Re-convert to Christianity again? You’ve gotta be kidding?

[BlessNot]

I de-converted from Christianity a couple years ago for various personal reasons basically due to applying my critical/objective thinking skills to some extent. Possibly even to the point where it could be considered excessive reasoning. However, I have no regrets whatsoever. Especially when my mind has been set free from religious indoctrination and mind control. It's a beautiful thing to say the least. The mind set free is a great joy in life.

With that said, the only way for me to ever re-convert to Christianity is for someone to surgically alter my brain. It is the only way I can ever accept it again. In other words, if I did decided to believe again I would have to suspend all reason, logic, common sense, critical/objective thinking and surrender my brain and mind to ignorance to follow such beliefs ever again.

Are there any other de-converts from Christianity who feel the same or similar as I do? I’m sure there are.

I'd like to hear from you.

Theists are welcome to chime in also with your thoughts/comments/questions etc as well.

And of course atheists.

:devil1:

[seebs]

The question of whether or not I'm a re-convert is deeply philosophical, but I'd say I'm not; I don't think my childhood church experiences constituted any kind of belief.

The people I know who have reconverted (and I do know at least a couple) have generally done so by distinguishing between the set of beliefs they discarded and the rest of Christianity. Most of them, well, honestly I think deconverting was a good choice for them, because the stuff they believed originally was often pretty scary.

[Plognark]

I've only ever heard of this before, I've never had the chance to talk to anyone who went through something like this (that I know of)

Closest I've ever seen was someone on this board who was getting freaked out over the threat of eternal damnation for a little while, but I think they got over it. They were a very recent deconvert, IIRC.

[BlessNot]

The question of whether or not I'm a re-convert is deeply philosophical, but I'd say I'm not; I don't think my childhood church experiences constituted any kind of belief.
The people I know who have reconverted (and I do know at least a couple) have generally done so by distinguishing between the set of beliefs they discarded and the rest of Christianity.
In other words instead of them becoming fundamentalist Christians again they settled for the less committed version: "moderate Christianity". How does moderate Christianity make any sense when it denys the majority of the bible? and if these so called re-converts consider themselves true believers, how do they follow the bible as their guide? It seems like they pick and choose what they want to believe as truth and disregard the rest as myth or fiction. How can they be considered true Christians?

Most of them, well, honestly I think deconverting was a good choice for them, because the stuff they believed originally was often pretty scary.Like the belief that God is going to burn unbelievers forever without end in hell? The heaven concept isn't any less scary either especially when you have to consider living a life that never ends with a God who is a blood thirsty tyrant who created the hell where friends and loved ones will be consciously tormented forever. How could you accept such a god as a true God yourself, you're a moderate Christian are you not? Is it possible in your mind as such a believer this god is merely a figure of speech just like the rest of the bible you believe is "sort of" true?

[seebs]

In other words instead of them becoming fundamentalist Christians again they settled for the less committed version: "moderate Christianity".

Wrong.

You are starting with the false assumption that Christianity is measured on a scale from "total disinterest" to "fundamentalism".

Moderates are not "halfway along the same scale as the fundamentalists". They are on a different path entirely.

To a fundamentalist, I might appear half-hearted and uncommitted. To me, a fundamentalist might appear half-hearted and uncommitted. In fact, we are both committed, but to different views.

How does moderate Christianity make any sense when it denys the majority of the bible?

Wrong again. I do not "deny" the majority of the Bible. I have a different understanding of what it is than a fundamentalist does. Some passages strike me as a record of Hebrew beliefs and seeking towards God, rather than as the ultimate truth.

I see the Bible as the writings of people who were asking the same essential questions I am today, and their answers and thoughts on these questions. Sounds sensible enough to me; that's what it is.

and if these so called re-converts consider themselves true believers, how do they follow the bible as their guide?

By studying it; by taking it seriously as a literary work instead of pretending it's a cookbook written for children.

But, to be fair, not all Christians see the Bible as their primary guide. Why should we? We believe in prayer and guidance. Unlike some Christians, we believe in these enough to put our faith in them instead of in a book.

It seems like they pick and choose what they want to believe as truth and disregard the rest as myth or fiction. How can they be considered true Christians?

Once again, your error is in assuming that fundamentalism is the One True Christianity, and everything else is not really Christian.

Your choice of words implies that I start with a big list of absolutely unambiguous claims, which is True Christianity, and that I go down it checking the ones that sound pleasant or uncontroversial. This is absolutely wrong.

I start with a book, and a lot of history, which people have debates about and study trying to understand. I try to understand pieces of this, and I draw conclusions; in some cases, I find these conclusions easy to live with and accept; in others, much harder. I am not comfortable with Christian standards of charity, or the limitations on the use of force and coercion.

As an example, I sue a lot of junk faxers. (Junk faxing is/was illegal in the US.) Christian teachings suggest strongly that lawsuits are questionable behavior, in some cases inappropriate, but they also call us to try to root out harmful behavior, and empirically, junk faxers will not stop faxing until sued.

So, although I would sort of like to collect all this money, which would after all be very convenient (I'm a freelance writer and I get paid erratically at best), I feel I am obliged not to make a profit on suing people, so I give away any profits.

This is not a belief I "like" in the childish sense you imply; this is a belief I find consistent and compelling. I am convinced, if not entirely happy.

Is any moral system different? Do you do things you find repulsive and absolutely abhorrent, because you think a moral system says so, or do you let your conscience inform your understanding of the moral system?

Like the belief that God is going to burn unbelievers forever without end in hell? The heaven concept isn't any less scary either especially when you have to consider living a life that never ends with a God who is a blood thirsty tyrant who created the hell where friends and loved ones will be consciously tormented forever.

This is why I do not accept the notion of Hell that some people have tacked onto Christianity. I believe some people may remain miserable, but they are the ones who choose, and there is no torture involved. They are not being tormented, unless it is by their own actions.

How could you accept such a god as a true God yourself, you're a moderate Christian are you not? Is it possible in your mind as such a believer this god is merely a figure of speech just like the rest of the bible you believe is "sort of" true?

That concept of God is unambiguously a later reinterpretation of passages which seem to best fit either a C. S. Lewis "Great Divorce" style of Hell, or annihilationism. The Orthodox have believed for most of the last 2000 years that everyone gets the same afterlife, and it's up to you whether you like it or not.

Consider, though: Have you never met people who would be so angry at the inclusion of some hated person or group in "Heaven" that they would make themselves miserable fretting about it? What do you think these people will do?

[CowboyHeretic]

Hey, thank you for posting this. I am very interested in this topic.

[Neo-Nietzschean]

[QUOTE=seebs]Wrong.

You are starting with the false assumption that Christianity is measured on a scale from "total disinterest" to "fundamentalism".

Moderates are not "halfway along the same scale as the fundamentalists". They are on a different path entirely.

If there are different paths in Christianity are there therefore different Christianities? And if there are what is it that they share that makes them some type of Christianity? If there exist a set of core beliefs cannot that set of core beliefs be considered fundamental to christian belief?

[seebs]

If there are different paths in Christianity are there therefore different Christianities?

You could argue that there are. They are all members of a set, but they are distinct belief systems.

And if there are what is it that they share that makes them some type of Christianity? If there exist a set of core beliefs cannot that set of core beliefs be considered fundamental to christian belief?

My current belief is that there exists a set of beliefs such that, if you lack all of them, you're not Christian, but I am not sure I can think of a single belief that is essential. I know an atheist Christian, and I think she's a very good Christian.

The thing is, while there are a set of beliefs fundamental to Christianity, "fundamentalism" is a set of principles of which, so far as I can tell, none are actually essential or fundamental. Beliefs about the Bible are all inessential; Christianity predates the Bible. Inerrantism, young earth, all that stuff... Inessential. Weird dogmatism about where other people put their wee-wees? Inessential, and probably harmful.

The beliefs that distinguish between one Christian group and another are not essentials which some people don't accept, making them "less Christian"; they are inessentials on which people disagree.

[Ojuice5001]

I find it odd to compare this board's members to the world at large. In the world at large, it is certainly possible to find reconverted Christians. There are many people who say it has happened to them; so many that it has to be considered a significant phenomenon in the religious scene. This could only be denied by one who took a conspiracy-theory and/or no-true-Scotsman mentality unbefitting a skeptic. That's the world at large. However:

The members of this board, pretty much to a man, appear to have an infinitesimal chance of reconverting to Christianity. The options on the poll say it all. (I realize that this is a BlessNot poll we're talking about. :Cheeky: ) I mean, to convert most of them it would take a level of proof that I don't think anyone truly expects will ever confirm Christianity or anything else. That's the more moderate option, and it's losing the poll! :eek: The others have a harder time yet imagining themselves as Christians.

What's my point? Well, partly I'm merely observing that the atheists on this board are "just different." Whatever the explanation might be. I'd also be more comfortable if atheism didn't have the kind of aura of invincibility that it gets from this phenomenon. I mean, the kind of rationalism that is believed in by this board's members doesn't resonate with most people, and probably never will...but through the power of groupthink, the Internet Infidels can easily think of the future otherwise. And I guess it doesn't make much sense for my kind of pagan to be rooting for Christianity to defeat atheism. My feelings toward Christianity and its god are very complex.

The emotion involved might be expressed by saying that I don't want atheism to be invincible, any more than Christianity and paganism. Of course, I think that in the light of reality atheism, Christianity, and paganism are all invincible. They all tap into deep realities of both the human heart and the spiritual world, and they will all exist as long as humanity does.

[Gooch's dad]

I see enough problems with the various forms of Christianity--the common elements within them, that is--that I am quite certain that I could never become a Christian again.

The common elements of Christianity have to do with the vicarious atonement, which any form of Christianity believes in, to some extent. That is, they believe that the death of Jesus had something to do with saving the rest of humanity. I don't find that one can have anything to do with the other, much less with the premise that humanity needs to be saved.

[Magus55]

I guess based on this poll we can conclude that atheists can be just as close minded as theists. Based on the majority voting they would never become Christian, even if evidence presented itself, its pretty hypocritical to ever criticize Christians who say they would never deconvert or change their views whether science disproved it or not.

[Gooch's dad]

I figured someone would make that claim, Magus55. Let me put it to you this way--are you closed-minded if you say that no evidence will convince you that the earth is flat?

[Magus55]

I figured someone would make that claim, Magus55. Let me put it to you this way--are you closed-minded if you say that no evidence will convince you that the earth is flat?
Technically yes, but I hardly think the earth being flat, and God's existence are equal comparisons. We can look at the Earth from 3rd person view to see its not round, so the only way we would be wrong is if it was an illusion or a dream. Regardless of how convinced you believe you are about God's existence, there is no where near the kind of evidence against God as there is against a flat Earth. God is so complex there is practically an infinite amount of room for us to be misunderstood or wrong about His nature/existence.

[seebs]

I figured someone would make that claim, Magus55. Let me put it to you this way--are you closed-minded if you say that no evidence will convince you that the earth is flat?

Well, that's an interesting question.

Imagine, if you will, that tomorrow, scientists and astronauts admit that the whole thing has been a hoax, and start revealing how they did it. A travel agency begins running tours to the edge of the world, and some of your friends go, and come back speaking of the incredible rainbows formed by water streaming off the edge.

You think this impossible? Well, of course. It contradicts key tenets of your current belief system, and evidence you currently trust.

But isn't that the point of the question?

[Gooch's dad]

Technically yes, but I hardly think the earth being flat, and God's existence are equal comparisons. We can look at the Earth from 3rd person view to see its not round, so the only way we would be wrong is if it was an illusion or a dream. Regardless of how convinced you believe you are about God's existence, there is no where near the kind of evidence against God as there is against a flat Earth. God is so complex there is practically an infinite amount of room for us to be misunderstood or wrong about His nature/existence.

Magus55, "God exists" does not equal "Christianity is true". Go back and try again, mmmkay? Thanks much.

[Gooch's dad]

No, seebs, I don't think that is the point of the question. I'm as sure that the earth isn't flat, as I'm as sure of anything, including the fact of my own existence. I don't see much of a epistemological difference between the two knowledge claims. THAT is the point.

So, to put it more plainly, if I know anything at all to be true, then I know that Christianity is not true.

[Magus55]

Magus55, "God exists" does not equal "Christianity is true". Go back and try again, mmmkay? Thanks much.
True, but you don't even have enough evidence that Christianity is wrong to claim you would never become Christian, even if it was proven correct. Believing you have disproven the Judeo-Christian concept of God hardly means you have.

[Magus55]

No, seebs, I don't think that is the point of the question. I'm as sure that the earth isn't flat, as I'm as sure of anything, including the fact of my own existence. I don't see much of a epistemological difference between the two knowledge claims. THAT is the point.

So, to put it more plainly, if I know anything at all to be true, then I know that Christianity is not true.
But if I know anything at all to be true, then I know Christianity is true. So where does that leave us other than us both believing we are correct, yet neither knowing for sure?

[Gooch's dad]

True, but you don't even have enough evidence that Christianity is wrong to claim you would never become Christian, even if it was proven correct. Believing you have disproven the Judeo-Christian concept of God hardly means you have.

How do you know I don't have enough evidence?

[Magus55]

How do you know I don't have enough evidence?You may have enough to convince yourself, but I've been on these boards long enough to see the kind of "evidence" atheists claim to have and how successful they have been at disproving the Judeo-Christian God. Its never been very convincing. And unless you convince the majority of the Christian population, your evidence is subjective and opinion based.

[Gooch's dad]

But if I know anything at all to be true, then I know Christianity is true. So where does that leave us other than us both believing we are correct, yet neither knowing for sure?

The difference is that I can demonstrate that you have double standards with regards to your own belief, and, as has been demonstrated many times here on IIDB, you resort to special pleading (bending over backwards, basically) to support your belief system in spite of the obvious holes in that belief system.

For example, the doctrine of the vicarious atonement which I brought up earlier. If you'd like, I can start a thread on this topic, and you can attempt to defend this belief. But you cannot defend it without assuming the bible worldview to be true.

[Magus55]

The difference is that I can demonstrate that you have double standards with regards to your own belief, and, as has been demonstrated many times here on IIDB, you resort to special pleading (bending over backwards, basically) to support your belief system in spite of the obvious holes in that belief system.

For example, the doctrine of the vicarious atonement which I brought up earlier. If you'd like, I can start a thread on this topic, and you can attempt to defend this belief. But you cannot defend it without assuming the bible worldview to be true.All that would show is the Bible can have different interpretations on different parts of it. Interpretation doesn't mean its wrong.

[Gooch's dad]

You may have enough to convince yourself, but I've been on these boards long enough to see the kind of "evidence" atheists claim to have and how successful they have been at disproving the Judeo-Christian God.

See my post above. The burden of proof is on YOU to show that Christianity is true. Absent that evidence, it is quite rational for me to believe that Christianity is NOT true, since it appears so obviously to be an incoherent world view.


And this premise:
Its never been very convincing. And unless you convince the majority of the Christian population...

Does not lead to this conclusion:

your evidence is subjective and opinion based.

...by any sort of rational argument. It presumes that all Christians *are* openminded to being convinced by evidence. You would first have to demonstrate that they are.

[Gooch's dad]

All that would show is the Bible can have different interpretations on different parts of it. Interpretation doesn't mean its wrong.

The doctrine of vicarious atonement is in the Bible, true, but it is also a key part of Christian doctrine, as seen in the Apostle's Creed. It is, IMO, the "essence" of Christianity. Do you disagree with this doctrine, Magus55? It would greatly surprise me if you did.

[Magus55]

The doctrine of vicarious atonement is in the Bible, true, but it is also a key part of Christian doctrine, as seen in the Apostle's Creed. It is, IMO, the "essence" of Christianity. Do you disagree with this doctrine, Magus55? It would greatly surprise me if you did.Yes, the doctrine of Jesus paying for the world's sins is a central doctrine of Christianity. I don't consider that doctrine to be that controversial though.

[Gooch's dad]

Yes, the doctrine of Jesus paying for the world's sins is a central doctrine of Christianity. I don't consider that doctrine to be that controversial though.

It isn't "that controversial" among Christians. It also is, in my opinion, an incoherent belief, and makes as much sense as believing that killing a goat and burning it on an altar will make my crops grow better.

[Magus55]

It isn't "that controversial" among Christians. It also is, in my opinion, an incoherent belief, and makes as much sense as believing that killing a goat and burning it on an altar will make my crops grow better.
That of course is your opinion. I don't find it to be that incoherent. What is so difficult about the basic concept? God is perfect, humans aren't. Sin separates the 2. Jesus being God and human is the only one capable of bridging the gap between God and humanity.

[Gooch's dad]

"God is perfect" is meaningless, without knowing what "perfect" means. The Euthyphro dilemma addresses this problem nicely. You have the same problem with claiming that humans aren't "perfect". And saying that "sin separates the 2" is also a meaningless term. What is "sin"? If Jesus is "God and human" then you're saying that he is both perfect and not-perfect at the same time. Even if we don't know what "perfect" means, the statement violates the law of non-contradiction.

QED. That was easy :)

[seebs]

Depending on what exactly you mean by vicarious atonement, many variants of it are indeed controversial among Christians.

[Gooch's dad]

Care to explain that further, seebs? What Christians don't hold to some variant of the Apostle's or Nicene Creed? I'm curious.

[seebs]

Care to explain that further, seebs? What Christians don't hold to some variant of the Apostle's or Nicene Creed? I'm curious.

Well, the point about vicarious/substitutionary atonement is that it's much more specific than the Nicene Creed gets. At least sometimes. When you get to "God has to punish someone for sins, so God punishes Jesus for our sins so we don't go to Hell, because Jesus is perfect", that's not really what either creed says.

I had a fascinating thread on CF on Orthodox understandings of atonement.

To make a long story short, the fairly naive view of atonement that you normally get from TV preachers is incompatible with accepting the Resurrection. If Jesus paid the price for our sins, then our sins have not really been forgiven, but paid by someone else. That's not forgiveness.

As far as I go in my own beliefs is that Jesus did these things because they were apparently beneficial to us, and I am not afraid that God will treat me unjustly. I am curious about the mechanisms, but willing to admit I don't know.

I will say this, though: Imagine, for a moment, that the story were pretty much true. Imagine that Jesus is really God. Imagine that Jesus is to be killed, and before He's even dead, the soldiers are gambling over his clothes.

And imagine that his response is to forgive them.

Do we really have anything to fear from this God? I don't think so.

[Soul Invictus]

In other words, if I did decided to believe again I would have to suspend all reason, logic, common sense, critical/objective thinking and surrender my brain and mind to ignorance to follow such beliefs ever again.

Are there any other de-converts from Christianity who feel the same or similar as I do? I’m sure there are.

I'd like to hear from you.

Theists are welcome to chime in also with your thoughts/comments/questions etc as well.

And of course atheists.

:devil1:

Well, I don't quite understand your poll justification of " Yes, if it was proven to be true based on logical conclusions, however I would agree with the points that you listed above.

[GoodLittleAtheist]

If I believed it were proven true why wouldn't I reconvert? If I believed it were proven true, I'd believe IT and that would have reconverted by definition. :huh:

Or do you mean actually going back to church, etc?

--edited to add, that said, I don't forsee how I'd believe it were proven true short of brain trauma or, you know, divine intervention. But never say never.

[show_no_mercy]

If there was logical (and not EMOTIONAL) evidence that Christianity was true, then sure - I'd reconvert.

That whole "I feel Christianity is true" garbage is just that - garbage.

[Mace]

I've only ever heard of this before, I've never had the chance to talk to anyone who went through something like this (that I know of)

Closest I've ever seen was someone on this board who was getting freaked out over the threat of eternal damnation for a little while, but I think they got over it. They were a very recent deconvert, IIRC.

I think that was me.

[Plognark]

I think that was me.

Uhh....yeah, might have been :)

[BlessNot]

Wrong.You are starting with the false assumption that Christianity is measured on a scale from "total disinterest" to "fundamentalism".
Moderates are not "halfway along the same scale as the fundamentalists". They are on a different path entirely.
To a fundamentalist, I might appear half-hearted and uncommitted. To me, a fundamentalist might appear half-hearted and uncommitted. In fact, we are both committed, but to different views.
Wrong again. I do not "deny" the majority of the Bible. I have a different understanding of what it is than a fundamentalist does. I know you do. You would rather disassociate yourself from the fundamentalists because you probably do not agree with most of the hate speech that the bible promotes and the fact that it condones, bloodshed, atrocities, genocides, mass murders, sacrifices, slavery, ignorance, intolerence, intellectual and physical submission, and capital punishment for disobedient sons, homosexuals and adulterers. Let's face it, all you seem to be doing is trying your best to live a good moral life and coming up with your own personal brand of Christianity to live by. If that is the case, why bother with Christianity at all?

[David Vestal]

The poll's options are too extreme. It doesn't take a lobotomy for me to change my mind when I'm presented with evidence that I'm wrong; otherwise, I'd have had several hundred of them by now. On the other hand, it would take more than presenting a logical case for christianity to address questions such as "how could god have commanded such heinous things?"

[kaelcarp]

Although I don't see how it could happen, if I could be shown strong evidence for the existence of a particular god or set of gods or a particular set of belief systems or something, I suppose I would believe in it. I mean, if someone established scientifically that there is, indeed, a giant invisible elephant on the dark side of the moon, I suppose I'd believe it. It would be weird, but I'm not going to deny it if the evidence is there.

[Plognark]

The poll's options are too extreme. It doesn't take a lobotomy for me to change my mind when I'm presented with evidence that I'm wrong; otherwise, I'd have had several hundred of them by now. On the other hand, it would take more than presenting a logical case for christianity to address questions such as "how could god have commanded such heinous things?"

Yeah, the poll is a little flawed.

[BlessNot]

The poll's options are too extreme. It doesn't take a lobotomy for me to change my mind when I'm presented with evidence that I'm wrong; otherwise, I'd have had several hundred of them by now. On the other hand, it would take more than presenting a logical case for christianity to address questions such as "how could god have commanded such heinous things?"

That was the purpose of this thread was to point out that for me to re-convert to Christianity again would be the same as surrending my mind once again to ignorance. That's the reason for the lobotomy comment. You being a deconvert yourself I would think would have caught the satire/sarcasm. how is the poll extreme? Surely there were a number of things that convinced you that Christianity was not true. Otherwise you'd still be a Christian or possibly would have settled to cling to your Christianity by fallinig for the moderate/wishy washy version of the faith. The thing about Christianity is whether it's the fundamentalist or moderate postion, neither of them are based on logical conclusions. And I think you know that.

[seebs]

I think it depends on what information you have available. I suspect that, for most people, there exist experiences that could convince them to change their minds.

[BlessNot]

I think it depends on what information you have available. I suspect that, for most people, there exist experiences that could convince them to change their minds.

And what do they do when they have these experiences? They suspend reason, surrender to ignorance, then call it God.

I seriously doubt you will run into many, if any, informed non-believers/atheists who will re-convert to those beliefs ever again.

Unless they are living in such a place where it would be almost life threatening to declare their atheism publically.

[Tony238]

If i became religious again I would go with the Norse religion simply because it is the only one where I can battle after I die. :devil2:

[GoodLittleAtheist]

That was the purpose of this thread was to point out that for me to re-convert to Christianity again would be the same as surrending my mind once again to ignorance. That's the reason for the lobotomy comment. You being a deconvert yourself I would think would have caught the satire/sarcasm. how is the poll extreme? Surely there were a number of things that convinced you that Christianity was not true. Otherwise you'd still be a Christian or possibly would have settled to cling to your Christianity by fallinig for the moderate/wishy washy version of the faith. The thing about Christianity is whether it's the fundamentalist or moderate postion, neither of them are based on logical conclusions. And I think you know that.It is the wording of your options that is the problem. Rejecting a proof of Christianity is not surrending to ignorance. I don't believe a proof of Christianity exists, but given the hypothetical that it does and is proof (which is what you put forward), it would be pretty foolish of me to reject it.

What possible reason is there to hold to a position when there is proof that the position is wrong? How is that 'freeing your mind'?

[Ojuice5001]

It is the wording of your options that is the problem. Rejecting a proof of Christianity is not surrending to ignorance. I don't believe a proof of Christianity exists, but given the hypothetical that it does and is proof (which is what you put forward), it would be pretty foolish of me to reject it.


Not to mention that even a demand that Christianity must be "proven to be true based on logical conclusions" is still something of an extreme position, by the standards of society at large rather than the little clique that exists here. I'd think that in society at large the moderate position would be more like "If there are reasons to think that Christianity might not be as unlikely as I once though, I'd think about reconverting." I'm an apostate Christian, and that's closer to my position than either of your options.

Not that I'm complaining. I'm not one to insist that everyone's polls have to adhere to stuffy rules of pretending to be unbiased. ;) Rest assured, I enjoy your polls no matter how loaded the questions are. :love:

[BlessNot]

That was the purpose of this thread was to point out that for me to re-convert to Christianity again would be the same as surrending my mind once again to ignorance. That's the reason for the lobotomy comment. You being a deconvert yourself I would think would have caught the satire/sarcasm. how is the poll extreme? Surely there were a number of things that convinced you that Christianity was not true. Otherwise you'd still be a Christian or possibly would have settled to cling to your Christianity by fallinig for the moderate/wishy washy version of the faith. The thing about Christianity is whether it's the fundamentalist or moderate postion, neither of them are based on logical conclusions.


It is the wording of your options that is the problem. Rejecting a proof of Christianity is not surrending to ignorance. No kidding? Where did I say that? I said to believe Christianity is true is to suspend reason. For a better word even Martin Luther said in order to be a Christian you must pluck out the eye of reason. Are you following the wording so far?


I don't believe a proof of Christianity exists, but given the hypothetical that it does and is proof (which is what you put forward), it would be pretty foolish of me to reject it. [quote] And you're complaining about the wording in my posts? What are you talking about partner? You lost me. Can you explain your thinking here?

[quote]
What possible reason is there to hold to a position when there is proof that the position is wrong? How is that 'freeing your mind'?

Did I say anything about proof that Christianity is wrong? I am not convinced that it is true unless someone can prove to me that it is. My mind has been set free from christianity because I applied reason and objective thought and rejected those beliefs. I do not believe it is the truth. What is it that convinced you it is not true?

[GoodLittleAtheist]

No kidding? Where did I say that?In your poll option. The poll option is "Yes, if it was proven to be true based on logical conclusions". It assumes that a proof exists.

Ok, lets step into this hypothetical world for a moment where a proof for Christianity exists. Why shouldn't I accept it? It IS proof.

Maybe I took the phrasing more literally than you meant it?

Did I say anything about proof that Christianity is wrong?No, you said given proof that Christianity is correct, you would reject it. If you are given proof that something is correct, how is accepting that proof surrendering to ignorance? That's what I don't follow.

[seebs]

And what do they do when they have these experiences? They suspend reason, surrender to ignorance, then call it God.

I am not convinced of this at all, and actually, I have a standing offer of a debate on the question of whether it could be rational to conclude that such experiences are evidence in favor of theistic beliefs.

I seriously doubt you will run into many, if any, informed non-believers/atheists who will re-convert to those beliefs ever again.

Not many. I have met some who converted to different beliefs, and some who converted to their original beliefs based on new data.

But then, people who made an informed conversion decision rarely deconvert. Most conversions are based on acquiring new information.

Unless they are living in such a place where it would be almost life threatening to declare their atheism publically.

This has little to do with belief, though.

[BlessNot]

In your poll option. The poll option is "Yes, if it was proven to be true based on logical conclusions". It assumes that a proof exists.
If you engage in discussions with theists haven't you noticed they always seem to have proof but are never able to prove anything? So yes, I am giving them the option of proving their claims based on logical conclusions but as you and I can see, there isn't any wouldn't you agree?


No, you said given proof that Christianity is correct, you would reject it. If you are given proof that something is correct, how is accepting that proof surrendering to ignorance? That's what I don't follow.

No, to accept Christianity is to suspend reason which is about the same as surrendering the mind to ignorance to believe it is true. Faith is the suspension of reason.

[BlessNot]

Not many. I have met some who converted to different beliefs, and some who converted to their original beliefs based on new data.

But then, people who made an informed conversion decision rarely deconvert. Most conversions are based on acquiring new information.

The only information/data these uniformed re-converts could have possibly thought they have discovered was nothing more than re-suspending reason and logic once again or possibly some theist re-convinced them they will burn in hell forever. Like I said in my initial post, for me to accept fundamentalist or moderate Christianity again, they'd have to strap me down and cut up my brain and ask me to repeat the sinners prayer all over again. Actually the best method for a committed Christian to become an non-believer/atheist is to read their bible. Its a very powerful force for atheism.

[seebs]

The only information/data these uniformed re-converts could have possibly thought they have discovered was nothing more than re-suspending reason and logic once again or possibly some theist re-convinced them they will burn in hell forever. Like I said in my initial post, for me to accept fundamentalist or moderate Christianity again, they'd have to strap me down and cut up my brain and ask me to repeat the sinners prayer all over again. Actually the best method for a committed Christian to become an non-believer/atheist is to read their bible. Its a very powerful force for atheism.

Would you like to take that up in a debate? I am prepared to argue that someone could rationally take personal experience as evidence in favor of theistic beliefs. I'm not going to argue about specifically Christianity, but the basic point seems to be whether or not it can ever be rational to put some trust in such experiences.

As to the Bible thing... I think it depends on how you read it. The Bible tends to be a bit of a mirror at times.

[GoodLittleAtheist]

If you engage in discussions with theists haven't you noticed they always seem to have proof but are never able to prove anything? So yes, I am giving them the option of proving their claims based on logical conclusions but as you and I can see, there isn't any wouldn't you agree? Of course. I'd go so far to say that they don't even seem to have proof. They claim to have proof, but they don't have it. But your poll option doesn't say anything about giving a Christian an opportunity to provide an argument that we can consider the merits of. It says to consider the case that "it was proven to be true based on logical conclusions". It doesn't say the Christian considers it to be a proof, it says "it was proven". Because of the way the options are worded, I had to select "Yes, if it was proven to be true". If I selected no I feel as though I am saying that I choose to be completely dogmatic to my atheism and will even go as far as rejecting proof that my belief is incorrect.

Now, naturally I don't think such a proof exists or I'd be a Christian. But that's irrelevant, you assumed it did in your hypothetical.

No, to accept Christianity is to suspend reason which is about the same as surrendering the mind to ignorance to believe it is true. Faith is the suspension of reason.You switched back to real life again. It isn't reasonable to accept Christianity on faith. But in your hypothetical, I don't need to accept it on faith. I am given a proof.

Forget Christianity for a second. If proof for X were to exist, then any reasonable person will believe X to be true. It doesn't matter what X is. It doesn't matter that in the real world there is no proof for X or even that there cannot be proof for X. If (in the event that) proof for X were to exist, then any reasonable person will believe X to be true.

Of course, I'm not sure why I'm arguing. We don't disagree really. I think I'm just parsing those options a lot more literally than you intended them to be read and wanted to explain why I could not select your option B.

[BlessNot]

Would you like to take that up in a debate? I am prepared to argue that someone could rationally take personal experience as evidence in favor of theistic beliefs. Actually you won't get much of an argument from me on this because personal experiences as evidence for theistic beliefs is just that - a belief. It is evidence for a belief only, and that is as far as it goes. It's only a belief that proves nothing more than a subjective/imaginary idea of an invisible entity known as a God that does not exist outside the mind. In short theists don't have a God, they have a belief.

[seebs]

I think that's a category error.

[BlessNot]

What category?

I think that's a category error.

So are beliefs full of errors. Especially Christianity and God belief.

So what else is new?

But I think my op is pretty accurate. All you have is a belief, not a God.