For recovering Fundies. The fast way to reboot your brain. :)

[ORUgrad]

This post is for anyone who may be recovering from any type of religious fundamentalism or having serious doubt about religion in general. I have given my history in an earlier post. The short of it is that I deconverted from Christian fundamentalism during and after attending seminary at Oral Roberts University. The process was painful, time consuming, and deeply troubling. Many of my friends and family wrote me off forever and I needed to find a new paradigm to replace the stone age/medieval one I gave up. Here is what helped me the most over a 12 year period of recovery. My hope is that it will shave some time off someone else's recovery. I'm not trying to do anything with this thread other than to offer a bit of helpful guidance and to answer questions from people going through some type of deconversion process. Those who have gone through it, please chime in as well with what helped you the most! I'm not trying to engage religious people in debate here.

If you are going through the process of deconversion or are thinking about it, the following things were the most beneficial to me in no particular order.

1. Lurk here a lot- (I lurked here for many years before ever posting.)

2. Buy introductory books in philosophy and psychology and then more specific ones dealing with subtopics that interest you. It is critical to know how our minds work and to have a knowledge of the philosophical thought that has gone on for thousands of years.

3. Buy introductory books on critical thinking, logical fallacies, and books that talk about "influence" and how persuasion works in a general sense. Be sure and stick to basic overviews of all of these topics at first. Get a philosophical dictionary and learn the relevant terms. Read more specifically only after you have a good foundational overview. It is important not to overwhelm yourself.

4. Keep a journal of your thoughts, feelings, and ideas.

5. Read books written by scientists about science in general- what it is and isn't.

6. Try to limit debate type conversations with religious people (this is tough I know) while you are on this journey. It will be difficult to see holes in arguments before you have the knowledge to do so.

7. Talk to as many understanding people as you can. It takes guts to do all of this- especially if most everyone in your life thinks you are now going to hell.

8. Read or watch as much religious satire as possible.

9. Read an intro to Buddhist philosophy (to see a belief system that does not require belief in a god or a system of doctrines- and to more easily understand that many new "spiritual" books are actually certain aspects of warmed over Buddhism.)

10. Grab all your old religious books and have a good old fashioned book burnin'!

This is a good start and is not exhaustive. I will try and get together a list of specific books that helped me. Since doing this for myself, I truly feel "reborn." I know deconverting and then rebuilding a new paradigm isn't an easy road. But the ten points above were exciting and fun for me and lead to so many personal and exciting epiphanies.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Dude... the huge font is totally unnecessary.

[dio]

Those who have gone through it, please chime in as well with what helped you the most!

I read the bible.

[Kahalachan]

Dude... the huge font is totally unnecessary.

My eyesight is 20/300. I appreciate the topic starter thinking about me.

[ORUgrad]

Yes the Bible itself is full of reasons to deconvert. Getting your mind back is truly a gift. For those who were lucky enough to be raised without religion, count your blessings. ;) Sorry for the big font.

[Manopolus]

For me, deconverting from Christianity (not a fundamentalist version, really, but a more liberal version) was part of a larger rebellion. I started questioning EVERYTHING that I was brought up to believe, and a self-deconstruction followed, which was actually quite difficult for me. Ethnocentrism became my primary enemy, and I had a lot of rage against the religion and the wrongful attitudes it contained towards those who didn't follow the religion. It also led me to an eventual search for ethics which did not rely on religion (not surprising, since my deconversion was a matter of ethics to begin with). These things led to good results, I think.

My only advice from experience is to try to contain the rage which results from the realization that you have been lied to all these years. Hating the religion is justified. Hating all its followers is not. Most of them are motivated by good intentions.

[154]

For me, deconverting from Christianity (not a fundamentalist version, really, but a more liberal version) was part of a larger rebellion. I started questioning EVERYTHING that I was brought up to believe, and a self-deconstruction followed, which was actually quite difficult for me. Ethnocentrism became my primary enemy, and I had a lot of rage against the religion and the wrongful attitudes it contained towards those who didn't follow the religion. It also led me to an eventual search for ethics which did not rely on religion (not surprising, since my deconversion was a matter of ethics to begin with). These things led to good results, I think.

My only advice from experience is to try to contain the rage which results from the realization that you have been lied to all these years. Hating the religion is justified. Hating all its followers is not. Most of them are motivated by good intentions.Has your skeptical rebellion against everything ever included the challenging of the authorities of "science" or are the high priests of contemporary paganism beyond critique?

[Trent Wray]

Throughout your twelve years of "de-converting" (or reverting I suppose), at which point did you finally realize there is no "god"? Did you ever realize it?

Unless I'm missing something, it sounds more like you're trying to force a conversion of yourself to atheism, rather than just accepting the logical conclusion of rational thought. IOW ... it sounds like you're trying to describe how NOT to believe in god, rather than recognizing there is no god to believe in. Does that make sense?

[Markus]

Thanks for this, it helps a bit. You are right, it's a very long and painful process. Even with all the effort that I'm putting into my "de-conversion", I don't think I'll ever be able to completely give up religion or accept that there is no "God".

[I Ratant]

Has your skeptical rebellion against everything ever included the challenging of the authorities of "science" or are the high priests of contemporary paganism beyond critique?
.
Not true.
All of the high priests of science/paganism ARE continuously assaulted with the requirement that they -prove- their statements.
That's what makes science viable and believable, the support that ideas and theories generate after they're tested every which from Sunday.
Things like being swallowed alive, and spit out three days later, still alive. Stuff like that.
Few scientists will support that, as there is no evidence AT ALL such a thing can occur without divine intervention.
Divine intervention, being invokable to solve such dilemmas is outside science's purview.
Any ideas need real world support to persist in science.
Look up phlogiston, or caloric, to see the way early thinking is modified as experience is gained, both of which explained a limited view of heat transfer.
Or geo-centrism/helio-centrism.
Science finds things out, nothing is "revealed" and incorruptible because of its status as revelation.

[154]

.
Not true.That did not follow. What is not true?

...Few scientists will support that, as there is no evidence AT ALL such a thing can occur without divine intervention.
Divine intervention, being invokable to solve such dilemmas is outside science's purview.

Science finds things out, nothing is "revealed" and incorruptible because of its status as revelation.Agreed. Divine intervention. Providence. Whatever.
If there actually is a Creator responsible for all that exists, would not the prospect that He can intervene be but a small thing?

That it can not be scientifically proven true does not mean that it has been scientifically proven not true either.
The fair, honest, objective, observational, scientific conclusion can be uncertain and/or unknown,
but some of you insist otherwise, and that is or may be your philosophy, your hope and your Faith,
but it is not Science, and some scientists are the most faithful of believers.

[devnull]

There's some straw over there 154. Feel free to use it build a man, or grasp at it, whichever you require.

[Tatyana]

Has your skeptical rebellion against everything ever included the challenging of the authorities of "science" or are the high priests of contemporary paganism beyond critique?

I am a scientist, worship MEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

:D

[154]

I am a scientist, worship MEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

:D

Well, okay, maybe ;)

[Tatyana]

Well, okay, maybe ;)


I don't do that smelly, hippy, pagan thing though.

[154]

I don't do that smelly, hippy, pagan thing though.Even better. You know what they say about cleanliness... :)

[FledgelingSkeptic]

If I might add to your list, I write about basic critical thinking skills for people who are new or seeking to learn at http://fledgelingskeptic.com. Now on FS I don't talk about religion specifically, but there are some really good resources for learning to look at anything in a more critical way.

[Complexity]

I was browsing through the forums last night and saw a bug crawling around on my screen.

My first reaction was to wonder how I Ratant had accomplished that.

Then I realized it was a real bug.

[bluskool]

Great list. Pretty much sums up the past several years for me. I have talked to several ex-Christians who have said that they became attracted to Buddhism after leaving Christianity. Although I have never subscribed to any of the supernatural aspects, there are many buddhist teachings that I find helpful in life.

There is only one thing I would disagree with on your list.

10. Grab all your old religious books and have a good old fashioned book burnin'!

I still have my religious books. I like the fact that the Bible sits on my bookshelf right along side of Ovid's Metamorphoses, the Upanishads, etc. Even though the Bible is mostly nonsense, there are a few nuggets of wisdom that can be gleaned from it. For example, 1 Corinthians 13 is some beautiful poetry if you read it symbolically.

My only advice from experience is to try to contain the rage which results from the realization that you have been lied to all these years. Hating the religion is justified. Hating all its followers is not. Most of them are motivated by good intentions.

Very true. I do wonder sometimes if the rage phase isn't just a natural part of loosing faith. Most people seem to get over it after a while.

[bluskool]

If I might add to your list, I write about basic critical thinking skills for people who are new or seeking to learn at http://fledgelingskeptic.com. Now on FS I don't talk about religion specifically, but there are some really good resources for learning to look at anything in a more critical way.

Hey, you're Maria right? I think DJ Grothe and Randi mentioned you at the NECSS yesterday.

[154]

I was browsing through the forums last night and saw a bug crawling around on my screen.
My first reaction was to wonder how I Ratant had accomplished that.
Then I realized it was a real bug.lol

Off topic! Off topic!!

[Manopolus]

Has your skeptical rebellion against everything ever included the challenging of the authorities of "science" or are the high priests of contemporary paganism beyond critique?

Science has skepticism built in to its practice... not sure what you are saying here. The claim that a thing is science does not make it scientifically correct. I'm not sure you understand the difference?

And yes, I question everything. I do not consider science to be a religion. It is only a tool... a means to an end; that end being the discovery of the truth.

Furthermore, I have done many things... but in all of them I have considered myself an artist, not a scientist. You seem to have me confused with someone else.

Actually, most of the rebellion I was talking about had to do with cultural attitudes (for example, I toyed with the idea of nudism), not fantasy belief structures. Most of the latter were discarded pretty much within the course of less than an hour.

I am sorry that you are so confused about the concept of rational thought, 154. I hope this might help, but I somehow doubt it will. Maybe re-reading my origional post without pre-conditioned malice would help you to understand how what you said had absolutely no relevance to what I said. My deconversion was not a matter of choosing science over religion. It was a matter of choosing ethics over religion.

[Manopolus]

Throughout your twelve years of "de-converting" (or reverting I suppose), at which point did you finally realize there is no "god"? Did you ever realize it?

Unless I'm missing something, it sounds more like you're trying to force a conversion of yourself to atheism, rather than just accepting the logical conclusion of rational thought. IOW ... it sounds like you're trying to describe how NOT to believe in god, rather than recognizing there is no god to believe in. Does that make sense?

The difference has to do with why one discards the religion. Those who do so as a matter of ethics have a different problem to deal with than those who merely realize that it is highly unlikely that any God actually exists. I assume it is easier for the second case, as many of them don't even stop attending church.

Once you have the ethical dispute, the physical dispute easily follows. In my case, the case against god even existing was already obvious to me well before the deconversion. I preferred to believe in God as long as I agreed with Him. Once I cease to agree ethically, I prefer that He doesn't exist... hence, that is what I believe. This is especially the case when the evidence is against God in the first place. For me, there was a little waffling in there still, as I have mentioned before... but I was more or less nothing but an imaginative agnostic at the time that I claimed to be an Anti-Christ believer and later a would-be convert of Shiva.

Here's where the problem comes in with the ethical conversion:

What else is there that I have been brought up to believe which is wrong -- not wrong in the physical sense, but in the ethical sense? Can I even trust my own instincts on this, when I am a product of my environment?

[Trent Wray]

The difference has to do with why one discards the religion. Those who do so as a matter of ethics have a different problem to deal with than those who merely realize that it is highly unlikely that any God actually exists. I assume it is easier for the second case, as many of them don't even stop attending church.

Once you have the ethical dispute, the physical dispute easily follows. In my case, the case against god even existing was already obvious to me well before the deconversion. I preferred to believe in God as long as I agreed with Him. Once I cease to agree ethically, I prefer that He doesn't exist... hence, that is what I believe. This is especially the case when the evidence is against God in the first place. For me, there was a little waffling in there still, as I have mentioned before... but I was more or less nothing but an imaginative agnostic at the time that I was an Anti-Christ believer and later a would-be convert of Shiva.

Here's where the problem comes in with the ethical conversion:

What else is there that I have been brought up to believe which is wrong -- not wrong in the physical sense, but in the ethical sense? Can I even trust my own instincts on this, when I am a product of my environment? Excellent commentary :)

Hmm ...

So for some, a de-conversion is a logical choice to "end a physical relationship" that never existed. For others, it's more of a divorce to end a personal relationship that might have been based on misplaced trust and belief. So the idea of an existing god is secondary in this case to, "but is this god even ethically sound and trustworthy?"

Which then leads into the obvious, as you pointed out: "Just what the hell is ethically true then? What CAN I trust morally and ethically?"

What have you found the answer to be?

Personally, and I'm not sure how to describe this well, but I think ethics and morality is essentially the same as the idea of "god". They are non-existent. They are concepts we create. I know it's simplistic and "trite" .... but think about it for a moment. If I fall into that first category of someone who comes to the logical conclusion there is no physically existing god .... then I could also come to the logical conclusion that ideas and concepts don't physically exist either. Religion and political systems are near synonymous.

However if I'm divorcing God for ethical reasons primarily, then I no longer am concerned first and foremost whether or not "god" even actually exists. And so I'm basing my reasons for not believing in something that doesn't exist .... on something else that doesn't exist :) Ethics and morality. They only exist as long as we discuss them and talk about them. It's like exchanging one sort of magical thinking for another.

And yet .... the problem is, we need ethics and morality to get along in society, right? Without some kind of system, won't we break down into utter, self serving chaos? I personally don't think so ... but it raises the question directed at the believer in god or ethics or morality --- and that question is ---- why do you cling to ethics and morality primarily?

In my mind ... ethics and morality are tools to explore and examine the subjective nature of humanity and parts of reality. Just like science is a tool to explore and examine the objective nature of reality, or to bring the subjective into a realm of objectivity, etc. What falls outside of those areas are subject to speculation .... enter philosophy (sorry philosophers), religion, ethics, etc.

But they are TOOLS. They are not the end in and of themselves. I don't live to serve ethics. I don't live to serve god. I don't live to serve science. I am free.

So are you finding a problem with ethical conversion because it's still, essentially, enslaving a person to some kind of manmade concept or subjective principle?

On a similar note, I think this basically explains the mindset of the believer towards non-believers. The believer is married to a concept. They look at a non-believer and do not understand how they can not be married to a concept. "Well, science is your god then." What they are saying, is that non-believers serve science. They are married to it. Or, they are still looking for a mate and haven't found it yet. They are still "looking for a god," humanism, atheism, etc.

I think, then, that there are two camps of non-believers (at least). Those who logically realize what exists and doesn't exist .... and so the idea of marriage/divorce/slavery/etc to a concept dissolves into nothing. And then there is the non-believer who perhaps is running from one thing to another. There is no dissolution of the previous concept. There is a replacement. That person leaves one god for another. In this sense, I can understand why it seems as though the majority of believers assume non-believers are "like them".

IMHO :)

[Manopolus]

Excellent commentary :)

Hmm ...

So for some, a de-conversion is a logical choice to "end a physical relationship" that never existed. For others, it's more of a divorce to end a personal relationship that might have been based on misplaced trust and belief. So the idea of an existing god is secondary in this case to, "but is this god even ethically sound and trustworthy?"

Which then leads into the obvious, as you pointed out: "Just what the hell is ethically true then? What CAN I trust morally and ethically?"

What have you found the answer to be?

Personally, and I'm not sure how to describe this well, but I think ethics and morality is essentially the same as the idea of "god". They are non-existent. They are concepts we create. I know it's simplistic and "trite" .... but think about it for a moment. If I fall into that first category of someone who comes to the logical conclusion there is no physically existing god .... then I could also come to the logical conclusion that ideas and concepts don't physically exist either. Religion and political systems are near synonymous.

However if I'm divorcing God for ethical reasons primarily, then I no longer am concerned first and foremost whether or not "god" even actually exists. And so I'm basing my reasons for not believing in something that doesn't exist .... on something else that doesn't exist :) Ethics and morality. They only exist as long as we discuss them and talk about them. It's like exchanging one sort of magical thinking for another.

And yet .... the problem is, we need ethics and morality to get along in society, right? Without some kind of system, won't we break down into utter, self serving chaos? I personally don't think so ... but it raises the question directed at the believer in god or ethics or morality --- and that question is ---- why do you cling to ethics and morality primarily?

In my mind ... ethics and morality are tools to explore and examine the subjective nature of humanity and parts of reality. Just like science is a tool to explore and examine the objective nature of reality, or to bring the subjective into a realm of objectivity, etc. What falls outside of those areas are subject to speculation .... enter philosophy (sorry philosophers), religion, ethics, etc.

But they are TOOLS. They are not the end in and of themselves. I don't live to serve ethics. I don't live to serve god. I don't live to serve science. I am free.

So are you finding a problem with ethical conversion because it's still, essentially, enslaving a person to some kind of manmade concept or subjective principle?

On a similar note, I think this basically explains the mindset of the believer towards non-believers. The believer is married to a concept. They look at a non-believer and do not understand how they can not be married to a concept. "Well, science is your god then." What they are saying, is that non-believers serve science. They are married to it. Or, they are still looking for a mate and haven't found it yet. They are still "looking for a god," humanism, atheism, etc.

I think, then, that there are two camps of non-believers (at least). Those who logically realize what exists and doesn't exist .... and so the idea of marriage/divorce/slavery/etc to a concept dissolves into nothing. And then there is the non-believer who perhaps is running from one thing to another. There is no dissolution of the previous concept. There is a replacement. That person leaves one god for another. In this sense, I can understand why it seems as though the majority of believers assume non-believers are "like them".

IMHO :)

I've got a social event to go to soon, so my initial answer will be fairly short... I might break it down later.

Morality as a human invention does not decrease its worth.

Hell, even God as a human invention has some degree of worth... it is a way of limiting our own actions with an admittedly non-existent authority figure. For some, the authority figure might be necessary... but for me it is conterproductive, as I have "issues with authority" anyway.

[Trent Wray]

I've got a social event to go to soon, so my initial answer will be fairly short... I might break it down later.

Morality as a human invention does not decrease its worth.

Hell, even God as a human invention has some degree of worth... it is a way of limiting our own actions with an admittedly non-existent authority figure. For some, the authority figure might be necessary... but for me it is conterproductive, as I have "issues with authority" anyway. Excellent. And if you read this before you take off to go drinking ... I mean go to your social event (j/k) ..... I agree that just because something might fall into the realm of human invention doesn't mean it's worthless. BUT .... how can that invention/idea/concept have the greatest worth and operate most efficiently? Is it to cling to it, fight for it, defend it? Or is it to put it down and leave it untouched so to speak? I am immediately thinking of a monkey with his hand in a jar, trapped, as he's grabbing a banana. I think of that analogy often (yes, I opened a door for jokes :) )

[Manopolus]

Excellent. And if you read this before you take off to go drinking ... I mean go to your social event (j/k) ..... I agree that just because something might fall into the realm of human invention doesn't mean it's worthless. BUT .... how can that invention/idea/concept have the greatest worth and operate most efficiently? Is it to cling to it, fight for it, defend it? Or is it to put it down and leave it untouched so to speak? I am immediately thinking of a monkey with his hand in a jar, trapped, as he's grabbing a banana. I think of that analogy often (yes, I opened a door for jokes :) )

My first notion was that one should certainly examine ethical behavior, rather than leaving it untouched, but I'm not sure that this is directly related to what you are saying.

Fight for it? Cling to it? I should not judge others by my own standards of ethical behavior. I can, however, try to convince them of my position. It is through such a discussion that perhaps both of us might learn something new. I think this is related to what you are saying.

Let me go back to the earlier post for a moment...
So are you finding a problem with ethical conversion because it's still, essentially, enslaving a person to some kind of manmade concept or subjective principle?


Here is where I think we may have a bit of a difference of opinion. I don't think ethics is an enslavement of any kind. Functionally, ethical behavior is as helpful to the one it limits as it is to another party it protects or directly benefits in its application.

I would consider morality, first and foremost, as a form of communication in terms of its functionality. By treating others kindly, you are showing them that you care. The bond that results gives you the right to expect the same type of consideration in return. The Golden Rule is the result of this.

Another function of morality has to do with the consistancy of expectations, which is required for trust. I must be able to expect that you will behave in a certain way (such as eventually give me a product, or provide me with a service) when I perform certain actions (such as give you money and make a verbal contract). It is in the ethical person's best interest in the long term to behave in the proper manner, although short-term interests may lead him to do otherwise. Unfortunately, this is infinately more obvious in a smaller group than it is in a larger society. You can get away with things a little easier when people don't know you.

Finally, there is something that could be called ethics when completing a common task, as well. In this case, the ethic is based on how to best get the job done. Legitimate differences of opinion here would result from quality vs quantity issues, etc.

In all these cases, we can easily show how one ethic might be better than another. Yes, ethics are subjective, and to some degree when one is in Rome, he should do what the Romans do. However, as I know you've heard me say before... ethics are not completely dependant upon opionion, or on culture -- there are other considerations involved. This is why morality should be constantly questioned and examined.

In any case, the "enslavement" has to do with putting long-term relationships above short-term desires. The eventual benefit to all parties involved is enormous.

[Trent Wray]

My first notion was that one should certainly examine ethical behavior, rather than leaving it untouched, but I'm not sure that this is directly related to what you are saying. Hmmm ... that's not really what I was saying.

It's not the idea that they shouldn't be examined, rather .... that they shouldn't be used as a measuring rod to form a person to, nor should they be "removed from their case" and formed to the person either. I think we typically are doing one or the other ... attempting to adhere to ethical principles or attempting to make ethical principles adhere to us and our situation. But perhaps there is another way ... a go between that either includes both tactics or neither.

Fight for it? Cling to it? I should not judge others by my own standards of ethical behavior. I can, however, try to convince them of my position. It is through such a discussion that perhaps both of us might learn something new. I think this is related to what you are saying. I think this is how we learn .... through discussion and observation, etc. But what I'm saying is I'm not sure if an ethical principle is worth fighting for .... or holding onto as a form of identity. When a person does this, ethics and morality seem to become something else for that person. They almost become a "servant" of it, somehow. Perhaps :)

Here is where I think we may have a bit of a difference of opinion. I don't think ethics is an enslavement of any kind. Functionally, ethical behavior is as helpful to the one it limits as it is to another party it protects or directly benefits in its application. It's helpful as a tool .... I agree. But I think it does possibly become enslaving, when one tries to shape their life around an ethical principle. Now, if the person actually wants this .... maybe it's not enslavement but a willing participant. But it's still a sort of "loss of freedom". Hmm ...

In any case, the "enslavement" has to do with putting long-term relationships above short-term desires. The eventual benefit to all parties involved is enormous.
In general I agree with this. Putting long term "corporate good" above short term "self serving" generally can be beneficial, esp. with clear goals in mind and not open-ended goals that might not ever end of come to fruition.

And yet .... there is of course the "Hail Mary Play" :). Although it's typically used as a last resort after all other long term planning and attempts to meet a goal have come up short, opening a game with one can set a tone and pace for the rest of the match, especially if it's successful. And periodically attempting one throughout the game might appear wasteful at times, but they're fun as hell and catch everyone off guard.

If my analogy took a left turn and puked in a toilet, sorry LOL :) It made sense to me ;)

[154]

Science has skepticism built in to its practice... not sure what you are saying here. The claim that a thing is science does not make it scientifically correct. I'm not sure you understand the difference?

And yes, I question everything. I do not consider science to be a religion. It is only a tool... a means to an end; that end being the discovery of the truth.

Furthermore, I have done many things... but in all of them I have considered myself an artist, not a scientist. You seem to have me confused with someone else.

Actually, most of the rebellion I was talking about had to do with cultural attitudes (for example, I toyed with the idea of nudism), not fantasy belief structures. Most of the latter were discarded pretty much within the course of less than an hour.

I am sorry that you are so confused about the concept of rational thought, 154. I hope this might help, but I somehow doubt it will. Maybe re-reading my origional post without pre-conditioned malice would help you to understand how what you said had absolutely no relevance to what I said. My deconversion was not a matter of choosing science over religion. It was a matter of choosing ethics over religion.I understand, am not confused, don't need your help, and have no malice to speak of.

Jesus Christ claimed to be Truth. If that is not true, no biggy. If it is true, very biggy.

[The True Scotsman]

To the OP: I believe the most important part of traveling is knowing where you are going. It seem to me that before one can de-convert completely, they must find better answers to the questions they once thought they knew the answers to (Ex: Who or what created the universe? What happens to me when I die? What is the purpose of my life? How should I live my life?).

[Manopolus]

Jesus Christ claimed to be Truth. If that is not true, no biggy. If it is true, very biggy.

Nope, even if The Bible is completely true, I find Jesus Christ entirely irrelevant... sorry. I could look him in the eye and tell him so, too (if he'd even acknowledge my existence by showing himself, which he has not yet done).

[ORUgrad]

Throughout your twelve years of "de-converting" (or reverting I suppose), at which point did you finally realize there is no "god"? Did you ever realize it?

Unless I'm missing something, it sounds more like you're trying to force a conversion of yourself to atheism, rather than just accepting the logical conclusion of rational thought. IOW ... it sounds like you're trying to describe how NOT to believe in god, rather than recognizing there is no god to believe in. Does that make sense?

Hi Trent and everyone. Sorry to start a thread and then be away this long. Actually, these are things that brought me to understanding of human nature, the mind, reason, and shed a medieval worldview. I was raised to believe something was sinfully wrong with me from just being born which would never quite fix itself. The "deconversion" was from a fundamentalist worldview.

[ORUgrad]

Thanks for this, it helps a bit. You are right, it's a very long and painful process. Even with all the effort that I'm putting into my "de-conversion", I don't think I'll ever be able to completely give up religion or accept that there is no "God".

Markus, if I had to choose between giving up religion or giving up the concept of god, I would choose giving up religion. God can always exist in theory or as a deistic possibility. Religion poisons minds in so many ways. If there is something specific you would like help with, I would be happy to offer what has helped me.

[Trent Wray]

Hi Trent and everyone. Sorry to start a thread and then be away this long. Actually, these are things that brought me to understanding of human nature, the mind, reason, and shed a medieval worldview. I was raised to believe something was sinfully wrong with me from just being born which would never quite fix itself. The "deconversion" was from a fundamentalist worldview. No worries :)

[ORUgrad]

Great list. Pretty much sums up the past several years for me. I have talked to several ex-Christians who have said that they became attracted to Buddhism after leaving Christianity. Although I have never subscribed to any of the supernatural aspects, there are many buddhist teachings that I find helpful in life.

There is only one thing I would disagree with on your list.



I still have my religious books. I like the fact that the Bible sits on my bookshelf right along side of Ovid's Metamorphoses, the Upanishads, etc. Even though the Bible is mostly nonsense, there are a few nuggets of wisdom that can be gleaned from it. For example, 1 Corinthians 13 is some beautiful poetry if you read it symbolically.



Very true. I do wonder sometimes if the rage phase isn't just a natural part of loosing faith. Most people seem to get over it after a while.

Point 10 was partly in jest. I still have some of my original source second-fourth century writings as well as a couple of Bibles. Got rid of the commentaries and woo books.

[ORUgrad]

To the OP: I believe the most important part of traveling is knowing where you are going. It seem to me that before one can de-convert completely, they must find better answers to the questions they once thought they knew the answers to (Ex: Who or what created the universe? What happens to me when I die? What is the purpose of my life? How should I live my life?).

Hmm. I would partly disagree. One needs only to understand that the answers one has believed have proven harmful and damaging personally in order to reject them. Finding new answers may take longer. There is no shame in agnosticism. I don't have to take a position on anything- especially when there are obvious gaps in my thinking- or especially when I am learning how to evaluate data, etc. I have no answers to your first to questions. I don't believe in intrinsic purpose. Just look at a large portion of people living on this planet- hungry-poor-dying. My purpose is what I define for myself. I do know more about what I don't believe than what I do. And in that sense, that is what I mean by "deconverting." The shedding of a personally non workable worldview. But yes, the work continues. And the tools I outlined have helped tremendously. There has been somewhat of an "existentialist crisis" for me as reality seems to present itself quite differently from the fairy tales I was lead to believe. When one believes life will continue in some way forever, and then realizes that it probably wont, the gap between a few decades of life and eternity is a bit much to process without some pain. I suppose delusional people can be happier! :)

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Has your skeptical rebellion against everything ever included the challenging of the authorities of "science" or are the high priests of contemporary paganism beyond critique?

<sigh>


I just....


<sigh>


It drives me crazy how many people simply do not know how science works.

There IS no "authority" of science. Science isn't the Roman Catholic Church. It's not an ideology with a set of dogmas and a leader. Science is constantly, CONSTANTLY being TESTED, which is something you cannot do with religion. Attempts to compare the two as if people who aren't religious worship science (and Manopolous never even claimed to be an especially science interested person in the first place, as he pointed out). Scientists fight all the time, but people who don't follow science, don't study it, don't know it. In evolutionary science, there are heated debates between what aspects of physiology served what biological purposes, where what specifies falls along evolutionary trees.

scientists are "high priests of contemporary paganism." What the heck does this mean? Scientists are people who use observations of the natural world to formulate theories and develop things we can use in our everyday lives. We know "science" exists because we have electricity, and drive cars, and use computers, and have artificial hearts. There is no debate on whether or not "science" is real anymore than there is a debate on whether math or writing is real.

Religious claims are not held under any testable scrutiny. Scientific principles are not accepted unless they have been held under an enormous amount of scrutiny. And even then, scientific facts are only what we know to be true right now. NOTHING in science is sacred, any part of it can be wrong and most certainly many things we think about the world will show to be wrong in the future. Aspects of all sciences, chemistry, biology, evolutionary sciences, physics, are constantly changing. Theories are constantly being tweaked and updated once further studies finds flaws in them. Scientific knowledge, unlike religion, is not "stuck" in time. Humans are always learning more, and so scientific knowledge will always grow. And sometimes that knowledge shows us that we were wrong about things we thought before. And you know what? maybe when we correct ourselves, we're still wrong, but we won't know that until even more evidence emerges. As science is only a tool, it can be misused, and misunderstood. Much in the same way someone using math can still come up with the wrong answer to a math problem. So we humans have to just keep on studying and keep on trying to learn as much as we can so we can use science as effectively as possible. This is completely unlike the claims of religion, which claim to be absolutely true.


On The Origin of Species is not the Bible. Darwin got some of the specifics wrong, and in many cases was not able in his time to adequetly explain aspects of evolution due to the fact that this information was not known to Darwin at the time (for instance, genetics). On the Origins of Species has been rigorously reviewed, and in many ways, was found lacking. Because Darwin wasn't a human man and not an all knowing prophet. Darwin isn't a Priest who gives us commandments from Science. He is a man who brought together many different scientific principles and his own observations to formulate how life on earth developed. Vigorous multidisciplinary investigations over the past century and a half have supported the basics of his theory. But some of it was wrong, and some of it is still under debate. And if evidence appears in the future which completely contradicts the theory of evolution, then we will have to revisit the theory, and not make excuses to explain it away. The evidence now overwhelmingly supports evolution, and so people will fight to defend it's validity, because everything we know up to this point shows that it is true, and to deny that evidence is ignorance. But all scientific principles have to be falsifiable under a specific set of circumstances, and though I do not expect those circumstances to ever present themselves, if they did, at that point we will have to rethink evolution.

Scientists are constantly challenging both themselves and other scientists. you don't make a name for yourself in the scientific field by regurgitating the same old information, but by challenging existing ideas and coming up with new ones. And in each field of science, there are debates raging on exactly how various aspects of our universe work, and how best to harness the resources within that universe.

A priest is not comparable to a scientist. A priest is someone who can provide no evidence for his claims but is to be believed because of unverifiable claims that the Bible is the word of God. The priest can in no way prove to me the Bible was made by God or that any of his religious rules are true. He can't prove to me that Heaven or hell exists or that Jesus rose after three days. i have to accept this as a matter of faith.

A scientist, on the other hand, is someone who will not be accepted in his field unless he can provide hard, observable evidence to back up his claims. if he cannot do this, than his claims will be rejected.

posts like 154s just...they drive me....



argh!!!!!!!

[154]

:)

[Schrodinger's Cat]

:)

Did you really read my post? I am not asking you to renounce your beliefs and embrace evolutionary theory, but do you understand why a priest is not comparable to a scientist and why science is not a religion?

Do you understand that just because you base your mindset on blind faith does not mean that skeptics do the same when formulating their own mindsets? That's kind of what the term skeptic means. You don't just believe what someone says because they told you so, but based on how well they can support their arguments with physical evidence.

[Radrook]

This post is for anyone who may be recovering from any type of religious fundamentalism or having serious doubt about religion in general. I have given my history in an earlier post. The short of it is that I deconverted from Christian fundamentalism during and after attending seminary at Oral Roberts University. The process was painful, time consuming, and deeply troubling. Many of my friends and family wrote me off forever and I needed to find a new paradigm to replace the stone age/medieval one I gave up. Here is what helped me the most over a 12 year period of recovery. My hope is that it will shave some time off someone else's recovery. I'm not trying to do anything with this thread other than to offer a bit of helpful guidance and to answer questions from people going through some type of deconversion process. Those who have gone through it, please chime in as well with what helped you the most! I'm not trying to engage religious people in debate here.

If you are going through the process of deconversion or are thinking about it, the following things were the most beneficial to me in no particular order.

1. Lurk here a lot- (I lurked here for many years before ever posting.)

2. Buy introductory books in philosophy and psychology and then more specific ones dealing with subtopics that interest you. It is critical to know how our minds work and to have a knowledge of the philosophical thought that has gone on for thousands of years.

3. Buy introductory books on critical thinking, logical fallacies, and books that talk about "influence" and how persuasion works in a general sense. Be sure and stick to basic overviews of all of these topics at first. Get a philosophical dictionary and learn the relevant terms. Read more specifically only after you have a good foundational overview. It is important not to overwhelm yourself.

4. Keep a journal of your thoughts, feelings, and ideas.

5. Read books written by scientists about science in general- what it is and isn't.

6. Try to limit debate type conversations with religious people (this is tough I know) while you are on this journey. It will be difficult to see holes in arguments before you have the knowledge to do so.

7. Talk to as many understanding people as you can. It takes guts to do all of this- especially if most everyone in your life thinks you are now going to hell.

8. Read or watch as much religious satire as possible.

9. Read an intro to Buddhist philosophy (to see a belief system that does not require belief in a god or a system of doctrines- and to more easily understand that many new "spiritual" books are actually certain aspects of warmed over Buddhism.)

10. Grab all your old religious books and have a good old fashioned book burnin'!

This is a good start and is not exhaustive. I will try and get together a list of specific books that helped me. Since doing this for myself, I truly feel "reborn." I know deconverting and then rebuilding a new paradigm isn't an easy road. But the ten points above were exciting and fun for me and lead to so many personal and exciting epiphanies.[/SIZE]


Many of the things you assume are characteristic of religious people such as ignorance of philosophy and psychology aren't true. Ever hear of Thomas Aquinas?

I for one am versed in psychology and philosophy.

Specifically general psychology, abnormal psychoogy-child psychology, general philosophy, logic or critical thinking, and ethics. I am also familiar with the

exigencies of the scientific method.



That doesn't prevent me one iota from believing in an ID. Neithere does it or did it prevent millions of others,'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Many of the things you assume are characteristic of religious people such as ignorance of philosophy and psychology aren't true. Ever hear of Thomas Aquinas?

I for one am versed in psychology and philosophy.

Specifically general psychology, abnormal psychoogy-child psychology, general philosophy logic or critical thinking, and ethics. I am also familiar with the exigencies

of the scientific method.



That doesn't prevent me one iota from believing in an ID.

You're totally right, and I think that was a good point to bring up. But keep in mind...

religious faith does not equal fundamentalism. I'm not sure where ORUgrad draws the line. I think fundamentalists by their very nature tend to be very narrow minded. When I was religious I was like you, still very inquiring (though I never believed in creationism), and as you point out many religious people are well versed in things like science and philosophy. But perhaps by ORUgrad's definition the very fact that you are interested in these things precludes you from being a fundamentalist and thus you are not the kind of person discussed in the OP.

ORUgrad is probably speaking about what worked best in his experience. And if he was coming from a position of ignorance, and getting past that ignorance is what did work best for him, so it's what he suggests. It doesn't necessarily mean all religious people are ignorant and would benefit from the same advice


And lastly, just because these things didn't make you disband non scientific beliefs like creationism doesn't mean others won't find in them a new way to look at the world. Just because you weren't convinced doesn't mean others won't be.

but again, I do think that was a good point to bring up.

[Radrook]

You're totally right, and I think that was a good point to bring up. But keep in mind...

religious faith does not equal fundamentalism. I'm not sure where ORUgrad draws the line. I think fundamentalists by their very nature tend to be very narrow minded. When I was religious I was like you, still very inquiring (though I never believed in creationism), and as you point out many religious people are well versed in things like science and philosophy. But perhaps by ORUgrad's definition the very fact that you are interested in these things precludes you from being a fundamentalist and thus you are not the kind of person discussed in the OP.

ORUgrad is probably speaking about what worked best in his experience. And if he was coming from a position of ignorance, and getting past that ignorance is what did work best for him, so it's what he suggests. It doesn't necessarily mean all religious people are ignorant and would benefit from the same advice


And lastly, just because these things didn't make you disband non scientific beliefs like creationism doesn't mean others won't find in them a new way to look at the world. Just because you weren't convinced doesn't mean others won't be.

but again, I do think that was a good point to bring up.

Thanx for the feedback. You make some excellent points.

[Prometheus]

Many of the things you assume are characteristic of religious people such as ignorance of philosophy and psychology aren't true. Ever hear of Thomas Aquinas?

I for one am versed in psychology and philosophy.

Specifically general psychology, abnormal psychoogy-child psychology, general philosophy, logic or critical thinking, and ethics. I am also familiar with the

exigencies of the scientific method.



That doesn't prevent me one iota from believing in an ID. Neithere does it or did it prevent millions of others,'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

Then you should have no trouble identifying the logical fallacies in your own post. There are at least two. ;)

[Wrathernaut]

Dude... the huge font is totally unnecessary.

From somebody who is stuck at 1920x1200 resolution with no full page zoom, it's actually appreciated.:D

[Radrook]

Then you should have no trouble identifying the logical fallacies in your own post. There are at least two. ;)

Which are?

[Prometheus]

Which are?

Aww, don't you even want to try? I'll give you a hint: One of them is an informal fallacy in the Red Herring family, and the other is a formal fallacy of propositional logic. :)

[Trent Wray]

Hmm. I would partly disagree. One needs only to understand that the answers one has believed have proven harmful and damaging personally in order to reject them. Finding new answers may take longer. There is no shame in agnosticism. I don't have to take a position on anything- especially when there are obvious gaps in my thinking- or especially when I am learning how to evaluate data, etc. I have no answers to your first to questions. I don't believe in intrinsic purpose. Just look at a large portion of people living on this planet- hungry-poor-dying. My purpose is what I define for myself. I do know more about what I don't believe than what I do. And in that sense, that is what I mean by "deconverting." The shedding of a personally non workable worldview. But yes, the work continues. And the tools I outlined have helped tremendously. There has been somewhat of an "existentialist crisis" for me as reality seems to present itself quite differently from the fairy tales I was lead to believe. When one believes life will continue in some way forever, and then realizes that it probably wont, the gap between a few decades of life and eternity is a bit much to process without some pain. I suppose delusional people can be happier! :) ORUgrad, I wanna toss in 2 more cents :)

I think one of the greatest realizations, and most freeing, that a person can have is the difference between facts and faith. I think confusing the two leads to disillusionment and a fragile reality for a person to live from --- and in general this is very hard to do I think. And because it is hard to do, and sometimes "hard work is rewarded and pays off" --- the believer mistakes this hard work for being honorable and the point of their faith --- to continually try and get themselves to believe something as fact, when it is realistically faith based. I think the "never lose faith" mentality becomes their enemy as they try to maintain the fragile dissonance they keep trying to naturally resolve, and unnaturally reinforce.

Once a person realizes the difference between facts and faith, I think a number of issues may start to fall into place. For example .... you are breathing right now. That is a fact. It it beneficial for a person to recognize that as a fact. To start questioning it might lead to some interesting philosophical ideas .... but ultimately and PRACTICALLY speaking ... your breathing is a fact. You needing to go to sleep is a fact. The sun coming up in the morning is probable.

Now, is god / aliens / angels allowing you to breath? Maybe, maybe not. Are they responsible for the sun rising and setting ultimately? That's for you to decide. Look at the evidence, and draw your conclusions. BUT ---- if you choose to believe in something based on little to no evidence, or on conclusions that are mostly speculative, etc ...... that's using a type of faith. :) And faith is choosing to believe in something that may or may not be so. It's not fact. If it were fact, it wouldn't take faith to believe in it.

And here is the beautiful part ..... there is no rule saying you must have faith in something in life. And I'm not talking about god(s) only. Faith is like the tip after paying for a meal. It's the *extra*. The meal is real, and the price is real, and the waitress is real and the chef is real, etc. You pay the price .... but leaving a tip is extra. Regardless of how you feel about the tip, or how much cultural pressure there is to leave a tip depending on where you live .... whatever. Even if you feel guilty, or cheap, or overly egotistical if you're a big tipper. It's all extra. It's not necessary for you to walk into a restaurant and purchase a meal and enjoy it if you want to.

With that in mind, I think a person can learn to enjoy REALITY, and realize that faith is not necessary for reality to exist. It's not necessary for you to eat and breath and watch the sun come up. Those things will happen regardless of how you feel or what faith you have or don't have. You'll begin to see reality for what it is ..... at it's foundation. Without multiplying things beyond what they need to be. A tasty strawberry is just that. Enjoying it is just that.

And so faith, imo, can actually start to fall into it's proper place :). Because realistically, we do exercise forms of faith. Faith in people, faith in the future. Faith in things we build. Faith in "nature". Faith that one day a horrible situation you are in will resolve for the better perhaps. Faith that a rescue attempt for someone in a disaster zone will prove fruitful. Faith that a war will end. Faith that a wife won't leave you in ten years. Faith that helping a starving child will save their life. Etc and so forth. We still take risks, that involve faith. BUT THERE IS NO RULE SAYING YOU HAVE TO. It's all extra! So why take the tip and turn it into a cruel master? Why divert your attention to the tip and let how much you tip or not become the focus of a life .... when you just had a wonderful meal, a cute waitress serve it, a good chef who prepared it, and the meal is paid for? This is the confusion that leads to so much turmoil. Because with faith at the top, becoming a master .... reality gets overlooked and it is filtered for the person through gloomy glasses of an impossible reality ... a reality where the subjective and speculative are supposed to be more real than the facts. It's not the starving people that are reality ... it's your faith and guilt that are reality. It's not the hope that loving other people can bring ... it's how righteous YOU are in your ability to love that is more real. It's not the sex that is real and enjoyable .... it's the guilt and shame and fear you've appeased that has become more real than the act. You see? :)

So take your faith and place it into things you WANT to. Be as free as reality allows you to be :). Exercise your faith in ways that "do it" for you. Whether it's in areas that will give you peace, pleasure, enjoyment, excitement, helping others, whatever. There is no shame in exercising faith ... just realize it for what it is. It's extra. It's a tip. It can be the icing on an already marvelous cake. You don't have to struggle to appease "faith" in order to enjoy reality and prove yourself. You can enjoy reality and decide where and how to exercise your faith for yourself. Just understand it for what it is. It's not rational. It's not based on fact. It's "fantastical". And fantastical thinking can be beneficial, imo, so long as you categorize things correctly. I mean, look at the amount of fantasy in entertainment and stories and even our icons and usernames! It's not real, and it's okay so long as it's understood.

I know I might be preaching to the choir somewhat. But just in case I wasn't, I thought I'd share.

[Kopji]

Atheism, like the Tardis, is bigger on the inside than it looks from the outside. :)

[Trent Wray]

Atheism, like the Tardis, is bigger on the inside than it looks from the outside. :) I like it :)

In many ways, going from a complicated mish-mash of belief systems to atheism is like returning to default mode after a hard drive crash. It's more than rebooting ... ideally, I think it should be wiping your harddrive clean, returning to your default state and operating system .... and then adding data for storage from that point, and getting rid of all the corrupted registry files and viruses and all that crap.

But I have a Mac, so anyway ..... ;)

[Kopji]

Ah Mac users, what do you know about the inner beauty of viruses? :)

I liked the list of 10. 10 is a nice round number and neatly uses all my fingers.

'Atheist' is a lousy word that I've had to make an uneasy peace with. Lots of things besides gods don't exist. Even in denial we are sort of pwned by theists. :) I like 'naturalist' better but people think I study plants.

If I were to add something to the list, it would be to find a positive expression for our choices.

Each of us are part of a natural universe - it comes together for an all too brief time we call 'us' and then goes its way to become something else. Life and death are parts of the same thing. Purpose, meaning, and joy - are things we can bring to the table by nature of being human. Even chaos and destruction are understood as as different aspects of a creative universe. In a vast uncaring universe - we are the part that can care. That's just cool.

[ORUgrad]

Many of the things you assume are characteristic of religious people such as ignorance of philosophy and psychology aren't true. Ever hear of Thomas Aquinas?

I for one am versed in psychology and philosophy.

Specifically general psychology, abnormal psychoogy-child psychology, general philosophy, logic or critical thinking, and ethics. I am also familiar with the

exigencies of the scientific method.



That doesn't prevent me one iota from believing in an ID. Neithere does it or did it prevent millions of others,'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

Sometimes Radrook, one must trust that there are certain words that people will have a general understanding of. I know that can be a stretch, but otherwise, you spend all your time defining basic concepts and never actually saying anything. My post clearly does not say all religious people are ignorant of philosophy or psychology. The post is clearly for former "fundamentalists" WHO ARE DECONVERTING. Obviously this does not apply to you, my assumptive friend. :) I have listed what was helpful FOR ME coming from complete ignorance of these two fields. Are you a fundamentalist? Was Thomas Aquinas a fundamentalist? No need to take offence at a post that was not meant for you. I hope more religious people learn the things I've mentioned as it will lead to a decline of fundamentalism of all stripes- which would be great for the world. :)

[ORUgrad]

Trent, I am off to work but will reply to your post (which was worth at least a couple of bucks!) when I return. :)

[Radrook]

Aww, don't you even want to try? I'll give you a hint: One of them is an informal fallacy in the Red Herring family, and the other is a formal fallacy of propositional logic. :)

The first assumes I am attempting to distract or that the argument itself serves a distracting function.. The second is based on the assumption that the content is fallacious because the premise-from your standpoint-is fallacious. Both essentially are a matter of opinion.


BTW
What do you perceive as my premise?

[Radrook]

From somebody who is stuck at 1920x1200 resolution with no full page zoom, it's actually appreciated.:D

I had just spent hours trying to get my screen off the unwieldy humongous display mode. Everything I tried was failing. After I finally succeeded I come here for relaxation and I'm suddenly confronted with this gargantuan display. For a brief instant my hairstyle mimicked that of the illustrious North Korean leader's.

[Robo Sapien]

Atheism = the new religion of worshiping one's own smug sense of superiority


oh and a tech tip: hold control and press numpad plus or minus to zoom in/out on a web page on the fly, makes dealing with huge text a bit easier. Shortcuts work in both IE and FF, not sure about safari or chrome.

[cienaños]

Atheism = the new religion of worshiping one's own smug sense of superiority


- Holy Truthiness, Book of Colberticus :D


Reading the "right" stuff is only half of it, I think. One has to reflect, meditate, and "see." This takes a lot of practice and even if/when you get good at it, sometimes you find yourself in old thought patterns:

I was driving thru a stretch of desert en route to Las Vegas a couple years ago when I had one of the worst bowel revolts in the history of my ass. Which is saying something. I'd had Baja Fresh (Taco Bell for elites) the day before - and I tell you brother, the fan ceased to wait. There was sweating, praying, pleading, asking, begging -- oh man it was sensational.

So I make it to a rest stop, do the dew, and hit the road again, thinking all was well again. Then, as if to thumb their collective nose at me, the gods smite-ed me with a traffic jam and another episode of my Fresh getting Baja'd. Oh man. Again, more sweating and pleading "please oh please god not now please please oh please oh my that hurts god I swear I won't do XYZ anymore just help me this one time PLEASE!"

The effed up part about it is that it worked. Because it does work. The mind is a ridiculously powerful thing. My guess is that my brain held an emergency briefing in my ass the war room and orders were given to 'hold the line,' as it were.

My meta-point here is, in my opinion, that a sense of humor doused with humility is necessary if one is to achieve lasting results in shifting thought patterns. Explore, read, reflect, but for the love of the Baja Fresh gods, DO NOT be hard on yourself. DO NOT be overly critical of yourself. Take your time. And most importantly, avoid the Baja when taking road trips. :)

[ORUgrad]

Atheism = the new religion of worshiping one's own smug sense of superiority

.

Rejecting fundamentalism says nothing about becoming an atheist or anything else. It is simply a world view that has caused much pain for me and untold numbers more. I am certainly not smug nor have a sense of superiority.

[sgtbaker]

Atheism = the new religion of worshiping one's own smug sense of superiority


oh and a tech tip: hold control and press numpad plus or minus to zoom in/out on a web page on the fly, makes dealing with huge text a bit easier. Shortcuts work in both IE and FF, not sure about safari or chrome.

It's not smug, it's confidence :D

[Trent Wray]

Ah Mac users, what do you know about the inner beauty of viruses? :) Not a damn thing :D

[Prometheus]

The first assumes I am attempting to distract or that the argument itself serves a distracting function.. The second is based on the assumption that the content is fallacious because the premise-from your standpoint-is fallacious. Both essentially are a matter of opinion.


BTW
What do you perceive as my premise?

Actually Schrodinger's Cat hit on the same two objections as I hinted at, up in post #41--he just didn't name the fallacies. The first is a Strawman, which is classified as a variety of Red Herring, because, as ORUgrad points out himself in post #51 his OP was not targeted at someone like you, who is interested in logic and science. The second is a version of Affirming The Consequent. Just because ORUgrad finds studying certain topics to be helpful to one who is in the process of changing his worldview, you cannot assume that he intends to cause others to change their worldview by suggesting they study those topics.

I perceive your premise to be that knowlege of science/logic/critical thinking does not preclude belief in ID, which is true, but not relevant to the OP. :)

[Trent Wray]

Trent, I am off to work but will reply to your post (which was worth at least a couple of bucks!) when I return. :) No pressure. Soak up what you find useful and discard what you don't ;)

Reply if you want and have the time, I'm good either way. And thanx for your kind word :D

[Radrook]

Actually Schrodinger's Cat hit on the same two objections as I hinted at, up in post #41--he just didn't name the fallacies. The first is a Strawman, which is classified as a variety of Red Herring, because, as ORUgrad points out himself in post #51 his OP was not targeted at someone like you, who is interested in logic and science. The second is a version of Affirming The Consequent. Just because ORUgrad finds studying certain topics to be helpful to one who is in the process of changing his world view, you cannot assume that he intends to cause others to change their world view by suggesting they study those topics.

I perceive your premise to be that knowledge of science/logic/critical thinking does not preclude belief in ID, which is true, but not relevant to the OP. :)


I responded to what is insinuated concerning a certain class of people--educational deficiency leading to religiosity. You obviously feel nothing is being insinuated. I guess we disagree on that.

[bit_pattern]

200mg of DMT

[Complexity]

I perceive your premise to be that knowlege of science/logic/critical thinking does not preclude belief in ID, which is true, but not relevant to the OP. :)


Knowledge of science/logic/critical thinking certainly provides some protection, but even scientists can get infested with nasty superstition memes (happened to me thirty years ago - don't worry, I'm much better now!).


If only there were brain condoms for those of us who practice unsafe lex.

[Frank Merton]

Knowledge of science/logic/critical thinking certainly provides some protection, but even scientists can get infested with nasty superstition memes (happened to me thirty years ago - don't worry, I'm much better now!)..I wonder how you can be so sure you are "safe" now when you know you were wrong in the past.

[Complexity]

I wonder how you can be so sure you are "safe" now when you know you were wrong in the past.


I'm not 'safe' - I'm careful about what I let into my brain and examine my thoughts and beliefs with care. Must be vigilant.

While I was religious in the past, I'm happy to report that I suffered a great deal of cognitive dissonance and recognized it.

I was a science-loving, evolution-embracing, literate gay man while I was religious. The dissonance and recognition of the mental gymnastics that I was going through made me realize that I really didn't believe in 'god'.

I think I enjoyed the community aspect of being religious and let my desire for that sucker me in. I finally came to value honesty and integrity over community and a sense of belonging. I haven't looked back.

[Radrook]

200mg of DMT

Refering to me?

I'm allergic to cigarrette smoke. Haven't smoked for thirty years because of it. Don't drink alcohol-burns the esophagus.
Anyway, welcome to the forum.

[Frank Merton]

I'm not 'safe' - I'm careful about what I let into my brain and examine my thoughts and beliefs with care. Must be vigilant.
There is not much of a gap between intellectual vigilance and intellectual ossification. The fact that we had wrong opinions in the past, and, at the time, were persuaded that we held those opinions for good reason, can serve as a warning that our present opinions may be just as wrong.

[Trent Wray]

There is not much of a gap between intellectual vigilance and intellectual ossification. The fact that we had wrong opinions in the past, and, at the time, were persuaded that we held those opinions for good reason, can serve as a warning that our present opinions may be just as wrong.
And yet a person's trust is perhaps one of the most valuable abstract things they have, and should be respected and treated as such. To try to manipulate another person, or guilt them, or shame them, or con them, or force them to give their trust up is a violation of their dignity. A person trusts the wrong person, and they get lied to, raped, taken advantage of, exploited, etc. They trust the right person and they can find peace, wisdom, love, enjoyment, etc.

Trust should not be tossed around cheaply. We don't teach our children to trust strangers. Even if there is a god, do you see this god manipulating people to believe in him .... or do you see people manipulating people to believe in him?

Someone guarding their trust does not make them weak or wrong. It makes them human and is something that should be respected and not taken by force or fear tactics. That is what predators do.

[Complexity]

There is not much of a gap between intellectual vigilance and intellectual ossification. The fact that we had wrong opinions in the past, and, at the time, were persuaded that we held those opinions for good reason, can serve as a warning that our present opinions may be just as wrong.


What you're trying to say is that if I'm not open to your particular brand of nonsense, I'm being close-minded.

I've examined your ridiculous beliefs and have concluded that they are wrong, dishonest, and destructive.

[pnerd]

That it can not be scientifically proven true does not mean that it has been scientifically proven not true either.
.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Russell's_Teapot (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot)



some scientists are the most faithful of believers.
.
What does that prove? http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Argument_from_authority



Jesus Christ claimed to be Truth. If that is not true, no biggy. If it is true, very biggy.
.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Pascal's_wager (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager)
.

[bit_pattern]

Refering to me?

I'm allergic to cigarrette smoke. Haven't smoked for thirty years because of it. Don't drink alcohol-burns the esophagus.
Anyway, welcome to the forum.

Nah, the question in the OP. Psilocybin or ayahuasca are both effective mediums of oral DMT administration though ;)

[Prometheus]

I responded to what is insinuated concerning a certain class of people--educational deficiency leading to religiosity. You obviously feel nothing is being insinuated. I guess we disagree on that.

My understanding was, and as ORUgrad later clarified himself, he was not talking about religiosity, just fundamentalism. If he had been talking about religiosity in general, I would be in agreement with you.

[Prometheus]

Knowledge of science/logic/critical thinking certainly provides some protection, but even scientists can get infested with nasty superstition memes (happened to me thirty years ago - don't worry, I'm much better now!).


If only there were brain condoms for those of us who practice unsafe lex.

:D Nom'd.

[Frank Merton]

What you're trying to say is that if I'm not open to your particular brand of nonsense, I'm being close-minded.

I've examined your ridiculous beliefs and have concluded that they are wrong, dishonest, and destructive.
What I was trying to say is what I said. You attack but do not reason; you assert but provide no evidence. I do not see where you differ from the fundamentalist in anything except the details of your prejudice. Even your use of mockery (you call it something less honest that I forget) is the same as that we see from fundamentalists. Finally, you openly admit that you are crusading--witness your "welcoming" me to "Fundie-Hell." This meant that you had assigned me to a category to attack and crusade against, failing to accept the existence of gradations in human thought.

This true/false, good/evil type of black/white thinking is absolutely typical of fundamentalist thinking.

[154]

This true/false, good/evil type of black/white thinking is absolutely typical of fundamentalist thinking.

Sounds like damn near everyone here, but you'll never accuse them of the same.

Again, projection.

[paximperium]

Sounds like damn near everyone here, but you'll never accuse them of the same. How cute. You didn't even bother to read his post where he actually did. Sad.

Again, projection.
Yeah. You need to stop doing that.

[Complexity]

What I was trying to say is what I said. You attack but do not reason; you assert but provide no evidence. I do not see where you differ from the fundamentalist in anything except the details of your prejudice. Even your use of mockery (you call it something less honest that I forget) is the same as that we see from fundamentalists. Finally, you openly admit that you are crusading--witness your "welcoming" me to "Fundie-Hell." This meant that you had assigned me to a category to attack and crusade against, failing to accept the existence of gradations in human thought.

This true/false, good/evil type of black/white thinking is absolutely typical of fundamentalist thinking.


Your posts aren't worth much of my time. Your writings don't warrant rebuttal, merely condemnation.

There are some things that I want to work on tonight that are of value to me. Research beckons - I need to think about something for a while. I won't let you claim any of my time.

Having seen so many fundie clones queue up for their time in the sun, each demanding our attention, I no longer bother to pore over their posts, follow their links, and compose rebuttals to their 'arguments'.

I mark each one as soiled, dismiss it, and move on to the next one.

There is always a next one.

[Complexity]

Sounds like damn near everyone here, but you'll never accuse them of the same.

Again, projection.


That was really funny! Merton's on your side and you just slapped him down.

[Trent Wray]

The last 24 hours of the R&P section have reminded me of a blend of the Three Stooges, weeds growing, Tony Romo setting up an extra point, and close captioning of Jersey Shore. :mad:

[Complexity]

The last 24 hours of the R&P section have reminded me of a blend of the Three Stooges, weeds growing, Tony Romo setting up an extra point, and close captioning of Jersey Shore. :mad:


Then start a new thread on something that would really interest you and others.

I'm planning on starting a thread for Math and Science tonight. Still trying to figure out what I want to say.

[Manopolus]

The last 24 hours of the R&P section have reminded me of a blend of the Three Stooges, weeds growing, Tony Romo setting up an extra point, and close captioning of Jersey Shore. :mad:

Yeah, God has begun to bore me to death, too.

[Trent Wray]

Then start a new thread on something that would really interest you and others.

I'm planning on starting a thread for Math and Science tonight. Still trying to figure out what I want to say. Just start a thread with just those words: "I want to start a thread here on this topic. But I don't know what to say." :)

The last thread I started was trying to figure out how many of us who posted were humans, Anunaki, or squirrel spirits.

There's always Woo Beano I guess.

Yeah, God has begun to bore me to death, too. Dude, it's going in circles, and I don't even remember the last time I headed over to the Evidence for God thread :(

We need a non-believers revival ! :rolleyes:

[cienaños]

I have a working title for a thread I'm cooking up:

"What's your rebooted excuse for getting killed by humorous, moral chimpanzees in nature?"

[ORUgrad]

ORUgrad, I wanna toss in 2 more cents :)

I think one of the greatest realizations, and most freeing, that a person can have is the difference between facts and faith. I think confusing the two leads to disillusionment and a fragile reality for a person to live from --- and in general this is very hard to do I think. And because it is hard to do, and sometimes "hard work is rewarded and pays off" --- the believer mistakes this hard work for being honorable and the point of their faith --- to continually try and get themselves to believe something as fact, when it is realistically faith based. I think the "never lose faith" mentality becomes their enemy as they try to maintain the fragile dissonance they keep trying to naturally resolve, and unnaturally reinforce.

Once a person realizes the difference between facts and faith, I think a number of issues may start to fall into place. For example .... you are breathing right now. That is a fact. It it beneficial for a person to recognize that as a fact. To start questioning it might lead to some interesting philosophical ideas .... but ultimately and PRACTICALLY speaking ... your breathing is a fact. You needing to go to sleep is a fact. The sun coming up in the morning is probable.

Now, is god / aliens / angels allowing you to breath? Maybe, maybe not. Are they responsible for the sun rising and setting ultimately? That's for you to decide. Look at the evidence, and draw your conclusions. BUT ---- if you choose to believe in something based on little to no evidence, or on conclusions that are mostly speculative, etc ...... that's using a type of faith. :) And faith is choosing to believe in something that may or may not be so. It's not fact. If it were fact, it wouldn't take faith to believe in it.

And here is the beautiful part ..... there is no rule saying you must have faith in something in life. And I'm not talking about god(s) only. Faith is like the tip after paying for a meal. It's the *extra*. The meal is real, and the price is real, and the waitress is real and the chef is real, etc. You pay the price .... but leaving a tip is extra. Regardless of how you feel about the tip, or how much cultural pressure there is to leave a tip depending on where you live .... whatever. Even if you feel guilty, or cheap, or overly egotistical if you're a big tipper. It's all extra. It's not necessary for you to walk into a restaurant and purchase a meal and enjoy it if you want to.

With that in mind, I think a person can learn to enjoy REALITY, and realize that faith is not necessary for reality to exist. It's not necessary for you to eat and breath and watch the sun come up. Those things will happen regardless of how you feel or what faith you have or don't have. You'll begin to see reality for what it is ..... at it's foundation. Without multiplying things beyond what they need to be. A tasty strawberry is just that. Enjoying it is just that.

And so faith, imo, can actually start to fall into it's proper place :). Because realistically, we do exercise forms of faith. Faith in people, faith in the future. Faith in things we build. Faith in "nature". Faith that one day a horrible situation you are in will resolve for the better perhaps. Faith that a rescue attempt for someone in a disaster zone will prove fruitful. Faith that a war will end. Faith that a wife won't leave you in ten years. Faith that helping a starving child will save their life. Etc and so forth. We still take risks, that involve faith. BUT THERE IS NO RULE SAYING YOU HAVE TO. It's all extra! So why take the tip and turn it into a cruel master? Why divert your attention to the tip and let how much you tip or not become the focus of a life .... when you just had a wonderful meal, a cute waitress serve it, a good chef who prepared it, and the meal is paid for? This is the confusion that leads to so much turmoil. Because with faith at the top, becoming a master .... reality gets overlooked and it is filtered for the person through gloomy glasses of an impossible reality ... a reality where the subjective and speculative are supposed to be more real than the facts. It's not the starving people that are reality ... it's your faith and guilt that are reality. It's not the hope that loving other people can bring ... it's how righteous YOU are in your ability to love that is more real. It's not the sex that is real and enjoyable .... it's the guilt and shame and fear you've appeased that has become more real than the act. You see? :)

So take your faith and place it into things you WANT to. Be as free as reality allows you to be :). Exercise your faith in ways that "do it" for you. Whether it's in areas that will give you peace, pleasure, enjoyment, excitement, helping others, whatever. There is no shame in exercising faith ... just realize it for what it is. It's extra. It's a tip. It can be the icing on an already marvelous cake. You don't have to struggle to appease "faith" in order to enjoy reality and prove yourself. You can enjoy reality and decide where and how to exercise your faith for yourself. Just understand it for what it is. It's not rational. It's not based on fact. It's "fantastical". And fantastical thinking can be beneficial, imo, so long as you categorize things correctly. I mean, look at the amount of fantasy in entertainment and stories and even our icons and usernames! It's not real, and it's okay so long as it's understood.

I know I might be preaching to the choir somewhat. But just in case I wasn't, I thought I'd share.

Trent, great post. I don't think I have any disagreements with it worth bringing up. The pain for me is rebuilding my house that was built upside down. As you point out, the "faith" should be under, not over reality. It is getting a lot easier now after several years of doing what I recommend in my first post. I am not sure why belief in things without evidence is seen as a virtue. Trent, would you consider calling yourself an "optimistic existentialist?" ;)

[ORUgrad]

Also, I was talking with a friend of mine who I've known for almost 40 years. We grew up together in the same fundamentalist church. He has since deconverted as well. We were trying to figure out the implicit beliefs we had believed as kids that lead to so many problems in our thinking. We came up with these major ones among many more.

1. I am born inherently sinful and evil
2. There is something inherently wrong with me.
3. I cannot trust myself.
4. If not for God making me do the right thing, I would be instantly immoral
5. I have no real free will- only what God wants for my life is important.
6. Without "faith" in my church's beliefs, I will burn in physical fire forever.
7. I needed to be afraid of God and love him with all my heart at the same time.
8. I needed to participate in figurative cannibalism in order to be forgiven.
9. God holds me responsible for sins committed by people I never knew

This is a d@mn lot of $h1t for kids to be taught and why there are so many wasted lives or painful deconversions. IT really is child abuse.

[154]

Well... child abusers should be punished then, shouldn't they?

[kellyb]

Well... child abusers should be punished then, shouldn't they?

Not if they don't know what they're doing, necessarily. Also, a lot of things that really are somewhat abusive should remain outside of the power of the state to stop, IMO. "The government" can be wrong. "The majority" can be wrong. I think an amazingly high degree of consensus should be reached before the gov is given a right to step in. Parents who strangle their kids? Yes, the state should intervene. Parents who teach their kids weird, terrifying and false stuff? No.

[Trent Wray]

Trent, great post. I don't think I have any disagreements with it worth bringing up. The pain for me is rebuilding my house that was built upside down. As you point out, the "faith" should be under, not over reality. It is getting a lot easier now after several years of doing what I recommend in my first post. The house idea is a good analogy. It's painful to both tear down and rebuild. If only there were an empty lot a person could start afresh from. More pipe-dreams perhaps? LOL

I am not sure why belief in things without evidence is seen as a virtue. Good question. I wish I knew the simple answer. For me that's still a deep question and I'd like to see the root of it as well.

Trent, would you consider calling yourself an "optimistic existentialist?" ;) How about, "I'm alive, and some days I'm lucky." :)

Well... child abusers should be punished then, shouldn't they?Punished and consequences .... two different ideas that carry baggage with them.

Consequences can be meted out without demoralizing a person. Punishment is more along the lines of trying to strip someone of their humanity while leaving them alive. Think The Green Mile ..... ;)