You know Kathy, we’ve been fairly blunt with you today. Flippant, too. And it’s tough when people talk to/about you that way. I’m sorry for that.
If we could cut through all the rhetoric for a second, I’d like to commiserate with you. A little over 4 years ago, I was a very dedicated Christian. I had some doubts, but they weren’t about the Christian faith, just my understanding of it.
I felt like there were problems in my beliefs about the gospel. I believed in a literal Hell, and I believed a lot of people would be going there. But I had a very hard time squaring that with a loving God. I had matured enough to realize that most people were pretty decent. Not perfect, certainly, but good people who cared about others and typically wanted to do the right thing. I didn’t think such people deserved Hell. In fact, like Paul, I often thought that if God would accept it, I’d gladly go to Hell myself, if it would save my friends and family. And if everyone else could be added into that deal too, even better.
So if I felt that way, could I be more compassionate than God? Of course not. But I had a very hard time finding anything in the Bible that backed up an idea that most people, regardless of creed or belief would be saved.
I didn’t give up though. I knew about Universalists, so I decided to read up on their reasons for thinking everyone went to Heaven. It sounded good, but I just wasn’t convinced by their arguments. I just didn’t see the Bible teaching such a doctrine, and I still believed the Bible was the inerrant word of God.
I was in a state of flux.
And that’s the position I was in when I first ran across articles that pointed out flaws in the Bible. I was shocked by what the articles said, but since I didn’t have any answers against them at the moment, I got busy with research. I didn’t even comment on the articles — I just went to work. It wasn’t about winning any arguments; it was simply a search for answers.
I think that frame of mind I was in made all the difference for me. Deep down, I was already struggling. The doctrines I had long believed in, and even taught to others, didn’t fit together in my mind as well as they once had.
That’s probably the difference between you and me. I get the feeling that you question nothing about your faith. Not trying to put you down about that; just making an observation.
For me, discovering that the Bible was not the perfect book I had always thought it to be, and finding out that some of these church leaders I had always admired knew of these problems but never spoke of them, helped me make sense of a lot of things. It took time, and it wasn’t easy to come to the realizations, but everything finally fell into place for me when I realized Christianity was just another religion. For the first time, I finally understood the sentiment of that line from “Amazing Grace,” I once was blind, but now I see…
I don’t know if that’s helpful to you at all. Maybe one day it will be. Maybe one day, something will make you ask a few questions, and you’ll think back to those non- believers who were so insistent that Christianity was certainly not the only way. If that day comes, I hope you’ll find this exchange helpful and realize you’re not alone.
Finding Truth 
mike, are your feelings really hurt?
I really don’t think that’s the case, but if it is, then i am truly sorry.
without rehashing everything, let’s all just get back on point. And the point is not arguing over who was areal christian or isn’t, who’s smarter than who or who’s a dummy or not, etc, etc.
The issue at had is the bible, and whether it’s claim of divine origins stand up under scrutiny.
let’s just all get back to the facts; what the bible says, what science says, what history says, etc – the points and what verify or deny them.
LikeLike
@Ruth,
Absolutely!
Absolutely!
Absolutely!
Ruth, I think it may be a part of human nature to settle down into our own “camp” and look at the other camps with disdain. I think there are tons of factors for this. I know I do this, but I try my best to fight it. And what is most interesting is that this effect seems to happen even for those who have changed their world-views. So even though people may have once held a certain viewpoint after they decide it no longer works for them they see it as total crap and look down on those who are still holding that view. The way I fight this urge is to constantly remember back when I was a believer – and I really put myself back into those shoes and think about how I felt when those who didn’t believe would mock me. I’m not saying we should not feel strongly about what we believe nor am I saying that we should not state it strongly, but the statements you’ve said that I quoted above I think are great guidelines that I try my best to adhere to. I’m glad you wrote your comment.
LikeLike
Thanks, Howie.
I do cringe when I see my fellow atheists slinging around the words “indoctrination” and “mentally ill” as if they are some sort of insult.
Do I look back on my Christian experience and realize that to a large extent I was indoctrinated into certain beliefs that I no longer adhere to? Yes. But it hurts me to see that word being flung around as an insult because it alienates – it doesn’t strengthen any point when it’s just being used as a pejorative.
LikeLike
I agree with you both, Ruth and Howie. You two are among the ones I respect most here, and always seem to be very good at expressing yourselves with grace.
Makes me want to do better, truly.
Looking down on others? I obviously have my moments of that here, but not simply because they believe in religion. I remember being a christian myself. Reading the bible often, praying without ceasing, etc. I never even considered comparing the bible to itself and never considered IF the bible was true or not, I just assumed it was and tried to glean the moral precepts from it.
But when i was shown the issues or when i saw them on my own, I didnt make up redicluous excuses. i didnt shut my eyes or ear to them and I didnt accept that they were rpoblems right off the bat either.
I never had a problem admitting if i didnt know something.
Now, when i see people who appear to not really care for the truth, and have no concern for accuracy, but are rather more concerned with winning points, and want to pretend that the blatant issue you brought to them isnt really an issue, then i do look down on that, and I’m not really sure i even want to pretend that i dont.
LikeLike
And to a believer, they’ll just respond by saying the atheist has been indoctrinated by the atheist agenda and liberal media…
you’re right, it gets us nowhere.
calling people idiots, strangely enough, doesn’t seem to work well either… but of course, arguing the points don’t always help, but sticking with those we can at least maintain our dignity.
LikeLike
@ William,
Thanks for saying that.
Let’s be honest about this, though: Mike has brought a lot of this treatment on himself (not the remarks about the child he cares for) – not because he believes in God or the Bible, but because he showed disdain to those who don’t believe as he does. So to that extent, I agree with you.
Mike stated his intent pretty forthrightly. I’ll go back and find the comment if need be, but in his own words he pretty much admitted that he was the internet’s definition of a troll. It is his intent to be disruptive and belligerent. He took exception to something here on Nate’s blog as being demeaning toward the Bible and Christians in general. He came here with an ax to grind.
LikeLike
And when I was a christian and people told me that I only believed because that’s what my parents told me to believe or because I was indoctrinated, i dismissed them. I mean, I knew of those influences, sure, but also studied on my own and thought on my own – i knew what i believed and why – so someone claiming that i didnt, didnt make me more likely to take them seriously.
That’s one reason i think the points mean so much now, it is the evidences that i had never seen when i was christian that got me out of it. Once I saw them, I was able to form a more informed conclusion.
LikeLike
oh, I’m not apologizing for what I think of mike, he has many times over shown himself here, but i do realize that playing the game as he does is counterproductive.
LikeLike
“I do cringe when I see my fellow atheists slinging around the words “indoctrination” and “mentally ill” as if they are some sort of insult.”
Do I look back on my Christian experience and realize that to a large extent I was indoctrinated into certain beliefs that I no longer adhere to? Yes. But it hurts me to see that word being flung around as an insult because it alienates – it doesn’t strengthen any point when it’s just being used as a pejorative.”
Ruth, I realize I said I was going to back out of this discussion, but I feel I need to address this comment as I have the utmost respect for you. I am not sure this was directed at me, but in no way did I ever use indoctrination or neurological/mental disorders as a pejorative. I never “diagnosed” anyone. I don’t recall ever calling anyone delusional. Indoctrinated? Yes. And I apologize if you were offended by anything I said.
The truth of the matter is that had you and I been raised in an atheist family in an atheist country or in an environment that didn’t give god much thought, it is highly likely we wouldn’t have been believers, much less Christian, unless we encountered missionaries. And I shared a lot of information, a lot of sources throughout this post to assist in giving a bigger picture of what I was sharing. It’s not just my opinion. We have abundant research that shows how easy it is for us to become indoctrinated, especially as children. I was most definitely indoctrinated and evangelists, especially, are primarily targeting children.
This is reality. We’ve got radical Supreme Court justices who think that religious corporations have more rights than people. Religion is affecting us big time and we should be addressing underlying issues that are considered taboo, because religion always seems to get a free pass, no matter the harm it causes. Now, does that devalue the sincere belief I had? NO. Does it devalue the belief of those who had sudden religious conversions after sustaining a brain injury or a mental disorder? NO. They sincerely believed.
But we should not be afraid to explore these issues when we have prominent people throughout history who had a huge impact on people’s belief system and an onslaught of information showing how plastic/malleable our brains are, the tactics that evangelical and fundamentalists use to get us in suggestive brain wave states (did you watch any of the videos presented here, especially the one by KC?). Not to mention that one of the common features of some mental disorders is hypergraphia. Excessive writing of a religious nature (which is noted in sources I shared.)
Why is it unrealistic to question how someone was converted to Christianity when they said they were not influenced by a religious environment and then make an assumption that those who were born a Christian were not “real” Christians?
And for the record, I am not proud of bringing up Kathy’s personal life — which she made very public when she shared the blog she involved with, but I had a trigger because of the disrespect and demeaning comments towards homosexuals and how that religious belief has caused untold harm to homosexuals. It’s not an excuse of my poor judgement in that regard, it’s just an explanation. But my other comments (backed by numerous sources) stand. These are subjects worth exploring if we are to understand the complexities of belief and especially when it comes to the validity of the bible, its writers and it’s enormous influence on civilization.
LikeLike
Thanks William. Just so you know my comment wasn’t meant as a judgment, it was just an expression of my own approach and I was glad that Ruth expressed some really good points that could help improve any attempt at dialogue. And I don’t like debate tactics either – mainly because I don’t have the time nor the patience to have back and forth discussions with people who seem to want to employ them often.
I’d also like to say another thing to clarify my statements: I don’t think it’s bad at all to suggest that mental disorders may be the cause for some (not all) people who are hyper-religious, especially those that claim to have visions. If suggested properly it could actually end up being something that ends up helping others in the process. There does seem to be not only anecdotal stories that confirm this effect, but there also seems to be some scientific research that suggests that mental disorders can cause some hyper-religious events in peoples lives. If this is the case then I think it could very well be helpful to some people to point out that those who may have certain experiences may want to consider getting checked out. It may even save some lives. Some may have fun showing how this contradicts my previous comment, but I think most will realize the point I’m trying to make here without me having to add tons of caveats just for the sake of those who might try and spin it into something else. As another aside, I’m also a big proponent of any kind of scientific research into religious beliefs for this very reason – the more we know about ourselves the better off we will be.
LikeLike
Howie, as is typically the case, I agree. thanks
LikeLike
Mike,
Tell us some things about yourself …
Tell us, Mike, how did you become a Christian?
LikeLike
@ Victoria,
” I am not sure this was directed at me, but in no way did I ever use indoctrination or neurological/mental disorders as a pejorative. I never “diagnosed” anyone. I don’t recall ever calling anyone delusional. Indoctrinated? Yes. And I apologize if you were offended by anything I said.
No need to apologize, ma’am. This was not directed at you. Yes, we were indoctrinated. We recognize it for what it is – not a mental weakness or failing – but a process that can happen to anyone.
I told Ark the other day I’m planning my own post about the way I feel about all of this back and forth. I’ve just been…disgusted by the whole thing, to be honest.
“I never “diagnosed” anyone.”
In a spirit of being honest, it does sort of come across that way sometimes. Like with Brandon?
“But we should not be afraid to explore these issues when we have prominent people throughout history who had a huge impact on people’s belief system and an onslaught of information showing how plastic/malleable our brains are, the tactics that evangelical and fundamentalists use to get us in suggestive brain wave states..”
We most assuredly should not be afraid to explore these issues and I think you do bring so much valuable information to the fore. You do an awful lot of good research. Keep at it! It’s important!
“Why is it unrealistic to question how someone was converted to Christianity when they said they were not influenced by a religious environment and then make an assumption that those who were born a Christian were not “real” Christians?”
It isn’t unrealistic at all. But I think Mike had a point about the way the question was posed. Now, like I said to William, he’s spewed so much vitriol and nastiness of his own that he left himself open to that in return. It’s hard to play nice when someone lobs insult after insult over the border. You know my former situation though, so you should know I’ve got pretty thick skin. Like a damn iron dome. It has been said of me if it would hurt my feelings it’d draw a blister on a wash pot.
And for the record, I am not proud of bringing up Kathy’s personal life — which she made very public when she shared the blog she involved with, but I had a trigger because of the disrespect and demeaning comments towards homosexuals and how that religious belief has caused untold harm to homosexuals. “
Excuses, excuses! You LIBERAL/ATHEIST! lol
No, that’s another subject altogether. If our personal revelations are fair game so are theirs. I’m just not very good at that so I don’t usually participate. Seems the equivalent of the “yo mama” insults. “I know you are, but what am I?”
“… I have the utmost respect for you. “
The feeling is mutual, my dear. *hugs*
LikeLike
William, you said:
“and course I was, just as you were doing in referring to muslims who killed others for allah’s will. And this still ignores the fact that the majority of muslims are peaceful. It also ignores the fact that many other religions (who arent violent) have martyrs too.”
Yes, I judge “allah”.. because there is no valid evidence for his existence. This is the way it works William. It’s about the actual TRUTH.. not what liberals want to be the “truth”. It’s about the actual evidence.
“You’re saying the the bible has more credentials, but when pressed on your circumstantial evidence (if it can even be called that) you fall back on jesus dying for our sins. How do you not understand that this silly and circular reasoning?”
Fail. I’ve presented the compelling corroborative evidence over and over. Your deliberate ignorance of it isn’t going to make it go away. What YOU are doing is “circular”.. but I wouldn’t call it reasoning. You repeatedly ignore my answers and re-ask the same questions.
I’ve STILL not gotten a valid answer for which religion (or scientific explanation) has more compelling evidence than Christianity.. and I’ve gotten no acknowledgment that Christianity DOES have the most valid compelling evidence for it’s Truth.
“I dont believe jesus died for my sins. i dont believe is was any more god than the santa clause you were talking about earlier. So when I ask for evidence of such, “martyrs” and “jesus” just dont meet the real requirements of evidence.”
So, William, it’s clear that you aren’t very good at processing evidence.. aka WEIGHING evidence.. this is clearly where the problem lies with you. Thinking that santa clause has just as much evidence proves this.
But, really, the problem isn’t in your ability to weigh the evidence, it’s in your willingness to apply HONEST OBJECTIVITY. You are BIASED William.. you have a BIASE AGAINST God.. as the Bible says.. you are “HOSTILE” towards God.. and the same is true of Nate and Arch and Ruth and Nan and Neuro and every other atheist here. I’ve proven that over and over with all of you.
“And muslims would ask you, how will you answer allah on the day of judgement, after he sent you his prophets?”
No, he won’t, because he’s a made up character of Muhammad’s. There is no compelling evidence for his existence. Use the brain God gave you William… and resist your sinful pride, just as God instructs us all to do in the Bible.
LikeLike
Ruth, thank you for your clarification, and you brought up a valid point with Brandon. That came about after over a month of daily back and forth dialog with him and others on his blog and Matt’s, especially when he brought up the fact that he believed that if G-d told us that we should kill others, we damn right better obey, when discussing the commands of God and Moses to kill men, women and children. We were all shocked at his comment which was in all caps. To my knowledge, I did not diagnose him, I advised him to seek a thorough neurological evaluation after that comment.
But our extensive dialog continued on his blog and he shard experiences that certainly warranted an evaluation by mental health professions. While I don’t think that Brandon would actually go out and kill someone, the fact that he justified it because it was in the bible was alarming. And we have research now showing a rather high percentage of people who fit a certain profile, and said they would kill if they thought god told them to. I’m not talking about Muslims here but Christians.
————
“I Would Kill in God’s Name”
“The study is part of a larger research effort in the neurological bases of religious experience, including religious personalities, religious conversions, and now, extreme religious views.
It was done by administering a set of questionnaires to 1480 university students that asked about a wide range of religious beliefs, habits and behaviors. It also asked about how often the subjects had more common, ‘altered state’ experiences, like deja vu, the sense of a presence, electric-like sensations, and many others. Taken together, these latter experiences (complex partial epileptic signs) give a measure of a person’s “Limbic Lability”.
The statistical analysis involved taking each questionnaire that included a ‘yes’ response to an item that asked if they would be willing to kill for God.
All the questionnaires that included a ‘yes’ to this were examined to see what other items emerged in association with a willingness to kill in ‘His’ name.
Four factors emerged.
1) Having had a religious experience.
2) Weekly church attendance (religious orthodoxy).
3) Being Male.
4) Limbic lability (refers to a person’s sensitivity to altered states of consciousness.)
The next step was to look at all the questionnaires that showed all four traits, creating a second group.
44% of this second group stated that they would kill another person if God told them to.
The study was based on university students, and if generalizable, then one out of 20 Canadian university students would be willing to kill another person if they were to attribute the instruction to God.”
Source: Role of Sex, Weekly Church Attendance, Report of Religious Experience, and Limbic Lability” M.A. Persinger, Perceptual And Motor Skills, 1997, 85, 128-130
————-
“It isn’t unrealistic at all. But I think Mike had a point about the way the question was posed.”
Well, I can understand that from your point of view, and I’ve been following this post extensively, and have ready every single post here and looked at the data and sources presented. My comment was related to two comments that Mike made, one to me a few days ago regarding the research I posted, and one to William just recently. In his usual mannerisms, he suggested that the sources I posted about conversion were invalid because he said he wasn’t influenced by a religious environment. Again to insinuate that our beliefs in Jesus and God were not sincere or that we were not “real” Christians because of our environmental influences.
His point about there being over 80+ percent who believed but did not have a hyper-religious nature was valid but he appeared to overlook my point completely, as though to suggest that those 80+ percent had not been influenced by their environment, therefore that is suppose to be some verifiable evidence that god is real. The questions were sincere and pertinent to his comment. If he claims he wasn’t indoctrinated in any way then how did he become a Christian? It is not the least uncommon to experience a conversion in the various situations I posed to him. I don’t know how else I could have reworded those questions, and I clarified in later posts why they were valid questions.
Thanks again for your feedback and understanding.
LikeLike
kathy, I’m afraid we’re at a stand still. I cant really believe you’re making the arguments that you are. You havent presented any good (or even real) evidence that I’ve seen. At least you can see the absurdity of your arguments when they’re sued for islam, but you keep insisting that it’s somehow different for christianity – and when pressed for evidence you site “martyrs,” vague “prophecies”, and “jesus.”
when shown that those arent really suitable evidences, you say that evidence supports them, and then when asked “what evidence supports them” you say that you’ve listed the evidence – and when asked to see that evidence again, you again list martyrs, vague prophecies and even more vague fulfillment, and jesus.
Have I missed your credible evidence? if so, please provide a post only listing it, so that i dont mistakenly overlook it again.
I’m sure I do have biases, but certainly, and clearly do as well.
I’m not hostile toward god – I’ve never met him, and he’s never spoken to me. I’m no more hostile to god than am to yoda. I’m not even hostile toward the bible and enjoy reading parts of it, but that doesnt mean that I find it’s claims of the divine credible.
They’re no more credible to me as islam is to you – and maybe, if you weren’t so biased, and if you really knew what objectivity was, you’d understand that better.
But again, if i’ve missed your better evidences, it was by mistake, and if you lust them again, and by themselves, I’ll review them and discuss those with you.
LikeLike
“His point about there being over 80+ percent who believed but did not have a hyper-religious nature was valid but he appeared to overlook my point completely, as though to suggest that those 80+ percent had not been influenced by their environment, therefore that is suppose to be some verifiable evidence that god is real. The questions were sincere and pertinent to his comment. If he claims he wasn’t indoctrinated in any way then how did he become a Christian? It is not the least uncommon to experience a conversion in the various situations I posed to him. I don’t know how else I could have reworded those questions, and I clarified in later posts why they were valid questions.”
Right, I’ve read every comment here as well and he’s getting back, for the most part, what he’s delivered.
About these percentages and numbers: it’s all pretty relative. He keeps mentioning that we’re in the minority and that Christianity has the most adherents when it suits his cause to bolster his argument, then conveniently reminding us that all those who call themselves Christians ain’t really “real” ones. So is it really the largest? Or is that just because a majority of people identify as Christians even though they really aren’t?
So then when we’re talking about 320 million people who say they’re Christians there aren’t really that many Christians. Mike makes the presumption that everyone here is speaking down to him in a sarcastic manner. Not only that, but if I’m honest, and if I’m Mike, being asked if I became a Christian because of addiction, mental illness, or prison would be kind of offensive. That’s just me being honest. You could have just asked how he came to know about God/Jesus and how he became a Christian if there was no cultural/familial influence.
If you haven’t already picked up on it: atheists don’t get a redo with Mike. They don’t get to clarify anything. What they say the first time sticks, no matter what comes later. Trying to clear anything up only means that he had to explain it to you in the first place. 😉
LikeLike
“If you haven’t already picked up on it: atheists don’t get a redo with Mike. They don’t get to clarify anything. What they say the first time sticks, no matter what comes later.” – ruth
but this isn’t the fault of the atheist, it’s common among all humankind to have to clarify themselves when they’ve said something by mistake or without the clarity that they intended. Mike is just being a dishonest douche. mike’s had to clarify and backtrack on a few of his statements, but so far i haven’t seen anyone go, “no, no, but you already said…” it’s stupid – no other word for it.
It would be like a preacher telling a new convert, “no way, you’ve already sold your sole to the devil, so your conversion isn’t going to work. fail.”
Everyone sees this, even mike, he’s just dishonest and too prideful to admit it when he’s called on it.
nevertheless, point well taken, no sense in giving him fuel to continue acting the fool.
LikeLike
Everyone sees this, even mike, he’s just dishonest and too prideful to admit it when he’s called on it.
He does this intentionally. It’s not that he’s too prideful to admit it when he’s called on it; it’s a strategy, along with taking statements out of context and twisting what’s actually said to attempt to make atheists look silly. I don’t think it’s working, but he’s employing the strategy.
His points are not very strong, but he thinks he’s making them appear stronger when he precedes them with “VAST silliness” and “vacuous silliness” so that anyone who is biased in the Christianity camp thinks he knows what he’s talking about.
He has also said that he’s only stuck around to help Kathy out and make sure she doesn’t get sucked into the atheist trap of doubting her beliefs and potentially decoverting, while also saying he doesn’t believe anyone does actually deconvert. They were never “true believers” to begin with. So if Kathy did get sucked in and did lose her faith (not that I’m saying I think she will, mind) wouldn’t that mean that she just wasn’t a true believer? That she was never a “real” Christian?
LikeLike
“but if I’m honest, and if I’m Mike, being asked if I became a Christian because of addiction, mental illness, or prison would be kind of offensive. That’s just me being honest. You could have just asked how he came to know about God/Jesus and how he became a Christian if there was no cultural/familial influence.”
Ruth, I appreciate the constructive criticism and your honesty.
LikeLike
yo mamma’s points are not very strong…
LikeLike
OMG, Kathy! Are you that dense?
“Allah” is the Arabic word for GOD.
Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word “Allah” to mean “God”
This is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says about “Allah”: He is the only God, creator of the universe, and the judge of humankind.
He is not just a made up character of Muhammad’s.
But you’re right about one thing — “There is no compelling evidence for his existence.” Just as there is no compelling evidence for the (bible) God of the English-speaking world.
LikeLike
yo mamma’s that dense…
LikeLike
yo mamma’s points are not very strong…
yo mamma’s that dense…
VAST silliness…
LikeLike
yeah, your earlier “yo mamma” comment made me laugh, and I just couldnt help myself.
allow my to offer my sincerest apologies for attacking yo mammas – it wasn’t called for, nor was it helpful to this discussion.
I also have a mamma, and wouldn’t want anyone mocking her regarding her weight or intelligence because she’s so fat, that on a trip to sea world, she thought shamu was her reflection and tried spitting the trainers out of her mouth.
My feelings would be hurt, so I’ll do better and keep myself from from further mamma talk.
LikeLike