Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9176 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,657 Year: 4,914/9,624 Month: 262/427 Week: 8/64 Day: 4/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 172 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 1 of 566 (595332)
12-08-2010 3:15 AM


Adiminnemosseus writes:
Deconverting others is not the explicit function of this topic, although if some believer was truly looking for a reason to loose faith, the topic probably could help.
If you truly wish to pursue the above quoted theme, you should propose a new topic of such theme. Or you're welcome to do such at the Free For All forum, which does not have to go through the PNT process.
How about a discussion examining (some of) the alledged reasons for deconversion
An exploration into the individual justifications concerning these reasons.
Against a Biblical perspective
This may not fly with Percy, I know not
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by xongsmith, posted 12-08-2010 4:47 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 12-08-2010 5:01 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-08-2010 5:54 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 6 by frako, posted 12-08-2010 6:51 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 12-08-2010 10:09 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 12-08-2010 1:05 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 14 by Taq, posted 12-08-2010 3:38 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 15 by dwise1, posted 12-08-2010 4:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 16 by subbie, posted 12-08-2010 4:15 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 17 by Blue Jay, posted 12-08-2010 5:02 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 18 by lyx2no, posted 12-08-2010 5:04 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 21 by ZenMonkey, posted 12-08-2010 8:47 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 22 by arachnophilia, posted 12-08-2010 9:04 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 30 by purpledawn, posted 12-09-2010 6:36 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 12-09-2010 11:42 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 52 by glowby, posted 12-10-2010 2:37 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 90 by Jon, posted 12-13-2010 8:56 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 104 by dwise1, posted 12-14-2010 1:27 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 2 of 566 (595336)
12-08-2010 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
12-08-2010 3:15 AM


what the hell
Dawn Bertot asks:
Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion?
And I would ask if a valid, supportable reason to remain faithful be offered?
Ah, but you asked first.
If I give you my answer, will you answer mine?
My answer: It's all about intelligence and understanding of things. The more you are aware, the more you find out these things that you were taught to believe in ARE WRONG.
Before you scream INVALID, NOT SUPPORTED, yes, I understand that my view is not yours. However, as we hopefully crawl out of the 1530's I am fairly optimistic that - even if you THROW OUT all the people here in this forum that you disagree with - the overwhelming majority of the others, when it comes down to the crunch, will throw their vote to the side that is calm and methodical, almost - neigh, most certainly will be - boring us to tears, showing the details of the carefully constructed experiments designed to completely remove any apriori bias.
The people who are making such investigations are those who have (1) spent a lot of money & time in their lives to remove such bias, and (2) have excelled in performing their duties, their work, their descriptive reports, their peer-reviewed acceptance and their tested veracity of the conclusions they reach around the world by completely different scientists. For anyone to have the notion of challenging their position without having first reached the same stature in accomplishments in the field in question (i.e. a PEER) is such an insult to the whole concept of education! The nerve of the idiots who claim the people who took the time to learn didn't learn! Are they being brainwashed? Every single one? How many so far? Millions? WTF! What a foul insult to spit upon these soldiers of mankind!
So, no, I choose to respect them and - since I have also dabbled in the investigations enough to see that you really do need to be exacting and measure everything carefully, and knowing that you cannot advance without mastering the techniques of scientific procedure, - no - I choose to accept their conclusions and choose to accept the notion that they also can be immediately adjusted in the future. Those that formulate conclusions without adhering to such exacting rules just don't have the same credulity. Wouldn't you want to make sure nothing "funny" was going on?
Based on this, the notion of some silly fairytale passed down mostly by word of mouth looks kind of wimpy, something that people who haven't understood what it truly means to measure things would do.
My valid, supportable reason for me is embodied in the respect I have for those millions who have made the journey to confirmation (a term you might be familiar with, but is slightly different here) by peer-reviewed journals of discovery.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

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

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 3 of 566 (595338)
12-08-2010 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
12-08-2010 3:15 AM


I'm coming at not believing in god as an argument from incredulity, basically.
I just cannot see how the biblical god makes any sense, at all.
It's pretty much co incidence that my scientific education, training and experience reinforces my incredulity about the biblical god.
There not being a bibilical god makes intuitive sense to me.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by iano, posted 12-08-2010 5:34 AM Larni has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2030 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 4 of 566 (595342)
12-08-2010 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Larni
12-08-2010 5:01 AM


Larni writes:
It's pretty much co incidence that my scientific education, training and experience reinforces my incredulity about the biblical god.
My wife is a psychologist like you. Her training (largely humanistic) hasn't in any way impinged on her belief in the biblical God. Then there are believers who've a training in science that would, in all likelyhood, far exceed anything you yourself have undergone. They find that their understanding of science makes them appreciate the nature of God all the more.
It would seem that science is a flexible tool when placed in the hands of an otherwise established worldview.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 12-08-2010 5:01 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Larni, posted 12-08-2010 8:31 AM iano has not replied
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 12-08-2010 10:13 AM iano has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 5 of 566 (595343)
12-08-2010 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
12-08-2010 3:15 AM


Well, there's the fact that God doesn't exist ... but apart from that I can't think of anything.

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

  
frako
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 6 of 566 (595346)
12-08-2010 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
12-08-2010 3:15 AM


Use the same reasons you deconverted from believing in Santa Claus and you will deconvert from god.

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

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 7 of 566 (595355)
12-08-2010 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by iano
12-08-2010 5:34 AM


Science is a flexible tool for exploring reality. I do not see evidence for gods inhabiting our reality and this supports my incredulity about the god of the bible.
No offence to Humanists but humanism has always been less like science and more like construct building. Not a true reflection of reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by iano, posted 12-08-2010 5:34 AM iano has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6421
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 8 of 566 (595380)
12-08-2010 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
12-08-2010 3:15 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:
How about a discussion examining (some of) the alledged reasons for deconversion
It's pretty simple. People deconvert when they come to the conclusion that the claims of the religion are not true.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by bluescat48, posted 12-08-2010 12:26 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6421
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 9 of 566 (595381)
12-08-2010 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by iano
12-08-2010 5:34 AM


iano writes:
They find that their understanding of science makes them appreciate the nature of God all the more.
Scientists who are religious compartmentalize their life. They place their religion in a compartment that they protect from serious evidence based scrutiny.
When they find that they can no longer justify keeping religion in that protected compartment, they deconvert.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by iano, posted 12-08-2010 5:34 AM iano has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34065
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 10 of 566 (595386)
12-08-2010 10:20 AM


Most Gods should be thrown away
Certainly a deconversion is valid.
If the god being marketed seems stupid, cruel, or just plain silly then of course that god should be thrown away.
Edited by jar, : be has an 'e' after the 'b'

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by arachnophilia, posted 12-08-2010 8:35 PM jar has replied

  
Kairyu
Member
Posts: 162
From: netherlands
Joined: 06-23-2010


Message 11 of 566 (595407)
12-08-2010 12:01 PM


Well, first of all, there's no biblical way to justify not believing. This should be oblivious. The bible is the word of God if you believe. Naturally, it advises to believe.
If you don't believe, well, also naturally, those passages have no meaning for you. It's as simple as that, and that's why there will always be friction between theists and atheists.
As for my own reasons, well, for starters, read my story in the actual deconversion story topic Dawn. Even you don't agree, you might be able to understand why this damages your will to believe. Can you say what you do think of it? For me, I am highy pragmatic about people ''feeling'' God. It's subjective. And because I had such negative experiences with it, which turned out to be my own mind, I am not very inclined to give faith the advantage of doubt.
I've also got other arguments, but those are fairly untested and orginal. Plus, I am not good at debating, so I leave those out this topic.

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4278 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 12 of 566 (595409)
12-08-2010 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by nwr
12-08-2010 10:09 AM


It's pretty simple. People deconvert when they come to the conclusion that the claims of the religion are not true.
That is the "hook, line & sinker" of the argument. No matter what reason is given for deconversion, the conclusion that the claims of the religion are not true is the major factor.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 12-08-2010 10:09 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 501 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 13 of 566 (595410)
12-08-2010 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
12-08-2010 3:15 AM


I don't believe it. Isn't that a valid reason for deconversion?
I also don't believe there are Bigfeet roaming the woods. That's why I don't follow a religion based on Bigfeet.

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 14 of 566 (595429)
12-08-2010 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
12-08-2010 3:15 AM


How about a discussion examining (some of) the alledged reasons 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.

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

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 15 of 566 (595437)
12-08-2010 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
12-08-2010 3:15 AM


Against a Biblical perspective
To quote a fellow audience member of a "Concerts in the Park" performance by a band whose leader just introduced the band as playing all the hits from the 80's: "Well, this shouldn't take long."
As I understand it, the Biblical perspective on deconversion is "Don't" and that doing so is deserving of death. And that then brings the entire discussion to a complete end. Nothing left to discuss. All that is left is to close the topic, unless you want to gleefully describe in detail the methods by which the deconvert should be executed.
Of course, despite the Biblical perspective, deconversion still happens and is reportedly on the raise. And people still need to deal with the reasons for it happening and the effects it has on them and on their lives. The plain fact is that except for that very stern don't do it!, the Bible really doesn't have anything to say about deconversion. So the Biblical perspective really doesn't add anything to a discussion of deconversion, but rather instead greatly limits any discussion, effectively killing it (which I would assume would be the purpose of taking a biblical perspective).
To start with, I would suggest that we define what we mean by deconversion. We were taught in logic class that the first order of business in any debate (in any actual debate, that is) is to define the terminology that will be used in the debate. Otherwise, both sides would just spend the entire debate talking past each other and nobody would have any idea what was being said, not even the audience. Certainly, the same rule should hold in any discussion: we will need to know what the other guy is talking about and want to ensure that we're talking about the same thing.
I'll start it off. Obviously, deconversion would be the reversal of the conversion process. It would involve the changing of one's beliefs such that one no longer adheres to the theology that one had formerly adhered to. It might be refered to as "losing one's faith", but that refers to losing one's former faith and really doesn't make any definite statement about one's new faith or whether one has acquired a new faith.
Obviously, one deconverts from one's former religion, but does the term require that one deconverts to one specific form of belief regarding religious matters? I submit that it does not. Deconversion stories seem to deal most commonly with deconversion from Christian fundamentalism or Roman Catholicism or Mormonism, but one can conceivably deconvert from any religion at all. Similarly, many stories have the person deconverting to atheism, agnosticism, or deism, but then many other stories have the person deconverting to a more moderate form of the same religion.
Dawn, I suspect that you imagine that deconversion always results in atheism. I submit that it does not always, but rather it often results in another more functional (or at least less dysfunctional) form of the same religion. For example, Glenn Morton deconverted from YECist fundamentalism, was driven to the verge of atheism by YEC, and then pulled himself back from that verge through an apologetic that was far less discordant with reality than YEC is. He did not end up an atheist, so does that mean that he did not experience a deconversion? No, it does not; he still deconverted from YECist fundamentalism and to a form of Christianity albeit far removed from what he had deconverted from. Similarly, Steve Smith did not become an atheist, which he called "spiritual death", but he still very definitely deconverted.
As for the reasons for deconversion, the details can vary widely, but it really boils down to the deconvert finding that his theology does not work. For example, since YEC relies so heavily on contrary-to-fact claims and YEC-based Christianity requires belief in YEC (which teaches that if YEC is not true, then Scripture has no meaning and God does not exist), it ends up effectively albeit unintentionally teaching that should the world be as it truly is, then Scripture has no meaning and God does not exist. In this case, one's religion "not working" would be that the world really is as it truly is and hence contrary to one's religion which has taught one all to well what the next step is. Other cases could involve one's involvement with his religion being detrimental to his mental health. Or that one's religion leads him down paths that he feels are not moral (eg, Carl Drews leaving his fundamentalist church because the pastor condoned and even encouraged "lying for the Lord" -- not an actual case of deconversion, but it could have been).
Another line of investigation could be to distinguish between instances of deconversion and changes that are not deconversion. For example, if one were to leave fundamentalism and become a mainstream Christian, that would be a deconversion, but if one were to leave one church and join another of the same denomination, that would not be deconversion, even if he had left the first church "because it did not work." If one were to leave Roman Catholcism for Judaism then that could be considered a deconversion (actually done by a famous Jewish scholar who had to keep his conversion to Judaism a secret so that he would not be executed for deconverting from Catholicism).
But then that raise questions about whether leaving one religion for an entirely different religion, as in that Jewish scholar's case, really is a case of deconversion and not just conversion. What specifically are the requirements for deconversion?
Just some food for thought. I'm sure that you will abstain as usual, so I'm offering it for the others.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by xongsmith, posted 12-08-2010 5:20 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024