Granted, some lucky few simply flip a bit  What does that mean?

 It does sound illuminating - I'll check it out.

I think in my case, the reason for my sudden distaste for being around Christians in general - not old friends and family, mind you, just those I don't really know - is that I don't like to be reminded of where I was and I do still feel guilt. The hardest thing I've ever done is move to this predominately conservative, Republican, Christian small town. Anyone who knows even a little of my history would challenge that, but it's true.

RYC: Yes, of course I was used to it. I see it every day.

OK. Excellent article and the www.exchristian.net site is pretty cool too. I especially enjoyed some of the videos. Like this one:

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/03/we-dont-exist.html

The guy keeps referring to "the spirit of atheism." He is obviously possessed himself. The last line was worth watching the whole ridiculous thing - very illuminating.

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/03/why-i-am-not-respectful.html

This guy really makes a valid point. The music was cool too.

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/03/words-of-wisdom.html

Nothing really too surprising, but the music was cool.

@A___Beautiful___Disaster - 

@NQbass7 - I have never heard that expression...

but I really like it!

I love the quotes - particularly the part about implanting psychological safeguards. Yes indeed, I experienced that. And like you, I felt the need to thoroughly study while I dealt with my doubts. I still do, but a lot of that is because I have children that periodically challenge me.

I've said this in the past - it's one of the most difficult things to do to leave the faith, the fold. It tears apart any who are sensitive. Those remaining in the faith wag their heads at us and harbor presumptive accusations. But they have no fucking idea what it's like. That's not a statement intended to invoke pity - it's simply the truth.

"I've looked at life from both sides now..."

I continue to enjoy your posts immensely. I even told a man I met last night about your "Belief Tree" post.

@Fletch_F_Fletch - 

@something_within_me - 

The background they came from?  Mostly "Low-Church Atheists" or new-age hippie kind of stuff.  A few were from devout materialists.  Many of the Christians that I know who left their faith were hardcore "young-earth" D.C. Talk followers.  I guess listening to D.C. Talk or the Newsboys would make anyone leave their faith.  It seems they had to fit this perfect "Christian Model" and that can only last so long, especially when they realize "secular" music is ten times better, excluding a few bands from Tooth and Nail records.

In my opinion the problem with the Christian church and many Christian parents is the inability to address one's doubt or anything that is uncomfortable to the faith.  I find it so interesting that Christianity emphasises above all things that man is imperfect and sinful.  Yet Christians are so afaid to express their doubts or sin because this is something that is uncomfortable and we know how churches hate to deal with uncomfortable things.  Went off track a little but hey there it is.  

@Fletch_F_Fletch - 

@Fletch_F_Fletch - 

NQ why do you think I'm arguing with you?  When did I say most people change their beliefs? I'm really not trying to draw any conclusions, if you notice my first comment was a question.  In light of the article I was interested in wondering if you think everyone goes through some sort of 'wanting to leave' no matter what worldview they grew up with.  It seems when most people change their beliefs it isn't in their adult years when one is most knowledgable about the world around them its mainly during their late teenage early adult years.  It seems this time period in one's life plays a role in questioning what one believes no matter what it is.  That is what I wanted to talk about, doesn't seem too incoherent to me.  However, I'll grant that your smarter than me, but please just don't rub in it next time.  And it really won't take me far to find one who had a full fledged materalistic viewpoint, a good friend of mine, last I checked he was going to a Catholic Church.  However I lost contact with him after I transferred.  He may have left his materalistic outlook due to existential reasons, maybe like Francis Crick.  You might want to check out Antony Flew he is a Deist but nevertheless left the belief in a closed system.  But I'll leave the conversation here you seem to be angry with me for asking a question. 

Well I just read this article from CNN on Francis Collins so it turns out his quest in believing God wasn't existential.  Here is Francis Collins,

"I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

@Fletch_F_Fletch - 

1. That is certainly debated, I don't think Flew holds to your view of him.

2. I'm thinking you got the story of Collins from Hitchens, that is rather simplistic and actually insulting to Collins.  I as well heard that story and that is why I was wondering if Collins quest for religion was purely existential, if it was due to seeing a waterfall appearing to look like the trinity well then I would believe it was a rather existential conversion.  But we know, as you have read the article, it's much deeper than that.

3. About your third point I'm not arguing whether the arguments are good or not I'm simply stating people who were naturalistic but then converted to theism through cognitive processes.  Of course we could play the game of "see this book" and then I could point you to "C.S. Lewis's Dangerious Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason" by Victor Reppert but this goes way beyond the point.  Of course your free to disagree and say his arguments aren't rational therefore he never had "good" reasons to convert from a closed-system view of the world.

4. I think Craig has a nice podcast discussion on Carrier and this view, its worth checking out, of course it's not going to change viewpoints but it certainly will be educating.  If I remember right the podcast under his "Defenders series" I think it was under "atheism" or "arguments against God"....something like that.  

5. Your missing my point, I used this quote to show it wasn't a purely existential reason for why he converted, as before I thought it may have been.  The paragraph I quoted backs this up.  The second paragraph doesn't take away the fact that Collins believes there are good reasons for being a Christian, how does the paragraph I left out contradict this?  In the paragraph I didn't add, he is saying his rational doesn't contradict his faith.  This hardly changes the point. 

On the side I find it interesting that I put "Francis Crick", what would have caused that freudian slip?  :)

@Fletch_F_Fletch - 

Hey NQ,

1.  This is taken directly from Flew;
"My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 percent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I'm 84 and that was Roy Varghese's role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. This is my book and it represents my thinking."

The only thing Flew should be guilty of is getting a ghostwriter.

2. It isn't as if he "came" up with intellectual justifications AFTER he converted to Christianity, as it seems your suggesting.  The article clearly lays out the fact that he began to question his naturalistic viewpoint of the world and felt it lacked intellectual justification.  This all occurred before he got one with nature.  That is my point of quoting the CNN article.   

3. Yes intellectual justification certainly is a better phrase to use with what we are talking about, I certainly agree.

4. And we are back to Flew, Collins, Girard, and I'll throw in Budziszewski for fun.  What these people all have in common is their belief that naturalism doesn't best account for an intellectual justifiable worldview.  Now Collins as well as many others may have not left their naturalism and converted to theism on rational alone, however their rational certainly played a key role and they see no antithesis to their faith, that is if Flew, Girard, and Budziszewski believe in any sort of faith.  Do you not agree that Collins makes it clear he believes naturalism is not as intellectually justifiable as theism?  Again I didn't leave out the next quote on purpose, the fact that Collins says faith played a role in his conversion doesn't mean he threw rational out the window.  Pertaining to existentialism, I'm referring to typical definition of existentialism.  When I think of someone believing something for existential reasons I'm thinking their beliefs are based on a pragmatic view of life.  

5. You said, "His reasons for converting were still emotional reasons, not intellectual ones."  According to the article was his reason for leaving the naturalistic viewpoint emotional?   

@Fletch_F_Fletch - 

Well I typed up an entire response and I left the website and it all got erased, therefore this is sloppy and quick.  Collins says this in the article, the article makes it appear as if he began asking these questions and felt naturalism didn't give him the best answers so he went searching for a "better" worldview, this was before his conversion:

"I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"

If naturalism answered his questions, for him, he wouldn't have left that worldview.  If naturalism adequately answered the above questions he wouldn't have converted.  Just like Flew, if the worldview of naturalism was adequate enough these people would not be where they are today.  For sure, you can state that they did not have a proper view of naturalism and this is at least a reason why they may have left but that is besides the point.  I'm just trying to help you out in finding people who accepted naturalism and left that belief system.  Pertaining to Flew I did read the NY Times Article and Carrier's blog post when the book came out.  Carrier obviously has interests in this entire discussion and there are an equal amount of people who have come out challenging Carrier's thoughts, one of them is the horses mouth himself-Flew.  The article was written in 2005 and its 2008 with Flew still claiming the book represents his viewpoints accurately and fellow professors continually meeting with Flew and finding his belief system clearly logical and clearly theistic. I'm sure I could quickly dig up some links for you to have this varified.  But in all honesty I really could care less and I'm sure this discussion isn't of much interests to you as well.

NQ remember I'm just trying to help you out with a list of naturalists who converted to theism.  If these people don't adequately fit your search than toss them out, its okay, I'm not trying to debate this topic.  As mentions the Collins quote was to shed light on his outlook.  Like I said you may want to check out Girard and Budziszewski.  I'm not very intune to philosophy so I don't know the background of many people but Girard is a good start.  Girard however isn't as much in philsophy but more into cultural anthropology.  He is kinda like a Joseph Cambell. 

I really want to go back into some books I'm reading so I hope you understand I'll leave my post as this.  Have a good night NQ.