Dave, isn't this getting old with you? You came to Debunking Christianity and did the same thing with us a while back. We wrote deconversion stories of why we left the Christian faith and you concluded in each case we left for less than the best of reasons...surprise!
As I said at the time, 1) There is more to why we left than what we wrote. No one can say everything he or she knows. 2) If I went around the web and evaluated the testimonies of why people become Christians in the first place, it would easy for me to do as you've done. You see, people not only have reasons but these reasons are wrapped up in experiences for why they change their minds. 3) Human beings are not logic machines. There are no Star Trek Spocks out there. We all hold to inconsistent beliefs to some degree and do not realize this. Many of our beliefs contain an irreducible personal element to them, and we subsequently have a strong tendency to rationally support what we have come to believe on less than rational grounds. Some feel the need to defend what they believe more than others, like you, and me.
So doing what you're doing isn't helpful, and it certainly is not the case that the most educated and intelligent person on earth will have all of the right answers, as I'm sure you know. We just see things differently, that's the difference between us. How we see things depends upon our whole experience and thought as human beings...all of it, you included.
Many Catholics have not given much thought to why they believe. They were raised that way. If I asked them why they believe their answers might be thought of as ignorant. But according to you they are correct. They have to raise families and maintain jobs. Not everyone has the luxury or the brain power to think about such issues or to defend what they believe. A personal testimony from such people is just that, a testimony. It's never a complete story, it depends upon personal experiences and as such contains an irreducible personal element it.
I have written some things on these issues. Take a good look at them. If you choose to respond let me know when you do.
Dave said...In fact, some sites, like Debunking Christianity, openly state as a matter of emphasis and policy that they are interested mainly if not solely, in dealing with fundamentalist Christianity. 95% or so of the remaining sectors of Christianity are ignored (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, more sophisticated brands of Presbyterianism and Calvinism in general: folks like Alvin Plantinga, Anglo-Catholicism, Methodism, etc.).
Serious analysis of a competing view will deal with the most respectable form of it, not the dumbest and least respectable.
Well then, you can thank us since so many Christians are evangelical and have political power. That's why we take aim at them. Because they need debunking.
Of course, it isn't true that all we take aim at is evangelical Christianity, unless you don't believe in a tri-omni God, or unless you don't believe in the incarnation.
Wow, this is an eye-opener. I had no idea so much of their claims were invested in "debunking" Fundamentalists. But now that I think about it, I should have realized that.
This quote said a lot:
++
Not everybody thinks Catholicism is the most rational branch of Christianity--I'm sure you are aware of that. (To the regulars here: Please pardon my understatement.)
No kidding? I'm so shocked I think I'll faint.
++
How can that comment be an "understatement" UNLESS what he is saying is most brush Catholicism aside and define "Christianity" as "Fundamentalism"?
What else could it be admitting but that Catholicism (and conservative Protestantism) is not even given a chance?
Hi John,
Hope you are doing well these days.
Dave, isn't this getting old with you? You came to Debunking Christianity and did the same thing with us a while back. We wrote deconversion stories of why we left the Christian faith and you concluded in each case we left for less than the best of reasons...surprise!
Why should it get old for a Christian to debunk what we think is bunk, while it is fine and dandy for ex-Christian to keep writing their facile, condescending "deconversions"? You have a problem with free speech and free exchange of ideas or sumpin'?
As I said at the time, 1) There is more to why we left than what we wrote. No one can say everything he or she knows.
Of course. I never denied this. I was replying to what I saw. For the life of me I can't figure out what is wrong with that, and why you would throw a tremendous temper tantrum at my daring to disagree with your public anti-testimony. If you can't take criticism, then why don't you REMOVE the blasted thing from public view, so you'll be safe from all criticism?
2) If I went around the web and evaluated the testimonies of why people become Christians in the first place, it would easy for me to do as you've done.
What's stopping you? You won't see me throwing a fit because you exercise your prerogative to critique other ideas. You can go after any of my conversion stories. I'd be more than happy -- utterly delighted -- to counter-reply. As a special bonus I won't even call you an "idiot" and various other choice terms that I was called by someone (I won't say who).
You see, people not only have reasons but these reasons are wrapped up in experiences for why they change their minds. 3) Human beings are not logic machines. There are no Star Trek Spocks out there. We all hold to inconsistent beliefs to some degree and do not realize this. Many of our beliefs contain an irreducible personal element to them, and we subsequently have a strong tendency to rationally support what we have come to believe on less than rational grounds.
If you wish to concede that your deconversion proceeded on irrational grounds, feel free. I won't stop you.
Some feel the need to defend what they believe more than others, like you, and me.
It's not about me; it's about what one feels to be true. And in the Christian case, about happiness and spiritual joy and peace and communion with God. I think that is a message well worth spreading.
So doing what you're doing isn't helpful,
I see. Why don't you call for removal of deconversion stories from the Internet, since they are devoted to attacking Christianity and Christians, which is equally un"helpful"?
and it certainly is not the case that the most educated and intelligent person on earth will have all of the right answers, as I'm sure you know. We just see things differently, that's the difference between us. How we see things depends upon our whole experience and thought as human beings...all of it, you included.
Therefore, we shouldn't discuss these differences?
Many Catholics have not given much thought to why they believe. They were raised that way. If I asked them why they believe their answers might be thought of as ignorant.
Absolutely.
But according to you they are correct.
Lots of folks are right for the wrong reasons.
They have to raise families and maintain jobs. Not everyone has the luxury or the brain power to think about such issues or to defend what they believe. A personal testimony from such people is just that, a testimony. It's never a complete story, it depends upon personal experiences and as such contains an irreducible personal element it.
Therefore, we shouldn't discuss these differences? Therefore, critiques ought to be nonexistent, so Christianity can be bashed at will in these deconversion stories, but the Christian ought never to respond because that is bad form?
I have written some things on these issues. Take a good look at them. If you choose to respond let me know when you do.
What reason would I have to believe you could maintain your composure in a dialogue? You haven't yet with me (despite the high and noble talk about dialogue on your site that I was naive enough to believe at first). I seek dialogue with people who don't have to make everything personal and take everything personally. Perhaps you have undergone a major change of approach since our previous encounters?
DA: Hope you are doing well these days.
JWL: I’m doing well, kind burned out right now, but thank you. You too.
DA: For the life of me I can't figure out what is wrong with that, and why you would throw a tremendous temper tantrum at my daring to disagree with your public anti-testimony.
JWL: I never said that it was wrong, only that it was getting old. Our testimonies merely share a personal story. You can liken them to people at AA meetings who share what alcohol did to them and why they are leaving it behind them. They contain arguments, of course, but they are also very personal. It’s hard not to react strongly when someone basically says we shouldn’t feel the way we do, because feelings are also expressed. Doing what you do gets a rise out of us because of this. The webmaster at ex-christian.net responded beautifully to your critique, I thought. I just think you would do better to deal with our arguments, the kind that I linked to earlier, that’s all.
DA: What reason would I have to believe you could maintain your composure in a dialogue? You haven't yet with me (despite the high and noble talk about dialogue on your site that I was naive enough to believe at first). I seek dialogue with people who don't have to make everything personal and take everything personally. Perhaps you have undergone a major change of approach since our previous encounters?
JWL: Like I said, I’m burned out for awhile, but the reason you provoked my ire is that you came to DC and evaluated personal testimonies, not our arguments, and as I said these stories are personal. Just like Christian testimonies they express to the “choir” their initial reasons and they express their personal feelings about why they left the Christian faith.
Tell you what, deal with what I said here.
Cheers.
I would like to see a response to that as I have never understood why non-believers think the "Christians are the same as atheists because they reject all religions but one" is a good argument.
Hi John,
Thanks for your thoughts.
the reason you provoked my ire is that you came to DC and evaluated personal testimonies, not our arguments
I did some debunking of the deconversions, but of course that is not all that I did, by a long shot. The following dialogues all came about as a result of my time spent at your blog:
Dialogue With an Atheist on the "Basics": Creation, Freedom, Rebellion, Suffering, Etc. (vs. Daniel Morgan)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-on-
basics.html
Stacked Deck: Losing One's Christian Faith in College / General Epistemological Discussion With an Atheist (vs. Daniel Morgan)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
christian.html
Discussion With Atheists on Hell, the Argument From Desire, and God's Justice and Ours vs. "DagoodS" and Others) (+ Part Two)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ts-on-
hell.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ument-
from.html
Atheists' Unreasonable, Unrealistic Demands For Proof of God's Existence (Massive Miracles, Etc.) (vs. "DagoodS")
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...nrealistic.html
Reply to a Skeptic Regarding Elijah the Prophet's Extraordinary Departure From Earth and Relation to John the Baptist (vs. "paul")
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ing-
elijah.html
Dialogue With a Skeptic Regarding Elijah and John the Baptist, Round Two (vs. "paul")
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ing-
elijah.html
Were Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain Atheists?
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...mark-
twain.html
Supposed Contradiction Between 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 (God or Satan as Cause?)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-between-
2.html
On the Alleged Contradictions of 2 Samuel 24, and 1 Chronicles 21 and 27 (vs. "DagoodS")
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...f-2-
samuel.html
Alleged Contradictions Regarding the Twelve Disciples of Jesus (+ Discussion) (vs. "DagoodS")
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
regarding.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=27310#123639
Supposed Contradictions in the Gospel Accounts of Jesus' Calling of the Disciples
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=19739#125384
Did God Harden Pharaoh's Heart? (Does God Positively Ordain Evil?) (vs. "DagoodS")
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...t-does-
god.html
Dave Van Allen, whose deconversion I just critiqued, only to get fluff and personal insult back, claims, among other things, that my stay at Debunking Christianity a while back was simply trolling.
Well, if "trolling" produces extremely in-depth (and I thought, fun and stimulating) debates like the twelve above, then I'm the first to confess that I am a troll, and proud of it.
But of course, that is not what most people mean by "troll" so by the usual meaning, I am not one at all. I stayed and debated until replies to me simply descended into a flurry of insults. Since that is the death of discussion when it occurs, there was no reason to remain any longer.
There is trolling and there is also rudeness, flaming, feeding frenzies and the pack mentality on the part of the mass of people on any given group blog, when someone dares dissent from the party line.
The following dialogues also resulted from my time spent at Debunking Christianity:
Alvin Plantinga's Decisive Refutation of the Atheist Use of the Problem of Evil as a Disproof of God's Existence, Goodness, or Omnipotence (+ Discussion)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...refutation.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...7746081/
#116977
Critique of Agnostic Ed Babinski's Post: "The Problem of Evil, Alvin Plantinga and Victor Reppert" (the "Emotional" Argument From Evil) (vs. Ed Babinski)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...nskis-
post.html
Serious Christian Treatments of the Problem of Evil and Breezy Atheist Dismissals of Them Sans Rational Argument (+ Discussion) (vs. John W. Loftus)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...atments-
of.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...2142615/
#116612
Some Christian Replies to the Problem of Evil as Set Forth by Atheists (+ Discussion) (vs. "drunken tune" and John W. Loftus)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...problem-
of.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...3664968/
#116725
Dialogue #2 With an Atheist on the Problem of Evil (+ Discussion) (vs. "drunken tune")
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...problem-
of.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...8633022/
#116870
Dialogue #3 With an Atheist on the Problem of Evil (vs. John W. Loftus)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...problem-
of.html
Is the "Strong" Logical Argument From Evil Largely Discredited If Not Dead, Or Alive & Well? (Atheist Confusion) (+ Discussion)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-from-
evil.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...1030196/
#120941
That's now 19 major dialogues / debates, yet my time there is now characterized as trolling (Dave Van Allen) or:
"Dave, isn't this getting old with you? You came to Debunking Christianity and did the same thing with us a while back. We wrote deconversion stories of why we left the Christian faith and you concluded in each case we left for less than the best of reasons..."
or:
"you came to DC and evaluated personal testimonies, not our arguments"
(John Loftus, webmaster at that blog)
What gives? Facts are what they are. I can't go back and revise the history of what actually happened, based on selective memory or wishful thinking.
The strong insults from John, as I recall now, actually began during this series on evil, before I ever critiqued his deconversion. So he was reacting emotionally to arguments other than simply his (as he says) simplified, less-serious-of-an-argument deconversion story.
I'm willing to give his papers another shot, but the proof is in the pudding, as to whether an actual dialogue will occur, minus the extraneous, unhelpful elements of emotionalism and personal sensitivity.
I don't care if you give us another shot. You were personally rude. You have all the answers. The rest of us are just dumb.
Or you can help Scot out who earlier asked you to answer me.
You could just wait to see my book, "Why I Became an Atheist" due out from Prometheus Books at the end of Februrary. No freebies, like you had asked for earlier.
While my focus is on evangelical Christianity, your view won't escape criticism either.
Cheers.
Commenting by HaloScan
