Better reasons to quit Christianity

[Mister Agenda]

So, is the burden of proof on me to persuade myself? Perhaps you are right. I do appreciate any help I can get, though.

Look, here's the deal with the burden of proof: you claim something exists. It is not then up to us to prove to you that it doesn't, for much the same reason we think it's a good principle in law that if I say you owe me ten thousand dollars, the burden isn't on you to prove that you don't. Strong, or gnostic, atheism, makes a claim which puts the burden of proof on them: that no God or gods of any stripe or version exist in reality. Weak, or agnostic, atheism doesn't make that claim, we're just saying we don't believe yours.

Although we enjoy playing with visiting theists, the purpose of this forum is not to convert theists to atheists. The vast, vast majority of atheists who were formerly theists weren't converted to atheism by being persuaded by atheists...we did the work ourselves.

For instance: I was a devout Pentecostal. As an act of devotion, I undertook to read the KJV cover-to-cover. Then, hoping the King's English was somehow impairing my understanding; I read it again in a modern English version. Then I became what I would now call an agnostic theist. I still believed there was some sort of God, but I could no longer believe the Bible was inspired by a divine, morally superior being.

I still believed in all kinds of woo, having never been taught to be anything but gullible. I thought the Duke University studies had proven ESP, then I found some teenagers completely fooled them and when they tightened their protocols to eliminate trickery, their significant statistical results disappeared. I started to become a little skeptical. Around fifteen years later I had stopped believing in ancient astronauts, alien visitation, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, Bigfoot, and so forth; but like many people I thought agnostic was a spot between theist and atheist that was more reasonable because it was open-minded...and I still had a little trouble with the origin of the universe not involving design and intent.

Then I took an Intro to Religion course the same semester as a Logic 102 course. My religion professor was an Orthodox Christian who believed reason was on his side. As I watched him twist himself into logical pretzels trying to support his (fairly liberal) beliefs at the same time I was learning about logical fallacies, I started to wonder if 'keeping an open mind' was worth it. Then I learned about proper application of the burden of proof in my Logic class, and it was SUCH a relief! I realized that I don't have ANY obligation to accept something provisionally just because I can't prove it isn't so! The logical position is the reverse: don't accept a proposition without a reason to think it's true proportionate to the extraordinariness of the claim! I also came to consciously maintain as a maxim that wanting something to be true in no way makes it more likely to be true. I read some books on my own about science and logic and atheism, and took an intro physics class that cleared up some of my cosmological misgivings, and realized that I'm an atheist...that at some point in all that, I had stopped even provisionally accepting God as a significant possibility. I realized I had been treating God differently from other propositions because of my early training to believe, but now I was treating it just as I would any other story someone wanted me to believe.

That was well before 'new atheism' and without the aid of the internet. You have many more resources at your disposal than I did, hopefully your journey from first serious doubt to realizing you're an (agnostic) atheist won't take 20 years like mine did.

Yes, but if the newcomer is asking, rather than telling, would the same be true? If I ask you why someone believes there is no God, is it up to me to answer my own question?

First, hardly any of us believe there's no God. Most of us don't believe there is a God. It's a subtle, but real difference, similar to believing you don't own a Mercedes as compared to not believing you DO own a Mercedes. Not believing you own a Mercedes is not an assertion that you don't. Which is why you're not getting much traction. The position most of us hold is that we haven't been persuaded so far by what's been presented in support of the idea that some God exists.

We don't even know what you mean by God until you tell us, something we've learned from countless theists is that you all have your own custom versions. Tell us what God you believe in and why you believe in it and we'll examine your definition and reasons and let you know what's sound and what's not. Afterwards, you'll have something to think about, if you're brave enough.

As a rule of thumb, we all ultimately persuade ourselves. The question is wheter you will seek what makes you feel more secure or seek what is most probably true? Rational skepticism is a method to reduce the likelihood that you'll believe something that isn't true. It not only led me to not believe in God, it led me to not believe in homeopathy, wild conspiracy theories, or that you can protect your home from all manner of pests with ultrasonic transmitters. Even if you choose to hold a place for God that is unexamined, I heartily recommend you adopt the method for screening other propositions. A skeptical theist might find a long-term home here.