Christian 'Drop-outs'

[OpenYourEyes]

For Discussion or Debate:
How to prevent Christians from dropping out of the faith?

How to respond to Christians who have already dropped out of the faith?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Just to elaborate on some terms and why I started this thread...
A Christian drop-out stems from the same idea of high school drop-out, in that both groups left something prematurely. The Christian drop-out leaves Christianity usually due to some problem or conflict that they encounter with their belief system and then they give up prematurely. I think most people are accustomed to hearing about and assuming that many atheists leave the faith based on rational reasons but then when I press them I find that many of the key factors that should be considered in the decision are missing. There tends to be a lack of proper understanding of God and the Bible, a lack of familiarity with Christian apologetics, and even on conducting research into their objections. As such, I tend to not spend much time answering their every objection and instead I help lay a foundation for them (in their thinking) where they can find the answers themselves because all the main problem boils down to is a problem dealing with doubt.

One recent example is of a former Christian who drew a negative conclusion about some aspect of Christianity based on an inadequate answer that their professor told them. Apparently, this person considered asking a teacher as being sufficient to deal with their doubt since their response came after my questioning of whatever research they've done on the matter. Ironically, this person dropped out of their class on religion. Notice here no real effort was put in to look for answers either because the person didn't know how and where to look or this person just gave up. This is very common sign/pattern of someone who doesn't know how to deal with doubt.

[OnceConvinced]

In fact, calling them "drop-outs" is already a very derogatory position to take toward them

This is actually so true. Maybe a better term would be "Got real". We use that all the time here in New Zealand. "Get real man!" "I got real". Not sure if it's used elsewhere.

It could be that "dropping out" might actually be the right thing to do. The person got real and so walked out. The person realised he was being taught lies and fantasies. I would hope that if I attended a class that I would recognise right away when the teacher was talking hot air. In fact I can remember one class I was in doing my degree where the teacher was only really teaching out of books. He didn't have the ability or the understanding to teach us effectively. We all picked up on this early and we made official complaints about the teacher. I guess we could have just walked out of his class. No one would be able to claim we left prematurely. We would have left because we knew we weren't getting the truth.

But perhaps it's a test from God himself? ie, How long does it take before one gets real and realises that what one is being taught is nonsense?

I took 30 years to get real. Perhaps I was given a D by God. "OnceConvinced! Why did you not learn your lesson earlier? Why did it take you more than 30 years to figure out you were being taught lies and fantasies? It should have only taken you 30 days!".

Perhaps those still in the faith are in real danger of getting an F?

Compared to many other ex-Christians here I probably look like a very slow learner. They must be thinking that I am extra-ordinarily thick for having taken so long to "drop out".

[Zzyzx]

.

It is the job of scientists to cater (or adapt) to reality

Correction: It is the job of scientists to study the real world

(presuming that God is part of reality)

On what basis other than wishful thinking and personal preference would one make that presumption?

Who is bound by the presumption?

When science is not able to do such, just as it is not able to do for pre-scientific past historical events, then it's only reasonable to NOT expect science to be used or to call that the time-past or history is the problem.

Is this to say that one should think about past events as though their knowledge was limited to that of ancient people?

There are non-scientific approaches that can be used to establish validity to some degree.

Agreed – and I provided examples previously http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 284#802284

However, the establishment of validity seems to be missing for Bible claims upon which Christianity is based.

Clearly the dichotomy is not between science and "wishful thinking".

There does seem to be a dichotomy between verifiable evidence and no verifiable evidence.

[OpenYourEyes]

My point about Christian drop outs was not meant to include all Christians who leave the faith, but rather it's a term I came up with to label those who left the faith for reasons that could have been avoided or resolved. They left the faith prematurely, in other words. One common scenario that I encounter are atheists who leave Christianity because of some nagging doubt or objection, but then they fail to do any serious searching for answers.

What amount of study/research is required when properly deciding whether to have belief or dismiss belief in Christianity? When is it acceptable vs. premature? When is it done for reasons that could have been resolved, and when is it done for adequate reasons? When are nagging doubts and objections valid, and when do they require more searching?

I don't know who these "drop-outs" are anymore.

Another forum member named agnosticatheist asked me a similar question and I responded to him or her earlier. You can read the details here...my response

In addition to that detailed post, I'll try to offer a brief recap here.

What amount of study/research is required when properly deciding whether to have belief or dismiss belief in Christianity?

I can not offer you a precise amount of time and depth, and besides this would vary from person-to-person. Since we're dealing with research, I will at least say that the research should be about the same or more than what would be required for a research paper. Each reason or objection that causes doubt should be handled accordingly, although other things besides research can be done, as well.

Once you've completed your research, which should be along the same lines as when you'd complete a good research paper, then you can reassess your position.

When is it acceptable vs. premature?

I think a good measure for any good research is whatever is required for a good research paper. Besides just the research on individual matters of doubts, there's also the preestablished intellectual aspect of Christianity which is covered in natural theology, philosophy, history, systemic theology, Christian apologetics, etc. If a person fails to explore these aspects and fails to do some critical research, then I'd say that their abandonment of the faith was premature.

When is it done for reasons that could have been resolved, and when is it done for adequate reasons?

You're referring to converting to atheism. This could be done for reasonable reasons which would be after the Christian has explored the intellectual aspect of Christianity and when they've conducted good research.

When are nagging doubts and objections valid, and when do they require more searching?

My response to your last question applies here, as well.

[Danmark]

...but then when I press them I find that many of the key factors that should be considered in the decision are missing. There tends to be a lack of proper understanding of God and the Bible, a lack of familiarity with Christian apologetics, and even on conducting research into their objections.

It is about time you told us what you are talking about. You haven't.

What are these "key factors" you think they are not considering?
Please give the specifics about this alleged "lack of 'proper' understanding of God and the Bible?"
What constitutes a "proper" understanding of God?
What precisely is a "proper" understanding of the Bible.?
What is the "research" they haven't done?
What are there "objections" you claim have not been researched,
AND
how do you know they have conducted no research?

Pease be specific. You certainly have not been so far.
You've released a big bag of hot air with no substance and no evidence of your competence to make any of these vague judgments.

In other words, you've merely unleashed a classic "polemic" which is exactly what you've accused others of doing.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 52 by OpenYourEyes]

Since we're dealing with research, I will at least say that the research should be about the same or more than what would be required for a research paper.

So...in OYE's eyes, a person has to undertake a significant level of research before having/dismissing belief in Christianity. This is extremely odd for three reasons
1) Is the person who does this and then rejects Christianity correct, or is he still wrong for doing so? Can he be correct in thinking the claims of Christianity to be bogus? How can he? OYE believes the claims of Christianity, so in OYE's eyes, the person who comes to the opposite conclusion must be wrong.
2) Does a person have to undertake this level of research for each and every religious claim they hear? Has OYE done the equivalent of papers on Islam, Hinduism, the various Christian denominations?
3) Why this level of research? At it's core, Christianity makes the claim that a guy rose from the dead and conveniently has no evidence to support it, nothing that makes it even plausible. Somehow that doesn't earn it a mocking laugh and a "Get out of here!"?
What if I told OYE that by killing himself, he could transport his consciousness to an alien spacecraft following a comet in our solar system? Or that an alien named Xenu is responsible for intelligent life here on this planet? OYE can't just ignore claims like this, he'd have to do research papers on them.

[Bust Nak]

There ya go - attack, slander, slur, and libel anyone who rejects your stupid arguments.
...
I expect the honorable debater to not lie to us.

Moderator Comment

Report a post if you think there is slander, slur and libel against you. Plus the implication of lying is getting too close to the line.

Please review the Rules.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

Hmm ... human parthenogenesis and flying zombies ... I wonder why people keep misunderstanding.

Moderator Comment
I understand that your point doesn't need more than a single line, but do try an be less flippant about it please.

Please review the Rules.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Yahu]

For Discussion or Debate:
How to prevent Christians from dropping out of the faith?
How to respond to Christians who have already dropped out of the faith?

There are many causes of 'dropping out' IMO. Much of it can be linked with churches that follow false doctrines. They try to CONTROL the membership by many methods such as fear tactics. They operate as 'meddlesome busybodies in the matters of other men's lives' while scripture ranks that right up there with being a murderer, thief and evil-doer.

Many tend to follow religious traditions of man and attack anyone that doesn't conform to those traditions. This was the error of the Pharisees and is what actually got Yeshua crucified.

Others leave Christianity due to persecution.

Some where never really Christian's to begin with but only attended out of family requirements for example.

The way to respond to those drop-outs depends on the reasons they left to begin with.

[Bust Nak]

I can not offer you a precise amount of time and depth, and besides this would vary from person-to-person. Since we're dealing with research, I will at least say that the research should be about the same or more than what would be required for a research paper. Each reason or objection that causes doubt should be handled accordingly, although other things besides research can be done, as well.

You say that like believers have done enough research to fill a paper before signing up for Christianity. What do you say to the suggestion that one is required to completed ones research, which should be along the same lines as when you'd complete a good research paper, before allowing to become a Christian? Do you want to make it so much harder to leave than to join?

How about we include more than "just the research on individual matters of doubts, there's also the preestablished intellectual aspect of Christianity which is covered in natural theology, philosophy, history, systemic theology, Christian apologetics, etc. If a person fails to explore these aspects and fails to do some critical research, then" they are calling themselves Christians prematurely.

How to prevent Christians from dropping out of the faith?

Prevent unsupervised reading of the Bible.

How to respond to Christians who have already dropped out of the faith?

Empathise with them? Acknowledge that everyone has their own reason to drop out of their faith and is their own journey? Understand that they are the same person as they were before?

Or you know, you can make them feel bad about themselves, convince them that they have a problem dealing with doubt, a problem that lay with them and not with Christianity. Tell them their decision to leave is premature and any problems they had can be resolved with "proper" understanding of God, the Bible and Christian apologetics. Don't both with answering every individual objections but dismiss their doubt as the result of a lack of research.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 1 by OpenYourEyes]

After 50 years of accepting Christ as my savior and the guiding light of my world view through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, I noticed that when I tried to witness to the lost after the Internet became ubiquitous to society that I was being challenged with theological questions like I had never encountered before.

As a result, I wanted to find out ways to understand those challenges better to both defend my faith and add to my witness......

So when I undertook that study I found out what many do in seminary and those in the pulpit that what I thought was rock solid historical documentation of Christ's life and his events were no more credible in its information transfer process than those of UFO claims by zealous UFologists like with the Roswell crash and later claims. At that point, I knew I had been deceiving myself and others........even if with benevolent intent and sincerity but nevertheless clueless about what so much of the public interested in such a subject was able to find which had been held in check by Biblical scholars from the pew dwellers over the centuries.......

It took no time at all for me to realize that there was no credible source of scriptures and that my own conscious was the Holy Spirit and all my coincidents and other aspects of my life I considered miraculous were nothing more than confirmation bias due to the prejudice of my presuppose world view as a Christian.

As a result I "dropped out" of the whole world view and live my life like I did with most of it anyway.......and that is basing reality as a scientific rationalist on consistent and predictable models of science and its applied technology that functions within that reality.

The bottom line here is that even after 50 years of faith there is never enough of anything in doctrine and/or dogma let alone "evidence" to substantiate the claims of absolute truth.......(even a God wouldn't know if it was absolute nor could prove that)........and so you might say I dropped out as well.