Fiach

If Christians unite behind the core beliefs that will only thrill Atheists. It is the core Christian myths that we have such fun in demolishiing. Original Sin, the Biblical Genesis myths 1 and 2, the ridiculous Noah's Flood, the God ordered atrocies peppering the Old Testament, the obvious Pagan origins of the New Testament, and the absurdity of the Jesus death and resurrection. Those are very inane myths easily dissected. Those Christians who discuss Paul's legalistic trivia are their most successful posts. There is little to debate on that rubbish apart from contradictions with other barmy verses by the same bloke, Paul of Tarsus.

Fiach

sakrilege

As stated in my earlier post, this is one of the things that made me realize xianity doesn't have the Truth. We atheists may disagree on just about everything but that's because we are human. For xians to disagree, IMO, is demonstrating the same thing, religion is a human invention.

Shake

Let me initially address Fiach's question which will flow nicely into my answer to the OP. (see also my post in the Atheist testimony thread at SL&S)

My folks were going through a non-religious phase when I was born, but they started sending my sister and I to a church when I was starting 4th grade. They started coming more often after my 1st Communion (5th grade in that Lutheran church), and later they got very involved. Dad actually pointed out the hypocrisy of some people to me ... the ones who were basically just "going through the motions" of being Xians. By that I mean that they came to church, put (some) money in the offering plate, and participated in some activities that suited them, but didn't really get what they were saying during the service. Some probably didn't "truly believe" but felt that going was enough to offer them forgiveness and a shot at heaven. So, I actually felt like I was being a "better" Xian than them.

After my long deconversion process, I got to thinking that maybe I never really did truly believe. Maybe I had just been deluding myself. No, I never felt the "presence of God" in my life. I realized that I was pretty much the same person afterwards ... just someone who had more free time during the week! Again, I've got some more detail in my post on the above link, and I don't feel like rehashing that just now.

Ab_Normal

I was raised Roman Catholic and went to Catholic school for grades 1-8 (skipped kindergarten; aren't I special? ). Around the time of my Confirmation (age 13 or so), I felt what I thought was a religious calling. I remember being moved to tears during the Confirmation ceremony. And I found great comfort in prayer.

However, it seems my "calling" was inspired more by the hormonal storms of adolescence than by deep faith. The first doubts were sown by a serious study of mythology in high school, wherein I realized that my religion was no different that other people's myths. It was all "downhill" from there, and I was a deist by college, and an atheist by 27.

Debbie T

Kevin do you have those verses handy? I would like to look them up. Thank you.

Jamie_L

The thing I realized about this "no true Christian" arguement is that it argues for one of two things:

1) People who say they used to be Christians are lying.
OR
2) People who say they used to be Christians are mistaken.

Well, if you argue 1, then you're calling a lot of people liars. In fact, you are defining people who say a certain thing to be liars, which really is a tough position to argue effectively.

More often, when pressed, these people fall back to 2. The deconvert in question never reached the point of true Christianhood, and gave up without realizing they hadn't made it yet.

However, if you argue 2, you effectively argue that people can never know whether or not they've reached "true Christianhood". If people can believe that they have been filled with the spirit, but weren't really, then there is no way for them to ever know when they are really filled with the spirit.

Effectively, the only thing the "true Christian" offers as proof of their true Christianhood is their internal feeling, yet they then proceed to tell people that their internal feeling of the same must have been in error. Well, if all you have is your internal feeling, but you can't trust your internal feeling, then you've got nothing to base your faith on. It seems like a foundation built on quicksand. Do us atheists just have defective internal sensors, or is this a problem with the whole human race? And if it's just us, how is it our fault?

The same quagmire holds for the argument that atheists didn't search hard enough or propoerly, or open their minds and hearts to God. Either we are liars, or we didn't really open our hearts when we thought we were opening our hearts. Well, which is it?

Am I a liar? Or am I some how defective in sensing the path to and presence of God?

Or, is it just simpler to say, this is a red hearing because there is, in fact, no God?

Jamie

Fiach

I still find this argument unpleasant. I am an Atheist. One might debate that I was never a true Christian. In as early as age 7, I was bothered by Bible stories. I can't remember how seriously I believed in God or if I believed in God at all. I must have believed that their might be a God and a Jesus. But from age 7-10 I lost any particle of belief.

But many other Atheists whom I have met, were serious believers in the standard dogma. I know that Fundies insist on a very narrow, legalistic definition of Christian. I think that is simple arrogance. I think that all major denominations (catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Coptic, Fundamentalistic, and Pentacostal/Charismatic/Holy Roller) are Christians. I accept them all at their word. If some arrogantly deny other Christians as Christians for trivial bullshit, those bigots are demonstrating one of the worst moral deficits of intolerant religion.

Yet I know one Atheist who in adulthood converted from Chrsitianity. What kind of Christian was he? Dan Barker was an Evangelical Fundamentalistic Christian, the very kind that deny the label Christian to all but their own cult. Dan's book, "Losing Faith in Faith" details how he finallly began to really THINK. He relates the trauma of the transition. At his peak he was just as extreme in his beliefs as Radorth and Theophilus. (no slag intended).

I have the strong suspicion that a majority of Atheists come from Christianity, either direct converts or descended from Atheist parents, grandparents, or greatgrandparents who converted from Christianity. I did find a number of ex-Hindu Atheists here, but I have only heard about two or three ex-Muslim Atheists, such as Taslima Nasrin, Salmon Rushdie, and I'm not sure about Edward Tabash(ex-Christian or ex-Muslim).

Fiach

Cofffee

I don't remember the moment when I became a Christian. I was very young and sincerely prayed to Jesus the prayer that my Sunday school teacher taught me to save me and then that was that.

Unlike some denominations, our church didn't really categorically state that wonderful things would happen from the moment you became a Christian, just that in some cases they did happen (e.g. anecdotes)

Part of the reason why I stopped believing is because I couldn't find specific, consistent answers to the questions I had about the core beliefs of Christianity.

Not knowing the answers, and finding only inconsistencies on these topics in the Bible, I did not know how to live my life as a Christian or how to tell others about my beliefs. So I stopped believing which, to me, made much more sense than the hodge-podge of beliefs held together through blind faith (Like mashing puzzle pieces together with your fist and getting some to stick together).

I think the reason why there are so many branches of Christianity is because these questions with all sorts of different answers divide them. And each sect thinks they have the right answers.

I guess my question to people who would ask whether you were ever saved in the first place would be the following:

- If you thought you were saved, but really weren't, how could you tell?

I think that the people who say that all Ex-Christians were never Christians in the first place are just trying to reconcile their belief systems with the fact that there are people who previously believed and now they no longer do so... It's like the sour-grapes attitude where if something is not going your way you were never interested in it anyway.

Justin70

Exactly the same here. 14 years as a very lax Roman Catholic and then a bit over 2 years as a Fundie Baptist Christian.

It's been a rough ride.

Justin

Justin70

A superb analogy, 235! Thank you for sharing! I too would have to agree with this in retrospect of thinking in my own life experiences with religion. It could definately be described as this.

I too would like to know who wrote that. It's perfect.

Justin