Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

i don't know that i would agree with that. as you stated upthread,

quote:

---

As I have explained before, while "creation science" is a pack of lies, that does not make all who regurgitate those lies liars. In order to be a liar, one must be aware that the falsehoods that one is disseminating are indeed false. Most creationists are followers who regurgitate the lies that they have been fed and who in most cases actually believe those lies to be true. The reason why those creationists really hate to discuss and support their claims is because they do not understand the bullshit that they've just regurgitated; they literally cannot discuss any of it. They do not know any better.

---

i do not suspect they are choosing guile and deception. rather, they are victims of the lies, and they are desperately trying to avoid critical examination of the lies upon which they have constructed their theology. as you point out, once this happens, it often takes faith in general with it.they are essentially lying to themselves first and foremost, and i do not think this necessarily constitutes the same thing as outright deception of others. they are not doing it deceive others, for they fool no one but themselves.in any case, you can pretty clearly see how dawn is doing that very thing in this thread. why else would a valid, supportable reason to "deconvert" have to be personal to dawn, such that we should convince him?

---

אָרַח

aw Jeebus! What a frakin' idiot!Instead of sticking to the topic of the reasons for deconversion, you keep pulling it off into arguments over Isaiha and other arguments over prophecies and inspiration, etc. None of which has anything to do with deconversion.Please get a frakin' clue!

because its the rational way to proceedlet me help you here. Look at me as if you were looking and speaking with a Vulcan. No Im not delusional and think I actually am. Your reading into me deception and secret motives that dont exist. There is no emotion or deception here, Im just asking what can be presented in a logical fashion as to why one might deconvert.Not who deconverted, not why you think they deconverted. Not who is lying and who is not. Simply the argument that swayed them to that positionIf people have deconverted based on the reasons dewise suggest concerning creationism, then they did not understand what creation and its primary arguments wereyou really need to let it go that I disagree, that is what debating is about, disagreementjust stick to the "argument"Dawn Bertot

so, i can't comment on christian doctrine among fundamentalists, as they really don't have any clear doctrine to speak of. but i can elucidate this point perhaps with jewish doctrine.

quote:

---

And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife: 'Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon. And it will come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they will say: This is his wife; and they will kill me, but thee they will keep alive. Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister; that it may be well with me for thy sake, and that my soul may live because of thee.' (Genesis 12:11-13)

---

so, granted, this is before the law, and is perhaps part of the general period of amorality that necessitates a clear and pre-agreed-upon system of law. but this the general jewish exception for the prohibition on bearing false witness. the logic goes like this: you're a jew, living in 1940's germany. you're hiding several more jews in your attic. when the gestapo comes around, asking if anyone's seen any jews, you have two choices:

1. tell them the truth. you are your family will be killed in a concentration camp
2. lie to them. you and your family will live another day, and you will have protected the lives of innocent people

which is the more moral course of action? generally, moral people, in this instance, will state that lying is perfectly okay. if it is to save your own life, or the lives of others, a lie is generally a small thing in comparison to the greater harm caused by the truth.this is could be what christians think they are doing when they "lie for jesus". perhaps they think they are protecting your immortal soul from the gestapos of satan. of course, this is not clear in any way, as christians generally do not feel that denying your faith when faced with certain death is at all acceptable.

---

אָרַח

Let me guess, your drinking right about this point arent you Son? be honestYour right Son its not about Deconversion specifically, it ABOUT THE ARGUMENT ONE USES TO DECONVERT, which would include
the things we have been discussingPlease tell me your really not that ignorant, to not see that pointWoW. Be honest your smashed right now, arent you?Dawn

it is never right to lie, in any situation, it is a moral incorrectness, even in rahabs case.I would lie in those situations to save another life, but my actions dont make it moral or rightIf it did, anyone could justify any situation in thier own mind, in which case there would be no reason it would ever be wrongDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

And yet you have produced a great deal of wind and not noticeably changed anyone's beliefs.Maybe you should give up on the wind and try some arguments with substance.

}We all know what deconversion means dewise. Its not about the term specifically but the reason/s that anyone might offer, set out logically, to that deconversionwhy is that so hard to understand?

Iano, Jaywill, Buzzsaw, John10, Bertot and last but certainly not least ICANT. Which of these peoples views have you or the other skeptics here, changed?Disagreement doesnt equal misunderstanding.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

no, it absolutely is not. it is only the natural way to proceed if you are trying to maintain your internal lies. you want to argue your positions because it makes them seem stronger to you. ponfo miran, nirak. a priori assumptions about divine inspiration that have yet to be demonstrated and conflict with the given facts is highly illogical. requesting negative arguments and then invalidating them because they do not assume the affirmative is highly illogical. assuming that your demonstrably incorrect interpretation of creationism is correct, contrary to the objective facts, is highly illogical.assuming that any negative interpretation must be a misunderstanding, contrary to the objective facts, is highly illogical. stating that someone must convince you, personally, but then that they must accept your disagreement, is highly illogical.critiquing someone's disagreement with you in the same sentence as requiring it is highly illogical asking someone to stick to an argument you just told them to drop is highly illogical.

---

אָרַח

protecting innocent people is not moral? doesn't follow.

---

אָרַח

Aye. They are more victims than anything else. However, once they have learned that what they are saying are lies and yet they continue to use them ... . At what point do we stop saying that they are themselves victims and that they should now know better? Yes, I do see that. I have often viewed fundamentalist Christian mentality as having been arrested. Eg, obviously, their rules-based morality, which is normally outgrown before age 10. There's another stage of development in which a child before a certain tender age, about 5 years I think, cannot distinguish between its own thoughts and the thoughts of another; ie, if the young child knows something (eg, what the puppet is seeking is hidden under the teacup) then the other person must know it as well. There is a stage of development where the child comes to realize that other people are indeed different and know and think things differently than the child does. Apparently, Dawn has regressed back from that stage of development and believes that everybody has the same beliefs as he does.Our church has (or had) an actual adult RE course called, "Building Your Own Theology." And a fundamentalist friend at work has verified that this is also true for them. Everybody builds his own theology and it is that theology upon which he bases his beliefs and his religious actions. Furthermore (my own thoughts here), while one may try to pattern one's own theology on some kind of standard theology, all that one may accomplish is an approximation, one's own misunderstanding of that theology. Furthermore, since the theology being emulated is that which has been presented by a teacher or an author, we have that each such approximation is itself trying to emulate another emulation, which was an approximation of another emulation, etc for millenia.Dawn's own theology, which he apparently believes is perfect, is instead his own imperfect misunderstanding of what he thought he was trying to emulate. And it appears that he has no idea that it is only one of billions of different Christian theologies that have existed. He appears to believe that his theology is the only one that could exist. Such that only something that would show that his own theology is wrong could possibly be a valid reason for deconversion.In fact, anything that would show anybody's theology to be wrong or unworkable would be a valid reason for deconversion. A very simple example would be one whose theology had incorporated "creation science" (note for Dawn: refer to Message 451 for the actual definition of "creation science", not your own personal fracked-up re-definition), such that realizing that those "creation science" claims are lies would be valid reasons for deconversion.But apparently Dawn's development is arrested at the point that he thinks that only his own personal theology exists.

i've had the opportunity to see a few viewpoints change here, over the course of the last six years. i believe phat is one of the most notable examples. there are a few others, of course.

---

אָרַח

Wow you really dont get this do you? We were looking at the same text, which clearly included the example of inspiration as much as prophecyNow according to your own rules, looking stickly at the text, how could i be ASSUME what is there and the rules you use to establish things just from the textI did not assume inspiration any more than you assumed your interpretation of that textfrom a biblical perspective, what known facts would inspiration conflict with in the Bible or IsaWhat are you smoking dudeDawn Bertot

the truly ironic part of all this is that christianity is a religion specifically designed to cut through the rules-based nonsense of some forms of orthodox judaism. christ even goes to great lengths to explain how some of those rules are just plain dumb.

quote:

---

And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? (Matthew 12:10-11)

---

breaking the sabbath was a pretty big deal. the torah commands death. that's the rule... but there are clearly exceptions, based on moral and logical reasoning. (don't even get me started on sabbath elevators) perhaps. however, i don't see that. that presumes that he could even accept for a moment that his theology might be wrong. there can be no other theologies, because his has to be right. i am also not sure about that. it would certainly be reason to think that their theology is quite wrong, but that might not necessarily go so far as abandoning faith altogether. while a lot of people bundle the two up, i do not think it is necessarily so. just... very persuasive.

---

אָרַח