses to have other people to tell me that God told them to tell me he exists. He writes a book like all the other religions before and after him.

  ……… Just as it would be if Man invented God.

  God has healed all sorts of ailments and even brought the dead back to life on occasion. All ailments even cancer or blindness have been healed naturally at one time or another. Yet throughout history God has never regrown an amputated limb.
  ……….. Just as it would be if Man invented God.

  God decides to save ALL of Mankind. Unfortunately God only saves the people that Christians try to save. The spread of Christianity coincidentally coincides with the devolopment of trade routes, war victories and sea worthy ships.

  ……… Just as it would be if Man invented God.

• 20. George  |  April 9, 2008 at 9:45 pm

  Frreal,

  Did you actually write: “The overwhelming LACK of archaeological or written evidence”.

  ROTFL….

• 21. Longing for Holiday  |  April 9, 2008 at 11:02 pm

  I came from a non Christian home and came to faith independently of the family (as did my husband). Even though we both have found our faith intellectually plausible (the “mystery” argument for Biblical antimonies works for me considering we don’t really know what happens beyond four dimensions), it’s really the experience of God that made both of us know something had changed. That included a sense of God’s presence not there before and changes in our motivations and behavior that we seemed supernatural. This is what interests me with those of you who contribute to this blog: have any of you had what felt like a real experience of God and still walked away from the faith. I already know some of you will say yes (because I have seen it happen), but I wonder if it is harder to do so having had an experience. Just curious. I subscribe to this blog because it’s a good way to keep me intellectually honest… And I’m curious (I only know one long time Christian who’s walked away… mostly its been folks either brought up in Christian homes and it faith was assumed or fairly new adherents who really never got it.)

• 22. Quester  |  April 9, 2008 at 11:18 pm

  Oh yes, Longing, I had many, many experiences of what felt like God’s presence and God’s miracles in my life. Then I had nine years of not feeling any presence or witnessing any miracles during which I came to doubt my interpretations of the earlier experiences and then eventually found “intellectual reasons” to doubt God’s existence entirely (mostly in scripture).

  I still hold onto hope that I will feel God’s presence again, as many on this site hoped for years (and in some cases, decades).

• 23. Longing for Holiday  |  April 10, 2008 at 11:50 pm

  I can’t imagine waiting for decades to hear from God again. That makes me so sad.

• 24. LeoPardus  |  April 11, 2008 at 12:05 am

  Longing:

  have any of you had what felt like a real experience of God and still walked away from the faith

  I think that I have. But then “felt like” is the critical term there. Just because I “felt like” I experienced something, doesn’t mean I actually did. I mean the Mormons are supposed to experience the “burning in the bosom” as part of their assurance. But is psychosomatic heartburn really the thing to base your faith on?

  If you want, I can point you to my story. It’s not too long. It may help you to get some feel for how I left/lost the faith after so many years. Others hereabouts also have put their stories online. They will be glad to point you to them if you wish.

  Thank you for taking the time to ask and try to understand us. It is truly refreshing.

• 25. Rachel  |  April 11, 2008 at 12:17 am

  Leo, I’m curious about your story if you wouldn’t mind posting a link.

• 26. LeoPardus  |  April 11, 2008 at 1:54 am

  Rachel: (and of course anyone else)

  Here’s the link: http://de-conversion.org/news.php?readmore=19

• 27. Longing for Holiday  |  April 11, 2008 at 8:18 am

  Leo: Thanks for calling me “refreshing!” And for posting your link. The folks I’ve known to “de-convert” either never really committed (in my opinion) or had really icky Christina family upbringings. I’ve had the pleasure of being aquainted most of my Christian life with balanced, mature, THINKING Christians, which, of course, encouraged my faith. I’ve not run into really thinking folks (like you all obviously are) who have left the faith, but one. (And I am still in shock with this person’s walk way. I NEVER saw it coming… ) So I am curious. Once in a while, I do a version of Pascal’s wager and I think to myself, “what if I die and find out this was all not true?” And then I think, oh, well, I still had a good life as a result of living as if it was. But, frankly, it’s more than just a feeling (and I know what you mean about feelings like the burning bosom… the plague of many churches, too), it’s something like a very deep knowing. But, still, it’s always good to question oneself (don’t I sound high minded. Hah!). If any of you out there is open to hearing a very rational defense of the faith (it doesn’t cover every point you’ve mentioned above, nor every argument, tho), I HIGHLY recommend Tim Keller’s The Reason for God (reasonforgod.com). It’s been on NYT bestseller list for weeks. By the way, I think that when so-called Christians attack you all or give unwanted advice (like I just did?), it shows not a strong faith, but a weak one, a faith that feels the need to defend God. That’s the last thing He needs from us humans…

• 28. Longing for Holiday  |  April 11, 2008 at 8:19 am

  away, not way

• 29. Longing for Holiday  |  April 11, 2008 at 8:28 am

  Oh one more thing.

  I just put up post called Ten Questions I’ll Ask God When I See Him
  http://lpkalal.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/ten-questions-ill-ask-god-when-i-see-him/

  I’m sure you all could add some good questions in the comments. I had a dream last night that this post went viral and that I made it to the front of wordpress. No joke!

  Help me get famous and visit!!

• 30. Rachel  |  April 11, 2008 at 9:30 pm

  I noticed that LfH mentioned Pascal’s wager and I know that has gotten some flak on this blog, so I just thought I would mention that Pascal didn’t “wager” himself into becoming a Christian. He had some sort of mystical experience and used the wager after the fact to explain why being a Christian was reasonable.

• 31. karen  |  April 12, 2008 at 12:24 am

  . I’ve not run into really thinking folks (like you all obviously are) who have left the faith, but one.

  Welcome, Longing, and thanks for the kind and respectful tone of your posts. We don’t always get that from Christians (I’m thinking it’s about 60/40 attack dogs vs friendly questioners?) and we appreciate it when we see it.

  Leo has just in the past couple of weeks posted some entries you might be interested in reading (if you haven’t already) on the topic of how and why we left the faith, as well as how some Christians “spin” our decisions for us.

• 32. Dan  |  April 12, 2008 at 1:06 am

  I find it impossible to believe in God whom in the biblical story created Jesus of Nazerath. Even if I did – I wouldn’t have anything to do with him. Consider, for instance, would you toss your own son in a lake of fire?

  Dan

• 33. Longing for Holiday  |  April 12, 2008 at 6:03 pm

  Well, I believe that when he tossed His son up on the cross, He tossed Himself up there. One of the mysteries of the Trinity. He has suffered with us.

• 34. Longing for Holiday  |  April 12, 2008 at 6:24 pm

  Leo: Just read your story. Thanks.

  Two interesting points for me. One, you talked about the widespread Calvinism in the evy/fundy church. Funny, but we Calvinists see it as widespread Arminianism in the evy/fundy chruch, and also do our best to distance ourselves from the term fundy (based NOT on what it originally meant, adherence to the fundamentals, but on the current association with lambastic legalism). We pride ourselves on being the “intellectual” wing of conservative Christianity, the logical ones… And it’s from this camp that I”ve heard of more folks migrating to the Orthodox position.

  Re prayer (now, I know this will sound like a circular argument, but here goes), as a “Calvinist” (I really don’t like that term, cause it seems I follow a man, not view God in a certain way), I sometimes have a hard time asking for God to do something, because, really, He’s going to do what He’s going to do. Which would explain the studies you mentioned – we can’t really persuade God to change HIs mind. I ‘ve come to see prayer much less as a To Do list for God to accomplish, as it is a time of fellowship between two friends. A time to express my inner thoughts and to draw close to Him. A time to hear what He is up to. And unanswered prayers for me are more about finding out what He is up to (by virtue of the answer) than in getting what I want. I have experienced a sense of Him putting a prayer on my heart and seeing it answered, but that isn’t the norm.

  A nice point of emphasizing the sovereignty of God, FYI, is that we believe that just only God converts or reconverts. We can be instruments, but not means. So it takes all the pressure off of trying to persuade someone one way or the other. Maybe that’s why I can come off less fanatical than others… Plus, I can’t get why someone still convinced of the reality of Jesus would even think that nastiness would drive someone back to His arms!! It’s love that does it, if anything.

• 35. LeoPardus  |  April 12, 2008 at 6:29 pm

  Longing:

  I am still in shock with this person’s walk way. I NEVER saw it coming

  Nor did anyone see mine coming. Including me up to less than half a year of it happening.

  Once in a while, I do a version of Pascal’s wager and I think to myself, “what if I die and find out this was all not true?” And then I think, oh, well, I still had a good life as a result of living as if it was.

  And that’s really good too. Have you read the “de-conversion wager” up near the top of this blog? That’s where I’m coming from nowadays.

  If any of you out there is open to hearing a very rational defense of the faith

  No offense, but I was a Christian apologist. I’ve read more of that stuff than most people even know exists. It’s not apologetics that I’m lacking. It’s reality. A real, demonstrable deity whose absence does not need explaining.

  I think that when so-called Christians attack you all or give unwanted advice (like I just did?), it shows not a strong faith, but a weak one

  You’ve offered everything you’ve said with kindness, humility and an effort to be kind and understanding. It would be hard to really take offense at that. And you are dead right about the attack dogs. They are weak and very insecure.

• 36. Longing for Holiday  |  April 12, 2008 at 6:37 pm

  Karen: I read the list. I heartlily disagree wth most of it. However there were 3-4 that said the same thing differently and I would say I sort of agree: I do think that some folks who “de-convert” never were Christians in the sense that God never really entered their lives. That’s not a judgment on the person, just an explanation of why they could walk away. And I am saying that from the position of one who had a rather stunning conversion (over time, but stunning nevertheless in that as an 8 year old, I walked in to a faith that for years my family ridiculed) and a strong sense of God doing something. That experience — so real — so affected the trajectory of my life, that I can’t imagine walking away. So it seems logical to assume that the only person who could walk away, must never had that experience.

  HOWEVER, I know of two people who had such an experience and DID walk away. After many many years, and a life that was as far away from Christian ethics as one could go, one of these people returned to the faith and is now a full time missionary overseas. The other was a very very close friend of mine with whom I shared deep discussions of God. This person has walked away to the extent of turning to another religion and commiting adultery. When I spoke to this person recently, it was like speaking to another person from who I once knew. What does that mean? I don’t know. But another option (than that the person never became a Christian) was that such a person is on sort of a sabbatical from God. Quester mentioned he hangs onto the hope of feeling God’s presence again. I hope you all don’t mind that I pray that for you, that if indeed for some inexplicable reason, God has removed that sense of His presence, or let the line out too far, that He would graciously reel you back in. To do otherwise would be hypocrisy on my part.

• 37. Rachel  |  April 12, 2008 at 7:35 pm

  It’s not apologetics that I’m lacking. It’s reality. A real, demonstrable deity whose absence does not need explaining.

  Leo,

  I hear ya. I really do. It makes me think of Mother Theresa’s 50 year crisis of faith. I read one commentator who talked about how she had prayed to know Christ in his sufferings and had gotten more than she bargained for. Because as we know, the very worst of Christ’s suffering was his abandonment on the cross. I think the very worst of the human experience is the silence of God, and Christ’s cry of abandonment was his protest against suffering and separation from God. That’s the only way I can make sense out of that theologically. But there are times when I feel very much like I’m flailing in the wind.

• 38. Longing for Holiday  |  April 12, 2008 at 9:38 pm

  Leo: Actually, while Tim’s book is an apologetic, it’s more, too. It sounds like you were in a healthy church for some time, wtih good teaching. My time at Redeemer under Tim was like that. One of the things I liked about his teaching and the book is that it goes beyond apologetics (and, fyi, he takes a presuppositional approach); he also gives just amazing examples of God at work. I basically came from him dealing with the same issues over and over again with New York semi-intellectual cynics (I say semi-intellectual because I think Boston is more purely intellectual…).

  Leo and Rachel: I think I told Quester this on his blog, but I have two friends (both very involved in ministry) who are struggling with doubts and not feeling God’s presence. For both of them, they hang by Peter’s words: Where shall we go, for you have the gift of eternal life. They want more, but that’s all they have now.

  Frankly, I’d rather hear you guys talk honestly about these issues than for people to be so out of touch with themselves (as am I?? sometimes I wonder) that they just spout stuff they never question.

• 39. Longing for Holiday  |  April 12, 2008 at 9:40 pm

  I meant “It (the book) basically came…”

  I wish I could edit comments after the fact…

• 40. LeoPardus  |  April 12, 2008 at 11:28 pm

  Longing:

  we Calvinists see it as widespread Arminianism in the evy/fundy chruc

  I don’t really know what percentages of Calvinism/Arminianism you would find in the fundy churches. I suspect that you’d probably find a lot of mixes of both. (No, that isn’t sensible. It’s none the less what I’d expect.)

  We pride ourselves on being the “intellectual” wing of conservative Christianity, the logical ones

  They do have a bit of that reputation. Until you meet the Orthodox.

  And it’s from this camp that I”ve heard of more folks migrating to the Orthodox position.

  From Calvinism to Eastern Orthodoxy? I have seen that, but all the Calvinists-turned-Orthodox I know rejected Calvinism before, or at the time of, their conversion.

  I do think that some folks who “de-convert” never were Christians in the sense that God never really entered their lives.

  Well, I would agree with this in that there is no God to do such entering.

  they hang by Peter’s words: Where shall we go, for you have the gift of eternal life.

  I hung onto that too. Then I finally accepted that there is only one life. Eternity isn’t something I need concern myself with.

  [Tim] takes a presuppositional approach

  Then he’s doomed before he starts. Presuppositionalism is breaking the rules, or more accurately just refusing to even acknowledge that there are rules that govern thinking and logic.

• 41. Longing for Holiday  |  April 12, 2008 at 11:46 pm

  Leo:
  ‘Spalin that last comment. I don’t understand…

  Tiim’s stuff sure sounds reasoned and logical to me, but I guess you’d have to read it to see if you agree or not. (I can’t imagine you’d do that for the sake of this discussion, but you could check out his recent Q&A at Google: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kxup3OS5ZhQ. There are also youtube videos from Berkeley and MIT Q&As from his book tour.)

• 42. LeoPardus  |  April 13, 2008 at 12:10 am

  Longing:

  To explain the comment I will first set forth a definition of the basis of presuppositional apologetics. (Cut/Pasted for elsewhere)

  “The key feature of presuppositional apologetics is that the apologist must assume the truth of the supernatural revelation contained in the Bible (that is, the Christian worldview), both prior to the apologetic exercise and as the result of it.

  THAT is intellectual bankruptcy. Start with your conclusion; use it as a given in your arguments, and make sure that everything takes you back to that presumed conclusion. The simplest, common term for it is circular reasoning.

  If you use that sort of idiocy, then there is nothing to stop me from arguing in rebuttal like so:
  There is no god.
  We know this a priori
  Since then there is no god, it is clear that there can be no god, therefore there is no god, so your religious beliefs are erroneous.

  If I now take the above idiocy and add several thousand words to it (in order to hide its vapidity) and publish it in a book, it is still just plain idiocy.

  So why does Keller or van Til or Piper or any other presuppositionalist deserve anything other than complete dismissal for playing apologetic shell games? Especially when there isn’t a pea under any of the shells.

• 43. Longing for Holiday  |  April 13, 2008 at 12:16 am

  I ‘m not smart enough to respond to that! What I know he does, however, is help folks see that very point of view re god (if he exists or not) requires faith.

  FYI, the Google video is cut off, so it seems. The Berkely one is not.

• 44. Longing for Holiday  |  April 13, 2008 at 12:17 am

  every, not very

  Sigh my typos

• 45. Longing for Holiday  |  April 13, 2008 at 12:18 am

  Also, if I misprepresented Tim to the point that he comes off as an idiot, I am sorry. It is best that you check him out first hand before coming to that conclusion. He always seemed logical and reasoned to me!

• 46. LeoPardus  |  April 13, 2008 at 12:37 am

  You’re easily smart enough to see that you cannot first assume a conclusion is true, then use that assumption to construct a logical argument that leads back to the conclusion you assumed in the first place.

  As for Tim being an idiot,… I’ve met a lot of intelligent people who argue presuppositinally, and not just about God. People use presuppositional “logic” to argue for atheism, theism, conservatism, global warming, lower taxes, how to yodel, and just about everything. But is is “illegal” just the same.

  The argument that I put in post 42 was just a very simple example of how silly it is. It’s obvious because I stripped away all the confounding verbiage that people love to put around their presuppositionalism, that allows them to think that it is actually a valid argument.

  So the take home on any presuppositionalist is that he/she is hopeless from the get-go. They are using an argumentative or logical method that is WRONG. And no amount of “sounding logical” can change that.

• 47. Longing for Holiday  |  April 13, 2008 at 12:51 am

  Well, maybe that’s not what he is doing (arguing presuppositionally…). I’ll have to think about it. It doesn’t seem that he starts with a conclusion. (oh, and the google video is working if you are interested…).

  Off to bed. My head hurts!

• 48. karen  |  April 13, 2008 at 2:43 pm

  I do think that some folks who “de-convert” never were Christians in the sense that God never really entered their lives.

  Longing, please don’t take offense, but who are you to assume something so deeply personal and subjective about a stranger? If they SAY god entered their lives and they truly believed and had a relationship with Jesus for umpteen decades, is there an honest response required of you other than to take their words at face value?

  You see, it seems extremely arrogant to me to make sweeping assumptions about other people – whether we think we know them or whether they are complete ciphers to us. As you mentioned, you were shocked by your friend’s deconversion and you never saw it coming. How then would you know the state of someone’s religious beliefs (or lack thereof) whom you’ve never met?

  That’s not a judgment on the person, just an explanation of why they could walk away.

  But why do you need to concoct an explanation that makes sense to you? Why not just say, “Wow, I don’t understand this person’s decision, and I can’t imagine making it myself, but if I’m to be respectful I must accept their life story as they tell it.”

  Richard alludes to this very point in this morning’s post, “Why Doesn’t God Make Things Clearer?”

  There didn’t have to be a good guy and a bad guy. Just two humans disagreeing. There is nothing unusual about this; we see it and take it for granted everyday. (I have since come to believe that it is this, this dichotomous, black-and-white thinking, that is the heart of fundamentalism, not the particular beliefs. But that is another essay.)

  Being able to accept that someone can validly disagree with your point of view without having to make up an explanation that validates your own point of view is tough, but I think it’s an important step to maturity in discussion with people outside your own circle of thinkers.

• 49. The Apostate  |  April 13, 2008 at 4:11 pm

  I do think that some folks who “de-convert” never were Christians in the sense that God never really entered their lives.

  I don’t think you are really a Christian.

  Now how does that feel?

• 50. Zoe  |  April 13, 2008 at 5:56 pm

  I remember working in the church nursery oh so many years ago. One of the co-workers more mature in age and supposed wisdom, inquired of my personal testimony.

  I shared with her my acceptance of Christ. When I was finished she told me I couldn’t be a Christian if I did it in the context of my past denomination. Those people aren’t Christians. If I were you, I’d question my salvation.

  Here I had just shared my personal and intimate born-again experience and she completely ignored it, casting it and me aside.

  I can only imagine if I had asked her for her testimony and then discounted her words what a tongue lashing I would have received.

  I never could understand that even within Christianity itself, it’s not uncommon for them to call their own, heretics, carnal, or never saved in the first place. As a deconvert, it doesn’t shock me at all when someone tosses my testimony and experience aside, because it happened all the time when I was a Christian.

• 51. LeoPardus  |  April 13, 2008 at 6:37 pm

  Zoe:

  I’ve seen/heard that so much. Sickening. One thing I really like with the EOC is that they just aren’t like that. Their official position, which I can almost quote, runs like, “We take no position on the state anyone’s salvation. While we hold that the EOC has the fullest revelation of God’s truth, we cannot know how He, in His grace, may reveal Himself to others.”

• 52. Longing for Holiday  |  April 14, 2008 at 12:54 pm

  I am telling you all what in one’s mind is a logical explanation. From the Christian perspective: there are really two choices logically: either the person wasn’t a Christian or the person was and is temporarily not feeling like it for whatever reason. That is not a judgment. That is logic.

  Leo of course adds the outside of Christian perspective which is that if there is no God, then this is a moot point; Christianity is a figment of some peoples’ imagination (in the sense that Chrstiainity says Jesus is God) and no one is or is not a Christian since there is no god to follow. So a De-convert is aware of reality, and professed Christians are not. We who say we are Christians are deceived or living a lie. That’s another logical way to look at it. And I have to consider that (given that that is a possibility), that I am not a Christian either (since it’s a logical impossiblity to follow a god who does not exist) and I am deluding myself.

  The only thing that felt bad Apostate, was the feeling I was being yelled at for what I thought was a logical discussion and honest sharing. I am not (as others have said) blaming you all and saying you are naughty bad ex-Christians, that you have done something sinful and walkedaway from God. Who am I to say that? I am simply laying out the logical conclusions that have come to my mind. And I appreciate Leo’s having laid out another logical conclusion that I hadn’t considered.

  Leo suggests that since there is no God, then of course no one who deconverts was ever a Christian, since no one can follow a God who doesn’t exist.

• 53. LeoPardus  |  April 14, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  Longing:

  Pretty well laid out. And you definitely got what I was saying.

  FWIW I don’t think anyone is yelling at you. Folks here think that any idea should be challenged. Sometimes we challenge bluntly. It’s just to see if an idea (and the person who holds the idea) can take hard testing. No one is immune to this testing either. [I don't agree with a lot of folks hereabouts on homosexuality. When that is a topic of conversation, I get plenty challenged.] So don’t take it personally. This is only a test……..

  Now directly to something you said in post 52:
  From the Christian perspective: there are really two choices logically: either the person wasn’t a Christian or the person was and is temporarily not feeling like it

  One error here. It should start out, “From the Calvinist perspective….”

  Don’t conflate Calvinism with Christianity. The former is only one viewpoint within the latter.

• 54. Longing for Holiday  |  April 14, 2008 at 4:50 pm

  Leo:

  I KNEW you would catch that (Christian vs. Calvinist), but if you think about it, even if one were to take the other (you can “lose” salvation) point of view, what does it mean if you leave the faith? You’d either be temporarily on hold (coming back one day) or you’d be someone who walked away permanently (there’s not necessarily any coming back since there’s no eternal security guaranteed). What is a person who walked away permanently, then? Someone who decided that the original decision wasn’t valid for some reason, then wouldn’t it put that person in one of your categories? (which is similar to not ever having been a Christian since the term Christian is no longer valid…).

• 55. Gregg  |  April 14, 2008 at 4:53 pm

  This is an interesting discussion. And following Leo’s point in #53, I wonder if we could reconcile some of our divergent views by looking at how a Calvinist approach deals with truth (and Truth)?

  Here’s what I’m getting at: Calvinism is “hard and fast” about one’s absolute position before God and how one got there—one is either saved or not, and this by God alone (grace, like a good box of chocolates, is “irresistible”). The noteworthy point is that Calvin focused on seeing things from God’s perspective. But what makes for interesting speculation (or theology) does not often make for tenable epistemology (or experience). So, following Richard Rorty, we (and Calvin) lack the epistemic “skyhook” necessary to take us up to where we can see things from God’s perspective.

  More to the point, the problem (as I see it) comes not so much from Calvin’s perspective but from what over-emphasis on the perspective forces its adherents to ignore . And what is ignored? Not our absolute situation, but our experiential, existential situation . That is, Calvin focuses on (absolute) Truth and, by and large, dismisses personal truth (call it “truth-for-me”). In other words, experience (what happens to me, how I interpret it, and how I integrate this into my own story) matters. A lot.

  So it seems to me that we can resolve (though not solve) the dispute here by differentiating Calvin’s Truth from truth-for-me (tfm). So while I can understand and agree that Longing is focusing on Truth (as she logically, following Calvin, understands it—not said pejoratively), I am rather persuaded by Karen’s point. We have to accept the de-convert’s own story (his/her “tfm”). And further, one not only cannot know whether another was or was not a Christian (even the relatively audacious St. Paul is timid on this one: see 1 Cor 4:1-5), I think this is actually beside the point. Because we seek not some absolute state-of-affairs after-death but a real, living, here-and-now relationship. Or at least that’s my game.

  And that takes us back to Leo’s #1 point (initial article): the problem of God not “showing up.” However it may be done, I wager that solving this issue require experiencing and understanding this Truth on a human level, though not as the truth of Sovereignty (see my comments on this in Comment #68, http://de-conversion.com/2008/04/09/go-ahead-blow-away-my-free-will/#comment-18501).

  Rather, I believe that Truth and tfm must intersect (such that God “shows up” in ways that I can understand, experience, and feel while yet being bigger than me—the God I meet must really be God ). But the result of this intersection must not only be the possibility of my tfm being confirmed (because I know some true things), critiqued, and ultimately expanded by something greater (sovereignty). No, instead this intersection must take place in the experiential context which somehow communicates a love that loves me as much as and beyond how I love myself (both confirming and surpassing my self-love).

  I think, at the end of the day, God must show Godself as “more,” and this “more” is a chiefly a matter of truth an love.

• 56. karen  |  April 14, 2008 at 4:56 pm

  I am telling you all what in one’s mind is a logical explanation. From the Christian perspective: there are really two choices logically: either the person wasn’t a Christian or the person was and is temporarily not feeling like it for whatever reason. That is not a judgment. That is logic.

  Sorry, but that is a judgment which comes from your own theological corner, not from “logic” per se. Logic would consider many different possibilities, such as “maybe I don’t rightly understand what’s going on here so I should suspend drawing any conclusions”‘; or “maybe I’m not interpreting scripture correctly and there are many other ways of viewing this”; or “maybe god doesn’t care so much whether one claims allegiance to any particular theological beliefs at all.”

  Be careful about putting a very narrow mindset on and calling it “the Christian perspective.” That may be the fundamentalist perspective, or the Calvinist perspective, but your black-and-white dichotomy (they were never true Christians or they’re backsliders) does not reflect the far larger world of moderate and liberal Christianity.

• 57. LeoPardus  |  April 14, 2008 at 7:14 pm

  Longing:

  Someone who decided that the original decision wasn’t valid for some reason… is similar to not ever having been a Christian since the term Christian is no longer valid…

  The noun “Christian” would remain valid because it means (in this case), “one who believes in and practices the Christian faith”.

  So in my case, I believed and practiced for 25 years. I was a Christian. Now I do not believe or practice. I am no longer a Christian.

  BUT, if we use another definition (like unto what you are working with), “one who is saved, or in a state of grace, or accepted by God, or has eternal life”, then we run into an intractable problem. Namely, how do we know who is in such a state. Those are all things that only God could know.

  So, using Calvinist standards, you can never know if anyone, even yourself, is a Christian.

  After all, you cannot know but that you may really NOT be a Christian (Calvinist def.), and one day you will leave the faith/church/etc and live the rest of your life a Hindu.

  AND, for all you know, I may be the real Christian (Calvinist def.) in this exchange. For how do you know but that one day I may return to the fold and live my life out as a priest?

  That’s one of the BIG problems with Calvinism’s “logic”. It’s circular. You can never KNOW where you stand. You know what that amounts to right? Eternal insecurity.

• 58. Adrian  |  April 15, 2008 at 5:06 pm

  One of my first blogs was on the dichotomy between the vengeful, wrathful God of the Old Testament and the loving, parental and forgiving God of the New Testament. Somewhere during the process of writing that blog, I realized how silly even discussing the differences seemed. I didn’t really believe in either of them, although I sort of missed believing in the paternal Father figure. I have settled on the idea of the Great Initiator God who really could care less about humainty and just provided the spark for the creation of the uni/multiverse. I call it the Big Bang God. It’s really just a holdover from my childhood and my upbringing, but it’s proving to be the most difficult to dispense.

• 59. Adrian  |  April 15, 2008 at 5:19 pm

  BTW, has anybody got an explanation for the “Ineffability of God’ issue? I always hit a wall with this.

  It goes something like this: Man cannot know the will of God.
  God’s will is spelled out in the Bible.
  Men wrote the Bible by God’s will.
  So, if Man cannot know the will (or mind, as some say) of God, how the hell could Man have written it down as a representation of His will? That’s like a stenographer being deaf and blind and typing War and Peace just by guessing what Dostoyvsky (sic) wanted to say. There is NO evidence given to the stenographer of what has been said. Basically, over a billion people on earth are following a doctrine that may or may not be what God wanted them to follow.

  Two words: Crap Shoot

• 60. Longing for Holiday  |  April 17, 2008 at 12:17 am

  I tell you, there are some smart folks in this comment section. I think I’d like to sit down with some of you and just listen. I’ve learned alot… and gotten confused, too!

  Anyway, yes, Leo: eternal insecurity could be a problem. Then there’s that assurance deal. And the evidence over time. That “sense” (of course, which could be heartburn!) and the changes (of course, which happen to everyone) are part of my evidence. But, I may die and find out it was all a fable. Still, there’s that Jesus guy. He just seems like He was something (and I really sense I know Him… oops, there goes that feeling.)

  Regarding presuppositional apologetics. My husband (a pastor) and I talked about this (he’s going to come here and check all this out soon) and we both had heard your explanaton of what it is, but we’ve seen it used more to reveal the unwitting presuppositions others hold. I think that’s how Keller uses it in his book, more than what you describe.

  Finally, I am truly sorry I so hastily used words that were categories of understanding to me but may have hurt others. I HATE upsetting people. Is it fair to say this: people who are no longer Christians (or who are thinking of deconverting) will either 1) exit Christianity permanently or 2) return at some point.

  I haven’t looked around this site too much, but am curious. You call it resources for skeptical, deconverting… Are any of these resources those that could help the person return to Christianity if they want to find a reason to return (i.e., wanted to address their skepticism)? If not, I’ll be glad to offer myself as such a resource (not that I’ll prove to be helpful, but I wanted to make the offer).

• 61. Slapdash  |  April 17, 2008 at 6:56 am

  Longing for Holiday,

  Why should this website include resources to help people return to Christianity? If I wanted to return to it, I have scads of friends, family, members, and church connections in real life to turn to. The whole point, and joy, of this site is that there are *so* *few* resources to help people who are struggling, asking questions, deconverting. Resources for returning to the faith are not generally unrepresented in the world, or on the ‘net.

  Apart from that, it strikes me as a strange offer: do websites intended to bolster faith offer resources to help people who just might want to leave the faith?

• 62. HeIsSailing  |  April 17, 2008 at 9:36 am

  LongingForHoliday:
  “Are any of these resources those that could help the person return to Christianity if they want to find a reason to return (i.e., wanted to address their skepticism)? ”

  There is a regular bunch of Christians who visit this site and sometimes debate our reasoning for leaving the Faith (and they are welcome to do so). That is about the only resource here for returning to Christianity. I don’t visit this site as often as I used to – I used to be a regular contributor of articles. But the resources mentioned here is mostly just a sense of community for us apostates, doubters and skeptics. Upon first losing our faith, we are often very confused and bewildered. Sometimes we have spouses who are just as confused at our lose of faith. Many of us have approached our pastor or priest with our doubts and are very dissatisfied with the results.

  Some of us have been threatened divorce, and Christian churches are not equipped to handle this problem. Some of us have been shunned and treated very poorly by our old Christian communities and have nowhere else to turn. Some of us are even pastors who are terrified of confronting our congregations with our doubts and losing our only means of livelihood.

  The resource that this site has provided for me is a reassurance that I am not alone, and I am not crazy, and yes indeed – and confirmation that I DID have good reasons for leaving Christianity. There are many apostates in the church who are just afraid to speak up.

• 63. Gregg  |  April 17, 2008 at 11:07 am

  Slapdash,

  You wrote “Why should this website include resources to help people return to Christianity? If I wanted to return to it, I have scads of friends, family, members, and church connections in real life to turn to. . . . Resources for returning to the faith are not generally unrepresented in the world, or on the ‘net.”

  I beg do differ, or at least to re-define.

  Bound up with any notion of returning to Christianity is why one left in the first place. And one of the few consistent themes I have read across so many entries on this site is that people left Christianity because they realized that something about it was false. In other words, a departure of this nature is always a movement from less truth to more truth: “decon’s” are truth-seekers (and truth-finders)!

  If this is the case, then I’m not sure how your comments apply. Because any notion of return to Christianity will always be intimately related to the truth we have found (I call it truth-for-me). I will never reject this truth-for-me, but will always seek more of. By corollary, any legitimate return to Christianity must confirm—not deny—this valuable truth-for-me that I have acquired.

  But this is just the thing that my “friends, family, members, and church connections” didn’t have: if they had them, I may not have left. And further, because what an authentic return to Christianity needs is a new way of conceptualizing the faith (and a new, living experience of God), I actually know of no resources on the ‘net that offer this.

  Those who have left Christianity have done so, it seems to me, for a desire for more truth. So if there are resources for living better, those resources begin with truth-for-me. And if there are possibilities (for those who have left) to return to Christianity, I believe that this return can begin only where Christianity’s (absolute) Truth intersects with this truth-for-me.

• 64. LeoPardus  |  April 17, 2008 at 11:20 am

  On returning to the faith, I just don’t see it as a problem. Just start going back to church. Whether it’s where you were before, or a new one. People will be happy to have you. If it’s your old church, folks will be so glad that “the Lord brought you back”. If it’s a new church, they will be happy that you “saw the errors of your old confession”, and “found your way through the wilderness of unbelief” to finally get to “the true faith”. [Of course those are only approximate responses. In reality you'd get more variety. Including some who would be suspicious of your "return".]

  Frankly what would any “resource for returning” be? Just walk back in and pick up your hymnal.

• 65. Tim  |  April 17, 2008 at 12:50 pm

  Excuse me for hopping in like this, mid-debate, but I understand exactly what Gregg’s saying here. For example, if I were an Evolutionist Christian trying to convince a Creationist Christian to think like I do, then that’s the example of “more truth” in terms of scientific research, understanding fallacies that I have found in Creationism, and so on.

  However, for me to argue the other way, from Evolution to Creationism, you’re going to have to provide resources that provide “more convincing truth” than what is presented from science. The only way that tends to happen in the current culture is by discounting science as biased heresy (or putting hands over your ears and screaming, so you drown out the noise from the scientists), not by providing more fundamentally sound science.

  Where the ID movement gained a bit of traction, was by suggesting to “truth seekers” that there was, in fact, better science to be found than what had been presented in the Creation/Evolution debate. Unfortunately, when you peel away the jargon that comes along with ID, you end up finding Creationism wrapped up in different clothing.

  I don’t really have any recommendations, other than to continue to pursue the truth, even if it means discarding things that I’ve long-held to be true. Even so, I’ll posit that, short of any “Matrix-like” reality layered on top of reality, there is almost certainly objective reality and absolute truth, even if no humans are ever able to figure it out.

  Edging toward absolute truth, tirelessly pursuing it (in a manner akin to my blog entry about trying to determine the exact nature of Pi, but always ending up at an approximation) is for me, part and parcel to the journey. If I ever come to the place where I think I’ve got it all figured out (for me, much less anyone else), I probably need my head examined. – Tim

• 66. Gregg  |  April 17, 2008 at 12:56 pm

  Sorry, Leo, I’m not sure I’m understanding you. Are you saying that you left Christianity because you had a “perception” that it was not correct, or perhaps because your “preference” was for something less organized (agnosticism or atheism, for example)? I think not.

  So why are you reducing the notion of returning to Christianity to the “perceptions” of church-goers? How can you ignore the fact (you would call it that, wouldn’t you?) that your beef was that you found that Christianity was not true? And if it is not true, then how on earth can you return to it unless a) you magically re-construe your attachment to truth (or truth-for-me, as I call it) into a mere “perception” or a “preference”, or b) the (absolute) Truth of Christianity somehow is both confirmed by and confirms my truth, truth-for-me.

  On my point a), above, I am incredulous that a “de-con” such as yourself would be willing to sacrifice the truth that you’ve found (for it is truth: you call your very list of reasons for deconverting real in the sense of “true”).

  So its not (nor ever has been) about how people would feel about or respond to someone coming back to Christianity, but about whether such a return is possible and, if so, under what conditions. And that is my point b). And pretty clearly, by your own admission (it is a fairly lengthy list that you’ve drawn up in this article, above), this is about waaay more than “pick[ing] up your hymnal.”

  Unless the leopard has changed his spots.

• 67. Gregg  |  April 17, 2008 at 1:16 pm

  Thanks for your comments on moving towards “more truth,” Tim. So yes, I want to moving towards a fuller and fuller conception of the real, but to do so I think that we need to broaden our conception of reality. In other words, I want to consider truth as understanding “reality” as meaning both the true (versus false) and the actual (as the current state-of-affairs, versus the possible [as what may be]).

  I’ve written more about this in entry entry #32 (http://de-conversion.com/2008/04/13/god-and-the-irs-part-ii/). So while I agree that we want to find out more truth (like more and more decimal values of Pi), yet truth is greater than scientific truth: beauty and love have a relationship to truth.

• 68.  |  April 17, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  The reasons why some peolpe leave the faith is because they feel that Christianity is wrong. I say that it is okay to feel that way because you are right. But just because there are some questionable parts or people in a religion, does that mean that you should give up on it? Of course not! Life is filled with mysteries, and so is religion, every religion, and it is up to us to make the best use of it we can.

• 69.  |  April 17, 2008 at 1:31 pm

  God is loving, but people often corrupt the real image of God. This comes from the quote “Man adds fear to God’s message.” Its seems like atheists believe in a God of wrath and judgment, seeing that many of them use false messages from God from the Bible. In this world, no one wants to see a loving and nonjudging God. If they saw the real God, athiests wouldn’t try to disprove Christianity and Christians would have no way or means of controlling others. As for proving that God exists, I cannot answer that or prove that to you. It is up to you to look inside yourselves to find the unique experience and meaning that God has to you.

• 70. LeoPardus  |  April 17, 2008 at 2:27 pm

  Its seems like atheists believe in a God of wrath and judgment,

  One of the sillier statements I’ve seen in a while.

• 71. LeoPardus  |  April 17, 2008 at 2:37 pm

  Gregg:

  Are you saying that you left Christianity because you had a “perception” that it was not correct

  I left because I am reasonably certain that there is no god.

  So why are you reducing the notion of returning to Christianity to the “perceptions” of church-goers?

  I’m not. I simply don’t see what anyone thinks “resources for returning to the faith” are. If you come to believe the faith is true, then go back to church. What resource do you need for that?

  As for me returning (and some others here too), it would require God showing up in a clear and unmistakable way. If that happened then I would be convinced that my current position is wrong (i.e. untrue). I would then return fully to the faith. (Unless of course God showed up and said that some other faith was the way to go.)

  Unless the leopard has changed his spots.

  There’s an article around here where you can see my icon rendered much larger. As you’ll see, I can’t change my spots….. ’cause I’m a melanistic leopard.

• 72. karen  |  April 17, 2008 at 3:02 pm

  I’m not. I simply don’t see what anyone thinks “resources for returning to the faith” are. If you come to believe the faith is true, then go back to church. What resource do you need for that?

  I agree. No church would turn away a prodigal son or daughter who came in asking to rejoin the fellowship after a deconversion. To the contrary, the “backslider” would likely be given the spotlight for their testimony at the next worship service or prayer meeting! There’s nothing more juicy for a fundy or evangelical congregation than hearing a repentant sinner.

  Not to mention there are umpteen million Christian websites, blogs and forums online, and they represent the spectrum from the most conservative fundamentalist belief to the most far-out liberal New Age-style Christian hybrid.

  Why would we need to duplicate any of that here on a site that is aimed specifically at supporting and encouraging deconverts?

• 73. Longing for Holiday  |  April 17, 2008 at 7:39 pm

  WOW. You can understand why when I said
  I’ll be glad to offer myself as such a resource
  
  that I also said “not that I’ll prove to be helpful…”

  (and maybe you should change the name to “Support for those….”)

  I am sure there would be many in churches who would welcome you back to the faith, but I imagine (from what some of you said) that those are the same people who helped render Christianity “not truth” by their actions and/or words.

  I would also imagine there are folks here, who while they are moving toward de-conversion, aren’t sure they really want to go, but are wavering. And you guys are such a smart crowd that not many Christians could really address your concerns. So, if you went back to the church, it wouldn’t be because the majority of those sitting in pews could speak to your concerns. Having said that, I realize in retrospect how unhumble it might have been to make an offer – like I could answer the questions myself. HA! The best I can do is sort of follow some of your discussions!! Maybe the most I could do is listen and pray (to a God who may or may not exist!). So, the offer still stands!

• 74. Longing for Holiday  |  April 17, 2008 at 7:40 pm

  I don’t know how to undo italics and have no idea where that smiley face came from.

• 75. Gregg  |  April 17, 2008 at 8:28 pm

  Hi Leo,

  I’m more than a bit confused. You seem to be saying one thing and then contradicting it—let me show you what I mean.

  In the first instance, you write, “I simply don’t see what anyone thinks ‘resources for returning to the faith’ are. If you come to believe the faith is true, then go back to church. What resource do you need for that?”

  In the second instance, you write, “As for me returning (and some others here too), it would require God showing up in a clear and unmistakable way. If that happened then I would be convinced that my current position is wrong (i.e. untrue). I would then return fully to the faith.”

  Here’s the problem I see with these two quotes. On the one hand, then, we agree that it is not a matter of preference, but of truth (or truth as far as I can perceive it: truth-for-me). But this means that one must feel pretty sure about one’s decision—worldviews are, by their nature, all-involving and thus giving one up in favour of another is never done lightly: it’s a painful process (as your bio in “Hello, my name is…” points to, I think).

  On the other hand, however, believing that “the faith is true” would require this “true” faith being other than what one had before—for I know that certain important things about this old faith are false. Yet how do we bridge the gap? I suggest that we can only do so by having more resources than our Christian pasts’ provided.

  And what are the resources, then?

  First, the most important follows from your comment about God “showing up.” So while I agree that this must be “unmistakable,” yet if God is a subject to be related to (and not an object to be grasped) then surely God should have some say in what manner God will “show up” (my wife has certain views on what how she will—and will not—participate in a discussion on contentious issues, which is her right: should not God be permitted similar rights?).

  But second, this of course is predicated on just who this God is. And here again, we need newresources in order to construe God in a new way. For example, as you have noted, Calvinism is enormously problematic. And further, as you replied to me): “Gregg: Sounds like we are on the same page. We need a God who answers not with words, but with God-self. Words to that effect are just what I’m about.” Yet how this may happen (i.e., how God answers with God-self and not with words) is not (or at least not in my experience) discussed and formulated in a viable way in churches. So the resources also include better ways of conceptualizing (and exegeting—so my comments on N. T. Wright) who God is.

  And third, the “clear and unmistakable way” in which we want God to show up (for here again I agree with you) must be intimately related (maybe even must “follow from”?) the preceding two points: a) how God may show up based on b) who God is. And this relationship, as I have tried to show elsewhere (#’s 10, 14, 18, etc.), must relate to who I am. So when I say that it was as clear as “sky-writing” that I was in love with my wife, I’m not saying that it was actually sky-writing (or that anyone else would necessarily view it as such). But it was overwhelmingly clear to me—it was true for me. Better formulating the relationship between Truth and truth-for-me then also seems essential.

  In the end, knowledge is personal knowledge, intimately related to what I have experienced and how I interpret it. So we need resources to construe more productively this relation, whence I have been focusing elsewhere on the relationship between my story and the biblical story (above, #’s 10, 14, 18, etc.). And it is in these three areas that resources are needed, because they aren’t to be found in churches—at least the ones I’ve been a part of.

• 76. Gregg  |  April 17, 2008 at 9:11 pm

  Oops! Seems like my links directly to particular comments didn’t work.

  In order, they are: Go Ahead, Blow away my Free Will #’s 51 and 75; God and the IRS (part II); If Christians are Wrong # 16.

• 77. James  |  April 23, 2008 at 5:06 pm

  I got sick of not feeling any better after going to confession.

• 78. LeoPardus  |  April 23, 2008 at 7:01 pm

  I got sick of not feeling any better after going to confession.

  Hey! Someone else who’s been through this. Hi James.

  I’m guessing you were in the Catholic church. Mine was Orthodox. (Actually I still go there, but I no longer believe, and I sure don’t do confession.)

  Most of the folks where I go are converts to Orthodoxy. I remember a number of them telling me how the felt “freed” or “cleansed” after their first confession. (I’ve also heard lifelong O’s and C’s say this sort of thing.) I did two confessions, and they were big nothings. I couldn’t even make any sense out of it from a Biblical perspective. I mean if God forgives when I tell Him my sins, and the Bible says he does, what the hell good does it do to have a priest hear my sins and tell me God forgave them?

  Anyway I just did two confessions, saw how empty it was, and said, “Forget it. God can forgive me and the priest can find other things to do.” Later of course I realized that there was no God to forgive me (or to sin against for that matter.)

• 79. Convenient categories: Th&hellip  |  July 7, 2008 at 8:34 am

  [...] Inconvenient categories: The really real reasons de-cons leave the faith [...]

• 80. clive smit  |  July 15, 2008 at 7:32 am

  1. God never shows up. Not in visions, miracles, visitations, angelic appearances, or challenge matches (think of Elijah vs. the Baal priests).

  Who are you to assert that?
  Do you know what happens in other people’s experiences?
  How do you know that miracles , visions, angelic visitations aren’t occurring?

  Common guys, for a bunch of thinking people… LAME!

  2. Prayers are NOT answered.

  See above.

  3. Christians are NOT different from non-Christians.

  I know Christians who are different.
  That’s like saying there are no intellectuals who think differently.
  Talk about stereotyping!

  4. Church disunity.

  And there is no argument in the scientific community?
  Common!
  What about the churches that are unified… or doesn’t that fit?

  I found this post disappointing I must say. I’m all for questioning things, but common, this post was just shameful (not to say there weren’t some good things in it)

• 81. ubi dubium  |  July 15, 2008 at 9:53 am

  Clive-
  The point of this article is not to try to prove or disprove each of the above points.

  The point is that christians are frequently showing up here, and telling us all about “why we deconverted”. What they usually say to us is listed in the “convenient categories” post, and they are usually totally wrong about us.

  If you are going to come here and preach at us (and we’ve heard it all before: some of the de-cons are ex-pastors) you should take a moment to listen to the reasons why we actually left. Then, when you talk to us, you at least know what subjects to talk about. If you are looking for further discussion on those topics, please see all the articles on the rest of this website.

• 82. The Apostate  |  July 15, 2008 at 11:09 am

  Aww come on ubi, give clive smit a break – don’t you want to hear more responses such as “LAME”? I always appreciate the loving displays of wisdom and high level of articulation of these former peers of mine.

• 83. ubi dubium  |  July 15, 2008 at 2:56 pm

  Yes, TA, I do get a laugh from them! But I usually go to venganza.org for my daily dose of laughing at christinanity. Here, I’d really rather have some intelligent conversation. And not with evangelists who think their arguments are stronger when they put them in ALL CAPS.

• 84. The Apostate  |  July 15, 2008 at 3:30 pm

  And not with evangelists who think their arguments are stronger when they put them in ALL CAPS.

  You mean it doesn’t make it stronger? I was just about to re-convert.

• 85. SnugglyBuffalo  |  July 15, 2008 at 4:16 pm

  People need to learn about using <em> html tags.

• 86. clive smit  |  July 17, 2008 at 6:13 am

  it seems you’re all good to pay Christians out, but you don’t like the challenge when it comes it your way. Hope I didn’t hurt your feelings Apostate.
  PS: I never once said I had all the answers, you shouldn’t stereotype.

  I would never tell you about why you de-converted.
  I’m on the sight to engage in conversation, not preach. Not attack or belittle.

• 87. John Morales  |  July 17, 2008 at 6:21 am

  Clive, what was that challenge again?

• 88. The Apostate  |  July 17, 2008 at 10:07 am

  clive, why would you think you hurt my feelings? There are no challenges in your post: just type in some keywords that you wrote in the search bar on the top right of the page and you will see we have dealt with such “challenges” on numerous occasions. I would highly recommend attending a seminary with a good apologetics program if I were you. We see many great challenges from Christians on this site, but those are hardly worthy of repeating the same tired answers to the same tired questions.

• 89. SnugglyBuffalo  |  July 17, 2008 at 11:22 am

  Indeed, Clive, each one of those four points you made originally have been dealt with quite thoroughly on this site, if you’d take the time to find them.

  I’m on the sight to engage in conversation, not preach. Not attack or belittle.

  Uh huh…

  Previously:

  Common guys, for a bunch of thinking people… LAME!

  and:

  I’m all for questioning things, but common, this post was just shameful

  You’re right, I don’t see how anyone could assume those statements are attacking or belittling. *end sarcasm*

  Also, you need to learn the difference between “come on” or “c’mon” and “common.” Trying to read those sentences was painful.

• 90. LeoPardus  |  July 18, 2008 at 2:17 pm

  clive:

  Someone pointed out your errors in the English language. Since it appears you’re a native speaker, do we take it you are dyslexic? Just asking so that no one bothers you about your spelling or grammar if you can’t help yourself.

  1. God never shows up. Not in visions, miracles, visitations, angelic appearances, or challenge matches (think of Elijah vs. the Baal priests).
  Who are you to assert that?
  Do you know what happens in other people’s experiences?
  How do you know that miracles , visions, angelic visitations aren’t occurring?

  Never in my experience, nor in the experience of the people on this blog, nor in the experience of anyone I know personally has a miracle occurrred. There are certainly claims by people, as we all know, however I usually have no means of confirming those claims. And when I do have means, it turns out not to be a miracle; just normal life combined with wishful thinking.

  Maybe there are miracles, but there are no confirmable ones so far as I’ve ever been able to trace. I won’t base my faith on ‘maybes’.

  2. Prayers are NOT answered.
  See above.

  See above.

  3. Christians are NOT different from non-Christians.
  I know Christians who are different.
  That’s like saying there are no intellectuals who think differently.
  Talk about stereotyping!

  Look in the archives for the post “Reasons why I can no longer believe: 3 – Unchanged lives” Especially the italicized paragraph Karen wrote.

  You may also look in the mirror. What will you see? Will you see a youth minister who is filled with love and compassion for the lost? Or will you see a self-righteous, derisive prater who shows up in blogs and treats the denizens there with belittlement, put-downs, and contempt? …. And you’re different from non-Christians just how…..?

  Oh, and you do believe in the Golden Rule right? (After all, it’s right from Jesus’ lips.) So you do WANT us to treat you with sarcasm, belittlement, derisiveness, contempt, put-downs, and so on don’t you?

  4. Church disunity.
  And there is no argument in the scientific community?

  Do you know what a non-sequitur is?

  You’ve of course tossed out a typical non-sequitur that the utterly, scientifically ignorant like to make. Here, let me try to help you with a process called “thinking it through”.

  1-Where was it ever said that the scientific community is supposed to be unified? (I’ll help you here: “Nowhere” is the answer.) Now the scientific community is unified on some things: the laws of momentum, the efficacy of antibiotics, etc. On those things thought they have a mass of data that all points one way.

  2-Where was it said that the church is supposed to be unified? (Answer: in the Bible. Do you need help finding the verses?)

  3-Now think about the claims of the church. It claims to have absolute truth, straight from the omniscient God. It also claims to be made up of people filled with the spirit of that God. Yet, you find them quarreling and dividing and contradicting on everything. Does this make you think they really represent “the one, true, God”?? Is this the unity that Jesus was praying for?

  What about the churches that are unified… or doesn’t that fit?

  NAME ONE!!!!!!!!! Hells bells man! You can’t find a unified church even if you just look in the doors of Hometown Community Church on the corner of 1st and Main.

  I found this post disappointing

  I think we all found your response disappointing. We keep looking for thinking Christians to visit. (And they do.) In your case though I think the best single term to apply is …… LAME.

• 91. Joe  |  July 18, 2008 at 3:33 pm

  LOL—-Reading the exchanges above is hilarious. It reminds me of thee “intellectuals” sitting in the restaurant and demeaning others:

  Leo “Oh good lord, he used the word “lame”. What bus from Mississippi did he get off of? (chuckles around the table) Pass the caviar would you dear?”

  The Apostate: “Here you are. Yes, these dim-wits descend on this place and think they can sit in the same restaurant and make such undignified comments. (taps at corners of mouth with a silk napkin)

  John: “I’ll bet they use caps when they are trying to make a point on a blog. They’d forget their own middle name if you didn’t remind them” (titters all about) Well, that fat illegal person should be just about done waxing my car by now—ta ta, gotta go.”

  Sorry—just reminded me of a scene like that was all. Really—just “TRYING” (oops,” trying”) to be funny.

• 92. Joe  |  July 18, 2008 at 3:34 pm

  It reminds me of thee

  Sorry–meant to say “three”

• 93. Joe  |  July 18, 2008 at 3:41 pm

  By the way—-

  I know you could just as easily re-write the scene using (3) rude christians too. LOL I’d like to see it. Most likely it would be hilarious. :>)

• 94. LorMarie  |  July 31, 2008 at 9:43 pm

  I personally cannot stand the concept of election and predestination . To simply create someone in order to torture them in hell suggests a cruel God. That really is what that boils down to…creating someone just to send them to hell.

• 95. Leonard  |  August 1, 2008 at 3:52 pm

  The cause of the confusion is probably misunderstanding about the basic concept of why must believing in God, regardless of religion:

  1. There cannot be creation without creator.
  2. The intelligent human being is a proof of infinitely intelligent creator, there is a cause to human existence.
  3. Afterlife might seems illogical, but eternity is not, things cannot be really destroyed, they only change from one being into another, for example water into clouds into ice. Matter are neither created nor just came into existence without a cause. Prima Causa, or the cause of every things should have be existed.

  Finite man’s intelligence cannot grabs the infinite intelligence, like a snail cannot understand computer.

• 96. rover  |  August 1, 2008 at 5:46 pm

  Leonard:

  What?

• 97. Jasper  |  August 1, 2008 at 6:10 pm

  Finite man’s intelligence cannot grabs the infinite intelligence, like a snail cannot understand computer.

  A better way to put that might be to say “like a teacup cannot ride a bicycle”. it makes more sense.

• 98. LeoPardus  |  August 1, 2008 at 6:18 pm

  LorMarie:

  Re post #94 – RIGHT ON! That’s part of why I rejected Calvinism long ago.

• 99. SnugglyBuffalo  |  August 1, 2008 at 6:32 pm

  A friend of mine apparently comes from some subset of Calvinism, and believes that some people are predestined for heaven, but that no one is predestined for hell.

• 100. LeoPardus  |  August 1, 2008 at 6:35 pm

  Leonard:

  There cannot be creation without creator.

  I’d actually agree with this. Now you have a problem. What if the universe isn’t a creation? What if it just happened over huge amounts of time?
  What I’m getting at is that just because you call it “creation” doesn’t mean that in fact it was created. So what you’ve stated is really a sort of petitio principii.

  The intelligent human being is a proof of infinitely intelligent creator, there is a cause to human existence.

  Here again you have the same problem as your first statement. You start with a presupposition that you insist is s priori knowledge and proceed from there. Petitio principii again.

  Afterlife might seems illogical, but eternity is not,

  Huh?

  things cannot be really destroyed, they only change from one being into another, for example water into clouds into ice.

  People who have no scientific education need to avoid trying to use science-based arguments. You just wind up looking like a complete idiot when you try this around those who actually do know their science. Here’s a suggestion. Try asking questions about things like this, instead of showing off your ignorance.

  Matter are neither created nor just came into existence without a cause. Prima Causa, or the cause of every things should have be existed.

  This sentence is really bad and is hardly the first glaring error in your writing. Is English not your native language? If it isn’t, (or if you’re dyslexic) then you can be forgiven such bloopers.

  As to the statement itself, the logical error here is, I believe, ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’.

  Finite man’s intelligence cannot grabs the infinite intelligence, like a snail cannot understand computer.

  This won’t’ stop you from “telling” us all about an infinite deity though, will it?

  Sign up for some science courses, and add on a course in logic too.

• 101. LeoPardus  |  August 1, 2008 at 6:37 pm

  SB:

  A friend of mine apparently comes from some subset of Calvinism, and believes that some people are predestined for heaven, but that no one is predestined for hell.

  That is called “single predestination”. It’s nicer than double predestination, but just as nonsensical.

• 102. Jasper  |  August 1, 2008 at 6:48 pm

  This Psychic I know does “Life Flow Charts” which chronicle the ups and downs your life will take. 80% of these flow-charts that she does for people end with an arrow pointing down rather than up, so there might be something to that Calvinistic doctrine after all.

• 103. JC  |  August 11, 2008 at 12:06 am

  So after I’ve read these two post are there any other “must read” sections? where do I go from here?

  I haven’t ever called myself a decon but I have chosen to leave “make believe” for many of the reasons stated above…

• 104. Quester  |  August 11, 2008 at 1:23 am

  Welcome, JC.

  You’ve now read about who we are and who we aren’t, more or less. Leo, what’s that third post you keep recommending? I can neither remember nor find reference to it. Speaking of finding, I can’t find the post warning against trollish behaviour or feeding the trolls, either. That might be a good introductory read, as well.

  Otherwise, JC, read what sparks your interest and respond where you think you have something to contribute, or a question to ask.

  You may also choose to drop by the Forums and introduce yourself there.

  I hope this helps.

• 105. SnugglyBuffalo  |  August 11, 2008 at 2:25 am

  I believe the third post that’s been recommended is By the way, who are the de-cons?

• 106. The ties that bind: Facto&hellip  |  August 18, 2008 at 11:35 pm

  [...] Attention Christian Readers Just in case you were wondering who we are and why we de-converted. [...]

• 107. AJ  |  August 24, 2008 at 12:56 pm

  In this “holy” Bible, it says that you can’t get to heaven “by good works alone”. So why are so many people threatened by the church with the possibility of going to hell if they don’t do good deeds for their fellow man (or church – cha-ching!)?

  Christians appear to me to be the single most hypocritical group in the world. “Love thy neighbor – but not if he’s gay!” “Do not murder – unless it’s a bad guy!” “Do not molest little boys – unless you’re a pastor/priest, then we’ll sweep it under the rug!”

  WHERE. THE. HELL. ARE. THE. DINOSAURS?

• 108. LeoPardus  |  August 24, 2008 at 1:51 pm

  AJ:

  What amazes me is the willingness of religious people to just ignore what their holy books say.

  In the case of the Bible and good works, you’ve got Matt 25 (the sheep and the goats), John 5:29, Romans 2:6, 13, most of James (esp 2:22), 1 Peter 1:17, Revelation 2:23, Revelation 20:12.

  There are more of course.

  Hey let’s beat the silly ass apologists to the punch.

  “Well you’re not saved by works, your saved by faith. Then you do works if you’re really saved.”

  “It’s not by works ‘alone’, but you should have them.”

• 109. orDover  |  August 24, 2008 at 2:37 pm

  Don’t forget, the more good works you do, the more jewels you get in your heavily crown.

• 110. pastoreric  |  August 24, 2008 at 3:59 pm

  The God depicted in the Bible is NOT loving, merciful, good, just, etc

  As I agree with most of these reasons to leave Christianity, I must say that remember the Word “Christian” was never meant to be some stereotypical organization that you become a part of. The word Christian was a derogetory comment used to identify people with followers of Jesus Christ. However, let me say in response to this statement about God. If you only read the old testament, then you might only see God in this fashion. However, If you read the New Testament you will see God in a much different light. Jesus Christ was an atonement for your sin. That says it all! If tha’t not all of these combined above than I don’t know what is?

• 111. bigham  |  September 10, 2008 at 11:09 am

  Greetings,

  I have a proposal. You know how news stations that clearly lean to one side of the aisle or the other always have a “token” guy who leans the other way. He’s basically the guy that nobody likes. For example, conservative Fox News has that guy that nobody likes or listens to. He is a liberal who is doggedly devoted to the liberal cause. He is always outnumbered, and nobody really gives him any consideration. So, why is he on the show? Because it gives the show at least a facade of credibility.

  So, my idea is this. What do you guys think about allowing me to be “that guy”? I can be the one Christian (or the one “de-convert” who “re-converted,” if you like) on the “program.”

  I can be that guy that nobody really considers, that guy that nobody agrees with, but that guy that you can point to and say “we consider their views, but disagree with them.”

  So, whadya think?

• 112. bigham  |  September 10, 2008 at 11:10 am

  (Oh, and if you worry about me overloading the site with too many posts, I wouldn’t be opposed to certain restrictions- such as a word limit for my posts, a post-per-week limit, etc.)

• 113. Quester  |  September 10, 2008 at 1:45 pm

  Bigham,

  You’d be (by an approximate count) the twenty-somethingth “that guy” to post on this site since I joined it last November. Most of them don’t last more than a month or three, though some doggedly persist. We have no real way of stopping you if you decide to be yet another.

  We also have a small handful of respectful and intelligent theists who come to learn more than to preach. They share their point of view, but more often seek to truly understand ours. If you want to join that number, you’re welcome to try.

  There is no membership fee or application process for either category; you simply get judged by your words. If you have any worth sharing, you’ll be welcomed. If you don’t, you’ll be ignored by everyone who’s managed to learn how to ignore a troll.

• 114. BigHouse  |  September 10, 2008 at 2:06 pm

  So, why is he on the show? Because it gives the show at least a facade of credibility.

  Should we imply that you believe the site lacks credibility and you (or someone like you) can ’solve’ that?

• 115. Cooper  |  September 10, 2008 at 3:03 pm

  Don’t forget, the more good works you do, the more jewels you get in your heavily crown.

  OrDover—

  Don’t forget, in Revelation it says that all of those crowns are thrown at Jesus’ feet. So, if someone is trying to get more jewels for their own crown they are pursuing the wrong thing.

• 116. Cooper  |  September 10, 2008 at 3:08 pm

  If you only read the old testament, then you might only see God in this fashion

  pastoreric–

  Actually, if you read the Old Testament and peruse the Psalms, and many other books you will come to an opposite conclusion.

  One example:

  “Let him that glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord which exercise Lovingkindness, Judgment and righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight saith the Lord” (Jeremiah 9:24)—Note: what does he put FIRST of the things he “delights” in? Lovingkindess.

  There are many, many other passages in the OT just like this.

• 117. orDover  |  September 10, 2008 at 3:16 pm

  Bigham,

  We’ve already had several “Christian Contributors” here who have written posts, such as Justin and Rachel. You can find their posts here.

  As Quester mentioned, you’re always welcome to post in the comments.

• 118. Carolyn  |  September 17, 2008 at 10:40 pm

  to whom it may concern: to anyone who has de-converted

  I want to understand more of where you are coming from. I have an idea, but I want to here it from you. I have read your “reasons” for de-converting, but I don’t see any explanations. I pick up my cross and follow after Jesus everyday to the best of my ability. I don’t like to say that I’m Christian, since this has become corrupt in the world’s eyes, although, i do fit the true meaning of the word. I am indeed a “little Christ” which is what Christian means. Churches and believers have corrupted this word to mean something of hypocrisy. I will never claim that I am better than anyone else. I am not worthy of salvation. Salvation is a free gift. It is free to anyone willing to give up their free will and follow God’s. He is but a gentlemen and does not interfere without permission.
  I feel like those who have de-converted were mislead or even lied to about Christianity. When you truly become a Christian live each moment for someone else you die to yourself and live to bring God glory.
  I look forward to discussing this with anyone who is willing. I really want to know where you are coming from, now that you have a idea of where I stand.
  thank you so much for this opportunity to post on your site!
  a fellow human being,
  carolyn

• 119. The de-Convert  |  September 17, 2008 at 10:46 pm

  Carolyn,

  If you’re genuinely interested in dialogue, I suggest you read through the following stories:

  http://de-conversion.com/tag/de-conversion-story/

  Enjoy,
  Paul

• 120. Quester  |  September 17, 2008 at 11:57 pm

  Carolyn,

  I picked up my cross to follow Christ, but could not find Him anywhere. I looked in the Bible, but Christ wasn’t there. I looked in the churches, but Christ wasn’t there. I looked in Creation, but Christ wasn’t there. I knelt in prayer, but Christ wasn’t there. I waited in silence, but Christ wasn’t there. I opened my heart, but Christ wasn’t there. After ten years of not being able to find Christ, I set down my cross and walked away. If He wants me, He knows where to find me.

  In the meantime, I have a life (and only one) to live.

• 121. The de-Convert  |  September 18, 2008 at 12:16 am

  Quester,

  I was reading a blog that referenced us today:

  http://anik946.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/3/

  where the author asks:

  I wonder if those people on this blog were actually Christians in the first place. ….. Did they ever experience the love of Christ?

  .. and I thought, wow, I have never really experienced the “love of Christ”.. thought I did, but in reality, what does that really look like?

  Paul

• 122. The Apostate  |  September 18, 2008 at 1:19 am

  Quester,

  After ten years of not being able to find Christ, I set down my cross and walked away.

  Sometimes it felt like that cross was literally snatched from my hand. I had little choice in the matter. Perhaps I was just one of those people who held on so tightly that I realized all I was holding was a block of wood.

• 123. Quester  |  September 18, 2008 at 1:36 am

  TA,

  By “setting down my cross and walking away”, I’m referring to how I stopped trying to live out the Christian faith after I realized I no longer believed in a Christ. What are you referring to as your “cross”.

• 124. The Apostate  |  September 18, 2008 at 2:26 am

  Quester,
  Ah, i see. My “cross” is my reference to my entire faith.

• 125. Quester  |  September 18, 2008 at 3:08 am

  TA,

  That’s the fun of metaphors.

  You say snatched, but I’ve gotten the impression that this wasn’t in any way a sudden thing for you. Am I wrong?

• 126. Quester  |  September 18, 2008 at 3:09 am

  The de-Convert,

  Hey, at least she asked it as a question instead of declaring it as a certainty. It may not be much, but it’s something.

• 127. underthefloor  |  September 18, 2008 at 5:28 am

  longing for holiday (21)

  I wasn’t raised a Christian, but a Muslim, and I have had feelings of sublimity and just complete love and awe and devoation.

  I’m not going to lie. It was VERY hard denying God. Throughout the period, I felt like He was watching me always and being angry that I’ve chosen to rebel. I was scared that at any time, he’d choose to take my life and I’d die an unbeliever – one of the worst things that could happen to a Muslim.

  We don’t call it deconversion in Islam. Since in Islam, people are born Muslims, and it is only culture that changes their faith to any other religion. And from what I know, Islam’s not particularly into proletysing, and accepts that good atheists are better than hypocritical believers.

  I didn’t want to be a hypocritical believer, and I wasn’t. I decided to reject God for reasons that seem so superficial now – because the man I loved didn’t believe in God and I thought it was such an awesome and amazing thing that someone could sincerely not believe in a God.

  Then I discovered pantheism.. and was into that for a while. I think being an agnostic atheist is something I can live with.

  There is a lot of humiliation in Islam if you leave the religion. You’re immediately condemned, and unlike Christianity – which is more “modern” in this sense – there are no shepherd-sheep relationships, and you’re just left on your own. I don’t really mind if someone does come and talk to me sincerely and unjudgementally about this. Not necessarily to bring me back to the religion, but just to understand me.

  It’d be great too if I could believe again, but an intentional leaving of the religion is much harder than an unintentional leaving. For one thing, I really suffered a lot during the period of leaving. The sense of hopelessness, loss, and intense melancholia almost all the time. I learnt to live with it. After a while, I stopped hearing His voice.

  And to think I never thought this would happen to me. As a child, I had very strong faith, and could deflect most logical arguments. I love reasoning and logic, and I used that to my advantage. My own parents were amazed at my faith, although they did find it odd that I could still bear reading things that could erode my faith. How random that I should have lost faith because of love.

  I onced read somewhere that the moment your love becomes God, it becomes the devil. I can understand that.

  Cheers.

• 128. underthefloor  |  September 18, 2008 at 5:32 am

  (27) Oh yes! I want to read that book actually! The Reason For God. The visting pastor in the church I crashed – it had a postmodernism lecture relevant to my thesis – recommended it.

• 129. The Apostate  |  September 18, 2008 at 10:22 am

  Quester,

  You say snatched, but I’ve gotten the impression that this wasn’t in any way a sudden thing for you. Am I wrong?

  De-conversion, I believe, is similar to conversion in a lot of ways. Most people experience both a slow steady aspect of their conversion augmented with radical moments in their life. You are correct that my de-conversion was not a instantaneous event, but there were moments, I recall vividly, where I felt that my faith had suddenly been snatched – perhaps in pieces – and I was powerless, no, God was powerless to stop it. I have described before how intellectual beliefs lead to deeply emotional side effects, and this was probably one of the sickest feelings I ever had. My de-conversion was a slow intellectual process, but the emotional self-realizations of what I was going through often hit me like a semi-truck.

• 130. SnugglyBuffalo  |  September 18, 2008 at 12:54 pm

  My deconversion was fairly rapid, and I would say the actual de-conversion itself was almost instantaneous.

  It was definitely a long process overall for me, but I think it was largely a process of developing critical thinking skills, and then learning to accept that I no longer believed. In between there was a very sudden realization that I had no reason to believe.

  Quite literally, I was sitting at my desk at work reading something somewhat critical of religion, and suddenly wondered “why do I believe this stuff?” Thinking back on my life, all I could come up with is that it was how I was raised.

  After that, I kept trying to push such thoughts away, I kept praying and trying to effectively make myself believe, but eventually had to accept that I had no reason to believe, and had become an atheist almost overnight. There was a lot of pain involved, as well as fear, and it took a while to deal with all of that and finally accept that I no longer believed. But the actual shift from belief to unbelief was shockingly sudden for me.

• 131. Rover  |  September 18, 2008 at 1:33 pm

  amen

• 132. cooper  |  September 18, 2008 at 4:22 pm

  Kind of off subject a bit here. But there is a “Jack-In-the Box” commercial on now where a lady is pushing two business men sitting next to one another in a stroller. The one man says “I really nailed that deal” as he looks at his laptop. The other man starts to say something sales related, when the first man’s lip starts quivering, and he bursts into tears and screams “I’m Hungry!!” Of course, this causes the other man to start crying to, and the “Mom” runs around to the front and says “here are your snacks” and both the men start clapping like little tots would when given a snack.

  It is funny, but reminded me how Christians really start off the same way. We come to Christ and live off of emotions. When God seems far away we cry and complain. We want “proof” he is there at all times. But as we begin to mature we realize more and more that we cannot trust our own feelings in regards to God. Because we “feel” God is not there does not make it a reality! We learn to walk by faith—trusting that what he says is true, no matter how we may “feel”. Often what we “feel” can lead to “reasoning” about God’s existence too.

  Because we “feel” we are receiving no response, or “proof” of God’s existence, we reason that such a person must not exist. We are making what we “feel and reason” our reality—though we have not changed what is real at all. God exists whether we feel he does or not. He exists though we try to reason him away. He still sits on the throne, though we try to take his place upon it.

  Some Christians though are just like those two men being pushed in the stroller. They continue to act like babies, when they should be mature Christians. And some go even further and renounce it all together. And when it comes down to it, it is all based in emotions in reality. We didn’t get what we want–we didn’t receive the proof we want, so we make reality what we want it to be—not what it truly is.

• 133. ubi dubium  |  September 18, 2008 at 5:30 pm

  Cooper, please stop preaching. This is not an appropriate place.

• 134. nick.huelsman  |  September 19, 2008 at 10:01 am

  This is a list which bashes ‘American Christianity’ and it is correct in most all of its claims. Unfortunately, ‘American Christianity’ doesn’t have all that much to do real Christianity. Real Christianity isn’t fluff; it is real.
  The ‘real stuff’ of Christianity can be summed up in a response to point #21 which states: “Eternal punishment for wrongs committed in a mortal lifetime, or for failing to figure out which religion to follow, is in no way just or moral.”
  Response: Eternal punishment has nothing to do with wrongs committed or with failing to figure out which religion to follow, Jesus died on the cross for all these things and so they don’t have any bearing on eternal life or eternal death. The only ‘requirement’ (though ‘requirement’ is a misleading term) is that a person believe that Jesus DID take away all her/his sins when He died on the cross; that eternal life doesn’t depend upon us, but God, i.e. Christ. These are false teachings: that a Christian will always have joy in His heart (the Christian does have more reason to be joyful, but this joy isn’t really ‘felt’ all the time, it can’t because we are still sinners); it is false that the Christian will be any more wealthy than a ‘non-Christian’ if she/he gives to the church; it is false that the church will always be in perfect harmony, everyone loving everyone else and getting along (again, Christians are sinners too). These things have nothing to do with Christianity or being a Christian or eternal life or eternal death.
  Down with ‘American pop-Christianity’. Death to the fluff. We need more of the real stuff, the real Christianity, that actually has something to do with reality, with our difficult lives.

• 135. Brad Feaker  |  September 19, 2008 at 10:28 am

  Nick,

  Sorry – epic fail. All you have is ‘your’ interpretation of what ‘real christianity’ is. If I had a nickel for every time I have heard that from a believer I could retire. You will have to do much better than that…

• 136. LeoPardus  |  September 19, 2008 at 10:32 am

  Nick H:

  American Christianity is certainly a particularly awful thing, and many on this blog are its victims. There are however some Brits here, and some who come out of traditions other than American Protestant fundamentalism. There are also just a few former believers from non-Christian faiths (Judaism, Islam). So really this list is a compilation of reasons for disbelieving any religion that proposes a personal, benevolent deity.

  And if you read the list, you’ll see that it’s not limited to American Christianity. #s 1,7,9,17 are a few (there are others) that certainly apply to any theistic faith.

• 137. The Apostate  |  September 19, 2008 at 10:44 am

  …and now nick is going to give us the ‘real Christianity’… just like everyone else – every eastern orthodox and eastern catholic variety, the various Anglican factions, the oriental orthodox churches, the grand ol’ roman catholics, the hussites, waldensians, the fifty+ lutheran denominations, the 20+ reformed sects, presbyterians of different colours, the handful of congregationalists, my personal favourite the anabaptists, all those methodists, pietists, holiness churches, the slew of baptists with various ad hoc theologies, the brethren, the pentecostals and charismatics, the united churches, quakers, etc. etc. etc.

  But why stop there? The Mormons, Seventh day adventists, Jehovah’s witnesses all proclaim the ‘real’ Christianity – so why not them? Why not the Christadelphians or Christian Scientists?

  But isn’t that the great thing about the Bible? No one uses all of it and everyone uses some it for their own benefit?

• 138. orDover  |  September 19, 2008 at 11:18 am

  Don’t forget the Mennonites!

• 139. Rover  |  September 19, 2008 at 11:45 am

  Nick,

  What do you make of this form Christianity:

  Rev.20:12-15: “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. “

• 140. LeoPardus  |  September 19, 2008 at 12:47 pm

  And BTW Nick, what is “Real Christianity” anyway as you uphold it? Is it a particular denomination? Or a particular school of interpretation? Of is is whatever happens to agree with Nick?

  I know, I know. You’re almost sure to say it, so I might as well say it for you, “It’s what the Bible says.”

• 141. nick.huelsman  |  September 19, 2008 at 12:54 pm

  so, one thing at a time:

  ‘real’ Christianity: there is not such thing as a subjective interpretation of what Christianity is; it’s either Christianity or not; it’s either real or not. Doctrine must have a starting and ending point, otherwise conversation about particulars doctrines of the faith can go nowhere. That point is God’s Word, which is the Bible (an accurate portrayal of God in history, as He has revealed Himself; and historically supported). Denominational differences are inevitable because no one can have it all correct.

  Rover: good find! I stand corrected (that’s the great thing about objective truth). So the truth is this: a person will not enter into eternal life based upon HIS OWN works (otherwise no one could ever ‘make it’, for this reason God took upon Himself the evil works of man); but a person who rejects this reality (that God was punished for that person’s evil) retains His evil and thus will experience eternal punishment.

  But I suppose a more fundamental question is this: why must there be a different life than this anyhow, namely the eternal life (or death)? Because the very essence of life is relational (a person cannot exist alone on this earth, everyone is dependent upon someone or something else, e.g. water) and the most fundamental relationship is the one a person has with God. The ‘next life’ is necessary because the relationship with God in this one is naturally/fundamentally screwed up.

• 142. nick.huelsman  |  September 19, 2008 at 1:02 pm

  Leo: you’re right, it is based upon “what the bible says”. but it’s not based upon what the bible says because the bible says that’s what it’s supposed to be based upon.

  All: faith does play a part in all this. the beliefs that i have verses the beliefs that some else has (including the belief that there is no god) has to do with faith also; though not solely on faith. my understanding of faith is that is non-rational, namely that it can contradict reason, but not necessarily. my beliefs, the teachings of the Bible, are not only based upon faith, but also reason (including historical data and logical thinking).

• 143. LeoPardus  |  September 19, 2008 at 10:23 pm

  nick:

  my understanding of faith is that is non-rational, namely that it can contradict reason,

  Ah. Well that pretty much makes communication impossible then.

• 144. nick.huelsman  |  September 19, 2008 at 11:24 pm

  well that all depends upon where you are coming from. if you are a fideist, then communication with you is impossible; i’m assuming you are not. i’m also assuming your position is that faith must be rational. my position is that faith is rational, but it can contradict reason insofar as reason isn’t able to understand, explain, comprehend certain things, such as miracles. Rationally, miracles are impossible, but for faith they are possible.

  Put another way, my understanding is that reason can only go so far; faith can go further than reason. So for a person who says they have no faith (though everyone has this faith in one way or another), they are limited to things rational/logical. But again, as I argued above, logics is also fundamentally based upon faith due to the assumptions it begins with.

  I hope this helps.

  Let me ask you all this: why exactly is it that you de-converted (from whatever religion you did)? I’m sure you all have your own ‘final pushes’, etc but i’m interested to learn.

• 145. The Apostate  |  September 19, 2008 at 11:53 pm

  nick, the question is not “why not believe?” – it is “why believe?”

• 146. LeoPardus  |  September 20, 2008 at 5:19 am

  nick:

  why exactly is it that you de-converted (from whatever religion you did)? I’m sure you all have your own ‘final pushes’, etc but i’m interested to learn.

  Rather than try to retype it all, I’ll refer you to articles I’ve put up here on the blog site. Look in the archives for:
  -From Fundy to Orthodox to Apostate
  -Praying my way to losing faith
  -Reasons why I can no longer believe (there are 3 of these, all of which talk about parts of why I left)

• 147. LeoPardus  |  September 20, 2008 at 5:25 am

  my position is that faith is rational, but it can contradict reason insofar as reason

  Father Brown would write you off as criminal. (Fr Brown is a fictional detective character created by G.K. Chesterton in case you didn’t know.)

  Rationally, miracles are impossible, but for faith they are possible.

  Miracles are not impossible rationally. They would simply require action by a supernatural being or force. Faith does not make them possible, nor does it make them happen.

  logics is also fundamentally based upon faith due to the assumptions it begins with.

  What assumptions are you talking about?

• 148. nick.huelsman  |  September 20, 2008 at 11:55 am

  Leo,
  my understanding is that the assumption of logics (as a field of study) is that things are the way they are because they haven’t been found to be different. a person has faith in the law of non-contradiction, for example.

  i do understand that these ‘laws’ represent concepts; but if something happened in our world, within the perameters of our ‘reality’, that contradicted the ‘law of non-contradiction, etc., then the law would change. we believe these laws because they haven’t been otherwise disproven yet.

  maybe i’m wrong, i don’t know. i’m here to learn too. maybe someone can enlighten me.

• 149. SnugglyBuffalo  |  September 20, 2008 at 12:07 pm

  Logic has axioms, things that are assumed because they appear to be self-evident. That’s a far cry from the kind of faith Christians ask for, where you are to have faith in something that is not self-evident.

• 150. nick.huelsman  |  September 20, 2008 at 12:14 pm

  snug,
  so there are different kinds of faith. i am assuming, correct me if i’m wrong, that you would call the faith of Christian or other religion ‘blind faith’, while faith/trust in logical axioms is qualitatively different. or is it quantitatively different? in other words, the two are faith, but one is a more believable faith, while the other is less believable. OR are they altogether different: having nothing in coming?

  if quantitative, then what makes them so? the object of the faith? etc.

  thanks for your help!

• 151. orDover  |  September 20, 2008 at 1:26 pm

  my understanding is that the assumption of logics (as a field of study) is that things are the way they are because they haven’t been found to be different. a person has faith in the law of non-contradiction, for example.

  Christianity doesn’t even hold up this assumption of logic. Case in point: evolution. Everyone assumed for thousands of years that God created animals just as they are, and then post-1860 that changed completely. The myth of creation was “found to be different,” very different.

• 152. nick.huelsman  |  September 20, 2008 at 2:39 pm

  maybe i haven’t been too clear. what i’m talking about is the two faculties of the mind: faith and reason. my position is that the faculty of faith is ultimately that which all knowledge is depends upn (partly for the reasons expressed above). ‘faith in Christ’, i.e. the faith that makes one a Christian is not a ‘natural’ faculty of the mind. faith itself is natural, faith in Christ is a gift from God. (but that’s another issue altogether). I’m trying to understand how the de-convert understands this relationship between the two natural faculties of man: faith and reason.

  snug’s comment suggested a different level of faith; i asked that he would go further and explain whether this difference is quantitative or qualititative. i hope others would comment as well.

  {maybe it would beneficial if one of the contributors (possibly Leo) would write an article on this very topic: ‘the relationship of faith and reason in the eyes of the de-convert’ }

• 153. The Apostate  |  September 20, 2008 at 2:59 pm

  nick,
  What is “faith” to you? What do you believe “faith” was for Paul? Do you believe that the concept of “faith” has remained more or less similar or has evolved over the history of the church?

• 154. SnugglyBuffalo  |  September 20, 2008 at 3:11 pm

  I would call it qualitative, to the point that the acceptance of logical axioms is not faith at all, but within the realm of reason. It is perfectly reasonable to accept an axiom, something that is self-evident. Nothing about faith involves axioms.

• 155. SnugglyBuffalo  |  September 20, 2008 at 3:12 pm

  And as a quick addendum, the idea that non-belief in God involves faith is a tired one; if you really want to look into it, do a google search, because I’m really not interested in debating this.

• 156. orDover  |  September 20, 2008 at 3:25 pm

  I do indeed believe they are different levels of faith–faith exists on a continuum. Science operates in a world of probabilities, with nothing ever really being certain, just statistically very likely. For example, if I jump off of a building I have to have faith that gravity will pull me do the ground, because I could accidentally fall into some sort of quantum worm hole, or gravity could suddenly fluctuate. But that is statically very unlikely, so I have faith in gravity, but that faith is very small because it is build upon empirical evidence. It would actually take more faith NOT to believe in gravity, to believe that I’ll encounter that statistically nearly-impossible fluctuation or strange quantum warp. It is nearly impossible, but not completely impossible that gravity could fluctuate. So we all put on faith in gravity when we get out of bed in the morning, shoot a basketball, or ride in an airplane. But that faith is build out of measureable, stable, empirical, testable, reproducible information, so it really isn’t much faith at all.

  Faith in God, on the other hand, requires a greater amount of faith. God can’t be measured or tested. There is no physical empirical evidence of a God. In short, there is no good reason to believe in God. It takes more faith to believe in God then to not believe in God.

  As for the relationship between faith and reason, in the mind of a functional adult, is that I think that we use our capacities for rational thought to decide what to have faith in and what not to have faith in. I have faith in gravity. I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning. I have faith that I can’t breathe underwater. These faiths are based on reason. They are established after I used my reason to evaluate empirical, testable, repeatable evidence, and the require a very small degree of faith.

  But that is just one of the many facets of reason and faith. Blind faith can be an evolutionary benefit, for example. If you learn to trust without questioning, to put your faith completely into the warning calls of your family group, then you are going to survive that tiger attack. I don’t think that reason has anything to do with that kind of faith. This is similar to my childhood indoctrination into Christianity. I was taught never to question my parents, and so I believed what they told me without rational discourse. Reason had nothing to do with my Christian faith, it was just blind acceptable and blind submission to authority.

  And then there is such thing as irrational faith–where one suppresses reason in order to establish or continue a believe that is runs counter to reason– i.e. cognitive dissonance.

• 157. LeoPardus  |  September 20, 2008 at 3:53 pm

  my understanding is that the assumption of logics (as a field of study) is that things are the way they are because they haven’t been found to be different

  It’s simpler than that. Things are the way they are because that’s the way they are.

  . a person has faith in the law of non-contradiction, for example.

  You don’t need faith in that. You don’t need faith the the law of gravity. They simply are laws. You can’t even ignore them or violate them. You can however try and then pay the price. (e.g., madness or going splat)

  i do understand that these ‘laws’ represent concepts;

  No. These laws are statements of reality.

  but if something happened in our world, within the perameters of our ‘reality’, that contradicted the ‘law of non-contradiction,

  You cannot contradict the law of non-contradiction. If you did, you would not be in reality. You’d be in Wonderland or in asylum perhaps, but not in reality.

  Basically what you’re doing is setting up your world so that reality, facts, logic, etc can be attended to or ignored at your whims. As I said before, you have made communication impossible. You will believe what you want to believe, no matter what. Hence you have nothing to say to anyone here.

• 158. nick.huelsman  |  September 20, 2008 at 5:54 pm

  orDover, first, thank you for your responses, they are quite helpful as i try to understand where you are coming from.

  If i understand you correctly, you are saying that there are two types of faith: (1) rational faith, which is built on reason, i.e. reason determines faith’s limits. (2) irrational faith, which does away with reason altogether.

  where does blind faith fit in here? you used 2 examples: one of the tribal call and one of your upbringing. I think that in both of those examples, reason is used. for the tribal call, a person probably heard stories about an individual who used to be part of that tribe, but didn’t heed the call. thus it is a reasonable thing to heed the call (self preservation) second, i suppose you believed your parents because you experienced what it was like when you didn’t, e.g. touching the hot stove.

  you say that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God. so, faith in God would be considered irrational faith. correct?

  also, what would be an example of empirical evidence that there were a God? (please don’t take this wrong, i am just trying to figure out where you’re coming from.)

  again, thanks for your comments. i appreciate your honesty.

• 159. silentj  |  September 20, 2008 at 6:51 pm

  Nick,

  The others have addressed many points I agree with. However, I want to point out one other issue:

  You mention that the mind is ultimately divided into faith and reason, and I’m not sure that’s true. That’s more of a man made dichotomy than any real description of what’s going on in the brain. Just to throw concepts out there, you could also add instinctive and sensuous faculties among others.

  In my very simplistic understanding of how the brain works, we take concepts in virtually without discrimination. (”This is blue.” “That is a bicycle.” “There is a God.”) As we take in concepts, we experience cognitive dissonance. (The next ten thousand people you encounter say that what you were calling a bicycle is actually a horse. Thus, you learn that it is a horse.) The mind settles on what makes the most sense to it. That is why we can have things like the power of suggestion or propaganda that is not really a matter of faith or rational thought. Rather, the brain is being made to believe the idea through cognitive dissonance, often tied into overwhelming emotion or fear.

  So, what we “know” and how we “know” it is more of how we define our reality than what reality actually is. Some people might call trusting in gravity faith. However, every time you throw a rock in the air, it will fall down unless acted on by another force. Whether or not we dispute the claim, try to put a statistical probability on it, or apply the scientific method to it, the rock will fall. You and I can argue whether I have faith in the rock, rationalize the rock, or whatever else we might do to explain the rock. It really doesn’t matter.

  Essentially, what we do in our heads is decide whether we need evidence for something or don’t, an attempt to vanquish the cognitive dissonance. None of us deliberate much over whether or not the rock will fall, only how we judge, size, and categorize that understanding. The difference between the rock and a God is that there is virtually no evidence for the existence for God, other than stories. For some, that’s enough evidence, taken for granted the way others take for granted the rock will fall. The central difference of the two views is that one was planted by story and one was planted by daily observance.

• 160. nick.huelsman  |  September 21, 2008 at 10:52 pm

  silentj- Very interesting, some great things to think about. It seems to me that you’re saying this: that there is a real world. We all come to understand, or “know”, this world by “vanquishing the cognitive dissonance”. And you gave two avenues by which ‘information’ gets planted into our minds: by story and by daily observance.

  When info is planted through “daily observance”, we use faith and reason, etc to mesh together the new information we just received and the old information we already had, in order to make sense of the world/ “vanquish the cognitive dissonance”. (is this right?)

  When you say “story”, i assume you mean stories which are completely disconnected from anything that resembles our daily observations, e.g. “falling off Niagara Falls in a wooden barrel produces a lot of adrenaline”. Unless you’ve done it, you could only ‘know’ this by way of story, i.e. someone telling you about it. But since you have observed/felt adrenaline and you have seen at least a picture of Niagara, this information is planted and accepted by your mind with little or no cog dissonance.
  Would you say that information planted by stories that are disconnected from daily observation are not valid, not ‘real’?

  Also, we “know” the rock exists and that it will fall because of “daily observance”. 1) Does ‘daily observance’ only come through our senses? 2) Are there any other valid ways by which something is planted into our minds (to show us that it is ‘real’)

  Sorry, it’s a lot of stuff to chew on. You opened a can of worms. Great thoughts, thanks!

• 161. Paul Wilkinson  |  September 25, 2008 at 10:26 am

  #17

  Instead of asking, “Is there a God, why is there so much evil in the world?” we should ask, “If there is NO God, why is there so much good and beauty in the world?”

• 162. Quester  |  September 25, 2008 at 12:25 pm

  Thank-you for your question, Paul. Let’s see if you can answer it.

  What evolutionary benefits are there for a species like us to develop attractions to certain things (beauty) and social relations with each other (good)? What evolutionary benefits are there for plants and animals, as species, to appear attractive (beautiful) to animals like us?

  Can you think of any?

• 163. Jesse M.  |  October 7, 2008 at 12:15 am

  the fact that the only thing that does any good after a sin is directly asking forgiveness to the people i hurt, rather than god. the fact that i am told to worship something that gave me no decision to my current situation and that an all loving all forgiving god could keep a morally good non believer out of heaven when we live in a world where god “gave” us logic, in which we take emperical evidence to base all of our other beliefs but need faith on the most important belief. these might be reasons not to believe.

• 164. Paul H.  |  October 19, 2008 at 2:06 am

  I was born in a Christian family, but even as a child I realized that the church-goers didn’t know God. Later I devoted myself on a quest to find out and experience the absolute truth, and instead of the Christian conception of God, I found myself face to face with Sri Krishna, the speaker of Bhagavad-gita, who revealed Himself as the one and only Supreme Personality of Godhead beyond any doubt. http://vedabase.net/bg/en

  Since then, I’ve understood the Christian mythology as largely atheistic. They have some idea that there is God, but they do not know who God is or what is His nature. God never becomes man. Although He has a form with two arms, two legs, a head, torso, etc., His form is always entirely spiritual. It is not that he “has” a form like I, this spirit soul, have this material body; His form is identical with Himself, completely spiritual, and not separate at all. He never suffers, He is never born, and He never dies. He appears anywhere in His eternal form according to His sweet will. He has begotten unlimited sons, and He has no need to kill any of them to save anyone or everyone.

  It’s a mystery how Jesus thought he could teach religion to such barbaric people. Rather it was his mercy to give them a beginning, but somehow these sinful fools think they know everything. It’s a simple fact that sinful people, especially meat-eaters, cannot know God.

• 165. Josh  |  November 3, 2008 at 4:46 pm

  “especially meat-eaters, cannot know God”

  Darn, I’m screwed.

• 166. SnugglyBuffalo  |  November 3, 2008 at 6:44 pm

  Man, if abandoning the consumption of meat is required to know God, then I’m damn happy not knowing him.

• 167. Josh  |  November 3, 2008 at 7:42 pm

  Haha, I remember the first time it occurred to me that if Adam had never sinned and God had not sent the global flood we would have never been able to eat meat.

  I guess Adam’s fall and the global flood are a blessing indeed! Praise God!

• 168. gary  |  November 3, 2008 at 9:37 pm

  Greetings all! Not to downplay your psychological trauma or ridicule you fine folks, but, I thought I would throw my own two cents into the mix. Somewhere on this site, I read that the ex-Christians here studied apologetics spending years, in some cases, trying to save their faith. Quite frankly, however, this just doesn’t seem to be true. The reasons in the above list would be totally successful only in defeating the most shallow of faiths, it seems to me. In the interest of time (and space) I shall only address, briefly, the first several items.

  1. God never showed up-Aside from the fact that this is simply untrue (”think Elijah and the Baal priests”), it is an undeniable fact that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
  2. Prayers are not anwered-Mine are.
  3. Christians are no different from others-Even if this were true (and known to be so), to use this as evidence against Christian doctrine in general would be to commit the ad hominem fallacy.
  4. Church disunity-Another ad hominem fallacy.
  5. The Bible is contradictory-I base my ethics on the Scriptures themself so it is meaningless, from my point of view, to say that ethical truth contradicts the claims of the Bible. What is more, hospitals, equal rights for women, and the abolition of slavery is all the result, at least in part, of Christians who were taking Biblical ethics seriously. As for contradicting reality, there are two ways in which this may be meant. First, contradictions of science or history. However, I know of no such contradictions. The common charges of a purportedly flat earth or terracentric system, for example, are easily explained as examples of phenominological language (which is perfectly acceptable, albeit not totally literal, language). Second, if one first adopts a non-supernatural view, then one is obviously forced to reject the supernatural aspects of the Bible. But this is begging the question. Finally, I am aware of no self-contradictions within the Bible. There is, of course, no end to alleged contradictions in, say, new atheist literature but these normally (perhaps always) have plausible alternative interpretations. People have been claiming self-contradiction in the Bible for at least the last 2000 years, and yet, people continue to believe it inerrant even after spending their whole lives studying it.

  The other items on the above list can easily be answered in similar fashion, so, either your faiths were much shallower than you would have me believe, or there was perhaps some ulterior motive in your deconversions. Thoughts?

• 169. orDover  |  November 3, 2008 at 10:13 pm

  gary,

  Try reading an actual full article (maybe start with the latest series from Richard on the Psychology of Apologetics which you can find on the front page). This is just a quick laundry list of points, not a deep argument. I thought that would be obvious.

  God never showed up-Aside from the fact that this is simply untrue (”think Elijah and the Baal priests”), it is an undeniable fact that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

  The Bible doesn’t count, because that is circular reasoning. And yes, it isn’t absolute evidence of absence, but it is suggestive of the probablity of absence. We realize the difference.

  Finally, I am aware of no self-contradictions within the Bible.

  You need to read a bit more then. And try reading critically. By the way, when we say self-contradictions we don’t mean irrelevant issue like disparages between numbers, we mean contradictions in doctrine, for example the doctrines of salvation by faith or salvation by works (http://de-conversion.com/2008/10/18/if-marty-luther-rewrote-the-bible/).

  There is, of course, no end to alleged contradictions in, say, new atheist literature but these normally (perhaps always) have plausible alternative interpretations.

  Atheist can be contraditory. That isn’t a problem because we don’t claim to all believe the same thing or to be writing absolute truth as related by a supernatural force. We’re just people who don’t believe in a god. We can disagree and contradict each other all we want.

• 170. Josh  |  November 4, 2008 at 1:59 am

  “Church disunity-Another ad hominem fallacy.”

  This is not ad hominem simply because Jesus’ prayer was that the church would be unified (John 17). If the church is not unified, then this begs the questions as to whether God answered Jesus’ prayer. If the church was unified, this would be good evidence that God answered Jesus’ prayer.

  Furthermore, I do not believe it could be called ad hominem if the argument was simply holing the accused to their own standards. If an atheist claimed to be completely rational in all his arguments and to have claimed to discover the ultimate meaning in the universe it would not be ad hominem to point out fallacies in his argument. If a church claims to have the secrets of the universe figured out and also claims that all morality falls to pieces unless those secrets are true – it is not really ad hominem to analyze their own behavior and see if maybe they are on to something or not… This is not “attacking the man”, it is attacking the claims of the man.

  Checking to see if an economists personal finances are in order is probably a good idea before putting him in charge of the treasury!

• 171. Josh  |  November 4, 2008 at 2:00 am

  *holing = holding

• 172. LeoPardus  |  November 4, 2008 at 12:21 pm

  The reasons in the above list would be totally successful only in defeating the most shallow of faiths, it seems to me.

  Quite the contrary. The reasons in this list have no effect on those of shallow faith or mind. You’d actually have to be thinking and feeling and struggling with hard issues. Nice, lazy, feel good, fantasy faith is unaffected by reason.

  it is an undeniable fact that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

  Once again we are visited by a “pop wisdom” robot.
  First: You’re going to need to put in some serious work to learn what a ‘fact’ is and what ‘undeniable’ means.
  Second: You’re going to need to stop parroting pop phrases without thinking. Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. Here’s just one simple example: If you fear your dog peed in the living room, you look for wet spots on the rug, and bad odors in some area. Finding no wetness, no discoloration, and no smells, you now have ‘absence of evidence’. This comprises fairly good evidence that there’s no pee in the living room and hence Fido is innocent.

  Prayers are not anwered-Mine are.

  I’m sure we would all be much amused to hear about your answered prayers. Fire away.

  to use this as evidence against Christian doctrine in general would be to commit the ad hominem fallacy…. Another ad hominem fallacy.

  In this day and age of search engines, wikipedia, etc. there’s really no excuse for not knowing what ‘ad hominem’ is. Now you could try making a case for it being a red herring, or a fallacy of association (though I think this would be weak), or cherry picking (again weak), or perhaps an over generalization. But then I’m not surprised that you don’t know about logical fallacies considering that your first point was a logical fallacy.
  Further to the point at hand though (i.e. that lack of church unity or notable difference in the lives of Christians constitutes evidence for the non-verity of the faith), see the archives for an article called, “Reasons why I can no longer believe: 3 – Unchanged lives”.

  Perhaps some others will be so kind as to inundate you with contradictions from Scripture.

  Meanwhile take a couple semesters of logic and critical thinking at your local college.

  Thoughts?

  If you ever have any of your own, let us know.

• 173. SnugglyBuffalo  |  November 4, 2008 at 1:53 pm

  “absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence”

  Man, the first time I heard that phrase was on the Boondocks cartoon on Adult Swim; I was still a Fundie Christian at the time, and even then I thought that was the dumbest phrase I’d ever heard.

• 174. LeoPardus  |  November 4, 2008 at 3:07 pm

  There’s a sort of list of “pop wisdom” saying that are wrong, and frankly stupid, in my head. “Absence of evidence…. ” is one. Another fave of mine is, “You can’t legislate morality.” It always amazes me how people will just take up a saying and use it without the slightest consideration as to whether it’s right/wrong, smart/dumb, etc.

• 175. Josh  |  November 4, 2008 at 6:19 pm

  “You can’t legislate morality.”

  Gosh, I could have sworn I saw someone legislating morality at the poles today…

• 176. Josh  |  November 4, 2008 at 6:25 pm

  *that, of course, would be “polls”, not “poles” Kansas-boy is having flashbacks of the countryside again…

• 177. Bob  |  November 5, 2008 at 1:43 am

  Gary –
  First let me say that I was born and raised Pentecostal the first 21 years of my life. Holy Ghost speaking in tongues, the whole bit. So to say the least I had a very DEEP spiritual “walk.”

  And yet I find all the points made on the list to be very valid. The BIble is a joke… Read it critically and you’ll see a very different God; One of hate and all sort of dispicable acts.

  Further more religion is way past it’s usefulness in our society. We no longer need the threats of Hell to keep us “in line.” There is a quote that goes something like, “There was a time when religion ruled the world, it was called the Dark Ages.”

  … just my “two cents”

• 178. Bob  |  November 5, 2008 at 1:46 am

  Clarification……. I meant the points made against religion, I.E. The list at the beginning of the post.

• 179. Not a Church Goer anymore  |  November 5, 2008 at 10:00 am

  Religion is a farce!!!

• 180. Dave CASHIN  |  November 25, 2008 at 12:05 pm

  Dealing with the Supernatural: The Importance of the Dream World
  Does God speak to people through dreams? How you answer that question tells a lot about what you believe concerning the spiritual realm influencing the physical. Before I went to Bangladesh if anyone had asked me what I believed about dreams I would have had little to say. Dreams are just fantasies of a resting brain. If someone pointed out the frequency of dream episodes in the scriptures my theological argument would have been, God spoke in this way before the scriptures were fully given. Now that we have the complete scriptures with us, there is no further need for God to communicate with us through dreams. This was my position until I served as a missionary in Bangladesh.
  Let me relate just one of many stories I could tell. One day I was leading a Bible study in a small town in central Bangladesh. I was seated on the floor with 6 or 7 enquirers reading a passage of scripture when a gentleman about 35 years old peeked his head in the door. He quickly entered and strode to the front of the room and sat down directly in from of me. I will never forget his first words: “What does Matthew 1:21 say?” This is not the sort of question you get every day from a Muslim enquirer so I asked him, “Why do you want to know?” “Well”, he said, “Jesus told me to ask you!” “How did Jesus tell you to ask me?” I said. He went on to tell the following story.
  The previous night had been the night of Shobe Bhorot, the night of power when Muslims believe the first Surah (chapter) of the Qur’an was revealed. Muslims believe that prayer on this auspicious night conveys special power. If one is able to stay awake and pray throughout the night then one’s fate will be established in a positive way for the coming year. There is a catch however, you must not fall asleep. If you do, you miss the blessing. My friend attempted to pray through the night, but, though his spirit was willing, the flesh was weak. He fell asleep.
  As he slept he had a dream that he was sitting on a pathway outside his house. His father appeared on the pathway. Now his father had been dead for five years so the man fell on his knees and showed respect to his father by touching his feet. Then he asked, “Father, tell me the way of salvation, how can I know if God will accept my deeds?” His father sadly shook his head and said that he did not know, “but speak to the one who comes after me”. The father vanished and shortly another old man appeared. He had never met this man for he died before he was born but he recognized him from pictures he had seen. It was his grandfather. Now his grandfather was known as the most religious man in the villages history. He was the first man from his village to ever go on the Hajj, the pilgrimage to mecca. He had a long white beard dyed red with henna to signify that he was a Hajji. Once again he fell on his knees and touched his grandfather’s feet in respect and then asked, “Grandfather, tell me the way of salvation, how can I know if God will accept my deeds?” The grandfather also sadly shook his head and said, “I do not know, but speak to the one who comes after me.”
  Now the man was very perplexed wondering who might be coming next. I don’t know how or why Muslims recognize this fellow, even though they have never seen him before, but they always do. When the third man appeared on the pathway he knew that it was Hajrat Isa Masih, the Lord Jesus Christ. So he fell on his knees before Jesus and begged him, “what is the way of salvation, how can I know if God will accept my deeds?” Jesus said, “I will show you. But first you most go to K town and ask the missionary you find there what Matthew 1:21 says.” Mind you, this fellow had never seen a Bible, he had no idea what “Matthew” referred to or even what 1:21 meant.
  So he said to me, “What does Matthew 1:21 say?” We opened the scriptures together and read how the angel told Joseph in a dream, “You shall call his name Jesus because he shall save his people from their sins.” This fellow shortly came to faith in Jesus.
  Questions:
  1. How would a person with naturalistic assumptions explain this event?
  2. Do you believe that God can speak to people through dreams? What reasons do you have for or against this idea?
  3. Why do westerners not pay attention to their dreams?
  4. How does one discern a true dream from God from a false dream?
  5. Why doesn’t God speak to everyone by dreams?

• 181. LeoPardus  |  November 25, 2008 at 2:45 pm

  1. How would a person with naturalistic assumptions explain this event?

  It did not happen.

  2. Do you believe that God can speak to people through dreams? What reasons do you have for or against this idea?

  No. God is imaginary. He can’t speak in dreams or anything else anymore than Santa Claus can.

  3. Why do westerners not pay attention to their dreams?

  I never remember them.

  4. How does one discern a true dream from God from a false dream?

  Any dream “from God” is false.

  5. Why doesn’t God speak to everyone by dreams?

  Same reason he doesn’t speak to anyone in dreams.

• 182. Karissa  |  December 2, 2008 at 10:24 pm

  Here’s a list:
  1. God does show up! In visions, in his mere presence, he is here. You just have to be open and truly believe he does.
  2. Prayers are answered!! Just not always the way that WE want them to be answered!
  3. Christians are different from non-christians! Christians are saved through Jesus’ death and forgiven from their sins!
  4. Church disunity does happen sometimes. I won’t deny it. But the body of Christ, when the whole-heartedly seek God, will become unified. It’s inevitable!
  5. The Bible may seem self-contradictory, but take a closer look. Notice the context and the authors and see that it is in fact consistent.
  6. God is SO loving, merciful, good, just! How could an unloving, unmerciful God die on a cross in your place and consider you forgiven! If that is not love and mercy, then love and mercy don’t even exist!
  7. People who make up their own ideas of God are just decieving themselves. People will always learn more about God becase he cannot be fully understood, but that doesn’t mean that they make up who he. No one can re-define God.
  8. The Universe is NOT capable of functioning without divine influence! God created it all! To take him out of the picture would be to wipe the universe out of existance!
  9. Supernatural events and handiwork don’t always need proof. They need belief! When we believe, we can see the proof and recognize it was right before our eyes all along!
  10. Christians and their tactics should not be to blame for de-converting! God is central! His followers follow him the best they can and if some people choose to be dishonest in their belief, that is their problem!
  12. It is in times of hurt and struggle that we recognize how much we need God. We might want to hate him, reject him, or turn away from him, but when it comes down to it, what we need most is HIM.
  13. We are not supposed to comprehend all that God does! We would not be able to handle it! God’s mind is FAR SUPERIOR to ours!
  14. If you don’t feel that your life is fuller with Christ, tell me what it feels like without him?? He gives meaning and purpose to life!
  15. The infinite almighty all loving Creator who has the simple message of the gospel to impart to us, is only seen as spectacularly ineffective at doing so when people are closed to the Gospel! In reality, his words reach farther than you know!
  16. The Bible is “God-breathed”. This means that it is the words of God told to people who wrote it down.
  17. Evil exists. Yes it does. That is why we need a holy God. Without him, the world would be purely evil
  18. History is God’s story. Yes, God allows certain things to happen that we may not agree with, but he sees the ultimate bigger picture that we can only attempt to understand. His will is always the best whether we like it or not!
  19. Christianity is different from all other religions. It is the only truth!
  20. All the scriptures of the Bible are true! This is why it is holy and set apart from the world!
  21. We are not eternally punished for wrongs commited. Christ’s death saves us from that. He was punished in our place.
  22. Going to church isn’t a requirement for Christianity. The only point of Christianity that determines one as a Christian is believing that Jesus died for your sins and that, through him and only him, you can see God in heaven
  23. Of course God is going to be the most confusing subject! How could someone so vast and incomprehensible possibly be easy to understand! He is greater than we can attempt to imagine! Of course the books written by human authors will be more understandable!
  24. Giving money/tithe to church or good causes will only bless you if you WANT to give! If you desire to give, not even expecting anything in return and just trusting that God will provide, he WILL provide what you need!
  25. Once again, we are not tortured and tormented forever and ever! our sins have been thrown away, demolished, erased, because of Jesus’ death on the cross for us!
  26. The Bible is not just a book! It is God’s words that were written down for us! To refer to the Bible is to refer to God’s advice. The Bible is not like text book. It is a story, a love letter, a treasure that God so graciously gave to us!
  27. God created sex to be an incredible experience between a married man and woman. Yes, outside of marriage the feeling may be the same, but that is not the way that God intended. Sex is perfectly a part of God’s plan!
  28. Because people/parents/friends/christians lie DOES NOT mean that God does! He never does!

  I pray that you will find the truth whether through conviction, revelation or seeking! I know that the God of love that died for you wants you back.

• 183. TitforTat  |  December 2, 2008 at 11:45 pm

  Looks like someone is off her meds.

• 184. orDover  |  December 3, 2008 at 12:27 am

  Karissa, please read this before leaving any more comments. We are already aware of every single thing you have to say. You seem to be under the impression that we have never heard the “good news” or the standard apologetic arguments for God.

• 185. Karissa  |  December 3, 2008 at 1:07 am

  I guess i just don’t understand how one can possibly fall away from the one truth after believing it. It just doesn’t seem rational, logical, possible to disregard all the God has done for you. It makes no sense to me. I don’t mean to offend anyone, at all! I guess i just can’t comprehend how anyone could leave the Christian faith.

• 186. Jeffrey  |  December 3, 2008 at 1:19 am

  As the majority of my reasons were biblical, I would expand 5 greatly.

  The Torah:

  5.1) It wasn’t written by Moses, but is the compilation of at least four sources, known as JEPD. 5.1.1) One place to see this is that there are two creation stories which scramble the order of events. 5.1.2) Another place to see this is that the flood account is two distinct flood stories that are spliced together. 5.1.3) Yet another place is that the books of Moses anachronistically refer to kings ruling Israel despite Moses living centuries before Israel’s first king. 5.1.4) Once you divide up the four sources, you see differing concepts of who God is and differing names of God. The paradox of God doesn’t come from God being paradoxical, but from contradictory ideas being mushed together.

  5.2) Archeology doesn’t support any of the acts of Moses, from the Exodus, to the conquest of the promised land. Together with JEPD stealing authorship from him, we have every reason to think Moses never existed.

  5.3) Science doesn’t support any version of creation. The biblical account contradicts the consensus of geology, cosmology, archeology, biology, etc. It would take an evil conspiracy for creation science to be correct. Which is why creationists do think science is an evil conspiracy.

  OT history:

  5.4) With all the genocide commanded of God, you really have to wonder if he was anything more than a typical tribal deity. He wasn’t good. He was just on their side. And then when Israel lost, they must have sinned. That’s it! That’s how our God is all powerful and yet we lost!

  5.5) Samuels + Kings differ from Chronicles in some key points. 5.5.1) Like who killed Goliath. 5.5.2) And who prompted David to call for a census – God or Satan?

  5.6) When Josiah was king, a “lost book of the Law” was found. 5.6.1) From what we know of JEPD, you can bet that someone just made up a new book, and pretended that Moses really wrote it. (This is the D.) Thus, much of Israel’s history was written while Josiah was king. 5.6.2) By the way, after the division of Israel, Josiah was the only good king. Who saw that one coming?

  The Gospels:

  5.7) Jesus prophesied the end of the world, his return, stars will fall, the moon will be blood, etc. before this generation passes away, before some standing here die, etc. And the world is still here.

  5.8) The Resurrection accounts contradict each other. 5.8.1) In Mark the women tell no one, in the other three their telling people is very important to the story. 5.8.2) In Matthew, the first Jesus-sighting is in Galilee, while in Luke and John, they are in Jerusalem. 5.8.3) And the Gospels written later have more stories of Jesus-sightings because a legend is growing.

  5.9) Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s Jesus is special, but seemingly unaware of being God Himself. He dodges questions about his identity, speaks in parables, and suggests that works are the way to heaven. John’s Jesus knows he is God, has a long series of I AMs, uses no parables, and knows he is the way to heaven.

  5.10) People in the First Century were so superstitious that what they believed about Jesus is barely evidence at all. For instance, it took pretty much nothing for them to think John the Baptist was raised from the dead or that Paul and Barnabas were gods who came down as men.

  NT v. OT

  5.11) The NT consistently uses the OT to say things that it doesn’t say.

  5.11.1) Contra Matthew, the OT doesn’t say the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, born of a virgin, come out of Egypt, be called a Nazarene, etc.

  5.11.2) Contra Jesus, the OT doesn’t clearly teach about an afterlife, or at least not via “I AM the God of Abraham.” The OT doesn’t say the Messiah will be raised three days later.

  5.11.3) Contra Paul, Abraham’s promise was not to “seed” singular but to “seed” plural.

  The Canon:

  5.12) And finally, after centuries of fighting over whose Christianity is the real one, we get the 66 books due to a council of people deciding what books they thought God inspired.

  If God didn’t inspire the Bible, we should expect books with scientific errors. We should expect historical errors. We should expect stories that don’t line up. We should expect disagreement on basic doctrines. And that is exactly what we find. The Bible is the work of man from cover to cover, and you can see this everywhere you look.

  (Looking back, I should consider making this a formal post rather than comment. It might happen eventually.)

• 187. LeoPardus  |  December 3, 2008 at 11:49 am

  Karissa:

  I guess i just don’t understand …… I guess i just can’t comprehend

  Yes’m. That is exactly what I, and most of the folks on this blog, would have said once. The mere concept of leaving the faith was not comprehensible to me. Now I have somewhat the opposite problem; I can hardly understand how I kept believing for so long. The “untruth” of it all is so clear.

  I don’t know that we can make it clear to you or help you understand really. But then that’s not the purpose of this site. We’re here for skeptical, de-converting, or former Christians. For the absolutely convinced Christian, this site offers little unless they want to gain some perspective/understanding of de-cons.

• 188. Jeffrey  |  December 3, 2008 at 1:41 pm

  Karissa,

  At the expense of shamelessly plugging for my blog, click my name. Unlike this site, its target audience includes Christians who are neither deconverting nor close. So far it’s 90% biblical reasons and it will stay that way for a while.

• 189. Bruce  |  December 3, 2008 at 4:38 pm

  I remember hearing Dawkins speak about a scale of belief where 1 signifies unshakeable faith and 7 is absolute nontheism. He called himself a 6, leaving the slimmest of possibilities of God, Santa and the Easter Bunny all existing.

  I’d say I’m at a 3 right now. I’m enjoying reading the arguments from both sides. I still believe, but I am looking at my faith much more critically now. Since I’m at a 3, Jesus probably hates me, given His statement that “I wish you were either hot or cold”

  I’m sure this is the case, but any of you during your journeys feel really guilty about rejecting things you once regarded as true? I sure am. Probably a good reason to question my faith all the more.

• 190. Jeffrey  |  December 3, 2008 at 5:01 pm

  Bruce,

  I felt a great deal guilt during the process, especially right after deconverting. I personify the bad guy as evaluated by me just a year ago. Watching Harvey Dent crack in The Dark Knight really struck a nerve – that is me, I just wasn’t strong enough to make it. When I rewatched the Revenge of the Sith, I found myself identifying with Anakin. But not during the last scene, where Anakin’s “I hate you” is played against Obi Wan’s “But I love you.” When my Christian friends/family and I look at each other, we both say “But I still love you.”

  The hard part is knowing that when I left for college/grad school, my parents worst fear was that I would lose my faith. It happened, and nothing I can say can soften the blow, and nothing I do with my life can make the way I turned out not be a disappointment.

• 191. orDover  |  December 3, 2008 at 5:37 pm

  Jeffrey, your last paragraph sums up my worst struggle and source of guilt. My dad and I aren’t on the best of terms. He only calls me maybe twice a year, and the only thing he says is, “Remember where you come from, what your mother and I have taught you. Remember the moral foundation we built for you.” They were so afraid when I went away to college that I would be corrupted by “liberal academics.” Granted, I de-converted in my senior year of high school, but the more education I procure the more staunch of an atheist I become. And I wanted to so badly to make them proud.

• 192. Karissa  |  December 3, 2008 at 7:17 pm

  Bruce, God certainly does NOT hate you for being only at a 3! I defintiely am not fully “hot” and on track with my relationship with the Lord all the time, but he will never stop loving me because I have things in life that start to pull me away from him. No matter where I’m at, he’ll still love me. Feeling guilty about rejecting things you once regarded as true is probably inevitable. I have no idea how much of a difficulty it must be. But is it all guilt, or is it some conviction? God doesn’t instill guilt in us, he convicts us. If it is God’s conviction, I suggest you stop and pray, give over to him the things that you seem to feel guilty about. What happens after that is up to you. I just pray you don’t fully let go yet. Keep believing, even if only an inkling of faith. Keep on. Don’t give up. He will NEVER give up on you. Just remember that.

• 193. Jeffrey  |  December 3, 2008 at 7:31 pm

  Karissa,

  Either God left most of us here, or the Christian God doesn’t exist. If you haven’t already, you should read the testimonials, including most recently Josh’s and mine.

  Telling someone God will never leave is like telling a kid whose dog is dying that dogs will never die. It might make her feel better for a while, but it’s not true, and in the end, she’s going to have to let go. That’s what this site is about. Helping people let go so they can move on with their lives.

• 194. Quester  |  December 3, 2008 at 8:06 pm

  Bruce,

  I feel guilty for disappointing people, but not for rejecting things I once saw as true. I don’t reject God; I simply don’t see any reason to believe He exists. I don’t reject God’s Will for my life; I just don’t see any clear revelation of what it might be. I don’t reject Heaven; I simply see no sense in the concept. I don’t reject salvation; I just finally gave up on trying to make sense of the word. I reject the pretence of being what I’m not and believing what I can’t. I reject the claim of knowledge I don’t hold. That’s about it, and I see nothing to feel guilty of in it.

• 195. Karissa  |  December 4, 2008 at 1:42 am

  Jeffrey, I’m sorry that you feel that God has left you. In actuality, if you seek him, you will find him, but if you give up and turn your back on him, then no doubt it will feel as if he is not there. But he is. And he always will be. Whether you recognize that or not.

• 196. Quester  |  December 4, 2008 at 1:45 am

  While He’s there, do you think you could talk Him into doing something revelatory, or even just something useful? No matter how much I seek, He doesn’t appear interested in being found by me and I have some questions about disease, disaster and famine I’d like Him to answer.

• 197. The Apostate  |  December 4, 2008 at 11:33 am

  Karissa,

  In actuality, if you seek him, you will find him,

  This is so true.
  But then again, if I want peace and tranquility in my life I will find it. If I want revenge and justice I will find it. This is what it means to be human. The immaterial things we seek we will generally find because of how bad we want to see those things in the external world. You have not found a god, you have found a god in your mind.

• 198. LeoPardus  |  December 4, 2008 at 12:04 pm

  Karissa:

  1. God does show up! In visions, in his mere presence, he is here. You just have to be open and truly believe he does.

  If you just want to believe enough, you’ll delude yourself into believing anything. (BTW, no he doesn’t show up. See my article in the archives, “Reasons why I can no longer believe: God as a ‘no-show’.”)

  2. Prayers are answered!! Just not always the way that WE want them to be answered!

  By playing that game, I can get the same level of response to prayer from a bag of Fritos.

  4. Church disunity does happen sometimes. I won’t deny it. But the body of Christ, when the whole-heartedly seek God, will become unified. It’s inevitable!

  Put down the pipe and back away.
  It doesn’t happen “sometimes”. In 2000 years of church history there has been never been unity. Only increasing disunity. Your pipe dream is just deluded insistence in the face of reality.

  5. The Bible may seem self-contradictory, but take a closer look. Notice the context and the authors and see that it is in fact consistent.

  I’ll join you in your game of condescension. YOU try reading it. I’d dare to say that everyone on this blog site has read the Bible all the way through. More than once in most cases.

  6. God is SO loving, merciful, good, just!

  Put down the pipe and back away. Now go read the Bible. Now tell that to the babies he ordered killed. (Yep it’s in the Bible. Your ‘pro-life’ God ordered the murder of babies. In one case he did the murder himself.)

  7. People who make up their own ideas of God are just deceiving themselves.

  YES! You got it. Now the only problem is that you’re deceiving yourself. So STOP IT!

  8. The Universe is NOT capable of functioning without divine influence! God created it all! To take him out of the picture would be to wipe the universe out of existence!

  Sheesh! I think some of the folks around here can help you think through this one.

  9. Supernatural events and handiwork don’t always need proof. They need belief! When we believe, we can see the proof and recognize it was right before our eyes all along!

  If you just want to believe enough, you’ll delude yourself into believing anything.

  10. Christians and their tactics should not be to blame for de-converting! God is central! His followers follow him the best they can and if some people choose to be dishonest in their belief, that is their problem!

  Read your Bible. Who are his ambassadors to the world?? The world will know him because who has love for one another?? …. I could go on.

  14. If you don’t feel that your life is fuller with Christ, tell me what it feels like without him?? He gives meaning and purpose to life!

  The truth will set you free. I found that’s true. No longer am I trying to live up to some imaginary being’s demands. My life is full. And I don’t need an imaginary friend to provide meaning. I enjoy life. All the more without thinking that some capricious super-being is constantly on the watch. (I know, I know. You have no comprehension of this. I didn’t either a few years ago. But honesty, with myself, has opened my eyes.)

  17. Evil exists. Yes it does. That is why we need a holy God. Without him, the world would be purely evil

  The world is not purely evil, and there is no BibleGod. Atheists are all around you and we aren’t axe murderers. [Ah heck. Do you have any idea why presuppositions are wrong?]

  19. Christianity is different from all other religions. It is the only truth!

  Whoopee. I can get you any number of Muslims, Mormons, HareKrishnas, etc. to insist on their nonsense just as loudly.

  23. Of course God is going to be the most confusing subject! How could someone so vast and incomprehensible possibly be easy to understand! He is greater than we can attempt to imagine! Of course the books written by human authors will be more understandable!

  See my article in the archives entitled, “Reasons why I can no longer believe: God is “we know not what.”

  24. Giving money/tithe to church or good causes will only bless you if you WANT to give! If you desire to give, not even expecting anything in return and just trusting that God will provide, he WILL provide what you need!

  Tell it to the Christians starving around the world, watching their children die, watching their homes destroyed, etc. “Oh, don’t worry, God will provide what you need.” Apparently a lot of them need a bullet in the chest and a dead family.

  25. Once again, we are not tortured and tormented forever and ever! our sins have been thrown away, demolished, erased, because of Jesus’ death on the cross for us!

  Read your Bible. Listen to the sermons. What do you hear? Only Christians (and only “real” Christians at that) get off. The rest are given eternal torture for their temporal crimes. Such a just system.

  26. The Bible is not just a book! It is God’s words that were written down for us! To refer to the Bible is to refer to God’s advice. The Bible is not like textbook. It is a story, a love letter, a treasure that God so graciously gave to us!

  Put down the pipe and back away. Now sober up and try reading it again. Try honesty.

  I pray that you will find the truth whether through conviction, revelation or seeking! I know that the God of love that died for you wants you back.

  I hope you will find the truth by clear thinking, by refusing to accept comforting presuppositions, by honesty, and by seeking. I know there’s no personal deity, and your mind wants its proper functioning back.

• 199. Heather  |  December 6, 2008 at 1:15 am

  If a connection is made with Jesus Christ, if you form a personal relationship with Christ, not the other Christians in the Church you attended, I wonder if the list would be the same. How many “Christians” are that due to the church they go to, the “religion” they practice, the people they need to impress or satisfy. Those “Christians” will not have the relationship with God needed to make it through trials and tribulations. As a de-converted Christian, pick up your Bible and spend time reading God’s word, spend time in a relationship with Jesus…no people allowed, leave the “Christians” of religion out of your life. I am curious what you would find in yourself…

  Who knows, maybe you would find something you never had before…and maybe you would reaffirm your standings…but it would be interesting to see…

• 200. Jeffrey  |  December 6, 2008 at 1:29 am

  Heather,

  >As a de-converted Christian, pick up your Bible and spend time reading God’s word,

  Read post 186…

• 201. Heather  |  December 6, 2008 at 1:44 am

  Bruce – I hope that you are following up and looking at the responses to your post. What is so awesome about God, is that we have to do nothing. We are saved by His grace. No matter where we are at on that scale, no matter the struggles we face as man, He is there. He loves us. He will never leave our side, even though we may leave His, while we may became distant from God, he never is distant from us…Every person has unique convictions and unique callings from God. Don’t let people, pastors, churches, tell you who to be. You know who you are, and by knowing Gods word you will know what personal convictions you have. My church abstains from alcohol…but guess what, I don’t. I don’t see that the scriptures tell me that I do or don’t have to partake in a beer! Do I feel guilty because my fellow church goers do something a tad different than I, nope, not at all…they are merely men, and I follow God, not man. Don’t let legalism affect your Faith. Don’t let science affect your Faith. If you see Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and you live a life based on love and his teachings…you will find happiness. Don’t get me wrong, the challenges are there, I am faced with them weekly! However, they are challenges of the flesh, challenges that when I give them to God, get so much easier. But, I have to give up my independence and lean on God…but who better to lean on! Someone who never leaves you, always loves you and never judges you…Awesome!!!

  I hope that you see this season in your life as a blessing, as a gift. All of the seasons of our lives are there for a reason…who knows whose path you will cross that has experienced just what you are experiencing now, you will have words of wisdom to share, something to relate, and you may prove to be just what that person needs to give themselves fully to God at that time. There are great things for you in Gods Kingdom!! Even the tiniest thing has great repercussions in this life of ours…

• 202. Josh  |  December 6, 2008 at 2:14 am

  “He will never leave our side”

  Why is it, then, that nearly every de-con on this site complains that they felt God left them first?

  If God’s presence can be mistaken for lack of presence, then He must be a rather boring chap to hang out with.

• 203. Heather  |  December 6, 2008 at 2:31 am

  We feel that God leaves us when we are not being diligient with our walk with Him. It is a daily thing, a relationship with God…it takes work. While He may nudge us, He does not take the inititive to cultivate a relationship with Him, we have to pursue a relationship with Him. When I take the time to nurture the relationship, it is awesome, when I ignore it, it is not there…kind of like the relationship with my husband!! If I am not feeding it everyday, it starves.

• 204. Quester  |  December 6, 2008 at 2:34 am

  Wow, Heather, you’re right! If we try to form a relationship with God using only the Bible and our own experiences, not allowing other people to sway our judgement (which is completely contrary to biblical teaching, but what the hell) the list does indeed change. Now it just includes 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 25, and 29. Oh, and we end up having to add:

  30. In order to ignore the contradictions between biblical descriptions of the church (not descriptions of what it should be, mind you, but descriptions of what it is) and the actual church comprised of actual people, we have to shut our eyes and create a hypothetical universe where only God and we exist, and others are not allowed.

  Still, it was a fun intellectual exercise. Here’s one for you:

  Read the New Testament passages regarding the church and God’s Kingdom and see if you still believe that a personal relationship between you and God (or Jesus) has anything to do with what the bible depicts and commands. Who knows, you may come away confirmed that what your church taught you was right, without admitting the church’s role in your believing such, of course. But maybe you would see that the Bible presents a communal, covenantal relationship with a people, not an individual- a church, not a Christian. Is it supposed to be you and God, or Christ and the church, His bride? Perhaps you would decide that by ignoring people, pastors and churches, you are turning away from what the bible reveals as God and God’s will and turning toward an idol created by the American churches as they worship the notion of independent merit and value the idea of “making it on their own” with God’s help, but no one else’s- a concept of God and of relating to God which has only come about in the last few centuries.

  Maybe you won’t reach that conclusion, but it would be interesting to see…

• 205. Heather  |  December 6, 2008 at 2:56 am

  The bride that you speak of is the people of Christ. We are the bride…what man has made the church that most people experience is not what was called for by God, or by Jesus. We are to enter into a relationship with Jesus and through Jesus we are able to have that relationship with God. Drawing together with others that have that relationship forms the Bride, or the church. The church was never meant to recreate the legalistic ways that Jesus delivered us out of!! I love my church. I love the worship we have and I enjoy the Pastors sermons…does that mean that what the Pastor says is gospel? No, it is his wisdom and interpretation for the majority and I take it as such.

  I don’t agree with any of the “reasons”…just so you know, and I am also curious of what your intrepretations of a “biblical” church is…

• 206. BigHouse  |  December 6, 2008 at 12:06 pm

  I’m always amazed that there are people that will post this stuff and have no idea what this site is about and the overall background of the community.

• 207. TitforTat  |  December 6, 2008 at 12:15 pm

  Bighouse

  Of course they are aware. Im sure they just have the “need” to save our sorry asses lol. I dont know about you, but its snowing here and I could use the Heat

• 208. Jeffrey  |  December 6, 2008 at 1:18 pm

  Josh: If God’s presence can be mistaken for lack of presence, then He must be a rather boring chap to hang out with.

  I laughed so hard when I read that…

• 209. LeoPardus  |  December 6, 2008 at 1:47 pm

  Heather:

  if you form a personal relationship with Christ,…. spend time in a relationship with Jesus

  Look in the archives for my article, “A personal relationship with Jesus?”

  Reading your other posts, it’s interesting to note that you advocate just reading your Bible and leaving others out of the “knowing God” process. Yet you constantly spit out phrases from the fundamentalist teaching you’re under. Most of it doesn’t even come from the Bible.

  Out of curiosity, how many times have you read the entire Bible? By that I don’t mean a geusstimate; I mean times you made certain that you read every, single word from cover to cover.

• 210. LeoPardus  |  December 6, 2008 at 1:54 pm

  Don’t let science affect your Faith.

  Oh no! By no means! Don’t let verifiable, reproducible facts ever infect your fantasy.

  If you see Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and you live a life based on love and his teachings…you will find happiness.

  I found happiness without bothering with the teachings of a primitive tribe of the Middle East thank you. You want to try it? If you see reality as it is, and live a life of love and decency, you can be happy without an imaginary friend.

  they are challenges of the flesh, challenges that when I give them to God, get so much easier.

  When I stopped thinking about those as sins, they went away. I don’t have those struggles anymore. The Truth set me free.

  but who better to lean on! Someone who never leaves you, always loves you and never judges you

  MY DOG!

• 211. LeoPardus  |  December 6, 2008 at 1:57 pm

  I enjoy the Pastors sermons…does that mean that what the Pastor says is gospel? No, it is his wisdom and interpretation for the majority and I take it as such.

  But you are a special minority??

  I am also curious of what your intrepretations of a “biblical” church is…

  A non-sequitur; a non-entity; a phrase people use, but it has no reality behind it; a thing that never existed; a fantasy; like a square circle.

• 212. northportphoneguy  |  December 6, 2008 at 2:59 pm

  Don’t let science affect your faith

  I’m not a very good writer nor as heavy duty philosophers as you’all, so if this has a modicum of sense, please feel free to rewrite and expand.

  I am a de-con and the statement above was one of the reasons I decided there was no god. If god made everything and made us in his image, I assumed he made us intelligent, inquisitive, with the ability to reason. And indeed, you look around and see the advances our ‘god given’ intelligence has made since those nomadic days.

  So…To find god and for him to grant me eternal life, I have to reverse something he created. I must become an illogical, non reasoning person, who must willfully suspend intelligence(that which he gave me, mind you) and have ‘faith’ in what is most illogical.

  Seemed like a Catch-22 to me. “I will create you smart, but you will have to make yourself dumb to find me”.

• 213. Heather  |  December 6, 2008 at 3:00 pm

  Yikes…I thought I was commenting to Bruce. Oops…guess I hit a cord. Sorry. I understand that many people think that Christianity is bunk…fine. I don’t. I just post my thoughts, just like you do. I enjoy a debate, a conversation. I have no false hope that I will be converting the de-converted, (although it would be neat!!) I simply like a good conversation!! I also wanted to offer some encouragement to Bruce…

  I would consider myself a new Christian, and I concentrate the time I have to read the Bible in the NT…I have read the words in the NT many times, but I have probably not read every word in the OT…but I have read a lot of them. Sometimes I do feel like I am in the minority…because I am a new Christian, and I was not raised in a religious home, I do not have many of the “traditions” and “thinkings” of many mainstream Christians. So, yes, I feel like I am in a minority (one that is growing though).

• 214. Heather  |  December 6, 2008 at 3:07 pm

  Not dumb, just Faithful. Science has its place, and it has done good, and it has done evil…I am simply saying that in relation to Faith in God, it is not neccessary. You should educate yourself in all other ways…the things man has learned and created are awesome! Where would we be without them! However, they are two separate subjects…So, yes, embrace science, technology, and education, and embrace Faith in God too.

• 215. Jeffrey  |  December 6, 2008 at 5:05 pm

  >So, yes, embrace science, technology, and education, and embrace Faith in God too.

  I agree that science and religion are not necessarily incompatible, although science disproves pieces of most people’s faith. I was a theistic evolutionist who accepted the entirety of modern science for a while, and science itself had little to do with my Christian evolutionist to non-Christian theist switch. (Although, the observation of what Christianity does to most Christians’ views on science was a significant factor.)

  More importantly, it was part of a trend I discovered. There are some scientific arguments for Christianity – knowledge of science leads people to reject these arguments. There are some philosophical arguments for Christianity – knowledge of philosophy leads people to reject these arguments. Similarly with ancient history, first-century history, biblical studies, comparative religion, etc. Christianity is verifiably false in all the places where it makes verifiable claims about reality.

• 216. northportphoneguy  |  December 6, 2008 at 7:43 pm

  Not dumb, just Faithful

  How shall I rephrase this. If god created everything, including my intellect, and because of the intellect that I was given, I have learned/discovered material that leads me to the conclusion that the bible god is a myth, where does faith fit in. Am I now to ask a mythical god to give me a substance called ‘faith’ which will then negate the things which have lead me to the conclusion that he does not exist?

  Like many of you, I have found so much relief and peace, in giving up this convoluted belief system.

• 217. VorJack  |  December 6, 2008 at 8:59 pm

  “So, yes, embrace science, technology, and education, and embrace Faith in God too.”

  I think the greatest problem that Science presents to religion has nothing to do with the body of knowledge or technology. It’s simply a matter of epistemology; how do we know what we believe we know?

  Science says we can know by observing and by testing, then by making predictions and testing the predictions. Every scientific claim must be open to argument, testable in light of new evidence, and changeable in response to legitimate criticism.

  Different religions begin in different places, but most end up in the same location. For traditional Christianity, it begins with some revelation, either through the Bible or through tradition (not that the two can really be separated.) Liberal Christianity begins with the experience of piety. But then, rather than test, test and test again, they make a virtue out of faith. You can’t really be sure of what you believe, but continuing to believe it despite any and all evidence is a really, really good thing.

  This is what Science encourages people to point at and laugh. It’s not the claims themselves, it’s how those claims are supported. Fact is, they AREN’T supported. We’re just supposed to believe them because believing them is good for us in some vague way. Why we’re supposed to have faith in Jesus, rather than Ahura Mazda, Allah, Nyalarthotep, or the slew of Hindu gods is never explained. Because we have no means of testing, any claim is as good as any other.

  This is why Science makes a mockery of Religion. Not because of what Science has to say, but because Science has something to say AT ALL. Religion,sadly, gives us a jumble of assertions that are based solely upon the desires of the speaker.

• 218. ubi dubium  |  December 6, 2008 at 11:41 pm

  northportphoneguy

  So…To find god and for him to grant me eternal life, I have to reverse something he created. I must become an illogical, non reasoning person, who must willfully suspend intelligence (that which he gave me, mind you) and have ‘faith’ in what is most illogical.

  Seemed like a Catch-22 to me. “I will create you smart, but you will have to make yourself dumb to find me”.

  I like the way you put that. Well said.

• 219. Karissa  |  December 7, 2008 at 11:16 pm

  Here’s what I have to say about science and christianity.
  Science: very influencial, informative, world-changing and it does provide answers. But, how much more does an omniscient God understand!? He, in fact, created all of what we, people, try to figure out! Of course he will know more than us! There are answers unattainable by man! only God knows! That is where science ends and faith begins! we have to just trust that certain things are the way they are because God created it! Mankind cannot comprehend the answers to everything! it is just impossible!

• 220. Jeffrey  |  December 7, 2008 at 11:47 pm

  >Mankind cannot comprehend the answers to everything!

  Absolutely! Where did the universe come from? God did it. How are we alive? God did it, etc. These answers are just too easy. Theism involves taking all the mystery of the universe and sealing it away in a box marked “God.” Science keeps answering questions while believers keep fighting to keep the questions unanswered so as to have a bigger God.

  Science will never have all the answers, but the history of science keeps reducing the number of things we don’t know – this suggests that not knowing something is a poor reason to believe in God. I’m an atheist because I can look at a mystery, see that it is a mystery, and allow it to remain a mystery.

• 221. orDover  |  December 8, 2008 at 12:07 am

  we have to just trust that certain things are the way they are because God created it.

  If we went around thinking like that we would still assume that the world is flat, that stars are holes in the tapestry of the skies, that the earth is the center of the universe, that the sun revolves around the earth, etc, etc.

  If you stop inquiring and just say, “this are this way because God made them so,” then you never learn and never discover.

• 222. VorJack  |  December 8, 2008 at 10:43 am

  “That is where science ends and faith begins! we have to just trust that certain things are the way they are because God created it!”

  I think Jeffrey & orDover caught the major points with this.

  I’d just like to ask how you determine which claims you take on faith and which you don’t.

  For example, you use the word God frequently. Why singular and not plural? Polytheism has been the dominant mode of religious expression for thousands of years. It still has millions (billions?) of adherents, so it must still be a live option.

  Two people stand before you: one a monotheist and the other a polytheist. Which person’s claim do you accept and take on faith? And why? If the nature of the divine is “unattainable by man,” can you judge between these two claims?

• 223. ubi dubium  |  December 8, 2008 at 12:59 pm

  Karissa -
  You are very good at parroting what your chuch told you to say and what they told you to think. You get a gold star on your sunday school exam.

  Now, have you ever had a question that they did not have a satisfactory answer for? Have you ever thought about a hard question and come to a different conclusion than they did? Has there ever been anything about your religion that does not make total sense to you? If your answer is “no, I agree with them totally, in all ways” then this website is probably not the place for you. Sincere questions are welcome here, preaching is not.

• 224. Quester  |  December 9, 2008 at 12:47 am

  Sorry to leave you hanging, Heather. It was a full weekend.

  I don’t agree with any of the “reasons”…just so you know,

  Thanks for clearing that up.

  and I am also curious of what your intrepretations of a “biblical” church is…

  Hmm.. I had hoped you would go to the Bible with that question, but all right.

  Viewing the Old Testement, we see that God tends to choose one person as a representative of a people. God enters into a covenantal relationship with the people through that one person. In the New Testament, the trend continues with a small group of disciples being told the truth as God enters a new covenant with every one through a small select group. Jesus never sends His disciples out in groups smaller than two, because of the importance of community. He describes God’s will realized as God’s Kingdom- a large and hierarchical community. In the Epistles, entire households are baptized at a time. Indeed, many of the epistles are addressed to such households. Husbands are set up as the heads of the households, as the representatives of God’s covenantal relationship, as priests are in a parish setting. God relates to the household (or church) through His chosen representative.

  In the first few centuries, this is how the church progressed. Household heads would come to believe, and their household would be baptized. Town rulers would come to believe, and everyone in the town would be baptized. Emperor Constantine converted, and the empire became the Holy Roman Empire.

  Throughout the Bible, and throughout history, God is seen to work through representatives and hierarchies, rather than appearing to each individual or craving an intimate personal relationship with them. Suddenly, in the past couple of centuries, it all became “me and my pal, Jesus.”

  What passages of scripture can you find to support the idea that God wants a personal relationship with you?

• 225. LeoPardus  |  December 9, 2008 at 4:57 pm

  Oh. A biblical church. Well, the only church-like descriptions we get in the Bible are in the OT. There priests had robes (nice ones) and the wore symbolic artifacts (the ephod and such). There were candles and incense in the service. There was an altar. There were lots of very nice looking decorations all around the place.

  So, if you want to know what a Biblical church would look like; if you want to know what it looked like when Jesus or Paul or Peter went to church; try going to a very conservative, Orthodox, Jewish service. Or, if you want a touch of NT in there, you can try a service at an Eastern Orthodox church.

  Whatcha say Karissa? Want to try a “Biblical” church?

• 226. Kim  |  December 18, 2008 at 2:27 pm

  you are some sad, hateful, negative, grouchy people.

• 227. LeoPardus  |  December 18, 2008 at 2:52 pm

  Kim:

  Without bothering to question the truth of what you said, just how is your comment supposed to help anyone?

  Does it make you feel better?

  Do you think it is likely to make any of us happier, less hateful, positive, or less grouchy?

  Do you think it will make anyone reflect on their life?

  Does it make you feel superior because you’re not sad/hateful/negative/grouchy?

  Do you think it will lead to positive interaction with us sad/hateful/negative/grouchy people?

  If you think that you can’t have positive interaction or get us to reflect, then why did you even bother to say anything?

  I’d truly like to know why you thought your comment needed to be made?

• 228. Josh  |  December 18, 2008 at 2:59 pm

  “I’d truly like to know why you thought your comment needed to be made?”

  Put downs are self lift-ups.

• 229. Josh  |  December 18, 2008 at 3:02 pm

  BTW, I damn love life right now. It couldn’t be better

• 230. steve miller  |  January 9, 2009 at 8:25 am

  This list seems very complimentary of the previous list (list of the convenient categories that Christians like to come up with to explain why people leave the faith.) I think when read together they give a great binocular view of those who reject Christianity. Thanks for the lists and being honest about a touchy subject. This is a great resource.

• 231. mnemosyne  |  January 11, 2009 at 3:28 pm

  I tried and tried to believe in God and I couldn’t. You can’t make yourself believe things. All the arguments the Christians have are circular; God is real because the Bible says it is. The Bible is the truth because God says it is. No one was ever able to offer me anything that caused me to believe.

  Now that I’ve admitted I don’t believe I can admit one more thing: I think it is morally wrong to worship the Christian God. This God created evil, does not prevent harm to innocent people and his idea of punishment is eternal damnation. There is no love, goodness or grace that I can see in the concept. Even if I had solid proof I think now I would choose an eternity in hell to committing what I consider a real sin.

• 232. Servant  |  January 11, 2009 at 7:48 pm

  @mnemosyne
  I think it is morally wrong to worship the Christian God. This God created evil, does not prevent harm to innocent people and his idea of punishment is eternal damnation.
  1)Evil in it’s fundamental form is the rebellion from the law. But if you set up some sort of law, and allow free will, through eternity someone will eventually break the law. So creation of evil is not an act of God, it is consequence of the system variables. 2) Inability to prevent harm to innocent people is also consequence of the free will. But those who suffer, suffer for a cause – without suffering there would never be progress towards the End of suffering. 3) True punishment is not eternal damnaton, it is eternal erasing. Think of the Final punishment similar to one given to Roy in the Bladerunner finale: “All those moments will be washed in time, like tears in the rain.”

• 233. LeoPardus  |  January 11, 2009 at 9:12 pm

  True punishment is not eternal damnaton, it is eternal erasing.

  So you’re of the belief that those not “of the faith” will be removed from existence? I.e. they simply will no longer exist in any way?

• 234. Yurka  |  January 14, 2009 at 9:49 pm

  27. Anti intellectualism: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/01/deconversion-wager.html

• 235. Quester  |  January 14, 2009 at 11:14 pm

  Thank-you, Yurka. Once again, I agree with you, 100%. That link you have shared with us directs the viewer to a blatant and almost painful example of anti-intellectualism. Good job on pointing it out.

• 236. mrs. vk  |  January 17, 2009 at 11:21 am

  Hate to just point out a book, but I will. The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. Read it closely and think. You will have a hard time refuting his logic.

• 237. Quester  |  January 17, 2009 at 2:56 pm

  Who are you pointing that book out to, Mrs. Vk? The deconverted?

• 238. Don Hubbard  |  February 18, 2009 at 8:01 pm

  I really don’t know what to think anymore. I have tried since childhood to be a religious person. I’ve gone through the meditation stage, vegetarian monkey god worship stage, Buddha stage, back to Jesus and still have nothing to hold onto or show for it. The people I thought where true Christians and true new agers and true what ever you call them have not stayed my friends. I not a freak, I hold a job ( same one for 37 years) I am involved in my community. I support and help with charities. The more I see people with the need to have a parent in the sky the more I am sad. But, oh well, dem’s the breaks! Love the web site.

• 239. LeoPardus  |  February 19, 2009 at 11:56 am

  Don:

  Glad you like the site.

  Sounds like you’re busy being a decent person. No religion needed for that. Keep it up.

• 240. Yurka  |  February 19, 2009 at 12:26 pm

  Don? Parent in the sky? Let me ask you – have you ever done anything morally wrong? Do you consider that a nothing? Doesn’t the existence of a moral law imply a conscious entity that is the source of that law? Or do you deny that in order to tell yourself that your sins will be annihilated when you and the people you wronged will be annihilated?

• 241. LeoPardus  |  February 19, 2009 at 3:29 pm

  Doesn’t the existence of a moral law imply a conscious entity that is the source of that law?

  NO! Sheesh! Can’t we make it any clearer?
  The answer to your question is, “NO! it does NOT!”

• 242. Kevin  |  February 19, 2009 at 5:07 pm

  We’re mortal meat. And we are here. Why is that not enough?

• 243. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 19, 2009 at 5:20 pm

  Does the existence of common coding standards among programmers imply a conscious entity that is the source of those coding standards? Does that entity have to be a deity?

  Does the existence of the war between the light and the darkness imply the existence of two deities battling each other in the heavens?

  Does the existence of common moral standards among men imply that something outside of men is the source of those standards?

  Or could it be that men invent rules because they don’t like to get hurt and like to put restrictions on others who might hurt them?

• 244. paleale  |  February 19, 2009 at 5:44 pm

  It seems that Yurka is the one who is constantly battling to find a source for morality, perhaps projecting is own insecurities onto us because we have found solid ground.

  The essence of morality is avoidance of harm. At whatever point societies began to gather, whether that society was two people or two hundred, morality was invented to A: protect oneself, B: to protect another individual, and C: to protect society at large.

  If caveman Sam has fire and caveman Bob takes Sam’s fire then Sam may likely suffer injury or die from the cold. Look out! Here comes empathy! And just in case we try to pass the question on as to where empathy comes from, chimpanzees and gorillas possess the ability empathize (did God make them in his image too?). Empathy gives us the ability to calculate the harm that Sam would incur if his fire is taken. Further, the harm that the society would incur if they lose a valuable hunter. Thus a moral is developed that it’s ‘bad’ to steal fire from another member of the society. And as time goes on, it becomes obvious that killing another member of society causes harm to both the one being killed, perhaps his or her mate, and the society at large. As societies become more complex, so does their moral code. Eventually it becomes necessary to create legislation. And then finally….

  Taxes.

• 245. Don Hubbard  |  February 19, 2009 at 8:28 pm

  How many people have been murdered in the name of god? How many people are blowing themselves and others up in the same name? Where is the morality? I say the morality is in each of us. We all make mistakes. We all need to learn from the mistakes we make. If we make large societal mistakes we pay the large price. Morality is something we need as a culture, but, I don’t believe that religion has any kind of corner on the market. We, as evolving humanoids, must take responsibility for our selves and our brothers & sisters. We need to grow as a species, to evolve into creatures that love and serve each other and can explore the universe of possibilities that exist for us.

• 246. Yurka  |  February 20, 2009 at 12:30 pm

  Have any of you people ever listened to William Lane Craig’s debates? He demolishes the notion of morality apart from a transcendent source. For instance – you believe there is an objective principle that we shouldn’t harm innocent children. If that is just an intuition that is just ‘out there’, why should I favor that over the psychopath who has the opposite intuition?

  What meaning does a moral intuition apart from consciousness? None, as far as I can see. Bishop Berkeley may have been wacky with his ‘esse est percipi’, but for our *moral* intuitions to have OBJECTIVE reality, it does seem to demand a transcendent consciousness to give it validity.

• 247. Yurka  |  February 20, 2009 at 12:34 pm

  Because the very notion of morality necessarily involves consciousness/personhood and therefore necessitates a mind as its source.

• 248. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 20, 2009 at 12:57 pm

  Yurka, your comment shows a lack of understanding of what evolution is.

  Regardless, you have an equal problem with the Christian worldview. According to numerous places in Scripture, God will blind the minds of people so that they cannot see the truth, right? God hardened Pharoah’s heart. He is hardening the hearts of present day Judaism (according to Paul). According to Paul, the non-spiritual man cannot understand the spiritual things of the gospel. According to numerous writers in the New Testament, man’s reason (wisdom) is foolishness in the eyes of God, right?

  So then, consider this. According to the Christian worldview, man’s reason is untrustworthy. Yurka, if your heart right now is hardened toward God and you only *think* you are saved, then your “reason” would be telling you that *can* reason when you actually *cannot*. In other words, according to Scripture, you cannot trust your reason or faculties at all. You don’t know if you are one of the ones who *thinks* you are saved and are not *really* saved.

  Now consider the only foundational belief that leads me to trust my reason:

  * The universe runs according to consistent patterns.

  That’s it.

  From this we can extrapolate that any creature that would evolve with faculties that disagreed with these consistent patterns would be eliminated by death. Rational faculties are faculties that align themselves with these consistent patterns of nature. Therefore, creatures that evolve with more rational faculties are preserved and their genes are passed on.

  Yes, you are right, we cannot *know* 100% for sure that our reason is 100% accurate. How would we know? How could we know? Well, we can be assured our faculties are fairly accurate based upon the above considerations. And what the heck is the point of insinuating this anyway? Are you saying that we cannot know our reason is accurate unless we assume that God exists and that he gave us accurate reasoning?

  How do we know our faculties are accurate when we make the above assertion that the universe runs according to consistent patterns? Well… one has to assume their faculties are somewhat trustworthy to even ask the question.

  I submit these are three assumptions we all make when we even start to ask questions:

  1) Our environment is consistent enough to yield answers (assumes consistent universe)
  2) Our faculties are aligned to the environment we find ourselves in (evolution answers this nicely, because it asserts our faculties are created by nature’s forces and only those creatures with faculties aligned to the environment will survive and reproduce effectively)

  Therefore,

  3) We can find answers about our environment by using our faculties (reason)

  No assumption of God – or a Christian worldview – is necessary.

• 249. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 20, 2009 at 1:05 pm

  “you believe there is an objective principle that we shouldn’t harm innocent children”

  Wow, who said this. There is no objective principle that says harming innocent children is wrong. There is an inbuilt repulsion in the majority of humans that says this is wrong. It makes us extremely uncomfortable. It causes pain. It incites empathy of the strongest sort. A man or woman who harms innocent children has a problem because they are lacking that inbuilt repulsion. A creature within a species who would do the very things that hinder that species from surviving shows faculties that do not line up with healthy human behavior (behavior that fits the norm). A man or woman who does this is revolting and most likely mentally or psychologically sick. They should be stopped.

  Penguins do everything in their power to protect their young. A penguin that refuses to protect its young is ill. This is “wrong”, but there is no objective moral law that says a penguin must protect its young, is there?

  You don’t need objective moral laws, Yurka. You just need to be an average human with a resistance to pain, an ability to empathize, and working mental faculties. That’s healthy human behavior and the standard which we use to judge the behavior of others. A person who lacks a resistance to pain is considered self-destructive. A person who lacks the ability to empathize is a psychopath. A person who lacks mental faculties is insane.

• 250. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 20, 2009 at 1:07 pm

  “Because the very notion of morality necessarily involves consciousness/personhood and therefore necessitates a mind as its source.”

  And that mind is the mind of man.

• 251. LeoPardus  |  February 20, 2009 at 1:18 pm

  Have any of you people ever listened to William Lane Craig’s debates?

  Make that William “Lame” Craig. Yurka, you’ve got to at the very least try a non-presuppositional approach someday.

  He demolishes the notion of morality apart from a transcendent source.

  OOOOO!! “Demolishes” it does he? Wow! It’s a wonder anyone fails to agree with William the Demolisher.

  you believe there is an objective principle that we shouldn’t harm innocent children. If that is just an intuition that is just ‘out there’, why should I favor that over the psychopath who has the opposite intuition?

  It’s about survival of the species. That is what we’re all programmed for. Psychopaths have the program messed up. Restraining them is another part of survival for the species. It’s all really easy to understand once you learn what evolution is about. But as long as you are listening to liars (creationists, ID’ers, presuppers) you’ll never understand.

  What meaning does a moral intuition apart from consciousness? None, as far as I can see.

  You finally got something right. Only problem is that in your world that is run by a big, invisible, intangible, inaudible, undetectable, magic man in the sky, you’ve identified the wrong consciousness. Try looking closer to home. WE humans have consciousness.

  but for our *moral* intuitions to have OBJECTIVE reality, it does seem to demand a transcendent consciousness to give it validity.

  Nope. Simple human consciousness and struggle are quite enough.

• 252. orDover  |  February 20, 2009 at 1:25 pm

  Because the very notion of morality necessarily involves consciousness/personhood and therefore necessitates a mind as its source.

  Then by your definition, every species of great ape is a person.

• 253. Don Hubbard  |  February 20, 2009 at 5:19 pm

  It seems that the question is does a mind/ consciousness
  /personhood = a godhead who created it? What is the definition of mind/ consciousness/personhood?
  A quick Google is as follows:
  consciousness
  [kon′shəsnes]
  a clear state of awareness of self and the environment in which attention is focused on immediate matters, as distinguished from mental activity of an unconscious or subconscious nature.

  This is from
  http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Conscious+mind

  Now where do we derive from that the godhead fantasy?
  If people want to believe I say let them. Many people want to believe that their dead loved one talk to them during mystic experiences. If that give them balm for their soul, let them believe. Many people need to feel forgiven from their “sins” from a higher power, let them be forgiven. Many people need to dance in their gardens to make it rain, let them dance! The world is a rough place. Many people are in need of the help from supernatural forces.
  Some of us are not.
  Some people want to take responsibility for their own actions. Some people want to live life to the fullest without the threat of hell looming over them. Some people live good and moral lives without looking for the spacemen to take them away and make everything better.

• 254. Cy  |  March 30, 2009 at 11:11 am

  Yeah, probably you are right at some point; but then I know that at one point in your life later on there will be this unquenchable thirst to seek God’s face. Later on, it’s you crying in His arms. Later on, it’s God calling you back, wanting you so badly in His family.

  Probably all I’m saying is just nothing to you. I have to tell you this though, you don’t need all these pastors fighting each other in order to become a Christian. Probably you just realize at some point that their love for God is so intense that going against what they believe of God would be so degrading for their church. I understand them there. But I know the Christian church today is not united one way or another, and it’s not good.

  But Jesus is good. Jesus loved you. He died for you, didn’t He? It’s the first step of becoming a Christian. At least believe in Jesus. I don’t care what the rest says.

  I’d like to see you guys in Paradise some day.

  ~Cy,
  18, UP-Diliman,
  Philippines

• 255. LeoPardus  |  March 30, 2009 at 2:04 pm

  At least believe in Jesus. I don’t care what the rest says

  Well then, we won’t bother trying to engage your mind.

• 256. Don Hubbard  |  March 30, 2009 at 10:08 pm

  Look I’ve talked with folks like you most of my life. To ” seek Gods face” is some kind of weird fantasy you have, much like seeking the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s face. I know I’ll die, but I don’t fear death and don’t need to have the Easter bunny come and save me. I don’t want to chant hare Krishna or anything like that. I love my life. I try to help my fellow people. I don’t condemn folks I don’t know to HELL!!! U know!! FIRE BAD!! Although I do like the Flying Spaghetti Monster the more I read about him.

• 257. Ubi Dubium  |  March 31, 2009 at 9:25 am

  Yarrr, Don! Come join us at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (pesto be upon him). The Forums are particularly fun, and we all get a great laugh at our hate-mailers. As fictional religions go, (and they are all fictional) it’s the best one around. (www.venganza.org) RAmen!

• 258.  |  April 26, 2009 at 11:31 pm

  This is just a confession–not a list of why you should leave any particular religion. Religion, when done right, is full of sacrifices. Life is not supposed to be easy, therefore why should religion be easy? If you could just simply say, “Praise God!” and get into whatever type of afterlife or posthumous experience you subscribe to instantly, THERE WOULD BE NO POINT TO RELIGION.

  This list is simply a confession saying, in effect, “I am sick of suffering from the pains that come with life and religion and am therefore going to do whatever I can go avoid pain–which includes dropping from my faith.” This is the sign of someone who has no one to lean on spiritually.

  With sacrifice, comes discipline, and with discipline, comes the ability to hold fast in whatever your beliefs and morals are. I’m not saying that these beliefs and morals have to automatically be Christian, but this fact goes for anything.

  All I am saying is that life is full of pain. What religion gives a person is the ability to channel this pain and sacrifice into healthy choice, people to be there when a person is wavering in their faith or just in life in general, and hope that there really is a point to all the madness a person sees around him or herself.

  So, in conclusion, I hope you all can consider this post your own personally Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann/Kamina to Simon/WAKE THE HELL UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE PUNCH!!!

  Life is full of sacrifice.

  Religion is full of sacrifice.

  Have faith in this world and even if you don’t mean to do so, people around you will have faith in turn.

  With faith comes hope, and hope is perhaps a person’s most powerful weapon against humanity and the chaotic world around us. Blessed are those who see not and believe. There is a reason. I know it takes an immense amount of faith, but there is a reason to believe in. This is the biggest problem with people like those who believe in the FSM and those who try to disprove religion with reason and scientific proof.

  This is because you can’t see, hear, feel, touch, or taste religion! Our puny minds can bearly grasp it! It’s all we can do to just bearly cling to that rope of faith when things get tough and God just seems to “abandon” us out of the blue. Believe what you want… but I suppose in the end it comes down to choice… believe or do not believe.

  I choose to believe that there is a reason in life, that there is a reason in pain, suffering, evil, and all that bad stuff in the world. If nothing else, it gives us something to fight against and something to serve as an example of how not to behave. I also believe that there was a reason I randomly decided to click on this link while reading over a movie review in another section. But again, it’s all in the choice to believe or not. Do you have enough faith. I know you do, I’m sure everone does. Whether you choose to suck it up and take the pain that comes with belief is based on your own personal limits.

• 259. Zane  |  April 30, 2009 at 4:33 pm

  It brings me sorrow in a way that I have not felt for years to see so many gifted people work so hard to pull away from God and lead others on the same path. Most of the problems listed seem to hinge on the lack of perfection in man (church, text, or personal expressions of faith) none seem to deal with the reality of Christ. When you are in need, call on Him, He will be there, even if you can’t weigh Him on a scale or stick your finger in His side. He held me when I was at my lowest. The Love is real even if it doesn’t meet your ideas of how it should be…

• 260. Quester  |  April 30, 2009 at 5:38 pm

  When you are in need, call on Him, He will be there, even if you can’t weigh Him on a scale or stick your finger in His side.

  If He’s there, but there’s no way to know, and He doesn’t do anything, then He might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes. Thanks for trying, Zane. Have a good day.

• 261. LeoPardus  |  April 30, 2009 at 6:47 pm

  Zane:

  none seem to deal with the reality of Christ.

  There is no reality of Christ. He’s just an historical character with a large following that thinks he’s God. You can call on this long-dead character all you want. It may bring you some psychological relief, just like a child gets from his teddy bear, but there’s no reality behind it.

  And just about all of us here did call on him when we were in need. When we were frightened beyond words at the time we found the faith slipping. We asked for ANYTHING. Just any clear revelation or something to let us know He was there. The silence was deafening. It remains so.

• 262. ArchangelChuck  |  May 1, 2009 at 5:29 pm

  Zane, who is this Jesus fellow you speak of, and where can I find him? Does he have an email address?

• 263. Others  |  May 4, 2009 at 6:35 pm

  Zane, you’re doing it wrong. When talking to people here, you probably should just not say “Jesus” or “God” while on here. It makes it too easy for people here to just say, “Can you show me proof of God?”

  Of course we can give reasons for faith but never proof. That is what makes us who we are. We just stick to “Blessed are those who believe and do not see,” and move on.

• 264. Quester  |  May 4, 2009 at 8:42 pm

  Better yet, Others, just move on.

• 265. BigHouse  |  May 5, 2009 at 9:08 am

  “Blessed are those who believe and do not see,” and move on.

  See, this I do not get. Why is it considered virtuous to believe something lacking in evidence?

• 266. LeoPardus  |  May 5, 2009 at 10:34 am

  Of course we can give reasons for faith but never proof. That is what makes us who we are. We just stick to “Blessed are those who believe and do not see,” and move on.

  This sort of mindlessness puts me in mind of a query by Douglas Adams. To paraphrase a bit, “Why is it that when it comes to religion, which is supposed to be the most important thing in the world, that we are expected to accept specious reasoning and logic that would get us a failing grade if we used its like in any other area?”

• 267. Others  |  May 6, 2009 at 3:41 pm

  Because taking the world around us as we see it, analyze it, and define it leaves so much to be desired. Without faith and mystery there is no soul in the Earth. The sun is not a sustainer of life or a beautiful orb that dances across our skies each day… but simply a ball of constantly fusing hydrogen atoms. So too would the moon no longer be this great, glowing presence that casts upon a dark world an eerie yet serine hue… but nothing more than a hunk of rock that was once part of the Earth, broke off during a collision during Earth’s formation and now orbits our planet.
  Without faith, mystery, and myth, there is no relationship between anything. All the things around us are merely tools and have no greater purpose. What a sad existence.

  And to Quester: if people like me–meaning believers–”moved on” then what would you do? I don’t ask this completely in sarcasm, but I would really like to know what plans you have made for when after you’ve deconverted the entire world.

• 268. Quester  |  May 6, 2009 at 4:18 pm

  Others,

  I think you have “faith, mystery, and myth” confused with “imagination”. Nothing wrong with imagination, of course, so long as you don’t confuse it with reality.

  What have I said that makes you think I want to deconvert anyone? By “move on”, I meant “go about your day without bothering us”.

• 269. LeoPardus  |  May 6, 2009 at 5:22 pm

  Quester: You’re probably right. One thing’s very evident. ‘Others’ lacks imagination.

• 270. Quester  |  May 6, 2009 at 6:00 pm

  Leo,

  Lacks imagination, or a boundary between imagination and reality?

• 271. paleale  |  May 6, 2009 at 6:53 pm

  Others

  I understand the poetic meanings that apply to the sun and moon and our world at large. But what you have demonstrated is that we are the ones who give it meaning. For the moon simply is a hunk of rock. And the sun simply is a giant ball of fusing atoms. It’s because we have the capacity to superimpose this element of deification upon these objects that they take on the shroud of mystery. It’s not that they begin in mystery and we strip away the cloak. It is we who dressed them up in the first place.

  Is it not so hard to imagine a prehistoric human personifying the moon? Or the ocean? Or nature itself? And then as societies became increasingly complex so then did our ideas of the numinous and our relationship to it.

  We don’t wish to take away the poetry, Others. The sun still is a sustainer of life and the moon still casts its glow. These ideas will always appeal to those of us who have poetic personalities. But to continue to explode these mere poetic notions of mystery into something that obligates one to devote one’s life to worshiping the costumes of ever-increasingly complex gods does not give the earth ’soul’. It gives it nonsense and deception.

  Let the sun wear his crown while recognizing that it is we who presided over the coronation.

• 272. LeoPardus  |  May 6, 2009 at 7:41 pm

  Others:

  paleale nailed it. Listen, learn, and live.

  taking the world around us as we see it, analyze it, and define it leaves so much to be desired.

  I can tell you aren’t a scientist.

  Without faith and mystery there is no soul in the Earth.

  There IS no soul in the Earth. (Unless maybe your of the Gaia crowd.) The idea of “soul” as you’re using it here is a man-made concept.

  The sun is not a sustainer of life or a beautiful orb that dances across our skies each day… but simply a ball of constantly fusing hydrogen atoms.

  It IS a ball of gas. It is also critical to sustaining life. It is also beautiful to many folks. That last one is not intrinsic. It’s purely subjective.

  So too would the moon no longer be this great, glowing presence that casts upon a dark world an eerie yet serine hue… but nothing more than a hunk of rock

  The terms “eerie” and “serene” are purely subjective. Many people, including poetic ones, might well tell you there’s nothing eerie about the moon. It is however just a big collection of rock.

  that was once part of the Earth, broke off during a collision during Earth’s formation and now orbits our planet.

  This is not a fact. It’s an hypothesis.

  Without faith, mystery, and myth, there is no relationship between anything.

  I can tell you aren’t a scientist at all.

  All the things around us are merely tools and have no greater purpose.

  Take man away. Now what are those things? Rocks, balls of gas, etc. WE are the ones who assign these other values to them.

  You really must learn to distinguish between reality, poetry, fantasy, subjectivity, objectivity, etc. You have a tremendous job of remedial, critical thinking education ahead.

• 273. RLWemm  |  May 12, 2009 at 9:44 pm

  @Others:

  Non-believers can be just as poetical as those with religious beliefs. One of the most beautiful pieces of poetical prose in praise of nature that I ever read is contained in the first chapter of Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion”. Look it up, read it, savour it, and then see what else he has to say.

• 274. Ash  |  May 18, 2009 at 5:22 am

  Hi! I’m an ex-de-con who recently re-converted. I want to try countering the reasons above because I’m very challenge-driven, so I’m always looking for ways to test my faith. If there’s a question I can’t answer with confidence then I want to explore that topic, and maybe you guys can help shed some light.

  1. Oh, he shows up, alright. The presence of God is the driving force behind the best Christian testimonies.

  2. “Not in the ways we want,” I think is what someone said. It’s true. I would replace “want” with “expect”, though. These last few months have been full of pleasant surprises.

  3. Jesus is the difference. Other than that, I’d say we’re all pretty vulnerable to the power of greed and hormones and mid-life crises.

  4. Yeah. A big reason I left the faith is because my church was a humongously horrible drama fest. I’m still scarred. But you know, all churches are run by human beings. Unfortunate, I know.

  5. It definitely seems that way when taken at face-value. I see the Old Testament as one super long allegory for a person’s inability to completely commit to God. Or anything, really. Yes, he asked the Israelites to bathe a bird in another bird’s blood and set it free. And to stay away from pork. And to kill people. We can say, “how dare he call himself loving and just when he ordered his people to slaughter other nations?” But can we say what the world would be like now if they had just chosen to follow God’s orders? We can imagine, but I’d rather not. The past is the past. Plus, so much of reality and morality and the Bible itself (but not all) is left up to interpretation. I feel like if human beings were as moral as we’d like to believe, murder and corruption wouldn’t be so prevalent.

  7. Two essential elements of a Christian life: the Bible and the community. The Bible to learn about God and follow his word and the community to keep you in check. Both are necessary constants that all Christians must commit to, especially to escape the pit of distorted perceptions.

  8. I fly a lot. Even in my long interlude as a non-believer I couldn’t stop myself from praying for a safe flight every time I got on a plane. I think the ratio of planes crashing to planes landing safely is too good to be true.

  9. The platypus is not of this earth.

  10. Yeah. Some do. I’m sorry.

  11. Can someone give me a link to whatever this Wager is?

  12. The idea that you think a person can grow without trials and errors is completely ridiculous. Although, when I was a child I somehow knew that I didn’t want to grow up. Now I know why. Oh well, what’s done is done.

  13. We can talk about God all we want but we’ll never fully understand him as long as we’re alive on earth. I know that notion turns a lot of people off. It definitely kept me away from him for a long while. Since committing I’ve discovered that getting to know God is a truly worthwhile experience, and exciting precisely because I know it’s a lifelong journey.

  14. The Bible actually asks us to be “in the world, but not of it.” If that’s too much to handle, then, well… too bad.

  15. Because we make it so spectacularly ineffective for him to do so.

  16. Technically it’s a human text written by humans imbued with the power of God. But we all knew that, right?

  17. Love.

  18. I haven’t. But I took high school biology. It was really interesting.

  19. I decided that the uniqueness of the Christian belief surpasses all comparison.

  20. Which ones?

  21. Try reading C.S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce.” He writes the most realistic depiction of hell I’ve ever read.

  22. I know that many churches forgo the message of grace to focus on lessons of lifestyle and sin. This is extremely unfortunate and something the Christian community has to work really hard on.

  23. There is no textbook called “God.” You may get an idea of who he is from reading the Bible and then spend your whole life trying to comprehend it all. If you’re willing to do so, go for it.

  24. So you think you deserve more from this world than what you work for?

  25. Hey, Adam chose to eat the fruit. God knew he was going to do it, because he knows us better than we could ever hope to know ourselves. But it was Adam’s choice.

  26. I remember once before my de-con days, I asked my pastor about evolution. He said that although time for us in our daily lives is systematic and exact, it may not have been the same for God at the beginning of time. I was confused. I believe that to be a good Christian, you must continually question your faith and seek God’s answers. And always put God first, even before your own judgment or the church’s.

  27. I’ve never had sex and I’m not yet that interested, so.

  28. Like Santa Clause? Yeah. How dare they?

  29. I will agree that the history of Christianity is not very pretty. History is not pretty. But hey, we Christians are still around, and I think that says something.

• 275. Quester  |  May 18, 2009 at 6:25 am

  If there’s a question I can’t answer with confidence then I want to explore that topic, and maybe you guys can help shed some light.

  Here’s the main question, Ash: what evidence do you have that there is one or more gods?

  1. Oh, he shows up, alright. The presence of God is the driving force behind the best Christian testimonies.

  The presence of the Great Gazoo is the driving force behind some of the strangest episodes of the Flintstones. He’s still a fictional character, though. Perhaps you could offer a reason to think God is not equally fictional?

  2. “Not in the ways we want,” I think is what someone said. It’s true. I would replace “want” with “expect”, though. These last few months have been full of pleasant surprises.

  Someone may have said that. I say that we have no reason to think prayers are answered at all. Perhaps you know of some studies that prove otherwise?

  3. Jesus is the difference. Other than that, I’d say we’re all pretty vulnerable to the power of greed and hormones and mid-life crises.

  It’s too bad that Jesus isn’t a discernible difference, then.

  5. It definitely seems that way when taken at face-value.

  And after extensive research, it seems that way to an even greater extent.

  7. Two essential elements of a Christian life: the Bible and the community. The Bible to learn about God and follow his word and the community to keep you in check. Both are necessary constants that all Christians must commit to, especially to escape the pit of distorted perceptions.

  What reason do you have to think that either can tell you anything about God or God’s will.

  8. I fly a lot. Even in my long interlude as a non-believer I couldn’t stop myself from praying for a safe flight every time I got on a plane. I think the ratio of planes crashing to planes landing safely is too good to be true.

  Your ignorance does not count as evidence.

  9. The platypus is not of this earth.

  Ha ha?

  10. Yeah. Some do. I’m sorry.

  Too bad there’s no honest evidence they could use instead, eh?

  11. Can someone give me a link to whatever this Wager is?

  Google and Wikipedia are sites you may want to familiarlize yourself with at some point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

  12. The idea that you think a person can grow without trials and errors is completely ridiculous.

  Are you saying that God is a person who made mistakes while growing up, or that painful testing processes are indistinguishable from normal trials and errors?

  14. The Bible actually asks us to be “in the world, but not of it.” If that’s too much to handle, then, well… too bad.

  What does this have to do with reason 14?

  15. Because we make it so spectacularly ineffective for him to do so.

  It’s too bad we’re so much more powerful than God, then.

  16. Technically it’s a human text written by humans imbued with the power of God. But we all knew that, right?

  Well, we knew that’s one of the 70+ orthodox understandings of the Bible, depending upon your denomination. Not that there’s any evidence for any interpretation beyond “it was written by humans”.

  17. Love.

  Balderdash.

  19. I decided that the uniqueness of the Christian belief surpasses all comparison.

  Next time, study before deciding.

  20. Which ones?

  Pick one.

  21. Try reading C.S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce.” He writes the most realistic depiction of hell I’ve ever read.

  Ah, so you’ve been to hell and can confirm that Lewis’ fictional account is an accurate depiction? The Great Divorce is a fun book, but it’s just a story.

  23. There is no textbook called “God.” You may get an idea of who he is from reading the Bible and then spend your whole life trying to comprehend it all. If you’re willing to do so, go for it.

  As the biblical depictions of God range from inconsistent to incoherent, I see no reason to waste any more of my time.

  25. Hey, Adam chose to eat the fruit. God knew he was going to do it, because he knows us better than we could ever hope to know ourselves. But it was Adam’s choice.

  Defending an abusive husband by blaming the abused wife does not actually make the abuse morally acceptable.

  26. And always put God first, even before your own judgment or the church’s.

  If God said anything comprehensible, or did anything discernible, perhaps this would be an option.

  29. I will agree that the history of Christianity is not very pretty. History is not pretty. But hey, we Christians are still around, and I think that says something.

  Yeah, it says that Christians are still around.

• 276. Ubi Dubium  |  May 18, 2009 at 7:09 am

  Ash, at least you are holding your beliefs up to scrutiny, which is something that many believers never seem to do. Keep questioning, keep demanding that things make sense to you, and always be open to changing your mind.

• 277. Ash  |  May 18, 2009 at 8:48 am

  The only “evidence” I have to offer is my faith and conviction. Since the grace of God cannot be explained in scientific terms, I’m not going to try and put it in such terms- but you know, I love Star Wars. If you never watched and you ask me why, I’ll tell you, “just watch it.”

  The presence of the Great Gazoo is the driving force behind some of the strangest episodes of the Flintstones. He’s still a fictional character, though. Perhaps you could offer a reason to think God is not equally fictional?

  Nonbelievers are pretty accurate when they call us crazy. What is faith without the denial of reason? Though, if we’re crazy, then people who go bungee jumping are equally as crazy. Can you really say that human beings thrive solely on knowledge and reason? And yes, Fred is a fictional character, but you still watched the cartoon. That experience of watching the cartoon happened. It’s real. So I guess my reason is my experience, although it’s probably not the kind of reason you’re looking for.

  Someone may have said that. I say that we have no reason to think prayers are answered at all. Perhaps you know of some studies that prove otherwise?

  Do you ever actually ask a strong believer about their own personal experiences, ever? Just curious. If you want studies, there are plenty of us available. You can study me, I am completely willing.

  It’s too bad that Jesus isn’t a discernible difference, then.

  He is to me, and to many people I know. But you’re not too interested in that, right?

  And after extensive research, it seems that way to an even greater extent.

  Ah, research. Don’t they say something in the field of psychology about how results from research are never purely objective because the human mind and… something like that. Sorry, I don’t have enough confidence in my biblical knowledge to seriously defend it.

  What reason do you have to think that either can tell you anything about God or God’s will.

  One, because the Bible is God’s will in written form. Two, because the community is the proof of God’s will.

  Your ignorance does not count as evidence.

  Neither does your sense of superiority. No offense.

  Ha ha?

  I’m glad I got a laugh.

  Too bad there’s no honest evidence they could use instead, eh?

  I’m being completely honest about my feelings, but I guess in this world emotions are meaningless. “How sad,” I’d like to say.

  Google and Wikipedia are sites you may want to familiarlize yourself with at some point.

  Oh, that thing! Sorry, I couldn’t remember what it was called. Thank you for the sarcastic criticism of my intelligence.

  Are you saying that God is a person who made mistakes while growing up, or that painful testing processes are indistinguishable from normal trials and errors?

  God is not a person. God is God, a perfect being. Hard concept to grasp, right?

  If you must know, my house burned down when I was 12 and I was bitter about it until just about two months ago. You can choose to believe me, or not.

  What does this have to do with reason 14?

  14 complained about feeling separated from life. This may be one of the most offensive things a nonbeliever could hear: that Christians are called to be an influence on the world, but to not be influenced by it. We tend to fail on both aspects and we do feel miserable for it. But the grace of God means he forgives us for our failures. His love is our inspiration.

  It’s too bad we’re so much more powerful than God, then.

  I love it when people take what I say and turn it into an offensive defense for themselves. Actually, I hate it, but anyway. By “spectacularly ineffective” I mean we’re stubborn and don’t want to accept God even when all arrows are pointing to him. Like Thomas, who refused to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead until he touched the marks on his hands and feet. It’s even harder for us since there can only be one Jesus. I guess you’ll just have to wait for someone to create a time machine so you can go check him out for yourself.

  Well, we knew that’s one of the 70+ orthodox understandings of the Bible, depending upon your denomination. Not that there’s any evidence for any interpretation beyond “it was written by humans”.

  I don’t suppose we could delve into the subject of “spiritual evidence?” Maybe say really radical things like “the evidence of love?”

  Balderdash.

  I’m really curious, what is your definition of love? I see on your wager that you should “live your life with love.” What does that mean to you?

  Next time, study before deciding.

  I studied the bible extensively when I was younger and am in the process of refreshing my memory. I’ve talked to my non-Christian friends about other beliefs, especially Buddhism. If by “study” you mean school, I’ve taken AP bio, physics, history, blah blah blah. Tell me, do you know of another major belief/philosophy in the world that tells you that you can’t earn your place in the afterlife, because someone already earned it for you? I’m genuinely curious.

  Pick one.

  I’d like you to, since it’s your argument.

  Ah, so you’ve been to hell and can confirm that Lewis’ fictional account is an accurate depiction? The Great Divorce is a fun book, but it’s just a story.

  Obviously Lewis (nor I) didn’t go to hell and come back to tell you about it. And yes, it is a story. But please don’t try to tell me that you don’t learn anything from stories. I think the reason Lewis’ hell from that book is so much like earth is because he wasn’t trying to tell us, “fear God for he will send you to utmost despair,” but “let go of your worldly self and you can join God’s kingdom.” I know that I sound overly optimistic about all this, because I’m not used to it either. The optimism, that is.

  As the biblical depictions of God range from inconsistent to incoherent, I see no reason to waste any more of my time.

  I’m trying to read the bible straight through, am only on Leviticus right now. I’ll try to look for these inconsistencies that you speak of, but can’t guarantee that I’ll see what you see. Obviously.

  Defending an abusive husband by blaming the abused wife does not actually make the abuse morally acceptable.

  Um, metaphor not applicable? God did nothing but love Adam and ask that he love him in return, and Adam threw away that relationship for his own selfish sake. It’s like a kid who chooses to rebel against his perfectly decent dad just for the sake of rebelling. Barriers are created. God is willing to ignore the barrier, but only if you try and do the same.

  If God said anything comprehensible, or did anything discernible, perhaps this would be an option.

  I don’t know about you, but I learned a lot from Sunday school. Honesty, compassion, loneliness, suffering. The world without the context of God taught me a lot, but I could never deny the influence of God in my life. To me, that influence is just as comprehensible as anything he could “say.”

  Yeah, it says that Christians are still around.

  And as long as we’re around we will praise God and spread his word. Obnoxious, right? Sorry about that. But for all the bad publicity, seeing just one person being influenced positively by God can make all our failures seem irrelevant.

• 278. Ash  |  May 18, 2009 at 8:59 am

  Ubi,

  thanks, but that’s because I’m a perfectionist, lol. In small groups and retreats we actually spend a lot of time questioning our own faith and figuring out how to grow stronger. When we address the rest of the world we get so caught up in the performance and we often forget that being genuine is more important. I’m willing to be vulnerable and I want to encourage other people to open up as well.

• 279. Ash  |  May 18, 2009 at 9:21 am

  ps. It breaks my heart to read about people’s decisions to stop following Christ, something I did myself when I was 12. Because I’m on a sort of spiritual high I can’t really remember what I thought/felt at that time, and to be honest I don’t want to. If anyone is willing to share their experience or point me to a particularly strong article, I’d love to discuss.

• 280. BigHouse  |  May 18, 2009 at 10:14 am

  So, Ash, is your mission here to re-convert others? Or something else. Just want to know where you are coming from.

  Sorry to hear about your traumatix experience with your house

• 281. Ash  |  May 18, 2009 at 10:37 am

  I don’t have the power to convince other people of Christ’s love- that is entirely the person’s decision. Some people- both true and untrue Christians- do believe they have that power of persuasion, and that is their sin, the sin of pride. In other words, ego. We all have it, I’m pretty sure. Ego (and a plethora of other things) gets in many people’s way of properly glorifying God. My mission is to do the best that I can do, which is open my heart up to as many people as I can and give anyone who wants to pursue Christ my full support. I don’t think people see enough of the “grace” side of the community, so I like to talk a lot about Christ’s grace, at least what I understand of it.

• 282. LeoPardus  |  May 18, 2009 at 12:23 pm

  Ash was never a real de-convert.

• 283. Ash  |  May 18, 2009 at 12:48 pm

  Are you serious? Are you me? I’m honestly insulted. This proves what they say about atheists resorting to insults based on emotions rather than the logic and reason they’re so attached to. I’m feeling pretty disappointed right now, and I challenge any of you to try and argue your way out of this. If you don’t, it’s okay, I’m already over it. I’ll just spend some quality time baffling at your, well, to put it bluntly, stupidity.

  ^ that’s all me, no God. Yeah, I have my pride. I know I’m putting myself over God. Good thing he loves me enough to forgive me.

  I would explain to you exactly why I know I’m a re-converted de-convert, but I don’t know if you guys are worth the effort. Well, actually, you are. In God’s eyes, at least. I’m just trying really hard to stop shaking my head.

• 284. BigHouse  |  May 18, 2009 at 1:19 pm

  Ash, if you’re willing to tar all atheists with one brush given the one-liner from Leo, it is you who is acting from emotion and illogic.

  So your mission is to open up your heart and show yourself, for the purpose of hoping we re-convert? Again, just trying to understand where you are coming from.

  BTW, why do you think God let you de then re convert?

• 285. Frreal  |  May 18, 2009 at 1:27 pm

  I got it Leo. It made me LOL. Thank You.

• 286. Ash  |  May 18, 2009 at 3:20 pm

  The reason I issued the challenge is because I’m NOT willing to use Leo as the face of all atheists. But I’m not going to hold back on my honest opinion which yes, I admit, was mostly based largely on my own selfish emotions (perhaps I should have bolded the ‘me, not God’ part), but if you try to argue that emotion is the opposite of logic thus emotion has no place in a productive, logical life or some bullshit like that, I’ve heard it before and I don’t care. Give me valid reasons for why you say what you say. Although, it seems Leo was making some kind of joke I don’t understand. Does anyone care to elaborate, for my sake?

  This weekend at retreat the speaker said that the grace of God is so great that, once a person commits he is committed for life. This means if someone who claims to have been Christian before says God is no longer with them, there are two possibilities: they never actually believed in Christ in the first place, or they are in a rut, a crisis in their faith.

  In the house fire my younger brother got third degree burns all over his body and lost most of his left shin (bone was intact, I think). After this incident I kept going to church for a while, singing and praying as usual. At home I watched violent movies and looked at gross pictures on the internet and watched a ton of porn. My way of coping was pretty much desensitizing myself. I became almost completely apathetic. Almost, because no amount of apathy could get rid of the guilt I felt for my brother’s situation. For me, it wasn’t a matter of “God is not there for me,” because I filled my mind with things that made me forget about him. The Bible says “seek, and you will find.” I stopped seeking.

  Sure I tried to find alternatives. I read just about anything that didn’t have anything to do with the Christian God, since hey, I knew him once, great guy, oh look, an article on atheism. Sure, yeah, that makes sense. Trust me, I’m not new to your logic.

  I tried to be happy. Well, I tried to live which is what you guys are all about, right? I tried it out. I thought I could do it. I was ready to accept that this was my life, that if I tried I could be content with what I had.

  And then God reappeared in my life, and no, it was not instant rebirth. For two years I poked and prodded, wondering, will it be worth it, and will terrible things happen to me or my loved ones if I go down this path? I understood the concept of faith but I couldn’t accept it in my heart. Two years of apprehension and doubt and indecisiveness after five years of numbness. It sucked.

  Now that I’m back, everything I ever knew is like new again, a rebirth. The guilt is gone and I’m finding it amazingly easy to open up to people. I have so much faith right now, and I hope it keeps growing. But this faith is familiar. It feels like home. I don’t know if that’s because I strayed and now I’m back, or because even if I never truly believed in the past, God always had a place for me. I think it’s both. Man first strayed from God, but because God created man to have a relationship with Him it is inevitable for man to seek God and (hopefully) find him.

  Christians live by hope and faith in God. A cynic may call us delusional/illogical/emotional/needy/pathetic etc. but that’s because he cannot see the love of Jesus. God has a place for everyone, but it means nothing to you if you don’t choose to accept it.

  My hope is that you guys don’t just read my confessions as another Christian loony rant, but as a genuine expression of my beliefs. I’m totally willing to put time and effort into these kinds of discussions (effort meaning acting out of love and understanding instead of trying to win an argument, which can be way easier). If you don’t agree with something, please tell me why, and elaborate since I’m bad at making assumptions. If you choose to ignore me, I’ll pray that God keeps seeking you even if you refuse to seek him. I’ve got hope.

• 287. BigHouse  |  May 18, 2009 at 3:30 pm

  Ash, you haven’t really said anything, albeit with a lot of words. Look at your paragraph that begins “And then God reappeared..”. You’ve intrestingly left out the details of that reappearance, why is that?

  And I’m glad you are now “happier” but that doesn’t mean that you have found truth. It sounds like you like deluding yourself.

• 288. LeoPardus  |  May 18, 2009 at 3:53 pm

  Ash:

  Did you get it yet? If not, go read the “Convenient Categories” article in the archives.

  Now try not to pop off like a hot-headed kid. Doesn’t your holy book say something about being slow to anger, patient, ready to give an answer but with gentleness, living at peace with all, not being give to quarreling, and other such nice ideals that Christians consistently fail to do even though they are supposed to be enabled by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

• 289. Quester  |  May 18, 2009 at 4:51 pm

  I’m not going to try and put it in such terms- but you know, I love Star Wars. If you never watched and you ask me why, I’ll tell you, “just watch it.”

  And I could do so, because DVDs with the Star Wars film on it exist. What’s the divine equivalent?

  Though, if we’re crazy, then people who go bungee jumping are equally as crazy.

  Only if they do so with a bungee cord they have no evidence toward the existence of, outside of faith and conviction.

  Can you really say that human beings thrive solely on knowledge and reason?

  Nope. Not trying to, either.

  And yes, Fred is a fictional character, but you still watched the cartoon. That experience of watching the cartoon happened. It’s real. So I guess my reason is my experience, although it’s probably not the kind of reason you’re looking for.

  But the cartoon exists. What is your divine equivalent?

  Do you ever actually ask a strong believer about their own personal experiences, ever?

  Yes, during the 25+ years I was a strong believer. Have you ever looked at your experiences and thought about what they actually provide evidence for?

  He is to me, and to many people I know. But you’re not too interested in that, right?

  I am if you can show me that non-belevers and believers of other deities don’t exhibit the same characteristics.

  Sorry, I don’t have enough confidence in my biblical knowledge to seriously defend it.

  That’s all right, so long as you don’t use the Bible as support for anything you want to argue.

  One, because the Bible is God’s will in written form. Two, because the community is the proof of God’s will.

  Perhaps I was too vague. What I want is reasons for why you believe those two statements are true.

  Neither does your sense of superiority. No offense.

  Not a problem. I’m not the one with something to prove.

  I’m being completely honest about my feelings, but I guess in this world emotions are meaningless.

  Really? What feelings have you shared that support your beliefs?

  God is not a person. God is God, a perfect being. Hard concept to grasp, right?

  When trying to justify God-commanded atrocities, it becomes a very hard concept to grasp, indeed.

  If you must know, my house burned down when I was 12 and I was bitter about it until just about two months ago. You can choose to believe me, or not.

  It doesn’t matter what I choose to believe about your house, as it has nothing to do with explaining how God choosing to hurt someone is a good thing.

  14 complained about feeling separated from life.

  14 complained about Jesus failing to carry through on His promises. That’s something a bit different.

  By “spectacularly ineffective” I mean we’re stubborn and don’t want to accept God even when all arrows are pointing to him.

  I’d think an all-powerful God could do something about that.

  Like Thomas, who refused to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead until he touched the marks on his hands and feet.

  Don’t be too hard on Thomas. Re-read the gospeal accounts. Every single one of Jesus’ followers needed evidence before they’d believe Jesus did what He said He would. Not one of them believed without Jesus appearing to them first.

  It’s even harder for us since there can only be one Jesus. I guess you’ll just have to wait for someone to create a time machine so you can go check him out for yourself.

  Or I could wait for God to do something in the world today to show who He is and what He wants. The time machine might be the shorter wait, though.

  I don’t suppose we could delve into the subject of “spiritual evidence?” Maybe say really radical things like “the evidence of love?”

  Go for it. What spiritual or loving evidence do you have that supports anything about the Bible other than “it was written by humans”?

  I’m really curious, what is your definition of love?

  Off the top of my head, it is a decision to value, and act accordingly. My turn, what, in your definition of love, lessens the argument that evil is evidence against the existence of an all-powerful, loving God?

  Tell me, do you know of another major belief/philosophy in the world that tells you that you can’t earn your place in the afterlife, because someone already earned it for you?

  You know, I can’t think of one. I’ll concede this point. I may still quibble with “the uniqueness of the Christian belief surpasses all comparison”, but I’ll admit that, as far as I know, there is at least one unique thing about Christianity.

  I’d like you to, since it’s your argument.

  All right:
  Old Testament: the creation stories.
  New Testament: Jesus’ birth.

  Obviously Lewis (nor I) didn’t go to hell and come back to tell you about it.

  Then in what way can you say his portrayal of hell is the most “realistic”?

  I’m trying to read the bible straight through, am only on Leviticus right now. I’ll try to look for these inconsistencies that you speak of, but can’t guarantee that I’ll see what you see.

  Not a problem. I highly encourage you in reading your Bible and thinking about what it says about who God is and what God wants.

  Um, metaphor not applicable? God did nothing but love Adam and ask that he love him in return, and Adam threw away that relationship for his own selfish sake.

  What’s that have to do with the pain we suffer?

  I don’t know about you, but I learned a lot from Sunday school. Honesty, compassion, loneliness, suffering. The world without the context of God taught me a lot, but I could never deny the influence of God in my life. To me, that influence is just as comprehensible as anything he could “say.”

  Hey, if you want to live life holding to the principles of honesty and compassion, letting each temper the other, more power to you! But if you want to tell us to put God first, it would help if you could define, or even point to, God.

  And as long as we’re around we will praise God and spread his word. Obnoxious, right? Sorry about that. But for all the bad publicity, seeing just one person being influenced positively by God can make all our failures seem irrelevant.

  Except to the people affected by the failures, but no one cares about them, right? Oh yes, God does. God will make it all better. Well, not in this life, but in the next one that we have no evidence for. Good thing there’s a God that prevents Christians from needing to think about the effects of their actions before they act and the idea of an afterlife they can use to absolve their guilt for their actions in this life. Yay, God.

• 290. Ash  |  May 18, 2009 at 5:57 pm

  Big, thank you so much for responding, it’s really encouraging.

  I didn’t think the details were that important for the overall picture, but since you asked: for two years my roommate encouraged me to put my faith in God again. When we met in high school she was already a very strong Christian, and that’s when I started thinking about God, after years of ignoring his existence. That’s what I mean by “God appeared.”

  To you my words are nothing because you’re not willing to trust in anything anyone says about God. My truth is not your truth, so of course everything I say sounds like rubbish and delusion. I can easily say the same about you as well, but that’s not the point. If you want to really know God, my truth can become your truth; if I somehow become sick of God, your truth can become mine. Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the light, no one gets to the father except through me.” that means following his example and his word. Since he asks us to be “fishers of men,” we feel the obligation to expose people to Christ- besides that, we just really want to share our experiences, believe it or not.

  I am happier because I’ve found truth. Do you believe you’ve found truth? Or are you one of those “truth is relevant” people? I was, once.

• 291. Ash  |  May 18, 2009 at 6:26 pm

  Leo,

  Are you saying that nothing from the convenient list applies to you? At all? I read your “personal relationship” article. It sounds to me like you were angry at God for not showing himself to you in corporeal form.

  Do you think that when you were following God, you felt anything that the Bible promised you? Do you think you truly felt God’s love? I’m asking because you claim to have been a pastor, but you fail to mention anything about God’s love and grace, the core of Christianity. Instead you accuse me of being human, which God clearly forgives us for in the scripture what with the death of Jesus and all. You choose to take the mistakes of Christians and apply them to your view of God. To embrace God means to embrace him wholly- his perfection, his grace, and his love. Fear of damnation and morality is not enough, because there is nothing you can do to make him love you less. Above all, it’s about love. If you keep thinking along the lines of “Christians fail at this love thing so God must be imperfect” then you’ll never experience grace.

  Trying to explain my faith is trying to explain love. Or any emotion, really. Explain to me sorrow. Not what you think it means, not its purpose in life or the history of sorrow or the dictionary definition or the biological theory behind it, but what it is. Faith, like sorrow, is in your heart.

• 292. LeoPardus  |  May 18, 2009 at 6:50 pm

  Ash:

  Are you saying that nothing from the convenient list applies to you?

  No. This query was addressed after the article in some of the posts. Some categories may apply or not. What Christians love to do is to apply them as if they have it all figured out.
  Now think about how you reacted when I said you weren’t a real de-convert.
  Now think about a thing you call the Golden Rule.

  It sounds to me like you were angry at God for not showing himself to you in corporeal form.

  You have a habit, quite common among Christians who come in here, of not reading. Just scanning and them lobbing your half-baked opinions only forces us to conclude that you’re another “christian” troll.

  Do you think that when you were following God, you felt anything that the Bible promised you? Do you think you truly felt God’s love?

  Of course I thought I felt that. So what? People psyche themselves into all sorts of feelings.

  I’m asking because you claim to have been a pastor

  See what I said before about not reading and just scanning.

  but you fail to mention anything about God’s love and grace, the core of Christianity.

  Want a whole sermon on it? It doesn’t fit into the story because I came to see that God isn’t real. Why talk about fantasies?

  Instead you accuse me of being human

  YOU are NOT in my story, nor in the “Convenient Categories” article. What the hell are you babbling about? Try to keep your mind on one thing OK.

  I’ll skip your mini sermon here……

  Explain to me sorrow. Not what you think it means, not its purpose in life or the history of sorrow or the dictionary definition or the biological theory behind it, but what it is.

  First you want it explained, then you forbid using any foundations for explaining it. Brilliant. This is how faith works. You believe whatever you want, insist no one can talk about it, and then you’re secure. Kind of like the famous bit from the Tao Te Ching, “The true Tao cannot be known. If anyone says he speaks of the true Tao, he lies.” OR, to quote from your posts, “The only “evidence” I have to offer is my faith and conviction.”

  Look if you’re not going to listen, not going to focus, not going to think, why are you here? …. Of course we already know why. You’re here to save us. Thanks but no. We are safe. You are the one in danger of losing your humanity.

• 293. orDover  |  May 18, 2009 at 7:43 pm

  To you my words are nothing because you’re not willing to trust in anything anyone says about God. My truth is not your truth, so of course everything I say sounds like rubbish and delusion

  Truth is NOT subjective. There isn’t “my” truth and “your” truth. There is one truth. And then there are things that people believe to be true. Real truth is established through evidence, not words.

  If you want to put forward this my-truth-your-truth stuff, then realize that your claims to truth are no better than someone who believes in ghosts or aliens or psychics or telekinesis or Allah or Vishnu or trolls or Big Foot or reincarnation. The list could go on. All of these people believe they have a monopoly on the truth, just as you do. They’ll even offer to share their truth with you, so that it can become your truth. So how are we to distinguish who is right and who is wrong. By words? Testimony? Feelings? All of the proponents have those. We need EVIDENCE. Real evidence. Hard evidence. Not anecdotes or personal experience, but physical, verifiable evidence. Faith and conviction do not cut it. They don’t add up to truth.

• 294. Ash  |  May 18, 2009 at 8:03 pm

  And I could do so, because DVDs with the Star Wars film on it exist. What’s the divine equivalent?

  The Bible.

  Only if they do so with a bungee cord they have no evidence toward the existence of, outside of faith and conviction.

  People who do have evidence are those who believe. Your definition of “evidence” cannot apply to God because he is not of this world. But still he invites you to join him, and promises eternal life. So yeah, faith is kind of like a bungee cord you’re told is there but you can’t see. But if it’s there, and you choose to believe it’s there, you can reach for it and you will touch it. God is like that.

  Nope. Not trying to, either.

  Then what are your views on emotions, intuition and instinct?

  But the cartoon exists. What is your divine equivalent?

  The world.

  Yes, during the 25+ years I was a strong believer. Have you ever looked at your experiences and thought about what they actually provide evidence for?

  Yes, they provide evidence for my belief in God. What kept you going for 25 years? Faith by definition is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see. Did you experience this kind of faith for 25 years?

  I am if you can show me that non-belevers and believers of other deities don’t exhibit the same characteristics.

  Grace.

  That’s all right, so long as you don’t use the Bible as support for anything you want to argue.

  But the Bible is my main support besides my conviction and the support of other believes.

  Perhaps I was too vague. What I want is reasons for why you believe those two statements are true.

  God says it’s true, and we feel it to be true. Like I said, none of my reasons will satisfy you because you don’t want to be satisfied, you want to use them to prove your own belief. And as long as you have that mindset, that’s what’ll happen.

  Not a problem. I’m not the one with something to prove.

  I don’t believe that, because then you wouldn’t be here.

  Really? What feelings have you shared that support your beliefs?

  My faith, my desire to keep sharing about God, and my strengthened conviction after just one day on this site, which comes out in my tenacity. My knowledge that I’m serving God just by talking about him. You can try to psychoanalyze me and come to the conclusion that I’m doing all this for myself, if you want.

  When trying to justify God-commanded atrocities, it becomes a very hard concept to grasp, indeed.

  ex-atheist.com wrote an article about that. I find God completely just and perfectly fair, and that includes the war in Numbers. If you’re talking about the crusades, we humans made the mistake of ignoring a huge chunk of the Bible that commanded us to forget about the past and act in love. Imagine that.

  It doesn’t matter what I choose to believe about your house, as it has nothing to do with explaining how God choosing to hurt someone is a good thing.

  At the risk of sounding repetitive: Adam chose the world over God, not the other way around. The suffering we endure is a result of original sin.

  14 complained about Jesus failing to carry through on His promises. That’s something a bit different.

  Jesus promises eternal life and peace that surpasses understanding, that he’ll be with you til the end of time. The only catch is that we love him and pursue him. If you are not willing to separate yourself from the life you know, you cannot truly love Jesus.

  I’d think an all-powerful God could do something about that.

  So you’d rather Him force you to obey him than give you the choice? Where’s the worth in that?

  Don’t be too hard on Thomas. Re-read the gospeal accounts. Every single one of Jesus’ followers needed evidence before they’d believe Jesus did what He said He would. Not one of them believed without Jesus appearing to them first.

  Jesus appeared to his apostles resurrected and it was a one-time deal. But the apostles, who already had faith in him, witnessed the event and passed it down history. We are in the opposite situation- we have the evidence, the bearing of witness, so for us it’s a matter of taking that leap of faith.

  Or I could wait for God to do something in the world today to show who He is and what He wants. The time machine might be the shorter wait, though.

  He shows his will through the people who follow him. It’s up to you to enter that world. If you don’t have even the slightest desire to know God, you will reject him no matter what.

  Go for it. What spiritual or loving evidence do you have that supports anything about the Bible other than “it was written by humans”?

  That people would have the strength to look beyond themselves and hold fast to their beliefs despite intense suffering, is proof enough for me.

  Off the top of my head, it is a decision to value, and act accordingly. My turn, what, in your definition of love, lessens the argument that evil is evidence against the existence of an all-powerful, loving God?

  That love still exists and can compete against evil convinces me of a loving God, for he loved us so that he sent his only son to die for us.

  Old Testament: the creation stories.
  New Testament: Jesus’ birth.

  With OT I read something about the context that was lost in translation, how the Hebrew language uses tenses differently, and it made sense to me because I took latin. What about Jesus’ birth is so baffling?

  Then in what way can you say his portrayal of hell is the most “realistic”?

  In that instead of focusing on an image of hellfire and brimstone he makes hell an extension of earth- and illustrates that God is the ultimate salvation. So to me, his hell is the most realistic because it’s so insignificant in the face of God’s kingdom.

  What’s that have to do with the pain we suffer?

  We deserve it. That’s what makes God’s grace so sweet.

  Hey, if you want to live life holding to the principles of honesty and compassion, letting each temper the other, more power to you! But if you want to tell us to put God first, it would help if you could define, or even point to, God.

  I wish I could make it easy for you. I wish I could give you all the answers. But then you wouldn’t get the satisfaction of finding the answers yourself.

  Except to the people affected by the failures, but no one cares about them, right? Oh yes, God does. God will make it all better. Well, not in this life, but in the next one that we have no evidence for. Good thing there’s a God that prevents Christians from needing to think about the effects of their actions before they act and the idea of an afterlife they can use to absolve their guilt for their actions in this life. Yay, God.

  To love means to willingly bear another’s burden, to support them through their suffering. God asks us to love our neighbor and Jesus asks us to love our enemies. He died so that we don’t have to live by sin. (we still choose to, though.) We don’t have to worry about our futures because God is our future. Yay, God!

• 295. Ash  |  May 18, 2009 at 8:19 pm

  There is one truth.

  This is true. My one truth is God. Because I believe in God, who says that he is THE truth, I believe God is the one truth.

  You will never understand this truth unless you let go of your obsession with worldly evidence. But are not words and emotions evidence? Are you saying the mind is more real than the heart? If you’ve hardened your heart to God then it’s impossible to see evidence of him, for God invades all of you. I’m not saying that you can’t feel genuine emotions. I’m saying that until you open your heart to God you will not experience faith.

  If truth is not subjective then I don’t even know why we’re having this conversation.

• 296. BigHouse  |  May 18, 2009 at 8:38 pm

  Ash,

  This: What about Jesus’ birth is so baffling?

  is the most baffling question I have read in a long time. You ask it earnestly? If so, you are truly so brainwashed for “the Lord” that I don’t see any positive coming from interacting with you.

  You say the Bible is a pillar of your evidence for God. The Bible is a fantastical collection of history, mythology, contradictions, nonsense, and truth. To march in here and lend it the power you do without a shred of backup for that authority is the definition of pre-supposition. That line of argument is nonsensical and will get you know where.

  So, do you care to actually defend the authority of the Bible without using the Bible to support it’s own authority? It’s just like in grammar school when you weren’t allowed to define a word using the word itself in the definition.

  I doubt you’ll try, because you’ve probbaly never asked this question of yourself before. I hope you will earnestly now.

• 297. Ash  |  May 18, 2009 at 8:58 pm

  Leo:

  No. This query was addressed after the article in some of the posts. Some categories may apply or not. What Christians love to do is to apply them as if they have it all figured out.
  Now think about how you reacted when I said you weren’t a real de-convert.
  Now think about a thing you call the Golden Rule.

  Of course we don’t have it all figured out. How can you assume that? When you were Christian did you think that you had it all figured out? God is a lifelong journey. You’re the one who decided that it wasn’t worth it. As for my reaction, I’m just following my own rule of addressing issues when I see them. You accuse me of assuming that I know anything about your story, but you did exactly the same.

  You have a habit, quite common among Christians who come in here, of not reading. Just scanning and them lobbing your half-baked opinions only forces us to conclude that you’re another “christian” troll.

  “Sorry, but it’s not a personal relationship. Heck, it’s even less than getting a letter from the President. At least there’s a small chance that you might actually be able to meet him and shake his hand.”

  Of course I thought I felt that. So what? People psyche themselves into all sorts of feelings.

  ..is what I believed not too long ago. Believe it or not.

  See what I said before about not reading and just scanning.

  sorry, I don’t have much of an attention span and I tend to mix up certain memories. Just a couple things from my endless list of faults and shortcomings.

  Want a whole sermon on it? It doesn’t fit into the story because I came to see that God isn’t real. Why talk about fantasies?

  because there’s a reason you came to your unbelief, and I’m truly curious about the process.

  Instead you accuse me of being human

  YOU are NOT in my story, nor in the “Convenient Categories” article. What the hell are you babbling about? Try to keep your mind on one thing OK.

  I meant you’re not basing your argument on God, but instead on your own judgments about me and Christians in general. I was only responding to what you said in the above post about how I’m not being the “perfect example” of Christianity. I’m sorry? Forgive me as God forgives me? Is all I can say.

  I’ll skip your mini sermon here……

  aww, that’s what I find so disappointing about all this. Oh well.

  First you want it explained, then you forbid using any foundations for explaining it. Brilliant. This is how faith works. You believe whatever you want, insist no one can talk about it, and then you’re secure. Kind of like the famous bit from the Tao Te Ching, “The true Tao cannot be known. If anyone says he speaks of the true Tao, he lies.” OR, to quote from your posts, “The only “evidence” I have to offer is my faith and conviction.”

  I’m challenging you to explain it to me in terms that you don’t seem to be very comfortable with. And that’s my point- you can’t explain something like sorrow if you strip it down bare, you can only complain about how I’m not letting you explain it like you explain everything else. But take away all the foundations for explanation and it’s still there, isn’t it? That’s what faith means to me. I WANT you to talk about it so that I can compare your view on faith with mine. FYI, I’m completely insecure in my faith, and that’s why I’m here, to grow in it.

  Look if you’re not going to listen, not going to focus, not going to think, why are you here? …. Of course we already know why. You’re here to save us. Thanks but no. We are safe. You are the one in danger of losing your humanity.

  I listen and focus to the best of my abilities, and then I think about it as I am, a Christian. I have no intention to save you or anyone here, because it’s not in my power to do. Talking to nonbelievers about God is hard and painful. So why? Why do we keep doing it? Why don’t we leave you guys alone? Because we want to follow Jesus, and we experience joy in sharing the word. If I become a tiny window of opportunity for someone, anyone to seek to know God, it’s worth it to me.

• 298. Quester  |  May 18, 2009 at 9:07 pm

  The Bible.

  Very good. The Bible is evidence that God exists to the exact same extent that a Star Wars DVD is evidence that Darth Vader exists. Bravo.

  People who do have evidence are those who believe.

  Since you are one of those people, I invite you to share that evidence with me.

  Your definition of “evidence” cannot apply to God because he is not of this world.

  If God acts in this world, then my definition of evidence applies. If God doesn’t act in this world, why should I care about God?

  So yeah, faith is kind of like a bungee cord you’re told is there but you can’t see. But if it’s there, and you choose to believe it’s there, you can reach for it and you will touch it. God is like that.

  Been there, done that, smashed my head on the rocks. After much therapy, I realized there was no bungee cord. Now I’m here.

  Then what are your views on emotions, intuition and instinct?

  Could you narrow the scope of that question a touch?

  The world.

  Good for you! When you look at the world, what sort of god can you find the evidence for?

  Yes, they provide evidence for my belief in God.

  Lovely. Can you describe an experience you have had and tell us what characteristics of God that experience provides evidence for?

  What kept you going for 25 years?

  Faith-centered interpretations of personal experiences.

  Faith by definition is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see. Did you experience this kind of faith for 25 years?

  Yep.

  Grace.

  So, no non-beleiver or person who believes in a different deity than you shows grace towards anyone else? I’m afraid I disagree with that, wholeheartedly.

  But the Bible is my main support besides my conviction and the support of other believes

  Then stop entering into conversations with non-theists about your faith until you “have enough confidence in [your] biblical knowledge to seriously defend it.”

  God says it’s true

  Where, when, how? If your answer is in the Bible, please quote book, chapter and verse.

  Like I said, none of my reasons will satisfy you because you don’t want to be satisfied, you want to use them to prove your own belief.

  What makes you think that?

  I don’t believe that, because then you wouldn’t be here.

  I’m here to give and receive support through a rough time of transition, to spend time with intelligent people and to enter the occasional debate to keep my brain in working order and see if I can learn something. None of this requires me to prove anything. That’s what you’re here for. Kindly, don’t project.

  My faith, my desire to keep sharing about God, and my strengthened conviction after just one day on this site, which comes out in my tenacity.

  Your faith is an emotion? Wanting to share about something is evidence you believe it exists? Posting two days in a row is tenacity? This is pretty weak stuff. What other emotional evidence do you have for God?

  You can try to psychoanalyze me and come to the conclusion that I’m doing all this for myself, if you want.

  Now that I know you’re aware of it, I don’t need to.

  I find God completely just and perfectly fair, and that includes the war in Numbers.

  All right, then, what in the war in the book of Numbers reveals God to be perfectly fair, moral and just? How about the book of Joshua?

  At the risk of sounding repetitive: Adam chose the world over God, not the other way around. The suffering we endure is a result of original sin.

  And that’s what makes my metaphor applicable. God is causing us to suffer because of the actions of a man with no experience or knowledge to base a decision on. How can you justify that as moral?

  Jesus promises eternal life and peace that surpasses understanding, that he’ll be with you til the end of time.

  Jesus promises His followers will have life in all its fullness (John 10:10).

  So you’d rather Him force you to obey him than give you the choice? Where’s the worth in that?

  I’d prefer God reveal God’s self clearly.

  Jesus appeared to his apostles resurrected and it was a one-time deal. But the apostles, who already had faith in him, witnessed the event and passed it down history. We are in the opposite situation- we have the evidence, the bearing of witness, so for us it’s a matter of taking that leap of faith.

  Why should we need less evidence than those who lived with Jesus and watched Him perform miracles?

  He shows his will through the people who follow him.

  Fine, except that His followers never seem to get it right, so we still can’t know with any certainty what God wills.

  That people would have the strength to look beyond themselves and hold fast to their beliefs despite intense suffering, is proof enough for me.

  Because no one’s ever been inspired to suffer and look beyond themselves by anything written by a human?

  That love still exists and can compete against evil convinces me of a loving God, for he loved us so that he sent his only son to die for us.

  A loving God, perhaps, but not a loving, all-powerful one.

  With OT I read something about the context that was lost in translation, how the Hebrew language uses tenses differently, and it made sense to me because I took latin. What about Jesus’ birth is so baffling?

  Not “baffling”, but “just as ridiculous and fantastical as every other religion’s [stories]“.

  So to me, his hell is the most realistic because it’s so insignificant in the face of God’s kingdom.

  So, “realistic”, to you, means, “matches with how I want reality to be like”?

  We deserve it.

  In what way do we deserve suffering?

  I wish I could make it easy for you. I wish I could give you all the answers. But then you wouldn’t get the satisfaction of finding the answers yourself.

  Please tell me, if you believe suffering is the result of sin and hell is the destination of non-believers, how refusing to give answers so that I might “get the satisfaction of finding the answers [my]self” is a moral choice for you to make? From here, it looks horribly evil.

  To love means to willingly bear another’s burden, to support them through their suffering.

  When love leads you or God to lessen burdens and reduce suffering, I’ll be more impressed.

  He died so that we don’t have to live by sin.

  What does this even mean?

  We don’t have to worry about our futures because God is our future.

  I feel sorry for those whose lives are affected by your decisions, if that’s your attitude.

• 299. Blue  |  May 18, 2009 at 9:08 pm

  Oblivious troll is oblivious.

• 300. Ash  |  May 18, 2009 at 9:30 pm

  Big,

  I was actually asking for your answer and didn’t mean it rhetorically, and you didn’t disappoint. Once again I don’t get a straightforward answer. Is it the fact that the virgin Mary was impregnated by God, or the idea of God being born into a body of flesh? God becoming man, isn’t that what you wanted? It happened. Jesus was born to walk with us.

  To me God is always baffling because he is supernatural. Part of accepting God is acknowledging that he is not of this earth, so I feel no need to be ruled by human reason.

• 301. orDover  |  May 18, 2009 at 9:58 pm

  Okay, this is probably all I’m going to say because it seems pretty obvious, as Blue pointed out, that we’re dealing with a black hole of Christian theology here. But…

  I said that there is only one truth. Ash wrote,

  This is true….

  If truth is not subjective then I don’t even know why we’re having this conversation.

  If there is only one truth, then how can it be subjective?

  And then,

  My one truth is God. Because I believe in God, who says that he is THE truth, I believe God is the one truth.

  Circular reasoning. I believe in Wotan, because Wotan says he is THE truth. I believe that McDonalds is healthy because McDonals says it is healthy. I believe that Richard Nixon is not a crook because he says he is NOT a crook.

  Do you see why this doesn’t work?

  You will never understand this truth unless you let go of your obsession with worldly evidence. But are not words and emotions evidence? Are you saying the mind is more real than the heart? If you’ve hardened your heart to God then it’s impossible to see evidence of him, for God invades all of you. I’m not saying that you can’t feel genuine emotions. I’m saying that until you open your heart to God you will not experience faith.

  I was talking to a devotee of Hare Krishna the other day, and he told me that his emotions are evidence for the existence of Krishna. He told me that if I open up my heart and become responsive, that Krishna will reveal himself to me just as clearly as he has revealed himself to him. If I open my heart, I can experience the truth of Krishna.

  Now you’re telling me exactly the same thing. I prayed to the Christian God and I felt warm and comforted. I chanted the Hare Krishna mantra and felt centered, at one with the universe, and even warm and comforted. My emotional evidence for the existence of these two gods is equal.

  So who do I follow? How can I decide which God is the one true God?

  Followers of both gods tell me about their emotional experience, the truth that the gods revealed to their hearts. If that is all the evidence I’m given then I’m at a stalemate. I need to rely on something else. How about objective (rather than subjective, i.e. emotional) evidence?

  This sort of “worldly” evidence is all I have to distinguish between Krishna and Jesus. It is the only reliable tool to determine who is more worthy of my faith.

• 302. Ash  |  May 18, 2009 at 10:40 pm

  Darth Vader is alive in the hearts of fans everywhere.

• 303. Quester  |  May 18, 2009 at 10:58 pm

  Darth Vader is alive in the hearts of fans everywhere.

  Very well, Ash. That appears to be an appropriate place for you to end your challenge-driven quest for ways to test your faith. I’m willing to leave it there, unless you want to continue?

• 304. BigHouse  |  May 18, 2009 at 11:03 pm

  Big,

  I was actually asking for your answer and didn’t mean it rhetorically, and you didn’t disappoint. Once again I don’t get a straightforward answer. Is it the fact that the virgin Mary was impregnated by God, or the idea of God being born into a body of flesh? God becoming man, isn’t that what you wanted? It happened. Jesus was born to walk with us.

  My answer is, Jesus was supposedly born by immaculate conception by God. If you require no support for such a fantastical claim other than an anicent book whose authority is yet to be established, then your definition of baffling probbaly isn’t in any dictionary on earth.

  And if you can invoke the supernatural as some sort of uncombatable trump card, then ANY argument can be supported with this claim, not just the ones you trot out. So they lose all power.

• 305. kilter  |  May 18, 2009 at 11:31 pm

  Hey, I’ve been reading over the debate that seems to be going on here and I’m curious to know what it feels like to be a de-convert. I mean, Christians always have a description of how it felt to be reborn, so what does it feel like from the other side?

• 306. Quester  |  May 18, 2009 at 11:45 pm

  Kilter,

  For me, the Kübler-Ross model for describing the steps of grief come pretty darn close: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. The steps did not actually come in that order, nor did they only come once each. I’d also expand upon Acceptance to include Celebration. CarriedtheCross has a good article on the subject here: http://de-conversion.com/2008/07/20/thoughts-on-my-de-conversion-one-year-later/

• 307. kilter  |  May 19, 2009 at 12:06 am

  Quester,

  Thanks for the link. That’s really interesting and has given me a lot to think about. A lot of Christians I know tell me that, before they converted, they felt a hole in their lives, a hole that they filled with God. Do you ever feel anything like that? Or have you filled it with other things, like the charity work CarriedtheCross mentions?

  Also, say that the Christian God is real and that you find yourself in hell after you die. Would you think it was worth it to have lived your life based on the evidence (or lack thereof) of him you saw in the world? To word it another way, if you were able to know for sure that God is real, would you still reject him knowing that he allows suffering? Just hypothetically.

• 308. Quester  |  May 19, 2009 at 12:20 am

  Kilter,

  I was actually very surprised to find I felt no hole in my life, just a need to take responsibility for my own choices instead of relying on God.

  Would I think believing only what I had a reason to believe in was worth Hell? No, but what choice do I have? Lying? I do not reject God. I can’t find a God anywhere. If I were able to know God existed, I might love, follow, reject, ignore, or actively work against that God, depending on that God’s will and character.

  How about you? Would the fear of Hell, if you believed in it, be enough for you to justify lying to yourself or submitting to the will of a supernatural tyrant you knew was evil?

• 309. kilter  |  May 19, 2009 at 12:32 am

  That’s a very hard question for me to answer, because I am a Christian and I do believe that God is perfectly good. But if I take myself out of that mindset and imagine a world where God was evil and I knew it, I don’t think the fear of hell would be enough to stop me from acting against him. The promise of eternity in paradise would probably convince me to suffer through the evils, but not fear of hell alone. I truly believe that life controlled by an evil God would be hell itself, so what would it matter whether I followed him or not? Besides, even now the fear of hell isn’t enough to keep me following Christ. It’s the joy that I find in him that convinces me it’s worth it.

  Another question: When you did believe, I assume you saw God somewhere in your life. Do you think you were just fooling yourself, or did God just stop appearing?

• 310. Quester  |  May 19, 2009 at 12:43 am

  Kilter,

  For roughly ten years, I believed that God had simply stopped appearing. Now I think that I was- well, not fooling myself- misinterpreting what I was experiencing when I thought I saw God in my life. Am I certain now that there was no God for me to experience? No. I just see no reason to assume that the presence I felt I experienced, if there was one, was a singular, all-powerful, all-knowing, loving being as described in the Bible.

  When you see God appear in your life, what lets you know it is the God of the New Testament, and not Allah, Hanuman, the entire Norse pantheon, a group of leprechauns, or your own imagination?

• 311. kilter  |  May 19, 2009 at 1:12 am

  Quester,

  I suppose there’s nothing that lets me know this the same way that I know that I fall because of gravity and that my arm hurts if I pinch it because of the nerves in my skin. But for me, God has fulfilled every promise that affects my personal life, and I see signs of the fulfillment of his future promises in what I’ve studied of eschatology. What I see of God in the world matches what he says in scripture. For example, I often struggle financially. Somehow, though, I always get just enough to get by on, to support me for just a little bit longer. When Jesus said, “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness and all these things will be given to you as well,” he didn’t promise great wealth, just necessities, and that’s what I receive. It’s possible that it’s coincidence and that what I think is a blessing from God is simply the kindness of others or good luck, but that’s how I see God work throughout the Bible. So often he chooses to work through the rules the world has, even though he has the power to make money appear on my doorstep, if he chose. To me, these things are evidence that God is there and he is faithful to his promises, even when I’m not.

  So what are your reasons for assuming that God is not a being as he is described in the Bible?

• 312. Quester  |  May 19, 2009 at 2:10 am

  How about those who do not receive the necessities? Those who, through drought, famine or plague, starve to death? Those who freeze to death or get fatal pneumonia due to inadequate shelter- through no fault of their own? Those killed in hurricanes, blizzards, tsunamis, earthquakes and volcano eruptions? Those with inadequate supplies of drinking water? Those dying of malaria or other diseases they can not avoid and don’t know how to cure? How about those born with physical or mental handicaps? How about those who are healthy all their lives, then get crippled through the aging process? How about those who are perfectly healthy, but end up dying from complications raised by our poorly constructed bodies (the appendix seems to be a useless remnant of our evolutionary history, but appendicitis can kill you)? Our spines are imperfectly adapted to walking on two legs, leaving how many of us with back problems? That should do, for a start.

• 313. orDover  |  May 19, 2009 at 2:13 am

  So what are your reasons for assuming that God is not a being as he is described in the Bible?

  You’re going to have to narrow that down a bit. The Bible describes God in several different, contradictory ways.

• 314. orDover  |  May 19, 2009 at 2:18 am

  How about those who do not receive the necessities? Those who, through drought, famine or plague, starve to death? Those who freeze to death or get fatal pneumonia due to inadequate shelter- through no fault of their own? Those killed in hurricanes, blizzards, tsunamis, earthquakes and volcano eruptions? Those with inadequate supplies of drinking water?

  Don’t forget Quester, your typical Christian only thinks God is responsible for the good things. When kilter lives a life of righteousness, God provides for him. With others live a life of righteousness but terrible things happen to them it isn’t that God did it, it’s that man did, because man created all of the evil in the world when Adam sinned in the Garden. When good things happen, God did it. When bad things happen, it’s all somehow our faults, regardless of the level of righteousness.

  (Just jumping the gun.)

• 315. Ash  |  May 19, 2009 at 2:46 am

  Quester,

  I had to get some school work done, but I’d like to continue. It’s been a great experience for me to speak on behalf of my beliefs and learn from it. I was pretty much preaching to myself to see if I could. Thanks for putting up with it!

  I’ll start off fresh with why I think we’re undeserving. When I look at the history of man as told in the bible, I can see that we’re beyond redemption. The world has become corrupted by man’s sin and cannot be saved by the hands of man. This is something I would always believe strongly even if I wasn’t a Christian.

  It’s not surprising that people can’t accept the idea of a perfect God since none of us have experienced perfection on earth. I actually find it very easy to believe in God’s perfection because of my worldly experience, but I know that same experience can ruin a person’s hope for something better.

  If not for God’s grace born out of his perfect love, what is our worth? Nonbelievers strive to establish their own worth in the time they have left. I chose to believe in Jesus because, frankly, I’ve lost faith in humanity. I believe we’re all capable of doing good, but I also believe that no amount of good can live up to God.

• 316. Ash  |  May 19, 2009 at 3:00 am

  Big,

  I’m not trying to argue for God’s existence by calling him a supernatural, but simply stating that that is how I see God. Wikipedia’s definition: order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe. Pretty accurate description of God, I’d say.

• 317. Quester  |  May 19, 2009 at 3:03 am

  Ash,

  I had today off of work. I can’t guarantee I’ll always be able to answer so quickly, but I’m willing to go another couple of rounds. I’m not too interested in why we’re undeserving of God’s grace, but why we’re deserving of suffering might be worth a little discussion. Maybe a little bit about why we were created unable to save ourselves, why the consequences of the first Adam’s actions are so much more effective than the second Adam’s, and what strikes you as even vaguely moral in the salvation story. The core concern for me will continue to be what evidence we have for God’s existence, character and will, but I’m willing to discuss these side issues for a bit.

• 318. RLWemm  |  May 19, 2009 at 3:55 am

  @Ash

  First let me congratulate you on your decision to study the basic literature of your belief system. This is admirable. Up to this point you have accepted what others have told you about the contents of these books. It is absolutely necessary for every child to begin life by accepting without question what adults tell them is true. As they mature they gradually discover that parents and even teachers, are not omniscient and are prone to error. They lose their faith in second hand authority and begin exploring the world on their own. Now you have reached this stage in your religious thinking, too.: you have decided to examine the complete range of biblical texts for yourself, not just those dished out to you by people with a favorite religious viewpoint to support.
  That’s very admirable but it’s quite a heavy task you have set yourself. Do you intend to struggle with the Ancient British English (and poor scholarship) of the KJV, or do you intend to pursue clarity and authenticity by using a text in modern American English that is reasonably consistent with the concensus of modern biblical scholars?

  First hand knowledge from primary sources is only one tool of higher level scholarship. A more important tool is the ability to examine material critically. Up to this point you have mostly accepted the tenents of your belief without a great deal of serious critical thought. That is to be expected in the young. Our first few years of schooling demand it and for some this habit is never broken. Now you say you have begun to change this immature mind set and are already moving towards the next maturational goal. That can feel exhilerating, liberating or terrifying – and frequently a kaleidoscopic mixture of all of these emotions. Hold on tight!

  I wonder, though, whether this step may prove too large for you at this point in your life. You explain that you have lived through an extremely traumatic and painful childhood experience. The usual reaction to such an event is to seek comfort in the security of the familiar, not the stress of newness and challenge. It will depend on whether you stuck at some stage of the grief cycle described by Kubler-Ross (immobilzation-denial-anger-bargaining-depression-testing-acceptance) http://changingminds.org/disciplines/change_management/kubler_ross/kubler_ross.htm

  It will also be heavily dependent on how much social support your personality needs, how much social support you receive and whether that support encourages you to explore where-ever you wish or threatens to withhold support if you stray outside some super-imposed limit. What I hear you describing is a relatively new support group which you fear will abandon you if you do not conform to the group beliefs, norms and values. Unless you can find foul-weather friends who will offer you unconditional support and regard no matter what happens to your world-view, I would strongly advise you to rethink your decision to aim for this goal at this moment. Do you think that you have sufficient personal resolve and resources for challenging a familiar and life-long world view should you be rejected by the people who are currently supporting you? Be prepared for this type of under-the-radar emotional blackmail.

  You are obviously intelligent. You have finished basic schooling and completed, and possibly passed, more than one American AP level subject. This puts you in the top few percent of American High School graduates. This is a good indication that you have the ability to develop good critical thinking abilities. Please be aware AP level study is only an indication of potential. It is perfecty possible to pass American AP levels on the basis of good fact regurgitation without demonstrating the ability to think critically.
  (This is one of the main criticisms of the AP level in relation to the international Year 12 counterparts which require demonstration of high level reasoning skills in order to obtain a passing grade. This requisite is reserved for American Senior College level. By my computations you are about 18 or 19. That puts you at about Sophomore level. As you probably know, this is traditionally viewed as the Know-It-All Year. Next year you will be horrified to discover how much you don’t know. )

  Now all this is great but I have to voice some objections, too.

  _De-conversion, or anger at god?_

  You do not seem to have gone through the kind of deconversion process which characterizes people on this forum. What you describe is better defined within the Christian concept of “backsliding”. You may have became angry at your concept of god when your parent’s house burned down and then tried to avoid practising your religion because this emotion got in the way and caused you distress instead of comfort. It seems very unlikely that you actually lost your belief in a god during this time or you would not have found yourself praying to it when you experienced a terror of flying.

  In a frightening situation a de-convert acts differently. If the fear is sufficiently disorientating, she may respond with automatic behaviour, which may include the commencement of praying behavior. The difference is that this behavior rarely continues for more than a few seconds before rational thinking intervenes and the process is stopped.

  Likewise, when you were approached by a friend who told you how much her life had been changed by a more extended version of your childhood faith you were easily persuaded that her explanation of the cause of this change was rational. You make no mention of any significant challenge to her logic. It seems that your mind put up a very weak fight and it took very little to persuade you. It was comforting and familiar, and that is probably what you crave right now.

  This is not a scenario which makes much sense to a real de-convert. To us it has become second nature to challenge supernatural claims and illogical explanations. As well as that, many of us have spent thirty or forty years in professions where challenging ideas is part of the discipline (science, law, philosphy and all forms of academic research and fact finding). Unless we have acquired some form of brain damage, dysfunction or impairment we do not accept extraordinary claims without objective evidence. Nothing you have said so far suggests that you applied this level of skepticism to what you have been told about religion. The proof you offer for your current version of Christianity is consists almost entirely of second-hand subjective opinion about the origins of certain feelings and emotional experiences. That is incredibly weak evidence for anything.

  There is no compelling evidence that you ever de-converted from Christianity or from general theism. In any case, you were too younb to have the necessary intellectual or emotional maturity at the time.

  You have now reached an age where true de-conversion could conceivably happen. All that stops you now is emotional baggage, social maturity, the development of critical thinking skills, knowledge outside the box of your restricted education, opportunity, determination and persistence. My guess, based on how you present in your postings, is that you lack the emotional strength and the intellectual ruthlessness at the moment. At least some of these things may change in the future. In fact, it probably will. I would not recommend that you rattle your comfort cage until then.

• 319. Ash  |  May 19, 2009 at 3:58 am

  God originally created us to live with him forever. That all changed when Adam and Eve defied him. He tried to save the Israelites and they still defied him. The option of God was always there, but we kept defying him over and over. If you ask me, we ask for it. Suffering, that is.

  The morality argument doesn’t effect me since I think I’m a terrible person anyway, but I believe that God is perfectly just, so I trust in His decisions. Also, Jesus’ actions had a way more significant consequence than Adam’s; he turned our whole world around by walking with us and then taking up original sin. Because he walked the earth we have witness, and because he died for our sins we have salvation.

  and still we continue to defy God. because there’s that choice, you know? Temptation is serious business.

• 320. Ash  |  May 19, 2009 at 4:24 am

  @ RLWemm

  LOL. Wow, thanks for making me laugh. I think I’m going to print this out.

  Thanks, but don’t worry about me. Seven years of near complete apathy have given me immunity from disappointment and stress and emotional needs. As for critical thinking, my ability to complicate a subject of discussion is not as important to me as my ability to say exactly what I mean.

  as for everything I’ve posted today, I’ve only spoken from the heart about something I truly believe in. I knew I didn’t belong here from the start but you guys haven’t screamed at me yet, so.

  Let’s keep having fun!

• 321. RLWemm  |  May 19, 2009 at 5:13 am

  @Ash.

  You are welcome. More tomorrow. I need sleep – and so, I think, do you.

• 322. kilter  |  May 19, 2009 at 10:47 am

  How about those who do not receive the necessities? Those who, through drought, famine or plague, starve to death? Those who freeze to death or get fatal pneumonia due to inadequate shelter- through no fault of their own? Those killed in hurricanes, blizzards, tsunamis, earthquakes and volcano eruptions? Those with inadequate supplies of drinking water? Those dying of malaria or other diseases they can not avoid and don’t know how to cure? How about those born with physical or mental handicaps? How about those who are healthy all their lives, then get crippled through the aging process? How about those who are perfectly healthy, but end up dying from complications raised by our poorly constructed bodies (the appendix seems to be a useless remnant of our evolutionary history, but appendicitis can kill you)? Our spines are imperfectly adapted to walking on two legs, leaving how many of us with back problems? That should do, for a start.

  I often think about these people when I receive aid. I could say that these people are not living righteously, but I can’t believe that of all the people starving in the world there is not even one true Christian among them. The only way I can really explain it (and I know this is a weak explanation, so bear with me) is that this is the way God chooses for them to die. He doesn’t promise us a long life on earth, just that he’ll take care of us while it lasts. He could cure people’s diseases endlessly so that no one ever dies, but that’s not what he wants. He set up the world so that we do die, often from illness or tragedy. The part about physical ailments — mental/physical handicaps, cripples, back problems — doesn’t seem relevant to me. Those things hurt and they make life extremely difficult, but a perfect body isn’t necessary to living.

• 323. kilter  |  May 19, 2009 at 11:07 am

  You’re going to have to narrow that down a bit. The Bible describes God in several different, contradictory ways.

  I actually don’t see the contradictions. God is described as loving, jealous, and wrathful, but I think these are just different parts of his nature. I respond differently to different situations and it makes sense to me that God would do the same. So I guess just choose whichever description of God you feel is the falsest and explain to me your reasons for thinking that, please.

  Don’t forget Quester, your typical Christian only thinks God is responsible for the good things. When kilter lives a life of righteousness, God provides for him. With others live a life of righteousness but terrible things happen to them it isn’t that God did it, it’s that man did, because man created all of the evil in the world when Adam sinned in the Garden. When good things happen, God did it. When bad things happen, it’s all somehow our faults, regardless of the level of righteousness.

  I do believe that the evil in the world comes from mankind’s mistakes and from Satan’s influence, but I also believe that God has a hand in everything, and that nothing, even the bad things, happens without his will. I have often asked myself why, if God is omnipotent, he doesn’t just destroy Satan in a single instant and save us all a lot of grief. All I can say is that, for some reason, God chooses to work through humans. I don’t think that, when I lack in my faith, God throws punishment at me. Jesus already took that punishment for me. I think he allows us to suffer because it strengthens us and, if we stay faithful, it proves an amazing testimony to God’s glory. I think a lot of the things he does in this world are not about us, but about bringing greater glory to himself, and to me, that purpose is worth it.

  When you hear Christians talk about the trials they went through and see that it doesn’t destroy their faith, what do you think? Just that they’re deluding themselves? I’ve heard it said that Christians who believe they are achieving God’s purpose in their lives are really just huge egomaniacs trying to give themselves importance. Would you agree with that?

• 324. Quester  |  May 19, 2009 at 11:12 am

  Ash,

  Suffering for defiance can only be called just if obedience is an option. With only one sinless person in the biblical narrative, in what way do you think obedience is possible? What does a person have to do to not deserve suffering?

  Also, Adam’s actions, in your worldview, condemned us all to suffering. Why did Jesus’ actions not free us from that suffering?

• 325. Quester  |  May 19, 2009 at 11:15 am

  Kilter,

  Apparently OrDover was right and I should have started by asking you which Biblical portrayal of God you wanted to defend. I did not expect callous, evil, but honest to be your top choice. Which Biblical view of God do you hold to?

• 326. kilter  |  May 19, 2009 at 11:46 am

  Quester,

  I’m not posting because I want to defend God, I’m posting because I want to understand why you no longer believe. People often tell me that I have a very logical way of thinking, and I’ve always found it odd that what I know of Christianity does seem logical to me when non-Christians tell me that it’s not. So I’m asking you to explain to me why you think any of the Biblical views of God are not supported by what you see in the world. I don’t have solid, scientific evidence for the existence of God, so I want to hear the evidence that shows that the Christian God does not exist.

  Also, when you say callous and evil, do you mean that God is callous and evil for letting people die? Just to clarify.

• 327. Tit for Tat  |  May 19, 2009 at 12:11 pm

  I don’t have solid, scientific evidence for the existence of God, so I want to hear the evidence that shows that the Christian God does not exist.(Kilter)

  Why would evidence be necessary for disproving if you cant even prove the “Christian G-ds” existence. You really do seem to have it all backwards.

• 328. Quester  |  May 19, 2009 at 12:16 pm

  Kilter,

  Ah, I see. I’m afraid I’m not going to be able to help you much. I have no evidence that God doesn’t exist. I also have no evidence God does exist. Finally, I have no evidence that aliens, djinn, leprecauns, or yeti do or do not exist.

  And no, I’m not saying that God is callous and evil for letting people die, but for creating us bodies with so many weaknesses and putting us in a world with so much to attack these weaknesses. It is not death, but suffering that I decry. Death does not need to be accompanied by pain, suffering and tragedy.

• 329. Tit for Tat  |  May 19, 2009 at 12:16 pm

  As far as the evil thing goes, this pretty much sums up who did it. At least from a “Christian” perspective.

  Isaiah 45:7 (King James Version)

  I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create EVIL: I the LORD do all these things

• 330. LeoPardus  |  May 19, 2009 at 12:23 pm

  killer:

  I’m curious to know what it feels like to be a de-convert. I mean, Christians always have a description of how it felt to be reborn, so what does it feel like from the other side?

  At first it’s very confusing and even distressing. As you get used to the fact of a cosmos without a personal deity, and as you gradually get over the fallbacks of religious thinking, you come to a place of great freedom. To borrow from Christian jargon, it is like having been blind and now developing sight. It’s like coming out of a great dark shroud into a world of light. It is finding real truth. It is like being reborn.

• 331. paleale  |  May 19, 2009 at 1:07 pm

  Kilter,

  I’ll side with Leo on this. It hurts a bit at first. There’s a great article in here somewhere about red pill vs blue pill and those that think ‘Why? Oh why didn’t I just take the blue pill?” W/out revealing the true extent of my sci-fi geekiness I find that to be an apt analogy for some of the process I have gone through. I really wish that the loving, benevolent god of mercy I used to believe in was truly there. But I have concluded that he (at least the Christian version of god) is not. And sometimes it really sucks.

  But mostly life just continues. I love the same way I did before. I feel joy and contentment the same way I did before. The only major difference is that when life gets overwhelming I don’t have that psychological sense of security that tells me that ‘everything works for the good of those who love the lord.’ I know it’s up to me to make that good come about if any is there to be had.

• 332. LeoPardus  |  May 19, 2009 at 2:04 pm

  killer:

  Look in the archives for my series of articles that all start with “Reasons why I can no longer believe” That will give some material for you to peruse on why we don’t think the personal deity of Christianity exists.

• 333. kilter  |  May 19, 2009 at 5:32 pm

  Why would evidence be necessary for disproving if you can’t even prove the “Christian G-ds” existence. You really do seem to have it all backwards.

  I’m asking out of curiosity because, in the debate above with Ash, I saw someone mention that emotional evidence was too weak to prove the existence of God, so I wanted to see whether anyone could give me something stronger than that for the other side of the argument. If we have nothing solid for either side, then I feel like personal testimonies are the best way to find the truth, which is why I’m on this site, reading what you guys have to say.

  As far as the evil thing goes, this pretty much sums up who did it. At least from a “Christian” perspective.

  I just looked up multiple translations of this verse, and the most common translation of “evil” here is calamity, or specifically physical evil. Yes, of course God creates physical suffering in our lives. I don’t contest that. I just don’t think it makes him evil.

• 334. kilter  |  May 19, 2009 at 5:38 pm

  Ah, I see. I’m afraid I’m not going to be able to help you much. I have no evidence that God doesn’t exist. I also have no evidence God does exist. Finally, I have no evidence that aliens, djinn, leprecauns, or yeti do or do not exist.

  Okay, this is what I wanted to know. Like I said to Tit for Tat, I’m trying to see if you guys have something beyond personal experience to explain the lack of God, since all I have is personal experience to show my belief in God.

  And no, I’m not saying that God is callous and evil for letting people die, but for creating us bodies with so many weaknesses and putting us in a world with so much to attack these weaknesses. It is not death, but suffering that I decry. Death does not need to be accompanied by pain, suffering and tragedy.

  Okay, I can understand that. I’m sure that when you were a believer that you heard all the justifications for suffering, about how it strengthens our faith. Did you ever believe this, and if so, at what point did you stop? At the same time you felt that God stopped appearing? Or was this idea something you always struggled with, even in your times of strongest faith?

• 335. kilter  |  May 19, 2009 at 5:42 pm

  LeoPardus,

  Thank you for sharing what it felt like to de-convert. So do you believe that, during your years as a Christian, you were tricking yourself/misinterpreting what you believed was the presence of God? Also, when you first became Christian, did you feel that same kind of rebirth? Since it seems to have felt very similar to what most Christians describe, I’m curious.

  I found your articles and will read them as soon as I get a chance. Thank you.

• 336. kilter  |  May 19, 2009 at 5:45 pm

  Paleale,

  Thanks for sharing. Sorry I have so many questions, but please bear with me, as I don’t actually know any de-converts personally. So at your times of strongest faith, did you think you could ever stop believing? And now that you have, do you believe you could ever go back to believing in the Christian God?

• 337. Quester  |  May 19, 2009 at 6:30 pm

  Kilter,

  I hope you don’t mind, but I’m going to respond to a few points you made to others, as well as to myself.

  Yes, of course God creates physical suffering in our lives. I don’t contest that. I just don’t think it makes him evil.

  Fair enough. Writing poetry doesn’t make me a poet; it just makes me a person who writes poetry. Causing suffering doesn’t make God evil, it simply means He’s a god who does evil things. I’ll concede that.

  Like I said to Tit for Tat, I’m trying to see if you guys have something beyond personal experience to explain the lack of God, since all I have is personal experience to show my belief in God.

  You are aware that not having evidence *for* something and not having evidence *against* it does not make the likelihood of it existing 50/50, right? Name something other than God that you think exists that you don’t have evidence *for*.

  Did you ever believe this, and if so, at what point did you stop?

  I believed it on a personal level, because I hated myself and thought I deserved suffering. When I reached a point where it was my responsibility to teach others, I tried to predict what their objections would be and find answers. I found no good answers. When I partook in Hospital chaplaincy, all the easy justifications tasted like dust in my mouth. When an infant suffers for it’s entire two month lifespan, what possible justification could there be?

  So at your times of strongest faith, did you think you could ever stop believing?

  No. It simply wasn’t imaginable.

  And now that you have, do you believe you could ever go back to believing in the Christian God?

  If I found evidence He exists, sure. I’m not sure whether or not I could worship Him again, but I could believe.

• 338. Donny  |  May 19, 2009 at 6:32 pm

  I have also been following the de-con and have found it to be amusing, in a good sense. I wanted to chime in n the question of what it feels like to be a de-con.
  I’ve only been the big “A” for a couple of years and have found an incredible feeling of peace. What I don’t find is any Christians that have a very good understanding of their faith. Now, I know that this will bring the well read faithful down on me. What I mean is the average type Christian. You know the type that you are likely to meet are church. Most have not read their bibles, only using them to store obits and cards. But back to the point, I didn’t become a de-con because of hurt, fear, helplessness or the myriad of other reasons that most supers lay on us. I became a de-con because the whole of religion thing is just to weird to ever be possible. I mean, come on now, I’d rather believe that the universe was made from a flower coming from the navel of Vishnu than anything else. It’s just a likely to be as the Genesis story. I do find it strange that de-cons are addresses in such a way that they are on the constant defense.
  The person I’m involved with is a new age type / Krishna person. I don’t bring up the subject of religion. I don’t do it because it make as little difference to me as the color of paint on her walls. That is up to her. She prays for me and I don’t say “ Oh no, you can’t do the I’m a atheist. I don’t believe in prayer”. Come on I’m 57 years old and if that make her feel good, who does it hurt. I’m a happy de-con. I don’t feel a need to compel other to believe as I do. If they are interested I’ll share, and yes I do try to share just not shove.
  Please all on you believers, we don’t think hell exists so we’re not worries a bit about going there. We don’t respond well to threats or the carrot and stick thing that seems to run so many peoples loves. Personally I’m glad that you’re imaginary friend tell you to be good. I just hope that he doesn’t tell you to kill me.

• 339. LeoPardus  |  May 19, 2009 at 6:54 pm

  killer:

  do you believe that, during your years as a Christian, you were tricking yourself/misinterpreting what you believed was the presence of God?

  That is indeed what I was doing, and it is what many millions still do and will continue to do.

  when you first became Christian, did you feel that same kind of rebirth?

  My initial “saved” experiences were not as dramatic as many I’ve known. On the proverbial ‘10 scale’ (0=no change; 10=instant missionary) I’d say I was a 6. Interestingly my felt experience was much more intense when I became Orthodox.

  it seems to have felt very similar to what most Christians describe, I’m curious.

  Similar in some ways, very different in others. Kinda hard to describe.

  Enjoy the articles.

• 340. TitforTat  |  May 19, 2009 at 7:34 pm

  just looked up multiple translations of this verse, and the most common translation of “evil” here is calamity, or specifically physical evil. Yes, of course God creates physical suffering in our lives. I don’t contest that. I just don’t think it makes him evil.(Kilter)

  Well, Im glad you found the right Bible with the right translation to make G-d not be the creator of Evil. You should sleep well tonight.

• 341. writerdd  |  May 19, 2009 at 7:38 pm

  If creating suffering is not evil or immoral, than what is? Two consenting adults having sex outside of marriage? Christianity has a really frakked up idea about what evil is.

• 342. writerdd  |  May 19, 2009 at 7:39 pm

  That’s one of the real reasons I left. The “morality” I was taught just didn’t seem all that moral to me any more. It’s like black is white.

• 343. kilter  |  May 19, 2009 at 8:53 pm

  Fair enough. Writing poetry doesn’t make me a poet; it just makes me a person who writes poetry. Causing suffering doesn’t make God evil, it simply means He’s a god who does evil things. I’ll concede that.

  Did your parents punish you when you disobeyed them as a child? If so, are they evil? And I’m asking this seriously, not rhetorically. If you don’t think your parents are evil for causing you suffering, why not? Because the magnitude of the pain differs?

  You are aware that not having evidence *for* something and not having evidence *against* it does not make the likelihood of it existing 50/50, right? Name something other than God that you think exists that you don’t have evidence *for*.

  I know it doesn’t make it 50/50, but I don’t think it makes God’s existence 100% false, either. I’m aware that by worldly logic, it’s more likely that God does not exist. That’s why I’m looking at your reasons for thinking this.

  I think that the world is composed of molecules whose structure determines the hardness of each substance, as well as the physical state (gas, liquid, water) depending on its temperature. But as I have never conducted any experiments that would prove this to me, the only evidence I have is what people have told me, nothing solid that I’ve seen for myself.

  I believed it on a personal level, because I hated myself and thought I deserved suffering. When I reached a point where it was my responsibility to teach others, I tried to predict what their objections would be and find answers. I found no good answers. When I partook in Hospital chaplaincy, all the easy justifications tasted like dust in my mouth. When an infant suffers for it’s entire two month lifespan, what possible justification could there be?

  So you never found any benefits that came about as a result of suffering? What do you think about people who say that, despite their suffering, they still love God and they are glad that they can use their suffering to relate to people who are experiencing the same thing?

  I don’t have any justification for an infant’s suffering or premature death. I’m okay with my lack of understanding because I think it’s impossible to know God completely, although that doesn’t keep me from looking for answers and praying that someday he’ll give me understanding. When you were Christian, did you feel okay when you didn’t understand things, or was it something you struggled with? I’m not asking this to judge the strength of your faith in any way, because I know Christians who do struggle with being unable to understand things like this. I just want to know how you felt when you still believed.

  If I found evidence He exists, sure. I’m not sure whether or not I could worship Him again, but I could believe.

  What would that look like in your daily life? Believing in a God that you choose not to worship, I mean.

• 344. paleale  |  May 19, 2009 at 8:59 pm

  Kilter

  So at your times of strongest faith, did you think you could ever stop believing? And now that you have, do you believe you could ever go back to believing in the Christian God?

  I was not what we commonly referred to as a ‘nominal’ Christian. I had passion in my beliefs. I loved going to church. I enjoyed telling people about the lord. So no. I never, ever in my wildest dreams would have believed that I would be an atheist.

  As for going back to believing, I would love to. I really, really would. But it would literally take a miracle. An honest, true blue miracle.

• 345. kilter  |  May 19, 2009 at 9:10 pm

  Donny,

  Thanks for sharing, and I’m glad to hear that you’re so tolerant of other people’s faiths. I find it really encouraging that you are so comfortable allowing other people to believe what they like. I have a couple points/questions for you, if you don’t mind.

  What I don’t find is any Christians that have a very good understanding of their faith. Now, I know that this will bring the well read faithful down on me. What I mean is the average type Christian. You know the type that you are likely to meet are church. Most have not read their bibles, only using them to store obits and cards

  I completely agree that most Christians do not know enough about their faith, and I really wish they had enough passion for Christ to study the Bible and to really pursue Christ in their daily lives, instead of only on Sundays for an hour or so at church. Knowing that their actions are a problem for you because of the inconsistencies they present encourages me to try and be a better example of the Christian lifestyle.

  I became a de-con because the whole of religion thing is just to weird to ever be possible. I mean, come on now, I’d rather believe that the universe was made from a flower coming from the navel of Vishnu than anything else. It’s just a likely to be as the Genesis story.

  It is weird, isn’t it? I think about this all the time. So, in your life, what do you believe, if you don’t mind me asking? Do you hold to any principles or morals for yourself? What makes life worthwhile for you?

  I do find it strange that de-cons are addresses in such a way that they are on the constant defense.

  If this is directed at me, I’m sorry if what I’m writing comes off as offensive, because I don’t mean it to be, and I don’t want any of you to have to defend or explain yourselves to me. I’m just trying to understand the experience of de-converting and what kind of mindset you live with after leaving the church.

  If they are interested I’ll share, and yes I do try to share just not shove.
  Please all on you believers, we don’t think hell exists so we’re not worries a bit about going there. We don’t respond well to threats or the carrot and stick thing that seems to run so many peoples loves.

  I try to take the same approach to sharing my faith, although I often fail. My goal is to explain to someone unfamiliar with Christianity what it means to be Christian, and then, if they express interest, to encourage them to pursue it. Please understand, though, that the reason Christians often act pushy is because we do believe in hell, so it’s a lot harder for us to brush off a non-believer’s decision because we are worried about you going there, whether or not you are worried about it yourself. I don’t want anyone to believe just because they fear hell, but it does play into my desire to share my faith with people, and I’m not sure if that can be helped.

• 346. kilter  |  May 19, 2009 at 9:17 pm

  That is indeed what I was doing, and it is what many millions still do and will continue to do.

  Do you think there’s a chance that you’re deceiving yourself now?

  My initial “saved” experiences were not as dramatic as many I’ve known. On the proverbial ‘10 scale’ (0=no change; 10=instant missionary) I’d say I was a 6. Interestingly my felt experience was much more intense when I became Orthodox.

  But did you have those same feelings of a veil being lifted from your eyes? Or, to word it another way, what differences did you notice in your life before and after your conversion, if any?

  I read your articles, and you bring up some interesting points. I’m actually surprised that they don’t make me doubt God’s existence or his goodness. Assuming that you think I and all other Christians are fooling ourselves, why do you think we do this? Why am I able to believe despite my inability to understand God’s motivations, actions, etc.?

• 347. kilter  |  May 19, 2009 at 9:23 pm

  Writerdd,

  If creating suffering is not evil or immoral, than what is? Two consenting adults having sex outside of marriage? Christianity has a really frakked up idea about what evil is.

  That’s one of the real reasons I left. The “morality” I was taught just didn’t seem all that moral to me any more. It’s like black is white.

  Like I said to Quester, do you think that your parents were either evil or immoral when they punished you for disobeying them? Again, I’m asking this honestly, not rhetorically. Could you share your definitions or your views of evil and good?

• 348. kilter  |  May 19, 2009 at 9:26 pm

  Paleale,

  As for going back to believing, I would love to. I really, really would. But it would literally take a miracle. An honest, true blue miracle.

  When you hear of miracles that other people experience in current times, do you think of them as just coincidences? Or do you need the miracle to happen to you and not to someone else? What would constitute a miracle for you?

• 349. writerdd  |  May 19, 2009 at 9:39 pm

  Like I said to Quester, do you think that your parents were either evil or immoral when they punished you for disobeying them? Again, I’m asking this honestly, not rhetorically. Could you share your definitions or your views of evil and good?

  My parents never claimed to be perfect, all loving, all powerful beings. However, they did not harm me when I disobeyed them. My parents would have — and still would — do everything in their power to prevent harm and suffering from coming to me in any way. (I seriously hope that you were not abused by your parents.)

  Any God that would send someone to hell because they don’t believe that he is real is not an all-loving, perfect being either. He is a monster. If I did uncover evidence of his existence, I hope I would have the moral fortitude to fight against him. I would never volunteer to worship such a being.

  I don’t believe in absolute good and evil, per se. But I believe that morality should be based on alleviating and reducing suffering and pain and bringing joy and pleasure whenever possible. This is the only life we have and we need to make it as good as possible for as many people as possible. Anything else is immoral. It’s not black and white, nothing is. Sometimes one thing causes one person pleasure and another pain. There is no absolute morality and there are no easy answers.

• 350. Quester  |  May 19, 2009 at 10:25 pm

  Kilter,

  Did your parents punish you when you disobeyed them as a child? If so, are they evil? And I’m asking this seriously, not rhetorically. If you don’t think your parents are evil for causing you suffering, why not? Because the magnitude of the pain differs?

  My parents did punish me when I disobeyed them. I don’t think they were evil for doing so, partially because of the magnitude of the pain suffered, and partially because I could discern what I had done and how to avoid punishment in the future.

  Did your parents create contradictory lists of rules you could not possibly follow, then pour scalding water on you at random intervals while others told you that you deserved it? Did they also feed you at random intervals so you could never tell what you did to earn this blessing, while others told you that it was not earned but a free gift? Did you ever watch your parents enter a room with a steaming pot and realize you had no idea if you were going to get scalded or fed because you received either randomly and had no way of affecting what would happen to you? If you did experience any of this, or anything like this, why don’t you think your parents did evil things to you? I’m asking this seriously, not rhetorically. Would you be okay with your lack of understanding because you’d think it’s impossible to know your parents completely? Would you still trust them, because they’re your parents and you believe they love you and want what’s best for you?

  I know it doesn’t make it 50/50, but I don’t think it makes God’s existence 100% false, either. I’m aware that by worldly logic, it’s more likely that God does not exist. That’s why I’m looking at your reasons for thinking this.

  My reasons for thinking this include a complete lack of reasons to think otherwise. What reasons do you have for not believing in any other god?

  I think that the world is composed of molecules whose structure determines the hardness of each substance, as well as the physical state (gas, liquid, water) depending on its temperature. But as I have never conducted any experiments that would prove this to me, the only evidence I have is what people have told me, nothing solid that I’ve seen for myself.

  But you could have more evidence for this. The evidence exists. You could do the experiments. Do you not see this as different at all?

  So you never found any benefits that came about as a result of suffering?

  Sure I did. Have you never found suffering with no benefits you could discern?

  What do you think about people who say that, despite their suffering, they still love God and they are glad that they can use their suffering to relate to people who are experiencing the same thing?

  I am glad they’ve found a coping strategy that works for them and hope it wouldn’t turn upon them when the logic supporting this idea failed them.

  I don’t have any justification for an infant’s suffering or premature death. I’m okay with my lack of understanding because I think it’s impossible to know God completely, although that doesn’t keep me from looking for answers and praying that someday he’ll give me understanding. When you were Christian, did you feel okay when you didn’t understand things, or was it something you struggled with?

  Depends on the something. I was okay with not knowing for certain whether or not Mary was a virgin all her life, or just when she gave birth to Jesus. In the face of unreasonable suffering, I was not okay with my lack of understanding. I was filled with anguish and pain. I prayed fervently, read my Bible, spoke with clergy, went to pastoral care workshops, and cried out to God. Seeing that you’re okay with your lack of understanding in this area, in what way do you consider yourself moral? I don’t mean to insult you by asking this, I really am curious what sort of morality is okay with this sort of thing.

  What would that look like in your daily life? Believing in a God that you choose not to worship, I mean.

  That would depend on what sort of character that God exhibited.

• 351. kilter  |  May 19, 2009 at 10:27 pm

  My parents never claimed to be perfect, all loving, all powerful beings. However, they did not harm me when I disobeyed them. My parents would have — and still would — do everything in their power to prevent harm and suffering from coming to me in any way. (I seriously hope that you were not abused by your parents.)

  No, I was never abused, thankfully. But my parents punished me if I did something wrong — time-out, brief spanking — out of their love for me. They told me not to run into the street because they didn’t want me to get hit by a car, and if I did run out, they spanked me so that I would know not to do it again, to prevent greater suffering from coming to me. My point is that they caused me pain to teach me something and I’m glad that they did this. It makes sense to me that God would use the suffering we introduced into the world in the same way — take it into his own hands and give it to us in order to strengthen our faith in him, that he truly knows best. I understand that this does not explain every instance of suffering in the world and that you consider this suffering evil, but I want to share my view of it.

  Any God that would send someone to hell because they don’t believe that he is real is not an all-loving, perfect being either. He is a monster.

  So when you were talking about creating suffering earlier, were you talking about hell? I want to clarify because I was still talking about suffering on earth.

  So how would you expect an all-loving, perfect being to act towards those who denied his existence despite the testimonies of his followers? Again, I’m not asking rhetorically. Is your definition of a loving God one who gives every soul eternal life, regardless of what they did with their mortal lives?

• 352. orDover  |  May 19, 2009 at 11:20 pm

  So how would you expect an all-loving, perfect being to act towards those who denied his existence despite the testimonies of his followers?

  Testimony of followers is simply not adequate, especially if their lives are no different than your average person. Their prayers are not answered more. Their live are not more comfortable. They are not happier or more moral or even necessarily kinder. They have a story to tell, but other than that, there is no manifestation of verifiable evidence. And their story is competing with sev