Apostates versus converts

I have no idea what the context would be.
Any professional scientist would state the standard of judgment. Going around saying, who's to know, is absurd.
Once again, the words were not “who’s to know”. The words were “I don’t know.”

Best if you quit changing them.
 
I really have no idea what you are referring to. Can you give a situation as an example?
Recently, I’ve watched many podcasts where Biblical scholars are asked questions outside their areas of expertise. PhDs with entire careers in their disciplines. But, when asked a question on a matter they are not familiar with, “I don’t know” is not only acceptable, but preferable. The same goes for any discipline.

Why does that even have to be explained to you?
 
Recently, I’ve watched many podcasts where Biblical scholars are asked questions outside their areas of expertise. PhDs with entire careers in their disciplines. But, when asked a question on a matter they are not familiar with, “I don’t know” is not only acceptable, but preferable. The same goes for any discipline.

Why does that even have to be explained to you?
Okay, you won't drop it.

I ask my doctor what time the restaurant opens. He says, I don't know.

PROFOUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I don’t think they were referring merely to attendance. I’ll have to find the podcast again to ascertain the authors of the studies.

The basics were the differences between each kind of conversion. When I hear stories from the deconverted, they tend to validate what the studies concluded. Deconversion was long, painful, arduous and full of fear. Typically, they were in adulthood rather than teenage years.
I don't think I know anybody who was deconverted by a long soul searching process of research and reflection.

But obviously they must have found a representative population.
 
I don't think I know anybody who was deconverted by a long soul searching process of research and reflection.

But obviously they must have found a representative population.
We are taught religion before we have critical ability to judge truth.
Once people become adults, they evaluate the religious teaching.
 
I see you are unable to tell me why. That is your problem. You refuse to explain why it is different.

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

It has nothing to do with any jury analogy.

Is that why you can't explain the difference between my position and a jury verdit?

Read what I wrote above again.

I already showed you that this is a lie.

Bullshit. Instead you are trying to pretend there is a logical reason for not doing so.
This is why you are tedious. You clearly are out of your depth and your screaming isn't getting you what you want. Try reading and discussing the topic for a change.

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

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


Just tell me how my position is fundamentally different from a jury verdict.

See my first comment in this reply.
 
If the agnostic is stating a preference, such as liking chocolate ice cream, then there is nothing to talk about.
If the agnostic is stating why others should like chocolate, then we expect reasons.
If wishes were horses, even the poor would ride.
 
I don't think I know anybody who was deconverted by a long soul searching process of research and reflection.

But obviously they must have found a representative population.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Here’s the book the podcast referenced.

Altemeyer B., Hunsberger B. (1997). Amazing conversions: Why some turn to faith & others abandon religion. Prometheus.

I don’t make shit up, Nancy.
all books are made up.

this is just so much copium to make nihilists feel superior.
 
Back
Top