Deconversion stories and their causes

The best way to deconvert people is to have them read their religious books critically, that's what did it for me, starting with the Bible then other faiths books as I discovered the insanity that is religion and faith went first since its a very flawed epistemology you believe things without evidence and without any way to falsify claims unlike science. So am now a materialist and Atheist if a deity or deities want me to believe in them they just need to prove it to me.

 

If it were clear there would be no debate. If you believe scripture is clear then you believe people lived for centuries with almost no healthcare knowledge, a scientific impossibility.

 

It is commonplace for people to twist scriptures to their ideology. This does not constitute honest debate.

 

The issue for me was indoctrination. I had no choice in the matter as I was forced to go to Church which as a small child I found boring. To make matters worse I was raised in a strict Christian conservative family that seem to believe in the punishing all powerful and to be feared variant God of Christianity. On top of that I was raised in a do as I say and not as I do setting which even as a child I saw as hypocritical.

In adulthood I have many times tried various favors of Christianity but never took to it. I always felt like I was on the outside looking in. I would see others seemingly having an emotionally uplifting connection to something that I never felt... in Church anyway.

Today I believe that there is a power greater than I out there aka God and identify as a Deist. As a Deist I am free to find my own answers as opposed to many traditional religions where the answers are predetermined.

 

Coming up with different interpretations is not twisting necessarily. Have you ever wondered why the majority of the bible skimps on actual details? I believe it was by design because if God had given us verifiable evidence then there would be no freewill because we would know the truth. Instead, he gives us just enough to give us some context.

It is really amazing how the bible is written like that and considering how many contributed over so many centuries it is near impossible for it not to be filled with mistakes. Add to that that many of the authors did not know of what previous authors wrote, yet their stories fit seemlessly together, and I think that the writing of the bible itself is enough proof of a god.

In contrast, the Quran was written in like 24 days.

 

So all those pre-Christian era scumbags of ancient history - the mass murderers and rapists and pillagers get a free pass on judgement day?

Heaven must be truly interesting "multicultural" sorta soul palace don'cha think?

 

Not necessarily. To think that God would not still judge you on your works simply because you never heard of him would be ridiculous. Since the bible does not tell us about this particular situation you have to look at how God treated people who were evil in the OT. He was not kind.

 

I left Christianity after several careful readings of the Bible and of Christian doctrine. There were both rational and ethical considerations. I left theism mostly out of theodicy-type concerns; however, after having long discussions about the particulars of my beliefs with both theists and atheists, I've had theists call me an overly-philosophical theist and atheists call me an overly-poetic atheist.

 

If people influenced my doubt it was only indirectly. The imbedded paradoxes in fundamental christianity were what kept the doubt going. Specifically, in my case, the paradox of salvation.

In the modern world many of the little superstitions that nourished blind faith are now completely debunked. Demonic possession and transubstantiation of the bread and wine for instance. So doubt is natural for anyone who has an open mind.

 

This line of reasoning only leads into more puzzles of Gods justice. The murderer who finds god at the last moment verses the good man tempted to sin who dies unexpectedly with the sin still in his mind. Or the good atheist verses the child abusing christian and so on.

In the end Gods justice must be either arbitrary (not dependent on faith) or almost completely scripturally literal.

There is a third door here if you are willing to take it. Maybe christianity can be for something other than protection from eternal punishment and a guarantee of eternal joy. Maybe it should be about living, and the things we strive for in life. A rational christian should not be concerned with heaven and hell at all.

 

God says that you cannot come to him at the 11th hour and expect salvation and likewise if you are claiming to be a Christian and not trying to live like one, such as abusing children, it is a safe bet that Hod has already turned away from you. God also knows if you are just claiming to be a Christian to avoid punishment......that should never be the reason to come to God.

 

How was the reading triggered? Did someone tell you "read through your book, in a critical mindset" or did you come to that conclusion yourself? If so, what was it that made you want to do that? In my mind, by the time you've reached the point you mention, the battle is already won, and I would like to know what leads up to that.

 

So what was the process like when you first decided to look elsewhere? How old were you? Were it particular ideas of doctrine or other things that triggered it?

My focus in this thread has to a large extent been on social interactions (but don't let that dissuade you from writing of other things). It seems from your description that it was someone's arguments *for* (and defence of) Christianity which managed to drive you *away* from Christianity, would you agree with that?

 

How was the reading triggered? Did someone tell you "read through your book, in a critical mindset" or did you come to that conclusion yourself? If so, what was it that made you want to do that? In my mind, by the time you've reached the point you mention, the battle is already won, and I would like to know what leads up to that.

 

This is not directly answering the puzzles. Of course if the person is not sincere in their faith my point is moot.

But a convicted murderer could come to faith while awaiting execution, and a child abuser could be trying to live as a good christian but repeatedly fail and repeatedly seek forgiveness. Only God can really judge.

Coming from a fundamentalist upbringing I've read and gone through the specifics plenty of times. Some paradoxes are just intentional secular misunderstanding, but enough are valid that it makes holding on to Christian faith pretty difficult.

I think the current incarnation of Christianity is overly influenced by the concepts of grace and condemnation, which make evangelism a moral imperative. A more reasonable interpretation of new testament scripture should put the weight of judgement not on others, but the self. In the end that is the straight and narrow path that few adhere to.

 

Cool, well, there's a lot of detail that I can go into. For some background: I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church. No one ever told me to read the Bible with a critical mindset; in fact, I was in high school before I even knew that there were people who read the Bible with an honest and critical mindset and found disagreement. I was raised to believe that anyone who read the Bible and examined it honestly would convert to Christianity. There would still be some parts that were difficult to understand, but the Holy Spirit would guide the saved to better understand those parts. In other words, if you looked at the Bible and found something disagreeable, it must be because you aren't reading it with an honest mind or that you haven't invited the Holy Spirit into your life.

I do remember the first time that I had a critical thought about the Bible. I was always a curious kid who was fascinated by nature; I had asked my parents how rain worked, and they made sure to answer every question I had in the best way that they could. They showed me pictures that illustrated the rain cycle, Dad took me early in the morning to watch water evaporating off of the river, we built a terrarium so that I could see condensation form, etc. It was awesome. Then, in Sunday school, my teacher told me that it had never rained before Noah's flood -- this is a popular reading of the Bible among young earth creationists, especially those who are fans of the "Vapor Canopy" theory. I was floored. I was willing to believe it (hey, God can do anything, right?), but I wanted to know how, so I raised my hand and started asking questions. Did God prevent water from evaporating on the ground? Did he prevent the condensation (I didn't use that word, of course; I was only 5 or 6) in the sky? Did he just hold all of it back until he needed it for the flood? Eventually, my teacher sent me to the Pastor's office. This was a big deal for little Yardmeat. This was like being sent to the principal's office and I was never sent to the principal's office (yeah, I was that kid).

Pastor explained that the Bible has all of the answers, and that to find those answers I just needed to read the Bible and turn to the Holy Spirit if I had questions. Over the next couple of weeks, we continued studying Noah's flood, and I had more and more questions. Why did God drown all of those poor animals (I had lots of nightmares of my pets drowning during this time period)? Were there babies and kids that died in the flood? I kept these questions to myself, though, and sometimes came up with creative ways that God could have handled these situations; I decided that these imaginative solutions must be the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

From that time until late high school, any time I had doubts or criticisms about the Bible, I blamed myself. People who have heard the gospel message only disbelieve if they are looking for an excuse for continuing in their sin, after all. If I had doubts or criticisms, that was due to my sin and rebellion.

Late in high school, though, I started meeting people who were willing to admit to being atheists (they didn't want it made public, but people have a habit of confiding in me a lot), Jews, a Muslim, Buddhists, etc. Most of these people seemed to honestly believe what the believed, and I had trouble thinking that they had all rejected Christianity out of a desire to sin . . . especially since they living cleaner lives than some of the people from my church. It was easier to believe those nasty things about myself than it was to believe them about other people.

I didn't really talk to my parents much about religion, but I talked to my mother about my doubts and asked her why she no longer taught Sunday school at our church. She got really uncomfortable and refused to talk about either for a couple of days, but she eventually told me the whole story. She had just found out that my sister had epilepsy, and she asked one of her fellow teachers if perhaps some of the instances of demonic possession in the Bible had not really been demonic possession, but had been epilepsy. The fellow teacher was furious and rallied the rest of the staff against my mom for her doubt. In fact, they reasoned, perhaps my sister didn't have epilepsy, but had been possessed as well.

All of these things built up over time and, combined with my studies of the Bible and of other people's beliefs, caused me to leave the faith. I was especially discouraged when leaders in other churches were more than willing to listen to my critical questions and discuss them with an open attitude, making me question the defensive nature of my own faith. I should disclose, however, that according to my church's teachings, I never really believed in the first place. The SBC teaches "once saved always saved." There is no "backsliding." If someone "no longer" believes, then they never really believed in the first place.

 

So you weren't guided into the revelations you found, you came to them on your own?

These others, did you interact with them much, and do you think that had a big impact on your journey? How nice/aggressive were they? What set those who had the most impact apart?

 

I'm curious how reliable any testimony will be.

Confirmation bias is most likely going to play a big role in peoples recollections. You especially see it in the people who supposedly became atheists for a time and then went back to being religious. I actually performed somewhat of an experiment in regards to determinism years ago with a co-worker without his knowledge. This wasn't about religion it was about him being overweight and deciding to get in shape. During the process of him making this lifestyle change I asked him many questions about how he felt, how it was affecting him mentally and what kind of mental exercises he had to do in order to stay on track. Being overweight was simply who he was, it didn't just happen over night and so in order to really get in shape he had to change who he was. For example he used to love to play video games and now he's the guy who uses his lunch break to go for a walk. At the time he kept telling me how every day, moment after moment he had to resists the thoughts in his mind. Thoughts would arise just seeing a McDonalds for example and he would have to say "wait no, I don't want that". He explained how the decision to change came from an outside influence and the process was grueling.

Fast forward 2 years and imagine a changed man. Skinny, upbeat and even adventurous. 2 years was the time table I gave myself to finish the experiment though there's no real reason why, I just wanted to wait a couple years. When I began asking him the same questions I asked him years before (and this is just in passing, I didn't have a questionnaire in my hand or anything) his recollection was entirely different and entirely ego driven. There was no struggle to change who he was, he simply decided one day to change and then did. I even asked him about the thoughts he constantly had to battle with and he looked at me like I was crazy. The strength of our illusion of free will creates a strong cognitive dissonance and so one has to wonder how much truth is contained within the recollection of any lifestyle change. We tend to give ourselves far more credit than we deserve. Aside from scientists most people don't like being wrong and they dislike someone else proving them wrong even more.

If A,B and C are the reason for the change but B is remembered negatively or doesn't offer one the most appealing truth, even if it was the thing most responsible for the change, B will be discarded.

 

I had many of the influences that others have reported. But there was a specific tipping point.

I was in college. A religious affiliated school. A questioning student in the questioning time of the 60s.

As i struggled with coming to terms with religion.... One issue was what would happen to children in india who died without ever even knowing christs message. Would they go to hell? That made no sense to me.

In a light hearted way, I brought up that question with a fundamentalist friend. i told him i did not believe these kids would go to hell. And then casually asked if that meant tha i also would be consigned to hell. My friend looked me straight in the eyes and confirmed my hellish fate.

Lots of people may say go to hell, but there is nothing like the impact of a friend sncerely telling you that you are going to hell. Either you believe him, or you turn away, That was the start of my turning away. Not in an instant, but incrementally, drip by drip.

Up to that point i had thoght of religion as a source of goodness and love. After that, i could see more and more hypocrisy, sloppy thinking, and frankly cultish conformity.

I do not hate religious people. And recognize that relgious faith is a net positive for many peoples lives.But for me, the good of religion is insufficient to prompt an expedient acceptance of framework of truth that is proposed. A framework that imo is just a fantasy, albeit an attractive fantasy for a huge number of people

 

I have vacillated over my life, periodically trying a new flavor of Christianity. 2007 was the last time I tried Christianity and I never went back because it was obvious to me that I did not fit in so I quit trying.

Finally call it gusts in making any more efforts to connect with the God iPod Christianity when I was 42.

[QUITE]Were it particular ideas of doctrine or other things that triggered it?[/QUITE]

An amalgam of many things. For example the word of God is interpreted differently from Chuch to Church which defeats the whole concept of God's commandments are universal when Christians themselves cannot even come to a universal agreement upon said principles.

[/QUOTE]It seems from your description that it was someone's arguments *for* (and defence of) Christianity which managed to drive you *away* from Christianity, would you agree with that?[/QUOTE]

indeed as the arguments for were many, diverse, and often conflicting. I came to the conclusion that those who have a vision of what God is and what God wants have made God in their own image. The judgmental will base their judgment in the Bible while the tolerant will base their tollorance in the Bible.

 

I have vacillated over my life, periodically trying a new flavor of Christianity. 2007 was the last time I tried Christianity and I never went back because it was obvious to me that I did not fit in so I quit trying.

Finally call it gusts in making any more efforts to connect with the God iPod Christianity when I was 42.

An amalgam of many things. For example the word of God is interpreted differently from Chuch to Church which defeats the whole concept of God's commandments are universal when Christians themselves cannot even come to a universal agreement upon said principles.

indeed as the arguments for were many, diverse, and often conflicting. I came to the conclusion that those who have a vision of what God is and what God wants have made God in their own image. The judgmental will base their judgment in the Bible while the tolerant will base their tollorance in the Bible.

 

I fully agree, I don't think these testimonies will give full or particularly accurate accounts. The discussion is spawned from the recurring disagreement between FreedomSeeker and myself, where he believes harsh, logical arguments will convince people and I don't, so I'm focusing on those parts. So far, nobody has mentioned it. Many of those who have answered, I've probed further to see if they left something like that out, but I haven't heard anything yet.

 

This is actually the argument that began Dawkins and Krauss's friendship. Krauss believed as you did but Dawkins himself was convinced by harsh arguments. The reality is they both work for different people. As I said before, if a harsh argument is actually the thing that made a major impact on your reasoning you might omit it when you reflect on that change because it's not flattering to your ego. Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet and others, unless they are lying, have stated their inboxes are full of people who say the straw that broke the camels back was one of their talks or books. However it depends on what exactly the argument is here. Everyone of these guys mentioned here attack the beliefs, not the people. If a person is offended by someone challenging a belief that's their burden not anyone else's. If however you are attacking the person you've crossed a line and they have every right to be offended.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but not every opinion is entitled to respect.

 

See, in my mind, by the time they've made their way to these books, I think the battle is already won. Anyone who's reading these with an outlook other than mockery is going to be intrigued enough by the underlying ideas that they are susceptible to the hard logic. As you say, the "straw that broke the camel's back". I want those straws that need to be put on the camel before the last straw is added.

 

It's a shame you were so impacted by another Christians proclamation of that false doctrine. I've managed to remain faithful due to critical research and honestly concluding that the eternal torment doctrine is false. If I believed it were biblical, I would consider Christianity just another cult.