Should an ex-Christian be able to explain why?

[cloudyday2]

Should a person who transitioned from believing Christian to disbelieving ex-Christian be able to clearly explain why this happened? For example, "I became convinced that such and such essential Christian belief is false."

Many atheists will say that the burden of proof is on Christians and non-belief should be the default when the proof is absent. But ex-Christians are a special type of non-believers. They are not blank slates waiting for verifiable truths to be written upon them. They have scribbled-out their previous writing, and it seems to me that this scribbling might require some explanation to be considered justifiable.

When I try to ask myself why I don't believe, I can only shrug my shoulders. I just don't believe anymore. I'm not sure why. This bugs me.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would think a person would be able to articulate something so important.

Not trying to put you on the spot (and I'm not assuming anything) but - are you sure you were a believer before? I guess the other question is - are you sure you don't believe now?

 

[archer75]

I'm not saying this applies to you, but I think this can happen when insistence that something unseen is "fact" gets treated as if it were faith. If one gets tired of being insistent all the time, it can feel as if one's faith has vanished.

 

[CherubRam]

Should a person who transitioned from believing Christian to disbelieving ex-Christian be able to clearly explain why this happened? For example, "I became convinced that such and such essential Christian belief is false."

Many atheists will say that the burden of proof is on Christians and non-belief should be the default when the proof is absent. But ex-Christians are a special type of non-believers. They are not blank slates waiting for verifiable truths to be written upon them. They have scribbled-out their previous writing, and it seems to me that this scribbling might require some explanation to be considered justifiable.

When I try to ask myself why I don't believe, I can only shrug my shoulders. I just don't believe anymore. I'm not sure why. This bugs me.

There is no perfect congregation because there is no perfect man. Incorrect doctrine or bible translations does not make the bible as a whole untrue.

 

[Not me]

Should a person who transitioned from believing Christian to disbelieving ex-Christian be able to clearly explain why this happened? For example, "I became convinced that such and such essential Christian belief is false."

Many atheists will say that the burden of proof is on Christians and non-belief should be the default when the proof is absent. But ex-Christians are a special type of non-believers. They are not blank slates waiting for verifiable truths to be written upon them. They have scribbled-out their previous writing, and it seems to me that this scribbling might require some explanation to be considered justifiable.

When I try to ask myself why I don't believe, I can only shrug my shoulders. I just don't believe anymore. I'm not sure why. This bugs me.

I think you misunderstand what Christianity is it’s ground. It is the “new birth.” Just like when a child is born into a family, once that birth has happened it can never be undone. This is the ground of Christianity. The child may be a bad or good child but nevertheless the child still belong to that particular family. The same thing with the new birth. For once it has happened it can never be undone, for it is an eternal birth. If an individual has been born again, they have become a Christian they can never “not” be a Christian. They may be a rebellious Christian, but a Christian nevertheless. This is the ground of Christianity.

For the scripture says of a rebellious Christian;

1 Corinthians 5:5 (NASB)
[I have decided] to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

If a person has been born again (the new birth) and chooses to live in sin. That person will be the most miserable person until they turn back to the one who loves them.

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[Silmarien]

Should a person who transitioned from believing Christian to disbelieving ex-Christian be able to clearly explain why this happened? For example, "I became convinced that such and such essential Christian belief is false."

Many atheists will say that the burden of proof is on Christians and non-belief should be the default when the proof is absent. But ex-Christians are a special type of non-believers. They are not blank slates waiting for verifiable truths to be written upon them. They have scribbled-out their previous writing, and it seems to me that this scribbling might require some explanation to be considered justifiable.

When I try to ask myself why I don't believe, I can only shrug my shoulders. I just don't believe anymore. I'm not sure why. This bugs me.

What do you mean when you say you're not sure why? You've been pretty clear in the past about what you don't believe about Christianity, between the polytheistic origins of Judaism, the possibility that Jesus was an Essene, and so forth.

I think everyone should examine what they believe and why they believe it, whatever their religion or non-religion. Nobody is a blank slate waiting for verifiable truths to be written upon them, if there is even such a thing as a verifiable truth.

 

[gaara4158]

It goes like this:

1. If God exists, there will be evidence that God exists.

2. There is no evidence that God exists.

3. Therefore, God does not exist.

If premise 1 is false, then I don’t see how anyone could ever rationally justify belief in God. If premise 2 is false, show me. I haven’t been able to dispute either of these two premises, so I have had to drop my previously-held belief in God.

 

[cloudyday2]

I would think a person would be able to articulate something so important.

Not trying to put you on the spot (and I'm not assuming anything) but - are you sure you were a believer before? I guess the other question is - are you sure you don't believe now?

I'm not certain on either of those questions.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm not certain on either of those questions.

Well ... for what it's worth, intellectual and/or philosophical pursuit of God has not proven profitable for anyone I know personally.

To be honest, even if you "prove" to yourself by logic or philosophy that God exists, that still isn't faith. Even the demons believe, and they have personal experience of God - and it does nothing to "save" them.

I think we sometimes get too caught up in intellectual belief and proofs and such because of the way the Scriptures are translated in English.

Faith in God does require belief, but every person I know that I've gotten into the heart of the process with them - has been an experiential process of coming to know God. Even if a person begins with intellectual belief, they need to progress to KNOWING God through experience.

Beginning this process usually starts with a willingness and sincerely seeking. Usually without challenging God in one's own pride. (God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.) I say usually because sometimes for His own reasons, God does intervene even for those with a prideful approach. But usually openness and humility is fruitful.

Sincerely wanting God and knowing we need him is the best frame for seeking. And once a person has experienced God, especially repeatedly and in different ways, it becomes impossible NOT to believe. It's like trying to believe your mother doesn't exist.

This has been my experience and what I know from others.

 

[cloudyday2]

What do you mean when you say you're not sure why? You've been pretty clear in the past about what you don't believe about Christianity, between the polytheistic origins of Judaism, the possibility that Jesus was an Essene, and so forth.

Thanks, that helps me organize my reasoning a little bit. I honestly think there is something screwy about my brain. When I think it is like pacing in circles around the subject over and over until I gradually decide something (sometimes) after reaching a level of mental exhaustion - and the decision is never final. I think I am a "concrete thinker" instead of an "abstract thinker" (?) I don't feel comfortable until I can visualize things. Words are confusing.

But anyway I have a biography of Judaism and Christianity I have constructed that seems plausible and indicates they are malarky. But is there an alternative biography that also "connects the dots" of the historical evidence and makes the religions seem true? That's what I wonder sometimes. There are obviously many possible biographies that fit the dots. In other words can I use one of the known historical (or even personal experiential) data points to prove that any possible curve fit to this data will demonstrate the malarkey of the Abrahamic faiths? That's what I ask myself, and I don't know where to start to answer that.

 

[Not me]

It goes like this:

1. If God exists, there will be evidence that God exists.

2. There is no evidence that God exists.

3. Therefore, God does not exist.

If premise 1 is false, then I don’t see how anyone could ever rationally justify belief in God. If premise 2 is false, show me. I haven’t been able to dispute either of these two premises, so I have had to drop my previously-held belief in God.

If you truly want to know if God exists there’s a very simple way?

Your Creator waits in righteousness to bless those willing to walk in righteousness.

All you need to do is be willing to walk in righteousness, in all you do, say, think, dream, hope, and desire. In other words be willing to do righteousness in “all things” and you will run smack dab into God. For that is where He waits, for it is “sin” that blinds mans eyes to God.

For God will be found by all that “want” Him.

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[cloudyday2]

It goes like this:

1. If God exists, there will be evidence that God exists.

2. There is no evidence that God exists.

3. Therefore, God does not exist.

If premise 1 is false, then I don’t see how anyone could ever rationally justify belief in God. If premise 2 is false, show me. I haven’t been able to dispute either of these two premises, so I have had to drop my previously-held belief in God.

Step 2 in that proof isn't clear to me. I like your reasoning otherwise. I might change step 1 to say "If God exists and God is relevant to humans then there will be evidence that God exists." Lots of irrelevant Gods can be imagined that would not leave evidence.

 

[gaara4158]

Step 2 in that proof isn't clear to me. I like your reasoning otherwise. I might change step 1 to say "If God exists and God is relevant to humans then there will be evidence that God exists." Lots of irrelevant Gods can be imagined that would not leave evidence.

Well, step 2 is an assertion that isn’t defended within the argument, but if someone chooses to dispute it you’ve got them taking on the burden of proof.

 

[gaara4158]

If you truly want to know if God exists there’s a very simple way?

Your Creator waits in righteousness to bless those willing to walk in righteousness.

All you need to do is be willing to walk in righteousness, in all you do, say, think, dream, hope, and desire. In other words be willing to do righteousness in “all things” and you will run smack dab into God. For that is where He waits, for it is “sin” that blinds mans eyes to God.

For God will be found by all that “want” Him.

Much love in Christ, Not me

So which premise are you denying?

 

[Not me]

So which premise are you denying?

Neither;

just showing you how you can “know” God exists, if your interested.

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[gaara4158]

Neither;

just showing you how you can “know” God exists, if your interested.

Much love in Christ, Not me

I’m more interested in a rebuttal to my argument that concludes God does not exist.

 

[Not me]

I’m more interested in a rebuttal to my argument that concludes God does not exist.

So you really don’t want to know if He does exist? Curious.

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[DogmaHunter]

Should a person who transitioned from believing Christian to disbelieving ex-Christian be able to clearly explain why this happened? For example, "I became convinced that such and such essential Christian belief is false."

Many atheists will say that the burden of proof is on Christians and non-belief should be the default when the proof is absent. But ex-Christians are a special type of non-believers. They are not blank slates waiting for verifiable truths to be written upon them. They have scribbled-out their previous writing, and it seems to me that this scribbling might require some explanation to be considered justifiable.

When I try to ask myself why I don't believe, I can only shrug my shoulders. I just don't believe anymore. I'm not sure why. This bugs me.

I'm sure most could give you their personal reasons for why they no longer believe and I can imagine you'll be given many different reasons.

However, this is not a burden of proof issue.
The burden of proof is on the one making positive claims.

Becoming an disbeliever, would essentially mean that you no longer have the burden of proof that you had when being a believer, concerning the positive claims of that belief.

In short:
You make claim X, then you have a burden of proof.
If you then stop making claim x, then you have no longer a burden of proof regarding X.

One could ask you "why did you stop making claim X?", but again that's not a burden of proof issue. The answer for example could be "I just realised that I was not justified in making that claim. That is to say, I was unable to meet my burden of proof. And upon realising that, I stopped making claim X on the basis that it was unsupportable."

See?

 

[DogmaHunter]

If an individual has been born again, they have become a Christian they can never “not” be a Christian. They may be a rebellious Christian, but a Christian nevertheless.

I'm sorry, but this is just delusional and not how reality works.

If a "born again" christian later in life becomes a muslim or an atheist... then continueing to call him a christian makes very little sense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It goes like this:

1. If God exists, there will be evidence that God exists.

2. There is no evidence that God exists.

3. Therefore, God does not exist.

If premise 1 is false, then I don’t see how anyone could ever rationally justify belief in God. If premise 2 is false, show me. I haven’t been able to dispute either of these two premises, so I have had to drop my previously-held belief in God.

Sorry, but imo that conclusion does not follow.
It can also be that evidence exists, but that it simply hasn't been discovered yet.