1. I was essentially very open-minded.
I assumed I was open minded and accepting when it came to life's various perspectives. If organised religion represented all that was dogmatic and dictative, I was, by default, a free-thinking liberal who had investigated the Christian angle and rejected it on fair and reasonable grounds.
I was actually very narrow-minded, to a degree that I still find surprising. It's humbling to look back and see how little actual knowledge I had on the subjects I argued so vehemently about. Faith, doctrine, science. They all fell foul of my desire to passionately maintain the delicate balance of my own life philosophy.
In discussions I would get agitated and defensive, throwing fabricated facts around to support my outlook, all the while convincing myself wholeheartedly that everything I had said was justified because, after all, I was open minded and Christians weren't.
2. Christianity was about guilt.
I felt that the Christian religion was basically about guilt. Feeling it, feeling bad, then feeling appeased as you imagine a giant narcissist in the sky forgiving you. This circular pattern was the crux of the Christian doctrine, and the "miraculous" process of change people say they go through was the result of them eventually convincing themselves that feeling guilty was how we have to survive in such awful times.
A realisation came to me fairly quickly. If a couple are newlyweds, the hope is that they have a wonderful life ahead of them. The intimacy, the joy, the sharing of experiences, the nurturing of love and friendship. It's a beautiful time in someone's life when they find another person who they can form a bond with. Musicians sing songs about it, and we are moved by films that depict just how remarkable the process of falling in love is.
When such an affectionate bond is formed, it naturally fosters other desires as well. One of these is not wanting to hurt the person who you hold so dearly in your heart. You fall in love, cherish that feeling and automatically want to be the best you can be for that person. We all know from past relationships that it can be hard to stop ourselves doing things we know will cause hurt, and yet we still try our hardest to search for love wherever we can. Guilt is such a tiny proportion of the overall experience that we barely give it a second thought.
To say that the reward of true love justifies the responsibility it brings is quite an understatement. Something that surprised me was the overall message of love in the Bible - it is just overwhelming in it's abundance. It quickly becomes clear that all God wants is to have a bond with us, he is overjoyed to completely forgive the sin - a word that I used to cringe at - of any person if it means being able to build the kind of relationship we are all already trying to find.
.
I wouldn't want to live for eternity with someone I didn't have a bloody close bond with.
3. Advanced thinkers understood that God is every person.
.
Pantheism:
"–noun
1. the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.
2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe
I believed my pantheistic beliefs were both new, intellectual and represented a fresh modern way of philosophizing about life and spirituality. In fact, the opposite was true, much to my dismay.
Patheism is a popular contemporary belief, even if some people (like me) hadn't heard of the term until recently. I felt vindicated in my adherence to this all-embracing attitude because I knew I was breaking free of obsolete doctrine, discovering a unique perspective of life and utilising a personal spirituality that organised religion couldn't handle.
This was a case of simply acquiring knowledge on the subject. I wholeheartedly recommend that you investigate C.S Lewis' "Miracles". It's a fascinating book; quite short, but does a good job of dispelling myth that the "God is everyone" view is a recent development in the human psyche.
To give a brief description; he defines the actual nature of pantheism and it's roots, which can be traced further back into - what I arrogantly called - "primitive religious thinking" than any other idealology. He describes it as the knee-jerk associtation we make between nature's elements and human experience. As I read the chapter I realised I was a prime example of someone who took gut-reactions to suggestive nature and fostered them into a spiritual reality, two fundamental examples could be:
1. The anthropological association of light and life. That when we died we returned to a "pure light" that was both free and at peace.
2. Wind/Force/Energy. That spirits were likely body-less, immaterial wind-like forces of pure soul that would freely roam the spiritual realm upon death.
These were two examples of how my mind fostered an impulsive reaction to the world. It's a fascinating subject to read up on, and would have been incredibly unnerving had I not already been in a position to logically assess such beliefs (IE - after I was beginning to reluctantly view Christianity as an alternative)
4. My objections were based on logical impossibility, not personal preference.
OK, this post is turning into a monster so I will try to keep the rest short. Upon reflection I realised that my initial rejection of Christianity wasn't based on intellectual or logical concerns, it was based around emotional hurdles. If anyone else is like me, they will have two big heartfelt obstacles to overcome that may be hindering their investigation into Christianity:
1. Family members and friends who aren't Christian - this ties closely into the misinterpretation I had of Hell. I assumed that God said "Sorry, you didn't believe me", then took perverse pleasure in torturing for eternity those who were pretty good folk but just couldn't agree with the religion.
.
How could a loving God do that to the people I hold dearest in my life? My short answer is that he really doesn't. A longer answer can be found in Lee Strobel's "A case for faith" or Gregory Boyd's "Letters of a skeptic". Such a charged emotional issue deserves more attention than I can give it in a whimsical internet blog.
2. There were enjoyable aspects of my life that I wasn't ready to give up. I couldn't agree that I was a sinner for not conforming to archaic, medieval law. I'm not about to be a Christian cliche and say "I swallowed my pride and accepted what I knew deep down all along"...except that's pretty accurate.
5. That micro-biological evolution was an acceptable beginning to life
I was quite happy to throw around my GCSE knowledge of science to help support my view that Micro-evolution (not macro evolution) was empirically proven. It came as a shock to discover the lack of, not just any evidence, but any plausible explanation at all for how life got started on planet earth by itself. At that point I could sum up my state as "disappointed". When i read about Evolution I still wanted Christianity to fail the 'logic' test. Instead, it kept getting bolstered by Atheism's inability to provide an explanation that was compelling.
If you are similar to me, and based a lot of faith around Evolution's God-explaining ability, I appeal to you to read books on the subject. Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" is a good place to start. He was a lovely, mild-mannered man who didn't infuse his work with his own personal beliefs. From there, begin to unravel the intriguing story for yourself.
.
This was intended to be a brief explanation on why I decided to retire as an atheist. It's become quite apparent that such an important issue doesn't lend itself well to a "quick overview". Part 2 to come, which might deal with:
Christians thought the Bible fell out of the sky.
My preconceptions about Hell were both morally horrific and correct.
That a pure relationship with God would be trampled by Christian doctrine.
Christianity was about doing, not receiving.
All religions were equally valuable.
All arguments against Christianity were rational, spoken with honesty.
The burden of proof was on Christianity.
That life fundamentally conflicted with the Christian doctrine.