Why I Stopped Believing In God
Monday, January 26th, 2009
The purpose of my rants and opinions is not to change anyone’s mind. There are several reasons I am rather vocal in what I say. I do hope that my posts help people think about what they believe, even if they don’t come to the same conclusions I did. I also hope to better inform those that wish to keep their religious beliefs what those of us who do not have them argue because there is a lot of misinformation out there given by apologetic ministries and the like. My main purpose, however, I think, is to just enjoy having them and not being afraid to express them anymore. Nevertheless, I do occasionally tire from trying to explain everything patiently over and over again to those who have little interest in what I am actually saying, but simply want to dogmatically cling to what they know. In times like those, I remind myself that I used to be one of those people.
It makes me wonder: why did I change my mind when others don’t? I think there are three factors that led to my de-conversion: Humility, misery, and knowledge. Humility is something taught to Christians, but it is a rare Christian that actually possesses it (at least in the conservative world in which I lived–I never really had much interaction with the more liberal Christians, so from here on, whenever I say “Christian”, know I am talking about conservatives here). I will not say I had an abundance of it–on the contrary, I thought I knew all the answers and could defend them. I was well versed in apologetics and knew every Sunday school answer in the book. Perhaps it was all my schooling in apologetics that made me listen when someone else spoke–I was anxious to prove their argument wrong, so I would listen. Over time, however, I realized that I couldn’t. That apologetics didn’t understand the concepts they were defending, so I had been taught how to defend the wrong ideas. I was convinced that the answers were out there, however, so I started doing some research, which leads me to the knowledge part. I began noticing: a lot of the arguments for certain ideas tended to end up being fancy ways of saying “Well, we (the authors) like this idea, therefore, it must be true.” My textbook for Old Testament in college contained a good example of this when discussing whether or not the Bible was inspired by God. Over a couple years of personal research, I learned how to think critically. I, like many people, shoved as much of the contradictory evidence out of my mind. I had no desire to stop believing in God, but I did begin questioning. I never expected that my questioning would ultimately lead me away from faith, because everyone questions sometimes. So I waited patiently for my faith to come back. It never did. I began to have some serious doubts.
Another aspect that eventually drove me away was realizing that I was miserable. I did not fit into conservative world very well, at least not outside my home church. I married a minister, who, along with one of his friends and a friend of just mine that I ministered with once, helped me along in my doubts by teaching me about some of the other theological ideas floating around out there. Two out of three of them ultimately rejected those theological ideas–my husband included, but I think it was the “I like this idea, therefore it must be true” mentality that made them stick with their faith. I wound up not having that luxury. Ministry can be brutal, and I wound up serving in one extremely brutal church followed by an extremely apathetic (toward me) church. When we served in the apathetic church, I moved away from family and friends, and all I had was a church that only cared that I attended because of how it looked. I will probably someday post some stories from those churches, but for now, it is suffice to say that nobody really cared about me at all. Over time, it was incredibly draining to pour my entire heart into ministry, only to never be good enough for anyone. No one was ever satisfied, and I received no support. Nobody saw ME, they only saw what I did or didn’t do. You can only live in that kind of isolation for so long, especially with a small child who also takes and takes from you. When my marriage fell apart for completely unrelated reasons, the reaction of the Christian community is what finally drove me over the edge. From people I had known my entire life, I received nothing but judgment or silence from the conservative community. I lost all my social footing at a time when my faith was at its weakest point to begin with. I felt like the injured man on the side of the road–people either stopped to tell me it was my fault or walked on the other side of the road pretending not to see me. I stopped going to church, stopped caring whether or not God existed, and stopped caring what the Christian community thought of me. Steve (my fiance) insists that is when I became an atheist, but it took me another year to admit it to myself and to others. Back then, I thought if even Christians who are mandated to love others didn’t love me, then how much less would the outside world? Oh, how wrong I was! The outside world likes me! It amazes me, because for so long, I felt unlikeable. I felt invisible to Christians, but I am not to atheists, agnostics, or apathetics. I fit in!
Of course, I did not know that when I was still struggling. All I had was fear–fear of losing everything. Ultimately, I did lose everything, and it was hard. It took a lot of strength and humility to say I was wrong in what I had built my entire life around. But I can say it was worth it. The fear is gone. The rejection is there, and still hurts sometimes, but it is greatly lessened and I found a niche where I am loved–where loving people means they might acutally love you back sometimes. I found a lot of joy and a lot of peace by letting go of the things that are supposed to give you joy and peace, but never did. I blamed myself for so long! I blamed myself for not fitting in, and sure, some of it was my fault, but I have learned that it wasn’t all me. I blamed myself for not feeling the presence of God, for not having my prayers answered, for not being good enough, but to hell with it all. It wasn’t all me!
Will I believe in God again someday? Quite possibly! I admitted I was wrong once, and I am willing to do it again. But God will have to make an effort next time around, because I don’t have the energy to go around searching for him anymore. If he is real, and he is the Christian god, and he wants me, he will have to do the knocking, because I knocked hard and long and the door was never opened. I sought long and hard, but never found. All I found when I sought was that I had probably built my life on lies, and the only door that was opened to me was a door to a new life–far richer and better than the one I left behind.
(This is just kind of a nutshell. I could write an entire book on my experiences and journey to where I am now, but there is some of it anyways.)
Tags: atheism, Christianity, ex Christian, faith, humility, ministry, religion, theology
Loading ...
January 26th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Ndibaby,
I was afraid my post may sound like that. I didn’t know how to describe everything that I did. I did say in there “truly believed”, but there are simply more ways to describe different works than having faith. I reallllly did believe! I realllly did think I had faith. And as I said in my post, I do not claim that I had an abundance of humility–the only humility I had was the humility to admit that I didn’t have all the answers after all.
Anyways, as I said before, I could write an entire book about it. This is just an overview for the many people I know who are curious as to what happened to me!
January 26th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Could I suggest that you never actually had the true saving faith to begin with, but merely a faith? So, you were never a Christian, like the Bible defines it
January 26th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
S.O. (a clever abbreviation that I can only assume means [name removed by moderator] – who can be reached at [address removed by moderator] for any interested spambots), a few points:
1) You’re captive to a particular interpretive schema within the realm of Christian orthodoxy; there are others within, and many more without, that do not require the logical leaps which you so easily and thoughtlessly commit. You assume several things: 1) that John 2:19 merits application to anyone other than the intended recipients of John’s letter; 2) that John 2:19 represents not the opinion of the author, but the very words of God; and 3) that these words of God can be effortlessly applied to situations which defy even analogical analysis, at the mere preferential whim of the reader. All three of these are, to any self-respecting thinker, patently false; and even many interpretive frameworks withing Christian orthodoxy (obviously none YOU subscribe to) decry the third as an obvious bastardization of the meaning and purpose of Scripture.
2) You’re basing your opinion solely on the fervency of your belief – not on the facts of the case in front of you. Theologians call this “fragmented reasoning,” and lawyers call this “goddamned idiocy.” If you wish to reach a personally applicable and utterly-condemning opinion about this blog’s author, you must first gather more information than the scant morsels heretofore presented.
3) By way of conclusion (the previous points being my well-evidenced propositions, for any reader persuaded by propositional logic), it is solidly established that you are an asshole.
Have a nice day eating dicks,
Steve
January 26th, 2009 at 10:36 am
That is a very common misconception–to believe that those who leave never truly were, but I fit every possible definition you could think of. I asked Jesus into my heart, I went to church, I prayed, read my Bible, and really, truly believed. If I wrote a post that described my faith then without saying I lost it, nobody would for a second suggest that I was not truly a Christian. I was more Christian than most Christians! I ministered, tried to evangelize, stood up for my beliefs, and did everything “right.” Was I perfect? No, nobody is. But my life was right–my actions were right, my heart was right. It just didn’t work anyways.
It is an easy answer, because Christians do not understand how someone could not want to be one after experiencing it. For a lot of people, religion is the answer they seek, and the do not understand how their answer does not fit everyone else.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I will not say it is a misconception, rather a biblical fact. Take 1 John 2:19,
“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.”
Here we can plainly see that the issue is that those members of the church were NEVER actually church members to begin with.
Now you said a few things, you said you, “asked Jesus into your heart.” Well, that is an issue plaguing the church called ‘Decisional Regeneration.’ We never find that type of “ask Jesus in your heart” language in the Scriptures.
So, without going into too much detail, my heart TRULY goes out to you. Your post displays clear signs of a false conversion which led to apostasy. If you want too know what TRUE conversion looks like, I would be more than happy to tell you.
Till then, do not see this as an attack on your atheistic beliefs, rather, an upholding of TRUE, biblical Christianity. It is very easy to think you are saved and actually not be saved.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
My heart really goes out to you. It really made me sad, reading your note. I don’t know you but from what I have read it sounds like you never knew the person of Jesus. You say you were more Christian than other Christians – “I was more Christian than most Christians! I ministered, tried to evangelize, stood up for my beliefs, and did everything “right.” Was I perfect? No, nobody is. But my life was right–my actions were right, my heart was right. It just didn’t work anyways.”
Sounds like you had a work-based faith rather than faith based works. Work based faith is no faith at all; faith is a gift from God. The pharisees knew their bibles inside out yet were they saved? No!
I sympathise with you concerning the way the members of your church treated you. True christians love the brethren (1 John 3:10, 4:7,20).
But I also get the sense that you feel like you deserve something from God for all the work you have done. You speak of lack of humilty in the church, but could I also say that maybe it was you that needed to be humble? I see a lot of “I” and “Me” in your note…
This is not an attack on you; like i said earlier my heart really goes out to you. My prayer is that by the grace of God you hear and believe the true gospel, and embrace the person of Jesus Christ.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
You’re kidding me, right? How can you judge what faith I had when you don’t even know me? Not that it is your place to tell me whether or not I had faith at all. A false conversion? Please, by all means, tell me where I went wrong! I am quite sure you have the answer that 23 years of church 2-3x per week, Christian camps, conferences, and theology classes and books did not have.
(Sorry if I sound irritated–I don’t have a problem with people posting differing opinions, but I DO have a problem when people take those opinions and tell me who I am or was when they have never even met me.)
January 26th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Here is some good commentary on 1 John 2:19. I thought about writing a post about it, but this says basically what I was thinking:
http://www.faithalone.org/news/y2003/wilkin3.html
January 26th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
I did not grow up in a particularly religious family and I’ve always been an atheist. Because of this, I can not even begin to know what it is you went through, and for that I feel for you greatly. But your story is not unheard of. I believe richarddawkins.net has a number of stories and I think you should add yours.
While others here can massage their sensibilities that no one truly of faith can lose it by making claims that you were not a True Christian(TM), citing scripture that these people don’t realize we give any credence to, what really matters is how you feel about yourself now.
A question: did your Christian friends stand by you when you came to the realization that you no longer believed in god?
January 26th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
a few did, but most of my previous friends and family simply ignored everything that was happening–2008 brought a LOT of changes. A few straight up judged me and told me so. A couple DID respond kindly and told me they loved me no matter what. Of those, only one was conservative/moderate–the rest were more liberal. It’s okay, though, because I made new friends, better friends. And my old friends that did stick with me, I appreciate so much more.
You are right, my story is not that uncommon, and that is what has shocked me the most about all of this. Growing up a Christian, you think everyone wants to be a Christian, and those that do not are either seeking to justify immorality or simply ignorant.
Thanks for the comment!
January 26th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Well, you picked a heck of a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. My wife, also an atheist (but came to it from a different perspective), took a rather expensive trip to Nova Scotia to visit a close friend. While there, this friend and another one decided to try to convert her. “Why do you think God has surrounded you with Christians?” one asked. Ugh. After coming home she asked me what I would have done.
I told her I couldn’t help her. What she would do and what I would do are two vastly different things. I find such attempts at conversion (from religious folk or atheist) to be incredibly distasteful and unethical in the extreme. What I hear when someone is ‘witnessing’ to me is this: My belief system is superior to yours and yours doesn’t matter. The problem with that is I can demonstrate that it is no such thing.
I suppose what I would have done in that situation is demanded an immediate apology, ringed up a taxi and hit the nearest hotel. My wife is nowhere near that confrontational. This same ‘friend’ is coming here soon and I’m debating on whether she will get a piece of my mind about the whole thing.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Haha, you two sound like my fiance and me. I have become more assertive over the years, but I still have a more gentle way of telling people how I feel (usually). Steve, on the other hand, well, you can see how he responded to some of the comments toward me on this post, haha.
I like how we are complementary toward each other though.
I have yet to be witnessed to by someone who does not know my background, but I imagine it will happen eventually. I do live in the Bible Belt.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:31 am
I see some have shown up to dump upon you the typical derision. “You were obviously never a REAL Christian. If you had been a TRUE CHRISTIAN yadda yadda yadda. You need to READ THE BIBLE and learn how wrong you really are. ” (All-Caps seems to be the hallmark of the bully when they’re online and can’t yell at you in person.)
Funny how they can’t understand that we were just as “real” and “true” in our Christianity as they were (perhaps more). And suggesting to atheists that they “just read the Bible” is foolhardy. The Bible has caused more atheists than any book in the course of history.
Stay strong. You are doing what is right for you, and you shouldn’t let those who would continue to harass and harm you even now deter you from your path.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
yes, it’s funny, because people who actually know me in person don’t ever say anything like that. They say, “What happened?!” then decide that I am just going through a hard time, but I will be back! (Maybe, but probably not.)
March 5th, 2009 at 4:31 am
Convinced atheism (compared to default or cradle atheism) is a one-way street, unless you are the victim of a brain malfunction (stroke, seizure, dementia syndromes). You won’t be going back.
The good news is that the world which you find after you have recovered from the pangs of religious withdrawal is not only nothing like as bad as you imagined from within your Christian shell, but a whole lot brighter than you could ever have imagined. It gets better. Welcome to the joy and peace of reality and to the experience of friends who are really friends.
March 5th, 2009 at 4:33 am
thank you, I actually needed to hear that right now. I JUST posted a pity party about 5 minutes ago. How did you know? It must have been God!
Oh, wait. . .
March 13th, 2009 at 4:07 am
[...] Why I Stopped Believing in God, Part One 2. The Most Harm, Part One (at least read this one first; it’s part one of this [...]
March 13th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
[...] Three: The Fallout 2009 March 13 by lauradee24 (Notes: For part one of this post, click here. For part two, here. Again, I apologize for the choppiness of the writing. There is simply too much [...]
May 8th, 2009 at 4:50 am
Hi. I admire how eloquently you explained your story. I am following a similar path (this is very recent). When I was younger (especially when I was a kid) I believed in all sorts of “magical” things that religion teaches. I think that adults that remain religious zealots are like kids that haven’t outgrown it yet. I feel silly that it took me 30 years to realize this!
My turning point was when I did science (I got an MS). The scientific method works by building models that explain something, and then using the models to predict something. More and more, religion just seemed like another model, one that lacks reproducible experiments but that has a plethora of self-fulfilled prophecies that makes the convinced even more so. Believing is easy: it takes no effort. Science is difficult, it really requires advanced thinking and years of training… no wonder they prefer the easy way!
I am starting to feel more free than before. I do good deeds not because I’m afraid to offend Jesus, but because as a human being I do not want anybody to suffer. I can do whatever I want as long as I do not violate the freedoms of those around me.
My main problem is now with my family. My parents and brother have always lived in a “bubble” surrounded mostly by believers like them, and they disapprove of my new views (they haven’t cast me out or anything). They believe everything the Pope says and most of the bible. Those other posters that quote the bible as if it’s supposed to make you realize something don’t seem to get how silly they sound by blindly citing a bunch of gibberish they can’t even interpret. They keep repeating the same things they’ve been taught as if repeating them will make them more true. I have decided not to try and argue with them anymore; my mother gets sad and I don’t want her to, but I cannot deny what my brain accepts as true.
God cannot be proved nor disproved. The only reasonable answer anyone could give when asked “why do you believe?” is “because the sum of all my life experiences convince me to”, but few believers will tell you that. I look back at all my life experiences and I don’t see any evidence. I realize that even when I did, it was my own predisposition to believe that made me think those things were true.
Nice to meet you!
May 16th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I found your blog while perusing the internet for information on a number of different philosophies that I am seeking to familiarize myself with, one of which is skepticism.
From my understanding, skeptics will believe whatever is most believable based on evidence, and are willing to reconsider or consider alternatives if new evidence is presented. I’m just curious, have you heard the argument of consciousness?
May 18th, 2009 at 2:34 am
Rachael-
I am not sure. I can think of several things that might be called that, but I don’t know. Feel free to enlighten me!
May 18th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Well, it’s a lot of information to go into a blog comment. You may want to read more about it though.
Some suggestions:
Consciousness and the Existence of God by JP Moreland – http://books.google.com/books?id=O3_L3dOuGUkC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=%22consciousness%22+%22evidence%22+%22theism%22&source=bl&ots=VQ1THnAHvs&sig=ETIxfL-Jd8aNWzkuwxXsHF9sQX8&hl=en&ei=PtgRSp7JCqWgM_zViYAN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA117,M1
More about consciousness (begins thickly, ctrl+f “consciousness” to get to the good stuff) -
http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=15425
I would also recommend The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. One of it’s final chapters features an interview with JP Moreland (author of Consciousness and the Existence of God) on the subject of consciousness and puts forth other evidence in the fields of cosmology, cellular biology, DNA research, astronomy and physics. (Not only evidence against atheism but for theism)
In my opinion, conscoiusness is the most compelling scientific and philosophic evidence for an intelligent designer. The thrust of it is essentially that human consciousness necessitates a creator.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:53 am
I’ve just stumbled across your site and found it interesting.
Re. Your comment;
“Well, we (the authors) like this idea, therefore, it must be true.”
Very true and it is a common trait in every walk of life not just religion.
Basically it simply means people prefer to believe what they prefer to be true.
I was fortunate to be raised by open-minded parents who afforded me the same privilege growing up, to make up my mind (with regards to religion) when ever I’m ready.
Making a long story short, in my twenties I wanted to know why so many people believed in god(s).
I immersed myself in every aspect of religious belief systems (not just Christianity) through hundreds of hours of study.
The conclusion I came to is that the need to believe is due to the “human condition” with all its frailties.
All people feel vulnerable and frightened from time to time and belief systems are a very useful and powerful coping mechanism.
Religion gives people a sense of belonging and completeness in an otherwise seemingly (to them) hostile world and often helps take the feelings of responsibility away too – “oh well it must be God’s will” or that old chestnut – “God works in mysterious ways” etc. It’s a way of rejecting the “real world” reality and substituting their own; it maybe short term gain, long term loss though.
CREATION:
I was recently confronted by a couple of door-to-door sales-Christians who were going to tell me the “GOOD NEWS” I was polite as is my nature but they were very insistent. I told them I didn’t really believe in a God but that didn’t deter them one bit.
They gave me the example of Michelangelo’s David; they said, “Do you think that such a beautiful sculpture could just appear out of nothing?” I said certainly not
(I knew where this was going) it would have to be created. “Exactly” they said with big smiles on their faces – “do you see that it takes intelligence to create something as complicated as a sculpture? I said most certainly.
They said, “Now you have evidence that God must have created man and everything else and therefore God is very real and you can see that evolution is not the truth”
I said; well if evolution couldn’t occur on it’s own then God can’t possibly exist because, by your own argument God would have to be created himself (circular problem) as he could not just evolve by himself. But if evolution was true then a God really isn’t needed to create anything at all is he.
Then they started quoting bible passages and then I (to their surprise), also starting quoting passages that didn’t fit with their ideal – they said that “my” quotations have to be “interpreted” differently.
Funny how good thing in the bible can be taken literally but quotations that don’t suit their purpose have to be “Interpreted”.
The world and the cosmos are far more wondrous than anything religion can offer.
I think children should be taught critical thinking from an early age and taught to understand the human condition.
I think the Ten Commandments should be replaced by just three.
1/- Understand,
2/- Understand,
3/- Understand.
-Richard Dawkins.
May 25th, 2009 at 5:11 am
Woops,
Obviously I’m NOT Richard Dawkins.
It looked like I’d signed it as such though – apologies…
ONLY the very last section was a quote by Richard Dawkins, his three commandments.
1/- Understand,
2/- Understand,
3/- Understand.
I looked for an edit function but alas not found.
Regards,
Newman
May 25th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
FYI
Richard Dawkins admits that intelligent design is a plausible explanation for the origin of life (as he doesn’t know how life began, nor does anyone else in the naturalism movement). He just refutes the idea of things having been designed by the Judeo-Christian God because Dawkins is biased toward Judaism/Christianity.
You can see him concede this in his interview with Ben Stein from the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ
May 25th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I love it when you see christians quoting bible passages and using the “No True Scotsman” defense. They really need to remember that to an atheist the bible is simply a collection of bronze and iron age stories written by superstitious, anonymous men who were more ignorant of the true nature of reality (i.e. stuff like gravity, evolution, history, geology, biology, physics, astronomy, etc) than most secondary school kids today (or high schoolers for you colonial types).
Don’t trouble yourself over the condemnations of christians about your lack of faith. Until they have a doubting moment they’ll never understand and doubting moments are hard to induce.
It looks to an impartial observer (me) that you were in a rough place, you took the hard choice and that it hurt you. But you seem to have made a recovery, you’ve got a good fella, a cute kid and you’ve shed a harmful world view. Don’t let the silly prattlings of musingsofalyricaltheologian and Ndibaby bother you in the least.
I’m not familiar with Arkansas, but if the duggars make their lair there i’d imagine it must be a rather religious place. How much of a problem is your atheism in your life now? Would you consider moving somewhere less religious?
May 25th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Rachael’s comment about consciousness being good evidence for an intelligent designer is quite contrary to my experience–it seems to me that the more we learn about the brain and neurological function, the greater the evidence that all mental functioning is a product of the physical brain. Books that recount some of the unusual experimental results (like Benjamin Libet’s) and case studies of the results of various kinds of brain damage from authors like Daniel Dennett (Consciousness Explained, Freedom Evolves), Oliver Sacks (The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, An Anthropologist on Mars), V.S. Ramachandran (A Brief Tour of Consciousness, Phantoms in the Brain) strike me as very difficult, if not impossible, to explain given a dualist notion of mind and brain advocated by J.P. Moreland.
I criticized Moreland’s arguments for dualism in an earlier book when I was a philosophy grad student; he and his co-author re-issued the book later without correcting any of the errors I pointed out or even acknowledging that any of the arguments had been criticized:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/immortality.html
May 25th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Jim, I’m glad you came along with this. It’s better when people can see both sides of an argument to weigh the differences and come to an informed conclusion.
I still believe that only dualism can account for the mind, as it is a real entity, although immaterial.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
My experiences with my church’s lack of understanding were not as painful as yours, but had the underlying tone of that first commenter – that any problems I was having with my faith were my problem to deal with, by reading my bible and praying more. I even complained to a friend once that he was not to give me that as an answer to my questions, and he proceeded to tell me to read my bible and pray more…
I’ve found life outside of Christianity to be clearer, less stressful, and it makes a whole lot more sense than anything I ever believed before.
Enjoy your life.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:36 am
[...] Why I Stopped Believing in God [...]
May 26th, 2009 at 5:02 am
I hate to see all these people questioning your faith. If you had it, you had it. There is no such thing as a true conversion. You either believe or you don’t. Quite clearly you did and that is all that maters.
By now you realize that what you have gone through is the same as many of us go through. I have been cut off from large portions of my family due to my lack of belief. “Good Christians” who hate anyone that doesn’t follow exactly what they believe. Some family members hate other family members simply because they are from a different denomination. It is sickening. The Christian faith is getting worse and worse and they don’t see it.
Recently, as a stupid courtesy, I attended church with my sister. Her minister was harping on and on about how “Good Christians” needed to rise up and overthrow or kill the President because the evil doers of America had elected a Muslim and a terrorist. It was sickening. He then went on to describe, as if he knew first hand, that all Muslims were horrible, evil people. That they are all drunkards and that they all beat their wives and kids. It is true that some do, so do some Christians and Hindus and Atheists and so on. This idiot had most likely never met a Muslim, however I grew up in South East Asia, grew up among many Muslims and count people from many different faiths as friends.
As a result my sister believes all this hype and I will no longer talk to her. She asked me to pray with her and her kids for the removal of Obama and the death of all gays. There is no way I want that kind of sick person in my life.
While I do not know all the pain and hardship you have personally gone through, I can imagine and I can sympathize.
Keep it up, you will be happier on your present path.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:13 am
Rachel,
You miss Dawkins’ point. He does not “concede” there can be intelligent design with even a tiny probability… he says that it if it was all “designed” by an intelligence, it is far more likely that it is aliens (that follow our same physical laws) rather than an all-powerful, all-loving God. The interviewer obviously sounds very sure of himself. Since when does this make something true?
Everybody has to understand something. Most posts here use the two magical words “I think”, e.g. “I think there has to be a …” or “I think we all came from…”. I think. It is an OPINION, just like believers believe because they THINK there is a God that answers their prayers. Scientists also think up theories, they just accept overwhelming experimental evidence to support it rather than leaving it at “I think”, which is MUCH EASIER and suits the lazy nature of people (and philosophy and theology).
May 26th, 2009 at 6:37 am
That’s interesting.
Did you know that Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” was really a documentary? It’s true! The biggest budget item for the production was a working time machine used to send virtual remote-control steadicams back to Palestine and capture the entire incident ‘live’, as-it-were.
I understand that the trickiest part was ensuring that the cameras didn’t bump into people in the crowds. It was quite difficult to hide the 21st century technology from the 1st century subjects of the film, especially during the close-ups. Keeping the lenses clean during some of the longer shots was a big problem too.
May 26th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Henry,
Let Richard Dawkins speak for himself. He doesn’t put a figure on the probability of design in the interview, and says it is a “possibility, and an intriguing possibility,” and that “you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.”
And that’s what biochemists and molecular biologists are finding, that the precision and accuracy, the fine-tuning of life, is not explicable by natural, gradual processes.
May 26th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
You are right, I actually did misquote Dawkins. An “intriguing possibility” has no probability assigned to it, though I (and this is an OPINION only) read “to be polite and avoid saying how silly you sound, I will say it is interesting yet unlikely given the evidence seen so far.” (I have read one of R.D.’s books)
“And that’s what biochemists and molecular biologists are finding, that the precision and accuracy, the fine-tuning of life, is not explicable by natural, gradual processes.”
1) Define “precision”, “fine-tuning” and “natural” as used in that sentence.
2) Could you please provide credible sources? (I repeat, CREDIBLE, such as a peer-reviewed paper from a major scientific journal like Science, Nature and the likes).
May 27th, 2009 at 3:51 am
You can’t simply interpret what someone says the way that you want to. Usually it’s the theists being accused of such things. Tisk tisk.
By “precision” I mean “precision,” i.e. the intricacy and exactness of the cell and its components. By “fine-tuning” I mean the conditions and balance of chemicals and cooperative functions within the body (and without) that allow for the existence of life. And I use “natural” in the Darwinian way, i.e. natural selection.
I made said statements because I assumed that most reading here would be familiar with scientific findings in fields related to the topic. I do apologize.
However if you want sources, I’m sure you’re capable of locating such easily accessable information on your own. What you won’t find is a solid explanation for what we know of molecular biology and biochemistry.
To get you started, try searching for topics on “irreducibly complex” systems, such as cilium, flagellum and blood clotting. I personally recommend Michael J. Behe and Stephen C. Meyer.
I hope you find this satisfactory.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:33 am
I hear you! I was raised Catholic and have been an Atheist for the last 6 years (it was gradual, but that was when my conversion was complete). Since my daughter died two and half years ago, I have become more honest and vocal in my beliefs. Of course, my Christian family and friends think it is a phase and just a reaction to my daughter’s death. I just figured they can’t criticize (they will anyways) unless they have buried their own child. Won’t they be surprised in 15 years when I still don’t believe in Chrisianity and the distorted perspective used to empower the Church and inprison the weak.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:22 am
Rachel,
I do like the way you wrote that last post, it shows scientific commitment and I will definitely look for those articles. I hope my posts did not come up as arrogant, for a moment there we diverged from the main idea of the discussion… is there a God that designed it all.
Biology is not my area of expertise, I only did an M.S. analyzing protein simulations from a purely geometric stance, and I am not extremely well versed in the theory of evolution either.
However, I understand what a model is, and how its usefulness arises from predictability and reproducibility. I also hold the opinion (personal and debatable, of course) that science should be “humble” in the sense that new data can and should be used to refine the older models, even if it costs the older model’s reputation.
What I am saying, is that attributing anything we haven’t fully explained yet with our current models to a God (in the sense of a deity, not the pantheist God) seems like clinging to an archaic model that hasn’t really predicted any reproducible results ever… I hope maybe we can agree in that? But you are welcome to disagree of course
Regards.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:04 am
I’m amazed at the arrogance some “Christians” have to believe that they truly have salvation, while so readily standing in a place of judgment over others. I find this blog to be beautifully honest and kind in spirit. In contrast, I find comments by “Christians” to be laced with the poison tip of pride and the disgusting stench of arrogance.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
I’m glad we can discuss this in civility.
Biology is by no means my area of expertise either. But it isn’t difficult to read the science literature and grasp it. Sometimes it requires further research than what might be necessary for someone well versed in it, but it’s worth it.
“new data can and should be used to refine the older models, even if it costs the older model’s reputation.”
I couldn’t agree with you more. But, unfortunately for you, the model of evolution is the one gaining a bad wrap from new science. The more we discover about the complexity of the cell and irreducibly complex systems, the less adequate the theory of evolution becomes.
For an in-depth, though understandable, delve into the scientific and philosophic evidence for theism and against atheism, I would recommend The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. And if you want to contrast it with something arguing in the opposite direction, I would recommend The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and/or The Impossibility of God by Michael Martin.
“attributing anything we haven’t fully explained yet with our current models to a God”
This is known as “God of the gaps,” sticking God in anywhere science fails. However, academic freedom means being able to consider a variety of plausable theories, even if they make some people uncomfortable. If we know of an entity (intelligence) that is capable of causing what we observe in science and our current models fail, why not consider it? Additionally, the multitudes of things we can observe in science that cannot be attributed to evolution are often glossed over by Darwinists who say something to the effect of “We don’t know how evolution did it yet, but evolution did it.” This is a sort of “evolution of the gaps.” The problem with holding out for new discoveries in science that validate and redeem evolutionary theory is that the more we learn about cellular/molecular structure and processes, the more complex we see it is, thus the less explicable by evolutionary processes. So, it’s rather the Darwinists who are arguing from ignorance.
“(in the sense of a deity, not the pantheist God)”
There is no “the panthiest God,” it’s “the pantheist gods.” Pantheism is the idea that there are multiple gods. Just throwin’ that out there
“seems like clinging to an archaic model that hasn’t really predicted any reproducible results ever… I hope maybe we can agree in that? But you are welcome to disagree of course”
And disagree I do. First, the “archaic model” is the evolution theory, not the God theory. We’ve been “clinging” to evolution and patching over its many holes for far too long, and it’s high time to retire the old worn out, inadequate explanation of life. Second, I’m not quite following you on the “hasn’t really predicted any reproducible results ever” part.
It’s been nice talking with you. I hope the author won’t mind our rather lengthy discussion.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:50 am
Rachael, i think you were misled on Dawkins’ explanation on Expelled. He never said that “intelligent design is a plausible explanation for the origin of life”, if by “origin” one means the ultimate cause of all life in the universe.
Dawkins explains what he meant in this interview on Minnesota Public Radio. Any intelligent life on Earth, much less an intelligence that can design other intelligences, would still need to have evolved through Darwinian means. From 36:34:
Scoot on over to 40:27, where he talks about Expelled…
May 28th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I’m sorry, I should have specified, I meant “origin” as in “origin of life on earth.” I understand that Dawkins implies that any intelligent designer would also have to have come about by some “ultimately explicable process.”
“Any intelligent life on Earth, much less an intelligence that can design other intelligences, would still need to have evolved through Darwinian means.”
Don’t you mean much more an intelligence that can design other intelligences?
Anyway, I fully understand that this is what Dawkins proposes if life were “seeded” on the planet. Only it’s rather irrelevant; any higher intelligences WOULD, in fact, have to have come into existance through some explicable means, which poses the same problems that we see today in evolutionary theory. We’re still talking about evolution, only the species that have been produced through the processes have changed, the same problems with the model apply, and even more so, I would imagine, since these “aliens” would be far more advanced than ourselves and therefore far more complex.
“No other feasible theory has ever been suggested to produce organized complexity.”
Well if Dawkins said it, it must be true.
Oh wait, Dawkins could be wrong. Not only does evolution fail to explain much of the complexity we observe in biochemistry, molecular biology and biological information, but theism actually can account for such complexity. Either Dawkins is ignoring theism or is ruling it out as a theory.
“We were never told it was a creationist front.”
I don’t know if you personally have seen the film, but the film is not about religion, it is a proponent of freedom in academia.
“Dawkins believes in little green men!”
Again, I didn’t get that message at all from the film.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Rachael – can you explain, then, how “theism accounts for such complexity” apart from simply “God did it”? I’ve yet to hear a rational, evidence-based, falsifiable theory of theism (as opposed to theory of natural selection) that makes sense, perhaps you can clarify it for me.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Sorry, that’s just wrong. New scientific evidence supports the evolutionary model, it doesn’t disprove it. Here’s the way science works – gaps in knowledge don’t disprove a theory, a workable alternative model disproves a theory. Behe and other IDers expect that they can simply say, “we don’t know everything about cell development” and chalk that up as a point for ID, when he hasn’t even proposed how ID as an alternative model works!
Problem is, he’s not even interested in formulating a model in the first place! “[Behe's]focus has been on arguing that some systems could not have evolved naturally. He said he has no idea how complex biochemistry actually came about, no suggestions for testing how intelligent design occurred, and he knows of no scientists who are planning such tests.
“‘Trying to figure out how something was designed–where or when, or by whom–are different questions and much more difficult to address,’ Behe said.”
“Less adequate”? Don’t believe Behe’s press releases. Take six minutes out of your time to listen to Ken Miller explain how bacterial flagellae, contrary to Behe, can have forty parts removed from them and still have a workable homologue in nature.
“Remember that claim: any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition non-functional,” Miller says towards the end. “This guy is missing forty parts and is perfectly functional. That statement is wrong – it’s not just any statement, it’s the heart and soul of the intelligent design argument.”
Miller concludes: “Careful analysis of the bacterial flagellum matches evolutionary theory, not the design-creation model.”
“Irreducibility” as a whole is quite simply disproven by postulating a Mullerian two-step. As H. Allen Orr explains, “An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become—because of later changes—essential.”
May 28th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Let me suggest in turn an article from Ken Miller: Answering the Biochemical Argument from Design, where Miller (who happens to be a Christian, by the way) demolishes Behe’s irreducibility argument.
“Two principal claims of the intelligent design movement are disproved,” quoth Miller, “namely that it is impossible to present a Darwinian explanation for the evolution of a complex biochemical system, and that no such papers appear in the scientific literature. It is possible, and such papers do exist.”
Miller goes on to provide examples that quite elegantly rebut Behe.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
I found this quote and found it especially apt:
“Anything we can possibly observe can be explained by Goddidit, after the fact. If it rains, goddidit. If it didn’t, goddidit. If the Earth is round, goddidit. If the Earth isn’t round, goddidit. It explains everything, but predicts nothing, and is therefore is a totally content-free statement.“
May 28th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
The scientific response to when “current models fail” is to look for alternative models that do a better job of explaining the observation – not just gape and point saying “GODDIDIT”.
And no, GODDIDIT is not an alternative scientific model.
GODDIDIT answers nothing - there is no formulation of the “intelligent designer” that increases our net understanding of the world, quite the opposite. This blogger puts it far better than I:
“Creationists, or people who would like to mix religion and science, would like the scientific community to replace every ‘we don’t know’ with ‘God did it.’ But here’s the thing, even if God did do it, so what? What does that mean in regards to getting answers about how things work? People used to believe that evil spirits caused epilepsy, and in all the time they believed that, they didn’t learn a thing about the material causes and mechanisms of the disease.
“This is no different than believing that God is the cause of wealth distribution. Is there a supernatural dispenser of good and bad financial luck? Because if there is, then it’s easy not to study correlations between health, education, or socioeconomic background with future wealth or poverty. Nothing can be done about the problems of poverty if some deity has decreed it. There’s no point in asking uppity questions about whether or not the well off swindled their way to the top or earned their lucre fair and square, because clearly that same deity favors them. More to the point, it implies that no one could expect any plan of action to make things different, and might explain why Machiavelli was such a big fan of state-approved faith.
“That mindset is absolutely antithetical to figuring out the material cause and effect relationships of anything in our environment, and it doesn’t stop with science, the most obvious expression of curiosity. Simply put, you can’t learn anything at all if you think you already know it.“
June 10th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
I am a 45 year old man in southern Arizona ( that is probably why I am not afraid of hell, I just hope they have really hot salsa there!!). I have flirted with being an atheist for my entire life. About 4 years ago, I married a fairly devoted Methodist woman, and spent some time flirting with Christianity seriously. The marriage ended due to reasons not about religion or the lack thereof, but in the intervening couple of years, I have really embraced my atheism. I have always hated that word, because it seems so negative and such a downer. I have found that by embracing my atheism though, I have been freed to judge no one, to hate no one and to be much more tolerant and understanding and forgiving that what would have been possible as a member of a congregation. I have found a peace and finally an ease with myself that was previously unimaginable since I began to openly admit being a non believer.
I wish I would have had the courage to live my beliefs at the same age as you did. I would have had more time to live my life on my terms. I wish you the best on your journey. I am happy to see you say that you may be back, because that means that your heart and mind are open to new ways of thinking, and that is always a good thing! I will be very surprised if you go back though, because once you stand in the light of reason and question everything down to your core, there is no going back to the shadows.
I will visit often.
Thanks for writing.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
You’ve obviously never researched noetics. If you want to read about human consciousness based on real science, pick up Lynne McTaggart’s books “The Field” and “The Intention Experiment”…there are also quite a few good articles at http://www.noetics.org
December 16th, 2009 at 8:23 am
I seem to have traveled the reverse path to you. Atheist to Christian. I wonder how many people make these decisions based on “what works for them”. I guess I can understand the desire to be happy, and perhaps we as humans are too emotional to take a cold look at this issue. I know my own questioning has been prompted by emotional reasons but I hope that my actual decision was based on “evidence”.
I was recently watching some youtube videos on climate change and whether this is actually a real issue. One thing that has always worried me about Christianity is the idea that people will be sent to hell based on a decision where the issue is clearly debatable. I wouldn’t like to follow a God who would send people away forever when they didn’t have all the facts.
December 17th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Peter, I found your post very interesting. I am an atheist married to a Christian and I am trying everything to believe, as I know it would solve a major source of tension in my marriage to a woman I love. However, though matter what I read I come back to my reasoning that none of this makes sense. It is interesting what you wrote about not following a God who would send people away when they don’t have all the facts. This is why I have always thought it didn’t make sense. Because a fair and loving Father would tell us what is expected of us with no ambiguity or interpretation. I have asked my wife is she believes I am going to hell and she said that she does not believe that. Then I ask the question, is she really a Christian then. I have always thought that not believing sent you to hell based on the bible and religion. Is that really open to interpretation?
December 17th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Hi David,
Obviously this a difficult issue to resolve, and one I have struggled with. I can only offer my humble thoughts on this matter. One possible scenario in resolving a loving God in this situation is perhaps to look at the assumption that hell actually exists. If we instead take the view that believers are resurrected from the dead and unbelievers are not, this seems more inline with a loving God.
Another possible thought is that God is perhaps bound by certain constraints. Logic being an obvious example ( can even God make 1+1 =3). Perhaps a similar rule applies about faith and heaven. Although I would be hard pressed to explain why he was able to reveal himself in a physical way and perform miracles to some i.e the 12 disciples.
I’m totally out of my depth trying to answer your question about your wife being a Christian. I can only suggest my opinion that one does not need to believe in hell to be a Christian or even that everything in the bible is completely true. The essential part is whether Jesus was the son of God and resurrected from the dead.
December 17th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Laura,
Reading your story made me sad.
I hope you’ll one day rediscover the innocence of those entries in your diary.
It’s tragic that a man who was meant to love and protect you in every way – as husband, minister, Christian, friend and man – failed so comprehensively.
I came here via your comment on the Friendly Atheist today – I was looking for some new atheist blogs to read (I’m a Christian, heading into ministry and I think reading criticisms of any faith is healthy). I think I’ll subscribe. I enjoyed your views on Matthew.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Also a new reader from Friendly Atheist. When people say “never really a true Christian” they are talking about me. I was active in two different churches over about 25 years. Methodist and Church of the Brethren. While I liked the community and the values they held, I never really believed. I was always one of those people looking for evidence because faith was never enough. I always had distrust for people and institutions that said “don’t think about it too much. Thinking is bad for you.”
What was the biggest problem for me? Why does organic brain injury cause changes in personality if personality is generated by a soul? Well, that and virgin birth. And lack of any evidence of anything in the bible. And the Christian far right demanding that evolution not be taught in schools. Mostly in that order. At some point I had to just stop pretending and admit that I was an atheist. A person without belief.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:50 am
Interesting. Thanks for the thoughts. I actually hadn’t thought much of those that really were “not True Christians” since leaving the faith myself. And I had the same problems with the brain when I worked with a bunch of Alzheimer’s patients. I thought, well that kind of proves that “you” die when your brain dies.
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:10 pm
I didn’t read many of the comments that people left underneath this, but I do know that some of them probably say something about you never having been a Christian in the first place. I wish they wouldn’t say that.
I’m still in the evangelical church. I started out there. I know the things that go on there, and I know that it’s often self-reinforcing and completely circular (lost faith because original faith wasn’t real, creationism is true because it just has to be true, not healed because of lack of belief in healing). But I’m still there. Fortunately, the church people in my life have always been pretty good ones.
Anyway, I’m not writing an essay (in this comment, at least) about why I’m still a Christian; I’m writing this solely because I can’t read the words of a sincere skeptic like yourself without trying to offer some empathy.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Thanks for understanding, Steve. I appreciate the kindness and your candidness. Feel free to post away any time you want. I truly have no problem with dissent or people posting why they still believe. If I reply and it sounds like arguing, usually, it’s just me thinking out loud wanting to know more about the other person’s position. So like I said, feel free! I’d love to hear more from you!
December 26th, 2009 at 12:26 am
Hello again, Laura–although I only read a bit of your writing, I can tell that you wouldn’t respond to dissent in a defensive way.
I do write a fair bit about my own thoughts on this stuff, which you can find through the link that’s attached to my name. It’s not really a blog, it’s more of a collection of essays; I’ve had the notes finished for years, but it takes time to write them out. They’re rather clinical-sounding at times, and a handful of the important ones haven’t been written yet (i.e. on doubt, religious guilt, etc). Some of my opinions on these matters have changed a bit, even since I wrote on them.
One thing that I noticed while skimming your blog was the amount of writing you’ve done about your personal life, and how you’ve been impacted by all this. I know how hard it would be to leave the church. Just because I’m a Christian doesn’t mean I’m not impressed that you were able to do something like that. I empathize because I’m naturally skeptical, and I don’t have to strain myself to imagine doing it. I find it interesting (maybe a bit troubling?), because my life has been relatively calm, and I’ve been free to make my decisions and “choose” my beliefs based on what I perceive to be a somewhat logical foundation. But Christianity is quite a relational thing, love it or hate it, and I don’t know what kind of a person I’d be if the right (or wrong) circumstances came up. Perhaps people can’t really be separated from their circumstances.
Oh, I will leave one little smidgen of dissent on your blog–I don’t think the Alzheimer’s example you used above proves that you die with your brain. The reason humanity has this idea about souls is because we’re conscious; because of our subjective experience that correlates with the brain’s state, however far-gone it may be. I would still agree, of course, that this example raises a lot of troubling questions that are rarely discussed in a Bible study…
January 17th, 2010 at 3:40 am
Just to follow up a bit on the expelled discussion, rachael and those like her might want to check out this article by Dawkins:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2394
and this by P.Z. Myers
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/03/pz_myers_expelled_gains_sainth.php
Both of them were intentionally misled and then misrepresented by the filmmakers. ID is not science, nor will it ever likely be. It is a form of ontology, where Christians capable of some critical thinking can still allow a Deity in their cosmology. The efforts of those at the Discovery Institute and the filmmakers of Expelled to somehow contradict Evolutionary theory are misguided and shows an overall lack of understanding of the scientific method.
January 21st, 2010 at 10:53 pm
I used to be a die hard Catholic. One day my friend showed me a video, maybe some of you know it, it’s called Zeitgeist. It’s a powerful video to say the least. After I saw it I just, well, stopped believing. Now I am an Athiest. The truth is I miss the days when I believed. It’s easy for a lot of people to just not believe in any god, but I wish I still believed, weather God is real or not. I miss “knowing” what everything meant. I miss longing to see my relatives and friends that passed away. I miss having a higher power to guide me. Ever since I stopped believing everything just turned grey. There are infinite galaxies in this universe, each with over four-hundred billion stars. Each star could contain a planet that harbors intelligent life. What are the odds that these intelligent life forms are Christian? If Christianity was the correct way of life then everyone in the universe would be Christian. I digress. The point I’m trying to make is I was more than happy being a Catholic. Thank you all Athiests for destroying my ego.
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:46 am
I just want you to know that I am a Christian (probably a more “liberal” Christian by your standards
, and just based on what I have read on your blog so far, I like you. And I’m so sorry for all the pain you’ve suffered.
I understand a bit of what you’re going through. I was raised Mormon, and upon meeting my now-husband at 18, I went through a similar research process and ended up leaving the church. I retained my faith in God, though, although I’ve had to break a lot of my ultra-fundamentalist perceptions of him the last few years.
Still, I know what it’s like to believe something with all your heart and then have it all fall apart around you. I get finally learning to think critically and then suddenly realizing the EMPTY logic of everything you once believed.
I had it a little better than you. I was very accepted as a Mormon, and my church friends stuck by me when I left and have showed me unending kindness since then. I don’t know how I would have handled the kind of rejection you have described. I’m pretty sure my faith would have been severely tested, too, to see that kind of hypocrisy.
Thank you for starting this blog. I enjoy reading different views than my own, and I look forward to sifting through your site a little more and hearing more of your story.
January 29th, 2010 at 1:38 am
I wonder how many so-called atheists-turned-Christians were in fact fully logical, positivist, scientific atheists. I was a Catholic for 30 years before realizing it was all in my head.
From those 30 years, I reckon there may still be a little ‘residue’ in my brain that wonders about the possibility of god, but each and every time my brain takes over with “It’s all in your head. It’s a combination of wishful thinking, confirmation bias and something else.”
I don’t know how anyone could ever come back from this kind of atheism, without god himself appearing before him/her…
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:25 pm
This sounds incredibly painful, and is sobering for me. I am a newlywed who had a short engagement and desire to be a minister.
I suffered under an incredible amount of legalism and judgmentalism, but I was also busy dishing it out myself. I can only say that I am sorry that my sins have hurt people the way that you have been hurt.
You mentioned that one day you might believe in God again. I hope that is the case. Please if you do, ditch the Baptist fundamentalism (not that you need me to tell you that), but please give the Reformation faith a try.
Nothing beats knowing that Jesus has done absolutely everything that he requires of you for you, and has given even your faith to you in order to be saved. Nearly everything that I learned about the Puritans was wrong, and I have found that God is big again, and that God is kind.
Best wishes.
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Henry Says: “I wonder how many so-called atheists-turned-Christians were in fact fully logical, positivist, scientific atheists. I was a Catholic for 30 years before realizing it was all in my head.”
I have a rule of thumb. Anyone who says, “I was an atheist but I found Jesus” was never an atheist.
Reasoning: There are thousands of religions and gods. There are many in current use and practice. Yet everyone of these ‘former atheists’ always heads unerringly to ‘Jesus’. No one EVER picks a different religion? That strains my credibility! Most, when pressed, claim they “rejected god because they wished to sin”. That’s not an atheist, just a bad christian!
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:16 pm
@Analyst:
Do you really define being a Christian as someone who believes Jesus was the Son of God, with no other requirements? Sure they weren’t an atheist, but that doesn’t make them a bad Christian. Sorry if this sounds a bit pedantic but I call myself a Christian and thus feel it necessary to defend its meaning so as to have meaningful discussions about being one.
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Peter Campen Says: “Do you really define being a Christian as someone who believes Jesus was the Son of God, with no other requirements?”
I define a Christian as anyone who says they are. After all, why should it be any different for Christians than for Jews, Muslims, Wiccans or anyone else? Of course I also note that “No True Scotsman” is always in play for Christians – every time you point out a Christian behaving badly you are told, “Oh, he wasn’t a REAL Christian!”
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:27 pm
“That strains my credibility! Most, when pressed, claim they “rejected god because they wished to sin”. That’s not an atheist, just a bad christian!”
Then isn’t it only fair that you let people call themselves Atheists even if they aren’t?
If it wasn’t for the context I would not have said anything and left it alone.
By the way I’m black, but have all Caucasian ancestors and am really pale
Clearly people aren’t always what they say they are!!!
February 24th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
“Then isn’t it only fair that you let people call themselves Atheists even if they aren’t?”
Hardly. That’s like letting cannibals call themselves vegetarians. Most theists have very confused ideas about their religion; atheists are much simpler to define.