• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Former pastor to 'try on atheism'

RogueWarrior

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
Messages
4,579
Reaction score
6,097
Location
Atheist Utopia aka Reality
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Year Without God | a former pastor's journey into atheism

A Year Without God: A Former Pastor's Journey Into Atheism | Ryan J. Bell

Apparently Ryan J. Bell is dissatisfied with his church's teachings and/or stance w.r.t. to homosexuality and other stuff.
[...]I really didn't fit within the church anymore. I had been an outspoken critic of the church's approach to our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered members -- that approach being exclusion or, at best, second class membership ("we won't kick you out but you can't participate in leadership"). Through the years, I had also been a critic of the church's treatment of women, their approach to evangelism and their tunnel-vision approach to church growth.

I don't know if he is for real are not. There have been others that have 'tried atheism' and they have been hollow and dishonest about the so-called atheist experience. They made interesting observations like "I felt cold inside". Mr Bell uses words like atheist's "sacred texts", trinity of New Atheists, or non-faith. He is treating atheism like another religion or another chile recipe or new coat.
Mr Bell thinks he can 'try on' atheism. 'try on' are his words and his punctuation. Already he is demonstrating an enormous ignorance or he is being dishonest because you can't 'try on' a disbelief.

Atheism does not have a dogma to 'try on',
Atheism does not have rituals to 'try on',
Atheism does not have holy days to observe,
Atheism does not have sacred texts, saints or a trinity.
Atheism is not necessarily non-religious (*GASP wtf!. yes, several religions do not require a belief in a god.)

Atheism is disbelief, pure and simple. Atheism is disbelief of theistic claims. (It is not the assertion that gods do not exist.)
How can anyone force disbelief? How can anyone prove their disbelief? It is not possible.
Disbelief is the null position versus any claim. Why do so many people have enormous difficulty grasping this concept? If disbelief is not the null position to every claim, what is the null position? Think about that.
If disbelief is not your personal null position towards a claim, you are gullible. I have 100 acres of amazing water front property in Florida, I just know you would love, so PM me because I need to liquidate it ASAP!


Every claim must be supported by rational and justifiable evidence.
I am a nice guy. I can outplay Tiger Woods at golf. I am a millionaire. I am James T. Kirk from the starship Enterprise. I have $100 in my left pocket. Santa lives at the North Pole. Obamacare is going to work. Obamacare is not going to work. The earth is flat. Gods exist. Gods don't exist. This chair is made of wood. These are all claims that require empirical, falsifiable evidence before rational belief is justified. Some beliefs are easy to justify rationally and others not so much. Belief is binary. Either you do or you don't believe something. You can't force it, switch it on/off like a light or otherwise manipulate it. However, you can study the reasons for your belief. Are they justified? Are they rational? Does anyone want to believe in something irrationally or unjustifiably?

At best this 'experiment' amounts to a simulation of someone's experience after they have announced their disbelief in the existence of gods. It would have been more intellectually honest to actually just make the announcement and then write about the experience after a year. That would have been fascinating. It would have been like a long term experiment similar to the Mormon pastor who disguised himself as homeless man in church to test his congregation's actions. [rant]The Mormon bishop story is interesting because he doesn't blame himself for the actions of his flock. If his flock is not acting like christians, should he not be berating himself for being a pool teacher?[/rant]


If Ryan Bell is truly in crisis w.r.t. to deities, then he should study the reasons for his beliefs. Are they justified? Are they rational?
If he needs a starting point he can try The Clergy Project - Home Page which caters to active and former pastors. For just plain atheism, he can visit Agnosticism / Atheism - Skepticism & Atheism for Atheists & Agnostics. If he prefers an audio-visual input he can try The Atheist Experience TV Show or watch the many Youtube videos from Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dillahunty.
 
I seriously doubt that you can just "try on" atheism. Reaching that point is often a gradual process, especially if you've spent a lifetime on the opposite side of the fence. It's a realization that comes in little pieces, one at a time, and the process of transition isn't instant, as a lifetime of believing one thing is not easy to just shrug off.
 
Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

How can you "try on" a disbelief? It sounds to me as if this pastor was having some problems with the dogmas of his church, not with the existence or non existence of deity. If he was having doubts about the existence of god, as we all do most likely, the correct term is agnostic.
 
I don't like to try on atheism alot because it makes my butt look big.



ba-dum-dum.



I just wonder why he didn't look for a church more in line with his views?
 
Definition of ATHEISM



How can you "try on" a disbelief? It sounds to me as if this pastor was having some problems with the dogmas of his church, not with the existence or non existence of deity. If he was having doubts about the existence of god, as we all do most likely, the correct term is agnostic.

I agree. It sounds like he is in conflict with doctrine.
 
I agree that forcing belief or disbelief isn't possible. But this is not an unintelligible proposition. If someone who is an atheist "tries on" some religion, I think we could make sense of that. All this would mean is that they would devote some time period to opening their mind to the possibility that the religion in question is correct, at least in its central claims, and to make a real effort to come to understand it and treat it as true. This would not necessarily result in conversion.

This pastor could be doing the same, only from the reverse position.
 
I just wonder why he didn't look for a church more in line with his views?
I think he realized that on certain issues that Christianity isn't as flexible as some wish it to be, at least not without preaching bs. An honest approach to me, but "trying on" atheism is odd. He's probably wandering between Christian and agnostic.
 
There's two different concepts at work. 1) Faith 2) Conviction

The religious guy can't pull it off...he doesn't under stand the difference between the two above.
 
As I've said before, you can't "try on" atheism. You either are an atheist or you are not. The same is true of Christianity, you can't just "try it on". You either believe it or you do not. The only way to be a bad atheist is to believe in a god, which is exactly what this pastor is going to do, even if he's pretending he doesn't. This is about belief and you cannot just "try on" a belief, you have to actually believe it.

He doesn't.
 
It sounds like a gimmick. Once he is through 'trying on' atheism he will preach to the choir about how bad atheism is, because he 'used' to be one for a year. He will be able to claim that he 'tried' but the strength of the lord was too much. You will be able to read all about it in his forth coming book and hear about it in his tour of church's across the nation.


Oh wait here is his site: Ryan J. Bell "I write regularly for The Huffington Post and The Hillhurst Review. I am also working on a book and a some longer journalistic pieces. If you would like to hire me for a writing or journalism project, please contact me here."
 
It sounds like a gimmick. Once he is through 'trying on' atheism he will preach to the choir about how bad atheism is, because he 'used' to be one for a year. He will be able to claim that he 'tried' but the strength of the lord was too much. You will be able to read all about it in his forth coming book and hear about it in his tour of church's across the nation.


Oh wait here is his site: Ryan J. Bell "I write regularly for The Huffington Post and The Hillhurst Review. I am also working on a book and a some longer journalistic pieces. If you would like to hire me for a writing or journalism project, please contact me here."
Follow the money, and it will lead you to the truth every time.
 
It has already been covered by posts here, but what a ridiculous notion. "try on" - no matter how amazingly talented one is at self delusion, the underlying belief or disbelief at its core is not something that can be turned on like a switch.

I wonder though, even if this idea sounds absolutely crazy and alien to me, are there seriously people who think it is a choice that can be consciously made? I cannot wrap my head around the possibility - belief either is or it isn't - are there really people who actually think otherwise and it is something that they can control? It does potentially help explain some things and some circumstances such as Pascal's wager if so. Are some people really that prone to self deception? I just do not grok this at all.
 
Alright I should have read the huffpo article before commenting. I would have then seen this:

It's important to make the distinction that I am not an atheist. At least not yet. I am not sure what I am. That's part of what this year is about.

Still I do not get why he thinks he has to "study" atheist "sacred texts". It seems he is wanting to approach this like he approaches religion. It is not the writings of atheists that lead to this position, but rather a lack of being convinced by the positive claim of religion. He seems to want arguments "for" atheism - where there are none. It is not a matter of being persuaded to be atheist, but rather a matter of not being persuaded by the claims of theism. He needs to look at it as a time to critically evaluate the positive claims of religion, if these are found lacking, then atheism is just the outcome of not believing these claims.
 
It has already been covered by posts here, but what a ridiculous notion. "try on" - no matter how amazingly talented one is at self delusion, the underlying belief or disbelief at its core is not something that can be turned on like a switch.

I wonder though, even if this idea sounds absolutely crazy and alien to me, are there seriously people who think it is a choice that can be consciously made? I cannot wrap my head around the possibility - belief either is or it isn't - are there really people who actually think otherwise and it is something that they can control? It does potentially help explain some things and some circumstances such as Pascal's wager if so. Are some people really that prone to self deception? I just do not grok this at all.

look at how sexuality is viewed in the same way.
if this is for real, then I don't doubt the sincerity of wanting to 'try on' something new. But his wording is fishy.
 
Still I do not get why he thinks he has to "study" atheist "sacred texts". It seems he is wanting to approach this like he approaches religion. It is not the writings of atheists that lead to this position, but rather a lack of being convinced by the positive claim of religion. He seems to want arguments "for" atheism - where there are none. It is not a matter of being persuaded to be atheist, but rather a matter of not being persuaded by the claims of theism. He needs to look at it as a time to critically evaluate the positive claims of religion, if these are found lacking, then atheism is just the outcome of not believing these claims.

from the quote that you posted:
It's important to make the distinction that I am not an atheist. At least not yet. I am not sure what I am. That's part of what this year is about.

I can understand his thoughts, but what seems odd to me is that changing beliefs is not as simple as just saying to yourself, "Hmmm, I think I shall become atheist (or agnostic). I've been there, but what happens is that years of observing life, the world as it is, and thinking and analyzing reality, however it is perceived by the individual, it's a process that doesn't occur in a "lightbulb" moment. I didn't decide to become agnostic or atheist. I sat back and realized that many things made no sense to me, thus concluded that what I had been taught to believe was full of errors that I could not reconcile. That being said, although at one time I considered myself about as near to atheistic as I could conceivably be, in my own mind, there are still remnants of my instinctive urge to believe in "something", whatever it may be, so I essentially live in a state of "I don't know", but I still have a religious urge and aspect to my life that is fairly strong. It doesn't resemble Christianity much, but the concepts and behavioral beliefs are still there running in the background.
 
Sounds kind of weird to me. The way it is worded...
 
I don't like to try on atheism alot because it makes my butt look big.

ba-dum-dum.

I just wonder why he didn't look for a church more in line with his views?

...because that wouldn't sell a book?
 
I am not sure if his motivations are genuine or not. reading his blog and his comments make me think that they just might be genuine, he is just a tad misguided about how to go about it. He seems to be approaching it the only way he knows how - which is via a religious mindset. Much like one might attend and "try on" different churches he is "trying on" atheism as if it were a church. I think he has learned a lot already through criticism and comments, and might be re-evaluating his preconceptions of what atheism is as well as his approach.

He truly sounds like he has doubts regarding his faith, and he has lost his previous sources of employment/income as a result of this "trying on" (granted an unprompted donation campaign has raised appx. $20k for him as a response). He seemed to be in free fall without a parachute for a couple of days over the loss of his income. Sure he might be considering writing a book when all is said and done - and I would not blame him, but to risk the short term strife and financial dilemma he almost found himself in leads me to think he is doing it for legitimate reasons and he really is questioning.

I have bookmarked his blog, and I am curious to see how this develops. I also noticed today CNN also picked up on this story.
 
I am not sure if his motivations are genuine or not. reading his blog and his comments make me think that they just might be genuine, he is just a tad misguided about how to go about it. He seems to be approaching it the only way he knows how - which is via a religious mindset. Much like one might attend and "try on" different churches he is "trying on" atheism as if it were a church. I think he has learned a lot already through criticism and comments, and might be re-evaluating his preconceptions of what atheism is as well as his approach.

He truly sounds like he has doubts regarding his faith, and he has lost his previous sources of employment/income as a result of this "trying on" (granted an unprompted donation campaign has raised appx. $20k for him as a response). He seemed to be in free fall without a parachute for a couple of days over the loss of his income. Sure he might be considering writing a book when all is said and done - and I would not blame him, but to risk the short term strife and financial dilemma he almost found himself in leads me to think he is doing it for legitimate reasons and he really is questioning.

I have bookmarked his blog, and I am curious to see how this develops. I also noticed today CNN also picked up on this story.

It is a stunt and nothing more.
 
It sounds like a gimmick. Once he is through 'trying on' atheism he will preach to the choir about how bad atheism is, because he 'used' to be one for a year. He will be able to claim that he 'tried' but the strength of the lord was too much. You will be able to read all about it in his forth coming book and hear about it in his tour of church's across the nation.


Oh wait here is his site: Ryan J. Bell "I write regularly for The Huffington Post and The Hillhurst Review. I am also working on a book and a some longer journalistic pieces. If you would like to hire me for a writing or journalism project, please contact me here."

Nail on the head.
 
"Former pastor to try on atheism"

That's rich, since we see so many atheists who now argue against Christianity, having had previously 'tried on Christianity.'

Never 'born again,' and having never experienced the Holy Spirit, they call Christianity a farce or a failed experience. Had they had ever been indwelt with the Holy Spirit like the Bible teaches, they would have known Christianity was real and would arguably have never left the faith.
 
"Former pastor to try on atheism"

That's rich, since we see so many atheists who now argue against Christianity, having had previously 'tried on Christianity.'

Never 'born again,' and having never experienced the Holy Spirit, they call Christianity a farce or a failed experience. Had they had ever been indwelt with the Holy Spirit like the Bible teaches, they would have known Christianity was real and would arguably have never left the faith.

Damned Scotsmen.
 
Back
Top Bottom