Monergism's moronic musings

I'll be responding to this (click here) article by Thaddeus Williams.

I have clocked more than a few hours of lengthy, vulnerable conversations with people who reject Christianity, some of whom never professed faith and others who claim to have deconverted or had a “break up” with God. Again and again, a surprising conclusion comes from these conversations. Many renditions of the so-called “Christian God” shunned by many non-Christians are gods who I, as a Christian, shun too. British theologian A.W. Pink made the point a century ago:

I have interviewed several people of belief over the course of years on my youtube channel Deconverted Man, and they all seem to follow a pattern of having grown up/around the faith they currently have, did some very basic "research" and found arguments that made them feel okay with the belief they had, a few had better more thought out ideas then other, but all in the end have faith in "god" because of faith not because of arguments, but because of emotional/social reasons. I've also spoken to a great many skeptics, atheists, agnostics and other labels who had no belief in God, some simply were not raised with that idea, and others found no evidence when they went looking for it to support the belief. Only perhaps two that I've encountered (off the top of my head) deconverted for what I would call emotional reasons like portrayed by the author. This is a TINY sample size of course.

Regardless, the underlying idea that poisons' the well in the paragraph written by Williams is that, the atheist is rejecting "not-real gods" (the same sort of god that he would also reject).

I've heard plenty of apologists say things like this as well, I recall someone, (perhaps Lenox) who said in regards to Russel Tea pot that, of course God isn't like that! God isn't a thing that you can point to (like the tea pot) bleep me if I can find that clip on youtube... so go ahead and be skeptical that he said that. Doesn't matter, some apologist somewhere said something like this... in fact - we have one! The darn paragraph in question is saying that we pesky non-believers simply believe in "the wrong god".

Ah! I see so I didn't deconvert from the "REAL JESUS" see I deconverted from a FAKE VERSION OF IT. OOOOoooooooooooo well darn that just changes ... not a god damn thing.

Because I deconverted due to there being NO EVIDENCE FOR THIS GOD. Plenty of evidence that the bible stories ARE NOT TRUE and an utter FAILURE of the arguments to be bleeping SOUND!!!! >_<

If this was a video I'd be yelling at this point, capital letters will have to do, I suppose. SIGH.

I look at the small data sample of former believers I know and say - "Nah, that was not them" in regards to this silly idea that we simply all got "the wrong god" - well wait a moment, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?!

What is the EVIDENCE FOR GOD?! >_< but why - WHY do apologists do this?

Simple: COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

In the mind of the apologist (not that I can read minds but bear beer with me a moment) the apologist sees that someone used to beleve what they belive, that makes them feel weird because that means they could someday, perhaps not beleve, and that makes them feel bad things they don't like, so they then come up with an idea to explain away why the person does not beleve what they currently beleve: It must be that person:

Hates god!

Really DOES believe ,but doesn't want to admit it (Romans 1:19 is pointed at to ""prove"" this idea)

Or wait! I KNOW, THEY JUST DID NOT BELEVE IN THE REAL FOR REAL GOD!

Ah! The feeling just melts away. Pretend that is why they deconverted... AHHHHH I feel so much better... so says the construct strawman of the apologist I made to make my point here.

Anyway, I think that is why.

Back to the article at hand, the rest of the paragraphs are similar mussing about it simply being the wrong god and concluding with this gem:

So I ask you to be open-minded to the possibility that, for all of your proper unbelief, there exists a Being bigger and better, more worthy of awe and enjoyment, than anything or anyone you, or any other mere mortal, has ever imagined.

Okay. sure. Guess what though? THAT IS NOT YOUR GOD THEN. >_< geez!

Because that god is not and could not be ... wait for it... written about! ANYWHERE EVER. 

So it isn't the god of any known religion, and that god, whatever it is, is as yet, unknown.

Thus since there can not BE ANY evidence, repeatable test or sound argument for such a "god" we must be skeptical... of the conclusion.