Not bad, but I do have one minor point which doesn't really affect the point of your article but which should be brought up for clarity's sake.
Ex-Christian.net is not an atheist blog, it just so happens that a lot of the people who "deconvert" become disillusioned with the notion of theism, so they form a majority there. There are also a large number of agnostics and deists there as well, along with a few followers of eastern religions such as Buddhism.
Okay. I suspect that the rhetoric would be roughly the same though: it is always against Christian fundamentalism, which in turn is often regarded as the sum total of Christianity. It's the "ex-Christian" thing: almost like people want to define themselves as what they are not, rather than what they are. That never works out very well in the long run.
Interaction with Jim Arvo, a professor of computer science, on the ex-xian blog:
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
You start by responding to Dave's comment "None of this proves or disproves Christianity..." with the statement "If such stories give no reason whatsoever to reject Christianity then (not to be insulting), I humbly submit: what good are they at all?"
You erroneously equate lack of "proof" with "no reason whatsoever to reject Christianity". That is a gross misinterpretation. Dave is acknowledging what is manifestly true--that neither side can be PROVEN absolutely. However, proofs are not what we employ when deciding upon empirical matters; we marshal *evidence*. I submit to you (not to be insulting) that the difference is enormous, and that the weight of evidence is not on the side of Christianity.
That's a good point, and it did cross my mind. However, in light of Dave's later comments, I think I was justified in reading it the way I did, and not in the more technical epistemological sense you suggested. E.g., Dave claims in the combox:
"My mind was opened to reality, and is continuing to be opened to reality, as the myths and gods of my youth are abandoned to be replaced by reason."
Also: he describes Christianity as "primitive imaginings" and a "phony cult" that "enslave[s] the mind." It is supposedly anti-science and (most ridiculous of all) allegedly "caused the Dark Ages." To me this implies that somewhere along the line he assumes Christianity has been rationally disproven, or at least so discredited that he has justification to speak in such insulting and derogatory terms.
And that gets back to my point: either he thinks his deconversion story offers some of the reasons why he thinks Christianity is false or it doesn't. If it does, where are they? I saw none as I examined it. If it doesn't (as I interpreted), then what good is it? Frankly, who cares about horror stories of the ignorant, anti-intellectual fundamentalists he mostly associated with? It may tickle the fancy of former Christians who love to hear these things, but it doesn't advance the discussion at all. It is merely anecdotes about fools.
And I would add that if he couldn't extricate himself from such know-nothingism for 30 years, what does that say about his intellectual discernment? Does he mean to imply that he couldn't find a single Christian congregation anywhere for 30 years, that respected the mind and science and philosophy, and had a thought-out view of culture, politics, the arts, etc.? I find that astounding. Catholicism (my group) certainly offers all that. And many Protestant groups and congregations do. I've been in them myself (as a former Protestant evangelical). But it doesn't reflect well on his own judgment as a Christian.
In response to Dave's story about asking difficult questions as a child, DA responded "I would ask the child back: 'why do you presume to question
God's purposes for doing anything, or act as if we would or could or should understand everything that God does, in the first place?'"
What a terrible answer. You are, in effect, saying that the child must simply accept the story as given, without testing it against their own experience or their own notion of justice and compassion. While the latter ought not be the ultimate yard stick, it should certainly sound an alarm if a religious teaching proclaims compassion yet appears to lack it in its most basic teaching. I should think it far better to explain why we should accept that god's actions appear less charitable than the child's own would have been, and why the child should continue to seriously question actions that appear unkind or downright devious.
I didn't say all that. You read that into what I said. My point was simply to note that we shouldn't expect to know all about God's deepest purposes, by the very nature of the case (or Being). Later I made analogies to the many deep mysteries of science (origins of life, DNA, why gravity acts as it does, etc.). I'm contending that if we can acknowledge mystery in science, why not also in theology? In that context I was presupposing belief in God. If you grant that, then given the traditional theistic / Jewish / Christian concept of a transcendent, monotheistic, omniscient, omnipotent God, it is foolish to think that we can figure all that out, since clearly such a Being is many magnitudes greater in thinking ability.
THAT was my point: not that one should render blind faith, or be a fideist. I have always opposed that. I would never urge that on anyone. Now, if people in your past or Dave's taught that they were wrong, and I fully agree with your general critique of their mentality.
More tomorrow. Gotta go catch the movie about John Lennon on VH-1.
Here is Dave Van Allen's response:
Hi Dave A!
I stopped by your site and read your article about me. I will have to say, you are prolific.
You are undoubtedly correct that my thinking and my reasoning in places is faulty. I've never claimed to be the brightest candle in the box, and I am painfully aware of my limitations in that department as well as many other areas. I am, at best, an average guy. Regardless, I wrote my little testimonial in 2001 more as a cathartic exercise and to "come out" to my family and friends. I never intended it as a full-scale refutation of Christianity, anymore than a Christian testimonial is intended to be an detailed apologetic explaining how Christianity is the truth. My testimonial, such as it is, became the first published page of this website. With literally no one to talk to about de-converting from Christianity, I was reaching out to anyone. Somehow, people stumbled on to the testimonial, responded to it, and this website took on a life of its own.
Again, that article is a testimonial, and only meant to give a snapshot into my life, how I became a Christian, and some of what I went through before my agonizing decision to give up the holy ghost. Leaving Christianity made a major disruption in my life and the life of my children, even though it was a slow, gradual process. My comments and articles in the years since 2001 merely reflect my opinions as they've continued to develop. Hopefully I'm a better thinker and a better writer, but I'm still just an average guy. I have a long way to go before I would dare consider myself an authority on much of anything.
Just FYI: I never read a single book or article that refuted Christianity prior to my de-conversion. I didn't know much about critical thinking, logic, or philosophy. I was a fully committed believer, though, and in my 30s wanted to really know the "real truth." It was by studying the Bible itself, the formation of the Bible, the history and development of the Church, ever changing theology, etc., all as explained by respected theologians from across the spectrum of Christianity that helped me come to the conclusion that Christianity is bunk. It wasn't one or two contradictions in the Bible that gave me doubts. It wasn't that respected scholars from different eras have been and today are in complete disagreement with each other over many thousands of doctrinal and theological points. It wasn't that the history of the church is filled with horrific bloodshed, cruelty, and ignorance. It wasn't that real live Christians seemed more interested in feeling the Spirit and less interested in actually learning anything. It wasn't any of those things. It was all of those things. My de-conversion was a holistic experience. To be simplistic, the pieces of the puzzle went together and I saw a picture I hadn't expected.
Anyway, you seem to be accusing of having no valid reasons to leave Christianity. Well, if someone could offer me some valid reasons to re-join Christianity, then I'd have to reconsider my position. Can you show me any evidence outside your book of myths for the existence of a mysterious, maniacal, meglomanic, Jewish deity living somewhere in the sky that has promised everlasting retributive horror to be reigned down on all those who have the wrong thoughts in their heads about his existence?
Of course, there is more to Christianity than threats of damnation for doubting HE even exists, but that certainly is a big part of it. I mean, what in the world have any of us "average Joe's" ever done in our lives that justice would demand our everlasting torture? I'm no saint, as the expression goes, but I've never been to jail for anything. My life is mundane. Most people would find me dull and boring, and more than a few, perhaps, even ugly (Hence the sunglasses). What I'm trying to say is that just because I've masturbated, or had an impure thought, or been angry, or said "F*** you!" or been unkind on occasion... Do those accumulated "sins" really warrant everlasting torture? Are you serious? Really?
I had a car accident a couple of years ago and totaled the vehicle. I took out a telephone pole, which smashed down on the roof of the car. It was a mess. It was 5 a.m. in winter and I simply lost control of the car. However, I was cited for the accident, because there was property damage.
Now, if when I appeared before the judge to pay my debt to society, a friend stood with me, and paid the debt for me, was the debt still paid, or should I still seek forgiveness from the judge? Say the friend paid the debt and then the judge said, "I forgive you your debt!" How could the judge forgive me my debt, since my friend had already paid the bill? Forgiving a debt means there is no longer a need for payment or forgiveness of the debt, right?
That was probably a terrible analogy, but the point is this: Christianity claims that God sent the propitiation for our sins in the form of Jesus Christ. The debt for sin was paid. If the debt is paid, why are we still encouraged to seek forgiveness? Forgiveness for what? How can we be forgiven for a debt that is paid? If I am forgiven a debt, that means someone is out some money. A forgiven debt is a debt that is NEVER paid. If someone pays the debt, then the scales are equal. No debt means no need of forgiveness for the debt.
Christianity is loaded with logical inconsistencies, and because of my long indoctrination in the cult, I wake up to more and more on a regular basis.
Unable or unwilling to respond rationally anymore, Dave Van Allen (like other atheists whose deconversions I have critiqued) has now gone into "full personal attack" mode (my comments in italics; added link descriptions in brackets):
For those interested in Dave A's testimonials of how he left Evangelicalism for Catholicism, click here and here.
For those interested in how Dave A has spent the last few years trolling sites similar to this one, click here [Edward Babinski] and here. [Debunking Christianity blog]
I guess any attempted discussion with atheists is automatically classified as "trolling". Very odd . . .
[see a later post I did on this charge:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...y-
critique.html
To read what other Christians think of Dave A's theology, click here [James White] and here [Eric Svendsen] and here [Svendsen] and here [Turretinfan] and here [James Swan] and here [Steve Hays].
Anti-Catholics all; of course they wouldn't think much of my theology!
To learn about Dave A's church, click here [paper on sinners in the Church. Ha ha]
===========================
You can follow the actual links on his site. Here is the URL of his comment:
http://exchristian.net/2/2007/
09...506911480078224
dave, tomorrow's prayers to st. michael are for you in this; i've talked to many an atheist/ex-christian and simply had to walk away, eventually. regardless of what one said, the conversation eventually devolved into their covering their ears and going off in a pee-wee herman-esque voice, 'i know you are but what am i? i know you are but what am i? i know you are...' God be your help; for whom is like unto God? 
>>Surely, if God could make a mistake and repent of making man>>
Lord have mercy! Hard to believe this guy even got the basics of the faith if he's capable of writing such theological nonsense. He sounds like he's still functioning in the "Grandpa in the sky" mode of Christian belief.
These deconversion stories are sad. They're sad because they are the result of abject philosophical superficiality. He's not merely an "average guy," either. He's woefully simplistic. He needs to take his modesty about himself more seriously and be silent on the topic until he's read more and interfaced with more serious Christians. Untill he does, he will remain trapped in fundamentalist categories of thought.
James
DA,
Initially, I was tempted to post a point-by-point rebuttal to your critique of Dave Van Allen's anti-testimony. However, having read the relevant items on your blog, your own testimony, your tributary material, and related comments, I've reconsidered. Instead, I'd simply like to share some observations.
Your chief complaint with Dave Van Allen's anti-testimony seems to be that it failed to measure up to a certain epistemic standard. Ok, fine. But so what? That was not his goal, and he stated as much in the text. Indeed, I note that, in your conversion story (evangelical to Catholic), you too failed to provide an epistemological survey of the alleged evidence uncovered during your studies. To be sure, you hint at your studies and imply they helped lead you to your conclusions, but you did not discuss specifics. Should we therefore dismiss it too as worthless because it has no probative value as written?
Essentially, your critique reads like an extended ad hominem in which you've set yourself up as judge over his experiences. Dave didn't read the right books, didn't ask the right questions, didn't reach the right conclusions. Dave and those around him were ignorant, lazy, or just too, well, PROTESTANT!
This brings me to another point.
In your opening, you imply that Dave's personal testimony contains "the reasons that atheists give for being an atheist," and set the stage for your subsequent ridicule by alluding to the impression some believers have that atheists are intellectual elitists. In addition to these things, which Jim rightly called "crass generalizations," you mock his intellectual integrity, clearing the way for you to claim that Dave is, in fact, "irrational," "brainwashed," and "anti-intellectual."
In short, you set up and wrestled a straw man. Congratulations. You win.
Others, most notably Jim, have already engaged you on Judas and your suggested answer to a questioning child, so I'll leave it to their good offices to continue if they wish. I've got other fish to fry.
Dave Van Allen issued an apology for having claimed that I broke my word in promising a discussion. Consequently I completely removed that material and my response to it in the post, and also a reference to it in another post. Here it is:
==================
In case you read this, Dave A, I apologize for misjudging you in regards to breaking your word in my one comment above. I misread your exchange on that one particular blog to imply you would be continuing a conversation right there, in that thread -- on that website. It never occurred to me that you would respond to a conversation on a website by posting a response on a completely different website -- your own!. But now that I've observed your method, I realize my error. I would have appreciated it if you had pointed this out to me in person and given me the opportunity to respond, but regardless, I made an assumption which was erroneous, so I stand corrected.
My real intention with putting out those links wasn't to personally attack you, but to apprise others reading and posting here of your online background and thus save a lot of needless questions.
[comment on 10-2-07]
https://www.blogger.com/
comment.g...838423938814181
Commenting by HaloScan
