My guide to conversion and deconversion

The purpose of this text is to propose my own version and answers to the famous Theist's guide to converting atheists : what kind of evidences could there be and should be expected for a religion; which evidences can be strong, weak, or worthless ; especially empirical evidences.
Answers on both sides of the challenge, because I have been on both sides.
Namely: as a former Evangelical Christian, what evidences made me deconvert; what made it hard for me to deconvert earlier; why I don't reconvert (well, because the evidences which made me deconvert were solid !), and what it would take for a religion to seem, maybe not clearly the truth, but at least credible and worthy of consideration, and which I usually don't find.

First, one important thing, that, I think, would help many people deconvert. Because it was an important obstacle that slowed down my deconversion.

Which evidences against Christianity are there

A huge lot, in fact, of so many kinds it is impossible to sum up. In matters of history and archeology, which Christians are usually fanatics of, evidence is already overwhelmingly against it.
Indeed, one short evidence against Christianity I'm puzzled to not see more often, and to see so many Christians having seemingly not heard of: the archeological evidence that has relatively recently been found against Exodus and explaining how Judaism emerged. And no, Christians have no opposite evidence on their side, even other Christians are aware of that. But even though it can be considered compelling, I still don't see historical or archeological arguments as really important, I rather see them as quite out of subject. Because the real topic here is whether this really is God's will for us to give our lives to a given doctrine, and, are their followers actually in relationship with God or not. And there are much clearer and more direct ways to investigate this than any references to ancient history.

Personally, what I see as the strongest evidence against Christianity, is the observation of how clueless are all Christians together with their favorite doctrine, about the real issues of life, morality, and the world's problems and possible solutions. I'd even call that a strictly negative understanding, a pathological way of making oneself radically unable or unwilling to learn the real picture, by preaching the wrong picture and despising any try to explain things in the correct way. And also how clueless they are about the state of the debate and the real solidity and motivation of their opponents, which they picture as having "chosen" to "reject God", some bullshit and extremely arrogant, wrongly insulting picture light years away from facts. Clearly I cannot consider that any decent God could inspire, support or even forgive such an insane mentality.
Namely, important real and undeniable aspects of life and morality I explained here, are already for me a strong refutation of Christianity (both as a matter of incompatible facts and as a matter of what a pathological inability to grasp these realities, the Christian doctrine and "life with God" twists the mind of its followers into, so that of course no such an indoctrination could be approved by any decent God).
Other arguments in other pages in this site: Some logical refutation of Christianity - Evidence against theism - Some contradictions of spirituality, and many other pages in this site where I explained in different ways the nonsense and irrelevance of the christian view of things (and I still have more to write), and also much more in other sites by other authors I did or did not link to.

How Christians could more easily deconvert

It would be to explicitly get out of the dilemma between religion and naturalism.
When I was Christian, I saw the mere labels of "atheism", tries to argue against the existence of God, against miracles or afterlife, as sufficent reasons to stop reading any further what other arguments these people had to offer against Christianity.
Because I considered (and I still do consider) that many miracles happen still now, and that denying them, as well as denying the intuitive ideas that the mind differs from matter and that afterlife should exist, at least partly an expression of blindness on theoretical and/or practical levels.

It was not an obvious thing for me to fully develop and show the consistency of a worldview that reconciles [rationalism and the rejection of religious doctrines] with [the mind/matter duality and the existence of afterlife].
Not because of any logical incompatibility or difficulty (as there do exist many people whose position combine these as well without problem - see also my metaphysics), but just because of the cultural rumor that assumes that they would be incompatible (the people who combine these are not usually loud in the media and blogosphere).
More precisely: I was under the impression that, somehow, rationalism (the practice of reason as a primary method to truth above faith and revelation) was misleading because it leads people to the wrong conclusion, and therefore should not be trusted.
It was hard for me to find out that things were more complex than that:
And also: that even more evidences against Christianity and other religions can specifically be found in a dualist framework.


What could give a religion a good deal of credibility to me as a true link to God

What could make a religion worthy of respect, be a sign of wisdom from its part

What is definitely not convincing

Pretty much everything Christians ever told me until now. Examples among many others: In one debate, a Christian wrote "No amount of outside evidence is going to be enough for you". Sorry, this accusation is plain false. Instead, what Christians interpret this way, is in fact the following fact: no amount of NON-evidence, stupidities, ridiculous fallacies and vain, blind faith declarations that this or that should be accepted as evidence while it is in fact clearly empty and illogical, is going to be enough for me.

More links and references

My personal testimonies of conversion and deconversion

Greta Christina's version of the guide
Misconception 1 "Scientists have an atheist agenda"; misconception 2: "theories require faith to believe"
A debate thread "What empirical evidence could there be for God?"

If you have more interesting references to suggest, you can write me (trustforum at gmail com)

Back to main page