Feedback on Possible Candidates for deflating the Asymmetry of Conversion

See here for the candidates.

Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 5:01 PM

Subject: asymmetry

Hi Steve-

Just a thought about your candidates for deflating the asymmetry -
many of them follow a pattern that is explained by a change in the
definition of "god", but not a real or at least not a large change in
beliefs. For instance, for Gerard Thomas Straub, Richard Gilman, and Annie
Besant, they seem to have reject the God of the bible, and then later
realized that if one allowed "god" to have a   different definition, then
God was possible.

This is kinda how I am too. If someone asks if I'm and atheist, I
specify: "I'm an atheist with regard to the petty, insecure, cruel god of
the Bible, but agnostic about a god that is defined in a way that is
consistent with science." For instance, I've talked with many "theists" who
see god as "the sum total of all of the processes of the universe". Well,
does the universe exist? Duh. So with that definition, I'd have to call
myself a theist. I think that is what happened in many of those cases.

     I've noticed a trickly tactic of some christians to use the second
definition to make one look silly or unreasonable for claiming to be an
atheist, then switch to the first definition to make the Christian God look
universally accepted. I'm sure you have seen this too.
   I think that the best way to counter this doubletalk is to be clear about
which "god" we are atheistic about. (To clarify that there could be some
kind of "god", that would not neccessarily be the God of the Bible - like
the Deists do.) If we don't, I fear that we play into their word game that
assumes any concept of "god" means their god.

                       -Jon

***************************
Dr. Jonathon Host

Steve Muses...

There is still the question of the occasional claim like Ralph O. Muncaster. However so far, whenever I have taken the time to investigate someone in some depth (see here) it turns out their background and logic was far weaker than presented. Also I was intrigued by the discussions from Brian Holtz

Following on from your comments I think there is also a tendency for fundamentalists in particular to see a false dichotomy in religious belief. i.e. the alternatives are atheism or Christianity - and not just Christianity but just fundamentalist Christianity.

Indeed I think fundamentalists could well be disturbed by the idea that a staunch atheist has taken a path into Christianity that is not a fundamentalist one. The question for them is has a good thing happened to this person and are they pleased to include them amongst those who could deflate asymmetry? Heresy is frequently more damnable than atheism which Christians often attribute to not ever having found out what Christianity is "really about" in the first place. To think that someone "really knows" what it is about and yet rejects it is far worse in many Christian eyes and Christians frequently lay into those of the "wrong kind of persuasion" on their websites. That is why I think I get two broad kinds of emails from Christians. The ones who try to patiently explain to me what Christianity "really is" and the ones who launch broadside at me as some kind of evil misleader of souls. One chap even said the following:

I condemn and reject your master and all his works in Jesus name. I leave you to your terrible end, very apt for the evil filth you publish against God.

Sometimes I wonder if such emails really are from Christians and aren't just a wind up from a "troll." However we all know people (some of us were them) who were once like this themselves! (This particular one was the 7th in a series of such emails - available here!)

feedback discussions listing | Leaving Christianity contents | email me