I've been getting this a lot lately from xtians whenever I inform them I wasn't always an atheist. They ask what I was, I reply I was a christian, and they promptly adopt the most annoyingly condescending tone you can imagine and say "Well you must have not have been a true believer, then."

Ok, dickweeds, do tell me what a "true believer" is. Is it someone who spends their entire life mindlessly slavering for a god that people claim performs miracles for them when needed but only in very selective circumstances and only for people who inevitably go on to do fucking absolutely nothing with her lives in the long run anyway? Or maybe it's being completely unquestioning, and seeing everything from only a single perspective and never daring to try to look at something from another angle? Better yet, how do you know I was "never a true believer?" Were you there? Were you me? Did you have a psychic connection so you could have a thorough, deep, 100% accurate analysis of all my thoughts? No, so this is a presumptuous claim based solely on your opinions. It is you being judgmental. And as I recall from my days being a "true believer" there's this very centripetal passage where Jesus says something along the lines of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Really, it sounds like some really crappy, half-assed attempt by the religious to deny the possibility that something like a christian deconverting could have ANYTHING to do with the fallibility of all their claims.

Seems like that would be a compliment -- it means that you were never nearly as deluded and insane as they are. Congratulations!

I suspect you're right. I actually DO take it as a compliment though a backhanded one, but what truly irritates me is the assumptive, condescending tone of the statement itself and the self-ass-patting meaning to it.

The flip side to this issue is the number of times Christians say "I used to be an atheist". Upon further questioning they are usually talking about a time when they had stopped going to church and my response is "you were never a true atheist".

regards

grimesy

Ask them to define 'true believer'.

You can also reply "thank you" and go further to state "I would of considered it an insult if people thought I was silly enough to 'truly' believe in that bollocks.

It's a defense mechanism. Rather than admit that a Christian finally realized they were deluding themselves, they have to claim that the Christian wasn't really a true Christian. What they feel through god is the real deal, so anyone who would give that up just wasn't doing it quite right.

It is definitely a defense mechanism. Straight up No True Scotsman.

Amongst we atheists you sometimes find some who are really believers but just really hurt or disappointed with some event they blame God for. You know these are really itching to kiss and make up. Being atheist for them is like holding their breath until they turn blue .. they can't really do it.

Yes definitely defensive. Another tactic I have come across is the assertion "people don't know about Jesus any more". This implies that the only reason very few people are believers (in the UK at least) is that knowledge about this story is somehow being withheld (by the Devil?) and if free access to it were given then the churchs would be bulging at the seams. This is probably better than observing that people know about the Xtian myth and chose not to believe it.

regards

Grimesy

The concept of true believer is worthless unless it enables one to predict the defining act of non-belief before it occurs.

Quote:Ok, dickweeds, do tell me what a "true believer" is

All dickweeds think that THEY are true believers. See G-C around here as a prime example.