What is an "Ex Believer", anyway?

Do you realize that your argument is a great example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy?The concept of ex-believer is not hard to define. A person who once had faith in a religion and no longer does. An example of one is even easier. Me.You go on to say: In other words, if they were "real" believers (i.e. "meeting" god, whatever that means) they would never have stopped believing.So, to paraphrase:
Phat: There are no ex-believers.
Me: I am an ex-believer.
Phat: Ah! But you were no true believer.Are we to take it that your position is that anyone who claims to be a believer and then changes their mind was lying or mistaken? That the only way to be a "true" believer is to believe until death?Also, what does "meeting Him" mean? You are surely using it to mean something other then what the words actually say. Neither you nor any one else has "met" god. You have had subjective experiences that you have chosen to interpert as "meeting Him", or so I would conjecture.

I shall reply to those sections directed at me. I never said you were insane. I said that you had a subjective experience that you choose to interpert as "meeting God". That's fine. It doesn't mean you're insane. It does mean that you can't prove any reality to your experience and that you should have no expectation of anyone believing that your belief reflects reality. How could you have that expectation? If others shared it, if it were replicatable, and observable. The only thing we are forced to accept is your description of your state of mind. I think that you firmly believe you have had some sort of supernatural experience, because you told me so. If you go on to insist that your perseptions are accurate and reflect reality, then we're going to have to do some testing before I am convinced. Can you suggest any such tests? 1. You are changing your terms, or as it is often called here "Moving the goalposts". Ex-believer is commonly understood to mean one thing but when questioned on that point, you make an ad hoc addition to it's definition to protect your position.2. Remember that this is a logical error. It does not prove that your conclusion is wrong, it merely shows that your conclusion does not follow from your assertions. I was operating using the rules of logic as I learned them in college and get from several source books. Do you have some other standard you wish to use? You can say that it is your source of truth. What it is not is a source of fact. That sort of requires that you accept that your truth and fact have nothing to do with each other.The exception to the above is, of course, that it is a fact that you believe in Christianity. You are the only source with any authority to speak on the content of your mind. So, that is the only fact that your belief can generate, the fact of it's own existence.Similarly, since I am the only source with authority to speak on the contents of my mind and I assert that I at one time whole-heartedly accepted Christ, your original argument is still rebutted.

I was responding to your first point, and we seem to have gotten sidetracked. You stated that a person who choose to leave Christianity must not have "met God". That seemed to me to be both fallacious (hence my original comments concerning the No True Scotsman fallacy) and factually untrue (I at one time whole-heartedly believed in Christianity but no longer do).So, I have three questions:1. Do you maintain your original position?And, If the answer to #1 is "yes":2. Precisely what do you mean by "met God"?3. How do you reply to my main criticism of it, i.e. that I am a counterexample that disproves your position?This message has been edited by mikehager, 03-23-2005 05:50 PM

The answer to all of the above is yes. I did all of those. I came to some realizations and knew that I had been in error in all those things you listed.You still didn't tell me what you meant by "met God". If a positive reply to your three questions constitutes it, then I certainly have had the experience you call meeting God.So, since I meet the requirements of your argument and yet am a living, breathing counter-example, are you willing to admit that a true, faithful to the core Christian who has "met God" can later embrace Atheism and Naturalism? Or do you have some other argument in favor of your position?

Perhaps you missed it, PB, so I refer you to my message #33 in this topic and await your answer.

see above.

While all that is interesting, I don't completely understand what you mean, except that you are trying to give an ad hoc, very idiosyncratic definition to the term "Ex-believer". You say... That is certainly an atypical definition of "ex-believer, especially given the context in which it is being used. Are we to infer that as long as a person believes in something, they do not fit your definition? If so, it is impossibly broad. No one is an "ex-believer".The question Mr. Jack and I are asking is stated in my post #33 of this thread and in the previous posting, by Mr. Jack. Both he and I once believed strongly in Christianity, but no longer do. This refutes your position from the first post. You still have not replied to that point, instead redefining terms. So, I ask yet again:1. Do you still hold the position you put forth in the opening post?
2. If so, how do you respond to the fact that Mr. Jack and I contradict it?

I have typed and deleted three responses. This is the attitude that makes me insane in dealing with theists. Read this quote and take a moment to marvel at the stunning arrogance: Really, Phatboy? How do you know that?You know the content of my mind, do you? Let's test it. What am I thinking right now? I'll write it down and we'll check your results later.Is that a ridiculous example? Yes. Is it equally ridiculous for you to presume to tell me what I believed? Yes.Before we go any further, and I do have more to say, lets establish this right now. Can Phat know the content of my mind? We can deal with your unusably broad "definition" of "ex-believer" next.Oh, in closing, No. You made a spurious assertion and I am addressing it. You can believe what you like, but why don't we examine why you think you can tell me what I believe or believed.

Been away from home for a while but now I'm back. So, to respond... It doesn't, so you should stop. I certainly never did it to you. I never said that you don't think or feel what you do. I said that I thought and felt the same things based on your description. That refers back to your original statement, since you claimed that I could not have done that and later changed my mind.Do you see the difference? You are telling me that I could not have felt or thought in a certain way, when I know that I did.The rest of your post is mere ranting, so I will ignore it as it deserves.The fact is that I used to believe exactly as you describe and then became an Atheist. You are apparently incapable of believing that. Fine. You are also incapable of admitting that the one statement I took issue with was in error, as proven by the above fact.But, I am done. You have moved the goalposts far enough back, after the fact, that your position is (at least in your mind) unassailable. Welcome to it.The list of theists on this forum who I respect has shortened by one. I am done.