Three Deconversions To Consider

[Yrth]

A teenage girl becomes an atheist to piss off her father for no particular reason. Her father is into apologetics, so she marshals the strongest counter-arguments western civilization has provided and lays absolute waste to dumbstruck dad. She revels in his defeat. She brings it up at breakfast, lunch, and dinner, on and off the green, in the car ride to school and everywhere in between. This basic dynamic continues for decades. When the father eventually dies, the daughter’s interest in atheism and religion immediately begins to wane and disappears entirely within the year.

 

An eccentric abbot orders one of his monks to become an atheist as part of an experiment. The dutiful monk sorrowfully accepts the task and begins culling his faith. The conditioning is fierce, painful, and protracted, but the monk eventually succeeds and reports back the next year. The ineffable abbot tests the monk, determines that he is indeed an atheist, and makes some notations on his laptop. He then explains that the second phase of the experiment is for the monk to live among the masses for not less than 5 years, after which the monk shall report back and reconvert to Catholicism. Swallowing a dry throat, the dutiful monk plods to his cell and packs his bags.

 

A young man feels as though he’s been rock hard for an entire year. An ever-expanding, sensual, lusty concept of sex floods his mind at every hour of the day and night -- especially the night. His youth group’s theme this year and every year has been sexual purity, the issue is framed as a choice between being a Christian or having premarital sex. He nearly came in public when one of the girls touched his hand to put a purity ring on his finger. It was too much. Leaving church one night, he spat, kicked the dirt, and turned away. “Fuck this. I’m getting fucked one way or another.” He was last seen practicing tantric Buddhism.

_________________

 

People deconvert for all kinds of reasons. Aren’t some reasons better than others? More rational / reasonable? Less petty / more honorable? When the girl gets over her anger, will she go back into the fold? Won’t the monk reconvert in five years? When this guy’s hormones calm down, what’s stopping him from succumbing to a recommitment sermon? Would he have even left the church if one of the girls had blown him after a Sunday potluck?

 

It took a long time for me to deconvert. It wasn’t because I didn’t run into objections – in fact I hit them all. I grafted my desire to objectively respond to these skepticisms into a double major in history and philosophy. If I didn’t have an answer to an objection, I would table it for later and if I didn’t have an answer soon, I’d remind myself of human fallibility and divine ineffability. Of course, many objections did have perfectly coherent Christian answers, often without even resorting to any Christian assumptions. There was a point where I couldn’t really believe that certain prominent atheists were even interested in objectivity because their arguments were so incredibly inane – and still are. Above all, I was concerned that my own emotions might be influencing my thoughts, and therefore gave all the benefits to every doubt that came my way. When I finally affirmed my skepticisms, I did so for the right reasons.

 

Is that fundamentalist of me? Ex-Christianity is an incredibly broad category. I’ve been considering just how broad – who exactly does it include? Answer: pretty much anyone and for nearly any reason. Good grief. Do they find justifications before or after leaving? Did I? Doesn’t it matter? Don’t newly converted Christians do the same thing in Sunday school?

 

Has this bothered anyone else?

 

_________________

 

p.s.: I'm not directing this thread at anyone's deconversion story in particular or even in general, as I've never read even one extimony remotely similar to the three fictions created in this thread. This topic genuinely bothers me. I suppose that, if anything fuels this bother, it's what is implied when other people on this site and elsewhere expect acceptance of their fools' gold arguments.vIt sounds harsh - it is harsh - but you read the brief backstory about me and hopefully can at least understand where I'm coming from.

 

*edit: You know... I really do not like alienating myself even more than I already have on this site. Please recognize that my criticisms here and probably elsewhere are always directed first and hardest at myself before overflowing to sting people around me. I understand that this site is about supporting ex-Christians but, in a paradoxical way, dealing with this is doing precisely that. Anyway.

 

Be well, -Pockets

[stryper]

people also get married for any number of reasons. Some very similar to the one's you listed.

 

Simply put, people in general make choices about things sometimes with very little thought about long term consequences or very petty or short term reasons.

 

On this site, it seems we have a higher percentage of Introverts then the general population. So it would seem that many people here had "better" reasons then the one's listed.

 

Ultimately, we are all individuals. What one person thinks is a stupid reason another might think is the best reason ever. It all comes down to choice.

[Vigile]

Those were some pretty damn creative deconversion scenarios. I like it.

 

Objectivity, or even real desire for it,seems pretty rare amongst humans. It frustrates me too, but pointing it out in others hasn't exactly greased the friendship wheel well. I often think my need for it is more of a curse than a benefit.

[blackpudd1n]

I'd never heard of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, or Hitchens until after I deconverted. I didn't read any atheist literature prior to my deconversion. Some people really studied the bible, and hard, while deconverting- my study of the bible was no where near that intense. I had never heard of Bart Ehrman, either, until after my deconversion. Essentially, my deconversion arose out of observing christians and the world around me, and thinking. I thought so long and hard, and just questioned everything.

 

However, regarding your first scenario, I do think that it is rather likely that some people proclaim to be atheists simply as a form of rebellion against their fundy parents, particularly as teenagers. However, I am not too concerned with why people leave, as long as it ends up being a genuine journey. I think it's entirely possible that someone could claim atheism as a form of rebellion, and then come to really reject the faith later as a result of research to counter christian apologetics. And that's cool with me. As far as the monk goes, I don't think you can really deconvert as a flimsy experiment, but he may authentically do so in phase two of the experiment, and that would be fine with me. The only way to tell would be at the end of that five years, but it doesn't sound like he, personally was too keen about the idea of being forced to lose his faith. Forced loss of faith has never worked before.

 

The horny teenager? I reckon he'd come back once he gets the sex out of his system- probably out of guilt, he'd be the most likely to reconvert, I reckon. Interesting exercise you thought up

[mcdaddy]

I'm not offended, because I didn't understand a damn thing you were talking about.

[Deva]

People do deconvert for various reasons, and they don't always deconvert to atheism. Ex-Christian is an incredibly broad group of individuals. Many are theists of some variety. As far as reasons being more rational or honorable - yes, in a subjective judgmental type of way, I think you could say so. I think that someone who genuinely finds that the Christian doctrine cannot be true because it does not lead to the result the Christ preaches - love your neighbor as yourself- has a more noble or honorable reason than the people in your examples.

 

And if a person thinks actual Tantric Buddhism is about sex, gratification of that desire and getting sexual release-he is quite mistaken. So-called tantric sex is practiced only by advanced practitioners under the guidance of a teacher - it is not really about "sex" at all as most of us think of that.

 

I am like you Pockets, in that I don't wish to further alienate others on this site either. Not my intention.

[SusanStoHeli]

I'm not offended - people convert for silly reasons, atheists are not some pure noble group where we all have perfect intentions - it's Christians who generally pretend all their members are perfect, right?

 

Most atheists do not convert for silly reasons, nor without a lot of consideration - I never believed, but even I still gave religion serious consideration as a young adult to make sure my choice was the right one.

[JadedAtheist]

Atheists are notorious for denigrating others while patting themselves on the back. We alone hold a tenable position that agrees with science, logic and reason. It does not contradict what is known in science and does not assume anything without knowledge backed up with it (apparently).

 

Anyways, that's another topic all together. As for better or worse reasons? Well, when it boils down the reason we all leave is because of cognitive dissonance. Your dissonance may be caused by logical inconsistencies, biological urges or emotional reasons. Yet they are all primal. We can't reconcile two things, so we reject one.

 

For those that leave Christianity, I figure we suffer a deficiency in our capacity to live with certain levels of conflict that the rest of the population has no issues with. I cannot live a hypocritical life, most don't give a shit and I never got that.

 

Anyways, better or worse reasons is just a bullshit way of making us feel superior. I left because I couldn't intellectually reconcile the religion. That could mean I was/am stupid. It could mean that if someone came along an was able to explain away my concerns I'd reconvert. None of us are any different we would all reconvert if our catalyst was dealt with. I think that would be unlikely for the majority of us, especially if it wasn't a hasty decision and for other reasons besides our initial concerns.

 

Anyways TL;DR No reason is better than another, all the same root cause no matter how hard we try to make ourselves look better.

[Yrth]

Thanks for the responses, it's helpful to bounce these ideas around. Sometimes I wonder what I'm even trying to say - which is probably why it was easier for me to sketch it. I suspect that in this case I'm not trying to say something so much as I'm trying to figure something out.

 

I had forgotten that part of my wife's Christian experience had been speaking in tongues, but remembered as we were talking about a few ex-c threads the other night. It got me thinking about her deconversion process, how it was so different from mine, and about my quasi-elitist superiority complex. Whether I was inventing a new strain of fundamentalism ('this is the correct way to leave the fold - resistance is useless') - or perhaps whether I had never left an old strain behind (Christian philosophy / apologetics / theology). That's where this thread is coming from.

 

Jaded, I'm wondering where would the cognitive dissonance be for the daughter who deconverted because she was mad at her dad? Oh, here's a similar one: the Christians in early medieval Islamic regions who converted to Islam for a better life. One is voluntary but purely emotional, and the other is more like a coerced decision. For both, it doesn't seem like there's any real concern about the substance of the religion but more on how it affects their lives. Cognitive dissonance does seem to be a common theme around here, though, and I suspect you're on to something very interesting.

 

we would all reconvert if our catalyst was dealt with.

Argh, I have trouble assimilating this - a cognitive dissonance. I want to deny this is true because I don't want to think that it's possible. It may be good to remind myself that while 'dealing with' my catalysts is technically possible, it's incredibly improbable - but that's really an empty reminder, isn't it. I'm going to go scratch my head and maybe peel a banana or two.

[Guest sugRsuccubus]

A teenage girl becomes an atheist to piss off her father for no particular reason. Her father is into apologetics, so she marshals the strongest counter-arguments western civilization has provided and lays absolute waste to dumbstruck dad. She revels in his defeat. She brings it up at breakfast, lunch, and dinner, on and off the green, in the car ride to school and everywhere in between. This basic dynamic continues for decades. When the father eventually dies, the daughter’s interest in atheism and religion immediately begins to wane and disappears entirely within the year.

 

An eccentric abbot orders one of his monks to become an atheist as part of an experiment. The dutiful monk sorrowfully accepts the task and begins culling his faith. The conditioning is fierce, painful, and protracted, but the monk eventually succeeds and reports back the next year. The ineffable abbot tests the monk, determines that he is indeed an atheist, and makes some notations on his laptop. He then explains that the second phase of the experiment is for the monk to live among the masses for not less than 5 years, after which the monk shall report back and reconvert to Catholicism. Swallowing a dry throat, the dutiful monk plods to his cell and packs his bags.

 

A young man feels as though he’s been rock hard for an entire year. An ever-expanding, sensual, lusty concept of sex floods his mind at every hour of the day and night -- especially the night. His youth group’s theme this year and every year has been sexual purity, the issue is framed as a choice between being a Christian or having premarital sex. He nearly came in public when one of the girls touched his hand to put a purity ring on his finger. It was too much. Leaving church one night, he spat, kicked the dirt, and turned away. it. I’m getting fucked one way or another.” He was last seen practicing tantric Buddhism.

_________________

 

 

I think that is why it is always important to read, read, read! Investigate. Once the investigation gets far enough, you really can't remain religious unless you decide to live in a state of pure denial. I look at it this way... We humans operate most of our lives based on reasoning. We process information of all kinds, make connections, test our conclusions. This is how we have learned for thousands of years. So, it is natural that when something doesn't fit, we begin to question it.

 

So, this is how I pulled apart those imaginary situations:

 

Scenario # 1 - Daughter is not particularly interested in religion, anyhow. She obviously doesn't pay it much mind because, for a very simple and cruel reason, she easily switches over to atheism. Atheism is the exact opposite of christianity, having none of the comfort or answers that are a part of what keeps fearful people in the fold. So, obviously she was not invested in it one bit. She had to have started out as a free thinking, independent individual in the first place to demonstrate these behaviors, because if someone was truly convinced of religion they would not simply switch over for that reason, or with such a lack of emotional and personal consequence. If I were to form an assumption about this situation from the information given here, I would say she never deconverted, because obviously christianity never held any value for her anyway. She was a christian in name only. And is she wrong for this? No. Why? Clearly for many reasons (scientific, historical, etc.) it is a religion with no legs to stand on. She never gained or lost anything from it. And judging from her later lack of interest in either atheism or religion, it never meant anything to her to begin with.

 

Scenario # 2 - This one, to me, is a bit.... silly. Not to be offensive, but it's not very realistic. Firstly, if he was truly an atheist, why would he continue on being a monk and continue with the experiment? Wouldn't he recognize, having truly deconverted and fully become an atheist, that he no longer has any motivation to do the abbot's bidding? This monk, unless he completely lacked self esteem and had some incredible emotional issues, would likely, having truly deconverted, end his services and go on to live his life. That leaves us to question then, did he truly deconvert? There is the strong possibility that he didn't truly become an atheist but rather forced himself through a terrible emotional crisis, and yet, still remained in mind a christian due to emotional ties and conditioning, and that the abbot's test clearly was erroneous (and who can really give a test to someone to prove they've deconverted? it is easy to lie in this situation). I just don't think that this could really be a true deconversion if he continues on in the service of his abbot. But let's pretend he did really deconvert. If it is, what's the problem with his reason for deconversion? So, he was presented with a task. This task led to an incredible learning experience where he very likely, in efforts to become an atheist, researched reasons for why people are atheists, coming upon proof against his religion. In this case, he would simply have, by chance, had a lightbulb go on in his head. But even writing this is silly to me... Because you only write that he conditioned himself not to believe. If so, please explain to me how one can really -condition- themselves to no longer believe in something so great that it encompasses how that person lives (especially a monk whose life is dedicated to his religion)? He might try, he might be just motivated enough to try, but I doubt that (especially if it started with a motivation to do gawd's will, which would be why he went along with such a cruel experiment and didn't question the abbot) I really, truly doubt he would be able to force himself to deconvert based on conditioning alone. So, my point is, if he did really deconvert then the reasons are not negative or positive, but simply the product of chance. My other point is that given the situation you presented, it is possible that he didn't really let go of his religion and deconvert.

 

Scenario # 3 - In this one, there is a young man who is experiencing very natural urges. Perhaps he is even a more sexually charged person than most other people. His physical body, and thus his emotions, are telling him that he wants to mate, just like every sexual animal on this planet. This is his sex drive talking. Now, knowing that his human tendencies are clashing with what is erroneously taught about sexuality by his religion, why is he in the wrong? Why is it petty? In order for you to assume he is petty for this, you yourself would have to hold the religious concept of morality in some high regard. Otherwise, you wouldn't see anything wrong with his leaving. He is simply doing what is natural to him, what is natural and necessary for his species to continue. This deconversion shows that he saw an inconsistency between the values of the church and real life. Real life says, fuck. Fuck because you are young, you are human, and learn about your sexuality. Church says, abstain, suppress your urges, and feel guilty about them. Which sounds healthier? Then, he even goes on to become a Buddhist! Buddhism is not in the same category as christianity when it comes to religion. You can't argue that it is. Simply because it is a religion does not mean it carries the same emotional consequences, personal lack of growth, intellectual limitations, and so on that christianity does. And so, he is still choosing something healthier. How are any of these things he chose unhealthy? How are they petty? How are they negative reasons for leaving the church?

 

What I would infer from your examples is that you are feeling conflicted because of emotions mainly, because in reality, if you look at these and pull them apart, there are a million and one angles to consider. Not only that, but they are imagined examples from what I understand, and while it is good to hypothesize, it is also possible to go into the realm of unrealistic. For instance, I find your first example moot in point for the reasons I stated in Scenario # 1. And in your second example, there was a lack of logical basis.

 

That is only what I thought about in reading your post. I can understand your questions, and can empathize with having them. But honestly, I've learned that a person's motivation for leaving christianity is not as important as whether or not christianity is falsified. If it is false and unhealthy (which it is) then there's no reason why a person who has left it should be scrutinized for their motivation. The important thing is that they left.

[LivingLife]

sugRsuccubus - good post.

 

Scenario 1&3 are rebellion 2 is not real.

 

Many of us hung on to the last vestiges of anything that would make it true or real.

 

3 is me in part as I rebelled to go do it with as many women w/o having to deal with guilt. Later on in life I got sucked into it again and only once I had fully studied the babble and origins could I make an informed decision that it was BS. Had I married an atheist or non believer things may have gone different but then all of my ex GF's had some sort of belief and were just ignoring it as I was, sex is after all a lot more fun than church and celibacy, times were a changin' and getting married to do the dirty no longer an issue.

 

I mentioned elsewhere, the kids changed the focus and was catalyst in my wife getting involved again. She got more than she bargained for with me. The real triggers were ignored hell doctrine I had been exposed to and then this buried fear resurfaced due to something I read in a magazine.

 

IF people were actually taught the truth of the origins of the babble and church history, few folk would be moved by a hell sermon. The church relies on ignorance to sell its wares. Kinda like entrapment.

[blackpudd1n]

Whether I was inventing a new strain of fundamentalism ('this is the correct way to leave the fold - resistance is useless') - or perhaps whether I had never left an old strain behind (Christian philosophy / apologetics / theology).

 

When we were christians, we were trained to think in certain ways, using certain thought processes. As a former extremist, I recognise that just because I deconverted, that that does not mean I instantly lost the extremist mindset, because that is a habit in how I think and and the process I use to come to conclusions. I recognise that my logic is still skewered, and I am currently in the process of re-training my mind to be more objective. At the same time, knowing how christianity affected my opinion on EVERYTHING, I have got to re-examine every single opinion I have and the reasons I hold them. It's not a process that happens overnight, and that is okay.

 

Personally, I find atheism very comforting. I find it liberating to say "I don't know" instead of having to do all sorts of leaps and bounds to apply the bible to everything and find biblical principles for everything. I like reality

[JadedAtheist]

Jaded, I'm wondering where would the cognitive dissonance be for the daughter who deconverted because she was mad at her dad? Oh, here's a similar one: the Christians in early medieval Islamic regions who converted to Islam for a better life. One is voluntary but purely emotional, and the other is more like a coerced decision. For both, it doesn't seem like there's any real concern about the substance of the religion but more on how it affects their lives. Cognitive dissonance does seem to be a common theme around here, though, and I suspect you're on to something very interesting.

 

Well, she hates her father and hates everything about him. If she's trying to completely disassociate herself from him she will see that sharing the same faith to be a problem, hence dissonance. As for the converts, it's hard to judge their thought patterns. Maybe they weren't really all that religious in the first place? So feigning belief in another religion, especially if it has advantages wouldn't have been a stretch. On the other hand, people could've been struggling and the only way out was to become a Muslim so they could survive, or even still they could've actually thought Islam made the most sense. It's probably a variety of these reasons. Regardless, dissonance plays a role in all.

 

Argh, I have trouble assimilating this - a cognitive dissonance. I want to deny this is true because I don't want to think that it's possible. It may be good to remind myself that while 'dealing with' my catalysts is technically possible, it's incredibly improbable - but that's really an empty reminder, isn't it. I'm going to go scratch my head and maybe peel a banana or two.

 

I'm at the point now where I am not open to the possibility of religion. I am not a slave, and will not subject myself to slavery once again. You can call that close mindedness, and that'd be accurate but I don't care anymore. I'm happy the way I am, and I don't need no cures or fixes.

[Yrth]

Sug, thanks for taking the time to respond. I admit that I was a little taken aback when I saw that you were analyzing each scene. They’re not meant to withstand that, they’re just an attempt to articulate something. There's not much I would quibble with in your response, except perhaps to scene 3.

 

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with getting laid as long as you’re responsible about it. The basic intention here was to have person who makes no effort to even look at the validity of anything he’s been taught.

 

That is only what I thought about in reading your post. I can understand your questions, and can empathize with having them. But honestly, I've learned that a person's motivation for leaving christianity is not as important as whether or not christianity is falsified. If it is false and unhealthy (which it is) then there's no reason why a person who has left it should be scrutinized for their motivation. The important thing is that they left.

At the very least, someone's motivations for leaving are going to be important to that person. That's why I asked, doesn't it matter? It mattered very much to me and other people that their decision was sound. I wouldn't want someone to ignore that about me.

 

Idk. I'm still thinking on it.

[Overcame Faith]

All of your examples are really only one scenario told in three different ways. What they all have in common is the main characters have a motive for taking their non-christian stance which sidesteps a study of the religion and independent truth seeking. Additionally, in your scenarios none of them use those motives as their starting point for closer investigation of the religion.

 

What I have seen played out in the testimonies on this forum time and time again is that there is something (sometimes more than one thing) that causes the Christian to begin questioning the religion. The person then digs deeper, sometimes engaging in serious study, asking questions of their pastor/priests and other Christians, reading apologetics and then, often, not being satisfied with what they hear from Christian sources, begin turning to non-Christian sources, including ExC. There is often, though not always, a struggle from deep within the truth seeker between the faith that they believed to be true and the new (to them) truth they are now beginning to see. The struggle can be intense (though not so intense for some) and cause huge intellectual and, most importantly for many, emotional upheavals. That point of the intellectual and emotional upheavals is often the pivotal point which can lead some back to the religion and some (I think few) to a final break from the religion.

 

Let's take your third scenario of the young man with intense sexual urges. That is, in my view, a perfectly valid reason to begin questioning the religion. The questioning may go something like this: if god created me and did so by placing these sexual urges in me, then why does he tell me to suppress them? What this young man hears in church from youth leaders and others is that it is a sin to succumb to your sexual desires outside of marriage. He asks why and the response from the Christian may be because god wants you to be pure, he wants you to have a committed relationship, etc., etc. The young man says why? The answer may then go into things like STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and the like. Then it dawns on the young man that those latter reasons do make sense but it doesn't take a god threatening hell to understand that. Then that opens it all up for him to begin to see that when the Christians ultimately rely on "god" for their reasoning, it masks what may be valid reasons which valid reasons are independent of any god. And so it goes.

 

It seems to me that what you are getting at is what makes for a lasting departure from the religion. My answer is that that is a very personal thing and I do not think there is one pat answer to that question. It is whatever it takes for the individual to be convinced that the religion is a crock.

[Guest sugRsuccubus]

Sug, thanks for taking the time to respond. I admit that I was a little taken aback when I saw that you were analyzing each scene. They’re not meant to withstand that, they’re just an attempt to articulate something. There's not much I would quibble with in your response, except perhaps to scene 3.

 

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with getting laid as long as you’re responsible about it. The basic intention here was to have person who makes no effort to even look at the validity of anything he’s been taught.

 

Well, thank you for thanking me, lol! Because when I write on something I have a strong opinion about, it comes across in my words, and it can be offensive or rude. That's definitely not my intention!

 

Anyway, I realize that you didn't give those examples as much more than to be exactly that; examples. However, pockets, how I look at it is... These examples demonstrated your thought process, and if the examples that you gave are the kinds of situations you really ponder, after pulling them apart I can't see them as good enough examples to cause you any trouble. If Overcame Faith is correct in saying what you're really after is what creates a long-lasting deconversion, that -is- a bit different. But I agree in that this is a question only each of us can answer. We're all different with different mental obstacles to overcome, so if one of the group tends to go back and forth, and finally settles after three "deconversions" on atheism, what does it matter? There are people with bipolar who struggle the same, and even if you gave them factual evidence against christianity, there's a chance they might go to the other extreme another day. I've seen it happen. I guess I can empathize with your questions, but not to the extent that I ever was overcome by a constant pondering of them. The truth is, Pockets, you may be looking for a hard solid answer for something that, like many things in life, has many different answers depending on just as many variables.

 

My endeavor was to show that the examples you gave held no water, and thus, require no excessive thinking on the matter. I still stand by that. What makes us deconvert falls into a few categories, if we're going to be broad: emotional reasons, intellectual reasons, exposure to new concepts, abuse (which may fall under emotional reasons). How can any of these categories lack importance?

 

My suspicion, pockets, is that you are possibly preoccupied with the idea that there might be people out there who deconverted as blindly as people who converted to christianity. If this is the case, you're trying to compare an apple to an orange. It would be the same as a christian telling an atheist that their atheism is still a "belief" in something. Despite the fact that it is actually a non-belief. In addition, your experience in leaving the fold is not what everyone needs to truly and solidly deconvert. We all needed different things to "click" for us to recognize that our belief was either questionable or entirely folly. This is not bad or less-than. When it comes to recognizing that christianity is errant, because of the simple fact that it is so errant, there are so many conflicts that can light up our questioning. None are wrong, petty, less-than, or not solid. Why? Because any question we ask that leads us to disbelief is a valid one! Because christianity is not real, not relevant, and has no basis of evidence. At the core, christianity is not reality, so it's natural that people deconvert for so many individual reasons.

 

I'd say, let people have their reasons. Thank goodness they were independent enough to take the stand, and to see the man behind the curtain. Converting to christianity is solely an emotional and imaginative decision. Deconverting is a process that requires thinking and some level of investigation, and to me, that is comparing apples to oranges.

[Akheia]

The only moral deconversion is my deconversion? I guess I'm not sure where pocket's opening post was going, but that's the vibe I got. People deconvert for all kinds of reasons. They join religions for all sorts of reasons too. Some of those reasons seem pretty frivolous to me, but then, I thought that about converts to Christianity when I was UPC. Christians do this shit constantly. By invalidating the reasoning behind the choice, they think they can thereby invalidate the decision itself.

 

Everybody else was frivolous, but I'm wise and careful. Everybody else didn't think it through at all or had a stupid reason for doing it, but I actually took the time to study it. From tattoos to SUVs to religion, we consider our own choices to be informed and well-researched and question the validity of others' choices. Christianity is particularly prone to this mindset. Let people do what they're going to do. Sometimes people don't actually know exactly why they chose this or that path or option, but their gut feelings still led them that way. And that is still completely valid and okay for them. Maybe not for you, but for them it is totally fine. As my daddy taught me some years ago after a nasty spat between my sister and me, "You worry about you, and your sister will worry about herself. I'll worry about anything else."

 

I try not to judge people's decisions and just encourage them to educate themselves so they won't teeter back into that religion pit again.

[Yrth]

These are great things for me to think about. I don't know why, but sometimes, even when I take an active learning posture, it takes a while to click. Sometimes its because its nonsense, and sometimes its not nonsense but I had a hard time getting it anyway. But I do intuit that there's something not-quite-right here.

 

By invalidating the reasoning behind the choice, they think they can thereby invalidate the decision itself.

This may stab the heart of the beast, but it isn't immediately obvious to me why it's incorrect.

 

I think the argument is that if the reasoning is invalid, it follows that the decision is too, in a way, because if they had known that the reasoning was invalid at the time, they wouldn't have made the decision. So I suppose the assumption there is that a decision is invalid if you wouldn't have made it if you had been given additional knowledge at the time. Alright, is that true? Maybe not, actually. It assumes that a valid decision is one that will last. That thought really is a throwback to past Christian reasoning, as I remember believing exactly that about converts - a 'true' conversion is one that will last.

 

Synthesized: Some decisions are more at risk than others due to their origins, but that does not affect the quality of the decision.

 

I'm literally giving myself a headache thinking about this. My instincts say the exact opposite, that there is a direct link between quality and longevity. Words come to mind: fickle / frivolous / fair-weather.

 

>.<

 

I'll keep chewing on it.

[Guest Valk0010]

I think some reasons are better then others, and we really only have a right to criticise when its obvious that, there reasons are just going to lead them to reconvert eventually. People like Patrick Greene come to mind.

 

 

EDIT FOR CLARITY: By criticise in this context, I mean, calling them irrational, or dumb, or flimsy or something like that. Pointing out flaws in reasoning or evidence is a great thing.

[Akheia]

Oh cookie, you spend a lot of time worrying about things that maybe aren't that complicated. But I think your synthesis is getting closer to the reality of it. You're right: A decision doesn't have to be super-well-researched to be right, or poorly-researched to be wrong. Nor does a valid decision have to last. We think something's good only if it lasts forever, but that's patently irrational; love relationships, for example, may be considered by those involved to be successful even if they don't last forever (f.e., my ex-bf and I consider our time together very successful even though we broke up and are both now happily married to other people).

 

It's not really anybody's place to judge someone for how they arrived at their decision; we may privately think that some extra research could have gone into it, we may privately think (particularly when the decision is a little different than what we'd have made) that the person making that decision just didn't think it through when we did, but that's a pretty well-known psychological bias, this assumption that we did the research and we're acting logically and rationally with a full arsenal of information even while thinking the other guy isn't.

[norton65ca]

I haven't been here all that long, and I may be mistaken , but based on what I've viewed so far in the extimony section, it would appear that a good majority approach deconversion with considerable anguish and a great deal of thought. For the most part, it seems as though most deconverts fight quite hard to hold onto their faith and only throw in the towel when it is abundantly obvious that to do otherwise would be dishonest to themselves. I didn't wish to be an ex Christian, but the inability of the faith to hold water forced my hand. It has been said very often that most ex Christians deconvert NOT due to being treated very poorly, or by anything other than the fact that the faith doesn't wash, that its primary flaw is that it doesn't measure up when examined through the lens of science and history.

I do think, with all due respect, that the three scenarios that you have laid out before us are rather unusual, and not a little contrived, especially the second example, which to be frank, is rather ludicrous. The examples given skew the picture considerably, when measured against the sea of personal testimonies extant on this site, which by and large (with a few exceptions of course) demonstrate that the deconversion process is rarely taken lightly and is usually accompanied with a good deal of soul searching and in many cases, anguish and heartache.

Example one, is pure adolescent rebellion, and I feel the scenario is contrived in that this young girl's "faith" to begin with is practically non existent and she would be what one might consider to be a cultural christian, in that she has no direct personal belief in much but knows that rejecting this "faith" that HER FATHER holds, will upset him. I'm trying to avoid a "No real Scotsman" type here and it's proving difficult ;-) but I think some must understand what I'm getting at here.

The second scenario, as I noted earlier, is ludicrously unrealistic and so exceptional I shall pass by without comment.

The third example used is also a bit far fetched in that I could certainly understand a boy having these problems (Oh the tales I could tell...) but I find it hard to imagine the boy would look at things in the manner which you describe. I think the secret hidden lust is totally believable, but I think the teen wouldn't respond with rejection of the faith so much as to commence the living of a double life, that is, retain the belief (tinged heavily with guilt of course) while at the same time keeping a secret sexual obsession alive through secret liaisons, porn or masturbation.

In the end of it, out of the three examples, only the last has slight merit, in my opinion. You have chosen examples which do not accurately reflect the norm of the deconversion experience and therefore your foundation for your reasoning isn't the strongest, again, in my opinion.

cheers, G

[ClaraOlive]

I've been thinking about this a lot, actually. I've tended to be judgemental in the past of people who have emotion driven reasons for leaving Christianity. I think that there are different levels or circles of contemplating deconversion.

 

Actually, I've known several people who "rejected" Christianity for reasons that are basically the same as the third scenario, and then reconverted to Christianity at a later time in their lives. It used to really piss me off because they pretty much embodied the most stupid stereotypes about atheists. I won't label them true or fake Scotsmen and say they weren't ever really atheists, but I do think there's a distinction between an atheist and a Christian who is currently rebelling against Christianity. Just because someone doesn't go to church and is critical of Christianity doesn't mean that they've deconverted - and these are the people who go running back to the church. And of course they're the people who give testamonials about how they used to be an atheist and it was unfulfilling and they knew deep down that they were sinning against god.

 

I think it's good to have places where motive doesn't matter and anyone who's an "ex-Christian" can be welcome. It seems that most people who have deconverted have both rational reasons for believing that Christianity is false and negative emotional feelings about aspects of Christianity. It's not mutually exclusive. It's like if you were a modern doctor and you saw people leaching their children instead of giving them penicillin and the children were dying. You'd probably have strong emotions about that. It wouldn't mean your facts were any less valid. Being sure of your rationale would make you feel even more strongly.

 

But I still think there are rational and irrational reasons for leaving Christianity, and that the rational ones are the ones that stand up to scrutiny. Because if you leave something over entirely emotional reasons, what keeps you from following anything that appeals to your emotions? And I think that when people leave the church and then go back to it, over and over again, that's what you're seeing.

[Akheia]

Clara, I think you summed up my feelings exactly. Thank you.