Age of Deconversion

[The Grand Nudger]

Very true. We've already established that you wouldn't worship an evil god, except and unless this evil god was engaged in mysterious ways, though.

So...would you cease to worship such a god, and..would you do the things that you believe this god has done....yourself? Why, or why not?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Very true.  We've already established that you wouldn't worship an evil god, except and unless this evil god was engaged in mysterious ways, though.

So...would you cease to worship such a god, and..would you do the things that you believe this god has done....yourself?  Why, or why not?

You mean, would I have personally caused the flood if I was God, for example? Probably not; I probably would have just let Adam die after he disobeyed and not bother with the whole clothing him thing nor attempted to save mankind in the first place. But I'm not as concerned with justice nor forgiveness as the God of the Bible seems to be.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're prevaricating, now, calling what you see as evil, and would not personally do, commands you would "kindly reject"..."justice" and "forgiveness". I'll afford you the courtesy and decency of your own humanity, even if you can't, or more accurately..refuse.

This brings us full circle, to your initial question. Though, in a better form. If seeing evil causes other people in your faith to fall out of faith, why doesn't it do the same to you?

Is believing that evil is good a strong indicator of a person remaining, or becoming..christian, in the same way that recognizing evil...as evil, is a strong indicator of a person being, or becoming, a non-christian?

As far as "saving mankind" - hows that working out? We're only discussing what bad thing may be pragmatic , a useful act of evil. Perhaps utility is the key to this difference in the way that people respond to seeing evil with respect to their beliefs? It's useful, to you, to cast your lot in with a god who is so horrendously powerful as to be able to flood the earth. It;s useful, to you...to cast your lot in with a god who commands that his followers skullfuck their neighbor and sell their daughters. No one wants to be the neighbor in that scenario...or worse, the daughter. It's useful, to you, for a god to kill some other person for the evil things you've done. An amoral transaction of illicit goods for personal gain.

What do you think?

[John 6IX Breezy]

You're prevaricating, now, calling what you see as evil, and would not personally do, commands you would "kindly reject"..."justice" and "forgiveness".  I'll afford you the courtesy and decency of your own humanity, even if you can't, or more accurately..refuse.  

This brings us full circle, to your initial question.  Though, in a better form.  If seeing evil causes other people in your faith to fall out of faith, why doesn't it do the same to you?

I disagree with the premise of your question, since most Christians don't believe that God is evil in the first place, which does bring us full circle. I think a better question (perhaps more to your point) is why do both parties disagree on whether a specific event is evil or not? Why is it that for some people the flood is justified, but for others it is not?

We can ask the same question of things in our own society. Why is the death penalty acceptable to some people but unjustified for others; why is abortion insignificant to some but murderous to others? I'm sure most people, if they believed that abortion is murder, would be against it; but they don't. Likewise, if most Christians truly believed that the flood was evil, would be opposed to it and perhaps opposed to God as well; but they don't

[The Grand Nudger]

Most christians see good and evil exactly as most non christians do. They excuse what they see, as you have, with "mysterious ways" or prevarication and pious prattle about justice and forgiveness.

We could ask all of those things of our own society, a tu qoque argument..but those only work when the first example is evil, to compare and declare the second example similarly or equally evil. The term literally means "you too", or, "you as well".

Is that how you feel? That god is, at least, no worse than we are? Well, that wouldn't be surprising, since every persons god is a reflection of their own psyche. This even applies to god-as-love. Love is not always good. Love can be jealous, cruel, and vindictive, murderous..even. In humans, at least. Knowing this, it's not surprising that a person can no longer believe in a god if that god does not conform to their own internal landscape. The question then becomes..does your god conform to yours? A being who would flood the earth? A killer of men, defiler of children, the one who executes the innocent in service to the guilty.

Well..no...no...that's not the god you believe in, is it, regardless of whether or not that's the god in your magic book. It seems that this much, like intuitions regarding good and evil, you have in common with atheists. It's not that god couldn't be that way..and still exist. It's not even that the god in the magic book isn;t that way. You simply reject such a god, in favor of the god you've constructed.

Do you think that might be a possibility?

[arewethereyet]

John, I'm not sure where you getting the idea that deconverts end up associating the idea of god with evil?

The association is simply the impression I've gotten; which I'm open to being false. Hence why I wonder if there are atheists here that agree with the Christian narrative that God is love, while maintaining that he is fiction.

I went back an scanned through this thread.  A couple people mentioned guilt/fear regarding their growing sense of non-belief.  God vs. Evil wasn't really a reason outlined by the people who responded here.

If you are going to ask a question and you have an answer that you want (ie - mad at God/God is evil) maybe you could just let us know from the jump what your endgame is.  It would save a lot of time. 

You don't have to twist yourself into a believer pretzel in order to force the answer you want to hear - the answer you have already decided upon.  You obviously aren't going to listen to what answers you get.

Lesson learned, for me, at least.  You are going to ask questions and then try to mold the answers to fit the narrative in your head regarding atheists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hopefully, OP is drawing an x on the map, for next time, lol.

[John 6IX Breezy]

[quote='John 6IX Breezy' pid='1943426' dateline='1574451910']


I went back an scanned through this thread.  A couple people mentioned guilt/fear regarding their growing sense of non-belief.  God vs. Evil wasn't really a reason outlined by the people who responded here.

If you are going to ask a question and you have an answer that you want (ie - mad at God/God is evil) maybe you could just let us know from the jump what your endgame is.  It would save a lot of time. 

You don't have to twist yourself into a believer pretzel in order to force the answer you want to hear - the answer you have already decided upon.  You obviously aren't going to listen to what answers you get.

Lesson learned, for me, at least.  You are going to ask questions and then try to mold the answers to fit the narrative in your head regarding atheists.

I agree that good and evil wasn't presented as a reason for deconversion by those who have responded. However, I still think the question of deconversion and evil is itself an interesting one and worth asking. I don't believe I've done anything besides asking the question.

If you feel I've pressured you or molded your answer in any way then I'll gladly correct this if you show me how I could have asked my question better, thanks.

[arewethereyet]

I went back an scanned through this thread.  A couple people mentioned guilt/fear regarding their growing sense of non-belief.  God vs. Evil wasn't really a reason outlined by the people who responded here.

If you are going to ask a question and you have an answer that you want (ie - mad at God/God is evil) maybe you could just let us know from the jump what your endgame is.  It would save a lot of time. 

You don't have to twist yourself into a believer pretzel in order to force the answer you want to hear - the answer you have already decided upon.  You obviously aren't going to listen to what answers you get.

Lesson learned, for me, at least.  You are going to ask questions and then try to mold the answers to fit the narrative in your head regarding atheists.

I agree that good and evil wasn't presented as a reason for deconversion by those who have responded. However, I still think the question of deconversion and evil is itself an interesting one and worth asking. I don't believe I've done anything besides asking the question.

If you feel I've pressured you or molded your answer in any way then I'll gladly correct this if you show me how I could have asked my question better, thanks.

After seeing answers posted here to your original question, you took the leap to evil being part of the answer.
Your apologetics (which are surely coming) aren't something I want to participate in.
If you really wanted to know how people came to the place they are with regard to their belief or non then you should perhaps take them at their word when they answer you.  What you are doing is trying to put words into peoples' mouths so that the answers become what you already believe them to be.  It's not a style of dishonesty that's unfamiliar.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Hopefully, OP is drawing an x on the map, for next time, lol.

Where would that X even be? I don't even understand where you guys think I'm supposed to be going with this? Either my impressions on the topic are confirmed or falsified, what more is there?

---

After seeing answers posted here to your original question, you took the leap to evil being part of the answer.
Your apologetics (which are surely coming) aren't something I want to participate in.
If you really wanted to know how people came to the place they are with regard to their belief or non then you should perhaps take them at their word when they answer you.  What you are doing is trying to put words into peoples' mouths so that the answers become what you already believe them to be.  It's not a style of dishonesty that's unfamiliar.

I took a similar leap when I asked if children's version of the Bible played role in the Bible being viewed as childish. I listened to everyone's responses, and commented on some. Not sure why the question on evil is being treated differently from that of children's stories. But I respect your decision to not participate further, and again, my apologies if you somehow felt wrongly pressured by the question.

If I put words in anyone's mouth, I'll gladly withdraw them if you point them out.