Post religious stress disorder

Have you ever heard of anyone trying to disprove the Lord of the Rings? Or Game of Thrones? Aesop's Fables?
I have continued to study the Bible and examine it very carefully, but I have started to ask myself why. I have found numerous contradictions and falsehoods, the worst of which is Matthew 11:25. (Jesus literally thanks God for hiding his message.) So why do I continue down this futile path of studying what I know to be inherently false?
The truth is, I see a lot of others who have transitioned beyond religion that do the same thing.
It has been very difficult to move beyond the religion that I accepted as fact for so long. I'm not even sure I could have comprehended what it's like to not think I have someone in on my every thought. I still see things in an in-between state. I still see both sides of the Christian/non-Christian coin. I can have a conversation with a theist and see how they view things. Maybe it's overactive empathy, but I'm more inclined to think it's the years of thinking that way hanging around in my mind like Matthew McConaughey in Dazed and Confused.
This may be the reason why I have continued to study.
I still need to assure myself of what I know. That the religion I once accepted is false.
Transitioning beyond religion is not just a flip of a switch. It's not an on/off situation, it's a quantum state of being both or neither at the same time. I also think it's something most people will not understand.
In general, I think people prefer to have a stance on one side or another and have trouble being anywhere in the middle because it means they don't fit with either side.
That's where a problem lies for me. In my normal everyday life I don't have to justify where I stand on beliefs, but with my family it won't be that way. In fact, I don't really believe any amount of study on my part will change how they will receive this news. I honestly worry that when I tell them, the news will be met with disappointment. Is it strange that as an adult I still fear disappointing my family?
I think a large part of my studies and even in writing this is exploring my position so when this conversation happens I know where I stand.
I'm losing the drive provided by all this post religious stress disorder though. It gives me hope though, that I won't grow into an old man reading the Odyssey, trying to figure out why I ever really believed it in the first place.

Marry your rapist

Deuteronomy 22

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

I have seen this verse many times in arguments against the Bible. As can be imagine there are quite a few articles around the interwebz which aspire to defend this virtuous piece of writing.
The two top results justify this edict as punishment for the rapist.
Seriously.
There are many cultural differences of the time which are crucial to note in regards to this commandment. Girls were regarded very much as property, as they are still in some middle east countries, and as such, if a man wanted to marry her, he had to pay her father. A girl whose virginity was not intact was not worth much because men wanted virgins and it might be that she would spend her life alone and have no man to support her, leading to a very difficult life.
This is where the possible benefit of this passage comes in. The rapist would be forced to care for her since he defiled her. It also helps the father because no matter what happens (even if he does not give the rapist his daughter) he gets his price for his daughter.
There's another matter which is also important to realize and that is the age of brides in that culture. 12 years and 1 day is old enough to marry with your parents permission and 21 was old enough to marry without. A lot of marriages were arranged in biblical times. So an "unbetrothed virgin" is in many cases a fairly young girl.
Perhaps my aversion to pedophile rapists is just a cultural difference, but i cannot honestly think of any culture where this is the optimal solution.
What is really scary to me about this, is that faith overcomes any rational obstacle to this passage being wrong!
I cannot imagine the hell many girls were forced into because of this passage, being subjected to their rapist throughout the rest of their life. As far as it being a punishment for the rapist, unlike one of the articles which jokes she might not be the right girl for him (seriously? Rape jokes?), i have a feeling the rapist being of questionable morality at the time of the incident, might use the opportunity for ongoing sexual gratification at the girls expense. And he, not being a philanthropist exactly, might not be so careful with her physical or mental well being either.
It's a rapist, not a purse thief! It's a complete violation of human dignity, not a prank.
I'm by no means an ISIS sympathizer, but those men believe they are doing what is righteous. How they can commit such heinous crimes is because faith allows them to overcome the obstacles of reason and morality, just like the two articles i referenced earlier. This is why so many in the atheist and agnostic community regard religion as dangerous, because it can lead good men to do terrible things and still feel like they're in the right.
Why couldn't the commandment say she had to sacrifice a sheep and should be considered a virgin from that point?
I understand that there is no perfect solution to rape, but I can't believe that this is the best an omniscient god could come up with which is why I cannot accept that this scripture is from any deity.
It could be that God's ways are well beyond mine and that the real issue is me, but I still don't think this lines up even biblically and it might be scarier if it does. Read Deuteronomy 28 for the prize and price, biblically speaking, of this passage.

Irreducible complexity

I was very much a subscriber to irreducible complexity as a Christian. There are many creatures, appendages, and organs which i could see no logical path for their evolution like the long neck of the giraffe and its small heart-like organs used to keep its blood flowing properly or the bombardier beetle and its explosive concoction of chemicals it uses for defense.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with the concept, irreducible complexity basically a concept that systems could not have evolved because each piece is needed in order for any part to be functional and all parts cannot be functional throughout the evolutionary process meaning it would not be selected for.
I subscribed fully to this idea.
I used to describe it to others like this:
The wing of the bat works great as a whole, but in the evolutionary process it doesn't function and works against its survivability.
Imagine it's a mouse-like critter with long fingers and webbing, at some point it wouldn't yet be a wing and would impede the animals movement and it would reduce its survivability and we would have no bats.
Enter Wallace's flying frog.
It's pretty incredible amphibian that can glide up to 50 ft. And amazingly enough it's in that sweet spot of webbing to wing process. Isn't it crazy that a little further down the evolutionary tree we might have a full fledged flying amphibian?
As you can tell, it's not that a bats wing couldn't evolve, it's just that i lacked the imagination to understand how it might have happened. It probably didn't help i had a pretty strong confirmation bias against it.
Now I don't know if anyone else is using the bat's wing as an argument for irreducible complexity but christian scientists use a lot of other animal features such as the unusual aspects of woodpecker physiology.
In the same way the story I assumed spoke to the concept against evolution, the entire concept is flawed by a lack of imagination.
The truth can be just as strange as the fiction and our search for it shouldn't stop at our lack of evidence for the specifics of the how. Where we don't have evidence lies the starting point for truth, not the end of a path to a deity.

What if the evidence proved I was wrong?

Any time I watch a movie, I'm always thinking about the story of it. I enjoy analyzing the plot and if the movie isn't great, imagine where it could have gone. I recently watched a movie called "I Origins" which honestly was kind of a boring flick with some great story elements to it.
In the movie a scientist works towards ending the argument of how the eye evolved by proving its evolution through guided selection and gene manipulation. The story is told as if he's trying to disprove god, but in the end he finds incredibly, that something miraculous is happening. At one point the main character, who does not believe in god, is asked, if the evidence showed something different, would he change his belief?
I think this is a question everyone should ask themselves, believer and nonbelievers alike. The answer is one which tells whether someone seeks truth, or simply confirmation of what is already believed to be true.
I can say that my position would change if there was evidence for the miraculous considering I once believed whole-heatedly, but have changed my stance based on the evidence.
I have to ask myself: what would this evidence look like?
I can think of a lot of a lot of ways for a deity to reveal themselves to mankind which would be completely obvious. Imagine if a Christian at baptism developed stigmata as a mark from God, or if when Muslims prayed, Allah spoke form the heavens to the world like the prayers they play over the loud speakers at mosques. These would be extraordinary, but maybe it would be better to imagine something more subtle because maybe a deity just doesn't desire to be revealed so obviously.
I would say occurrences which defy the laws of nature would be a good start. If believers of any faith could perform miracles. If new kinds of animals which are different on a molecular level were discovered without an evolutionary branch, as if created.
It's important to realize that we cannot measure what we cannot perceive,  so there may be much more to our universe than we know, realize or even speculate, but it is simply beyond our grasp. There is still so much we don't know about what we can perceive. How could I not be flexible in my position? How can I not realize that 1000 years from now, my way of life will be as primitive to future generations as the vikings are to me now?
Humanity has made a lot of progress scientifically in its existence and I think there is much more to come. I think it is very interesting that as a species we have had many religious answers to how the world works, but now, our best explanations are natural and proven by science. Are there any examples where the explanation was scientific and is now best explained by religion?
A better question may be, if we studied our world without a confirmation bias towards religion, would religion ever be the answer? Would a non-believer study biology and discover God or Allah or any other specific or non-specific deity was the answer without guidance from a religious text?
This is the type of evidence that is needed to change the minds of those, like myself, who would seek the truth.
If I'm honest with myself, I hope for these shreds of evidence to come to light because I want there to be an afterlife. I want some kind of transfer of consciousness which makes me eternal. I fear death, and considering it is the one thing I'm guaranteed, it seems like a very compromising position. I'm forced to hope for more than mortality and in the mean time not let fear overwhelm me. I wonder how many more have felt exactly the way I do? I suppose that's the price of having this secret.
Sometimes it means I'm alone.

Does God suffer from self loathing?

Proverbs 6

16 There are six things the Lord hates,
    seven that are detestable to him:
17         haughty eyes,
        a lying tongue,
        hands that shed innocent blood,
18         a heart that devises wicked schemes,
        feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19         a false witness who pours out lies
        and a person who stirs up conflict in the   community.

 

There is a lot of contradictions throughout the Bible which lead me from doubting my religion to the truth that is wholly false. This one didn't come to mind until recent studies though. In these verses I can think of two which are easily verified within the text of the Bible and I'm sure I could find more with little effort.

 

Matthew 10

 

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

 

Jesus says here he is creating conflicts even within households, the basis of community. In the word's of God as man (as told by the Bible,) he creates conflict. Is God mad at Jesus (himself?) for saying this or causing it?
As a believer I honestly would explain away such conflicts through a mask of interpretation and faith. Without even mentioning all the conflict God himself (again, as told by the Bible,) orders the tribes of Israel to enter into. If God really hates conflict then Israel should be known for its diplomacy!
The other one that really stands out to me is the "hands that shed innocent blood."
Biblically I think it's pretty easy to say no one is "innocent" since all have "fallen short," but I think most would agree babies would be considered innocent for the purposes of this verse.
Did God forget about the Passover event at this point? According to the Bible, God comes through Egypt and kills all firstborn of man and animals. How can a righteous God justify this massacre? God is omnipotent but he cant change pharaoh's mind without senseless slaughter?
Over and over again I see opportunities for the God of the Bible to be better. In fact, I'm sure a team of writers today could have come up with a more cohesive and compelling story. In all fairness, it's hard to collaborate with authors separated by so much time.
An omnipotent God can do, or will, anything, but does he spend his eternity in self loathing because even he does the things that he hates? Or maybe when he orchestrated the plot to shed the blood of the only "innocent man," he forgave himself as well?
I find it very interesting to be so close to faith that I can really see how absurd it becomes with a little reason. What do I expect from a fairytale though?

I might be wrong!

I think we live in a wondrous time. We have the world's knowledge at our finger tips. The internet has become the new Alexandrian library and Google is an excellent librarian. Anything I can think of can be researched with a few clicks. In my view, education is free. I can learn anything.
Coming from faith, I have had many doubts from every side. Obviously I had doubts which lead me from faith through evidence, but even now I have doubts sometimes that I could be wrong.
When everything I believed turned out to be false, I have to admit that I could be wrong now.
I do not have the time, knowledge or equipment to test every discipline I have attempted to learn in order to have a better grasp on reality. That's why I look to information that has been confirmed by multiple sources, independently, by people who have the resources to do so. Many Christians would say I am trusting fallible men over an infallible book, or God, but what I am trusting is that the people doing this research would love to be the one that makes that crucial discovery that would change our understanding of the universe.
While I have more than sufficient evidence to discount the biblical story, I do not know the answers to how the universe began or how life started.
The truth is there are possibilities we have not yet dreamt of which could be the real answers to these questions. I read an interesting article recently that postulated entropy might have been the driving factor behind abiogenesis. The second law of thermodynamics may be the most commonly used argument against evolution by Christians. How ironic would it be if it was actually the driving force of abiogenesis?
This is not proven though. It's speculation and the possibilities are endless. It could have been the work of a god that started the universe and life, but this is just speculative. If there's anything I have learned on this journey through religious transition, it's to look to the evidence first and whatever the evidence doesn't explain, feel free to imagine whatever you like. If someone wants to believe the universe was brought into existence through the vomit of an epic fly, I couldn't refute it, but if I asked for evidence, they couldn't prove it. I would however congratulate them for their creative views.
I only have a problem with someone's beliefs when they use them as a weapon to impede the happiness of others.
It's more than okay to think you might be wrong. It's how we make discoveries when we thought we had it all figured out. If your desire is for reality, use the tools you have to find it.

Presuppositions

Ever since I began this religious transition I have had more doubt than I ever did as a Christian. 
In a conversation I had with someone I respect, they brought up the fact that I may be wrong and he mentioned presuppositions.
I was not familiar with the term before so I had to look it up, and it basically means stuff you assume to be true which supports other stuff.
I initially took this to mean that maybe my new found knowledge could be assumptions. I spent some time really thinking that over. Did I miss something? Is there some key evidence that the scientific community is overlooking? Are we only making assumptions about how the universe came to be with the big bang or life with evolution? The answer is yes I think. There's quite a hump from atoms becoming self replicating molecules, to the complex form of life we know and even though there's an awful lot of evidence to support that idea...
What if I'm wrong?
He wasn't even asking the question. Pascal just ninja'd his way into my brain. In Christian terms you could say I'm not firm in the unfaith. His real interest was primarily in how I came to the conclusion.
Our conversation left me thinking back through everything I had learned and ruminating on each point. I believe the Bible to be untrue because the evidence of reality speaks directly against it. If parts of it are untrue, how can I trust any part is true which cannot be directly verified?
A good example of this conundrum is Noah's ark.
I heard someone say the other day that they wished we could find a huge boat on a mountain matching the biblical description, so we could finally lay to rest that the flood story was fact. It would be very difficult to explain how a giant wooden boat made it to the top of a mountain, but it still wouldn't explain why we don't see the results of a global flood in geological layer. While the find would be quite curious, what if we never find this mythical boat? Does it disprove the story? NO!
You cannot prove something doesn't exist. Only proof can be offered for that which does exist. It's incredibly convenient to believe in nearly anything in that respect. I can assert that I believe in purple butterfly-winged unicorns as rulers of the universe and no one can offer proof it doesn't exist, but it only exists in my mind.
Even though my mind went through all this, the presupposition which he thought I might have been making incorrectly was that, as a Christian, I assumed the Bible was absolute truth.
What if the Bible is just a love story from God to us, written by the imperfect instrument of man?
I know it may sound silly, but I considered, is the Bible partially untrue in order to tell the greatest truth of all?
Faith is still not far off for me. I needed to consider this further. It made me consider again: what if I was wrong?
It lead me to the thinking of why would God allow so many lies to tell his ultimate story? Why would Jesus break bread on the Passover if it never happened. Why would Jesus be the true completion to a complete lie? I simply cannot reconcile the idea to what and who I thought God was. I thought of him as greater than the men who wrote his words in such a way that he could inspire them to write absolute truth. If God cannot overcome man's imperfection to write his story down, how can he have the power to make them perfect through the death of Jesus?
There it goes again. My presupposition that I have any clue about God and his power.
I should know something about God from all the time I spent believing in, trusting, and studying him.
I still find the idea of using a well orchestrated lie to tell the truth. I think it's the ultimate goal of every story teller, and if God is the ultimate story teller...
It is a very interesting concept though, one I'm sure will be running through my mind for quite some time, but in the end, the idea contradicts the evidence in the Bible, so I come full circle to the same belief that the biblical story can safely be put back in the category of mythology. Ultimately faith presupposes faith and therein lies the problem.
Part of this religious transition is learning about me and how I react to situations and questions. I know a lot more of these will arise as time goes by and I have to realize that I do have artifacts from my faith in my psyche which leave me with a desire to believe despite the evidence to the contrary.
I want to believe because I like the idea, but if I'm wrong, as I have been in the past, "believing" in order to gain what the biblical story offers in eternal life and salvation just in case, is not what the God I knew ultimately wants and if he does exist, he didn't build the case for my faith sufficiently to have true faith.