I use to be a full on christian(see my blog ect for more background) I just wanted to type down the reasons in my head that made me deconvert and see what made others do it too!?

For me it was not the whole Creation Vs Evolution as I was one of those Christians who believed in evolution ect. 

So what did open my eyes to the truth?

The main thing for me was the logic of god and how its just doesn't stack up. And if there was a god it certainly wasn't one i would want to follow... So my following points are all on the assumption that as the bible says god is all knowing, loving and powerful. so why this all powerful, knowing and loving god:

  1. Create a world full of sickness and disease and pain. my old christian response was because we separated from god BUT god would have known we would reject him thus god knowingly created all that is bad in this world. An all powerful and all loving god would not do this. 
  2. ~It says god created each and everyone of us and has plans for our lives. Now if we reject god we go to hell for eternity. So why would god create you knowing that your going to reject him. He is essentially making you just to go to hell.. would a loving god do this?

Those are just two quick examples out of many more.

Secondly was the bible. Even when i did not take the bible literally e.g adam and eve ect.. there are certain contradictions and points that simply dont work. Remembering that gods word was the same 'then, today and forever more' 

  1. if gods word never changes why is he so different from the Old and new testament it just makes no sense unless god is bi polar or something!?
  2. why does god order murders for working on the sabbath (exodus. 35:2), kill your teenagers if they are disobedient (Deuteronomy21:18-21). Girls who are not virgins when they marry(Deuteronomy 22:12-21) endorse slavery and the beating of them(Exodus 21:20-21) yet in the new testament jesus is the total opposite e.g stopping the stoning of the lady.
  3. Twice in the bible God shows himself. e.g to thomas and peter. why no one since? why should they get the evidence they wanted to save them but god chooses no one else to since then!?
  4. Why are amputees never healed!?

again just a few quick ones from long list! I wish not to bore you! So what made you guys stop believing?

Kind Regards!

Tags: belief, exchristian, god, nogod

Views: 2213

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There are so many "Gods" out there. Which one is the true God?

So many gods, or so many human theories about God?  We've had lots of theories about other things, too.  Government.  Economics.  Science.

The three choices are arbitrary.  There are lots of other choices.  "We don't know yet".  "Some combination of the above."  "Something completely different but which has aspects of several of these things."  etc.

The Bible is a sort of history of how people's ideas of God changed over time, and grew deeper.   How ancient nomads' views developed , and in doing so became more universal.

I think we should all stop eating fast food. does that mean hundreds of years from now my quote will be in some book that is supposed to teach people how to live?

Maybe, if lots of other people find it helpful and meaningful for the long term. 

The music that we preserve, the works of literature we preserve, the ideas that we teach others are the ones that we as humans feel are the most useful, the most helpful, the most worth repeating.   There were lots of plays in the time of Shakespeare, but we chose to preserve those that spoke most effectively to the most people.

Similarly, there were lots and lots of oral history and later written narratives of early peoples as well.  We chose to preserve a small set of those in the Bible, and pass those along because they seemed most valuable.  Or, perhaps, those societies that chose to adopt a cultural tradition reflected by the biblical writings were more successful than other societies, and therefore the Bible was preserved and spread while other works were not.

Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and other high-drama anthropomorphic deities are failed ideas.  The societies failed, and the ideas were not successful enough to be preserved as social guidance.  Much like we no longer talk about phlogiston but instead talk about laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy, unsuccessful ideas (or ideas held by unsuccessful societies) are left behind.  We think conservation of energy is "real" while phlogiston is not because we as people have found conservation of energy to be more useful, over time, for more cases and more people.  So we preserve it by Telling our children and Teaching them how they should think about energy.  

Except for a few whacky people, we aren't upset that science has gotten things wrong in the past.  We don't argue "Science as in Aristotle, or Newton, or Einstein?  Which science is the real Science? Of course it will be YOUR science..."

Preserving our best and most successful ideas in writing, and teaching them to our children is all very human.  So is getting things wrong.   But just because it's very human doesn't mean that there isn't an underlying truth that we humans are trying to get at.  In fact, we claim that the success of the ideas means that there's an underlying truth.

The music that we preserve, the works of literature we preserve, the ideas that we teach others are the ones that we as humans feel are the most useful, the most helpful, the most worth repeating. There were lots of plays in the time of Shakespeare, but we chose to preserve those that spoke most effectively to the most people.

Nobody claims that God himself wrote or inspired Hamlet and that that the events depicted actually occurred, then founded a religion on that basis.

Shakespeare wrote fiction, presented it as fiction, and it is viewed as fiction: the work of a human being.

Similarly, there were lots and lots of oral history and later written narratives of early peoples as well.  We chose to preserve a small set of those in the Bible, and pass those along because they seemed most valuable. 

Bob is making a tacit claim here: the stories of the Bible were passed along for thousands of years, and still revered and studied by billions today, based on their own merit as a non-supernatural works of fiction.

There's only one problem: reality. The Bible was (and still is) passed along as the literal or inspired word of God-- a supernatural work of truth-- not as a work of fiction by human authors. There is no Gideon society leaving the complete works of Shakespeare in hotel rooms as handy reading material.

Source: Pew

Or, perhaps, those societies that chose to adopt a cultural tradition reflected by the biblical writings were more successful than other societies, and therefore the Bible was preserved and spread while other works were not.

Or, perhaps, the Christian Bible was preserved because the culture that adopted Christianity (the Roman Empire) was the most successful one.

But Bob has already credited theism with every important accomplishment of science and society in history, so why not credit the success of the Roman Empire to the Bible?

It's the penultimate Goddidit.

Or, perhaps, correlation is not causality. Bob is making another extravagant, unsupported claim on behalf of his religion.

Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and other high-drama anthropomorphic deities are failed ideas. 

Yahweh is a failed idea too, Bob. Unless you can successfully demonstrate that he exists.

The societies failed, and the ideas were not successful enough to be preserved as social guidance. 

You mean, except that the ancient Greeks with their failed gods invented democratic government and society.

Much like we no longer talk about phlogiston but instead talk about laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy, unsuccessful ideas (or ideas held by unsuccessful societies) are left behind.  We think conservation of energy is "real" while phlogiston is not because we as people have found conservation of energy to be more useful, over time, for more cases and more people.  So we preserve it by Telling our children and Teaching them how they should think about energy.  

Once again, Bob must compare his theism and religion-- unsupported claims which are based on nothing-- to the most successful and accomplished method we have for discovering and understanding empirical reality: science.

Except for a few whacky people, we aren't upset that science has gotten things wrong in the past.  We don't argue "Science as in Aristotle, or Newton, or Einstein?  Which science is the real Science? Of course it will be YOUR science..."

This is why science is so successful, Bob. If a claim is not supported it is rejected. If a claim initially thought to be true is later shown to be false, it is abandoned or altered accordingly. The science that wins is the one that's true.

Nobody has ever produced the slightest shred of support for the God claim. It's a failed claim. That millions of whacky people (including you) ignore this and cling to the God claim anyway does not make it true.

But just because it's very human doesn't mean that there isn't an underlying truth that we humans are trying to get at.  In fact, we claim that the success of the ideas means that there's an underlying truth.

We do not decide reality by democratic vote, Bob. That the God claim is a popular bestseller does not make it true.

That you make wild, unsupported claims-- including falsely crediting theism with virtually every significant discovery or accomplishment-- does not make the God claim true.

That you willfully ignore all of these things does not make the God claim true. It simply means you're just as intellectually dishonest as you've always been.

" If I don't believe the Bible do I not believe in God?"

This just means you don't believe in the biblical god, Yahweh/Jesus.  

It's perfectly ok to think Jesus was a great moral teacher, if you like things he's said.  But it seems you are at least knowledgeable of the atrocities that were commanded by god, Yahweh, in the Old Testament.  

Also those peculiar passages in the New Testament that mention how women shouldn't speak in church and should obey their husbands at all costs.  

You may certainly believe in a non-biblical god, but I will bet you that sooner than later you'll give that up too.  

I would encourage you to create a new topic about what you actually believe and asks us atheists to pose questions, critique your understanding, if you would be interested in that.  May give you a better perception of what you believe and why you believe it.

I used to try justify the questionable aspects of the Bible to myself. The Bible, after all, is a book that has been passed down for centuries by man, translated and retranslated by man, edited by man, even copied and recopied by hand until the creation of the printing press. Surely, it was only logical that in all that tinkering a bevy of manmade errors must have been introduced over the years.

I reckoned to myself that any morally dubious or blatantly contradictory passages could potentially be explained away as mistakes, mistranslations, or covert editorializing by the flawed human beings who had passed these stories down through the years. But, I was eventually struck by the nagging feeling that I was really just making excuses.

What ultimately did religion in for me, though, was a much more basic question of logic. I had no more evidence to support my idea of God than did the Hindus or the Shintoists or the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, or Norsemen. I was unable to disprove any other religion any more than I could disprove my own.

I realized that, from a scientific perspective, it isn't enough that anything be nondisprovable. It isn't enough to have a theory passed down over the years. A scientist has to show evidence. Scientifically, one has to demonstrate that there exists some damn good, compelling reason to believe in something before one can expect others to support the idea. Einstein had to demonstrate mathematically that his theory of relativity was capable of accurately describing the ways in which the universe seemed to work. Darwin needed fossil records and biological observations. Without such evidence, there would be no good reason for anyone to buy into his theory of natural selection.

Religion didn't have any of that.

Still, I resisted the pull of atheism for a while. Subconsciously, I could see what directions my thoughts were heading in, but I was so unnerved by the thougt of losing my faith that I basically just stopped thinking about religion altogether.

After a couple of years of avoiding the topic, I was finally able to admit to myself that I was, indeed, an atheist.

It's a scary thing to lose the basic building blocks that create the very foundations for one's view of the universe, but I was ultimately able to replace those blocks with a sturdier foundation of science, logic, and basic human decency. This new foundation is more satisfying, more rewarding, and above all, more rational than a bunch of stories handed down from people in the Bronze Age.

I know exactly what you mean. Its crazy when you everything you lived your life by and for since a kid is suddenly gone. But im happy now than i ever have been! 

Since I tend to be a social gadfly, and grave the odd, sometimes twisted, and 'fringe', mostly as a way to 'find myself', mostly on the 'outs', I experienced a Creationist talk given by a 'biologist' about 1981.

We were offered a very enlightening view of history, where the 'flood' was described as 'the sinking of all the continents over a 40 day period'. Being a very young buck, at the time, I started to ask questions, such as, 'what did the continents sink into?', 'why did they sink?', and my favorite, 'why did they come back?'

Of course, this very enlightened scientist offered his learned answers with, 'god', and 'do anything he wishes', with only minor excursions into hydraulogy, fault lines, and educated opinions. It was clear that asking questions was seen as 'disrepectful', and 'unchristian', while I figured that with my only immature understandings, that I would do better with a class in geophysics at a quiet and forested institution where questions are 'food', not 'poisen'.

I bet you can guess the church fellowship that hosted this guy with hardly breaking a sweat... starts with a number less than 8, and more than 6. ;p)
If I just picked one randomly, would that be ok?

I like 'ZOT!' alot. I bet you did not see that one coming..;p).

What ever happens, 'Zot!' could work as either a curse, a threat, or a blessing! We could even replace the 'Darwin Award!', with 'ZOT!', and leave it at that.

Everyting a theist mentioned 'god's will', we could just responde with 'ZOT!'. Sadly it might start replacing other words as global warming kicks in: 'ZOT!' the ground water, 'ZOT!' the coast lines......]

With a little immagination, and ~50 years, most of the English language could be dispenced with all together. Ok you get my point, can we say 'ab--sur--d'.....

"ZOT! is dead."

"ZOT! is dad."

Good enough!

One better, create a 'word' to refer to a concept or 'thing'. Use that word for a long time, pretending that the 'thing' actually exists. People start thinking about the 'thing', as if it exists, but is only a 'construct'. In time the 'construct' takes on a 'life' of it's own, by people referring to it, referencing it in relation to events, and acting, as if, it has power in the world. In a short time, without the needed doubt to correct this travesty, the 'construct' takes on the familiarity of stone, people, trees, ect, with the pretense dismissed.

Then along come trouble makers like 'atheists' to muck up the pot. Asking questions about 'existence', 'truth', 'reality', sadly tar and feathering, become part of the kick back.

How dare 'atheists' question something that 'must' exist. because most believe it does?    

Using rationalizations you can make arguments either way.
But if God is real his existence is not subject to the outcome of rationalizations.
Simply our belief in him is subjected.

Rationalizations notwithstanding, you are still faced with the awe and mystery of how something made out of inanimate matter such as humans is alive, conscience and can project plans into the future. Thus if scientist can make life out of inanimate matter let alone, give it consciousness, it would be tantamount to showing the existence of God superfluous to existence.

Using rationalizations you can make arguments either way.

The person asserting the claim that God exists has the burden of proof, so that's the only direction in which the argument is relevant.

But if God is real his existence is not subject to the outcome of rationalizations.

This is simply defining God as exempt from reason (and shirking your burden of proof that God exists at all).

Simply our belief in him is subjected.

To what?

Rationalizations notwithstanding, you are still faced with the awe and mystery of how something made out of inanimate matter such as humans is alive, conscience and can project plans into the future.

This is the classic "God of the gaps".

The theist cites some bit of ignorance regarding nature-- in this case abiogenesis, consciousness and time perception-- and pins God to that. We don't understand it, so Goddidit.

Thus if scientist can make life out of inanimate matter let alone, give it consciousness, it would be tantamount to showing the existence of God superfluous to existence.

You've still got it backward, Michael. You claim God exists. It falls to you to provide evidence that God exists, not to scientists to show that God does not exist, or that God is superfluous.

But on the subject of God serving no purpose? Not once in any scientific study, research or investigation in history has the supernatural ever turned out to be the explanation for anything. God has less and less to do as our ignorance of nature vanishes.

"Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

RSS

Atheist Sites

Forum

What is the Destiny of Intelligence?

Started by Roy Plisko in Philosophy. Last reply by Davis Goodman 3 hours ago. 62 Replies

conspiracy theories

Started by Seth Richardson in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 10 hours ago. 20 Replies

Criticize the ideology, not the person?

Started by Erock68la in Small Talk. Last reply by Erock68la 11 hours ago. 28 Replies

6 YEARS!

Started by Dan in Announcements. Last reply by Pope Beanie 15 hours ago. 6 Replies

The Movie Kiss: Romance or Rape?

Started by Unseen in Society. Last reply by Pope Beanie 16 hours ago. 12 Replies

Blog Posts

Rounding Up?

Posted by Carol Foley on November 20, 2014 at 3:17am 2 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service