Apostates versus converts

[Kamala Trump]

The book reviews seem to indicate the author focused on rare and exceptional conversion and deconversion cases, and limited the study to 18-22 year olds at Canadian universities, an impressionable age where peer pressure remains very strong

I think the usual case tends to occur for someone who is slightly religious becoming more religious, or slightly religious becoming more atheist - and for intangible reasons, rather than through tortuous soul searching. My brother was fairly ambivalent about religion, until he started regularly attending Methodist service in his 40s.

The exceptional cases undoubtedly make for more interesting reading through.

in other words cherry picking.

like all Dem points and science.

 

[Cypress]

I do know that in my end of the woods, Idaho, the deconversion from Mormonism is significant. And often very difficult for many because of the strong sense of community it fosters. In small town Eastern Idaho and small town Utah, exceptionally high percentage of Mormons. Huge extended families, as well.

Makes sense, I hate to say it but Mormonism seems a little bit like a cult to me.

 

[Kafka]

If you cannot see that your explanation of why you choose to identify as an atheist is laughable,

Well, given that I have provided external support for my position (several citations and links) I will have to disagree with you.

THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM. It seems a great deal more likely that the reason you do choose to identify as an atheist is because you have one of two BELIEFS. Either you BELIEVE there are no gods...or you BELIEVE it is more likely that their are no gods than that there is at least one god.

You are free to continue to ignore my clearly stated position because you hate it.

It has nothing to do with any jury analogy.

Actually it is 100% to do with a jury analogy. That is why hypothesis testing is taught using that very example.

This is nothing but an hypothesis test.

I have written extensively on this topic for decades...perhaps from before you were even born.

And if you were as bad at understanding the topic as you have demonstrated on these threads then I will merely chuckle at your claim.

Your problem is that some people accept your bullshit, where I do not.

It would help if you understood it.

 

[ZenMode]

I listened to an interesting podcast this morning. Studies that looked at the differences between people who left their religion versus people who joined one.

People who left their religions did it after long and careful study. It was an arduous and difficult journey for most, to abandon everything they had been taught. And suffer the potential ostracism that followed. Ironically, it was the very religion that encouraged them to “seek the truth” that brought them to leave that faith. It was an intellectual decision rather than an emotional one. One didn’t choose to become an atheist. They merely discovered they were one.

The reverse was the case for those joining a religion. It was typically to fill some sort of an emotional or social need at some point in their lives. They had a crisis and the church people or their peers were comforting to them. There was no study of the faith or really knowledge of its teachings. Merely an emotional choice.

Makes perfect sense. Intellect versus emotion. Knowledge versus faith.

Leaving religion is often tough because most of us are indoctrinated into religion from birth. Losing religion can feel like losing part of who you are and it something that happens slowly because people want to believe they can live for ever and want to believe in an eternity of bliss, want to believe there's an all-powerful, loving being protecting us and granting our wishes, and want to believe that our family members are in a better place and looking down on us.

Joining religion often comes from desperation. You're in a bad spot in life. You became addicted to drugs, lost your job and your house and your family and you really have nowhere else to turn to. It's not a coincidence that people in prison suddenly "find god".

 

[Kafka]

I don't think I know anybody who was deconverted by a long soul searching process of research and reflection.

Your continued reliance on anecdotal data is interesting. Who cares who you know personally? That isn't the point. Some of us, like myself, actually DID go through years of soul searching, research and reflection.

To be quite honest your tendency to either dismiss arguments by attacking the person instead of the point (argumentum ad hominem) or reliance on anecdotal data is a significant issue for you.

Perhaps if you could see that sometimes you aren't the only authority on all things you might be able to engage the points raised more effectively.

 

[Kafka]

Quite of few of them when I’m looking around for NT stuff. And, they can cite scripture like nobody’s business.

I try to stick with the academics, but some of them are also deconverts.

Cypress has a distinct dislike of atheists. It is a strange position for an agnostic, but it explains why he will attempt to delegitimize any given claim that he disagrees with but is unable to provide any actual supporting information for his position.

 

[Cypress]

Your continued reliance on anecdotal data is interesting. Who cares who you know personally?

According to the book reviews, even the author of the study said they were reporting on rare and exceptional cases of conversion and deconversion.

So, even the authors of the book agree with me that these kind of tortuous, soul searching deconversions are rare.

 

[Cypress]

in other words cherry picking.

like all Dem points and science.

It's not cherry picking if you specifically and openly state the goal of the study is limited to attitudes and experiences of Canadian teenagers at Canadian universities. That may not be representative of the population at large, but it's sufficient to answer the questions The authors were apparently pursuing

I also suspect the book was heavily weighed towards deconversion and conversions in the context of evangelical Protestant denominations, but impossible to say without a copy of the book

 

[Cypress]

Both of you would flunk an into philosophy class.

You don't have to stress out about trying to prove you're better than me

 

[Hume]

You don't have to stress out about trying to prove you're better than me

fuck you

 

[Ross Dolan]

Well, given that I have provided external support for my position (several citations and links) I will have to disagree with you.

Sounds like a plan. And I will continue to hope you finally acknowledge that you see it for the "the Holy Spirit has shown me..." that it is.

You are free to continue to ignore my clearly stated position because you hate it.

I do not hate it. I consider it to be bullshit. People who choose to identify as atheists have tons of bullshit reason for explaining why they make that choice, but the common denominator is that they have one of two "beliefs": Either they "believe" there are no gods...or they "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. But the one thing people who choose to identify as atheists cannot abide, is that they are as based in belief as theists. So they invent bullshit.

Actually it is 100% to do with a jury analogy. That is why hypothesis testing is taught using that very example.

Horse shit. There is no way to hold a trial on the question, "Is there at least one god?" Also there is no way to hold a trial on the question, "Are there no gods?" OR, "Is it more likely that there are no gods than at least one god? OR, "Is it more likely that there is at least one god than that there are no gods?"

You atheists and theists keep making blind guesses about those questions...and try to make your blind guesses seem reasonable and logical. You both fail.

This is nothing but an hypothesis test.

THIS is nothing but you supposing you have invented something other than bullshit.

And if you were as bad at understanding the topic as you have demonstrated on these threads then I will merely chuckle at your claim.

Chuckle away. I KNOW I have been writing on the topic for decades. And doing a better job of making my point than you are of making yours.

It would help if you understood it.

I understand what I need to understand. It would help if you had the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge the valid points I have made.

I do not expect that of you, though. You are not there yet.

 

[Kafka]

So, even the authors of the book agree with me that these kind of tortuous, soul searching deconversions are rare.

That is bad logic. Just because they used a limited set does not mean that there is no larger set. You have NO insight on this other than your personal feelings.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Really, you seem to drop the ball on logic a great deal of the time.

 

[Kafka]

THIS is nothing but you supposing you have invented something other than bullshit.

I have invented nothing. It's why I continuously provide links and references to support my position.

Something you have not done once for yours.

Nor can you tell me how you test truth claims in your real life.

Maybe when you get around to that you will have something of value to add.

Chuckle away. I KNOW I have been writing on the topic for decades.

Being uninformed for a long time is not a virtue.

And doing a better job of making my point than you are of making yours.

In your imagination. You haven't substantively addressed any point I've made other than to scream "horse shit" or "bullshit"

I understand what I need to understand. It would help if you had the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge the valid points I have made.

I have acquiesced that agnosticism is a perfectly rational position. Why do you need to lie about my posts?

 

[Ross Dolan]

I have invented nothing.

You have invented the entirety of your bullshit about why you have chosen "atheist" as a self-descriptor. You either cannot or will not see that.

Bad for you.

It's why I continuously provide links and references to support my position.

Something you have not done once for yours.

Nor can you tell me how you test truth claims in your real life.

Maybe when you get around to that you will have something of value to add.

We are talking about the REALITY of existence. If you want to delude yourself that you can make appropriate comparisons for how you deal with that by bringing up jury trials...I will enjoy the laugh.

Some day you may gain the ethical consideration to see how silly that is.

Being uninformed for a long time is not a virtue.

I am not uninformed. I am very adequately informed. You, on some level, seem to realize just how my position is more logical than yours...and rather than make adjustments, you are trying to tough it out. I've dealt with much tougher and smarter discussion partners than you over the years.

In your imagination. You haven't substantively addressed any point I've made other than to scream "horse shit" or "bullshit"

You are in denial if you think I have not substantively addressed any of your bullshit.

I have acquiesced that agnosticism is a perfectly rational position.

That is like saying, "I have acquiesced that 2 + 2 in base ten = 4."

If you want credit for it, though, please take it.

Why do you need to lie about my posts?

I have not lied about anything you have posted. I have given many opinions that do not agree with your opinions, but in these kinds of discussions, that happens more often than not.

Get your shit together. You are conceding the high ground to me.

 

[Cypress]

That is bad logic. Just because they used a limited set does not mean that there is no larger set. You have NO insight on this other than your personal feelings.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Really, you seem to drop the ball on logic a great deal of the time.

Your assuming your tortured, introspective, soul searching divorce from Christianity is a widespread experience.

I think most adults who stop going to church do it for more mundane or intangible reasons. And those who become more intensely religious started out as at least weakly religious.

According to the review I read, these authors looked at a population of 18-22 year old Canadians, and found that intense, soul searching conversion and deconversion experiences were rare and exceptional.

That's good enough for me. It's not the kind of question we need a two million dollar NSF grant to investigate more comprehensively.

 

[Hume]

People who choose to identify as atheists have tons of bullshit reason for explaining why they make that choice, but the common denominator is that they have one of two "beliefs": Either they "believe" there are no gods...or they "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Not true. Choosing not to be Christian does not mean you have a theory about god, only that you are not Christian.

 

[Kafka]

Get your shit together. You are conceding the high ground to me.

You talk yourself up non-stop. You are always the sharpest person and you have the high ground and everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and spouting bullshit.

Funny how I'm the only one here who has backed up his claim with actual references.

 

[Kafka]

According to the review I read, these authors looked at a population of 18-22 year old Canadians, and found that intense, soul searching conversion and deconversion experiences were rare and exceptional.

I have found the book but only part of it. Can you please give me the part of the reference that found that this type of deconversion was "rare". (I'm not listening to a pod cast because you said you read a review. I would very much like to see that review if possible).

Thanks..

 

[Ross Dolan]

Not true. Choosing not to be Christian does not mean you have a theory about god, only that you are not Christian.

Hume...you are making no sense.

 

[Hume]

Hume...you are making no sense.

Then you truly are not intelligent. Sorry, too many times you reply that you do not understand what I write.