Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,641 Year: 4,898/9,624 Month: 246/427 Week: 56/103 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
Panda
Member (Idle past 3798 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 46 of 566 (595629)
12-09-2010 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by purpledawn
12-09-2010 12:57 PM


Re: No Purpose
purpledawn writes:
So instead of addressing the position you decided to make a useless post.
No - I commented on what appeared to be a trivial post.
purpledawn writes:
It is better to make a clear point instead of assuming everyone sees things the same way you do.
I agree.
"Club" was a poor choice of word.
purpledawn writes:
By your definition religion can be considered a club. There are members and there are rules to follow to become a member. Those who don't conform aren't considered part of the club. They have a common purpose.
You start off with the definition I quoted. And then you rapidly abandon it by adding your own extra criteria.
Perhaps you should be discussing this with yourself as you seem very keen to put words in my mouth.
purpledawn writes:
I guess I don't consider clubs to be trivial. Maybe since your definition mentioned garden club, which is usually associated with women, you consider them to be trivial.
Why would I consider something is trivial simply because it is associated with women?
I assume you must be projecting.
purpledawn writes:
Do you feel that a valid reason for deconversion is that the religion no longer serves a purpose for the individual?
If a religion claims to serve a particular purpose and an adherent finds that it doesn't - then yes.
You seem disproportionately upset at having your point commented on.
Bad day at work?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by purpledawn, posted 12-09-2010 12:57 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 12-10-2010 4:22 AM Panda has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 47 of 566 (595630)
12-09-2010 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by arachnophilia
12-09-2010 11:21 AM


Re: another scriptural perspective
Hi, arach.
arachnophilia writes:
out of morbid curiosity, were you slightly mormon, or very mormon?
Very Mormon. I'm not from Utah, but I'm a fourth- or fifth-generation Mormon, no matter which line you trace my ancestry through. We went to church every Sunday, read from the Book of Mormon every night, and were always supposed to be doing everything in our power to live up to the standards of the Church.
I don't have the stamina for it anymore, but my parents still do. I still don't drink alcohol or coffee or tea, because I'm completely uninterested in starting now.
-----
arachnophilia writes:
well, i consider the lack of confirmation (a non-working spiritual sense) a pretty clear failure of the test.
Naturally, I counter with a "Lord's timeframe" argument and you're supposed to melt away under my masterful logic. And then, if you question the validity of the test or the falsifiability of God, I'm supposed to act like I don't know what falsifiability means and/or just feel sorrow for the fact that your skepticism is preventing you from enjoying the Celestial Kingdom.
I then thank you for your time and go knock on the next door. Oh, but not before telling you with lots of conviction that I know the Book of Mormon to be true, because testimonies can be a very powerful way to bring the Spirit.
When I was a missionary, we had to role-play scenarios like this all the time. But, being able to "bring the Spirit" into a fictional role-play made it hard for me to believe it was genuine.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2010 11:21 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Stile, posted 12-09-2010 2:42 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 49 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2010 6:42 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 129 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 48 of 566 (595639)
12-09-2010 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Blue Jay
12-09-2010 2:06 PM


Re: another scriptural perspective
Bluejay writes:
When I was a missionary, we had to role-play scenarios like this all the time.
Seriously? How interesting. ...and a bit sad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Blue Jay, posted 12-09-2010 2:06 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2010 6:45 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1429 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 49 of 566 (595660)
12-09-2010 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Blue Jay
12-09-2010 2:06 PM


Re: another scriptural perspective
Bluejay writes:
Very Mormon. I'm not from Utah, but I'm a fourth- or fifth-generation Mormon, no matter which line you trace my ancestry through. We went to church every Sunday, read from the Book of Mormon every night, and were always supposed to be doing everything in our power to live up to the standards of the Church.
I don't have the stamina for it anymore, but my parents still do.
interesting. did you share a deconversion story over in the other thread? i might have to go look for it... in any case, yeah. i find certain varieties of certain religions quite oppressive. they can really eat up a lot of your time and energy, just in feeling guilty for not being perfect. it's really quite a drain, and strikes me as very cult-ish. this is not every mormon church, or every christian church, of course. but the mormon missionaries that come are girls shipped out from utah. they wear full length skirts, and aren't really allowed to do anything. they send them to florida, and they aren't even allowed to go to the beach, lest they be ogled. they can't enter a house unless a woman is also there. etc.
i do not think that religion was meant to be a burden; certainly not christian religions.
I still don't drink alcohol or coffee or tea, because I'm completely uninterested in starting now.
not big on alcohol myself, but i can't go more than a few days without caffeine before massive withdrawal migraines set in.
Naturally, I counter with a "Lord's timeframe" argument and you're supposed to melt away under my masterful logic. And then, if you question the validity of the test or the falsifiability of God, I'm supposed to act like I don't know what falsifiability means and/or just feel sorrow for the fact that your skepticism is preventing you from enjoying the Celestial Kingdom.
well, i've heard the second part before, yes, but i'm not sure about the first one. usually they jump right to "sorrow for skepticism" as by that point i've already laid out enough textual issues that would make any sane person go, "okay, this book is completely fictional." there's no converting the missionaries, but it sure is fun to try.
I then thank you for your time and go knock on the next door. Oh, but not before telling you with lots of conviction that I know the Book of Mormon to be true, because testimonies can be a very powerful way to bring the Spirit.
yes, well, like i said, it's at this point they generally move on and i don't hear from them again. i know this, so i only bring out when i actually want them to go away. i kind of keep it secret, and we discuss other matters until that point.
When I was a missionary, we had to role-play scenarios like this all the time. But, being able to "bring the Spirit" into a fictional role-play made it hard for me to believe it was genuine.
see, i have been an exceptionally religious person myself. i know those seeds of doubt are there, and there are things that people find just downright silly about their religions, and this whole "we know it to be true" inerrancy nonsense is really just overcompensation.
just once i'd like to get the missionaries (of any variety) up to a level where we can actually discuss my doubts without them simply waving them off with platitudes and standardized dogma.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Blue Jay, posted 12-09-2010 2:06 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Blue Jay, posted 12-10-2010 10:46 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1429 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 50 of 566 (595661)
12-09-2010 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Stile
12-09-2010 2:42 PM


Re: another scriptural perspective
Stile writes:
Bluejay writes:
When I was a missionary, we had to role-play scenarios like this all the time.
Seriously? How interesting. ...and a bit sad.
oh, yes. my ex-girlfriend was part of a trial family. they would play the hopeful converts, to the missionaries in training. of course, it never really goes down like they role-play, so when i was there a number of years ago, i decided i would give them something they wouldn't expect.
of course, that was my initial exposure to LDS, so i wasn't quite as critical of the text at that point.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Stile, posted 12-09-2010 2:42 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 51 of 566 (595686)
12-09-2010 9:23 PM


We need more courtesy extended towards Dawn Bertot's theme
This topic's roots were in the Deconversion experiences topic. I insisted that Dawn Bertot get out of that topic and suggested that he start what came to be this topic.
In skimming the rapidly accumulating pile of messages, my impression is that the message quality and relevance to the topic theme is all over the place.
Members need to review message 1 and truly strive to keep their messages in explicit contact with that theme.
Or something like that.
If this topic doesn't come around, I'm probably going to give it a short term closure (maybe up to 24 hours or more) to let things cool off and straighten up.
Please, no replies to the message at this topic. You know (or should know) the drill of where such should be done.
Adminnemooseus

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


Message 52 of 566 (595712)
12-10-2010 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
12-08-2010 3:15 AM


Hi Dawn.
My individual justification for letting go of God began with recognizing how well people can delude themselves, including myself. I got on a kick of looking into commonly held myths - things that most people think are true, but aren't. You know, stuff like "Shaving makes hair grow faster.", and "The moon is magnified by the atmosphere when it's low on the horizon."
Then I looked into things like OBEs and NDEs too, that seem to support the existence of a soul. I found no trace of it, but learned a lot about the trickiness of human mind. This led me to James Randi, Michael Shermer, and the skeptic crowd; and the amazing variety of delusions that humans are capable of embracing.
I got it into my head that I could understand the world better, and live a more honest and less confusing life, if I didn't accept anything as true unless I had very good reason to, and I also faced the fact that truth is rarely black and white except when it's perceived by a human mind.
Like the Creationists' God of the gaps, my god was always being chased into the narrowing cracks of my understanding of the world and the human condition. Ultimately, He became just some vague cosmic guy in the sky who (maybe) lit the fuse for the (maybe) big bang.
From there it was a small step to saying "Goodbye".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-08-2010 3:15 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3542 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 53 of 566 (595717)
12-10-2010 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Panda
12-09-2010 2:04 PM


Re: No Purpose
quote:
If a religion claims to serve a particular purpose and an adherent finds that it doesn't - then yes.
You seem disproportionately upset at having your point commented on.
Bad day at work?
Except that you didn't comment on the point. Your response was based on a word and made no point.
I don't think a religion has to claim to serve any particular purpose to serve a purpose in an individual's life. It may serve a purpose other than what it claims.
Individuals usually have reasons for being part of a group. When those reasons change they tend to leave the group.
My choice of the word club was not a poor choice. I was making a point. Whatever we are a part of usually serves a purpose in our lives. When it no longer serves a purpose, it usually doesn't stay a part of our life.
This thread is about valid, supportable reasons for deconversion. My post showed a reason that is valid for any group an individual belongs to, not just religion. It still has to serve some purpose, real or imagined, in our lives to remain a part of it.
quote:
Why would I consider something is trivial simply because it is associated with women?
Why did you consider it trivial at all? Why bother commenting on the word choice? Why not address the point of the post instead?
quote:
You seem disproportionately upset at having your point commented on.
Why do you assume I'm upset?
I simply pointed out your post was useless concerning the topic. Considering my alter ego, the object is to address the point of the post, not waste a post because you don't like or understand the word choice. You've put more energy towards my choice of words than the point of my post. Enlarge upon the argument presented.
Can you enlarge upon the argument I presented or are you going to continue trying to defend your useless post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Panda, posted 12-09-2010 2:04 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Panda, posted 12-10-2010 5:26 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied
 Message 55 by Panda, posted 12-10-2010 7:13 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3798 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 54 of 566 (595729)
12-10-2010 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by purpledawn
12-10-2010 4:22 AM


Re: No Purpose
purpledawn writes:
You've put more energy towards my choice of words than the point of my post.
And you have put more energy towards my reply than the point of the topic.
"Physician, heal thyself."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 12-10-2010 4:22 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3798 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 55 of 566 (595732)
12-10-2010 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by purpledawn
12-10-2010 4:22 AM


Re: No Purpose
purpledawn writes:
I don't think a religion has to claim to serve any particular purpose to serve a purpose in an individual's life. It may serve a purpose other than what it claims.
Individuals usually have reasons for being part of a group. When those reasons change they tend to leave the group.
I think it all boils down to how you define "valid, supportable".
If anyone no longer wants to be part of a religion - surely the mere fact that they 'want' to leave makes it a valid reason to leave.
And if a reason is valid: it is supported. (The validity is the support.)
But maybe 'Supportable' has a bit more meat on it worth picking at.
I'll explain a little of the reasoning behind my previous answer:
quote:
If a religion claims to serve a particular purpose and an adherent finds that it doesn't - then [it is a valid reason]
If you became a catholic and then said "This religion does not give me enough chocolate - I am leaving" - then I would say that your reason for leaving is 'unsupported'. You would be abandoning your religion because of unreasonable expectations.
But if you became a Catholic and then said "I am recieving no spiritual support - I am leaving" - this would be a 'supported' reason.
Granted: this whole line of argument is semantic.
But I think that if you leave a religion solely because you want more from the religion that it ever promised to give, then I think it would be fair to say that your reason for leaving is unsupported.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 12-10-2010 4:22 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 56 of 566 (595769)
12-10-2010 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by arachnophilia
12-09-2010 6:42 PM


Re: another scriptural perspective
Hi, arachnophilia.
See Message 226.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2010 6:42 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 57 of 566 (596069)
12-12-2010 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Coragyps
12-09-2010 11:42 AM


And where are you, by the way? I'd like your take on some of these many answers you have here.
Sorry, real world stuff, ill try and get caught up as soon as possible
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 12-09-2010 11:42 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 58 of 566 (596070)
12-12-2010 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Coragyps
12-09-2010 11:42 AM


And where are you, by the way? I'd like your take on some of these many answers you have here.
Ive read the entirity of the posts and I have failed to see a valid 'reason' offered as to why I should deconvert from the things I have studied and been taught through the years.
If I have missed something in its exactness and someone feels that it should be offered again in argument form, I would be willing to address it, without hesitation.
I believe someone asked why I did not accept the "other testament" of Jesus Christ. Simply because it cannot be supported or sustained in even the slightest fashion from a historical or archaeological standpoint
Not that some things are in question or debatable, but nothing can be confirmed independantly
DB - I, too, will cite "thinking about Christian teachings in an adult fashion and finding them to have no basis in reality" as a good reason to deconvert. "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things," is how your book puts it.
What specificallly bothers or concerns you about its doctrine.? Why does its teaching conflict with reality?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 12-09-2010 11:42 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 12-13-2010 11:17 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 75 by Taq, posted 12-13-2010 5:55 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 59 of 566 (596072)
12-12-2010 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Blue Jay
12-08-2010 5:02 PM


"I have never had a 'witness' from the Holy Ghost." If true, then it is supported. Well, I suppose it's possible to be given a 'witness' and not recognize what it was, or to later doubt its authenticity. But, if you've had a witness, and were still not convinced, either God didn't provide a good enough of witness for you---which shouldn't have been a problem for Him if He actually knew you the way the scriptures claim---or the witness wasn't real.
I argue that both of these constitute support for a decision to deconvert.
If you disagree that these are good reasons for abandoning God, I guess I can't demonstrate that you're wrong. But, belief is always personal. I argue that the explanations for why these aren't good reasons are obscure and subjective, and thus, none of my business unless they're my explanations to myself.
This is simply a denominational misunderstanding of how the Holy Spirit operates and what the scriptures teach about his influence in our affairs
Since you cited no passages, Ill wait to see what your understanding is exacally
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Blue Jay, posted 12-08-2010 5:02 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by frako, posted 12-12-2010 7:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 306 by Blue Jay, posted 12-20-2010 11:51 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 60 of 566 (596075)
12-12-2010 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dawn Bertot
12-12-2010 7:41 PM


If you want a reason to deconvert from your PRIVATE beliefs you will haveto provide your PRIVATE anwsers to why.
I can only suggest you start with anwsers to why you do not believe in Allah, To why you do not believe in Buddas teachings, To why you do not believe in hindu, the greek gods, the norse gods and as many others as you can find. And when you are done compiling the list apply the same anwsers to your god. You will see they fit really nicely.
Or you can apply the same logic to why you believe in god to a milk carton if you aply the same logic you use to support your god. The milk carton will be as powerful as god.
Example:
- God sometimes anwser prayers, sometimes he does not, and sometimes he makes you wait. Well the milk carton does the same.
- God is invisible and undetectable and can bend the universe to his will, Well the milk carton is visable tough his powers are as invisable as your god and he can bend the universe to his will.
-God loves me. Well the milk carton loves you too and it is sad because you do not believe in him.
And any other reason you have for believing in god apply it to the milk carton with the same logic as you apply it to god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-12-2010 7:41 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-13-2010 9:06 AM frako has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024