disillusioned

This neurologist thinks he's wrong: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/a-psychiatrist-falls-for-exorcism/

I'd be curious to know what different criteria for determining what is meant by "non-religious" might affect these results. I'm assuming that they're counting people who'd check the "atheist/agnostic/none of the above" box on a survey. So people who are basically decided. The problem is, I think there are a lot of people who'd check, for example, the "Catholic" box instead, but aren't actually practising or believing Catholics.

Welcome to ExC! I hope you'll find this place helpful. There are lots of good people here, from many different areas of Christianity. I think applying to a public school would be a good start.

Welcome! Glad you found us.

...even then it's only right about 10% of the time.

I'll acknowledge. There's much to think about in your post. Some very good perspective.

Some very good questions here. Regarding the bolded, are we talking about people backing off hard-line atheism in favour of a more open approach to spiritual topics, or people backing off hard-line political stances, or.... other stuff? Just curious. In any case, I think you are correct. Others also need to back off. Basically, I think that we should all try to be as fair and balanced as possible. I say this secure in the knowledge that I have my own biases, and I am prone to taking a hard line from time to time, and when I do, you and my other fellow members will call me out if I go too far. Civil disagreement is something I value very highly indeed. But the civility bit matters. Now, personally, I have a pretty thick skin. You don't need to play nice around me. There are lots of others here that are the same. But not all. And that needs to be ok. One thing I've taken away from this discussion so far is that there has to be room for sensitivity. It doesn't necessarily win an argument, but it needs to be considered. I think we would all do well to consider the worst way in which our words might be taken, not just the best.

Hi @RubyTuesday. Nice of you to stop by. Would you care to share some details of this truth that you have found with us?

Welcome @justaskingquestions! You've made a lot of very important realizations. This is very important. Welcome, as they say, to the dark side. It's not so bad over here. It is difficult at first, but it gets easier in time.

I'm going to push back against this for just a second, for the sake of argument. I certainly don't think you are stupid. From where I'm standing, a claim to knowledge via "gut feeling" or intuition is specifically non-scientific. That doesn't mean that such a claim is necessarily false, but it does mean we need to be careful. It is certainly true, in my experience, that some events inspire a sense of trepidation, others inspire elation, anticipation, etcetera. So the phenomenon of gut feelings is real. There are two questions I would want to ask: 1) can we trust these feelings?,and 2) what is the basis of these feelings? Regarding 1), my gut feeling (hehe) is that we need to be careful. We shouldn't put too much trust in what our intuition says, we should go with what the evidence says. But if we're just talking about being cautious based on a gut feeling, then there isn't really a downside. Just don't get carried away. Essentially, if you have a bad feeling about something, look into it. Regarding 2), I'm inclined to say (that's a fancy gut feeling, by the way) that there are probably evolutionary reasons why our intuition is the way that it is. It's also probably tied to how we have been socialized, and our personal experiences. Confirmation bias probably plays a role. But I'm not an expert in any of these areas, so I can't answer this for sure.

Josh, I don't dispute that your goal is fairness. A couple of things: I did not argue that we should not want to be immune to Christianity. In fact, I explicitly stated that there are certain stages which may be regarded as being "typical" for new de-converts. But this is very different from asserting that there is a specific end goal. Sure, I think it would be beneficial for us to all become immune to Christianity. But I am immune to Christianity, and I am hardly finished growing. This is not the end. It's another beginning. Even if immunity to Christianity were the end goal though, it wouldn't follow that there is a prescribed path to that goal. We are different. We've had different experiences. We haven't all experienced the same type of Christianity. Some of us have suffered more, or differently, than others. We've been socialised in different cultures. We've been raised in different families. We've studied different things. And, as we move away from Christianity, we do so in different ways. I don't think 12 steps will cut it here. This has relevance to the conversation we had a while ago about generalisations. You'll recall that I said that people don't like to be put into boxes, but that anyone will fit inside a box if it is large enough. I also said that we aren't that special, much as we might like to think that we are. The relevance is this: yes, ex-Christians in general go through some typical stages. But they don't always go through them all, and they don't always go through them in the same order. The box needs to be a little larger than that. But even better yet, I think we could dispense with the box altogether in this case. I'm not sure that it is particularly helpful to treat people who we are trying to connect with as if we are trying to classify them. We may find that that is an approach which causes conversations to break down. For the record, I certainly don't want you silenced.

What I was referring to specifically was your assertion to @TruthSeeker0 that she is still "in training" as an Ex-Christian. The implication of this statement is that there is a kind of end goal of Ex-Christianity, and that some of us are further along the path toward this goal than others. This is what I meant when I said that it could be argued that this is a kind of "church think". The church has a specific end goal. Some Christians regard themselves to be further along the path to this goal than others. The term "spiritual father" may be tossed about (or other similar terms, depending on which faction of Christianity we are discussing). Surely most of us have experienced this in some form or other. So the essence of the "church think" I was referring to is the idea that there is a specific end goal in mind, a specific path that should be followed, and that some are further along this path than others. This is not an accurate view of what it is to be an ex-Christian, in my opinion. It certainly isn't consistent with the notion of being a free-thinker. Free-thinkers, by definition, do not need to follow a prescribed path, or a specific set of rules. So I don't think it makes much sense to say that one can be an expert free-thinker. What on earth would that even mean? But even if it could be said that a particular person has become an expert free thinker, it definitely could not be said that others should strive to be achieve their own expertise by thinking like that person. That would be expressly not being a free-thinker. Hence, I think the notion that people can be "in training" as ex-Christian free-thinkers is not helpful, and also not particularly coherent. Having said that, you know that I don't disagree in general with the idea that we grow as ex-Christians. In this thread, and elsewhere, I've expressed that I myself have grown significantly over the past seven years. There are things I can consider now that I could not have considered fairly in my early days. I've also said that I think ex-Christians tend to "over-correct" initially, and that this can limit the kinds of perspectives that they can consider. So I do think that, in general, ex-Christians grow intellectually as they move away from the faith. And there are certainly some behaviours, reactions, stages, etcetera, which may be regarded as "typical" for a newer ex-Christians to go through. But that does not mean that newer members here are "in training". It means they are learning. As are we all. Perhaps some members here have some insights to pass on in certain areas. I think that is the hope of the site. But this is very different from the claim that new members are "in training". When I said that we should never pretend to be superior, I was referring specifically to the attitude which is reflected by the statement that someone else is "in training". If I am training you, then I regard myself as superior to you in some respect. Now, of course, in many cases, it is completely legitimate to train others. I'm a teacher. I do this all the time. If someone is my student, then I should be better than they are at what they are trying to learn. They are in training, and I am training them. This is appropriate, because there is a specific end goal in mind, and I do properly have a level of expertise that my students do not possess. I don't think that the same may be said of the ex-Christian journey. Sure, I have more experience than some newer members, and less than some older ones. But I'm not, in any sense, either an expert or a novice ex-Christian. I'm just trying to figure shit out as I go along. And so, I dare say, are you. A major thing that we left behind when we closed the door on Christianity was the idea that there is an Answer book. No one has the answers. We are all making it up as we go along, and just trying to do the best we can with what we have. So, it is true that we are trying to help each other, or at least we should be. That's the point of being here. But if we begin to treat others as if we are training them instead of helping them, then we are claiming a position of authority. I don't think that this can rightfully be done. I've found some things that work for me. Maybe they will work for others, maybe not. They have to find their own path. I'll help them if I can, but I'm not about to pretend that I have The Answers. Now, having said all of this, I do realize that you never said directly to anyone "you are in training". But you did suggest it strongly, and you gave the impression to some that this was how you regard new members. And you have probably not been alone in this, here and elsewhere. For the record, I don't think you were being malicious, or that your intentions were bad. You know that I respect you greatly as a member of this forum, and as a fellow thinker. Nevertheless, that sentiment was the inspiration for my "general note" that you quoted above.

Just a general note: I think one of the wonderful things about being an ex-Christian is that I have left behind the notion that there is a prescribed path which must be followed. I think there are, generally, certain stages that tend to emerge in the deconversion process, but the idea that one who has been out for longer necessarily has a better perspective is not one which should go unchallenged. Those of us who have been out longer may recognize that newer deconverts are displaying "typical" behaviour, but we should not become dismissive, and we should never pretend to be superior. That would be claiming a position of authority. Authority on what? Not believing in non-sense? Please. The way I see it, this site exists to help ex-Christians. Not to help them become anything in particular, but to help them on their own path. So, in my opinion, no one should be regarded as being "in training". I don't think this is helpful. In fact, it could be argued that that is "church think".

@wellnamed, really good post. Again, putting many of my thoughts into words, and doing it better than I could.

N.B.: Adam and EVE. NOT Adam and STEVE. All else is beside the point.