Gotta love how the vultures appear when someone states they're deconverting....

(July 11, 2016 at 12:33 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Gotta love how the vultures appear when someone states they're deconverting....

Yeah, but they also disappear quickly. When I did my "coming out" as a nonbeliever, I did this by a public post on facebook, and a lot of christians replied, offering to meet with me to talk with me, because they were interested or worried. I replied friendly, saying "sure, we can do that. Let me know when you have time". Not a single person actually followed through and met with me, while I have hundreds of evangelical christians on my list and I was very willing to talk with them.

(July 11, 2016 at 11:20 am)Lucifer Wrote:

(July 11, 2016 at 10:43 am)SteveII Wrote: What part about Christianity did you find irrational (you said rationality won out in your OP)?

That is an excellent question. Let me try to answer that for you:

1. The origin story of the bible does not fit with science, and interpreting genesis 1 and 2 in a non-literal way has many problems of it's own, like the origin of sin (which is kind of a big one ).
2. Christianity makes a lot of big claims about reality, like the existence of a God, angels, demons, heaven, hell, etc. I don't accept the existence of ghosts, faeries and dragons by faith, so it is consistent not to this for christianity as well. The requirement for evidence, thus, is very obvious to me, and it is completely absent.
3. The morals taught in the bible are very mixed. Sure, there is some good stuff in it, but a lot of very dark things as well (like killing disobedient children).
4. There are a lot of contradictions in the bible, which take a lot of apologetics to (attempt to) explain away. I would imagine an all-powerful God to be able to write a better book.
5. I have seen a lot of people claiming to be christians, and a lot of them, if pressed, admitted that they doubted and did not have firm reasons to believe, even those who claimed to experience God regularly. Almost all of those people have been raised as christians, so it was logical to assume that they, like me, were just giving christianity the benefit of the doubt.

I could give more reasons if you like.

1. Science may not fit with a literal 6-day creation as described in Gen 1, but science is not in conflict with God creating anything (it is incapable of making a statement like that). I believe that Adam and Eve existed but don't know when. No theological problems. 
2. Why do you deny the NT is evidence for the existence of God? 
3. Christians are to obey God's moral laws and Jesus' teaching not the OT civil, ceremonial, or dietary laws designed for a theocracy. Objections to God's morality in the OT are understandable but not without an answer. 
4. No, there are not a lot of contradictions in the NT (for which Christianity is almost entirely based). Certainly not any that impact the core message. In addition, the question of inspiration (end to end) is important but not paramount to the truth claims of Christianity. 
5. Perhaps a reason, but does not pertain to whether Christianity is rational. 

First, these are pretty common objections that have been asked for 2000 years and have had literally thousands of books written on each of them. Did you try to answer these objections with someone who knew more than you did (a person or a book)? 

Second, all of your reasons, even if they didn't have answers, do not support the conclusion that God does not exist. At most, they conclude, "I don't know".

(July 11, 2016 at 12:45 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 11, 2016 at 11:20 am)Lucifer Wrote: That is an excellent question. Let me try to answer that for you:

1. The origin story of the bible does not fit with science, and interpreting genesis 1 and 2 in a non-literal way has many problems of it's own, like the origin of sin (which is kind of a big one ).
2. Christianity makes a lot of big claims about reality, like the existence of a God, angels, demons, heaven, hell, etc. I don't accept the existence of ghosts, faeries and dragons by faith, so it is consistent not to this for christianity as well. The requirement for evidence, thus, is very obvious to me, and it is completely absent.
3. The morals taught in the bible are very mixed. Sure, there is some good stuff in it, but a lot of very dark things as well (like killing disobedient children).
4. There are a lot of contradictions in the bible, which take a lot of apologetics to (attempt to) explain away. I would imagine an all-powerful God to be able to write a better book.
5. I have seen a lot of people claiming to be christians, and a lot of them, if pressed, admitted that they doubted and did not have firm reasons to believe, even those who claimed to experience God regularly. Almost all of those people have been raised as christians, so it was logical to assume that they, like me, were just giving christianity the benefit of the doubt.

I could give more reasons if you like.

1. Science may not fit with a literal 6-day creation as described in Gen 1, but science is not in conflict with God creating anything (it is incapable of making a statement like that). I believe that Adam and Eve existed but don't know when. No theological problems. 
2. Why do you deny the NT is evidence for the existence of God? 
3. Christians are to obey God's moral laws and Jesus' teaching not the OT civil, ceremonial, or dietary laws designed for a theocracy. Objections to God's morality in the OT are understandable but not without an answer. 
4. No, there are not a lot of contradictions in the NT (for which Christianity is almost entirely based). Certainly not any that impact the core message. In addition, the question of inspiration (end to end) is important but not paramount to the truth claims of Christianity. 
5. Perhaps a reason, but does not pertain to whether Christianity is rational. 

First, these are pretty common objections that have been asked for 2000 years and have had literally thousands of books written on each of them. Did you try to answer these objections with someone who knew more than you did (a person or a book)? 

Second, all of your reasons, even if they didn't have answers, do not support the conclusion that God does not exist. At most, they conclude, "I don't know".

Thanks for your reply. I could reply again to all of those points, but I first want to make clear that it is not me who needs to defend why I don't believe, but it's you as a believer who needs to come up with proof to support your claim. I will not ask you to show proof for why you don't believe in the God(s) of Islam, Hinduism, etc. It is up to the people from those religions to make a good case for their own claims. I apply this for everyone. If someone were to claim to know that there is no God, that is an incredible claim as well that would require evidence (and yes this one is impossible to proof).

I don't claim to know that God does not exist. My answer is "I don't know, but in order to know if he does exist I need evidence". I will continue to live my life without worrying about God(s) until someone makes a good case, because I have not seen any interesting evidence.

You cannot torture someone eternally for TEMPORARY damage. Thats ugly even by magical standards of Gods justice.

Even here hardcore christians love to proclaim that eternal hell is the right thing to do. Because they will be in heaven... LoL

(July 11, 2016 at 12:33 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Gotta love how the vultures appear when someone states they're deconverting....

They tend to do more harm to their cause than good, by revealing the manipulative and desperate side of religion.

(July 11, 2016 at 1:10 pm)robvalue Wrote:

(July 11, 2016 at 12:33 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Gotta love how the vultures appear when someone states they're deconverting....

They tend to do more harm to their cause than good, by revealing the manipulative and desperate side of religion.

Yup.  And, the more they "No True Scotsman," the more harm they do to their cause.

(July 11, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Lucifer Wrote: Thanks for your reply. I could reply again to all of those points, but I first want to make clear that it is not me who needs to defend why I don't believe, but it's you as a believer who needs to come up with proof to support your claim. I will not ask you to show proof for why you don't believe in the God(s) of Islam, Hinduism, etc. It is up to the people from those religions to make a good case for their own claims. I apply this for everyone. If someone were to claim to know that there is no God, that is an incredible claim as well that would require evidence (and yes this one is impossible to proof).

I don't claim to know that God does not exist. My answer is "I don't know, but in order to know if he does exist I need evidence". I will continue to live my life without worrying about God(s) until someone makes a good case, because I have not seen any interesting evidence.

We are talking about your beliefs and your claim that "rationality won out". So you are making the claim that there is no evidence for God, not the much weaker position "I don't know". I am still curious how someone who was a Christian came to the conclusion that the NT was not evidence for God. I promise, I will not turn it into a 10 page debate on the NT.

(July 11, 2016 at 1:19 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(July 11, 2016 at 1:10 pm)robvalue Wrote: They tend to do more harm to their cause than good, by revealing the manipulative and desperate side of religion.

Yup.  And, the more they "No True Scotsman," the more harm they do to their cause.

Very true. This is why I was hesitant to answer the question "why do you think you were a christian?". He accused me of playing games, but all I wanted is to avoid the games that the christians play so often, that is: 1) ask that question, 2) accuse me of not being a christian because I did not mention something. If they could just give me the requirements of what being a christian would be to them, then I could answer whether I fit their definition of a christian. This of course could be yes or no, depending on their specific definition. I mean, I did not speak in tongues, which for some christians is an essential ingredient for a christian, while christians from another denomination would say that speaking in tongues is not possible and it means you are deluded as a christian. But I have noticed that most christians who ask that question will always say that you are not a christian.

If someone does not believe your first premise, no matter what you throw at them, it shows a lack of intellectual honesty and trust, which makes it impossible to have a good conversation.

But I notice that some christians understand this fallacy and do not commit it, which is very respectable and allows the conversation with them to continue.

---

(July 11, 2016 at 1:21 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 11, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Lucifer Wrote: Thanks for your reply. I could reply again to all of those points, but I first want to make clear that it is not me who needs to defend why I don't believe, but it's you as a believer who needs to come up with proof to support your claim. I will not ask you to show proof for why you don't believe in the God(s) of Islam, Hinduism, etc. It is up to the people from those religions to make a good case for their own claims. I apply this for everyone. If someone were to claim to know that there is no God, that is an incredible claim as well that would require evidence (and yes this one is impossible to proof).

I don't claim to know that God does not exist. My answer is "I don't know, but in order to know if he does exist I need evidence". I will continue to live my life without worrying about God(s) until someone makes a good case, because I have not seen any interesting evidence.

We are talking about your beliefs and your claim that "rationality won out". So you are making the claim that there is no evidence for God, not the much weaker position "I don't know". I am still curious how someone who was a Christian came to the conclusion that the NT was not evidence for God. I promise, I will not turn it into a 10 page debate on the NT.

Yes, but my point is that I don't see any evidence for christianity, which makes it irrational. That is simply my point, and answering it could be as simple as presenting some evidence to me.

You mention the New Testament. What specifically in those books would you present as evidence?

The problem is that they're never satisfied unless you drink the Kool-Aid.

"I really, truly wanted to be a Christian. I went to church regularly, read the bible front to back many times, prayed all the time, repented for all my sins, but I never found god."
"You did it wrong. You didn't truly seek god. If you did, you would've found him. Try again. Try harder."

It's the same schtick every time.