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: 2246

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And when you say "moral and good", what do you mean by that?  

Ethics, Bob.

How can you tell? 

Observing behavior and its results.

On what basis do you judge that another human being is "moral" or "good"?

The continuum of well-being and harm.

Drive a bus full of kids to school for an education? That generally results in well-being. Blow up a bus full of kids for God? That generally results in harm. 

We judge on a case by case basis.

When you say that you believe that reason and analysis is better than prayer, the next question is "better than prayer at what?"  

Virtually everything.

Empty belly? Tornado coming? Sending a rocket to the moon? Psycho with a gun?

Say a prayer for food, stronger trailer parks, lunar levitation and bullet-proof skin. See where that gets you.

Nothing fails like prayer.

Tools, ways of thinking, all have places where they are useful and places where they aren't very useful. Praying at the oncoming train isn't very useful.

What is prayer very useful for, Bob?

We live in a society that was built on a foundation of theistic thought...

Name one accomplishment of a believer that could not have been accomplished by a non-believer.

...so that our notions of everything from "morality" to natural law are a product of that history. 

Name one good deed performed by a believer that could not have been performed by a non-believer.

Name one example in nature shown to be a product of God or belief in God.

If we are going to dump the foundations of all of that...

There are no 'foundations' as you describe them, Bob.

This is simply you crediting belief in God with every important accomplishment of science and society in history. If you can't support the point you haven't made one.

Dismissed.

...and replace it with an assumption that God(s) are non-existent, describe to me how that theory is substantively better.  

This is a burden of proof fallacy wrapped in a strawman fallacy.

Atheism is not a "theory" any more than disbelief in leprechauns is a "theory" or that disbelieving that Elvis is still alive is a "theory". Atheism is disbelief in the God claim. That's all.

YOU claim God is essential for morality, society and natural law. It falls to you to demonstrate this is true, not for anyone else to demonstrate that it's false or to defend a stance that you dishonestly attribute to others.

Dismissed.

You've thrown off the imaginary celestial authoritarian (and I agree with you, that is imaginary), now what?

Now nothing. God no more needs a replacement than cancer.

Dismissed.

@Gallup, this was the first time that I've seen...

I've been an agnostic atheist for most of my life, Bob. I'm fairly sure I've mentioned it around here before, a few dozen times over.

...you admit that a God claim is unproved (and unprovable) in a scientific epistemological framework. I would agree.

Let's be clear, Bob. I said: "I'm an agnostic atheist because the God claim is insufficiently supported, by science or anything else."

Note that "anything else" is a rather large category for supporting a claim. I didn't limit the proving grounds to science, although if the God claim is true and if other religious claims are true they should withstand the highest standards of scrutiny like any other hypothesis that is true.

Then you went back and reverted to your old way of looking for proof of God. I'm wondering which it is?

It's neither. Science is the highest standard; by far the most successful means we have for discovering, understanding and utilizing empirical reality.

There are other standards, such as the philosophy of classical antiquity, but they are lower standards in that they're not as successful or as concerned with empirical reality. This is important because an imaginary God is on equal footing (and about as true and important) as Harry Potter or Gandalf the Wizard.

We theists aren't looking for proofs of God and don't really care about them.

Yeah, I know. We've covered your indifference to science, logic, reason, evidence and responsibility already.

Oh, we have the Thomistic "prime mover" stuff or C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity stuff to think about, but we all recognize those things aren't logical proofs of God so much as formulations of aspects of theistic philosophy.

I notice you're not trotting them out for a good working over, either.

As I've tried to explain before, God is a postulate, a foundational assumption for an epistemological frame.

You didn't explain anything, Bob. Not in the sense that an explanation means a line of reasoning that leads to a deeper understanding. You assert. You insist. You assume. But on 'God is a postulate', you firmly refuse to explain, not just once, but again and again and again and again and again. You cut and run every time. 

You left an awful lot of blood on the tracks in your last half-dozen "God is a postulate" train wrecks, Bob. You don't get to just ignore that, come back, and start all over like none of it ever happened. You lost. Badly. And not for lack of opportunity to explain. You're not saying anything new here.

We can no more prove God's existence than we can prove that the universe exists...

You're actually claiming the evidence for the universe-- which literally consists of everything in the observable universe-- is the same as the evidence for God?

You're insane, Bob. But at least you're entertaining.

...that mathematical lines exist or that the postulates of Quantum Mechanics are "true."

Likewise, we cannot prove the existence of Fred Flintstone, or that the postulates of Astrology are "true".

While some philosophers may get hung up on whether the universe exists and some atheists might get hung up on whether God exists, most of us are content to take existence and some other fundamentals as a given. What we're really interested in is whether the framework built on those assumptions is useful.

Utility is no support, Bob. The usefulness of a lie-- like your personalized palmistry forecast, Dumbo's magic feather, or the discount price I can offer you on the Brooklyn bridge-- does not make it true.

So as a physicist, I take the existence of the universe as a given without proof...

Cripes. I think I just pulled a muscle laughing.

....and assume without justification that my observations of the universe are measures of an underlying reality.

That we have no choice-- in addition to lack of any good reason or evidence to think that the universe doesn't truly exist-- is a pretty good justification, Bob.

But to assert the God claim on the same basis-- that we have no choice to but assume God, as we have no choice but to operate within and according to the laws of an ostensibly empirical universe-- is absurd.

We have evidence that the universe exists and we as a matter of necessity must operate within the universe as though it exists. We have no evidence that God exists, none, let alone that God is necessary to explain anything.

Yep, I also along the way had to reject the (really bad and simplistic!) science I was sometimes taught in elementary school, just as most of us here have rightly come to reject the (really bad and simplistic!) versions of Christianity that are sometimes taught to children or naive adults. So I agree with most atheists when they reject the simplistic (and sometimes toxic) religion of their youth, as many posters to this thread describe.

Bob, I say this without overstatement. Nobody has ever presented a "version" of Christianity that did not top or rank high on the list of stupidest things that I have ever heard. I mean "stupid" not as an insult, but as the factual descriptor that means "lacking intelligence or reason".

For added perspective, a close family member of mine was a lay officer at a Catholic seminary near the town where I grew up. Catholics with doctorates in theology and philosophy-- the men who educated future Catholic priests and wrote textbooks on Catholic theology-- sat at my dinner table for hours, sometimes as often as two or three times per week. The head of the seminary used to come with my family on summer vacations.

Your "version" of Christianity was all they ever talked about and never at an elementary school level. It's unlikely you could tell me much about Christianity that I hadn't heard (and rigorously questioned) by my late teenage years. That's part of what made me a non-believer: the top dogs knew and professed their product so thoroughly.

My question in turn would be, if you take non-belief in gods as your fundamental premise, what does that get you?

I don't take non-belief in Gods as my fundamental premise. A premise is a statement accepted as true and used as the basis of an argument. I'm not making an argument. I don't have to.

I've already explained that my atheism is not a positive claim, but an acknowledgement of your (seemingly endless) failure to support your theism, which is a positive claim with a burden of proof.

As I said: God is unproved, not disproved.

Dismissed.

What system of thought results? How is that system of thought at all useful? What questions or problems does it answer?

These are all complex question fallacies. Lack of belief in God is not a "system" any more than lack of belief in astrology is a "system" or disbelief that Elvis is still alive is a "system".

Dismissed.

So far, each time I have asked that question, the answer has been that it isn't a system of thought....

Yes. But you keep ignoring the clear and reasonable answer (that lack of belief in God is not a "system") and repeating the same question. We have a name for that, Bob: insanity.

Dismissed.

...it's just that gods don't exist.

That's a strawman fallacy. I didn't claim "that gods don't exist". You claim that God exists and cannot support your claim.

Dismissed.

For me, it's not rational to buy into a premise that fails to yield any useful results.

You do not get to have a special version of rationality just "for you", Bob. Case in point: "rational" means thinking or arguing in a logical manner. That I point this out to you knowing it'll fail to yield any useful results does not mean reason itself is irrational. It means you're off your rocker.

Dismissed.

Not believing in a god does not have to be the starting point for a system of thought.  I am an atheist and I do not sit around trying to figure out the logic of any beliefs arising from a negative. 

It does not trouble me in the least.  and by the way, I am a very happy and content person (other than detesting  all religion)

I have never heard a theist give me any reason whatsoever for believing in a god.  Your starting point of assuming that a god exists and proceeding from there strikes me as exceedingly simplistic and naive.  I will say one thing for it though.  Saves a lot of wear and tear on the brain cells.

Not believing in a god does not have to be the starting point for a system of thought.

Of course not.  In fact, I would argue that it can't be the starting point for a system of thought.

So what is?

I have never heard an atheist give me any reason for believing in anything else but God.  Your starting point of assuming that a god does not exist seems to me to be juvenile rebellion which proceeds nowhere.  It offers no inspiration, it offers no grounding for common ethics, no impetus to self-sacrifice, no obligation to compassion, no hope or courage in adversity, no solace in grieving, no long-term basis for society, no rationale for personal improvement, no obligation to Justice, no foundation for science or natural law... save only those things that you borrow from religious culture, wittingly or (usually) not.

It's amusing pasttime in sophomoric deconstruction, sure.  It's just not a useful theory or system of thought.

So to return to the original subject of the thread, that's why I haven't stopped believing.  Atheism does not offer a subjectively or objectively more successful alternative.

Of course not. In fact, I would argue that [disbelief in God] can't be the starting point for a system of thought.

Note that Bob has just reversed himself, having gone from implying that atheism is a system of thought-- a point which I just corrected him on-- to arguing that it can't be (as I had just pointed out).

So what is?

had mentioned a system of thought (for discovering and understanding empirical reality) based on the standards of "science, evidence, logic, reason and responsibility". I had also mentioned that as a theist you abandon these high standards altogether.

I have never heard an atheist give me any reason for believing in anything else but God.

That's because atheists aren't in the "anything else" sales business, Bob. God is the product you sell.

I've provided the reason (many times over) why I don't buy it: God is unproved. Most recently, I pointed out that you have no science, evidence, logic or reason to support the God claim.

You claim we've never given you a reason, but this is simply willful ignorance on your part. It's perfectly reasonable to reject an unsupported claim. You have no legitimate response, so you deny it ever happened.

Dismissed.

Your starting point of assuming that a god does not exist seems to me to be juvenile rebellion which proceeds nowhere.

This is a strawman fallacy.

Atheism is not an assumption any more than it's a "system".

Dismissed.

[Disbelief in God] offers no inspiration, it offers no grounding for common ethics, no impetus to self-sacrifice, no obligation to compassion, no hope or courage in adversity, no solace in grieving, no long-term basis for society, no rationale for personal improvement, no obligation to Justice, no foundation for science or natural law...

Likewise, disbelief in astrology, leprechauns, phrenology and bigfoot offers no inspiration, grounding for common ethics, etc.

Dismissed.

...save only those things that you borrow from religious culture, wittingly or (usually) not.

No, Bob.

This is you hysterically claiming your religion as the sole source of inspiration, ethics, self-sacrifice, compassion, hope, courage, solace, basis for society, personal improvement, justice, science and natural law... without any support whatsoever.

Dismissed (with much laughter).

It's amusing pasttime in sophomoric deconstruction, sure.

You are indeed a source of endless amusement, Bob. This time it's that you're claiming superiority for yourself while standing amid your record of demonstrable failure and fallacy in this thread.

It's just not a useful theory or system of thought.

Exactly, Bob. Atheism is neither a theory nor a system of thought.

You only ignore explanations to the contrary and persistently insist that it is, which is willful ignorance, a strawman fallacy, and extremely funny.

Dismissed.

So to return to the original subject of the thread, that's why I haven't stopped believing. Atheism does not offer a subjectively or objectively more successful alternative.

You've still got it backward, Bob. My lack of belief in God is not a life stance any more than is my lack of belief in leprechauns. Atheism is without content.

My atheism is the more successful alternative in that it accurately describes your miserable failure to support the God claim. That's all it is. If you dispute this, show me where you've ever supported the God claim using any of the standards I mentioned above.

Dismissed.

You've still got it backward, Bob. My lack of belief in God is not a life stance any more than is my lack of belief in leprechauns. Atheism is without content.

That's a very long way to get back to my question, but I think you've got this right.

You are concerned with establishing that the "God claim" is not provable, which everyone, theist and atheist alike, already agrees on. Congratulations, we have established the obvious!

You also admit that atheism is without content, and so has nothing to recommend it as a better idea. That is my view as well. It's just sophomoric deconstruction.

That's a very long way to get back to my question, but I think you've got this right [that atheism is without content].

I am right and you're still wrong.

You've also reversed yourself yet again after previously claiming that atheism is a "theory" or "system of thought".

You are concerned with establishing that the "God claim" is not provable,

This is a strawman fallacy wrapped in a burden of proof fallacy.  I don't have any concern with establishing anything.

You are concerned with establishing your claim that God exists. You fail miserably every time. That does not concern me in the least (although it does keep me entertained).

Dismissed.

which everyone, theist and atheist alike, already agrees on. Congratulations, we have established the obvious!

This is a strawman fallacy.

A Google search on "scientific proof for God" returns over 75 million results, many of which consist of claims of having proof that God exists or does not exist. There is no universal agreement. Your statement is demonstrably false (and ridiculous).

Dismissed.

You also admit that atheism is without content, and so has nothing to recommend it as a better idea.

I also admitted that lack of belief in leprechauns is without content. Disbelief in leprechauns is better than belief in leprechauns because there's no reason or evidence that leprechauns exist. The same goes for cold fusion, the loch ness monster and astrology. That's another demonstrably false (and ridiculous) statement.

Dismissed.

That is my view as well. It's just sophomoric deconstruction.

That's an ad hominem attack. You do not establish your position as superior using content-free logical fallacies.

Dismissed.

You're on a roll, Bob.

Gallap's Mirror sees everything as being equivalent to a scientific claim, to establish a strawman that he can pull canned well documented proses on you that everyone knows and yawns at. 

Gallap's Mirror sees everything as being equivalent to a scientific claim...

You're not a very good liar, Michael.

I often include the God claim alongside leprechauns, Santa Claus, and multiverse theory, while specifically noting that the imaginary and theoretical are not scientific claims.

Note that in this very thread I invited you to produce a philosophical proof for discussion, if not a scientific one.

Dismissed.

...to establish a strawman...

Strawman fallacies are among your more frequent tactics, Michael.

But show me a post where I misrepresent or fabricate the argument someone else is making. It did not happen.

If you can't support the point you haven't made one.

Dismissed.

...that he can pull canned well documented proses...

Pulling canned and well-documented prose on people is what you do Michael, as with some of the cut-and-paste posts you make.

Show me where the bulk of any argument I make is "canned" in a manner similar to yours. You can't do it. It did not happen.

If you can't support the point you haven't made one.

Dismissed.

...on you that everyone knows and yawns at.

I agree that most of what I point out to you regarding your fallacious reasoning and intellectual dishonesty is probably obvious to most people (except you), Michael. It's never difficult to expose you. But each time you fail, grow frustrated and lash out, I don't yawn. I smile.

@ Gallop's Mirror:

Some yawnable  background for you:

Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others for thousands of years. In philosophical terms, such arguments involve primarily the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the nature of being, existence, or reality) and also the theory of value, since concepts of perfection are connected to notions of God. A wide variety of arguments exist which can be categorized as metaphysical, logical, empirical, or subjective. The existence of God is subject to lively debate in philosophy, the philosophy of religion, and popular culture.

The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God began with Plato and Aristotle, who made arguments that would now be categorized as cosmological. Other arguments for the existence of God have been proposed by St. Anselm, who formulated the first ontological argument; Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Aquinas, who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument (the kalam argument and the first way, respectively); Descartes, who said that the existence of a benevolent God was logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful; and Immanuel Kant, who argued that the existence of God can be deduced from the existence of good. Thinkers who have provided arguments against the existence of God include David Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russell. In modern culture, the question of God's existence has been discussed by scientists such as Stephen Hawking, Francis Collins, Richard Dawkins, and John Lennox, as well as philosophers including Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Daniel Dennett, Edward Feser, and David Bentley Hart.

Atheists generally maintain that arguments for the existence of God provide insufficient reason to believe.

And frankly many conclude that God exists or don't exist based on none of the above.

Yet many things are used from the above to support personalized rationales even as you propose by grouping any sort of claim as  requiring a proof. 

Formal structured proofs can not be applied to belief. 

A proof of an existential belief borders on being an oxymoron. since once it is proven, it  is no longer a belief but rather a fact.

You can ask the question, "what is your personalized rational for the existential belief in God" One answer maybe the acceptence of eye wittness testimony as documented in the bible.  Another reason maybe personally experiencing the miraculous. Others may feel that God speaks to them in the form of answered prayers. Others may feel that their lives have been blessed since they try to live morally in accordance with God's ordinances. Yet others may lay claim to all of the aforementioned.

Some yawnable  background for you...

My reply is here.

I stopped believing because it all just totally doesn't seem logical anymore! The mere fact that people feel they can do a wholote of bad things, ask someone for forgivness & aim/hope to end up somewhere in the sky (heaven) laced with gold, just seems all stupid and ignorant. I feel people need to start taking responsibility for their actions, live morally & for the good of others! When I come across people, see them as humans, before their culture or belief. Religion to be me as just messed up this world a whole lot!

RSS

Forum

My Grandpa died last week

Started by Physeter in Small Talk. Last reply by Pope Beanie 47 minutes ago. 9 Replies

Ear-piercing a baby

Started by Simon Mathews in Atheist Parenting. Last reply by Pope Beanie 1 hour ago. 22 Replies

Torture Report release today

Started by Unseen in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by Pope Beanie 2 hours ago. 134 Replies

Is There Any Ex-Mennonites or Ex-Amish On This Site?

Started by Jessica Miller in Advice. Last reply by Belle Rose 9 hours ago. 27 Replies

Why do we tolerate this?

Started by Belle Rose in Crime and Punishment. Last reply by Pope Beanie 18 hours ago. 25 Replies

Blog Posts

How did that happen?

Posted by Belle Rose on December 19, 2014 at 4:36am 6 Comments

Pabst Blue Ribbon to the rescue!

Posted by Ed on December 15, 2014 at 9:33pm 0 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