Sunday, October 25, 2009

De-conversion story 3

Another de-conversion story from a reader:

I'm almost 15 now, but I de-converted myself, with a bit of laughable help, when I was about 8. I attended a catholic primary school and had performed my first communion the year before, and was under the thrall of my lifestyle.

Having had the 'good word' ingrained into my psyche since my birth, quite literally, since I was taken to church frequently whenever my parents could manage it, I saw no reason to disagree(yet). Strange as it may seem, I was a young boy with a burning passion for knowledge. I had just about taught myself to read, and fortunately possess a partially photographic memory. Boastful as it may seem, it just helps to envision the irony of my devotion.

Anyway, I had begun to learn about evolution, and knew enough about science to know that, at a child's level, if it was in a science book, it was true. I also knew that if it was in the bible, it was true. At my level, despite steady immersion in both fields, I had yet to truly discover a conflict. That changed thanks to the TV, from a source that may cause some puzzlement: Ned Flanders.
I'll keep this brief: Ned and Marge were talking over the hedge, and Ned said(something like this): 'If romance is old then call me a caveman, if they existed, which they didn't.' Me: lol.
Later, as I came out of the shower(wierd but I think there a lot), I was shocked: cavemen were real. I knew they were real. I had read about them, seen pictures of their cave-art, and even seen a neanderthal's skeleton. And the bible said they didn't exist.

I suppose this is where many people have come to, and where the choice is made of which to reject. I made my choice through logic, and maybe it'll help someone else too now:
The cavemen existed. You can read about them, and you can see evidence of them all over. You don't meed to believe for them to exist(in the truest sense, that they will have some effect on the material universe, in some measurable way, like the matter in their bones.)

God doesn't exist. He has no measurable effect on the universe, and don't dare say that God working through people is his way of existing, there is enough neurological knowledge available to determine that if someone is hearing voices in their head, they are insane, not divinely inspired.

The main point: science doesn't need you to believe it to exist, but religion does. All do. They NEED you. Your mind is their lifeblood, and they will suck you dry. That is what tipped me.
Do I go for the one that actually exists, or do I go for the one that can only exist in my mind, if I imagine him, and will make me serve him, and will not benefit me in any way.
Sounds like a big heap o' crazy to me.


Jim said...

You know that here in America (and elsewhere I assume) that there is an offshoot of Christianity that believes that all the fossil evidence of dinosaurs, neanderthals, etc. were placed in the ground by God to trick us and sort out the non-believers?

Yeah. That is an accepted religious theory.

Think about that.

Anonymous said...

I don't buy that this is from a 15 yr old. You fail, again.

Admin said...


This was sent in to me. I make no claims about its accuracy or the age of the writer.

How exactly do I fail? And who the hell are you? Crap, I have enough anonymous posters that I never know which fucknut I'm talking to at any time.

And perhaps you'd like to point out the other places where I've failed? Are you one of the pricks that I've thoroughly embarrassed before?

Jim said...

When you have the balls to post under your name and not under an anonymous banner, then feel free to come back and make claims. Until then, shut the fuck up.

Oh, and learn how to use commas.

Admin said...

Jim, I think it might have been our good friend Nathan. He's still following the site, but has switched to anonymity so we don't give him too much shit.

Jim said...

Yeah. I've been waiting patiently for him to come up with some new nonsense to spread.

Anonymous said...

I think the failure come from a disbelief that any 15 yr old, except the most nerdy, could write that way.

Admin said...

Wow Anonymous, I thought you had a good reason for saying that I fail, not just a feeling you had. My mistake.

But any suspicions I have of his age are irrelevant. Whether the guy is 15 or 48, doesn't really matter. It was sent to me, the story itself seems plausible, and I posted it. I am not the author of it. Get it?

Jim said...

Or perhaps the author was just trying to cover up a bit. Some people are afraid of some type of persecution for their atheist beliefs.

On the other hand, if you don't think a sophomore in high school should have the ability to write coherent sentences, then I would argue that you weren't that good in school, or your school failed you.

Either way, the kid has a story to share, let him share it.

Cypher said...

Yeah, got an e-mail form Admin referring to this fuckwit here, anonymous...Brave one there mate.
Anyway, yeah, I am 15, and the fact that whatever country you live in, mine(not USA) or otherwise, only the super-educated kids could write this is pretty sad, and not really a valid point at all. There is nothing nerdy about fluency in my NATIVE TONGUE, nerdy would be something like not being sure what your teacher meant when he said 'networks' in a homework question and writing two essay answers to match either possible meaning. *cough* Anyway...
'That way,' - using your hand-waving (thanks Admin) to let people see what they want to in it(the post), and form either strong beliefs against me or you, but putting their own feeling into your point, thus nullifying your argument because you have avoided honesty and instead led people into lynch mob territory, making their own prejudices rise up and conglomerate with others, common only in the fact that they are prejudices, but not being YOUR supporters, because you didn't make an actual point.
Jim, I found out about that belief on a documentary sometime, and was actually afraid of the dogmatism of some people. They can actually stare contrary evidence in the long-dead face and say 'Good one god, you nearly got me there, look at all those silly intellectuals fret about your origin.' Makes me afraid I'll ever get into an arguement with one and get mauled or something. I hear crucification hurts a bitch.
The age issue hasn't really been helped here, but honestly, why would I lie about that? And why would you throw the fail on Admin, when the chance approaches zero that he would fabricate this entire story, then make another Google account, e-mail himself it, make a blogger account and post this message. That's almost as ridiculous as friggin' Christianity.
Anyone feel free to correct any argumental mistakes I have made. I am pretty new to the protest blog and may have had a few oversights. Cheers,

Admin said...

I just don't see how your age should have anything to do with it. It's one of the most minor points in your story, hardly a refutation of anything you wrote.

Jim said...

Well said Cypher. I agree, obviously, with Admin. Your age is a moot point, and anyone who chooses to argue that over any of your other valid opinions and arguments are just unsure what they are doing, and have decided to resort to name calling.

Either way, they have no ground on which to stand, whereas you do. And you should keep standing up for your beliefs.

Also note that Mozart started writing music at the age of five, so age is hardly a factor in the maturity of one's abilities.

Note as well that the word 'fail' is an argument held when no other argument is possible, and is employed greatly by the ignorant.

Cypher said...

I only decided to refute his meaningless piont because I can guess what type of person he is, and that is the type of person who makes a random point, and after I totally prove him wrong on what he insinuated, still thinks he wins because his stupid little bait wasn't included.
Also, his second comment doesn't even make sense to me...

Chief said...

It's possible that the second comment was from a different person
"I THINK the failure came from...." sounds like another anonymous person theorizing about the first guy's motives.