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: 2414

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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."

Reply:

I am speaking of rationalizing. Based on the questions and observations at the onset of the post. the author then arrives at his conclusion. This does not consitute a proof.

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)."

Reply:

No, nothing is exempt from reasoning or rationalization.

Only rationalization does not constitute a proof either way.

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"."

Reply.

Just saying that rationalization should be deeper and encompass mysteries. But either way human rationalization is imperfect.
Scientific proves are more structured. unfortunately, God is unfalsifiable.

"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."

Reply:

No once again God is unfalsiable through scientific proof.

However if you want to engage in a philosphical discussion or debate, lets put all things on the table.

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."

Reply:

The debate can only be philosophical. It is pointless bringing the invisible into a scientific discussion unless it is dark matter and energy. At least these have measurable impact on the real world.

"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."

Reply,

Scientifically correct. But in philosophical circles the jury isn't in.

""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"

Reply:

The last mysteries are the hardest.

-What is life?

-how does the brain work?

-Why does the eye see with color consistency.?

-how does a 3D image formulate in the brain (3D images do not exist outside of the brain)?

-how do we persist as an identity when our cells are replaced every 7 or more so years.?

-etc.

Gallup: "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."

Michael: I am speaking of rationalizing. Based on the questions and observations at the onset of the post. the author then arrives at his conclusion. This does not consitute a proof.

It doesn't matter.

Toby specifically states in the OP that he stopped believing because the God claim fails to pass muster: "The main thing for me was the logic of god and how its just doesn't stack up."

Toby didn't say God is disproved, he said God is unproved. He points out that the God claim is insufficiently supported. The burden of proof still lies exactly where it belongs: on the God claimants who fail to support their claim.

 

You will never prove nor disprove the existence of God. You as an individual can only rationalize or philosophize that he exists. Some may rationalize that God exists based on what they perceive as "fulfilled prophecy". Also there are categories under the general heading of philosophy that pose a premise of a higher truth.  And if you are a fan of Morgan Freeman's "Through the Worm Hole" ,many Physicist posit some higher true that is the basis of their theories, many of which are currently  unfalsifiable.  The most famous in recent times, is the Multiverse. Others are; The laws of physics are immutable truths that existed prior to the universe, Our universe is a hologram, The laws of physics have been imposed by some higher conductor, etc.

 

 

Theoretical physicists aren't claiming these things are true, let alone a "higher truth" (whatever that means), or that such theories are proved. They are speculating and admitting they are speculating.

This is also irrelevant. Physics is a natural science concerned with empirical reality which, according to you, has nothing to do with the God claim. This does not support your claim that God exists.

Dismissed.

Not so fast not only are you your own judge and jury, you are wrong!

These physicists are postulating things very dear to their academic pursuits, this is why they appear on the program.

Moreover, in this thread, you keep accusing me of making  a claim. This is not a true statement. What I have brought into discussion, is that, though God can not be brought into a scientific proof, he most certianly can be brought into a philosophical discussion. I am sure you are acquainted with philosophers such as Sir Francis Bacon. 

You are  arrogant in your athiesm and always on the attack using canned well document prose that everyone is already familiar with.

If I were making a scientific claim, have at it.

Michael, are you a non-believer in regards to all gods except the Christian god? If so, how did you dismiss all the rest of them?

Could it be that it was just a matter of where and when you were born, who you knew and how you were raised that you came to believe in the Christian god?

"Dismissed"

Stop being your own judge and jury, it is very offensive and distracts from your points. Let others pat you own your back, please stop breaking your arm!. This does not consitute a debate.  Please continue to have at but keep it hermatically sealed, because you are coming across as a legend in your own mind. until you change your tactics I am not going to continue this debate. 

@Toby, you raise good questions, that many have asked. Asking questions is a good thing, whether it's about God, or about the universe. I often ask myself why the universe seems to have a hard time deciding whether things are waves or particles without a sentient being taking a measurement (one of the philosophical conundrums of quantum mechanics).

I think good parents allow their children to go out into the world, even knowing that they will experience suffering, and pain, and a risk of death... even knowing they may inflict pain on others. We do this out of love. The love of a parent recognizes the freedom of the child... the child's need to learn, and experience, and grow is the higher good... higher than keeping them always safe and bubble wrapped.

Why should God be any different?

Just a thought.

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service