Another Person Walks Away From Christianity!

Not long ago I received the following email from Ed Owens, who lives in Missouri and attends a Church of Christ there with his wife, who still believes. Here’s what he said:

I'm a 50 year old man from Missouri who preached for almost 30 years for the Church of Christ. Several months ago I read Joe Holman’s article at minister turns atheist and began my study of why he would do such a thing. I am now convinced by my own studies of the absurdity of the book called the Bible. My family on both sides are all members of the church and are now giving me pure hell about it. I'm seeing a psychologist at the request of all the family. They seem to think she will reconvert me, I guess. That's their knee-jerk response; I must be coo coo or something like that.

In another email he added:

I was raised in a Church of Christ family and was baptized at the age of 19 by my sibling brother who is an Evangelist for the Church of Christ. We are the one cup one loaf no Sunday School group. My wife also has the same roots in the Church and still does. My brother and I married sisters. He got the younger and I got the older. He is eight years older than me. My wife is seven years and a few months older than I am. She was married before to the same guy twice while away from the church. When she returned and confessed her unfaithfulness to the church and asked God's forgiveness she was reinstated as a member in good standing.

I began preaching in 1978 at the tender age of 20 and gave it all fervor and conviction that I could muster. My Dad was a preacher for the CofC and an Elder for many years so you could say I was following in his steps as was two of my siblings besides me.

I came across Joe Holman's article on the internet entitled “minister turns atheist” and I couldn't help but wonder what would posses someone who was once a minister to turn to atheism. To make a long story short I studied his arguments and many other atheist arguments and found the Scriptures severely lacking in credibility and accuracy. I've been in touch with Joe and have corresponded quite often in the past few months.

I left the church and had it announced last Wednesday evening of my intentions. It came as quite a shock to some but not to all. My poor wife came unhinged when she began to discover my intentions. She has settled down somewhat in the past week. I told her I would attend with her on Sundays if she wanted and of course she does. How long that will last I have no idea. It is very difficult to set through a service and listen to a message that is full of error and conjecture and not be tempted to jump up and declare, "It is a bunch of hooey!" You know what hooey is, don't you? I thought so. DUNG! MANURE! KA-KA!

When the de-conversion started I was devastated!!! I felt like I had been lied to all my life. I was raised to believe the scriptures were without error and had no contradictions whatsoever. When I took the blinders off and began to see the multitude of errors and contradictions I became angry and tried to point them out to my Evangelist brother, who by the way had been my mentor all my life, and how he might see the truth of all this. You can imagine the result. He began to tell me how deluded I was and not to read that junk, as he called it, it would just confuse me and warp my mind. I tried time after time to illustrate the errors to him but he would not hear of it. He and I no longer speak to each other. He's refused to answer my email because he can't control the situation by his overpowering personality and make me shut up!

I've tried subtly to show others the errors and to no avail. I've even been told to quit trying to proselyte members. Any advice you can give me I sure would appreciate it!!! My wife belittles me at every turn claiming that I'm headed for Hell if I don't change and repent. My brother likewise gives me fits. He is an Evangelist for the church and at one time my dearest and closest friend, past tense!

I told him that until he put his foot down they wouldn’t leave him alone, so he composed the following letter and read it after last Wednesday's services:

It has come to my attention that some folks believe I have lost my mind. I believe the term was mentally ill. Let me assure you each and everyone that is not the case.

I stand before you this evening to set the record straight. I AM NOT MENTALLY ILL.

I am quite sane, I assure you. If this does not persuade you then you may call my analyst, who I have been seeing at the request of family and friends, and will verify what I have just said. I have given written legal permission to divulge my mental state.

People sincerely disagree on a host of issues, from who should be the next President, to which diet is best for losing weight. No one ever thinks to say that people who disagree about such issues is mentally ill. So why should that be the case here? Many of us have decided to walk away from the Christian faith, including former Church of Christ preachers Farrell Till, Joe Holman and John W. Loftus. I no longer believe for the same reasons you don't accept Islam or Mormonism, and no one considers those who don't believe them to be mentally ill for doing so.

Now, that having been said, I wish to make some things crystal clear so that not a single person misunderstands why I am up here.

1. I am no longer a member of the church.

2. I do NOT need reconverting PLEASE RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO TRY!

3. I will not debate, verbally converse, or argue with ANYONE on the issues surrounding my decision to leave the church.

4. If you feel so disposed to chastise me, I reserve the right to respond in kind. When you do, realize that you are only reinforcing my decision by not showing that you care for me as a person.

5. I still love each and every one of you irregardless of your feelings toward me. I really do.

6. I may attend services from time to time out of respect, but I will be attending less and less, since it would be no different for you if you were asked to attend a Jewish service, which you don't believe. I admire your convictions even if I do not share in them.

7. I have been accused of trying to de-convert members with emails. I submit material for consideration by email and when I am told to stop, I DO!

In conclusion, I understand your concern for my spiritual well being. You have voiced it and I have heard. Now, please stop. I am assuming full responsibility for my own actions from this point forward.

You will not appreciate my decision I am sure, but you are going to have to learn to accept it because I am confident upon the ground I stand.

Then the shit hit the fan. Here’s what he wrote me last night afterwards:

I read the letter to the congregation after services had concluded and it was instant fireworks! My brother had to put in his two cents worth.

He claimed the analyst was my own decision, which was a lie, and then shouted that I was dis-fellowshipped. I thought that was really strange since I had just announced my own leaving of the faith. I asked if I was banned from the church assemblies and he said no, there was no need for me to attend ‘cause I would just be a hypocrite by doing so. I should have called him on the carpet right in front of everyone about not following scriptural process of dis-fellowship, but I didn't, I just walked out.

I know I did the right thing but now my wife has no intention of attending that congregation any longer. She says she will attend where my daughter goes.

Thanks again for your support.

Why in the hell do Christians have to make it so hard on us when we no longer believe? I’m proud of Ed. He did what was necessary and right. He's one of our unsung heroes. And I’m also proud of his wife for loving Ed enough to leave that church over it.

He's reading this. Any encouragement or helpful advice would be appreciated.

God Was There

Joe Holman, a former preacher and team member here at DC, recently wrote some sarcasm which I think is pretty damn funny. Check it out:

Read more »

From Minister to Atheist - Joe Holman On The Infidel Guy Show

This interview took place in 2004, before the Clergy Project. Joe does a great job in it as a former team member here with me at DC. Link. [Click on the "Download" link underneath Joe's picture even if your cursor looks like an hour-glass.] Joe authored a good book, Project Bible Truth: A Minister Turns Atheist and Tells All.

The Quest to Keep Jesus Relevant

[Written by Joe Holman]

The next time you drive around the historic part of your neighborhood, slow down just enough to get a look at the old-time churches. They’re big and old, especially old. Hell, some of them are so old that if you had the right forensic testing kit, you might genetically match the dried tears of a hand-and-foot slave as he waited on his master, listening to the “nonsense” from the pulpit about some new movement called Abolition. How time flies!

Read more »

Eddie Tabash Recommends My Book!

Today I went to the Grand Opening of the new Center for Inquiry Indiana, where Paul Kurtz, Toni Van Pelt, Joe Nicholl and Eddie Tabash were the main speakers. Tabash spoke on the topic, “The Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms,” and it was very motivating for me.

Eddie was talking to some people before he spoke and I went up to listen in and to introduce myself. He read my name tag before I could do so. Then he asked me, "did you write the book against Christianity," and I nodded. Then he turned to the people he was talking to and said, “John’s book is the finest refutation of Christianity I have read. I use it in my debates.” Then turning back to me he said, “I bought twelve copies to give away.” As the author of the book I think what I wrote is good too (of course), but hearing it from someone like him, whom I admire so much, felt really good. I saw a video of the debate he had with William Lane Craig before he had read my book (shown below). He did such an excellent job it’s hard to see how my book helps him in his debates. But he said it does, and for that I’m very grateful.

He joins the ranks of others who recommend it…

…like skeptics Daniel Dennett, Paul Kurtz, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Carrier, Edward Babinski (who wrote the Foreword to it), Dan Barker, Valerie Tarico, David Van Allen, Matthew Green, Joe Holman, Chris Hallquist, and others. Kurtz said my book "has the makings of being a great book,” and that he’s “eager to see it in print." On the back cover and inside pages of the Prometheus Books edition there will probably be recommendations by Michael Shermer, John Beversluis, Robert M. Price, Andrea Weisberger, and if the time frame permits him, from Jeffery Jay Lowder (at least, they all have expressed an interest in seeing it for a blurb).

On the Christian side of the fence, Norman L. Geisler and James F. Sennett both recommend it too. Other Christian thinkers who have expressed an interest in seeing it are Paul Copan, Michael Murray, Richard Swinburne, Mark Linville (who is potentially planning on using it in an apologetics seminar), and William Baker (the editor of the Stone-Campell Journal--my former denominational journal). Bill Craig knows about it and will surely take a look at it when it comes out. Scot McKnight is writing a chapter describing the reasons why Christians lose their faith and is highlighting my story.

I don’t tell my readers these things to bore them, or to pat myself on the back (even though it’s nice to be patted by others), or to make money off the sales (of course, if it can help pay a few bills that would really help me out), or to make a name for myself (although, as a middle child we learn that negative attention is still attention). No. My number one goal is to produce the best damn counter-apologetics book on the market today that does not just preach to the skeptical choir, so to speak, if possible (and if not, it’s still a worthy goal). The reason I want to do this is because the better I can make my book, the more it will be read, and I want people to read it! If I hadn’t written the book I would still want people to read a book like this one. If Eddie's recommendation and the others are even somewhat on the mark, my book has the potential of changing the thinking of Christians in America, and the reason why I want to do this was expressed very eloquently by Eddie today in his talk!

The debate between Tabash and Craig:

Joe Holman: "The Best Seat in the House"

Former blog member here at DC has his own Blog, like I recommended that they all start on their own. Joe's latest post starts off like this:

I want to introduce you to my friend Terri. She is a person of simplicity, and yet her depth of character has you looking down and not seeing bottom. Being a complicated person is not what I am talking about. Any chick – any dude, for that matter – can be complicated, conflicted, unpredictable, with “issues.” That’s not what I’m talking about at all. I’m talking about a person who is enough of an individual to have a personality you can nail down. You can predict them, and yet they can teach and surprise you in unforeseen ways. Such a friend is Terri.

Link.

Look around and see what you think.

Abortion: Everything You Need To Know

Directly below are a few links to what our authors have written about abortion.

--Why I Write and Write and Write About the Religious Right, by Teresa Roberts. Commenting on Bob Nononi, a Republican politician from Idaho, who said in a public forum that maybe we should consider the death penalty for women who get an abortion, she unloads the harms of the religious right in general. "Right under our very noses, we are becoming a theocracy and people by in large are refusing to believe it’s happening...The religious right is no longer willing to sit on the sidelines as their cross-eyed cousins once did, talking in tongues, handling snakes, beating their kids and oppressing their women. Watching the rest of Americans live their own lives as they please infuriates them. They're here to tell you that they're no longer a joking matter. They're serious. Dead serious. Furthermore, they're winning which is making them bolder by the minute."

--Why is the Religious Right Obsessed With Abortion?, by Teresa Roberts. She argues: "Abortion has evolved into a single driving issue of such monumental proportions in part because society has become far more secularized than we realize. The shift away from a moral code dictated by churches and enforced by government has caused a great deal of discomfort for individuals and institutions that once wielded so much power over our lives. They are now struggling to reclaim what they perceive as their god given right to determine and enforce the new moral code that defines modern culture. They feel the shifting tide as they continue to lose their tight grip on the reins of society. It has turned them into crusaders, not just for the protection of the unborn but for a return to the glory days when the church had the final and last say over what would be tolerated and what would not."

--Birds of a Fundy Feather, by minister-turned-atheist Joe Holman. In commenting on Eric Rudolph, the famous abortion clinic bomber, Holman argues: "The Christian fundamentalist mindset is dangerous. It devalues life and appreciates one that exists only in fantasy. It enslaves the rational mind, empowering an otherwise conscionable individual to do inhumane things with feelings of integral justification, or at the very least, creates support and sympathy for those who so act."

--Apologist Edward Feser gets into the debate by comparing George Tiller, an abortionist doctor, to Jeffrey Dahmer who killed, dismembered and ate 17 men and boys. Feser says, "Tiller was almost certainly a more evil man than Dahmer was." LINK, with a follow-up LINK.

--In a tongue-in-cheek essay, Why Conservative Christians Should Love Abortion, Franz Kiekeben takes seriously William Lane Craig's arguments that slaughtered innocent children go to heaven, and draws the conclusion that so do aborted fetuses. Hence, "Christian conservatives should be encouraging women to get pregnant for the sole purpose of aborting their fetuses — and doing this as often as they can! They should stop protesting abortion clinics and instead hand out fliers informing women of the religious benefits associated with the practice, and encouraging them to do the godly thing."

--God Loves Abortion, by Jonathan Pearce. "Given the statistics that fetuses die from natural, spontaneous abortions, or miscarriages; abortions that God has the power to stop, and seemingly designed in to the system in the first place, then.... either God is not omnibenevolent; or God does not exist; or embryos are not so sacred and arguments over what defines personhood are called for; or that millions of fetal deaths a year, unknown to humanity, are necessary for a greater good."

--About fifteen years ago I participated in a written debate with an atheist over abortion, which can be found at DC here. I think I laid out a reasonable case for a women's right to abortion.

Losing Religion on the Religion Beat: A Review of William Lobdell's book, Losing My Religion

My review follows:

William Lobdell’s new book, Losing My Religion, is a page turner from start to finish. As a former religion reporter for the Los Angeles Times he knows how to write in ways that make us feel and think what he does, every step along the way.

Previously I had said Joe Holman’s book, Project Bible Truth, was the most extensive deconversion story I had ever read. But now I must say Lobdell’s book is the most extensive one.

Lobdell’s book does not focus on the arguments against Christianity, like Holman does, although they are there. Rather he takes us on a journey from his evangelical faith to almost becoming a Catholic to what he describes as a “reluctant atheist” or “skeptical deist.”

Lobdell lost his religion on the religion beat: “Like a homicide detective, I had seen too much.” (p. 253). At first he liked his job and it didn’t affect his faith at all. But his doubt started when covering the scandal of Catholic priest molestations and interviewing the victims who were lied to and ignored by the church. For him the most egregious problem wasn’t necessarily the molestations and the ignored children sired from the affairs the priests had with women, although that was bad enough. No. It was the cover-up that the well-organized Catholic Church had for defending them. He just couldn’t understand, nor should anyone for that matter, why the church hierarchy didn’t do as Jesus wanted them to do in upholding the dignity and rights of the downtrodden and the abused. According to him, “the real story wasn’t about the molester priests, but rather the bishops who covered up for them and caused thousands of additional children to be sodomized, orally copulated, raped and masturbated.” (p. 142).

One missionary priest at St. Michael Island, Alaska, “raped an entire generation of Alaska Native boys.” (p. 215) “Though the Jesuits deny it,” Lobdell writes, “there’s evidence to suggest that the villages of western Alaska served as a dumping ground for molesting priests.” (p. 228) Lobdell called this a “pedophile’s paradise.”

As he reported on these abuses he was preparing to become a Catholic himself, and we see him struggle with this decision as he covers the story. Two weeks before doing so he couldn’t go through it. In his words: “Converting to Catholicism during the height of a horrific scandal felt like an endorsement of the establishment,” (p. 158) something he just couldn’t do.

He described going to a “survivor’s meeting” and concurs with Thomas Doyle, a leading advocate for victims of clergy sexual abuse, that molesting priests and their superiors were committing “soul murder.” (p. 105) As he recounts it, the church “acted more like Mafia bosses than shepherds.” (p. 119). And he asked himself this question: “If an institution is corrupt, does that have any bearing on God?” (p. 135). He thinks it does. In fact, he started to see that “religious institutions are MORE susceptible to corruption than their secular counterparts because of their reliance on God, and not human checks and balances, for governance.” (p. 161)

Lobdell covered stories about the Mormons and their lifestyle, which were “mesmerizing.” (p. 122), although their beliefs were “nutty.” (p. 124). He recounted their strange beliefs, despite the fact that scientific evidence from DNA shows us “descendants of American Indians came from Asia, not the Middle East.” (p. 280) And he asks: “what’s so strange about Mormonism compared to traditional Christianity?” (p. 126). He himself didn’t see the disconnect at this stage in his faith journey, but he said, “I just happened to have grown up with the stories of the Bible. I was more used to them.” (p. 127) Indeed, that's the only difference.

Lobdell covered some evangelical TV Evangelist scandals, like Robert Tilton, whose ministry placed the donation checks in one pile and the prayer requests in the dumpster; and Benny Hinn, who raised funds for an alleged $30 million healing center in Dallas, Texas, which was never built; and Trinity Broadcasting Network founders Paul and Jan Crouch, who covered up Paul's homosexual tryst, and Paul's forcing a woman to have sex with him. (pp. 173-197). Lobdell asked himself why his faith “had so few people of principle.” (p. 187).

Lobdell reveals the mental gymnastics of believers in defending their faith and institutions when criticized. After he wrote about TV evangelist Robert Tilton’s financial abuses Tilton subsequently used this criticism by claiming he must be doing something right because Satan (i.e. Lobdell) was attacking him, and donations kept coming in. When a Catholic priest resigned after admitting he had “inappropriate contact” with a child 19 years previously, some parishioners suggested naming the new church wing after him for his years of service in the 19 years since then, failing to realize that pedophiles will only admit to the evil deeds they were forced to admit. Pedophiles usually have many more victims, as Lobdell told them. When the DNA evidence showed the Mormon faith was false, the defenders went on the attack against science and him.

After coming out of the closet in a personal piece written by him detailing his deconversion, one criticism levelled at him was that he only had “witnessed the sinfulness of man and mistakenly mixed that up with a perfect God.” Lobdell writes, "I understand that argument but I don’t buy it. If the Lord is real, it would make sense for the people of God, on average, to be superior morally and ethically to the rest of society. Statistically, they aren’t. I also believe that God’s institutions, on average, should function on a higher moral plain than government or corporations. I don’t see any evidence of this. It’s hard to believe in God when it’s impossible to tell the difference between His people and atheists.” (p. 271).

We see Lobdell struggling, really struggling, to maintain his faith in the midst of his reporting. He attended a weekend retreat. He had an email exchange with a good friend and pastor. He looked into studies of prayer to find evidence that prayer works. He did a study to find if believers are any better morally than non-believers. All to no avail.

This is a very good book written by a credible person. While I doubt believers entrenched in their faith will be caused to lose their religion from reading it, Lobdell still stands as a credible witness against religion and the mental gymnastics of believers who simply choose to believe against the evidence.

Objective Traffic

Repeatedly when discussing the posts on this blog, the last refuge of the theist is that without a God, there can be no objective morals. If all we are is bags of chemicals or, in my favorite Star Trek quote, "Ugly, ugly bags of mostly water," then what is the source of our morality? How can we be objective when we are accusing the fictive God of immorality?

Jim Holman, not to be confused with Joe Holman, asks at one point:

It seems to me that the concept of morality depends on all sorts of metaphysical concepts that would have no place in a strictly scientific worldview. These include concepts such as a "person" who has "free will" to do things both "good" and "evil." It depends on the idea that actions can be "right" or "wrong."

But in a scientific worldview, where everything is ultimately reduced to physical components, electrical and chemical interactions, and so on, how would any of these metaphysical concepts have a place?

To me the key answer is in checking what our premises are. Concepts exist in brains. They don't exist anywhere else. So any explanation of metaphysical concepts has to understand that they exist in brains and manifest themselves in the world as communication from one brain to other brains.

When I tell you I have a car, you know what I mean. This is true even though the myriad varieties of car make it very unlikely that the car you are imagining as "car" when I talk to you about my car is actually what my car is. When we walk outside to get in my car, you then change your concept of "my car" to fit the data that looking at my greenish, dusty Mazda 3 hatchback impresses on your brain. If you are blind, you don't make that transition until you get in the car.

Once we start driving I then have a plethora of driving choices I can make. The rules regarding driving are sometimes quite detailed and sometimes quite vague, but they are generally agreed upon within one locality and violations of the local rules regarding driving are frequently commented on by other drivers and occasionally result in punishment ranging from citation to jailing and sometimes to execution.

The rules regarding driving are indeed and in every way objective. They are man-made and they don't relate to anything of any cosmic significance. I drive within a lane that is painted on the road not because it is made of Plexiglas that will destroy my car if I run into it, but because that lane is objectively painted there so it can be my space on the road and other drivers agree to accept it as if it is real. However, I am a fool if I regard the lanes as always real. If one night, on an open road, I see a person stumbling across the street and fail to swerve out of his way because I was obeying the objective facts of the lanes on the road, I am not driving well. In fact I am criminally culpable.

We allow several groups of drivers and other road users to break the rules when they are following instructions or responding to other crises, and we rarely see those who enforce the laws of the road being punished for violations that they punish others for. Yet this does nothing to make the rules of the road any less objective. Just because their enforcement is subjective it does not follow that the rules are.

Therefore, cars exist, traffic rules are objective, and they are all man-made and work not because of some universal proper way they must function but because there are a limited number of ways to utilize the variables that come with driving. We obey the traffic laws and regard things like intersections and lanes as "real" because failing to do so is harmful to us and harmful to others. Intersections and lanes exist objectively, yet they are totally man-made.

In just the same way, people exist, morals are objective, and they are all man-made and work not because of some universal directive but because there are a limited number of ways to make a successful society. We obey the social customs, folkways and moral codes of our society because failing to do so is harmful to us and harmful to others. This doesn't require natural selection. It only requires a group of like beings who view each other as possibly helpful.

Now the objection I imagine that will come from a theist is that traffic laws are simply a subspecies of morality and that Yahweh not only gave us universal objective morals and instructions on what fabrics can and cannot be mixed, but he also planned out the objective rules of traffic laws before the foundations of the earth had been laid.

Yet I think this fails too, because of the variation of rules throughout the world and according to local custom. Traffic laws are in no way universal, even though they are objective, and the only ones that are somewhat universal are those that safeguard people from violence deliberately inflicted with a vehicle, and this again has obviously positive benefits for any society that chooses to enshrine it in law.

The Top Ten Occupations That Lead People to Become Atheists

[Written by John W. Loftus] Keep in mind there are others I could mention and trying to rank them's a bitch:

Read more »

So Far So Good, a Review of SBs and a Clarification

Our new Skeptic Blogs Network has gotten off to a great start with 45,000 pageviews in 15 days. This is only the start. We have 13 excellent bloggers and 39 more applicants to join us, some of which are really good ones. In the next couple of weeks or more we’ll have some very exciting news to share so stay tuned, visit often, and subscribe so you don’t miss a thing. We think we’re about to blow the doors off this thing with the changes and explode into your living rooms. Okay, Okay, I get a bit excited. ;-)

People have asked me that since I now blog in two places, at my flagship Blog, Debunking Christianity (DC), and also at Skeptic Blogs (SBs), how do I plan on doing this? We’ll as Tevye says in the Fiddler on the Roof, “I don’t know. But it’s a tradition.” Actually, I have an idea.

Read more »

An Update On What I've Been Doing Lately

For people wondering why I haven't participated much in some of the discussions here at DC, or that when I do, I seem out of it, or a bit cranky, I'd like to explain what I've been doing lately.

Lately I've been working on the copy edits of my book, Why I Became an Atheist. I know I'm the author and so you’ll want to take my recommendation with a grain of salt, but I dare say with Eddie Tabash that this book is the "finest refutation of Christianity," evangelical Christianity, in print. It helped to change Andrew Atkinson's mind, who was well-read and planning on entering Norman Geisler's Seminary. It is also being recommended by Norman Geisler, who said my book "is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face." It’s being recommended by James F. Sennett, who said it is "a wake up call to the church." And it is being recommended by many skeptics, like Daniel C. Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Paul Kurtz, Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier, Dan Barker and David Mills. In addition to these recommendations of my self-published book, Hector Avalos, Michael Shermer, John Beversluis, Andrea Weisberger, and Charles Echelbarger will be taking a look at the Prometheus Books galleys for a blurb to be placed with the others on the back cover, and inside pages of the book. The Prometheus Books edition is a major revision of my former book. I'm completely satisfied with it. It's sure to make an impact.

So I'm putting my all into what I'm doing. I want to make it the best damn counter-apologetics book, bar none. Even if I don't achieve that goal, it's still a worthy goal.

Then I'm also in the beginning stages of putting together a "Contra-Christian Reader" for Prometheus Books, to come out on the heels of my first book. A rough draft of the first chapter can be found here.

I’m also planning on turning my self-published book into a companion volume with the best from Debunking Christianity, decisions and permissions will be forthcoming.

In the midst of this I'm in a financial crisis and looking for ways to earn some more money. This economy is bad, very bad, for my business where I live, and rather than spend extra time drumming up more business I've spent too much time Blogging and writing. I think I may be in for another career change. In the meantime I'd appreciate any donations you might be able to give me during this time. I have a hard time asking for help, so when I do, it’s dire.

While I'm pre-occupied with these things rest assured that everything at DC is under control. Your administrators are Lee Randolph, Joe Holman, Harry McCall, Evan, and Ed Babinski. They help me with moderating comments to keep the discussions going fluently. I appreciate all of them and their keen insights as they have the chance. They make DC the best place to discuss the issues that divide us, in my opinion. To read about our contributors here at DC, see this link.

Joe Holman's Movie Review Blog

You should check this out, especially his latest review of the movie The Invention of Lying.

Tony Hickman Makes Headlines by Joe Holman

A young Tony Hickman (8) of Andrew Falls, Michigan attended what could well have been his last day of school Monday at St. Rose Elementary. The second-grader, mute as the cameras rolled while being removed from school property by his parents, had no opinion except to say: “It was a drawing. I did not do nothing wrong.”

Link.

If Nothing Else Look at the Trend, From Conservative to Moderate to Liberal to Agnostic to Atheist

[Written by John W. Loftus] In Ed Babinski's book, Leaving The Fold: Testimonies Of Former Fundamentalists, published seven years ago, there are testimonies from former fundamentalists who became moderates, liberals, and even "ultra liberals," like Dewey Beegle, Harvey Cox, Conrad Hyers, Robert Price (who now describes himself as a "Christian atheist"), and seven others. We could add other names like Howard Van Till, Valerie Tarico, John Hick, Marcus Borg, John A. T. Robertson, James Wall, Andrew Furlong, and James Sennett. In another section there are testimonies of former fundamentalists who became agnostics, like Ed himself, Charles Templeton, Farrell Till, and five others. We could add other names like Robert Ingersoll, William Dever, Bart Ehrman, and William Lobdell. In still another section of his book there are former fundamentalists who became atheists, like Dan Barker, Jim Lippard, Harry McCall, Frank Zindler, and four others. We could add other names like Hector Avalos, Michael Shermer, Ken Daniels, Ken Pulliam, Jason Long, Joe Holman, Paul Tobin, myself and many many others. I can't remember all the names of the important people who left fundamentalist Christianity because there are simply too many of them to remember! If you read Ex.Christian.net, deconversion stories are posted there almost every day.

Read more »

Okay, The Time Has Come, I'm Done

[Edited July 6, 2012: Below is my original post where I said I was done arguing with Christians and done wasting so much time here. It wasn't long before I was back, this time arguing mostly with the atheists at Freethought Blogs, which can be read here in reverse chronological order. Now I am done arguing with atheists too, that is, unless there is something egregious that needs to be addressed by me. Again, I'll stick around, comment on occasion, and update people from time to time. I have assembled a good team of bloggers here so enjoy them. Back to your regularly scheduled program.]

I have no more desire to engage Christians. They are deluded, all of them. I have never been more convinced of this than I am now. I have better things to do. I spent 39+ years of my adult life on a delusion. If I add the years of my childhood that's almost my entire life. Yet this is the only life I will ever have. It's time to move on, or at a minimum take a very long hiatus. I just finished what may be my last book, on The Outsider Test for Faith, to be published by Prometheus Books early next year. How many times do I need to kick the dead horse of Christianity? I don't think I need to say anything more. If what I have written isn't good enough then nothing is good enough for some Christians. What I intend to do is turn this blog over to a few qualified people. I'll still be a part of it and I suppose I'll post something from time to time. But I see no reason to waste large chunks of my time on this delusion anymore. [Edit: For further clarification I commented below.]

Read more »

The Lessons of Cho Seung-Hui Killings.

In the 48th comment on Joe Holman's satirical post about the Cho Seung-Hui killings, our own exapologist makes a very good point, one that I expressed to my wife last night, and one which is reminiscent of the Columbine shooters.

While many of us want to argue back and forth about the lessons learned from this killer for and against Christianity, exapologist wrote:

I'm worried about the extent to which this massacre is being used to make our pet points, without taking to heart what happened here.

There is a pattern. A kid, or group of kids, are picked on and alienated from their peers. I'm not talking about an occasional jab, but a systematic, coordinated rejection of a child as a non-person. The kid internalizes the message. It builds up until they can't take it any more, and so they explode -- with lethal consequences.

Why is it so hard to learn this lesson? This sort of systematic alienation is just too much for the human psyche. We're essentially social creatures, and can't survive this sort of global rejection. Can't schools, or at least parents, raise their kids well enough so that it would never occur to them to engage in this sort of bullshit?

Here are two links talking about the treatment Cho Seung-Hui suffered from people in general. See here, and here.

What is wrong with us that we cannot treat people who are different from us humanely and with some measure of respect?

Joe Holman on "God’s Entrapment and James’ Idiocy"

It's one of the worst blunders in the scriptures, and it comes from James, writer of the New Testament. He says:

“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” (James 1:13)

Link

Scot McKnight and Conversion Theory: Why Apostates Leave the Church

[Written by John W. Loftus] Evangelical New Testament scholar Dr. Scot McKnight has written a very interesting book on conversion theory, called Finding Faith, Losing Faith: Stories of Conversion and Apostasy (with Hauna Ondrey, one of his “finest students”). Here is my review of it: In this book the authors have written four detailed chapter length studies of people who have converted: 1) away from the church to agnosticism/atheism; 2) away from the synagogue to the church, 3) away from the Catholic church to evangelicalism; and 4) away from evangelicalism to Catholicism. McKnight argues that all conversions go through the same process, and even if none of them are identical, they fall into similar patterns. (p.1). His goal is to describe the conversion process with hopes that the patterns that emerge can be used to explain them, with the further goal that scholars and pastors “will work out the implications of conversion theory in the pastoral context.” (pp. 231-236). He writes: "If mapping conversion theory shows anything…it shows the need for grace, humility, and openness to one another as we listen to and learn from one another’s stories. The sincerity of each convert’s (often opposite) experience underscores the need to learn from one’s another’s experience rather than denounce the other’s experience.” (p. 236) While most of us here at DC describe our leaving the faith as a “deconversion,” (which is the usual nomenclature) McKnight argues instead that leaving the Christian faith follows the same pattern of conversion itself. Deconversion stories are about "leaving from," instead of "coming to," but a deconversion follows the same process as a conversion. He writes: “All conversions are apostasies and all apostasies are therefore conversions." McKnight quotes approvingly of John Barbour in his book, Versions of Deconversion, that there are four lenses with which people see their own conversion stories:

"they doubt or deny the truth of the previous system of beliefs; they criticize the morality of the former life; they express emotional upheaval upon leaving a former faith; and they speak of being rejected by their former community.” (pp. 1-2)

Since he deals with several of the Bloggers here at DC (with some notable exceptions in Dr. Hector Avalos, Joe Holman, and Valerie Tarico) let me focus on this particular chapter of his as an example of what he does in the rest of the book (pp. 7-61). In his first chapter he provides an “anatomy of apostasy,” and he includes most of the recognized apostates and debunkers, including me (who’s story he highlights), Ed Babinski, Ken Daniels, Harry McCall, Charles Templeton, Robert M. Price, Dan Barker, Farrell Till, and many others. McKnight observes there is almost always some sort of crisis for the person. “Each, for a variety of reasons, encountered issues and ideas and experiences that simply shook the faith beyond stability.” “Guilt,” for instance, “drove Christine Wicker, a journalist, who covers the religious scene in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from the faith (seen in her well-written memoir, God Knows My Heart). For us apostates there was also a crisis of “unnerving intellectual incoherence to the Christian faith," and he quotes me as saying: “I am now an atheist. One major reason why I have become an atheist is because I could not answer the questions I was encountering.” There are five major elements that are combined to cause the adherent to question the viability of his or her faith, McKnight claims. One) Scripture became part of the problem for us. McKnight writes of Kenneth Daniels that “while on the mission field, he became convinced the Bible could not be inerrant or infallible, walked away from the mission field and became an agnostic.” Of Farrell Till, he “became a skeptic and at the heart of his departure from orthodoxy was a critical approach to Scripture.” Of Ed Babinski, whom he said is “an indefatigable recorder of those who have left fundamentalism,” his problem “was the Bible’s record of Jesus’ predictions and Paul’s own expectations that he think did not come true that undid the truthfulness of the Bible. He pursued every angle he thought necessary to support his faith but his doubts could not be satisfied. ‘I became,’ he confesses, ‘disenchanted with Christianity in toto, and became an agnostic with theistic leanings.’” McKnight, who is a conservative himself, seems to lay blame for our rejection of the Bible because we held to “a rigid view of Scripture.” When we “encounter the empirical evidence of the sciences, particularly concerning evolution and the origins as well as development of life as we now know it, a rigid view of Scripture collapses….For some the whole ship sinks.” Two) The empirical realities of science also demolish our faith, he notes. Ed Babinski was “completely devoted to a six-day creation theory” but eventually “became disillusioned with Christianity and the Bible because of the lack of evidence for what was considered so central to the faith – the scientific accuracy of a simplistic theory of creation.” McKnight opines that “a simplistic theory of origins, along with special pleading theories that are designed to explain away that evidence, when combined then with knowledge of the ancient Near East parallels to both the creation accounts and the story of Noah’s flood not infrequently are the collision point for many who leave the orthodox Christian faith.” Three) The behavior of Christians is another factor in our apostacy. McKnight: “For many, the failure of Christians to be transformed by the claimed grace of God and the indwelling power of the Spirit obliterates the truthfulness of the Christian claim.” Robert Price gained an insight while attending a lecture by Harvey Cox, McKnight pens. Price is quoted as saying: “As I looked at the secular students gathered there, I suddenly thought, ‘Listen, is there really that much difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’?’ I had always accepted the qualitative difference between the ‘saved’ and the ‘unsaved.’ Until that moment … Then, in a flash, we were all just people.” Four) The traditional Christian doctrine of hell is another factor. McKnight points out that “belief in hell has led some to contend the Christian faith is inherently unjust and morally repugnant,” such that his judgment leads him to think the Christian doctrine of hell is “far more fundamental to those who leave the faith than is normally recognized.” Then he quotes me as saying: “The whole notion of a punishment after we die is sick and barbaric. The whole concept of hell developed among superstitious and barbaric peoples, and tells us nothing about life after death.” Five) Apostates also reject the God we actually find in the Bible, who is vindictive, hateful, racist, and barbaric--my words. There are other reasons, McKnight admits. There is the problem of religious diversity in which it’s hard to dispute that “one’s faith is more shaped by one’s social location than by one’s personal choice.” Then there is the problem of evil which causes many to leave the faith. Of course, I’m surprised that these last two reasons are not highlighted as reasons in their own right, especially since I highlight them in my book. But at least he mentioned them. Another suggested reason for our defection from the Christian faith comes out of nowhere, with no evidence for it at all, and guided more by McKnight’s theological persuasions than anything else. His next suggestion is not helpful to a scientific investigation of conversion theory, which I take it, is one of his aims—to merely describe the conversion process. His next suggestion is based, not on anything he’s read, but on his “own intuition,” and even admits he “did not find anyone speak in this way.” He furthermore does not find this a factor in any other conversion stories in his other three chapters, which shows his theological biases. He suggests that “the demand put on one’s life by Jesus, by the orthodox faith and by a local church’s expectations can provoke a crisis on the part of the person who wants to go her or his own way. I am suggesting that behind some of the stories is a desire to live as one wants, to break certain moral codes that are experienced as confining, and that were either forgotten when telling the story or were an unacknowledged dimension of the experience.” Indeed, “one might summarize the entire process of leaving the faith as the quest for personal autonomy, freedom and intellectual stability. These factors seem present at some level in nearly all the stories I have studied.” Christian professor Ruth A. Tucker who wrote the book Walking Away From Faith: Unraveling the Mystery of Belief disagrees with this. In a talk to a Grand Rapids, MI, Freethought group (which I have also spoken for) Professor Tucker listed five myths about people who have abandoned their faith (note # 4):

1) "They are angry and rebellious." She found virtually no evidence for this. Rather, people felt sorrow, initially. They experienced pain, not anger. 2) "They can be argued back into faith." Because the person leaving his/her faith has carefully and painstakingly dissected the reasons behind this major worldview change, the Christian who proffers apologetics is more likely to convert into non-belief in such an exchange. 3) "Doubters can find help at Christian colleges and seminaries." This is not seen to be the case. 4) "They abandon their faith so that they can go out and sin freely." Tucker pointed out that too many people who profess faith sin more often than non-believers and that this argument was not a motivational issue in de-converting from faith. 5) "They were never sincere Christians to begin with." She has come across example after example of the most earnest and devout of evangelical, fundamentalist believers who became non-theists. Dan Barker was mentioned as just one of these erstwhile believers.

McKnight goes on to discuss the “advocates,” meaning those who go on to debunk the faith they left. He finds in us an “animus” in the “constant diatribes” of ours, from Charles Templeton’s “white-hot prose” to my whole book, to Harry McCall resorting “to caricature,” or even to Dan Barker, whom he claims has much “less rancor but still finding a need to tell that story in Losing Faith in Faith.” “The ‘anti-rhetoric,’ or the rhetoric that is so negatively against what they formerly believed, is both a characteristic of all kinds of conversion but especially those whose ‘conversion’ is leaving orthodox Christianity. Not all, however, are as white-hot in their antipathy to orthodoxy.” Of course, if he actually read my book, or my posts on DC, he should know I have no rancor towards Christians and that I treat my opponents respectfully. I suspect he feels the sting of our arguments rather than those other conversions he details in the other three chapters because he is simply a Christian believer, and we argue against his faith. McKnight does acknowledge people should not minimize the anguish we apostates have when going through our crisis of faith. It is not an easy process. It is agonizing. Quoting Dan Barker he writes: “It was like tearing my whole frame of reality to pieces, ripping to shreds the fabric of meaning and hope, betraying the values of existence. And it hurt bad. It was like spitting on my mother, or like throwing one of my children out a window. It was sacrilege. All of my bases for thinking and values had to be restructured. Add to that inner conflict the outer conflict of reputation and you have a destabilizing war.” McKnight also sees an interrelationship between us. Ed Babinski’s “fine collection of stories of those who have left the faith demonstrates an interlocking relationship at times – Babinski himself was influenced by William Bagley and by Robert Price while others were influenced by Dan Barker. There is presently, then, a connection for those who are reconsidering their faith, a connection that is filled with folks who have already traveled that path, know its rocks and its cliffs and who can guide the pilgrim away from faith.” The internet is also an important facilitator in our apostasy, McKnight understands. While doubts are not to be expressed publicly in the churches, the internet is another matter entirely…”many find their way to the multitude of sites, like Positive Atheism or Debunking Christianity, where one can hear arguments against the orthodox faith and apologies for alternative systems of thought and meaning." In the end, those of us who walk away from our faith find a sense of relief and independence when we finally decide to leave it all behind us. McKnight tells us that at some point we just had to decide, and sometimes it meant giving up our positions in life to gain the needed relief. He writes: “Harry McCall, a biblical scholar who voluntarily chose to leave Bob Jones University…chose to abandon his faith because ‘Jesus is so obviously a product of human imagination coupled with arbitrary faith that I chose to simply acknowledge the obvious rather than remain religious.”’ Robert M Price is an example of someone who found his relief akin to being “born again”: “I had to swallow hard after twelve years as an evangelical, but almost immediately life began to open up in an exciting way. I felt like a college freshman, thinking through important questions for the first time. The anxiety of doubt had passed into the adventure of discovery. It was like being born again.” McKnight finally recommends Lewis Rambo’s book Understanding Religious Conversion as “required reading for every minister and theologian.” This is a good, well researched book. I liked it very much. In one way it shows that those of us who have converted away from Christianity are not alone when we factor in the many other people who are also being converted to different theological positions. People change their minds, that’s all, and many of us do it.

A List of Former Team Members of Debunking Christianity

[Written by John W. Loftus]Someone recently asked me for a list of former Bloggers. I started DC in January of 2006, four years ago. Some Christians took notice and I was pummeled every single day by some of them, mostly by Calvinists, and in particular presuppositionalists. A Ph.D. student helped me argue with them, so I soon invited him on as a team member. His handle was exbeliever. Since this worked well I began inviting others as team members. Some of them didn’t work out too well, just wanting to post their deconversion story or promote their book and that was it. Others stayed for a few years. While I haven’t listed them all, team members here at one time included (in no particular order) Hector Avalos, Dan Barker, Farrell Till, Ed Babinski, Joe Holman, Jason Long, Valerie Tarico, Ken Pulliam (Former_Fundy) Marlene Winell, exapologist, Harlan Quinn, Harry McCall, DagoodS, Matthew Green, Spencer Lo, Kenneth Daniels, Bart Willruth, Darrin Rasberry, Dennis Diehl, Robert Bumbalough, Bill Curry, Craig Duckett, Paul Harrison, Glenn Kachmar, Troy Walker, Theresa, Glenn Dixon, Zac Taylor, Sharon Mooney, Scott Burgener, Anthony, Shygetz, Touchstone, Evan, WoundedEgo, Brother Crow, nsfl, and a few others who posted once or twice. A few of them already had their own Blogs while a few others moved on to Blog themselves. Others dropped out of Blogging for one reason or another. It became time consuming for me so I took it back in September of 2009. You can do a "Search This Blog" for their names to see what they wrote.