Deconversion experiences

Willy Wonka's actor has OCD to? Hrm, that's a new one to me. Actually, the wikipedia article states even Maarten Luther allegedy suffered from unpleasant intrusive thoughts.This is somewhat saddening. I sometimes wonder if many people suffer from it in a mild manner, especially when they are under heavy pressure.

Hey GDR,Sorry about the late reply. I be busy. Anyway, I read up a little on CS Lewis and NT Wright, and I've concluded that if I were still on the Christian bandwagon, this is the type of Christianity I think I'd most likely espouse. I can see why you like it. (except for Lewis's trilemma; is there such thing as a false trichotomy?)But unfortunately, I'd no sooner cut off my own arm than make myself abandon reason and believe something for which I can see absolutely no evidence. And again, I think no matter how fervently you believe that "all those other guys" are teaching the wrong kind of Christianity, they're all thinking the exact same thing about you. Thus, we have a scriptural, dogmatic 300-way stalemate within Christianity. You're all scrambling to push each other out of the way when someone like me says, "Would the real Christianity please step forward?" Everything within religion is subjective, and logic tells me to run for the hills. Surely you see these two as not mutually exclusive... Are those the only two options in your opinion? Do you need to choose one or the other, or can you enjoy both, or neither? Well said, especially the last part. Well GDR, there's a big 'ol elephant in the middle of the room, and its name is if. I commend you for qualifying many of your beliefs in this way (as opposed to literalist theology--if is not included in their vocabulary), and to be perfectly honest, I'd think this is the way I'd think if I were a believer.Alas, I am not, but I respect your tone and ability to view opposing viewpoints from a rational perspective.Thanks.Have a good one. Edited by Apothecus, : deleted apostrophe

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

There is, but arguably Lewis didn't commit it. He wrote: Now as he formulated it, the argument is directed against someone who at least thinks that the Gospels are an accurate account of the teachings of some non-mythical person called Jesus.In which case Lewis has a point. Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels was not just some moral philosopher who went around talking about love and forgiveness. He also made specific grandiose claims about his own cosmic significance such as: "No man shall come to my Father except through me". Anyone who wants to proclaim themselves a fan of the teachings of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels has to swallow that one too.It's not Lewis's fault that a zillion halfwitted fundies have skipped this step and gone straight on to the trilemma.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There is no doubt that there are unending differences in the beliefs of various Christian groups. I can see where it makes being part of the atheistic world comfortable, as you have nothing to disagree on, which frees up a lot of time to argue with the theists. I think the fact that there are differences is an indication that within that framework of belief there is truth. I like what N T Wright says in his talks. He says that "probably about a third of what he says is wrong, but the problem is he doesn't know which third it is. It seems to me that this is true about so much and even in science. As an outsider to the scientific world it does seem to me that the more that is learned the more it is realized how much more there is to know. I love reading about QM and relativity but it has made me realize that the world we live in is nothing like what we perceive.I think that one of the problems is that religion gets tangled up with nationalism. It makes me a little uncomfortable to see a countries flag and Christian symbols held up together as complimentary equals. Christ taught that ultimately the enemy, (the enemy being evil itself), is overcome by sacrificial love. The message that you are loving someone is difficult to get across when at the same time you are dropping bombs on them. When we try and rationalize God's interest with our national interests then we can wind up justifying all sorts of things in the name of Christianity that IMHO can't be. I think that we can also see this in many of the OT stories.It seems to me that much of Christian belief is subjective. I believe that the one essential element of the Christian faith is the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Without the resurrection Christianity becomes a Jewish sect IMHO, as Jesus becomes just another prophet. If we accept the resurrection as an historical fact we then start to look at everything else, including the Bible through that lens.I contend that there is a case to be made for the resurrection, but that case can only be made if one accepts that it is possible at all. If we start from the premise that it cannot happen under any circumstances then obviously we have to look for other starting points for our beliefs. I see them as the only two options but I think we all, to varying degrees, favour love of self. Hopefully though, and I believe this to be the case, mankind as a whole is excruciatingly slowly moving away from that. As individuals we make choices everyday that fall somewhere between the two. I keep going back to the basic question of what God wants of us and that is to humbly love kindness and to do justice. (Micah 6:8) I suppose we have to always put in an if, or we will never progress. From your perspective you have to start with, 'if there is no god'. I have to start with, 'if there is a god', but as a Christian I also have to start with, 'if the resurrection of Jesus is an historical fact'.Thanks for the discussion.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I am just have finished watching the youtube series of evid3nc3. It was a interesting series of video's. It filled some holes for me. You don't always become a true atheist without a gradual process.I commented there, and detailled my other argument in the comments. I am going to do some copy pasting, to put it on here to.First things first, my argument leans of a theistic evolutionists view. Young earth creationism also doesn't make sense to me.A major argument some atheists may hold, but that I largely formed by myself is as follows: we are beings with biological brains. I've seen no evidence or function for a soul. And yet, because we were created with evolution.. Even monkeys display basic vices as jealousy and anger. To summarize, we're flawed by nature. And our rationale is ease to influence as well, and emotions cloud our judgement. I'm just wondering..In the bible God is shown to be disappointed with humans. It seems he didn't expect it to happen like it did at times. But humans are flawed creatures, and we had to build civilization from the ground up, in a often harsh world. But human cultures that developed independent from each other show the same flaws in humanity. What I am wondering is.. how did God expect this setup to go right? And he would be able to see what would happen before creation.God is also omnipotent, he could create us in a infinite number of ways. And in the end, God found humanity so sinful, that he resorted to have Jesus atone for humanity. And if this does not make sense to me.. And it's the core teaching. If this does not make sense.. nothing does. There also other things I find odd in the bible, that add insult to injury. It makes it seem even more strange to me.Obliviously, this argument is still very unrefined, but the more I learn about human psychology, and the workings of the brain, the more convinced I get..

As a Christian, that argument never made any sense to me either, so it seems like a great candidate for ideas to just throw away.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I think that it is a common Christian fallacy that God knows what I might do on a whim tomorrow. If you read through the Bible God is continuously reacting to what people have done. The various characters in the OT were continuously negotiating with God. Jesus prayed to the Father. What would be the point of prayer if all of creation was pre-programmed?I believe that God brought humans into existence, (whether by an evolutionary process or not), to be co-stewards of creation. Frankly, we have no idea of what options God might have had in bringing our world into existence. I think that another way of looking at it is this. The ultimate power that evil, as exercised by humans, has over you is death. Jesus showed that in the end evil does not have that ultimate power. Jesus went to Jerusalem knowing full well what would happen, went to the cross, died and came out the other side with a resurrected body. He defeated death on the cross.Also if Jesus had just died normally, and had not done what he did on the cross and afterwards it would just have meant that He was just another failed messiah or a prophet with messianic delusions. In either case his kingdom message would be meaningless, which in turn would mean that there would be no church in existence today.Edited by GDR, : typo

I have to say, I'm rather relieved I am now open about my atheistic thoughts, but it's still very confusing. Plus I am still a little in limbo. Being atheist has implications on thoughts about the bible, and life in general. I'm still a little afraid to take a firm atheistic stance on them. It's going to take a while before I've sorted it all out.On a general note, I have been posting in this topic often lately. I would like to post more on the forum, but I am not really really to debate about certain things. Also haven't got much experience in it. Any suggestions?Now I have taken a definitive stance on it, I could start by reviving my old topic of a few months ago about our biologically flawed nature.

For me, it is all an on-going process.
There are things I have thought about and things I haven't; things I have taken a stance on and things I haven't.
I find it makes life more interesting. The only real advice I have is: "Don't rush your replies".
I find that if I leave my initial reply for a few minutes, I will re-write it and the quality can be massively increased.
I also find that a second read of the original post can show a misunderstanding on my part. (Accidentally misunderstanding your opponent's point makes your reply worthless.)And always use the 'Preview' button!

Hi WSW24, and welcome to the fray, If I haven't already said it. Naturally. Take things as they come, and don't be afraid to wait for more evidence\alternatives. Research.See what you can find to support your position and then check that for validity. When you do, consider asking yourself what you mean by flawed. A lot of times how you frame a question frames your answer.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

yeah thanks.The research thing is a little troubling though.I do not know enough sources yet. And I'm only 18, so perhaps it's better I try to debate a little, but sit back and observe for the most part.Alright, I try to write something in that topic soon.

As long as you keep looking for answers to question as opposed to answers to questions, all will be okay. Beliefs, like life, evolve over time.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi WSW24, A resource for biology\evolution that I like is:An introduction to evolution - Understanding EvolutionThis is a well organized website with a lot of information that is up to date with modern science. This should help you vet concepts you see discussed on the various threads discussing biology & evolution from the viewpoint of a university that teaches the science.A couple of resources for logic that I like are:http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm andhttp://usabig.com/autonomist/fallacies.htmlJust reading through them you will likely see how these apply to many arguments that have been made by various people, politicians, and tv advertisements, and help you learn to recognize them in order to review arguments for their value. We don't have the luxury of hands on review of empirical evidence on these forums, but we can look at the logic of the arguments to at least see that they are valid constructions.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

The individual who had started the Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion topic is fixated on the idea of one single reason for deconversion.General question: thinking back on your own deconversion, was it really just one thing that caused it? Or was it many things, which added up to the point of making the final decision? Or one thing that had started the process of discovering many other things that added up to the point of making that final decision?

The philosophy of the perpetual journey - never to arrive at a destination.Presumably this belief is subject to evolution?