Atheist here (Ask me anything)

[CoderHead]

That you can't sign the glorious anthem of the Athletic Club de Bilbao

"Glorious," huh? If I were unable to sing the anthem of a soccer team, what would that prove? I only question why it was necessary or helpful to your argument to even mention it. Obviously, you're some kind of fanatic. If that works for you, then I'm happy you're happy. To be honest, I couldn't possibly care less about sports if I tried really hard, 24 hours a day. Because of that, you can rest assured I'll not be wasting my time searching for the anthem on YouTube.

Fútbol might not be necessary for survival, but yet it's much more than just a crutch for the lonely. And so it's religion.

Of course sports are not just a crutch for the lonely, they're a diversion. While some people have managed to make them a career or a way of life, they're still nothing more than games. The fact that people go crazy over them doesn't change that fact. And if the behavior of soccer fans is any reflection on the mindset of religious people, then I'm pretty sure I want no part of it.

 

[lighthouse_hope]

oh coderhead, come on guy, if I had told you that I play role-playing games, what would you have came up with, some "Dark Dungeons" comics?

And by the way, you have a very skewed view of football. "Soccer fans" include almost everybody in Europe, including not a few atheists.

 

[CoderHead]

oh coderhead, come on guy, if I had told you that I play role-playing games, what would you have came up with, some "Dark Dungeons" comics?

Role-playing games, like sports, are still just games. Your analogy wouldn't have mattered. I just didn't think comparing religion or soccer to food made any sense at all.

And by the way, you have a very skewed view of football. "Soccer fans" include almost everybody in Europe, including not a few atheists.

My point is not that soccer fans are religious, but that you're comparing religion to soccer. I wouldn't really disagree that it's a somewhat effective analogy, since both groups of people can be fanatical and even dangerous. I'm just saying that I don't need soccer or religion, equally.

 

[nicknack28]

This question's for Skeptic or I guess anyone else to whom it would apply. You explained very early on in the thread that you lost your faith gradually as a combination of school studies, interests, etc. (if I recall correctly). Do you think that if you had been provided with or came upon the right kind of arguments you would have lost your faith much more rapidly? Like if someone had presented to you the reasoning you employ now to your mindset then, would you have reconfigured your beliefs significantly without much resistance?

 

[CoderHead]

Do you think that if you had been provided with or came upon the right kind of arguments you would have lost your faith much more rapidly? Like if someone had presented to you the reasoning you employ now to your mindset then, would you have reconfigured your beliefs significantly without much resistance?

Yes.

 

[lighthouse_hope]

Role-playing games, like sports, are still just games. Your analogy wouldn't have mattered. I just didn't think comparing religion or soccer to food made any sense at all.

My point is that anything can be used as a crutch.

 

[CoderHead]

My point is that anything can be used as a crutch.

Agreed. So are we conceding that religion is nothing more than a crutch?

 

[lighthouse_hope]

Agreed. So are we conceding that religion is nothing more than a crutch?

No. I am not. I am saying that anything can be used as a crutch.

(and re-reading what you said about the glorious anthem of the Athletic Club de Bilbao, if you could sing that, it would prove that you can utter most phonemes in Euskera. )

 

[Tinker Grey]

Do you think that if you had been provided with or came upon the right kind of arguments you would have lost your faith much more rapidly? Like if someone had presented to you the reasoning you employ now to your mindset then, would you have reconfigured your beliefs significantly without much resistance?

I'd like to answer this because my answer is different than CoderHead's.

I don't know, but there is a good chance that the answer is no. I was a devout Christian and well versed in the arguments. There is a chance, then, had I been more engaged in debates it might have actually taken longer to acknowledge that my beliefs were a house of cards.

Because I recognized weaknesses in the faith, I was actively building a bulwark to fix them. It was a cyclical process of "examine-fix-examine-fix", etc. At some point, examining reached the foundations (premises) and found that the foundations were beyond repair.

I'm not contradicting CoderHead; I'm just indicating that we are all different.

 

[nicknack28]

I'd like to answer this because my answer is different than CoderHead's.

I don't know, but there is a good chance that the answer is no. I was a devout Christian and well versed in the arguments. There is a chance, then, had I been more engaged in debates it might have actually taken longer to acknowledge that my beliefs were a house of cards.

Because I recognized weaknesses in the faith, I was actively building a bulwark to fix them. It was a cyclical process of "examine-fix-examine-fix", etc. At some point, examining reached the foundations (premises) and found that the foundations were beyond repair.

I'm not contradicting CoderHead; I'm just indicating that we are all different.

This is interesting. I did the same examine-fix rinse-and-repeat process that you described but because I had a large amount of time on my hands the process took only month to go from average devoted Christian to atheist. Although I held Christian beliefs at the time whenever I discovered a more reasoned line of thinking I adopted it with very very little resistance. The house of cards came down appallingly easily. This was probably so because I had little emotional investment in religion, concentrating more on "purpose in life" sorts of things.

I guess I'm curious if anyone else had a similar experience of a much easier (and quicker) than expected deconversion, and if not then would it have been possible under different circumstances.

Thanks for the responses and I encourage further responses from others.

 

[Dragons87]

It would appear that religion is a crutch for insecurities. Afraid of death? That's OK, God will make you live for eternity! Feeling unimportant? Don't worry, you have a place in God's perfect plan! Have you been wronged? No problem, those who harm you will get their just desserts in the end! Feeling lonely? That's why your brothers and sisters in Christ are here!

Those who deal with their insecurities and doubts in a healthy way have no need of religion.

I do not agree with you that religion is a crutch for human insecurities, of which this world offers many--many more than your list, and many more more severe than your list. But that is because I go further: the Christian faith is the medicine, the cure, for the insecurities of the world.

However, I disagree substantively with your implied view that religion, especially Christianity, is an unhealthy crutch for those insecurities. Christianity is the only cure to those insecurities, but Christianity is tough pill to swallow!

Afraid of death? "Then put your old self to death, and follow me," says Jesus.

Feeling unimportant? "Be unimportant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled," says Jesus.

Have you been wronged? "Forgive those who have wronged you, as many times as required," says Jesus.

Feeling lonely? "You're not alone. I've been lonely too. But we'll be lonely together." says Jesus.

I know people who tried to deal with their insecurities with crutches of alcohol, gambling, pornography, crime and the like, but when they asked for Christ to be their crutch, they completely changed their ways and never again went to those things for support.

If the world is the source of our insecurities, it would be nonsensical to turn back to the world to look for the crutch.

What healthy crutches does the world offer? Does it even attempt to offer a cure?

 

[Dragons87]

I'd like to answer this because my answer is different than CoderHead's.

I don't know, but there is a good chance that the answer is no. I was a devout Christian and well versed in the arguments. There is a chance, then, had I been more engaged in debates it might have actually taken longer to acknowledge that my beliefs were a house of cards.

Because I recognized weaknesses in the faith, I was actively building a bulwark to fix them. It was a cyclical process of "examine-fix-examine-fix", etc. At some point, examining reached the foundations (premises) and found that the foundations were beyond repair.

I'm not contradicting CoderHead; I'm just indicating that we are all different.

This is interesting. I did the same examine-fix rinse-and-repeat process that you described but because I had a large amount of time on my hands the process took only month to go from average devoted Christian to atheist. Although I held Christian beliefs at the time whenever I discovered a more reasoned line of thinking I adopted it with very very little resistance. The house of cards came down appallingly easily. This was probably so because I had little emotional investment in religion, concentrating more on "purpose in life" sorts of things.

I guess I'm curious if anyone else had a similar experience of a much easier (and quicker) than expected deconversion, and if not then would it have been possible under different circumstances.

Tinker Grey and nicknack, unfortunately I must point out that by these words alone, it proves that neither of you were ever "Christian" in the Christian sense--words such as "(average) devout", "well-versed in arguments", "examine-fix", "hold Christian beliefs" and "emotional investment".

A follower of Christ is perhaps never any of those things.

He may have an average existence, but does not have an average life.

He is devout inside, but rebelling against the world outside.

He doesn't argue, but leads by example.

He examines, but sees no need to fix.

He does not hold Christian beliefs, but holds Christ.

He does not invest his emotions, but reaps them in harvest.

I am sure that this charge has been levelled at you before, and I apologise for doing it again. However, it is simply impossible for me to say that either of you ever tasted the fruit that Christ had to offer. You looked at it, smelt it, touched it, but you never actually tasted it. You put it down and left, thinking that the fruit was bad even before you had a bite.

I know you see it differently. Perhaps we can open another line of discussion.

 

[nicknack28]

I don't see it as mattering either way. Many Christians will say just as you've said and will be right -- I probably was not a Christian in their sense. Many others are less Christian than I was and still wear the label Christian, I've no doubt. "Christian" is not really definitive of anything these days.

Also, I'm not interested in No True Scotsman arguments honestly, but I'm open for discussion.

 

[Dragons87]

I don't see it as mattering either way. Many Christians will say just as you've said and will be right -- I probably was not a Christian in their sense. Many others are less Christian than I was and still wear the label Christian, I've no doubt. "Christian" is not really definitive of anything these days.

Also, I'm not interested in No True Scotsman arguments honestly, but I'm open for discussion.

Unfortunately our language abilities limit us to labelling each other only with words, and I've got no alternative.

Fortunately the one who actually decides has an alternative. But that's another point.

 

[Tinker Grey]

double post.

 

[Tinker Grey]

*snip*

People who claim to examine but never need to fix are either intellectually dishonest or not very smart. Either you have convinced yourself that you are always right or you aren't smart enough to ever discover your own mistakes.

People who never examine are intellectually stunted.

I think Augustine and Origen and Thomas Aquinas, I think, would bristle at your assertion.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I find it interesting that so many Christians are obsessed with telling de-converts that they never were Christians -- that their entire lives leading up to their deconversion was a lie.

Perhaps it's a sign of insecurity.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Perhaps it's a sign of insecurity.

MY FRIEND,

There is nothing more secure than a Christian in the arms of his Lord, but your loving concern does warm my heart.

I find it interesting that so many Christians are obsessed with telling de-converts that they never were Christians -- that their entire lives leading up to their deconversion was a lie.

Someone needs to speak the truth to these misguided souls.

De-conversion is a myth--and a pretty silly one at that. Conversion is based solely upon meeting your Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ face-to-face, experiencing His Grace, Mercy, and Love becoming active in one's life and being changed by the Power of His Holy Spirit into a New Creation with a new and fresh life to be joyfully lived with God's guidance.

Only once the above transpires can can be considered "converted" and worthy to bear the name "Christian," and it follows that once one has had this glorious experience of God's Grace, nothing and nobody could ever turn a person around and lead them back into the graceless darkness.

i find it passingly strange that atheists, who have yet to see the Light and experience God's Love, should be so vocal in support of something they have no personal experience with themselves and thus have absolutely no basis upon which to judge yea or nay, when it benefits (they believe) their untenable stand in relation to their blindly denying God's existence and Christianity's rationality, and yet can turn around and discount and cynically denigrate a Christian's personal experience of the Truth with equal misguided vigor.

As one of Shakespeare's characters observed, "What fools these mortals be!" Amen to that!

Spiritual illnesses are hard to understand, but by the Grace of God they are easily healed--lucky for me!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[kenblaster5000]

I don't, same logic. I don't have any evidence showing me there is or there isn't a god, same way I don't have any evidence for a genie or superman.

So from the lack of evidence, I do not believe. I do not say I am certain there is no god, I just because of the overwhelming lack of evidence, I don't believe.

Thats why people say that religious people, no offence, are delusional. Same way you would say someone who believes that his dog talks and the dog is able to do advance mathematics is delusional.

How can you be sure that wind exists. You cannot see it?

 

[nicknack28]

How can you be sure that wind exists. You cannot see it?

I think we can all agree that you can feel wind...