Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

In my experience, people tend to leave a club due to "inconceivable flatulence" and "inappropriate use of the club mascot".

You described religion as "a club".
That trivialises religion.My reply was in a similar vein.

I looked up the definition of club:

quote:

---

A group of people organized for a common purpose, especially a group that meets regularly: a garden club.

---

This pretty much matches the definition that I thought PD was using.In my experience, when someone talks about clubs they tend to be talking about 'night clubs' (as you suggested), small 'hobby' clubs (e.g. book club) or sports clubs.
I would expect the religious people I work with not to be unhappy if I describing their religion a club.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

No - I commented on what appeared to be a trivial post. I agree.
"Club" was a poor choice of word. 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. Why would I consider something is trivial simply because it is associated with women?
I assume you must be projecting. 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?

And you have put more energy towards my reply than the point of the topic."Physician, heal thyself."

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.

Are you ever angry at your American schooling?
Do you feel that Mount Dora let you down?

Your claim to be religiously educated (Dawn: "Im an expert on all the theological classics") is completely undermined by the fact that English is your first language and yet you can barely read or write.
(You even mispelt 'amateur' when it was spelt correctly in what you were quoting.)
Why do you think you can understand "all the theological classics" when you cannot read or write to a level above first school?
Nothing you post has any worth as what goes into your head and what comes out again is completely corrupted by your lack of English comprehension skills.Many old people, who can't read, go to college to learn.
You would not be embarrasing yourself to sign up for remedial reading courses.
But you are embarrassing yourself by posting such half-baked nonsense.

Dawn can't read anything even slightly complicated.
He has to guess.He recognises a few words and then guesses which words join them up.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

As Dr. A. pointed out - and which you ignored by trying to change the subject: You obviously cannot read well.
Most of the time you don't even know what you have written.
Why should we think that you can read the bible when you can't read posts on a forum.Many people have mentioned this before.
Your reading and writing is at a young child's level.
What is wrong with you?

Do you think that makes sense?
Without trying I see 7 errors: 7 errors in 4 short sentences.
I have to add and remove words to get them to even begin to make sense. It appears that getting you to answer a question is a waste of time - but I am persistent. Perhaps you could explain why your English is so abysmal?You claim to be a scholar, but you can't read or write properly.Why should anyone believe your claims at being educated when all you do is convey someone that failed at school?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I am liking Dawn's logic.Panda's post count: 300+
Steven Hawking's post count: 0
God's post count: 0Clearly I am more intelligent than God AND Prof. Hawking. Edited by Panda, : He's a professor!

Why have you not conceded all your arguements to arachnophilia?
He has posted over 3 times as many posts as you: he is over 3 times 'more correct' than you.Or is your original post just stupid.
Or is it just another case of you not knowing what the hell you are writing.Why should we think your claims of scholarship are anything other than a bare-faced lies?
And why do you keep using the word 'intimidate' when clearly you don't know what it means?The cognitive dissonance causing you to repeatedly refuse to address your appallingly bad English must be very intense.
(I accept that the previous sentence is probably 'too advanced' for you.)

This makes a lot more sense with the extra word inserted.

Nearly a sentence. This is close to being a sentence too.
A good try. D-So, still no explanation of why we should believe you are an expert or a scholar when your reading and writing is so sub-normal?Is cognitive dissonance forcing you to deny your lack of ability?
I expect that if you could acknowledge your failure at English you would have to question everything you think the bible says.I guess it would make your whole life a failure if you learnt to read properly and then found out that your whole belief system was based on your faulty comprehension of the bible.
Maybe at your age you would rather die being wrong while thinking you are right.