I was looking up information on Dan Barker and his reasons he left Christianity. I thought is had something to do with tne issue of suffering, but I didn't confirm it. Bart Ehrman had an issue with the Christian apologetics concerning suffering and not being able to reconcile it was a factor in his loss of faith. I believe Ehrman self identifies as agnostic.
Anyway, I lost my place where I intended to respond and thought what I came across was it's own topic not related to that thread. The link below is an article explaining from a fundamentalist's view why Dan Barker left Christianity. It is so reminiscent of Mormonism where I came from in that no valid reasons could be accepted - only those that blamed the one who left. Some of the reasons offered in this piece are the same as what's on the Mormon's list.
In short, this list is:
I find these reasons downright insulting. I read plenty on my way out and I thought about it plenty, sometimes compulsively (driving myself crazy at times). I am no scholar, nor am I a complete idiot - and I don't believe I fit into any of these 4 categories. I VERY much doubt Dan Barker does either.
Recently saw the Ehrman/Butt debate on suffering. I felt both participants largely missed the mark in this one. Kyle Butt sounds like most of those trying to make their apologetics seem rational and well thought out. He brings this quote to mind -
:-----:
"Theologian: An uncommon individual who, though possessing finite abilities, has been called by God himself who, though possessing infinite abilities, requires the assistance of the former in explaining Himself to the rest of us."
[Translation: if God existed, theologians would be out of work.] ~ "Rev" Donald Morgan
:-----:
I felt Mr. Ehrman was on the right of the issue, but still wasn't as compelling in his arguments as I would have hoped for.
One of the things I rarely see addressed is this. Most of us with the least bit of empathy suffer intensely when confronted with the extreme pain and suffering that others have endured. I'd guess we all have instances of psychic scarring involving trauma we've encountered, whether our own, those we care deeply for, or just a fellow living creature, human or otherwise.
It is said there are no tears in heaven, but for that to be true, we'd basically have to be victims of a mind wipe. I was once part of a Harvard Veritas panel as the atheist representative amongst other religious panelists, discussing the question of if life has a purpose. I said that if any of us present imagined the nothingness before "creation" and then fast forwarded to an instance of great cruelty and suffering (I used the example of the murdered child Samantha Runnion), that as far as I was concerned, there would be no religionist tale that would have me look at that unbearable occurrence and say, "OK God, I see why this had to happen as part of your grand scheme and final exam for eternity." I said that I as a flawed human being have a greater moral center than the so-called omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the universe.
One other point that I would have included has to do with the book by C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain. In Christian theology, pain is needed for humans to learn in order that their souls may transition to eternal life. Since animals don't have souls, why is it that they suffer? Lewis posits something I find completely horrific. He theorizes that maybe God only makes it look as if they're suffering, but in reality spares them. They are like "a clockwork orange," merely appearing to suffer. I find this ludicrous rationalization obscene on so many levels. Pure crazy talk.
I have enjoyed reading several of Ehrmam's books and listening to a couple of his talks on Youtube. Thanks for the link, I intend to watch it when I have some time.
I had read the same about animals not having a soul so they were theorized to not feel pain. Anatomist from a couple centuries ago (not certain when the practice stopped) would disect living animals ignoring their screams and struggling. I can't imagine. In college biology class, I was glad when my lab partner and I mistakenly killed our lab rat with the chloroform we were to anesthetized it with before disection. A couple students refused to complete this lab and were threatened with a failing grade.
What do you actually want to know? I guess you can think of yourself, realizing that all of religion is based on indoctrination, already starting with children that are trusting and believing whatever their parents tell them, or on a system of convincing people with all kinds of magical promises. Religion, at least Christianity is based on a book with stories with a mix of history and fairytales. The strongest religious base that you can imagine. If the history is true, then the magic also must be true.
I keep wondering why people that decide to reject religion immediately start to connect with a group of atheists. I guess it is the need of people to share their beliefs. I just decided to reject religion in general. What other people do is their problem. I don't need to replace one belief system with another belief system. I take my own thinking as a lead.
You have provided a link to a list of statements that should help us with "ammunition" for discussion with religionists , especially if we do analyze why that point actually happened.
I believe Dan Barker left Christianity because he finally found no valid reasons for its belief. Religions always want to blame the ones who leave them. If it is done any other way they would have to doubt themselves instead. The religious crutch does not work that way.
Congratulations on your escape from Moronism. I escaped in my late 20's. It feels so good to be free from those fetters!
A point or two in my origin post apparently need clarification. I believed I had read that the issue of human suffering was one which Dan Barker had written was a reason he had questioned his faith. I have not read Barker's book, but mamy years ago I had read several articles by him and about him. The specifics of what I read a long time ago are sometimes a little fuzzy. I wanted to try to clarify my memory so I attempted to find something through a Google search. The Wintery Knight website was listed as part of the search. Looking at the summary on the search, I thought the Wintery Knights site might hold the answer I was looking for. It didn't, but it did trigger an old pet peeve al about religionists who belittle the struggle and turmoil of at least some of us who questioned and eventually left our religion. I never doubted that Dan Barker didn't have valid reasons why he left Christianity, nor do I believe that any of the 4 reasons suggested by the Wintery Knights site was one of Barker's reasons.
Wintery Knight is not a site I would regularly visit or read from. My comment was from a negative reaction to it. Going to the site at all was due to the snippet Google offered in response to my search which did not reveal the kind of site it was.
I've talked to a few preachers who left their faith, and one of the first things they could no longer believe is the concept of hell. Once you realize there are parts you no longer believe, it's easy for the thread to start unraveling.
I have heard Barker say that he left after he actually read the Bible and could see no reason to believe.
I'm giving you a thumbs up on that reply but since he was also an Assemblies of God minister I'm very sure that he read the bible. I'm equally as sure that it was his bible study that led to his non-belief. It worked that way with me.
None of the four reasons you listed have anything to do with the reasons Barker left religion.
Or reasons I left.
I left , and became much more humane, because there is no Sky Daddy. We do the best we can while we are here then we are gone.
EDIT: Having read the bit from Wintery, it seems like more Xian fear tactics. The last line says it all. To the effect of God's gonna punish you for even questioning him
Your edit says it all for me. The vile headmaster of my primary school put the fear of his god into me by telling me that I would suffer for eternity in the damnation and fire of Hell if I even so much as questioned the existence of his god.
Never speak ill of the dead? That's bullshit! He is lucky that he is long since dead, because if he was alive now I would reduce him to a quivering wreck in less than two minutes.
None of those reasons are why I left either, and that is the point. Staunch Christians have to lie about us and shove us into their little boxes to protect their own faith from their own doubts. If they fear their faith won't withstand honest scutiny, then it must not be any too firm as they pretend it is.
I also believe that I became a more authentic individual after leaving religion. I felt I could relate to others more honestly and be more open to them in hearing what they had to say.
@anglophone If we can't speak "ill of the dead" then we should not speak highly of them either. How about let's be honest and present what facts are known?
I never liked the whole "never speak ill of the dead" . For some it means that they got away with their crimes. They won.
And besides ....John Wayne Gacy, The Night Stalker, other madmen....they are dead. Should we honor them ??? WTF?? Who comes up with this shit anyway ???
Three suggestions, if I may: 1) read Dan Barker's book Godless--it's a very good read; 2) try using a word processor or grammarly on your posts; and 3) don't use Christian apologetics--Wintery Knight? Are you f'ing kidding me?--as your point of reference.