Autobiography of a 'Died-Again Christian by Dr. Jaco Gericke

[Rational Gaze]

So basically, another poor sap bought up by fundamentalists to have a terrible understanding of Christianity, had his misunderstandings corrected, but couldn't handle have his beliefs corrected at an intellectual and emotional level and so had a breakdown. Same old, same old. Hopefully, someday he will able to see that the existence of God is not dependant on his own personal views of Christianity being right or wrong. God exists or does not exist regardless of our beliefs.

You know, every time I read a de-conversion story like this it makes me sad for two reasons. It shows how many Christians have a terrible understanding of "their own" religion and it shows that a lot of people are weak-minded, and intellectually immature.

[Jaecp]

Wait, uhh, didn't he study in WLC? Why is his understanding of christianity flawed?

[MaxVel]

There is a difference between people painting themselves in a good light and this suggestion of complete fabrication of reasons.

Just pointing out that DJ's observation about deconversion stories "...never sound(ing) like the person wanted to reject God" doesn't really amount to a proof that every person who deconverted did so for solely rational reasons.

This doesn't actually address Johns statement. So, does becoming a christian elevate someones morality somehow? This is just some mirror, I get that, but what are you actually saying?

That DJ's attempt to get us to agree with his arguments out of sympathy for his 'shattering life-change' doesn't wash. I'm sure it was a shattering experience 'leaving the faith', but it can (should) be just as life-changing to become a Christian. Many experience rejection, persecution and a host of other changes. Becoming a Christian mean admitting that you don't 'have it all together' - it's a very humbling experience.

Its not like most of those people who become "born again" or whatever were atheists, but christians already, just lapsed is all.

Ummm... really? Care to support that claim, Jaecp? It's not true in my case....

Mirroring someones statements rarely works Max,

I'll admit that I'm wrong, and I'm sure that John would as well,

I'm not so sure about DJ...

if you could, well, show christianity to be true. Except, you can't. I know you can't, because no one has been able to do so. All you have is the same thing every other religion has, and it sure aint proof.

So you're an agnostic, then? Or do you have this 'proof' that God doesn't exist?

Don't forget what DJ said: He implied that it was a lack of personal integrity that is the reason Christians aren't convinced by atheist (i.e. his) arguments.

Why do people still do this mirror deal?

Why do skeptics post thinly disguised attacks on Christian's integrity as if they were valid arguments for atheism?

Jaecp,

DJ has tried to contrast:

the 'poor ole skeptic',
a former Christian who never deconverted because he wanted to reject God;
suffered an immense personal life change and much pain and grief when he realised the delusion he had been under as a Christian;
whose arguments against God presumably therefore are clear and unbiased,

with

the 'deluded Christian',
who can't see the sense in skeptical arguments only because he 'wants to believe';
who doesn't have the courage and integrity of the skeptic;
and shies away from the 'truth' (atheism) because it will be painful to him.

That is a cheap shot, well-presented and dressed up very nicely, but a clear logical fallacy. It's the equivalent (with 'better' rhetorical dressing) of me telling you that 'you are only a skeptic because you lack the bravery to face the truth and because you want to hang on to your self-indulgent lifestyle'. If you think that that is a valid argument for me to use, I will be happy to oblige you in future posts... .. because that is what DJ is trying to do here.

[Jaecp]

Just pointing out that DJ's observation about deconversion stories "...never sound(ing) like the person wanted to reject God" doesn't really amount to a proof that every person who deconverted did so for solely rational reasons.

He is talking specifically about people like Dr. Jaco Hericke, people with a huge amount of time and energy invested into christianity.

That DJ's attempt to get us to agree with his arguments out of sympathy for his 'shattering life-change' doesn't wash. I'm sure it was a shattering experience 'leaving the faith', but it can (should) be just as life-changing to become a Christian. Many experience rejection, persecution and a host of other changes. Becoming a Christian mean admitting that you don't 'have it all together' - it's a very humbling experience.

I think your putting an overly emotional spin on this tbh.

Ummm... really? Care to support that claim, Jaecp? It's not true in my case....

I didn't make a blanket statement, I used most. I know plenty of plenty of people who rededicated themselves to a religion while never stopping believing, just stopped practicing. Surely you know people who are, how to say, merely nominally christian, but do not take it seriously?

I'm not so sure about DJ...

Its right there in his username, if you could assuage his doubts...

So you're an agnostic, then? Or do you have this 'proof' that God doesn't exist?

Don't forget what DJ said: He implied that it was a lack of personal integrity that is the reason Christians aren't convinced by atheist (i.e. his) arguments.

No, I'm an atheist (why does everyone seem to be confused about this). I can either go through life believing things until proven wrong, or not believing in things until they are proven right. I go with the latter. Thats a gross simplification, but I believe you can understand what I am getting at.

For that last bit, what we're his exact words?

Why do skeptics post thinly disguised attacks on Christian's integrity as if they were valid arguments for atheism?

Why do you "answer" a question by asking a question completely irrelevant to the question asked?

DJ has tried to contrast:

the 'poor ole skeptic',
a former Christian who never deconverted because he wanted to reject God;
suffered an immense personal life change and much pain and grief when he realised the delusion he had been under as a Christian;
whose arguments against God presumably therefore are clear and unbiased,

with

the 'deluded Christian',
who can't see the sense in skeptical arguments only because he 'wants to believe';
who doesn't have the courage and integrity of the skeptic;
and shies away from the 'truth' (atheism) because it will be painful to him.

That is a cheap shot, well-presented and dressed up very nicely, but a clear logical fallacy. It's the equivalent (with 'better' rhetorical dressing) of me telling you that 'you are only a skeptic because you lack the bravery to face the truth and because you want to hang on to your self-indulgent lifestyle'. If you think that that is a valid argument for me to use, I will be happy to oblige you in future posts... .. because that is what DJ is trying to do here.

If you believe so, then demonstrate that.

I find you usage of "poor ole skeptic" and the rest to be overly emotional, so if you want to demonstrate why he is wrong aside from just saying so, I will read it. I've had quite enough with paraphrased summaries of peoples post that the person paraphrasing and summarizing disagreed with.

For me, I can understand the emotional bits, it was very hard for me to tell my parents I was an atheist, I didn't know how they'd react. WRT to "who doesn't have the courage and integrity of the skeptic", if you are referring to "It's because you want it to be true. It's because it would be life-shattering for you to admit you're wrong." I can think of an example here that seems appropriate, think of the mother who refuses to admit that her son could have committed some heinous crime.

Anyway,

No more paraphrasing, use the words he used, quotes, etc. Of course you can offer up what you think it means, but your interpretations should be side by side with the actual text your referring to.

[Sundance]

Sea can have a very dry sense of humor sometimes

So can Sundance.

[MaxVel]

I didn't make a blanket statement, I used most. I know plenty of plenty of people who rededicated themselves to a religion while never stopping believing, just stopped practicing.

Is 'plenty' more than 50%? Can you actually support your claim? Are most people (more than 50%) who become born again already Christians?

{The reason I'm nit-picking here, Jaecp, is because I've seen you do the same to another poster, and demand he support his assertions. Just seeing if you can do what you ask of others...}

Surely you know people who are, how to say, merely nominally christian, but do not take it seriously?

Very few that I can think of. One American....

Its right there in his username, if you could assuage his doubts...

I have reason to doubt DJ's honesty... ...and I've seen many of his questions answered...

No, I'm an atheist (why does everyone seem to be confused about this). I can either go through life believing things until proven wrong, or not believing in things until they are proven right. I go with the latter. Thats a gross simplification, but I believe you can understand what I am getting at.

So does God exist? If 'No' then you're an atheist and have a burden of proof; if 'I don't know' 'I'm yet to be convinced' etc then you're an agnostic and should be looking carefully at the evidence; if 'Yes' then you;re a theist and I don;t know why you're not a Christian.

For that last bit, what we're his exact words?

They {deconversion stories} also adequately describe Puzzle why it's so hard to help Christians see their faith for the delusion it is. Answer 1It's because you want it to be true. Answer 2 It's because it would be life-shattering for you to admit you're wrong.

Bits in Magenta added by me

Why do you "answer" a question by asking a question completely irrelevant to the question asked?

I'm beginning to see that you need everything very clearly spelled out for you:

Originally posted by Jaecp
Why do people still do this mirror deal?

MaxVel: Why do skeptics post thinly disguised attacks on Christian's integrity as if they were valid arguments for atheism?

Why did I 'mirror' DJ's sentence? To show the weakness and irrationality of his 'argument' in that sentence.

If you believe so, then demonstrate that.

Just did. Sorry you need it spelled out even more clearly, but I'm done with extra explanations 'just for you'.

I find you usage of "poor ole skeptic" and the rest to be overly emotional, so if you want to demonstrate why he is wrong aside from just saying so, I will read it. I've had quite enough with paraphrased summaries of peoples post that the person paraphrasing and summarizing disagreed with.

For me, I can understand the emotional bits, it was very hard for me to tell my parents I was an atheist, I didn't know how they'd react. WRT to "who doesn't have the courage and integrity of the skeptic", if you are referring to "It's because you want it to be true. It's because it would be life-shattering for you to admit you're wrong." I can think of an example here that seems appropriate, think of the mother who refuses to admit that her son could have committed some heinous crime.

Except that DJ is implying that the reason Christians don't accept the atheist's arguments, and still believe is because the "....don't want it to be true" IOW not because they have found the arguments unconvincing or inconclusive.

DJ is also implying that another reason is that Christians lack the courage to face the life change required by deconversion. " It's because it would be life-shattering for you to admit you're wrong."

Both of the above may be true in some cases; but neither is a rational reason to reject an argument; therefore DJ is broad-brushing all Christians and implying that they don;t reject atheism for rational reasons, but rather out of a lack of integrity and out of fear.

Anyway,

No more paraphrasing, use the words he used, quotes, etc. Of course you can offer up what you think it means, but your interpretations should be side by side with the actual text your referring to.

You're now a TWeb Mod, are you?

I did quote exactly what DJ wrote - you questioned my comments - I expanded on them to make it clear to you what I meant - you question my expanded explanation for you and tell me that I must in future post in a style that you find suitable. Not going to happen.

[Mountain Man]

What shook me up the most was the dreadful realisation that the Bible that I thought I new may not be the perfect Word of God that my fundamentalist ideology made it out to be.

Just as I expected: another ignorant fundy Christian has an emotional crisis and becomes an ignorant fundy skeptic. You kids are a dime a dozen.

[Seasanctuary]

Since when have Christians bothered to renounce their religion when they want to commit some sin?

[MaxVel]

Dancing in the Sun can do that to a guy...



... dry him out, that is...

[Mountain Man]

Wait, uhh, didn't he study in WLC? Why is his understanding of christianity flawed?

Who, Doubting John? A few things to consider:

1. Just because you take a class doesn't necessarily mean you understand the material. This is obvious.
2. Doubting John only took one class with Craig before Craig was a big name in apologetics.
3. It was an informal class with no lectures or notes.
4. John disagreed with Craig on a number of points.
5. The students were never tested on their knowledge.

(2 - 5 are from John's blog, so you don't have to take my word for it.)

In other words, John's boasting that he studied under Craig isn't entirely honest (to put it charitably), sort of like his claim that Norm Geissler recommended his book, even though he only recommended it as a good example of bad arguments.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

I reject faith. I think there is no parity when claiming there is a material world either. We know there is a material world. There is a great amount of evidence for it and some very good philosophical arguments in favor of it against the alternative hypothesis. There is no way a Christian can define faith in such a way as to claim we all have faith and then drive a whole truckload of Christian assumptions through that crevice and claim we all have the exact same epistemological warrant. Nor can Mormon's or Scientologist's for that matter. And even if you can the result would be a complete and utter agnosticism, something I willingly embrace because agnosticism is not much different than atheism. Atheism is non-theism and by extension non-belief. Everyone is a non-believer in the religions he rejects. I just reject one more religion than others for the exact same reasons they reject other religions.

I have faith in you DJ. You have rejected the trappings of men, doctrines and creeds. That leaves you free to seek unencumbered by preconceptions. Now you can focus on the core question of whether this human incarnation is all that you are and whether when your human body ceases to live you cease along with it. If you can not find the answer while you are living I assure you that it will become immediately apparent when your body dies.

[robertb]

I have faith in you DJ. You have rejected the trappings of men, doctrines and creeds. That leaves you free to seek unencumbered by preconceptions. Now you can focus on the core question of whether this human incarnation is all that you are and whether when your human body ceases to live you cease along with it. If you can not find the answer while you are living I assure you that it will become immediately apparent when your body dies.

Or you could have a frontal lobotomy and wipe out any vestige of yourself, your personality, and yet still live.

What then happens?

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

Or you could have a frontal lobotomy and wipe out any vestige of yourself, your personality, and yet still live.

What then happens?

Go ahead and try it. I wait expectantly for your description of the answer.

[Doubting John]

Who, Doubting John? A few things to consider:

1. Just because you take a class doesn't necessarily mean you understand the material. This is obvious.
2. Doubting John only took one class with Craig before Craig was a big name in apologetics.
3. It was an informal class with no lectures or notes.
4. John disagreed with Craig on a number of points.
5. The students were never tested on their knowledge.

(2 - 5 are from John's blog, so you don't have to take my word for it.)

In other words, John's boasting that he studied under Craig isn't entirely honest (to put it charitably), sort of like his claim that Norm Geissler recommended his book, even though he only recommended it as a good example of bad arguments.

If anyone bothers to follow your link they will know you misrepresented what I said in a couple of places.

It's a common tactic for Christians to put balm on their wounds by discrediting the person who apostatizes. That's what Christians have always done. "He wasn't one of us or else he wouldn't have left." The Letter of 1st John said this first.

Listen, former atheists convert to a religion from time to time. Why don't you make of this as I do? I simply say people change their minds, that's all. I do not claim they weren't really atheists in the first place, or not my kind of atheists. Why is it you feel compelled to do so with deconversion stories? The point of my sharing Dr. Gericke's story was to show how agonizing it was and why it's so hard for Christians to do likewise. This kind of deconversion story is the norm. Is that the case with atheist conversions to Christianity?

For the record I majored under Bill Craig and he was the overseer of my master's project and exit exams I had to pass to get the degree. I took as many classes under him that I could possibly take for the degree, exactly half of them, which was all that was allowed. And I had straight A's (with one B+).

Nonetheless, YOU take some graduate classes and see that all of the students disagree from time to time with their professors (of course, you'll have to first graduate from High School then college). It's what takes place at the graduate level. We think for ourselves. And my disputes with him were only minor ones after all.

Oh, let's see, if I only accepted everything Craig taught then that would make a difference, right? But what if I did? Then what? What would you seek to show then? Would you pick a disagreement with Craig and say that both he and I were wrong and THAT explains why I left the fold? It never ends, does it?

And I answered the charge about Norman Geisler here:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...ional-and.html

After all these years here at TWeb I thought you would become smarter than that.

[Seasanctuary]

Listen, former atheists convert to a religion from time to time. Why don't you make of this as I do? I simply say people change their minds, that's all. I do not claim they weren't really atheists in the first place, or not my kind of atheists.

To be fair, a LOT of Atheists do exactly that even if you don't. There was a thread over at FRDB a couple of months ago which demonstrated it clearly.