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
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
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
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,
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
Why I cannot re-convert to Christianity anymore
There are huge lots of them, which roughly fall into the following categories:
- Logical reasons : I cannot believe what I know to be false (as I have overwhelming proofs of its falsity)
- Theological reasons :
- Moral reasons : I know that conversion to Christianity ("giving one's life to Jesus")
is most probably evil by its consequences:
- It leads to waste one's good willing efforts at the expense of more useful
works for humanity; it may lead to some mental paralysis, expecting God to
act instead of developing our own initiatives and creativity.
- It gets one's mind fucked up, leading to lots of terrible consequences such as, in some people
- The main "mission" it leads one to, namely of preaching the Gospel further
to convert many more people, is actually evil as it can turn out to spoil or even destroy the lives of the people one
tries to "save", like my life was terribly spoiled by having been Christian, among other things.
- It logically, inevitably makes one terribly and wrongly insulting against
anyone with different opinions; it can thus absurdly destroy many
relationships of diverse kinds.
How Christians could more easily deconvert
It would be to explicitly get out of the dilemma between religion
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
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
And also: that even more evidences against Christianity and other
religions can specifically be found in a dualist (supernaturalist) framework.
- That it is not the scientific method which led atheists to
unfortunately happen to deny the existence of miracles and
afterlife, but a sort of accident, that they did not properly
examine the question, and that they focused their study on other
- That despite a possible error from their part on this
question, they have made very wise findings on other issues.
- That they do have otherwise excellent evidences against
religions, and that these evidences are independent of
metaphysical assumptions, and can hold as well in the framework
of metaphysical dualism and the existence of afterlife.
- That religions can very well be left and free rational
thinking be adopted without touching the confidence in
- That there can be place in heaven for apostates. And that it
is even a better news of heaven than the religious one, as it
does not make any absurd requirements such as the requirement
believing anything without evidence.
- An extensive study of near death experience testimonies, which
contradicts or at least fails to support the teachings of
specific religions about the afterlife, namely the fact that fate in afterlife
is not governed by religious beliefs or memberships, which appear pointless
from an afterlife perspective.
- The fact that miracles exist in diverse religions as well, and
none has any more outstanding (fundamentally different) credible
ones than others; they equally exist outside any religions. I finally had my
own experience of miraculous healing
in a totally non-religious framework.
- The internal inconsistency of the story of Jesus miracles
which, if true, would be an awfully wasteful use of God's power,
which would have been much better used otherwise in less
efforts, such as writing from scratch better human (and other
species') DNA some hundreds of million years ago.
- That the sense of Jesus resurrection, as explained in Paul's
epistles, had more to do with materialism that dualism. Namely,
that it was rather motivated by the unability of the people of
that time to have any hope of afterlife without the body. Their
inability to distinguish mind from matter, and to understand
that the physical body is just a thing, an construction of atoms
that can be replaced by other atoms, so that individual atoms
making the body don't have any value for the soul after death,
and won't need to be revived by any resurrection for giving the
soul a full new life.
- The presence of people on Earth with rememberings of a past
life, thus refuting any religious teachings that deny all
possibility of reincarnation.
What could give a religion a good deal of credibility to me
as a true link to God
- Having received an email message from someone who got the
spiritual revelation to send it together with the address of my
future wife (and/or that he had wrote to her my contact), if
that turned out to be true (that we indeed fit each other).
Indeed, for personal reasons I cannot sum up here, I cannot
seriously accept the idea that a decent God with the ability to
inspire someone on Earth by His Will, could have failed to do
this. Now I see the fact of having not received such a message,
as an evidence of absence of anybody currently on Earth who gets
any inspiration from God's will.
- That many people would have independently rediscovered the
same spiritual truths without having been humanly taught them
(this is a very well-know argument, the "argument
from locality"). For example from Near Death Experiences.
- That Jesus or any prophet would have made an announcement of
the form "In truth I tell you, a new living specie will appear
on Earth, it will look this way, behave this and that way" and
then later it would indeed appear, and now we could not find any
fossil trace of this specie from a time before this
announcement, and could not locate it close to any other branch
in the tree of evolution. (Please don't tell me that, if breads
could be multiplied by Jesus and his body be resurrected and
ascended out of Earth's orbital zone then a little piece of DNA
can still resist God's will)
What could make a religion worthy of respect, be a sign of
wisdom from its part
- A doctrine, may it be official or presented by some individual
(in his web site), with
- a logically well-structured description of views on
- not pretending to have any more fundamental difference with
other religious doctrines than it really has;
- A demonstration of genuine, non-trivial wisdom and clues in
moral, economic and political affairs above the too common
childishness of religious views on these issues. See my own
clues for example there
and there and
there. Indeed, why
claim that you have any divine guidance or special value, and
bother promoting them, if it gives you no more clue or any
special means of any kind, to bring any more significant
contribution to the progress of civilization and how to make
the Earth a more decent place to live in, than anyone else can
have without it ?
- A representative debating with me without wrong behavior
(despite my long experience, first as a Christian, then trying
to debate with Christians, still never found one close to
satisfying such criteria of intellectual decency):
- not accusing me of having made any mistake I did not make or
having had any wrong attitude I did not have;
- not overloading his messages with stupidities and logical
- not holding his arguments as stronger than they really are;
- not having divine faith in some awful bullshit from their
doctrine or imagination about who I am and how I think, such
as the bullshit of pretending that it was my "choice" to
"reject God", or that I was "never a true Christian", and
insisting to teach me this bullshit without any time listening
or having any respect for what I know about myself ;
- not provoking my legitimate anger by their nonsensical way
of pretending to discuss and of judging me that does not let
the chance for the discussion to make any sense nor for
themselves to ever have any chance to understand my point, and
then blaming me for how the discussion goes wrong, and
pretending that I am impolite while they were very polite
(since they cared so much to dedicate all the love of the
universe to the dirty shit their Jesus told them I was and
that it is honest, normal and right for them to trust Him
about the shit I am since there is honestly no way for them to
imagine me otherwise, oh yeah), and that I have a problem of
arrogance and anger from my heart which Jesus has a solution
for (ignoring that I already did everything in the past to
give Him my life, so that giving my life to Jesus was the
cause of my legitimate anger, not the solution)
- having enough patience and intelligence to properly
understand my own views, not blindly pretending that I don't
have any good reason for my position just because one is
totally ignorant about my reasons and chooses to have a divine
faith in their non-existence.
- thus, not spamming me with bullshit arguments whose vacuity
and insanity I refuted by my texts long ago, and pretending I
must keep listening as if I did not already heard that same
bullshit hundreds of times in the past, while refusing to do
themselves the work of learning about my refutations
- not pretending that I would be arrogant, closed-minded and
impolite just because I find good reasons to interrupt their
flow of bullshit arguments which I already refuted long ago
and decide to try having my say, when I see their nonsense
repeated over again. Such an accusation is fucking
superficiality and ignorance of all the years of patient
listening to Christian preaches I went through in the past,
when I gave Christians years to explain everything to me and I
did a very long and careful search for truth (as a very
intelligent INTP-T), while I clearly see Christians not having
made any significant effort to learn the opposite view (or
they could be very unlucky of only having heard weak
- The testimony by an atheist or agnostic person, reporting that
this religion made him a wiser and better understanding person,
with better human understanding and/or in depth of analysis of
arguments. Indeed, so many Christians (for example) come to
witness that their relationship with Jesus made them better
people, however it is quite understandable that they succeeded
to illusion themselves as being wiser and more virtuous people
than others, considering the way in which this religion so
seriously fucked up their mind that they are (with all the best
intentions and serenity of their hearts) continuously painting
the rest of the world in black, misjudging and misunderstanding
others, thus giving others legitimate reasons to be angry but then
insanely blaming them for this anger they provoked. That is too easy in
these conditions to imagine having found the path to better
morality and peace of heart than one's opponents.
Caring to answer my list of questions for Christians
without covering yourself with ridicule in doing so.
What is definitely not convincing
Pretty much everything Christians ever told me until now. Examples
among many others:
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.
- Pointing out the
of the Fatima miracles
- Radiating a powerful aura of divine love and serenity. This is only
good at making people jealous of you without giving them a chance to enjoy
the same indecent privilege (because such stuff may either be genetic or
otherwise mysterious but anyway actually impossible to share), a mere
nuclear bomb method that just works to terrorize people by the shame of
ever trying to argue with you, thus erasing any possibility of actually
meaningful discussion and
understanding of the real problems of life and everything.
- Making a fuss about some reports of a bunch of miraculous
healings. It does not even matter to me whether these reports are
factually true or not, I will anyway see such an "argument" as a
testimony of dumbness on the issue of what are the most important
stakes and needs of life, that any decent God with any intervention
power on this Earth could and should care for : I see much more
serious issues and chances for a decent God to do efficiently good
interventions, than in the mere field of curing any illness.
- Pointing out that the Catechism of the Catholic church
declares faith to be compatible with reason (one's rationality
has to be demonstrated by effectively behaving rationally,
rather than just claimed and believed on blind faith), or that
there exist some Christian scientists
(I was Christian and scientist myself, and I have yet to see a
hint that there exists any Christian scientists that are neither
ignorant of the arguments, as I was, nor practicing specially
flawed illogical thinking when it comes to religious issues).
More links and references
personal testimonies of conversion and deconversion
Christina's version of the guide
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