Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

Deconversion for me began when I started deciding for myself what I would and would not believe in. Up until that time I just assumed that I believed in God because that is what I was supposed to do. I soon found that the only reason I could find for believing as other christians believed was to fit in with the group. After awhile it seemed wrong to go through the motions of christianity, so I quit attending church. Haven't been back since.There wasn't any real justification for my deconversion. Christianity, and religious belief in general, is something that I find uncompelling. I see no evidence for any deities, so I see no reason to believe in them. It really is that simple.If you are looking for a justification for my continued disbelief it would be lack of evidence for a claimed deity.

Then we can only ask why you converted to begin with, and if those reasons are still valid.To make a very large generalization, for most atheists with a religious background a disbelief precedes the deconversion. The deconversion is the unavoidable consequence of not believing what you have studied and been taught over the years. It's not a matter of doctrine bothering us. To use an analogy, does it bother you that Santa Claus is said to use flying reindeer? I would not describe that as bothersome, just something that I don't believe in.If you could show us compelling evidence then we would believe.

Yes, I did. Knowing what scripture says is independent of believing what scripture says. They are two different things. Do you find the belief that Santa uses flying reindeer to be bothersome? Yes or no?

I no longer believed that God existed. Why is this not a valid reason for my deconversion?

I can read the Iliad and understand the goals and actions that Zeus and others had during that time period. In understanding those goals, does this force me to believe in the existence of Zeus and the other gods?I can read many articles on Santa Claus and learn that Santa Claus wants to reward good kids with toys and bad kids with coal. Since I now know the doctrine of Santa Claus does this mean that I must also believe in the existence of Santa Claus?

If someone finds that evidence to be insufficient would this be a valid reason for deconversion?

For instance, the need to insert "spiritual" in order to explain away contradictory evidence.

The process of deconversion begins when you ask why you should accept them to begin with.How did you determine that the NT authors were inspired? Just because they say so? If it is that simple:Taq is inspired by the Holy Ghost because Taq says so.There, I am now an inspired author. With that said, Jesus was not the Messiah.Your deconversion can now commence.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Or better yet, you can claim the next day that Dawn really did see a grufflepuff in a spiritual way which Dawn was completely unaware of, therefore the prophecy was fulfilled.

I know, right? That post clearly states that I am God inspired, and you have shown zero evidence that I am not God inspired. Therefore, logic dictates that I am inspired by God. Right?Until you can present evidence that I am not inspired by God then my statement stands. Jesus was not the Messiah. No you aren't. You are assuming that the NT authors are inspired because the Bible says so, therefore whatever they have written is de facto fulfillment of OT prophecy. Did I miss my history lesson where a Jewish King conquered the lands of the Middle East around 30 AD? If not, then the prophecies were not fulfilled.To get around this rather obvious failure of prophecy the NT authors argued for a "spiritual" kingdom. IOW, when the evidence doesn't match up to prophecy just invent new evidence. Even more, you can't even show that Jesus existed in the first place.So why should I believe that prophecy was fulfilled by a Messiah that you can't even demonstrate existed in the first place? The historocity of the Gospels and Acts are the very thing under question. You are assuming your conclusion. You have things reversed. You need evidential support before accepting the Gospels as accurate. Where is it?It is this type of sloppy thinking on the part of fellow christians that led to my deconversion.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

IOW, it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Either the prophecies were fulfilled or they weren't, claims of inspiration aside. If you cant twist and reword prophecies to fit any outcome then they aren't prophecies. If someone claims inspiration and then twist and reword prophecies to fit any and all outcomes then they are not prophecies. Unless you don't believe in God, then it is nothing more than humans inventing a plan for humanity based on commands from a non-existent God. IOW, you have to believe it is true before you can accept it as true.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.