The "Real Reasons" I'm Not a Christian; According To Christians.

Responding to yet another Christian-religious fundamentalist 
accusing every outsider of secretly knowing their religion (or "totally not a religion") is true 
but then "rebelling" against it because:
 These reasons: 
--- Here, I am about to quote you and then respond to this complex accusation.

[These words between brackets are my words. They are my attempt to Steelman my interlocutor 
and to help clarify meanings for readers] 
---------
Gregg L Powers wrote:
"However most people do not want to answer to [the only true] God or be bound by His rules. They want to live in rebellion.
...
[thus]
they will use the fact they cannot connect the evidence dots to justify why they don't want to believe.

The desire
[to evade accountability for
shortcoming,
and past mistakes,
and how they plan to keep living]
...
causes the rejection of the evidence"
--------------------------------
First, I want to point out:

Nobody in the world has a good reason to even look into Christianity (not any version of Christianity) in the first place;
except for cognitive scientists and historians who are trying to help us figure out what made so many people so utterly vulnerable to
(various random versions of) it.  

With that crucial observation out of the way,
I'll be addressing Gregg directly,
for the remainder of of this blog.
----


I should address the last thing you said there, before I circle back to the beginning to cover the rest of it.

I can't account for
the list of books and pages
any given 'really smart guy' read 
which led him to some random version of Christianity.

You can't account for those material lists either.

Even in the things they wrote, they only mentioned some of what they read.

Even then, you'd have to (often) assume they're correctly citing from those sources.
 Because nobody has time to fact-check every citation for that many people's claims.

Also, they certainly never produced a list of relevant materials they never read. 
But there must be many relevant materials they never dove into. Because bibles make claims that span very many later-developed fields of study. 

Even the most respected scientists and historians only have enough time (in one lifetime) to study mostly from materials specific to their fairly specific field.

Nor could they
(nor could you)
account for the list of books and pages I've read;
nor which ones I haven't.

Nor can we account for a myriad
"factors of influence"
for how any specific individual's mind 
was aided, hindered, or otherwise altered in the way it has understood what it has read (or heard). 

That means the ONLY available premise you HAVE for deciding those men all "did their due diligence" and "proved the evidence leads to Christ"
is:
They came to a conclusion you like. 

Worse yet, you aren't really being motivated by a love of "God" or "truth" in that matter.

 Because:
If you were,
then:
 You'd have limited your list of 'these guys get it'
to much shorter list of:
 men who actually arrived at the same exact doctrines as you. 
 
They didn't.
And you don't even care.
Because:
What they DID DO was the only thing that matters:

They decided to throw the weight of their publicly-perceived merits (while most of the people on your list have no relevant expertise at all) ...
behind a LABEL;

a label
which is being used for modern political warfare.

Your side of that war plans to "win".

That's all this is really about for them, collectively.

Individually, their narcissism needs to be fed.

Their wallets wouldn't mind fattening either.

But 'collectively', the best way to achieve that
is to win the currently raging (and highly destructive) sociopolitical culture-war.

Basically, all the politically-conservative Christian churches are Mafias. 

They'd each prefer to reign supreme.

In fact, they'd love it even better if no others existed.
But there will be time for that 'stage' later.

For now, they can't achieve their political ambitions without mutual cooperation from the other "families".

For that, they need as much public endorsement of the "Christian" label as possible.

This is why it really doesn't matter which names on your list really endorsed your specific religious family (as defined by the sum of its doctrinal statements and interpretations). 

It's not about truth.

It's not about souls, or afterlives, or God. 

It's about effect.
It's about goals.
It's about a very particular sociopolitical outcome.

It's all part of a larger effort
to execute a hostile takeover of the world.

 This is the only reason most 78% of white Christian evangelicals have supported Trump.

He has proven useful for those goals.

So they'll use him; 

no matter how it hurts Jesus's reputation,

and no matter how many lives are destroyed,

and no matter how many souls are stumbled along the way.

After the dust settles, they can make up for lost human-livestock;
 after they own the world. 

You guys are NOT all part of the same religious-faith. 
But you ARE all part of the same political faith.

So when a politically-conservative
JW, Catholic, Baptist, and Mormon all walk into a room (such as the group we started this debate/discussion at), 
you all join hands for a 'unified front'.

 Because you all share a common purpose; which has nothing whatsoever to do with God. 

You guys only ever show as many of your cards as you deem immediately advantageous.

But you guys normally avoid full discloser; 
because you're trying to maintain an complex illusion for the public. 

It's the very same lie you tried to sell me, early into our discussion;

 when you pretended that everyone who has ever vouched for the LABEL was thereby vouching for your specific conceptualization of God (and thus, your specific views and values). 



It's a lie which you attempted to USE 
to inflate the appearance of legitimacy for your religion;
further adding 'all those brilliant people agree with me. So I must be correct' (Fallacies: "Appeal to Authority" and "Argumentum Ad Populum"). 

They didn't all agree with your views and values.

They didn't all come to your same conceptualization of "God".

You lied.
And I saw right through it. Because I was already familiar with some of them. And because I recognize the gambit. 

I am not your common variety of "guy on interwebz who thinks Christians should STFU".
But I'm not very far ahead either.
Because a lot more people are catching on and catching up. 

Also, the learning curve for identifying political grifters posing as religious "evangelists" is really not very steep.
  
Meanwhile, ... 

Sean Carrol knows a lot more about physics than anyone on your list. 
So did Einstein.
So did Hawking. 

That doesn't prove they were right, about any particular matter. 

But it does prove that someone can be "at least as smart" as anyone on your list,
HEAR all the popular apologetics,
and still NOT think apologists have made their case.


The same can be said about all the EX-Christians 
who accidentally stopped thinking Christianity is legit ...
as a CONSEQUENCE of accidentally learning many things that can't be harmonized with Christianity.

-And that includes many well-respected Bible scholars who were Christians when they first became Scholars ... but stopped believing after the things they learned in their field debunked Christianity. 
 
Now, I strongly suspect 
that most of the "research" your listed-people dove into ... 
was almost entirely from Christian-apologists. 

That would mean they based their findings on:

carefully filtered (cherry picked) information,

outdated information,

misrepresented information,

bold-faced lies, 

and logical fallacies;

all of which
is woven (very carefully) with just enough real-facts 
to create the illusion of legitimacy;

but only for anyone vulnerable enough 
to the gross amounts of emotional manipulations that are always (yes; always) part of the pitch.

So then, you can "say" "the evidence is clear (for anyone of sufficient moral character).". 

But a LOT of the things apologists call "facts" 
are actually lies. 

Here is one example of a popular Christian apologist spouting commonly-cited "facts" that are mostly lies.
Even the few things he technically got right ... were just used as a prop for the larger set of untruths: 

--
--
You do not know
what you think you know.
--
--

Addressing the rest of your assertions in order. 
my thoughts are as follows:

When you said "... most people do not want to answer to [the only true] God or be bound by His rules. They want to live in rebellion. ", ... I immediately recognized this as a common and essential talking-point for all Abrahamic-religious fundamentalists. It's exactly the same assumptions made by Islamicists, Jehovah's Witnesses, old-school Roman Catholics, the Amish, and all the rival (mutually exclusive) Protestant factions of fundamentalist Christianity. Some members of those groups are so sure (with some only pretending to be so sure) that their very oddly specific and complex conceptualization of "God" is so obvious that (they insist): it's basically innate knowledge for all humans [Or, at least all humans with some elusive minimum age and IQ]. Thus, most of them will say that any missionary, outreach, or even passively "setting an example" that they're hoping "the world will be drawn to", ... is all just a "courtesy". It is to "remind" you, and me, and our children ... that we all innately "know" that their oddly specific and complex conceptualization of "God" is true (either absolutely true, or essentially true). As they see it, it is always either: 1. obvious when any outsider sees and/or hears it [because we all innately know it]

or 2. [whenever it's not obvious to us], that CAN ONLY BE because: we've been using our (libertarian) "Free Will", every day, to embrace selfishness rebellion; - which then causes our "spirit" or "soul" to become incompatible with the truth of "God"; - which is the reason (the only reason ever possible) for why some people really don't perceive the "one true people's" God-narrative (that which defines their conceptualization of "God") along with their God-group-identity as "obviously true". Granted, some rogue members of those various factions have found or created some 'wiggle room' on these points. For example, some will say "innocent reasons are possible (in rare cases) for (any individual) not realizing: we (whichever faction they represent) speak (by divine authority) for the one true God". But then they'll add something to effect of "for those rare cases, God will read their heart. And if it's good enough, he will spare them eternal damnation". I can see the glaring contradiction to the claim that none of us are "good enough". It's also a contradiction to the whole entire point of evangelizing. Because if "God" is willing to just "read hearts" and decide our eternal fates based on that alone, then (in that case): There was never a 'necessary' reason to preach (to anyone) about the (alleged) atonement. Before we die, we either truly "need" to hear-and-reply (about the atonement) or we don't. Although, that preaching is also contradicted by saying (to paraphrase) "everybody already innately knows that they have sinned against the one true God and need both blood-atonement and repentance; else they're choosing Hell". If everyone who is capable of adequately mentally processing that "message" already innately knows about it (without hearing about it)", then why tell anyone? What good will a "reminder" do, for anyone who decided when they woke up this morning (same as all prior adult-age mornings) that they'd rather not submit to it? More reasonably, if a Jehovah's Witness can be dead-wrong and if they secretly KNOW they are dead-wrong. and if the REASON they refuse to submit to the "real" truth is because: They want to live a selfishly sin-indulgent life without concern for submitting to a higher power, ... then why are they choosing to be IN a strict religion which makes so many costly demands? It seems to me that anyone who has secretly "chosen" to live without concern for matters of God and Godliness, ... would just go out and live their life without concern for matters of God and Godliness. How much sense would it really make for someone whose secret "real reason" is: as you describe it, ... to then spend countless years as a slave to an even more strict religion? That just doesn't add up. Meanwhile, I have been sexually abstinent for many years now; by choice. I also don't drink, smoke, do drugs, kill people, or kick puppies. Seriously. WTF is it that you imagine me doing that has me thinking "if I were a Christian, I wouldn't be allowed to do this anymore"? Swearing? is that it? Sleep in on Sundays, perhaps? Plus, a lot of people who are in your religious faction (or "faith"-faction) ... used to BE in a more strict religion. It seems to me like a common case of "selective amnesia" when they add their voice to yours ... to conveniently forget that: WHEN they were in some other and "false" religion, ... they actually were EARNEST about it. They really did think it was true. They really did want deeply and truly to know God and be approved as "one of his own". They really did think they'd found him. They really did think all their great sacrifices of restraint from sinful-indulgence ... was making him happy. They weren't living a selfishly indulgent lifestyle. They weren't being casual about God. They weren't intentionally living a lie. Even if your theology happens to be correct, THEY were merely and accidentally wrong about "who God is" and "what he requires". Now if, on some busy Tuesday afternoon, they DIED BEFORE the very-special-day whey they lucky-stumbled into the hands of "just the right apologist", ... they'd have "died in their sins" (per your theology) without ever having realized it. Meanwhile, IF (as you say) everyone just innately knows that there IS a "one true God", and everyone knows that they have a sin-disease they inherited, and everyone knows they are INAEQUATE for a loving relationship with their cosmic Father, and everyone knows it's because they are a "sinner", and everyone knows it would take a ritual blood-and-death sacrifice to make it POSSIBLE for that "one true God" to erase their moral debts to him (for the CRIME of being imperfect), ... then: (in that case) ... EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY (even remote tribes in the deepest depths of rain forests, and on isolated islands, etc) that has ever existed .... would have a theological schism that they've always been contending with between: 1. people who admit to "knowing" the complete list of things you accuse all people of secretly knowing vs 2. everyone else in that society, who either doesn't realize it, doesn't care, or otherwise "pretends" to think something different about "God". If what you say about: everyone were actually correct, ... That IS what we'd keep discovering about every society of humans; today and since for as long as there have been human societies. But it's not. And you know it's not. Just like with the Jehovah's Witnesses and countless other rival factions, your faction NEEDS to make those assumptions and accusations about everyone who isn't in your "one true faith", in order to: a.) justify the contempt you hold them in. - That super-ugly, divisive, and destructive sentiment you've mislabeled as "love". and b.) in order to maintain the "us vs them" core of your ideological-group identity. It's a control mechanism designed to maximize utilization (exploitation) of some very unfortunate but common emotional reflexes ... geared to keep as many sheep (as possible) from growing, seeing, and then moving past the artificial gates of (whichever) ideological community;

so that: those of greatest influence (formally and informally) within that (whichever) church ... can maintain the flow of benefits they get from having so many people making so many sacrifices for "God" which they (those 'persons of influence') themselves personally benefit. ---- Meanwhile, let's really think about this honestly. If I (or anyone) secretly "really knew" the things your church insists we be accused of, then: There is an easy loophole being made available BY your church and FOR everyone who wants to live however they want to live, and without ever having to worry about "divine retribution". It's called "simply accepting that Jesus (your church's specific conceptualization of Jesus) died for our sins.". That declaration of "Faith" is (according to you) impossible to fake, because (according to you) everyone secretly already "knows" it's all true. So if we say the words, we are automatically saying what we really think. And since you're probably part of a "saved by faith" church, and thus automatically part of a "there really aren't any rules to obey or other duties to perform, in order to ensure our salvation", ... [which is a contradiction to your claim that nay-sayers are trying to avoid the "rules"; while your cult simultaneously denies even having any "rules" that are required for salvation. Because that would make your group a "religion" (according to the imaginary dictionary of nonsensical word-meanings that your cult pretends exists)] that means I could just say the special words, and then go live a selfishly indulgent life; without ever having to worry about ever being held accountable by "God" because "God" already held Jesus accountable on my behalf. THAT IS the core message of Christianity. That we can all EVADE accountability for our inadequacies and transgressions (aka "our sins") ... if we accept the "free gift" of someone ELSE being held entirely accountable for those on our behalf. All we have to do is WANT and then EMBRACE that promise; the offer that we can transfer all of our accountability for our failings onto an innocent scapegoat. After that, we can resume our sinful lives, because "the price he paid will always be more than enough to cover all our debts". So if I "secretly knew" that what your "totally not a religion" is selling is 100% legit, ... I would say the words. And then I'd get back to the very messy business of being imperfect. It wouldn't make ANY sense at all if I wanted to EVADE accountability for my shit, to refuse the (allegedly) cost-free offer which is specifically for helping me to evade accountability. The very thing your religious community accuses all outsiders of ... is *not* what I'm doing. It's what your church is doing. And it's what they want everyone else to do too. BUT only under their banner; which places us (as a resource) under their control.

-- I have a love/hate relationship with gravity. I sometimes wish I could dial-it-down or turn it off. But I'd never rebelliously pretend gravity isn't a thing ... just so I can float down from a tall building. Nobody thinks that way; unless they're high on bath salts. --- Meanwhile, how much sense does it really make that anyone owes a moral debt TO a "creator" for being: exactly how that creator made them? Your church has created the illusion that you've really properly researched and understood their system of beliefs and their place within this world.

But in reality, they've done everything they can to make sure you can't.