By WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~

No, that is not a statement of my belief. That is the title of a 2004 book by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek that I have been reading. What’s different about this book is that its authors claim to believe that the available evidence proves there’s a god. They claim that because atheists are not following the trail of evidence in their insistence on a godless universe, then those atheists are making a leap of faith. Of course, these authors’ evidence for their god falls woefully short of proof.

Despite their numerous degrees, these guys are by no means deep thinkers. (Although I may be getting this impression simply because they are not honest in what they say.) For example, they make this naïve statement (p.130), “The atheists/Darwinists/materialists believe, by faith, that our minds arose from mindless matter without intelligent intervention. We say it is by faith because it contradicts all scientific observation which demonstrates that an effect cannot be greater than its cause.” An effect cannot be greater than its cause? Really? Einstein’s work has changed the world, but his cause was a microscopic sperm and a tiny egg. Or – the slippage of a few snowflakes can cause an avalanche. Or - the atomic bomb blast which destroyed Hiroshima and killed 100,000 or so people was caused by about 120 pounds of uranium. We could go on like this, but it should be obvious by now that it takes little thought to see that an effect can indeed be greater than its cause.

Elsewhere, they write (p.76), “With each passing moment the amount of usable energy in the universe grows smaller, leading scientists to the obvious conclusion that one day all the energy will be gone and the universe will die.” But where the hell could the energy go, since the universe is a closed system? What they should have said is that the order in the universe grows smaller as entropy increases (Newton’s second law of thermodynamics). The amount of mass-energy in the universe cannot change. They do go on to speak of entropy, after giving several examples of things running out of energy, like cars running out of gas and flashlights growing dim, leaving me to wonder if they have any idea what they’re talking about here, or whether they are just doing a snow job on the scientifically illiterate.

Also on this issue, they write (p.86), “. . . the Cosmic Rebound Theory contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the theory falsely assumes that no energy would be lost in each contraction and explosion. A universe “banging” repeatedly would eventually fizzle out just as a dropped ball eventually fizzles out. So if the universe has been expanding and contracting forever, it would have fizzled out already.” Again, they have not thought very deeply. Where would the energy “fizzle out” to, in the Rebound Theory? If the universe is everything there is (by definition), then there exists no place for the energy to leak to.

Geisler and Turek, over and over, play fast and loose with the facts and apparently have little respect for their audience. Two examples will suffice to make these points.

They point out that all living creatures today have DNA, which is an extremely complex amalgam of proteins. They say (correctly) that even single-celled amoeba have DNA. They conclude from this that life requires DNA and thus a god was required to create life. I don’t believe they are being honest here. From the details presented concerning DNA and evolution, I think they know more than they are telling. In fact, I would bet a large sum that they are fully aware that no trained biologist or evolutionist actually believes that the first life form capable of reproducing itself had DNA. A much simpler mechanism was at work in the beginning, although no one knows yet just what that mechanism was. The authors have constructed a straw man argument here because it’s easy to knock down. They are right that the first reproducing organisms couldn’t have had DNA because it’s just too complex; but no trained biologist thinks they did. Again, they appear to be trying to do a snow job on the scientifically illiterate.

Then, there is a hilarious, and likely fictitious exchange with a college physics professor. Geisler claims that after giving a talk on a college campus, he was asked to lunch by a student and his professor. At one point Geisler says he asked the professor, “If everything is material, then what is a scientific theory? After all, the theory about everything being material isn’t material; it’s not made out of molecules.” Geisler writes, “Without a moment’s hesitation he quipped, ‘A theory is magic.’ ‘Magic?’ I repeated, not really believing what I was hearing. ‘What’s your basis for saying that?’ ‘Faith,’ he quickly replied. ‘Faith in magic?’ I thought to myself. ‘I can’t believe what I’m hearing! If faith in magic is the best the materialists have to offer, then I don’t have enough faith to be a materialist!’”

Now, if these comments were really made by a college physics professor, then we can be sure the professor was just yanking on Geisler’s chain. The professor may have meant his comments facetiously and the sarcasm just went over Geisler’s head – or, Geisler is simply editing out the sarcasm to make the professor look stupid in his book. At any rate, I’d bet my life savings that this exchange didn’t take place in the way Geisler claims it did.

Geisler also gives us a sophomoric misrepresentation of materialism in this alleged discussion. Materialism, properly understood, claims that our reality consists entirely of physical matter that is the sole cause of every possible occurrence, including human thought, feeling, and action. Thus, theories are the products of brains which are material objects, and there can be no theory without a material object – the brain – to create it.

Okay, I freely admit that what I’ve written so far amounts to no more than ad hominem attacks, but I wanted to show that these authors’ arguments are often scientifically unsupportable or even intentional lies. My principal counter-arguments, however, go well beyond ad hominem comments.

Now, down to the meat and potatoes of Geisler and Turek’s case for the existence of their god. On page 93, the authors state, “Namely, we can discover some characteristics of the First Cause just from the evidence we’ve discussed in this chapter. From that evidence alone [the cosmological argument and the big bang], we know the First Cause must be:

1. Self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial (since the First Cause must be outside of time, space, and matter). In other words, he is without limits, or infinite;
2. Unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing;
3. Supremely intelligent, to design the universe with such incredible precision; [this is the “fine-tuning” argument, which they deal with in some detail.]
4.  Personal, in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe (an impersonal force has no ability to make choices).

Now, we need only cast doubt on a couple of these points to disrupt their chain of logic.

Notice how they began with speaking of a First Cause in point #1, and then slipped a “he” in there? Obviously, we are to interpret this First Cause as a personal god. But, for the sake of argument, if the big bang required a force outside of space and time to cause it (a big “if”), why must it have been a god? Why not a blind, mindless force, instead? Maybe this force didn’t “choose” (as in point #4) to create a universe anymore than mass chooses to create gravity, or electricity chooses to create magnetism and vice versa. Perhaps pushing a universe into existence is just what this force does.

They might counter that the fine-tuning argument requires an intelligence, but that also isn’t necessarily so. Yes, it’s true that if the physical parameters of this universe weren’t just so, then it would not have held together long enough to permit intelligent life to develop. But, perhaps many universes have been pushed into existence before and quickly collapsed. In fact, maybe billions or trillions of universes have been “tried” and failed before this one succeeded. There is no evidence to support this hypothesis, but there is also no evidence to support the hypothesis that this is the only universe there ever was. And, there is absolutely no way to judge which case is more probable.

Now, the mindless force hypothesis I’m suggesting eliminates the need for all of those attributes generally attributed to gods, like self-consciousness, awareness of things external to itself, thoughts and desires, and intentions and plans. A god is infinitely more complex than a blind, mindless force, so a god’s existence under these pre-big bang conditions must be vastly less likely. This is an example of Occam’s razor, or the parsimony principle, which states that the hypothesis with the fewest requirements is usually to be favored.

If you go with the god hypothesis, then how do you explain where all those complex (“human-like?”) attributes come from; why does god have all those attributes? Does it explain anything to say this infinitely complex god just is? Isn’t there a huge leap of faith involved here? At the very least, their hypothesis of a first cause god is untestable, leaving no need for a leap of faith to doubt it.

Furthermore, doesn’t it take faith to believe a being could have an invisible brain? Brains require neurons and every neuron ever detected has been visible. And if it doesn’t have a brain, how could it have a thought, a single, simple thought, let alone a plan for how to create a whole universe? There is not a shred of evidence for an invisible brain beyond some ancient, highly imaginative stories. And those stories don’t prove that a god exists anymore than a stack of comic books proves a man can fly without mechanical assistance.

There is also another problem with the god-as-first-cause hypothesis that I think is quite serious. Before there was a universe, how could this god even think (even if it had some sort of brain), since nothing existed to think about? A thinking subject requires an object to think about or there can be no thought, let alone a complex plan to create a universe. Try thinking about nothing and you’ll see what I mean; it’s a meaningless concept.

Geisler and Turek appear to convince themselves in this book that not only is there a god, but it’s the Christian god and Jesus is his son, and, er, himself, somehow. . . They even claim that the Bible is inerrant! While they like to think that they have merely followed the trail of evidence and not taken a leap of faith, the paucity and weakness of their evidence appears to me to shout FAITH in capital letters!

By Rebel With A Cause ~

I was born and raised in a middle-class Christian home. We did the typical stuff most Christians do - church on Sundays and Wednesdays, Friday night prayer meetings and bible studies. I was OK with everything until I hit my teen years.

My father was a pastor, so ever since I was a kid many things including certain cartoons and video games were banned because they were considered demonic. I wasn't allowed to date anyone who wasn't a Christian because it was considered a sin against God. In my early teens my father began to instill the fear into me and my siblings that if we left the faith, we would burn in hell worse than anyone else in the world, and if I stopped going to church, several demons would attack me and make my life worse.

I did what I could to ignore the fear and just tried to keep the faith and continue to live the Christian life the best I could with a smile.

Things got harder for me.

He later taught me how the bible says we have to evangelize to get the church to grow (we were losing people by the dozens) and said that if I didn't share my faith with friends, family, and strangers, I would stand before God and there blood would be on my hands. So, being a teenager and being told about hell and threatened with sharing "Gods Love" with the world, and so on, caused me to have a nervous breakdown when I turned 20.

I basically got burnt out.

I would evangelize to people on the streets almost every day and would "open air" preach on street corners strictly out of fear.

After all this I simply had to stop and think is this all real or could it be a lie. As I began to look at the bible and the state of the church, I soon realized things like the many contradictions in the bible, the many prayers of needy and desperate people going unanswered, etc. I could go on, but the biggest problem I had was my father. He said that Jesus can heal families and make people's lives better, but to this day it has only caused conflict and separation.

I left the christian faith a year ago and I have never looked back. Now my relationship with my siblings and mother has gotten way better, but my father is still a religious bigot who is judgmental to all my siblings and mother if we don't do the religious stuff he tells us to do.

The saddest thing for me is that now that I have left the faith, my father and I have nothing to say to each other. All he ever really cared about ever since I was a kid was if I was praying, reading my bible, sharing my faith etc. He shows little to no interest in my life now that I'm agnostic. But that's alright for me, because now I'm free.

Today I'm a proud agnostic continuing to live my life free from the oppression and lies of religion and will strive to do what I can to make a better life for myself and the people around me.

By Ben Harmon ~

One of the main barriers to de-conversion from any dogmatic, narrow belief is clear: embarrassment at being wrong and not admitting it for so many years.

I discovered this fact when, questioning my Dad’s narrow belief (and conspiracy theory), he was particularly stricken by my prediction that he would eventually be embarrassed at the number of decades he spent believing a narrow doctrine.

A “doctrinarian” is someone who strictly adheres to a narrow doctrine, regardless of its impracticalities. Doctrinarians feel compelled to stand by a specific worldview, and reject any analysis that is contingent on another worldview, or even reject any analysis that is not explicitly part of their worldview. In the doctrinarian’s mind, if something is not in direct agreement with the claims of their ideology, it must be rejected as false (“that doesn’t make sense in my ideology, so that must be wrong!”)

On some evenings when my Dad and I are around one another, he has an argument with me relating to his beliefs. In this particular case, I was on the usual walking route up a hill with Mum, Dad, my brother and my sister. The conversation somehow went on to the subject of politics, specifically the politics of cultural fears and anxieties, e.g. xenophobia.

Islamophobia, hostility to the Islamic faith and culture as a supposed threat to the “West”, is gaining legitimacy as a form of political discourse in Europe. But what is Western culture, and who can save it? In fact, the idea of a vulnerable Western culture can be seen as a fabrication, providing succor to otherwise “racist” movements. All cultural anxiety can even be labelled as a disguise, aiming to hide racism behind an argument that sounds less vulgar. On this, we agreed.

The Islamophobic idea of saving Western culture, e.g. “British culture” (which is actually Indian, Chinese and a bunch of other cultures stolen by Britain) against foreign threats is new, and a totally hollow argument. In the past, Britain readily consumed foreign cultures for its own purposes. Look at tea or the use of umbrellas, for example. No-one saw Britain’s imported imperial cultures as a threat to British culture, or had any notion of British culture being a victim during the Victorian period. Britain was seen as a collector of cultures (think of the obsession with stripping Egypt of its own ancient culture and transferring its artifacts to add to our own in Britain), rather than a culture in itself.

The question remained: why do so many British people talk about a threat to their “culture” now, in the face of immigration, when they had no fear of losing their culture through borrowing the culture of their dominions in Victorian years? Our conclusion: cultural arguments are used to disguise racist objectives. Political movements who use arguments about their declining culture are actually afraid of different races or people encroaching on them. Whether consciously or subconsciously, people who claim to be culturally under threat are providing succor to racist ideologues.

I told my Dad, “arguments about saving a culture have always been more convincing than Nazi-like arguments about saving your race. It would just come across as vulgar to talk about saving your race, which is why it does not work as good rhetoric these days.” I clarified, saying, “no-one would be stirred by a speech about saving the Western world’s race, but they are somehow stirred by a speech about saving the West’s culture.”

This infuriated him. That’s only because people have been brainwashed by the “liars” who oppose the “refinement of civilization by conflict”, he said. His arguments have always ignored the niceties of philosophy or a socially acceptable approach to life, and focused purely on “serving the divine forces who control history” as his priority. He basically believed that any view that says a historical event was not controlled by the Mont Order (short name for the group he supports, which is 99% fiction and 1% a modern-day cult) is pointless and not worthwhile. The crudeness of his philosophy has always been this clear. Nothing happens by accident. Somehow, no matter how unlikely, it was an act of the Mont Order.

“No,” I said, “you yourself just pointed at ancient evidence of people weaving their cultures or strengthening them as a kind of protest against infringing tribes or countries.” I reminded him that numerous ancient peoples, including his own Mont Order itself, claimed to have cultural identities and followed philosophies rather than believing everything was the fine-tuned work of the supposedly all-powerful Mont Order cult.

Now, all of this probably sounds confusing to an outsider to the debate. To understand this quarrel, it is important to know what my Dad believes. He is a follower of an obscure pseudo-intellectual group called the Mont Order, who wrote about what they called the laws of history, which they saw as authoritative, built for people to follow and holding a secret to control history, so they codified them into a so-called religion. This is patently ridiculous, in my view. Any laws of history, like laws of nature, are “descriptive”: they are not designed to be followed by people. They just exist. The idea of following laws of history is as ridiculous as lying on the floor in an attempt to obey the laws of physics. The fact that something agrees with the laws of physics does not mean it includes any practical political or moral provisions for humanity to follow. Someone who thinks the laws of history provide a blueprint for future development has just been duped by wordplay around the word “law”. Laws govern societies. Laws of physics, laws nature and laws of history cannot govern societies, and never will. They just encompass inhuman forces that constantly defy us: the only reason we exist is because we resist these forces of destruction.

Our conversation deteriorated. He talked about himself being an example of “controlling history”, meaning that he is supposedly a better survivor than everyone else because he had a will to have more children than other people. Both he and my Mum claimed “it does not matter that everyone who is not in the Mont Order is going to die off.” He also said, “you wouldn’t exist without the Mont Order.”

Now is where his arguments really started to lose ground. “You are crediting something (the Mont Order) that hasn’t done anything,” I said. “Plenty of people have families without following the Mont Order. People were born before the Mont Order and people who are not Mont Order followers will be born in the future, which negates the Mont Order as any solution to a population crisis or social collapse.”

The thing that really shut him up and killed the conversation was when I said, “one day, before you die, you will be embarrassed that you spent so long believing the Mont Order and crediting it for what it didn’t do.”

He then said, “the only thing that embarrasses me, is that you exist.”

According to my Mum, my Dad was depressed by what I had said. I was entirely unhurt by his comment, which was typical of the kind of last words he adds at the end of his degraded arguments. His depression at what I had told him, for me, showed what needed to be said about dogmatic religious belief and the mindset of a cult.

When someone has used the phraseology of cult for long enough, and been absorbed for endless hours of endless days in thought about the ideas of the cult, it becomes impossible to break them free. The sense of shame or embarrassment at the ideology being false, and their inability to see through it, threatens to be like going around wearing a dunce cap for your final years.

The usual question, “what’s your solution?” which my Mum often asks when she’s defending the great doctrine of the so-called Order, betrays the confusion that comes to these sorts of people when no doctrine is being planted in their head. These people need their symbol, their flag and the patronizing books and speeches of self-indulgent “leaders” to program them. Without it, they will wander the world aimlessly in fog of confusion, unable to ascribe value to anything or take any active role in deciding right from wrong.

By Daniel out of the Lion's Den ~

When a Christian attempts to convert a person to their religion by preaching the Gospel, then introducing the need to make a decision to either reject or accept their man-god, Jesus, into the would-be convert’s heart, they are exercising logic. Most Christians hate that word, since it is the application of logic to the tenets of their religion that result in many people leaving the faith. Nevertheless, they are in fact, knowingly or unwittingly using logic. They will say you have to make a decision: Yes or No. There cannot be a maybe; there is no gray area. The answer must be binary… 0 or 1, on or off, black or white, yes or no. Furthermore, they will extol the simplicity of this divinely hatched plan. All you have to do is say yes, and your eternal fate is sealed: Destiny Paradise! An answer of “no” results in dire consequences: Eternal Burning. Such a simple plan of salvation, it must be God-breathed. It doesn’t take much to illustrate this simple plan in a logic decision tree diagram. You can imagine Saint Peter standing at the Gates of Heaven with the key that Jesus gave him, using this simple, logical method to determine whether he should unlock the gate or not:




Yes, such a superficial, candy-coated plan would be simple, and possibly thought of as divine, were it not for the Christian Scripture, the Inerrant Word of God: The Holy Bible. You see, the multiple authors of the books in the Bible, who never thought their works would be compiled into one large collection, each took it upon themselves to expound upon this simple plan. And since in the 4th century C.E., the Eastern European church authorities decided the compilation of books are indeed God-breathed and divinely inspired, then not one verse in the compilation can be wrong. So when someone 2000 years later decides to map out this simple, divine plan of salvation in a logic decision tree diagram, well, all the God-breathed caveats to this plan create a complexity that appears somewhat less than divine.

For the Christian reading this, please save your breath. You will pick out this verse and that verse from the diagram and claim how it doesn’t apply to salvation, or is a special case, or is really talking about the Christian walk, or is referring to people who never really believed. You need to ask yourself, “Why do all these verses in this harmonious compilation of God-breathed writings need me to explain, to apologize, to guide people to the real meaning – at least what I think is the real meaning? And why are there so many different denominations that interpret the verses differently?” I say that each verse implies an eternal consequence, and I was taught this very thing for each verse at some point in the different churches I attended throughout my life.

Christians will say that their god’s plan for salvation is not based on works, but a closer examination shows that, according to the Bible, there are many works that you need to do in order to ensure your spot in heaven, and other works that most certainly will keep you out. In addition, while they say, “Believe in Jesus, for there is no other name by which we must be saved,” there appears to be several “loopholes” by which souls can indeed get into heaven, even though they have rejected or never heard of the god-man. Compared with the “simple” plan of salvation that is pitched to would-be converts, the term “Bait and Switch” comes to mind. I won’t editorialize, each verse should be taken at face value – isn’t God clear when he speaks? But I will say that since each verse is in the Bible, and as such is God talking directly to us from his own mouth, that I had to include verses used by many branches of Christian theology – from Calvinist to Armenians, from Catholics to Baptists, from liberals to conservatives. Now again, imagine Saint Peter standing at the Gates of Heaven with the key that Jesus gave him, using THIS decision tree diagram to determine whether he should unlock the gate! I don’t think those hinges would get exercised very often (click on image for full size):

By Scaredy Kat ~

I was raised for my entire life in a strict Christian world. A world where outsiders are unwelcome and where Agnostics/Atheists are uneducated snobs who prey on the innocent and drag fervent Christian believers into the fiery pits of Hell.

And I was one of them; I "am" one of them. And that's my problem.

I am so afraid. I'm 17 and have the adventure of college ahead of me, and that should be liberating, right? College should be my chance to get away from my strict, Bible worshipping, anal nitpick family. But college isn't going to play that role for me. My parents have given me a deal or no deal situation to bear and I'm so afraid of the next 4 years of my life. This deal or no deal for me is: christian college, or no college at all.

I have been content with my disbelief in god since about...July. For the last 5 years, I have lived as a non-Christian while at school, and have behaved as a proper Christian daughter at church and at home. I thought I could keep up my "double life" until it was time for me to go to college, when I wouldn't have to hide from my reality any longer. But now it turns out I will not have any relief from my secrecy because I need college, and I need my parents' support to have it.

I am struggling with "coming out" to my parents. I want to believe that their promises of unconditional love for all these years are true, but I know them well enough to know that my untimely death would be better than my "spiritual death." What they don't realize is that I have a very spiritual life with my close, non-Christian friends, with nature, and with my body and mind. They are just so embedded with this Christian mindset that I know with all of my heart will not be so loving when they find out their perfect daughter has been nothing but a façade these last 5 years.

I have called Christian hotlines only to be spoon fed tried and true verses and techniques. I have delved through the pages of my Different Bibles (King James, NIV, NASB, Message). I have found nothing to ease my disbelief. The only thing that has provided solace for me in this difficult time of doubt has been the posts I found on this site. Can I make a joke and say it was a true "god-send"? But really. I broke down in tears when I read posts on this site. It was the first time that I felt people really understood, and without any contact, I felt loved and embraced.

I would really love all your support through this. Any advice from former Christians? Is anyone else trapped in the Church of Christ? How should I handle the broken hearts of my family members, my friends? How should I handle college? I wish things could be easier, but I feel like as my senior year draws to a close, everything's going to spiral out of control. Thank you for your support and advice. Please share your thoughts.

By Carl S. ~

Let us begin the adventure of Lucia, the brown, golden-eyed girl from planet Q. But first, a little background: Let us describe her character, for it is typical of the other inhabitants of her planet. All of them are what are called “innocents” here on Earth. Their sense of wander and curiosity might be compared to that of a human five year old.

On planet Q, there are no concepts such as faith, belief, and dogma, because the beings there are only interested in finding out what is true, what is real. Inventing truths is a concept foreign to them, to their very natures.

Our girl with the golden eyes has been sent to Earth because she won her school prize for being the most curious in her community. Before entering our planet, she pays attention to our space station, and notices that humans are living on board, and notes that they are starting to enter into space. It's a beginning, she thinks, so they must be intelligent.

On Earth, she visits natural and historical museums, and is consoled to know that they know how life on Earth, including humans, originated, and what their past was. More note taking. It seems that wherever she goes, she finds buildings alien to her experience. These entertainment places are used for “worship” - whatever that means. What it came to mean, as she understood it, was that truth wasn't important to those who built and maintained them.

When she stopped at each house of worship, she got a different explanation of what “truth” meant and nobody was interested in finding out what is really true. On her planet, truth was found through very, very, careful trials. This was all very confusing and silly, and gave a new meaning to the word “alien,” as applied to her planet's inhabitants. She could think of no way to report this phenomenon without being laughed at on her return.

One day she witnessed a courtroom trial on an Earth picture screen, and then went to an actual courtroom. She finally started to feel “at home.” Here, at last, humans were presenting arguments and evidence for the innocence or guilt of an accused person. The trial continued for weeks. The little brown girl was impressed to find that there was one important thing humans have in common with her own people. She was happy that they had learned how to find out what was true or untrue. But she was also very confused as to why they thought that made-up religious “truth” was more important. Yet, nobody she met wanted to talk about that.

Still curious after the trial, she spoke with a juror and told him that her “culture” (he wouldn't understand “other planet”) used much the same methods for finding out truth. He explained, “That’s similar to the way we do it in labs everywhere. How do you think we got that damned space station working up there?“

She asked, “But what makes this case so important? Why did you all go to so much trouble to find the truth?” “That's obvious,” the juror answered. “If found guilty, that man would have spent the rest of his life in prison.”

And then the little golden-eyed, brown skin girl said something quite curious. She said, “That is very, very confusing. So many of your people claim that their religious “truths” determine a man‘s eternal future, and yet they don‘t use the methods the jurors just used to find out if their “truths” are true at all!“

The little girl's time was up so she returned to Planet Q with her report. And yes, as she expected, the hearers there did think it silly that anyone could find “truth” just by inventing, and not discovering it. (They found the human “explanation” as to why there is pain and suffering in the universe –that they are responsible for it all - hilarious.)

And another curious thing she reported: “When I asked them to explain how some of the really, really, silly things they told me about could possibly be true, they said, ‘Someday we’ll know.’“ The room erupted in laughter. “Because, after all, they had just told me that they're too lazy to investigate those claims - so they can’t be important. So why make such a big deal of them, then? Very curious.”

Then the ambassador spoke up, saying to their new celebrity girl reporter, “Glad to have you home, where we do not create confused minds like theirs. It was entertaining. They have a long way to go on Earth. Maybe give them a few thousand years? I hope not.”

By Faithfulless ~

I wish I was brave enough to introduce myself, and tell the truth of my story, a little about my upbringing, my family, and my current struggles, but at this point in my life I am just too afraid of being exposed –a sad place to be in a “free country.”

For those ex-Christians who are familiar with “small groups” -- those weekly meetings with friends to study the bible, pray and fellowship –- it seems that the deconverting could benefit from Small Groups too. In fact I would love to participate in a bible study that helped me to continue to understand both the truths and the fallacies.

How does one actively search for something like that, especially while still living in the closet? But in the meantime, I just want to give a big thank you to those of you who take the time to post the details of your testimonies, debunking the myths that if you are a non-believer now, then you never were – or that you are only going through a rebellious stage. It's clear that some of you have been around awhile and especially those who respond.

I have a lot of questions, and thoughts, too many to get to in one post. But I’ll start with this: Perhaps you have asked a Christian a question (for example, regarding the injustice of eternal damnation) in which there is truly no suitable answer that really sits right (at least with any Christian who has an ounce of compassion for the billions of “damned”) . . .But rather than admitting that this sort of justice doesn’t make sense, of course, the Christian responds by trying to explain that the reason there is no answer that we can fathom, is because we are “using our human brain” which is limited, or “finite” and incapable of understanding God on God’s level. Perhaps the Christian might add, “our ways are not His ways” as if this statement with a wave of the hand is meant to strike awe in the listener and sweep away all conscientiousness regarding the question at hand.

My retort to this attempt at avoiding the uncomfortable truth (i.e. the biblical God – as interpreted in mainstream Christianity – looks a lot like a terrorist), is threefold. First, of course I am thinking with a human brain! What other choice do I have? Second, if God created my brain, then surely He understands that the human brain is going to make attempts to make sense out of the senselessness of such “justice.” (Thank heavens the American justice system is not modeled after the Bible: any criminal not repenting of his crime, no matter how small the crime, demands a life sentence without any chance for rehabilitation. After all, wouldn’t that be the perfect biblical model for justice?)

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if God is not able to reveal to us (or humans are incapable of understanding) the rationale behind so many of the fundamental concepts and events as depicted in the Bible, and if it is “not for us to know,” then how can Christians say – with any confidence at all – that their interpretation of the Bible is correct? If His rationale is so complex, so unreachable, so impossible to comprehend – then what makes Christians think that they can take the bible literally about anything? After all, isn’t God a lot more complicated than that? Why are we expected to read the stories in the bible as simple, straightforward, and literal – and yet the explanation behind why these depicted events “had to happen” is so beyond our reach? God wants to confuse us? The standard answer (and there is always an answer for everything) is that “this is a test of our faith.” So even though God is capable of anything, He is not willing to explain his line of reasoning in a way that humans can understand. He wants to make it tricky. And He has His reasons. But that is not for me to know.

By Luke ~

Before I get too far ahead, or, get started at all... If you have not watched the YouTube series by username "Evid3nc3" in a playlist titled "Why I am no longer a Christian", than I strongly recommend giving it a look.

It was because of this man's detailed journey from the faith I was able to begin to realize when I started mine, and piece together just how I went from "on fire" for God, to an agnostic, to an atheist over the course of... 5 years? Maybe.

Just like Evid3nc3, it was while I was while I was living by Christian faith that my transformation was occurring. I was born into a church setting. I was baptized in water, I was baptized in the Holy Spirit, I was a tounge-talking servant of the most high God. I would worship God at the beginning of every church service, listened carefully during sermons, study the Bible when I could, (despite my A.D.D.) and probably did everything else you could imagine that the typical Christian strived for. It was during all of this, when I was 15 and 16, I slowly and unconsciously came to the conclusion that God is up there somewhere but would not cause any physical effect on this realm, nor would he intervene in it's affairs. (Deism?) I know it was a slow process of succumbing to this believe because if this concept was presented to me in some way, I would have dismissed it.

It went on like this for an unrecognizable span of time. Perhaps a few months, it was, before I realized that it was just simply not doing me good. I started exploring outside of the boundaries Christianity set for me. Which is a whole story in itself. Long story, short: I started associating with kids at school I otherwise would not have, participated in conversations I otherwise would have avoided, amongst other things. I still believed in a loving God. I knew I wasn't making the right choices in His eyes. But I just did not let the guilt stop me from just being a teen.

This guilt eventually subsided altogether, and at 17 I had succumbed to this realization: If this God was not a God who would stick his hands in the physical realm, nor reveal himself in anyway that could be perceived by my senses... than it was possible that this God could not exist. Only recently, yesterday actually, did I realize that there was no specific point in time did I turn from Christianity, unlike what I stated in my previous posts to this site. It would be more accurate to state that there were times that I made decisions I would not have made if my faith were in the same state as it was a few years prior. And that I had finally noticed how I had changed when I was contemplating these choices that I would have immediately dismissed.

At 18, I finally admitted it to myself out loud, "I am an agnostic." Having already been so far away from the faith, I did not expect lightning or earthquakes, but I felt better. I didn't realize it at the time but I had already been an agnostic for about a year.

Oh, my God... I am freaking atheist. What am I gonna do? A few months ago, I discovered this fantastic website. I am a big fan of Magic: The Gathering, a trading card game. I would research the interwebs occasionally to read stories of people who went out of hand with this game, spending atrocious amounts of money on it. So I would search in my search bar "quitting Magic: the Gathering." I had a streak where it was a fascinating concept to me, people being addicted to the game, spending a lot of money, quitting and relapsing.

I do not remember why or where I got the idea but I got curious... I wanted to know if it was possible, if anyone else had fathomed it... I searched "quitting Christianity" and I discovered this website. Over a few weeks I read many of the fantastic articles all you guys and gals have written. I started spending plenty of time on here. I produced my first admittedly overly-frivolous article. In a comment from user name TimWolf he directed me to watch the video series by Evid3nc3.

It was after I posted it did I become hesitant concerning this direction I was going with myself. I am the only one I know in my family that is not believing in God. This will most certainly have a negative impact if they found out. Could this have consequences outside of home? Could I simply be wrong?

I slowed down my exploration into this unknown territory. I now realize I was wanting to know more about the atheists way of thinking but not too much to completely erase the little belief I held onto. When I realized this, I knew it was childish, I needed to pick a side. So, despite that I was hesitant, I watched the series by Evid3nc3.

I learned what I imagine many of those who contribute to this site already know. What Judas did with his bribery money and how he died soon after he betrayed Jesus is recorded in Matthew and in Acts.

Matthew 27:5 (NIV): Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Whereas, Judas in Acts...

Acts 1:18: Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.

I remember it was it was 3 A.M. my eyes were closed, and I had one ear bud in my ear attached to my iPhone that was laying on my bed while I was resting on my side. My eyes jolted open, my heart was pounding, I started sweating, adrenaline rushing. (Much like how Evid3nc3 explained his reaction was). I rewinded the video and researched the scriptures. Never, could I have fathomed that there was a contradiction amongst the content of the most Holy of all things. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. Any of my remaining belief was extinguished in that instant. All respect due to those who consider themselves an agnostic, I knew was no longer an agnostic. I knew it in that instant as much as I know it now.

I am an atheist.

I read a study once that most people DO have dreams, but those who claim that they don't, actually do but tend to forget them quickly. I have found myself usually not remembering dreams, but still sometimes I find myself being able to piece together bits of a dream from the night before. That next morning after I watched that video... It was earlier this morning at the time I write this... I woke up, having no recollection of dreams (thankfully), but my heart was pounding and cold sweat was all over face. The very first thing on my mind was this.

Oh, my God... I am freaking atheist. What am I gonna do?

It was weird, it still kinda is. It's nice to not be on the fence anymore. As a young man, that position is particularly uncomfortable.

But I will have to eventually tell my family about this though... I've told a few coworkers and that was smooth. But I doubt telling those closer to me will be as. I went through a hurricane to get here, and right now, I feel as though I am in the calm eye of the storm, I can only be in the eye of the storm for so long.

By summerbreeze ~

Roxana Rodriguez, circled, on the day she joined the order of the Little Disciples of Jesus

I'm sure that you've heard the recent news about the Nun from the 'Little Disciples of Jesus' convent, near Rieti Italy, who gave birth to a bouncing baby boy. ( I'm glad that her convent wasn't named 'Little Disciples of Innocenti')... now THAT would be embarrassing!

She was another one of those women who said " I didn't even know that I was pregnant "....OH NO !...could this be another gift to the world from God ? His last gift, 2000 years ago, helped to screw things up big time, for rational people that is.

The local Pastor in the town said "I guess she's telling the truth when she says she arrived at the Hospital unaware of the pregnancy"....totally ignoring the question of how a Nun could get pregnant in the 1st place.

This is just more proof of how the Catholic Church pig-headedly clings to the archaic belief that male and female clergy from the Pope on down, must remain celibate.

They condemn sexual relations, then condemn masturbation. Then they overlook child molestation, and child rape, and merely move the offender to a new Parrish.

Methinks that the Catholic philosophy is a bit evil.

Bottling up normal, sexual yearnings is dangerous, and unnatural too.
I grew up on the outskirts of a large city. When I was a teenager, they tore down a very old Nunnery to make way for a new one. In one of the walls, they found the skeletons of 3 fetuses. It was in the local paper, and the Catholic Church was having a stroke saying that it was all lies. A friend of my Mom & Dad's was a police officer, and was one that was on the scene, and he confirmed that it was 100% true. ( and he was a Catholic ).
The church suppressing sexual urges is not a new thing, and has left a multitude of victims in its wake for a long long time.....both men and women.

I know that my little rant won't change the course of things, but if just one Catholic out there reads this, and it causes those wheels & gears to start grinding...then I'm happy.

By Carl S. ~

The other day, I watched a DVD from an old comedy series. A man had an argument about his girlfriend's psychic abilities. Because he was a psychiatrist/skeptic, the two of them decided that she would take psychic tests to determine her alleged “abilities.” This was done in a neutral setting by a professional scientist. Just before the test results were to be announced, the boyfriend decided that they “really didn't need to know,” because he was already trusting in her.

I suspect that there is quite a lot of this “really don't want to know” going on every day. Sometimes this must be simply out of caring for the beloved's feelings. But then too, the lover might not really want to know, but be content to wonder. The common explanation for this is “So what? No harm done. Let her or him believe seriously what we see as silly things.” Their delusions are usually seen as personality quirks in our society; the deluded are “offbeat, eccentric, or peculiar.”

For a few decades now, I've come into occasional contact with a woman who has a deluded vision of reality. I am not alone in coming to this conclusion. No amount of argument or evidence contrary to the way she sees things will change her mind one iota. Her interpretation of reality has led her to make bad decisions for herself and her relationships with others. While she lives in poverty, she sends money to Pat Robertson, has gone to at least one “faith-healing” which changed nothing of her increasing blindness. She gives money to a Catholic shrine when she visits it, and tells the most bizarre testimonies for the truth of her delusions that you’ll ever hear. She does this with bright eyes and self assurance. While her interpretation of the world is unchallenged, she is not doing herself any good financially or in her relationships with others who are viewed through the same judgmental microscope lens as she uses for her beliefs.

Throughout my life, I have met many who share her versions of reality, but to milder degrees, of course. But delusional thinking and prejudices are more widespread than I thought, usually with one person unable to see the other’s equally deluded ways. Yet, typically, this is handled by ignoring or writing off their effects. The world is running on lies. Harmless? It depends. Yes and no.

There are delusions people find comforting; security blankets for the soul, so to speak. Like teddy bears, booze, and romantic fantasy movies, there‘s entertainment in them. No harm. Even pornographic fantasies have their place. Like anything else in nature, addiction can make one sick. Some men argue that even pretend playmates might not be merely tempting, but attainable. What‘s the harm in that?

The other-reality world isn’t always harmless. What of “end-times” delusions, the blind belief that women adulterers must he stoned to death, or that the government of the United States was originally a Christian one which has lost its way and must be taken back via political and media subterfuge, lies, or even armed force? What if the delusions are more “real and moral” than established laws and evidence? Should they be exempt from inquiry because they fly under the banner of religious belief? Should governments be in the position of supporting superstitions via tax exemptions for them? Should religions not be required to show proof that their products actually work, that investments in them are another Ponzi scheme? And what of “truth in advertising?” Since religious institutions are entertainment, collecting from their audiences, shouldn't they also pay entertainment taxes? After all, magicians, singers, and all others who work to make people “feel good with fiction” must pay taxes.

“Who can overestimate the progress of the world if all the money wasted in superstition could be used to elevate, enlighten, and civilize mankind?” - Robert G. Ingersoll

In the I7th century,

“Protestant Reformers were paranoically suspicious of anything that suggested Satanism, from the “Papist” practice of praying to saints to the old custom of leaving out milk for the fairies. It is estimated that in the century and a half following the advent of the Reformation, around 4,500 Scots - most of them women - were killed because they were thought to be in league with the Devil.”- Stephen Johnson. 2002.

Note: these were not Catholic Inquisition tortures and murders. Children in Africa suffer the same fates for the same reasons, today. The demon-haunted world still exists in many cultures, and many minds.

There are delusions people find comforting. [...] What‘s the harm in that?(My personal experience: During one friendly social occasion a few years ago, my wife and I were physically endangered. A disturbed young man there suddenly stood up and accused us of being agents of the Devil. He had to be restrained by two men. Had he been aware that I am an atheist, I might not be alive to write this today.)

What are the delusions driving “honor killings?” What sort of irrational and immoral, unchallenged traditions allow this to go on to maintain “honor” in families? How is it that killing your daughter brings you honor and not dishonor? Where is the honor or humanity in Sharia law? Why is murder the knee-jerk sentence for blasphemy, when blasphemy hurts no one, but murder hurts everyone?

Tens of thousands of children have been raped, and thousands have been enslaved child workers in Ireland, some of them also raped, for decades, unchallenged by authorities, their fates sealed by the decisions of bishops who offer “comfort and joy” to the deluded masses trusting them and their priests. A woman dies because she is refused a legal abortion which will save her life, and still the religion demands exemptions to the laws, allowing deaths like hers to continue. (Apparently, the threat of hellfire is totally discarded in favor of the promise of forgiveness, no matter how heinous the action.) Harmless delusions?

The trouble with the “no harm done” delusions is that they allow the harmful ones to prosper and grow under the same faith-greenhouse and enjoy the same privileged status, exempt from criticism, protected by the societies norms which would otherwise damn them outright. Moderate believers in Islam and Christians, by numbers alone, support the systematic radicals. So, no, not challenging delusional thinking does a disservice to us all.

The trouble with religions is that they erupt in fervor, sometimes to the degree of witch hunts and dominant political-clerical power in exponentially increasing delusions. It is wrong to feed the beast who will devour you, no matter how comforting and harmless it may appear to be.

Is religion harmless? Think about it.

By The Rev. Ex-Evangelist ~

I'm almost sixty years old. In the last few years I've learned that a number of the people who had mentored me as a young Christian in my early twenties have passed away.

The news of their passing has triggered many memories. Memories of being young, naive and gullible; of close friendships; wholesome fun and the excitement of "learning" that my insignificant life was really part of a big, cosmic, divine plan that "God" had developed before I was even born! Mental placebos can make you feel good about yourself.

When I became a real born-again believer at age nineteen, I went from having no friends and feeling very alienated and rudderless to suddenly being warmly accepted and included by all kinds of people in the evangelical churches and ministries I was introduced to. I was touched by their interest in me and my problems and their basic decency and kindness towards me. They were good people; the proverbial "salt of the earth".

I was eager to learn all I could from my mentors. They seemed so amazingly profound and knowledgable about all the nuances of the bible and living the Christian life. Any question I had, they had an answer. And all their answers were not their thinking but based on the mind of God himself as found in the pages of the bible!

As a young believer, I looked up to my mentors. I doubted I could ever reach their level of understanding of the bible, spirituality or the ways of God's Spirit. God had specially chosen them for the "work" they were doing. Perhaps "God" would one day also call me to a special ministry.

In recalling those times, I have to say that my life as a young adult and "babe in Christ," was one natural high after another. But still, doubts would keep cropping up.

I didn't know it at the time, but my church mentors friendship and support would come with a huge price-tag to me and my family. While I thought I was learning the only true knowledge that really mattered in this life, in actuality they were programming me to be irrational, anti-education, anti-intellectual and to ignore reality and science. The main falsehood they taught me was this: that a 2-3000 year old myths and fairy tales from ancient Palestine were "the truth"; and that I needed to base all my life decisions on the truths found in the pages of the bible ("Sola Scriptura").

My mentors also convinced me that what are called "mental health problems" are actually symptoms of spiritual problems, such as a lack of commitment to God; or, a "mentally ill" person is someone who has opened their mind and body up to demonic oppression.

My mentors out-of-hand dismissed any education, research or science that challenged their own "biblical" views. Any ideas which called into questions the "truths" of the bible were simply evidence of man's sinful ego and pride. In looking back at them now, I see that they were the one's with with ego, hubris and "unteachable spirit".

HOW I DEALT WITH DOUBTS

I did not consciously let go of my doubts and questions when I became a believer but I quickly developed several ways to deal with them:

First: I just ignored them. The questions didn't seem to matter much anymore. My "new life" of constantly running to inspiring church services, Jesus rock concerts, cool bible studies and waiting to hear from "God" about which beautiful, nubile, young sister-in-the-Lord "He" wanted me to "bang," uh, I mean, "marry," were my new focus! Keeping all those good feelings and "hope" alive were more enjoyable than dealing with "doubt," which could sink me into a depressed mood.

My spiritual mentors helped me to understand that "Satan" would try to create doubt in my mind. And that a big part of my spiritual growth would consist of me making sure that I only filled my mind with "God's thoughts" by keeping my mind daily in "God's Word" and letting it remold my old, erroneous, "carnal" ways of thinking. My mentors taught me this: if the Devil comes knocking on the door of my mind with questions, don't let him in; which meant, run from and block any doubts that could start to shake your faith.

As an evangelical believer, I knew all about all those "cults" out there who may pretend to be real Christians but had cleverly disguised their true beliefs. I was taught that "cults" practiced "mind-control" techniques over their followers. Watch out for those "cults" who trick people into their groups.

But here's the amazing "blind spot" I had during my years in the evangelical world: I could not grasp the fact that the basic way I had been taught to deal with questions and information that challenged my beliefs (avoidance and ignoring) were the same that the so-called "cults" used on their adherents.

I now see evangelicalism just as "cultic" as any of the cults. Evangelicals exclude themselves from being a "cult" because they believe they really do have "the truth" about God! In their view, cultism is essentially a doctrinal thing: if you have non-evangelical theology, then you are a cult; if you don't, then you are not a cult.

Secondly, many of my biblical mentors were middle-and-upper class professional people: medical doctors; former lawyers who became ministers; engineers; public school educators and even university professors! Surely these folks would not be accepting things if they weren't true??? Most possessed degrees from "secular" state universities.

At that time in my life I was very impressed with all these educated folks. I had started college but dropped out. At that time, I felt that I must not be smart enough to be in college. Now I know that I was just going through an emotional rough time and my school work suffered. But at 19, my inability to stay focused on my studies I interpreted as evidence of an IQ deficiency on my part. (I eventually have earned an undergraduate and graduate degree).

So, I was duly impressed by all these church going folks who had completed college and also possessed advanced degrees. I assumed that my mentors had already explored the truth-claims of the evangelical faith and had found the evidence compelling or else they would not be endorsing all these dogmatic assertions. (It was not until decades later that I came to realize that having a narrow and in-depth education about some topic does not mean that you also possess critical thinking skills!)

LETS BE "BIBLICAL" IN ALL OUR WAYS!

But unbeknownst to me at the time, by trading my questions and doubts for the drug of social support these mentors and their ministries offered, I was setting myself up for a huge disaster in which I tried to be completely "biblical" in all my decisions. Two really, really bad things happened:

BAD BIBLICAL DECISION #1: MY BIBLICAL MARRIAGE

First, when I did marry a "Sister-in-the-Lord," I quickly discovered that the old saying that one "should not buy a car without first taking it for a drive" is also true about marriage. I sadly discovered she was in uninterested in sex and she was also an "A-1 nut job"! Both of these aspects she skillfully hid during our courtship period.

And then my "Proverbs 31," Christian wife starting letting me know that she was hearing voices and seeing things which I could not see. She also started talking about killing herself! I was a nervous wreck and afraid of what may happen. I couldn't sleep at night since the different personalities would be talking all kinds of crap and confusion and keep me up.

What was I to do? I couldn't divorce her because that was a sin. I couldn't even send her back home because obviously she was a person who needed help and I am a person of compassion. With the best of my "biblically" reasoning abilities, I deduced that God had brought her into my life so He could use me to help liberate her from the satanic forces who controlled her!

Why had this disastrous marriage befallen me? Well, "biblically" speaking, I only had a couple of ways to view what was going on.

First, the biblical decision-making that I had learned from my mentors was premised on the over-arching idea that "God" is in control of everything and everyone and that nothing happens without God's knowledge and will. So, with that presumption in place, here were my "biblical" choices of how to make sense of all the chaos my marriage had brought into my life:

1) GOD IS PUNISHING ME.

But why would The Lord do that? I was an on-fire, sold-out, follower of Jesus!. My faith was not some kind of meldew-in-the-pew variety. I was one of those fervent people who sought people to come and be saved. Biblical preaching and teaching were my life and ministry.

But, in contemplating the nightmare of my marriage to a demonized woman that "God" had given me as a wife, I had to admit that I had not been as totally "holy" as I could have been during our courtship.

Even though I had an almost perfect record in obedience and service to God (yea, I know, it's "grace" and not "works," but I'm just saying. . . ), I had to admit that I allowed my "flesh" to get the upper hand of me the weeks before we married and we had engaged in some "heavy petting". We never had sex, but we had some close calls! And me, being the God-ordained, spiritual "head of the home," I was at fault for our messing around before we were properly coupled before the eyes of The Lord.

Thus, the "biblical" answer was clear: God was now putting me through the grinder for me giving into my lust filled affections towards my future wife before we married!

And how did I come up with this type of crazy cause-and-effect view: years of "bible teaching" from a host of evangelical churches and ministries. I had "biblically" had been taught by my mentors to interpret any kind of problems in my life as evidence of God's possible displeasure towards me due to some sin I had committed. I lamented the fact that I had allowed the Devil into my heart (and also my tongue and fingers)! The Lord had "busted" me for my sin. I dutifully repented and asked for God's mercy but accepting of the Lord's chastisement (my hellish marriage)!

2. GOD IS USING MY WIFE'S DEMON PROBLEMS TO PREPARE ME FOR A FUTURE SPECIAL WORK IN THE MINISTRY OF EXORCISM!

Yes, that's it! God can turn the lemons that we make into lemonade! God had me marry a demonized woman so "He" could teach me how to minister to demonized people and help bring them to experience the "Freedom" that only Christ can give! I didn't know if I was up to the task, but if The Lord had chosen me for this specialized type of "ministry," then I would obey and learn! God's perfect plan for me was all coming together. . . or so I thought!

So over the course of two years, I took my wife to a number of free-lance, wild-eyed, pentecostal & charismatic ministers who all were suppose to have the "anointing" for performing exorcisms. Well, needless to say there was a lot of crazy theatrics that went on.

I had no way to understand what I was witnessing during these attempted exorcisms. It looked like my wife was indeed under the influence of different and distinct personalities. Some talked like a little child and others were haughty and arrogant. One was very seductive and sexual (very unlike my wife. . . well, uh, now former-wife!).

But no matter how many bible verses were screamed at the "demons" in my wife by the exorcists, the little rascals would not budge!

Now that I've worked in the mental health field for the past twenty-five years, I now understand what I was seeing during these exorcism rituals: active psychosis; personality disorder and multiple personality "alters". Unfortunately, at that time I only had my "biblical" frame of reference understand what I was seeing and that filter made me to misunderstand everything that was happening.

By the end of the two years, I was growing skeptical of the claims of the exorcists. Despite all their talk about victory over the devil, nothing changed.

I was also puzzled by the fact that despite what Jesus and Paul supposedly taught about how we have "authority" over Satan, I wasn't seeing any victory. Why were the scriptures not working? My wife's crazy ways continued unabated.

Taking her to a real medical doctor or psychiatrist was not on my radar screen. Though I had gone to doctors as a kid, and drove past hospitals and Emergency Rooms all the time, it never entered my mind that my wife needed to see a real medical professional.

I was trapped in my little, "biblical" cultic world as were the people I went to for help. None of the ministers I took my wife to ever suggested that I take her to any mental health or medical professionals. Our "biblical" outlook had made us all bat-s*#t crazy and incapable of any kind of rational problem-solving! We were all mentally stuck in ancient Palestine and were not living in the modern world.

BAD BIBLICAL DECISION #2: MY SON'S HOME-BIRTH

This disastrous decision was followed by another attempt at being "biblical" in which we tired to have my first child to be born the "biblical" way too: home birth with no medical intervention.

Now, you may ask, how is home-birth "biblical"? Well, here is how I was taught: in biblical times people were not born in hospitals; they were "born" at home. Thus, a "biblical" birth is always a home birth (of course, it never occurred to me to ask if we should be using flush toilets since they were not around in biblical times either?).

As true believers, walking in faith and in the Saving and Healing power of Jesus' shed blood on the Cross at Calvary, we don't need doctors. In fact, the bible tells us exactly what we are to do if we become sick: Call Dr. Jesus! Believe that he will heal today as he did 2,000 years ago and it will happen! My "faith" in invisible Dr. Jesus ability to heal today unlocks Jesus' healing powers toward any illness that I or a family member may have. Got it? Makes perfect sense, right? It makes more sense if you are taught that any sickness is at its root, a "spiritual" problem and not due to bad DNA, microbes or bacteria. Like I said, I was living in a religious subculture that negates the modern world of knowledge, science and progress. (This is the same subculture that also denies that evolution is true and tries to have school text-books teach "creationism".)

As true believers, walking in faith and in the Saving and Healing power of Jesus' shed blood on the Cross at Calvary, we don't need doctors. The home birth decision was the worse, and most tragic, mistake I have ever made in my life. My wife came close to dying during her three-day labor and so did my son. My son didn't die, but he did suffer oxygen deprivation in the birth process which has resulted in him being mentally disabled and never having a normal life. At age 31, he lives in a group home with other disabled persons.

So, to my late (or demented) biblical mentors of many years ago, if you were here today, this would be my feedback to you:

TO PASTOR BEN:

You were so damn eloquent! You pastored this big, downtown, evangelical, Presbyterian church. You packed them in Sunday after Sunday for 30 years. You made the evangelical, Christian faith to sound so credible. You had once been a lawyer before you decided to go to seminary. You talked more like a lawyer than a preacher. You preached to the upper-classes. You would reference how you had been an "atheist" at one time but now you believe. Ben, you were never a real atheist. You were probably just indifferent and didn't take religion seriously before you got bit with the born-again bug. I feel sorry for you. You eloquently and persuasively dedicated your life to preaching things which were not true. Your impact on me was huge. You made it seem that the whole evangelical church enterprise was based on reality when it was not.

TO DR. BOB:

I was in awe of you, Dr. Bob. You had been the Chair of the Psychology Department at a Christian liberal arts college. You even had an earned doctorate from a state university (though oddly it was a doctorate in "Pastoral Psychology"???). Like Pastor Ben, you were polished, had good taste in clothes and sounded very intellectual. In reality, you were just an old-time, fundamentalist preacher. You too planted in my young adult brain the idea that a person could have demon spirits and that the "biblical" accounts were absolutely true and that "secular" mental health professionals were not to be trusted. I know you did "Christian counseling" for many years, but since you did not believe in mental health, what did you do with those folks who had serious mood or psychotic disorders? Did you do to them what you did to my friend Ruth that I brought to you and after twenty minutes of "counseling" you diagnosed her as having "demons" and attempted to do an exorcism on her? I'm sure you did. You were bogus and deluded. The "fruit" from your tree of ministry is rotten!

TO CAROL:

Carol, I hear you are in a nursing home and now have dementia. You worked for years as a nurse but burned out on your profession. Then you became born-again, started writing apocalyptic, end-time novels for the shallow evangelical book reading market, and became a guru. You then turned your writing and speaking skills to trying to persuade pregnant women to have their children under the spiritual covering of your "ministry". You were vehemently, anti-modern medicine and a narcissist. You had that, "Aw, shucks, I'm just a simple handmaiden of the Lord," but you were more than willing to let children, and mother's die during labor because you were so stuck on the rightness of your "healing" beliefs. If someone died, then the problem was never with you, or the bible, but with them! You were crazy, sick and evil. I still feel much sadness and hurt over my now, 31 year old son's, "home-birth" that you supervised. The "fruit" of your life's work is death and destruction. Too bad there isn't a hell for you to go to!

TO KAY:

Well, Kay, you should have gone to Hollywood and become an actress. You were a very good-looking woman. In fact, you were the sexist bible teacher I ever had! You would flirt with everyone; even entire audiences. Everyone loved you. Your teaching ability was outstanding. You brought the stories of the bible and made them interesting and seemingly up-to-date to the modern world. But in the end, you handed out tons of irrational, delusional ideas that you planted in peoples' heads about how they can "trust" the bible and they can build their lives on "what God says in His Word". You have sold theological lemons to no telling how many people. . . . and you always did it with a smile, humor and your own brand of charismatic charm. In the end, you were just another biblical, snake-oil salesman (woman), telling folks that they can have the magic that was supposedly working in your life. You were just another highly polished charlatan: selling hurting folks things that are not true and don't even exist in reality, which kept them from really solving things.

TO GENE:

Gene, I was so impressed with you more than anyone else. You were the leader of our town's Jesus Movement back in the 70s. Laid back, no suits and ties for you! You preached love, grace, acceptance and encouragement. But that all changed as your "ministry" to the wayward youth of that era grew and suddenly you became the "Old Wineskin" you were always preaching against! Slowly, your name changed from simply "Brother Gene" to "Apostle Gene." I now know that despite all your charm and abilities, I've heard too many stories from people who have been hurt by your "ministry". You became just another authoritarian, self-absorbed, God-speaks-to-me-but-not-to-you, ego-maniac. I'm glad I exited your ministry when I did. Unfortunately, I ended up involved with other bible-thumping cults because I still clung to the basic, false assumption I had absorbed as a kid in my Baptist church, that "God" writes books.

TO JOHN:

John, you are the carnival barker of preachers! I use to sit under your preaching and be in awe of you. You would move us all with your words, make us laugh. We always left your service feeling empowered! You were a little bit country, but what you said sounded profound. But what a boatload of horse dung you turned out to be selling! You were willing to urge people to take risk with their own health and the lives of their children in order to show "God" that people in your church were totally walking"by faith" in God's supposed "promises" about healing. Of course, while you were urging us all to a deeper walk in the Spirit, and greater faith, it turned out that you didn't have enough "faith" to keep your pants on with the young girl who ran the tape ministry at the church. You were a bullshit artist supreme! You oratorical abilities ended up causing people to die. I never got the feeling that their deaths really bothered you. I thought you were a deep man of faith and piety; now I know you were just cold and indifferent to the suffering of others.

By Slander ~

To my loving, Christian parent,

I did not stop believing because you didn’t live a ‘vibrant’ faith as an example for me.

I saw how your belief in god helped you through those dark times—how you praised him during the good and bad. I know what it means to have a relationship with god because you showed me—it isn’t some wishy-washy thing—it’s very serious and I understand that, that’s why I can’t just ‘play the part’ and pretend to believe something I don’t. I can’t go to church and bow my head in prayer to a god I don’t believe in and take communion—that would make a mockery of something that is very serious to you. I refuse to be one of those people, and I know you wouldn’t want me to be.

I did not stop believing because someone who claimed to be a Christian hurt me in some way or another.

Yes, I have been hurt by Christians in the past—and agnostics and atheists and those with a very different opinion on what a Christian life looked like. We are all human, we make mistakes—Christians included. Do not assume that I am not able to separate the human error from the supernatural being that is your god.

I did not stop believing because I went to public school.

Public school, private school, or home school—it does not matter, the conclusions I came to were not swayed by how or what I was taught in schooling. Parents’ beliefs influence children much more than a biology or music teacher’s beliefs.

I did not stop believing because the church I/we went to didn’t have enough flashy lights or modern music.

It wasn’t the church—please understand this. The church would have made no difference. I had friends, I fit in at youth group, I felt the church was welcoming and wanted to help me deepen my faith. I adored my youth pastor and felt comfortable going to them with any faith-related questions I had.

I did not stop believing because I slowly ‘drifted’ and got involved in other stuff.

On the contrary—when you look back and you see how I stopped going to church/doing devotions/etc. and you assume I must have just gotten interested in other things—I most likely had already at least started down my path of non-believing. These things were a result of my lack of faith, not the cause.

I did not stop believing because of evolution.

I hear you and your friends talk, I have read the articles on the Christian websites—I know this is a big one. I don’t know any other way to say this, but evolution simply isn’t a big deal. Many Christians believe that god created the world and that evolution was the tool he used, or that he created it in seven literal days but made it look much older, or whatever the most current theory is. The point is, if it was about evolution, I wouldn’t be writing this letter. Many people have either reconciled it with their faith, and I would have to. Yes, I believe the world came to be through a very long process that took billions of years, but no, learning about evolution did not spark my non-belief.

I did not stop believing because I have a gay uncle.

Again a hot topic issue in church and on the news but overall miniscule in my journey. People of older generations love to talk about it and bash people over the head about homosexual behavior, people of younger generations try really hard not to talk about it and either still believe it is unacceptable and completely wrong but believe in ‘truth in love’ or they have come to the conclusion that Christianity and homosexuality are compatible. Whatever the belief, if this had been the main issue for me, I could have found some way to reconcile it with my faith.

I did not stop believing because my spouse/significant other is a non-believer.

I most likely came to these conclusions before ever meeting the person I am with. I know it may come as a shock to you, but the reason I came out to you only after being with this person is not because we were originally ‘unequally yoked’ and they convinced me the bible was wrong. The reason I chose this time to come out to you is because I’m tired of hearing about being with a non-Christian or lying about their faith. This person in no way affected my belief. Please don’t blame or hate them.

I did not stop believing because I wanted to.

I am struggling to find the right words to say here, and honestly it is probably something better done in person. I guess what I want to say is that it hurts when I hear people talk about someone deserting god or their faith. It hurts because for me and many I know—that is simply not how it happened. We didn’t just wake up one day and decide to throw in the towel. It was years—years of trying and wanting and seeking god and all that comes with it, and in the end, after all the long nights and tearful prayers, we realized there was nothing there. No one was talking back. After all the logistics and biblical flaws that we had struggled to address, there was nothing. It was like the faith vanished into thin air. I didn’t throw away my faith and give up on it—the faith left me. I know what you’re thinking—bologna sandwich, god doesn’t give up on people who seek him, you must not have been looking in the right places. I’ve heard it. I’ve heard all of it, and I’ve tried all of it. So please—please don’t tell me to try again. Don’t tell me I wasn’t doing it right. This is not something I was looking to do, in fact it is the exact opposite.

I do not know the future, there is of course the chance that I will start believing again at some point, but just like the journey that led me to my non-belief, the journey that will lead me to belief will not be influenced by something you do or don’t do. All this being said, there are some things that I must be blunt about. This is not a phase; do not treat it as one. I am not rebelling; do not treat me as such. I promise if you ignore what I have shared with you or make me feel guilty, unwelcome, or scared, you will lose me altogether. Your reaction to what I have told you will determine the role that you will play in my life.

I have now shared with you the reasons that I did not stop believing--I hope you will take the time to listen to why I did stop believing. Meet me for coffee, plan a phone date to talk, or write me an email. I promise that I want to hear from you about this. I love you so much and I know that you are hurting right now. I did not do this to upset you or worry you—I need you to know that. I am not responsible for your feelings about all of this but as your child, I care about you and want to help you work through this. Have you considered joining a support group for parents who have children who have left? I know you may not be ready to talk about this at church—I understand. What about looking for people with the same situation online? Whatever you decide, know that I am here for you. I can’t guarantee that talking about this will be easy, but I really want to be open with you so that we can have an honest relationship despite our different beliefs. You are my parent and I still value your opinion and seek your guidance.

Love Always,

Your non-believing child.