replacing worldview issues

[Myrkhoos]

I have discovered that one of the main things in de converting, from anything, actually, is not the DE-converting part, but the RE-converting as I put it now. What do I mean? Well, giving up core beliefs cannot just leave a void. You have to put something in place. I suspect most of the people do not leave many groups they doubt is because they do not have a replacement. I mean you ca give up tertiary beliefs without much effort probably, like you thought dinosaurs did not exist, and you think they do, or any other thing. Secondary stuff, is already pretty hard, like the image of yourself, of being a good athelte, or the opinion of very close others, the close attachment to a spouse, etc. But first principles, core beliefs, as in the order of universe, there are some beings, the overall meaning, many of which run subcounsciously is almost impossible, actually I might say impossible without a replacement. I read about Marlene Winnel saying that replacing worldviews is the first thing to do when deconverting. Atheism is not a core belief, because it does not affirm anything. 

 

But without that foundation, like various creeds of the church, you have nothing hard to stand on. And if they are not explicit, they are not stable. The sensation is getting right back drawn to it, to the original belief system because you have nothing else, it is either that or the void. Probably many addictions feel like this. And ok , there is the withdrawl period, but no one can survive without regular amounts of dose brain chemicals, like dopamine, serotonine, and others in you. You quit heroin, ok, but then good nutrition, a hobby, a satisfying job, some friends, etc, has to take its place, otherwise 

 

I mean I will that ok, you can barf poisoned and bad food, and then you rest, but you still gotta eat. Otherwise, you re goona end up eating the same poisoned food out of sheer desperation.

 

So this is my place. Opinions? Same feelings? Advice? 

 

I mean this religion and any totalistic philosophy which forms core beliefs, I mean it could be psychoanalysis, or communism, or hinduism, not necessarily ancient religions, is your core identity. Tha being destroyed, one does need a new identity, no?

 

I feel I am just living in the void, to afraid to stay in, to afraid to go out. 

[MOHO]

For me science, reason, logic just pushed religion out.

Does that constitute replacement?

 

Also the fundy spouse and fams are still there. I did not, and have no intention of, going out and replacing them. They're OK as fundies go.

 

[TABA]

Leaving religion behind can leave you feeling like you lack a replacement platform on which to base your life, for sure.  Something to provide a compass, you could say.  Becoming an atheist means no longer having not just the god but also a lot of doctrine and a source of guidance for how to live your life.  For me, the ancient Greek/Roman philosophy of Stoicism has helped fill that gap.  Stoicism was around for hundreds of years before Christianity and will likely be around long after it becomes a dead religion.  Because it's simple, and it works.  For those who need the comfort of a loving father-god figure or the prospect of eternal life, it doesn't provide those things, I admit, but for those of us who can do without those things, it does provide a good guide for living.  As Christianity and other religions decline, Stoicism has seen a big resurgence in interest in recent years.

 

I should point out that the word "stoic" has come to mean a pretty grim, fatalistic outlook on life, but that's not what the philosophy of Stoicism really is.  I'd recommend a few books if you're interested in looking into it:

• A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy - William B. Irvine
• Any of the books by Ryan Holiday
• The Daily Stoic: 366 Meditations on Wisdom, Perseverance and the Art of Living

I hope this helps.  It helped me!

[LogicalFallacy]

I guess what happened with me is that as I deconverted and lost my Christian worldview it got replaced by others.

 

I guess I don't have "a" worldview, but a series of views that provide foundation if you like.

 

I guess my first one is that of methodological naturalism: 'Naturalism presumes that nature is in principle completely knowable. There is in nature a regularity, unity, and wholeness that implies objective laws, without which the pursuit of scientific knowledge would be absurd."

 

So I hold as a basic belief that the universe we observe is real (I.e. we are not brains in a vat) and unless demonstrated otherwise the supernatural does not exist.

 

Then I tack onto that some form of humanism - that is we should care about our fellow humans which leads me to my only commandment "Thou shalt not be a dick" .

 

However, these are not set in concrete and worldviews and opinions alter and change as new information becomes available.

[TABA]

3 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Then I tack onto that some form of humanism - that is we should care about our fellow humans which leads me to my only commandment "Thou shalt not be a dick" .

That’s my First Commandment too!

The Second is like it: Be kind, because you never know what people are dealing with in their lives. 

[LogicalFallacy]

9 minutes ago, TABA said:

That’s my First Commandment too!

The Second is like it: Be kind, because you never know what people are dealing with in their lives. 

 

True, though I have only one because I think you can essentially wrap all others up in the first commandment. In my internal cognitions I've never come up with a scenario in which needed another commandment if they had followed the first.

 

You weren't kind to that person? Don't be a dick.

 

You were kind? Excellent, you are not being a dick!

 

 

[♦ Fuego ♦]

I'm probably more Epicurean, simple life, simple pleasures, no deities on thrones, though I'd love to be wealthy to avoid having to go to a mundane job every day. I've been around the rich, and I mostly don't care for the vibe and ego I've found. Not all are that way, but just tasted some last night and didn't like it.

 

I try to make kindness my default, and try to notice when I'm not being kind. Not doormat-ish, just respectful and goodhearted. This is when I can borrow some of the saying of Jesus about "if you have two coats, share with him who has none", and the "sheep and goats" where he emphasized simple acts of kindness as the most important things to him, period.

 

I also dabble in the archetypes, occasionally appealing for help with emotional/mental issues that come from deep within. Some of the "dark" ones like Palden Lhamo and Kali are ones I talk to. 

[florduh]

4 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

Well, giving up core beliefs cannot just leave a void. You have to put something in place.

 

I assume at one point you quit believing in Santa. What did you replace that with?

[Joshpantera]

As for me. It's Atnas. I replaced Santa with Atnas, a Brahmanic alternative to Santa.

 

 

[TEG]

4 hours ago, TABA said:

 For me, the ancient Greek/Roman philosophy of Stoicism has helped fill that gap.  Stoicism was around for hundreds of years before Christianity and will likely be around long after it becomes a dead religion.  Because it's simple, and it works.  For those who need the comfort of a loving father-god figure or the prospect of eternal life, it doesn't provide those things, I admit, but for those of us who can do without those things, it does provide a good guide for living.  As Christianity and other religions decline, Stoicism has seen a big resurgence in interest in recent years.

 

I should point out that the word "stoic" has come to mean a pretty grim, fatalistic outlook on life, but that's not what the philosophy of Stoicism really is.  I'd recommend a few books if you're interested in looking into it:

• A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy - William B. Irvine
• Any of the books by Ryan Holiday
• The Daily Stoic: 366 Meditations on Wisdom, Perseverance and the Art of Living

I hope this helps.  It helped me!

 

I was hooked on stoicism after I read Seneca’s letters to Lucilius.  Then Epictetus.  It is such a “together” philosophy; I wish I could do what they teach.  But the basis for it is theism; everything that happens is god's will, whether you understand it or not, that is why you should put up with it.  That’s not my belief system; bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason at all, and it sucks.

 

Of note, Seneca quotes the Epicureans a lot.  Take pleasure in that oatmeal and water and you will live a  happy life.  Fancy pleasures are not better, just different.

 

What I really, honestly am is a nihilist.  I study different world views and philosophies, from Taoism, Buddhism, and gnostic Christianity, to Jungian synchronicity and divination, partly on the 0.000001% chance that one of them turns out to be “true,” but mostly because I just think it is cool to see what people come up with.  It’s something to do; like playing solitaire in a prison cell.

[older]

When people ask me what I believe, I answer that I believe in the inherent goodness of man. I believe that almost all people try to do the right thing (and many of them only because it is the right thing to do, and not because they are afraid of some diety). 

 

I also believe in the opposite of some of Christianity's basis: I believe that the human body is good and beautiful, that sex is good and wonderful, and that death is normal and final. 

 

As MOHO wrote, I believe in science, reason and logic. I accept fact and I am not concerned about finding answers to everything; I am willing to accept that there are things we just do not understand. I do not believe in spirits or gods of any sort.

[TEG]

22 minutes ago, older said:

When people ask me what I believe, I answer that I believe in the inherent goodness of man. I believe that almost all people try to do the right thing (and many of them only because it is the right thing to do, and not because they are afraid of some diety).

 

Over the years I have seen a much more diverse cross-section of mankind than the one I knew growing up.  I have to say that I do not believe in the inherent goodness of man, any more than I believe in total depravity.  My theory is that there is a bell curve to almost everything.  For example, there is a range of environmental conditions that we are adapted to, and a range of adaptations for different individuals.  Some people live in the arctic, and some live in the sahara.  And similarly, some people are more adapted to living in the sahara than others.  When it comes to the goodness of man, there is a range of choices and world views that permit survival.  Some people have a degree of altruism, others are just looking out for themselves whether the let on or not.  And some are near the extremes; for every Ghandi there is a Hitler.  So there are people on the “good” side, trying to do the right thing, but just as many on the “bad” side, trying to get away with as much as they dare.  A whole lot of them are near the center and not far from being mindlessly amoral, but there is a fair number near each extreme.

[Myrkhoos]

3 hours ago, florduh said:

 

I assume at one point you quit believing in Santa. What did you replace that with?

As I said, Santa was not a core belief

 By far. And it did not need replacing. So no real problem there. Like you believed Pluto was a planet. Then it was called a dwarf. No earth shattering event at all.  Dissapointing yes. I mean there is no Church of Santa or Chirch of Pluto.

[Myrkhoos]

Anyway thanks for chiming in everyone. Well , about goodness, I would like a more concrete definition. Good/ bad , right/ wrong vary from perspective to perspective.

 

Beauty is a subjective thing and I would not say that every part of the human body is beautiful, everytime. And sex as well not good and wonderful every time. Anyway my later form of belief was and is to some people pretty body positive.

 

The stoic stuff might prove useful. Or epicurus. 

 

Should delve more into the basis for logic and rationality.

[TEG]

2 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

Anyway thanks for chiming in everyone. Well , about goodness, I would like a more concrete definition. Good/ bad , right/ wrong vary from perspective to perspective.

 

Beauty is a subjective thing and I would not say that every part of the human body is beautiful, everytime. And sex as well not good and wonderful every time. Anyway my later form of belief was and is to some people pretty body positive.

 

The stoic stuff might prove useful. Or epicurus. 

 

Should delve more into the basis for logic and rationality.

 

Yep.

☯

[florduh]

9 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

As I said, Santa was not a core belief

 By far. And it did not need replacing. So no real problem there. Like you believed Pluto was a planet. Then it was called a dwarf. No earth shattering event at all.  Dissapointing yes. I mean there is no Church of Santa or Chirch of Pluto.

Santa is a "core belief" for most children. Eventually they find out Santa is a lie and move on, realizing they will have to get their goodies in the conventional way. Pluto did not, does not, affect my life in any way so what people decide to define it as is irrelevant.

 

There need not be a "church" of something for it to be a core belief. Core beliefs range from the various gods to racism to aliens to flat earth.

[Myrkhoos]

23 minutes ago, florduh said:

Santa is a "core belief" for most children. Eventually they find out Santa is a lie and move on, realizing they will have to get their goodies in the conventional way. Pluto did not, does not, affect my life in any way so what people decide to define it as is irrelevant.

 

There need not be a "church" of something for it to be a core belief. Core beliefs range from the various gods to racism to aliens to flat earth.

I really do not think Santa is a core belief at all. It has nothing to do with their main identity, it does not change their main attachments, probably their parents, etc. It does not affect the whole view of reality.

 

Racism is again not USUALLY a core belief in itself nor are aliens. They may be part of a larger set of beliefs. Or even flat earth. And there are very church type organisation even for racism like Ku Klux Klan and the flat earth society. These are secondary to tertiary beliefs. I would imagine a klansman refuting his prior beliefs would be vary shajen up. 

 

If children thought Santa was the creator of mankind maybe, but this figure was mildly important one night of the year. Childhood is filled to the edge with magical thinking. Santa is only a very small part of it.You cannot seriously compare the depth and complexity of mainline religions with belief in Santa Klaus. It is like a Christian stops believing that angels have wings or smth. And the reason most children move on is because they or their parents have another foundational set of beliefs. Religious or otherwise. And what really changes if you stop believing in Santa? If you behave well you will receive presents, especially if you ask beforehand. And not always. Well that remains verifiably true. If you behave to the norms of society you will receive rewards if not punishments ir at least no reward.

 

Again comparing religions to Santa seems to be very shallow. In religions usually the principle attachments are to the deity and its spokesperson - shaman , priest, prophet , etc. That is the basis for your identity, personal and social , the source of your morality and understanding. You lose when you de convert or just convert. Does that seem anywhere near to realising Santa is a phantasy? Maybe if a child discovered his mother was only in his/ her imagination it might come close .

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

11 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

I really do not think Santa is a core belief at all. It has nothing to do with their main identity, it does not change their main attachments, probably their parents, etc. It does not affect the whole view of reality.

 

I agree with Myrkhoos here. It's a false equivalence to compare belief in Santa to a Christian worldview. One concerns a proposition about a small matter occurring on our world that has little bearing on our daily lives, the other is a fundamental proposition about reality. You can do away with Christianity and still believe in Santa. In face a lot of new age beliefs are springing up because people threw Christianity out of the window, didn't replace it with a worldview based on reality, and proceeded to adopt more B/S.

 

Therefore I think it is important that people replace the Christian worldview with something. What are your fundamental core assumptions? Everybody has them, and if its not 'goddidit' then what? 

[florduh]

15 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

It's a false equivalence to compare belief in Santa to a Christian worldview.

The difference is the child's worldview as opposed to an adult worldview. Kids think about and often live for that Santa visit just like adults do with their gods.

 

I think we often make too much of the deconverting process. Religion does not have to be replaced by another religion-like activity. I also compare the "devastation" of leaving their church and losing their church "friends" to those who graduate college and move away, get a job transfer to another city or find out one night that their bowling team has disbanded. The life you're used to can change overnight, and we just move on - unless it's religion.

[TEG]

2 hours ago, florduh said:

I think we often make too much of the deconverting process. Religion does not have to be replaced by another religion-like activity. I also compare the "devastation" of leaving their church and losing their church "friends" to those who graduate college and move away, get a job transfer to another city or find out one night that their bowling team has disbanded. The life you're used to can change overnight, and we just move on - unless it's religion.

 

This may be true of people whose religion is a peripheral part of their lives, but for others it is much more than that.  There might be children who build their whole lives around Santa and are then devastated to learn that he does not exist.  But I remember learning that there was no Santa, and learning that there was no god was much more earth-shattering.  I had in a real sense built my whole life around a belief in god.  Deconversion was something like learning that you were living in a simulator, and everything and everyone you knew was not real.  And there continued to be fallout; realizing that there was no heaven after I died threw me for a loop.  Something as simple as sitting in my house on the first sunday of my life that I had not gone to church; I felt like I was about to fall off a cliff.  It’s a big deal for some people; a really big deal.

[Joshpantera]

On 10/24/2019 at 4:03 PM, Myrkhoos said:

I have discovered that one of the main things in de converting, from anything, actually, is not the DE-converting part, but the RE-converting as I put it now. What do I mean? Well, giving up core beliefs cannot just leave a void. You have to put something in place. I suspect most of the people do not leave many groups they doubt is because they do not have a replacement.

 

I think of the Branch Dividians, Heaven's Gate Cult, and even New Age cults like JZ Knight's Ramtha School of Enlightenment when I read the above. 

 

I would say that it makes sense to have some type of sensible alternative worldview available on the table of choices, for people deconverting from traditional religions like christianity. Because there's no shortage of snake oil salesman poised in wait, seeking whom they may devour (sorry for that!). They've already been devoured by christianity or some other traditional religion. They've already bought the Brooklyn Bridge, to be frank. Now what? What's next? How gullible can they be and for how long? 

 

I've thought about this many times over the years. I've discussed the issue of alternatives with a few close friends here bouncing ideas around. Maybe we can try and see if we can come up with something reasonable here where the question is being asked. I imagine some basis for a replacement worldview for the modern era coming from a foundation of:  "Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!"

 

A worldview for people who have been fooled once or more already and consciously do not want that to happen again. But don't want to toss away worldviews altogether or in general, with nothing to replace the previous. And who would prefer some reasonable worldview. I think that hands down, this requires starting at the very beginning.  Christians and all of these other traditional religions start off with apriori assumptions about "truth" and "reality," as if they start off knowing exactly what truth and reality are as the foundation of their worldviews. But if challenged, it looks impossible for any of these traditional apriori assumption-ist's to prove or demonstrate the truth or reality of their claims. That's a pretty big handicap starting out if you ask me. They don't stand a chance of overcoming solid questioning. 

 

So what's a reasonable alternative to base one's worldview on moving forward? 

 

I think it's in the simple, fundamental, admission of "not knowing." Don't pretend to know. Don't bluff as if you know that which you can not prove or demonstrate. If you do pretend or bluff, then you will be labeled a liar, cheat, fraud, etc., etc. And then it's circular loops of back peddling, denial, and all that we see coming from apologetic's. What we know is that ultimately we don't know when it comes to ultimate reality and similar issues. That may seem weak to say that you don't know. But it's far more powerful in terms of sticking to the truth than bluffing or pretending that you know things which you do not and can not possibly know, prove or demonstrate. 

 

That seems like a reasonable place to start rebuilding one's worldview in the wake of leaving traditional religions. Take a firm stand in your uncertainty, and therefore your open mind and attitude towards seeking and finding what truths may be out there. It may not be as religionist's claim. It may not be as you find atheist's claiming. It may be something as of yet absent from all discussion. The point is that you and everyone else don't actually know. Everyone is engaged in the search, all of them. Christian's, Hindu's, Buddhist's, secular philosophers and scientists alike. In order to counter this claim of uncertainty, requires that someone brings CERTAINTY to the table and proves and demonstrates it as such, which, is the very thing that they have all been failing to do for centuries. So a foundation of uncertainty seems like a very firm foundation to build up from, considering all of these concerns. 

 

On 10/24/2019 at 4:03 PM, Myrkhoos said:

But first principles, core beliefs, as in the order of universe, there are some beings, the overall meaning, many of which run subcounsciously is almost impossible, actually I might say impossible without a replacement. I read about Marlene Winnel saying that replacing worldviews is the first thing to do when deconverting. Atheism is not a core belief, because it does not affirm anything. 

 

An agnostic world view can be a core belief, though. Take into consideration what I've suggested so far. You can believe that in a world full of bluff's who have all failed at proving or demonstrating their truth claims, that ultimate reality and truth is illusive and that you as a human being, a manifestation of the universe, or any other which way you want to look at yourself, are actively seeking truth. Square one. Ground zero. New worldview under way. 

 

Why take off believing in things which haven't been proven or substantiated after having already done that once or more? The definition of insanity (social media meme) is to the tune of trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I don't if that's the definition of insanity or not because I haven't fact checked the social meme, but I grant that it's a pretty unreasonable thing to. Maybe it's time to move on from being fooled over and over again with untenable claims. 

 

That's where theism's and atheism come into focus. You know that you don't know, but do you believe in gods even in the face of understanding that you don't whether they exist or not? I personally I don't believe it. I don't believe the unsubstantiated claims. But on the other hand, there are things that I do believe about this issue. For instance, I believe that most if not all theists are misguided. I believe that right now. It's something of core belief. It's not absolute, it's subject to change. But as of right now I believe that they're all wrong based on what I consider good reason. There are core belief's involved in my own personal lack of god belief. It's a mix of lack of theistic belief with affirmative beliefs surrounding that. 

 

If I'm proven wrong, great, at that time I will stand corrected and move on. Not sooner. These are the first two issues that I land firm on. A new worldview starts to stack up piece by piece again. One block at a time. 

 

On 10/24/2019 at 4:03 PM, Myrkhoos said:

But without that foundation, like various creeds of the church, you have nothing hard to stand on. And if they are not explicit, they are not stable. The sensation is getting right back drawn to it, to the original belief system because you have nothing else, it is either that or the void. Probably many addictions feel like this. And ok , there is the withdrawl period, but no one can survive without regular amounts of dose brain chemicals, like dopamine, serotonine, and others in you. You quit heroin, ok, but then good nutrition, a hobby, a satisfying job, some friends, etc, has to take its place, otherwise 

 

I'm working on that foundation. It has two firm blocks so far. Firm enough to take into debate with any christian regardless of credentials and remain firm as they wash out when they're exposed as bluffs, blow hard's, and just plain intellectually dishonest concerning the big issues like "truth" and "ultimate reality." The main thing is that I'm trying to remain intellectually honest as I stack up a new worldview. I don't want to just fold like a sack of potatoes when challenged. Been there, done that. "Fool me twice, shame on me!" 

 

And to be honest, I don't think that it's a void. I think there's a rich realm of discovery awaiting your attention out there, and in there for that matter. That void perspective can be very unhelpful. Just because ultimate reality is uncertain doesn't mean that it's a void or devoid in any way. And the religionist's are going to push freethinkers into the corner in this way. They want to give false dichotomies of either what they're claiming, or a void. And they're wrong. They can be called out on their false dichotomies and demonstrated as wrong. It's not all either their way or nothing as two options.

 

That sounds like narcissistic speak and doesn't have any more value than that in terms of being intellectually honest. There's more than two options. There can be meaning where no one is currently seeing it correctly. So I'd prefer not to fall into the trap of thinking that either there's supernatural meaning or no meaning at all. Neither would Roger Penrose for that matter! I agree with Penrose in terms of suspecting that there probably is meaning which has yet to be discovered. I'm looking at a seeking based worldview here. Not a worldview professing, at intellectually dishonest lengths, to have found the ultimate answers concerning meaning, purpose, etc., These are open ended questions, why not treat them as such? Why not stick to the truth as best as we can? No bullshit. No fooling or being fooled. Just building up a worldview from the ground up all over again. 

 

On 10/24/2019 at 4:03 PM, Myrkhoos said:

So this is my place. Opinions? Same feelings? Advice? 

 

I mean this religion and any totalistic philosophy which forms core beliefs, I mean it could be psychoanalysis, or communism, or hinduism, not necessarily ancient religions, is your core identity. Tha being destroyed, one does need a new identity, no?

 

I feel I am just living in the void, to afraid to stay in, to afraid to go out. 

 

Hopefully what I've told you so far about my own attempts can be helpful. I hope you understand where I'm coming from about the void. For one thing, whatever we point at and call "void," usually isn't when we take a closer look. There's good reason to entertain that there's more going on than anyone currently understands. But once we put a name on it, and pretend that we know exactly what it is, we part ways with intellectual honesty. And can't possibly prove or substantiate the claim. So that addresses the importance of agnostic and even atheist views informing the rebuilding of a new worldview, if you are concerned with not being fooled twice. If being fooled twice or more is not a concern, than none of what I've said matters very much. You can make believe, bluff about truth, make untenable claims and follow others who do the same.

 

It's not all just one way either. There are a lot of different views and philosophies on the table which taken altogether can contribute to firmer ground to stand on and build up from. They can be agnostic, atheistic or any other number of views which contribute to a firmer altogether world view. Everything just has to be checked for value. Tried and proven in debates. And demonstrated as firm. Any number of views may contribute. 

 

This in no way excludes speculation about what may or may not exist. It doesn't mean give up on trying to figure out what's really going on. It just means that you're honest with yourself and others when approaching completely speculative subjects like ghosts, UFO's, alien's, gods, spirits, fairies, big foot, or anything similar. If it's fun to do neo-paganism or magick, great! Just keep it grounded in the facts on the table. I don't like the idea of building a new worldview that poo poo's the possibility of having fun exploring speculative things. It's when people lose sight of the fact that they are engaged in speculative things when it takes a sharp turn away from truth and intellectual self honesty. And I don't see why someone couldn't take the first two building blocks and then refer back to them again and again as they continue building, to check themselves as they build up. Pull out the levels. Check for plumb. Check for square. Try not to build a leaning tower that will tip over. People seldom pay close attention in the way that I'm suggesting. They keep building up flimsy buildings that can fall right down. It happens all the time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Myrkhoos]

12 hours ago, florduh said:

The difference is the child's worldview as opposed to an adult worldview. Kids think about and often live for that Santa visit just like adults do with their gods.

 

I think we often make too much of the deconverting process. Religion does not have to be replaced by another religion-like activity. I also compare the "devastation" of leaving their church and losing their church "friends" to those who graduate college and move away, get a job transfer to another city or find out one night that their bowling team has disbanded. The life you're used to can change overnight, and we just move on - unless it's religion.

This is just demonstrably wrong. It just shows a lack of psychological culture in general, with emphasis on the early attachments and group psychology. What children are you really talking about that his main attachment figure is Santa Klaus and NOT his caretaker, usually the mother? And what child raused in a religious background cares more about Santa than his religious figures? 

 

And have you even read this site ? Really? On the testimonials too see how devasted many people are? Do you have even a passing idea of modern cult psychology like Steve Hassan, Janja Lalich, Alexandra Stein, Daniel Shaw etc?

 

Again it is nothing like moving to a new city for graduate school. If you want a comparison it is like moving from New York to a village in North Korea without a translator. At least something like that. 

 

You seem either in denial or in delusion about the severity of the deconverting process. I suggest honest research to get out of both. Your ideas about the subject are , as I said, demonstrably wrong, superficial and seem frankly dismissive and arrogant. Not that they are but they seem to be.

[Myrkhoos]

So do you have a sort of introduction to physics book idea for a total novice? Physics sounds like a good start fir a foundational reality inquiry. 

[Joshpantera]

6 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

So do you have a sort of introduction to physics book idea for a total novice? Physics sounds like a good start fir a foundational reality inquiry. 

 

@WalterP 

 

Do you have a good recommendation for Myrkhoos?

 

Since I was raised on young earth creation, I didn't know anything about physics or the BBT growing up. I found an old general overview book:

 

Time Life: The Universe

 

It was published in 1968. So I'd recommend something general like that, but much more up to date. Because I was dealing with old BBT and then had to get the science up to date reading more material. The main thing is that I finally dove into looking at the BBT for myself at that point. If you become interested in that sort of thing we have a lot of up to date threads going at the moment. This one is especially of interest: 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I recommend replacing religion with hardcore street drugs and illicit sex, since the only reason you reject christianity is because you're angry at god and want to sin.