Talk:FAQ for the Newly Deconverted

About this article

I want to turn this page into a resource for anyone questioning their faith. While many who walk away from religion have sound intellectual reasons for doing so, there's quite a few who do it for purely emotional or selfish reasons. The point of this document is to give those and all who fall away the resources to examine their faith and make informed decisions about the future of their beliefs. We need information, and more importantly we need solid references. Any RationalWiki editors who want to, feel free to add something, and even get outsiders in to review it. EVDebs 20:13, 18 November 2007 (EST)

All I can say right now is "wow!" - nice work. I want to add more, raised as a good Anglican boy, with prayer in school, etc. - but nice job!!! human 00:25, 19 November 2007 (EST)

On deconversion

coincidental timing? Susan^{... miaow ...} 17:58, 18 November 2007 (EST)

• Seriously. Awesome. Article. Too bad there were so many of the commenters that missed the point -- I know now that my religious faith was dead on its feet for years before I walked away from faith, but I understand that it's a very hard thing to leave behind. EVDebs 20:13, 18 November 2007 (EST)

I can't recall where I saw it, but there was a very good interview that Salon or someone did with a group of religious scholars, who'd made studying the ancient texts their life's work, and by and large, most had utterly lost what most would consider a Christian faith. One had turned to Judaism, I think, and I think one was still nominally a Christian, but the other two if memory serves had simply stopped believing. And all agreed that this was a natural outgrowth of really taking a close look at all this stuff. Wish I could find it again, you guys would love it. --Kels 07:16, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Are waffles an atheist doctrine?

Personally, I prefer pancakes myself. In fact, I may go make some now. --Jeeves 09:30, 19 November 2007 (EST)

• Hey, I never said you had to have waffles. Only that it's always good to have the option. EVDebs 12:38, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Maybe what he's really saying is he still wants the wafer? Poor, deluded fool! It's waffles way or no way!KILL the heretic I mean ah, death to the infidel er...nevermind. 14:17, 19 November 2007 (EST) CЯacke®

WAFFLES TASTE GOOD! YAY! 24.227.2.106 17:02, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, but should they be round or quadrilateral? human 17:23, 19 November 2007 (EST)

title

Does this article really need the word "RationalWiki" in the title? human 15:11, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Mmmm. I think you make a good point there. For various reasons probably better off without.--Bob^{bing up} 15:18, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Maybe it was supposed to go in the rationalwiki namespace?15:20, 19 November 2007 (EST) CЯacke®

I think it belongs in the mainspace, but maybe that is what the original titler intended. And yes, Bob, for several reasons - one, this is RW, so it's obviously ours. Two, it sort of makes it sound like site policy rather than just another intriguing article. human 15:23, 19 November 2007 (EST)

I would vote Essay namespace to answer forum concerns.-αmεσ (soldier) 16:28, 19 November 2007 (EST)

I would say change the name and keep it in mainspace.--Bob^{bing up} 16:37, 19 November 2007 (EST)

I don't really see a problem with it. It's not "promoting" atheism per se, it's just a colorful guide for anyone who is losing their religion. See my forum post, we can have other guides to balance it out (ie, guide for the recently saved, etc.) human 16:40, 19 November 2007 (EST)

I think it's pretty much fine as it is now. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:56, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Now that I read the gfdl disclaimer in the intro, I can see it making sense, with the idea that others will publish it elsewhere, so RW should be in the title. human 17:26, 19 November 2007 (EST)

I like this

I love this page!

Also, two great blogs:

Evangelical realism

Deconversion

As I said up top, it's a great article. As I read more of it, I am truly impressed. It's funny, it's straight, it's well informed and informative, it's gentle and kind spritied. Who the heck stayed up all night and wrote the first draft? I think it should be in "best of religion" soon. human 17:43, 19 November 2007 (EST)

I guess its an EV Debs joynt.17:59, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Wow, this article may be one of the most awesome things I have ever read. I'm very, very impressed. Its not pushy and evangelical, and it helps explain my beliefs to not only others, but to myself as well.

It's also has the just-right amount of humor, like mentioning buying waffles, and porn (although maybe not a the same time...) May I suggest Waffle House? (for the waffles, not the porn) Prices are amazing and the food is greasylicious. VonShroom 17:36, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Hi VonShroom, glad you enjoyed it. How, if I may ask, did you happen to find it? human 19:54, 7 March 2008 (EST)

In the absence of dissent, I am going to add this to the cover story list. human 16:01, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

To thine own self be true

What does this really mean? That you should act according to your nature? That’s fine with some people, but suppose you’re Jeffrey Dahmer, or Karl Rove? Still, it’s easier to follow than the advice Polonius gives a few lines earlier: “Neither a borrower nor a lender be….” !!

There is reason to believe that Shakespeare was portraying him not as a wise man but as a silly old fool.

Tony 08:46, 22 December 2007 (EST)

philosophersnet.com

Those links from philosophersnet.com are quite good. Thankfully, I got a consistency score of .8 and only two direct hits, so I guess I'm mostly on the safe side. :D --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Cool. My consistency score is 1.0. However, "We suspect that your God is not the traditional God of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths." No kidding... human 16:27, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Someone send a copy

[[Jonathon Edwards]] (UK ex-verychristian athlete) might like to receive a copy of this. Such a loverly convert! 193.113.235.173 10:25, 24 December 2007 (EST)

cover story

(please do not archive this section)

• I nominate this to be a cover story. I think it is a very good article, and deserves occasional "space" on our main page. human 13:34, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Strangeness

In the "meaning of life" section, it seems like Hitler's actions aren't condemned so much as "not recommended." And why not? Well, according to the article... Because people in the future will laugh at you? /shrug GrandSoviet 15:58, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Looking at it again, the whole section needs reworking. "Just do what you will" sounds like some sociopath wrote it. Would anyone object if I made a few tweaks here and there? GrandSoviet 10:27, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Or Raskolnikov ...--מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Quick! Bring in Sonja! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:48, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

I made my changes. If anyone doesn't like them, feel free to revert and we can discuss it here. GrandSoviet 17:10, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Missing Link

Ok, it's not missing, I just like the sound of that phrase. The link is really broken. The page I go to is http://walkaway.aimoo.com/ and there's nothing there. I did just walk away from Fundamentalism, and I would like to share in others' experiences. TheNerd 17:48 EDT 1 May 2008

I see a forum there? What browser are you using? DogP 21:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Works for me (Firefox on XP Collector's Edition). human 22:27, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Scrutiny or not

Mr 24 makes an interesting point here. Why should this "tenet of rationalism" not be "fair game for scrutiny," just like everything else? If for no other reason, then at least because of the many opportunities for delicious cake paradox that such a scrutiny would lead to. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 03:47, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, but BoN got it wrong.

BoN: "That means everything -- everything -- is fair game for scrutiny, except for this fundamental tenet of rationalism itself."

Correct: "That means everything -- everything -- is fair game for scrutiny, including this fundamental tenet of rationalism itself.

JMHO, since obviously the philosophical basis of rationalism/science (etc.) is always open for debate, discussion, and... scrutiny. human 13:01, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh shoot, I read the diff backwards. BoN truncated it (removing the "except" part), should have edited it as I did. human 13:02, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Group selection? Really?

Biologists have proposed a mechanism called group selection whereby the individual prospers because of developments that benefit a whole group of individuals. Social behavior comes directly from that

Am I the only person who understands the manifest irony of this FAQ endorsing group selection on a website dedicated to defending evolution? Group selection is totally at odds with biological fact, was debunked decades ago, and it's Dawkins' second-favorite thing to make fun of. --76.217.94.92 18:57, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, you learn something new every day. (it could till be true though: "Biologists have proposed ..."). I leave it to those who know to change it.   ^Contribs_Talk 19:01, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't know anything about the biological theory, but it seems a bit off topic for a FAQ on atheist morality. Comparing human societies to animal ones is problematic & not really necessary. It kindof takes the long way round to say that morality is pragmatic rather than god-given. weaseLOId~ 19:24, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Yea, group selection is pretty iffy, and as originally proposed been shown to impossible. There are some people who are trying to championing it back in, not the least of which is E.O. Wilson, but I remain...skeptical. tmtoulouse 19:35, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Group selection meaning favoring your reasonably close relatives, or those who are just superficially similar? (I should read the article againz, I learn so much while trying to write this book!) ħuman 03:29, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Well favoring altruism for relatives is not group selection, that is inclusive fitness. tmtoulouse 16:01, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

I've rephrased it without mentioning the theory of group selection but still covering the sociological stuff about reciprocal ethics. On a separate issue, should we be giving as much prominence to the Wiccan Rede? It seems like a bit of a double standard in a guide for atheists. weaseLOId~ 11:36, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

suck balls atheist faggots