Dear Webmaster,
I came across your site by accident. Since I don't believe in coincidence I read your testimony and comments from other people.
What stood out most in your testimony was the following:
Later that night, in the dark and quiet of my room, I got down on my knees confessed my sins, repented as much as I knew how, and accepted Christ into my heart. It was a mind-altering experience for me. In my mind’s eye I visualized the Creator of all physically with me in the room. I felt overwhelmed with what I believed was a personal and direct manifestation of the LORD. I cried and cried. The emotional cleansing and reality of that moment has never left me, and as I write about it now, it comes alive once again
This is where you find God, and come to truly know Him. Find that quiet place again, grab the NIV bible and fall to your knees. Like one other person said " Stop looking for God in man, religion, churches." Many people are not honest with themselves about how they feel about God. I myself believed in God but did not love Him. I wanted to Love Him so I prayed to Him "God I want to Love you please give me that love." He did. I have a wonderful relationship with Him and he is as real to me as my own son, even though I can not see God. It is that relationship you get through prayer and reading God's word (bible) that no, person, place, or church can ever give you.
Anyway I prayed before sending you this e-mail and opened bible for God's words. Here is His response:
Mathew 12:25
Then Jesus prayed this prayer. "O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding the truth from those who think themselves so wise and clever, and for revealing it to the childlike. Yes, Father, it pleased you to do it this way!
Webmaster, I do not know your name unless you tell me but I will pray for you. God Bless you.
154 comments:
Proof that prayer is a waste of time. Geez!
And your point was?
Dear ???
The words of your Jesus spring to mind, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do".
Dear me ... you are so LOST!
You speak of the emotional experience of some dear person who obtained obvious psychological relief from an experience - good and well. Let me assure you that the relief and joy that comes from ditching your kind of thinking far supercedes what you have quoted.
Put your mind in gear, dear Sir or Madam, and use your sincerity to read up on how your NIV Bible arrived and then start reading the Old Testament - that is filled with teaching about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and, of course Jesus - yugh!
By the way, I was part of the church for around 40 years - born again, evangelising and all that until I saw the light - my chains fell off, my heart was freed ... I rose went forth and followed - reason!
Paul Benedict
Yes, of course.......when we become "childlike" then anything makes sense. People honestly think that god is real and that they actually communicate with him. This happens when you have plateaued at the emotional age of 6.
If your god is real, he will reveal himself to the intelligent and the well-educated; he will honor any attempt to approach him through reason. But he doesn't. He can only work through stupidity. Now what does that tell us?
Ryan
Gino, you said,
"It is that relationship you get through prayer and reading God's word (bible) that no, person, place, or church can ever give you." (?)
Why would anyone want a relationship with a god of murder, child abuse. " Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."--Psalm 137:9. THIS IS JUST ONE PASSAGE OF MANY! Keep reading !!!
What a loving god you worship.
Paul Benedict wrote:
"my chains fell off, my heart was freed ... I rose went forth and followed - reason!"
Paul there is no doubt that you were a fundamentalist if you can quote that old hymn! You make me want to break out and start singing "Victory in Jesus!"
You were absolutely right man, Christianity's so-called "peace that passes all understanding" is nothing compared to the freedom of breaking loose and finally thinking for yourself.
Ah that warm fuzzy feeling that's so often mistaken for God. And maybe it IS God, but that feeling can be had any number of ways. I once achieved something far more powerful than that feeling during the course of transcendental meditation (something I was later told was a peak experience). What I experienced was more like an electric shock of bliss, but there was no Jesus on my mind at the time. All of which has led me to the belief that if there is a God (s)he doesn't care what religion we choose or even if we believe in him or her or not.God's peace is nice, but God's bliss is better and you don't even need to acknowledge God to experience it.
That "God is here!"experience originates in the brain... always has always will. Our brains are functioning on many levels at once, including "behind the scenes" processing which can manifest itself to the brain owner as "other", divine, wiser that we are, etc.
It is ignorant and delusional to believe that the reasoning/chattering part of your brain is the whole enchilada...when it is the smallest part of what is going on behind the scenes.
Yes I have been part of mass hypnosis in the pentecostal church...all that slow singing and swaying back and forth would put *anybody* into an altered start of consciousness.
That is NOT JEEEEZUSSS walking the isles of the church, and IT AIN'T the presence of the howleee ghost, it is endorphins!!! that's all...period. There is no magic loving god or spirit making you feel warm and fuzzy it's your BRAIN! The one you came in with and the same one you're gonna leave with...only you have fooled yourself into believing that something spiritual is happening...it is delusion and fakery.
You didn't feel a love in your heart for God, so you prayed and believed that God filled you with the ability to love him. Why didn't you feel the love? Could it be because "God" has promised to send everyone who doesn't believe in him the way you do to eternal torment. Does that seem just to you? In this light, your action reminds me of a child with an abusive parent--which the God described in the Bible most certainly is--who prays to be able to love the abusive parent, and, by praying, or using another form of self-hynosis, convinces herself that she does love the parent. No thanks--I'd rather use my head and question whether any being who would be so vindictive and cruel were worthy of being loved.
I am sure Dave the Webmaster is going to reconsider his fall from grace, and become born again, again real soon. I am sure this atheism is just a silly rebellious phase he's going through.
Gina,
Once you cross over to the world of enlightened or well informed athesim. There is no turning back.
I tried so hard to have that emotional born again experince many years ago when I was at my lowest. I struck out. Jesus must have been busy that night. I prayed and prayed and got nothing. My inner skeptical guy was watching my back despite my despariation. I found the real truth at this site.
I actually had the exact emotional rush that almost brought tears to my eyes at recent a Beach Boys concert. For some reason I was taken back to my childhood and overcome with emotion. If that feeling would have hit me through prayer, I may have been a serious Christian. It was so powerful.
"Ah that warm fuzzy feeling that's so often mistaken for God."
Yeah, pot does it for me...
bah - i can induce the exact same experience just by examining my life, thinking about my family, thinking just how happy i am to be alive. i've opened up my heart to be able to do that. god had nothing to do with it. there's nothing supernatural about it, its obviously just nature. i can say this because i've studied nature. i've studied molecular biology. i make it my business to know how the universe works. a human is all clockwork, all the way down! its so obviously the result of a chaotic random process. a designer would never have created something so convoluted.
what astonishes me is xtians lack of imagination when it comes to nature and reality. "There can't be something so beautiful and complex without god!" Bullshit - beautiful and complex - that's super, and its natural, but its not supernatural.
you can get the same experience lots of ways including drugs and meditation, hypnotic chanting, swaying, light/sound machines, music, or even just by thinking. its SO EASY.
xtians think they've tapped into something spiritual when they are just tweaking out. everyone else seems to know this! come into the light of reason. we experienced your reality, and found it sorely lacking.
Uh....
From my buy-bull (properly stolen from a hotel) says...
Matthew 12:25
And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
Is Gina too ignorant to quote her bullshit properly or am I missing something here?
Ryan: "beautiful and complex - that's super, and its natural, but its not supernatural."
Great quote, I really could've used that one in another discussion I had, recently.
Actually, it's from Matthew 11:25 but why quibble.
It seems to me that this biblical passage is a clear statement that that if you are ignorant, god will talk to you. If you are educated, then god will not talk to you. Why is that? Is it better to be stupidly ignorant in god's eyes?
Or….. could it be that you, Gina, are making that tired, tried and false accusation that if we are atheists, we must be over educated, arrogant fools. That must be it. After all we are incredible fools for denying the existence of your idiotic god, one who must be so insecure that he will cater only to ignorant children. Those of us with the really HARD questions he wants nothing to do with.
No one here gives a rat’s ass that you are praying for DAVE, the webmaster. (If you had read as much here as you have claimed, then you would know his name. Or did your god hide that evil appellation from thine eyes?) His knees aren’t going to bend in supplication because…. WAIT, what’s that noise that I hear? No, those are my knees.
Damn, I hate growing old!
Thanks Huey! I learn more every day!
While some people seem to actually repress any learning....GINA!
It takes only a comparative study of religions to realize that spiritual experiences mean exactly zip when it comes to validating a specific God's existence.
Before calling people idiots for having a religion, faith, and a belief in a God, I would like to remind folks of 4 things.
First, whether ingrained by a God or developed via evolution, religiosity (the tendency to be strongly devoted to a set of beliefs or ideals) is a human characteristic. As such, it is also present in atheism.
Second, atheism is not without values: intellect, reason, and benefiting society to name a few. I do not like being called an idiot or ignorant. Even if I am those things I have a much greater respect for those who find another way to bring it to my attention.
Third, no longer believing in something does not make that something wrong, or, for that matter, the new beliefs right… though they may be better for you.
Finally, you've been there. I do not recommend "othering" where you came from. There is still honor to be found.
Sincerely,
KeithC.
Psych Undergrad, US
Keith, Keith… Let me help you out brother.
Before defending the ignorant with ignorance let me point out 4 things.
One, you can’t just go defining words as you wish them to be defined to suit your argument. Well, really, you can but you’re not going to make sense to anyone and you’ll look like an ass. I know, I know, apologists do it all the time BUT THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT OK. Here ya go. I looked ‘em up for ya.
Religiosity: The quality of being religious
And what is it to be religious? Thought you’d ask.
Religious: Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
God. Did you catch that? God!
And let us now juxtapose religiosity and Atheism, as Christians are wont to do.
Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
Thank you American Heritage Dictionary 4th edition online version. Atheists, by definition, cannot posses the quality being religious. See Keith, that was easy. I didn’t even have to get up from my desk. Much simpler than Grandpa’s admonition to “go look it up”. Now-a-days you don’t even have to go anywhere. Just look it up!!! Besides, did it ever occur to you that religiosity as you define it pertains to just about anything. Am I meant to take from you that a strong belief in gravity or the blueness of the sky or perhaps my broken toe are religious beliefs. I tend to believe all those strongly.
On to numero dos.
“I do not like being called an idiot or ignorant. Even if I am those things I have a much greater respect for those who find another way to bring it to my attention.”
Except that you are! Forgive my pals for not soft-pedaling above; they we’re probably a little distracted by the idiocy and ignorance. What other way is there to call out ignorance than to call it ignorance? I sure as fuck ain’t gonna call it smart!
Thrid.
“No longer believing in something does not make that something wrong, or, for that matter, the new beliefs right.”
Of course it doesn’t fuckwad! What’s your point? Go ahead and add truism or perhaps tautology to the words you need to look up.
Fourth, wait, never mind. I can’t even bring myself to respond to nonsense contained in your fourth point. I do wonder however if you feel the same way in regards to Christians giving testimonies about their conversion.
Despite my scoffing, surprisingly sincerely,
Telesmith
P.S. No one gives a rat’s ass about your major. Throwing even grandiose titles around is pretentious and mentioning your “some college” is just pathetic. Now run along and read a dictionary and maybe enroll in a logic course for the spring.
lolololo9lololoololl @ Gina
I've been told by "the childlike ones" that I think I'm clever disputing the existence of god.I wish I was clever. Then maybe I'd be able to understand their stupidity. Anyway, I don't dispute his existence anymore. I now know he does not exist and I'm still not clever. I've just learned to use my intelligence.
I had a wonderful relationship like that when I was younger. I felt loved and gave love. I felt that presence day in and day out. I was so at peace. To me it was such a real relationship, we'd play games together (although I'd have to move the game pieces), communicate (I knew in my heart what I was being told although I couldn't actually hear the voice with my ears) and just hang out together. I really could see a hazy figure too.
But then my family and the adults in my life told me it wasn't real. Why? Because it was a she, my age and considered a figment of my imagination..an imaginary friend you see.
Nothing new here. Stop asking questions, stop being rational, stop being complex...and god might find you worthy of initiating a lifelong relationship with you.
Sound like a god you would even want a relationship with even if it did exist?
Gina Said:
"Stop looking for God in man, religion, churches."
Then man, religion, and churches need to stop witnessing and saying "look at me (us)", "that is proof of god". If you want people look at god only for proof, then she needs to give proof outside of man, religion, and churches. Remember, man wrote the bible.
You can't sale man's testimony, religion, and churches without us looking at it. The bible says you will know god's people by their fruits. Because there is no fruit, there is no god's people. In turn, there is no god. No true xtians, no god. It makes the so-called inspired words of god a fraud and a lie. Period!
You need to read about the 7 churches and know there is no church of philadelphia (brotherly love). It's a crock!
Gina, Overall, you are asking us to listen to you, your witness, and in the same breathe to not listen to you (man, church, and religion). Xtianity is a religion just like all the others.
Do you know why so many people are confused about xtianity? Its because lies upon lies are always confusing. If you had truth, you would have clarity rather than emotion, wishful thinking.
Gina, i can help if you are scared of dying. Its okay if you never see your family again. You won't go to heaven because there is none. This life is all you have, so live it you best. You know there is no heaven. If there was, you would be happy and celebrate when loved ones die. You mouth says one thing, but your action speak louder. You don't really believe. You don't follow the bible gina. I have read the whole thing and you have failed to follow. You are heathen just like me. If you love god, you would follow his commandments, but you don't. YOu don't because you really don't believe. You believe in belief. It makes you feel good and your ego can't stand the sight of us because we push your button of unbelief. You have to come in here to feed your ego. YOu can't feed off of believers, so you feed off of us. You wish you had that courage to be like us. But you are weak. You are scared. You are trapped by relatives and friends who would disown you if you really proclaimed what you really believe. There is no god and you know it. Your daily doubts and moments when you feel alone are the realities trying creap in. Your prayers are self-reinforcment when you start feeling reality kick in. Its ok. I know reality now. I can help you. Just let it go and cry. Reality doesn't suck that much, trust me. I promise I will be your friend when you decide to leave xtianity. I will be here when they leave you. I will even marry you if your hot. my future ex-wife is a believer, so I am waiting for an anti-theist like yourself to come along. YOu have to have a big butt though. I can't stop looking at man, religion, churches, and big butts. lol
Talk to you soon Gina:)
Dear troglodyte,
Same story, second verse.
Please go back to your cave, this isn't a place for you.
I came across your site by accident. Since I don't believe in coincidence
Really? It was purely accidental and also not coincidental?
So let me guess. You were heading to bed and Muffy the cat ran in front of you tipping you off balance. You tripped, but on the way down accidentally turned on the computer. While pulling yourself off the floor, you grabbed the keyboard and inadvertently typed in "Google" on the keypad. Whilst getting yourself all sorted out, your big toe kept hitting the keyboard typing in "Ex-Christian". Then Muffy, miffed at your chidings, jumped off the monitor and hit the "Enter" key.
And here you are.
Something like that? I mean, it couldn't possibly be you were using a search engine, or using a link from another site could it? Cause that wouldn't be accidental, and that would mean you're lying.
And, of course, if you came here intentionally, then you'd be telling the truth about it not being a coincidence. Not that coincidences ever happen in God's Magic Kingdom.
Gina,
You're obviously not really satisfied with your own self deception, otherwise you wouldn't be investigating these sights. People don't go onto porn sights to see what's bad about them. they go there for the kicks. I hope you got a kick from this site. Good luck with your rapture.
P.S. You don't come across sites by accident. You have to enter them.
More for Gina:
Matt.11:25. At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones.
In illo tempore respondens Iesus dixit confiteor tibi Pater Domine caeli et terrae quia abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus et revelasti ea parvulis
I have a different translation and it doesn't mean the same thing. I don't think any bible on earth still has the same message as the original verses.
Anyway, I doubt the original verses
could have actually taught us anything, except that the bible is totally ambiguous and contradicts itself around every corner.
'Accidentally' go to the following site and read the verses quoted:
http://home.teleport.com/~packham/bible.htm#CONTRA
This is just flat out rude.
The people who come to this website are, as far as I can tell, looking for a reprieve from the prostelytizing sales-pitches that we get from our "christ-filled" friends, family-members, and co-workers. We see the world in a way you don't. If you want to insult us and say that we've "lost God" because we simply "didn't love him" and were "looking for him in all the wrong places", that's fine, but do it in your own space. I don't know about anyone else here, but I most CERTAINLY don't go to CHRISTIAN SITES and tell the webmasters there that I think that they're deluded and that they're trying to induct people into their cults using manipulative tactics, guilt trips, and fear-mongering. I don't appreciate getting it in a place where I've come to heal from the angry, vindictive reactions that I've gotten from Christians when I've told them, non-accusatorily, that I no longer believe in their religion.
If we wanted to re-join your cult, WE'D COME TO YOU. You're worse than a spammer. A spammer would at least have the common decency to use an impersonal machine to solicit their products. You actually TOOK THE TIME TO READ this site, and then CHOSE to say what you did.
That's one of the most inconsiderate things that I can think of a person doing. It is as if you have gone to a group of people who are recovering from sexual abuse and shoved child pornography in their faces.
Why, why would I want to worship a "God" who creates human intellect, and demands that people believe in him without any evidence or he will send them to a fiery inferno, and then not only doesn't make himself believable, but goes to great lengths to HIDE HIMSELF, so that it is even MORE difficult to believe in him?! What sort of "loving parent" hides bread from a starving child, or medicine from a sick child? This is your "God-the-Father". This is the "benevolent diety" that you've come to shove in our faces.
At this point, the only polite, loving thing that you could possibly do is go away.
Thank you Crystal! Well said.
Hi Gina:
After reading a few lines of your self righteous post I felt a swell of liquid in my throat, you know, it happens just before you are going to be sick to your stomach. I began to gag, blech, horck, yek, and finally ran to the bathroom to throw up. Thanx for your wonderful sermon.
Now then, I hope you have read all the comments that have been posted here. I'll bet if you drop your drawers
and back into a mirror you'll see that your ass is all red and bruised. You have just had your ass kicke d properly for coming here with your bullshit.
This is actually my first time on your web site and for a few HORRIFYING seconds, I thought I was being tricked. I thought this might be a web site to help me find others who have dealt with what I have dealt with, and I started to read this little blurb from Gina and felt sick. Oh Nooooo, this web site is just here to trap people, save our poor souls from burning for all eternity. Fortunately, I went down to the comments section and breathed a HUGE sigh of relief. I am soooooo please there are other people out there that think like I do. YAY. As for people like Gina, I think plenty was said here to cover that BS and I'm glad I realized it wasnt what this site is about. I look forward to looking around this site some more. Apprehension free!
AMEN CRYSTAL!!!
What you said!
Hello everyone. I have noticed lately that the live feed bar (the section with the national flags and cities we are from )shows that some people arrive from stumbleupon.com. Expect more Ginas; poor things, just like wandering in to The Rocky Horror
Picture Show. Scapegoat
Dear Angela, feel free to make yourself at home here. Yeah, there are a few xtians that come to this site and blather the same old shit we've all heard before.
There are some good christians here that I have alot of respect for also.
But the ones that show up here to spread thier arrogance, and try and prove that us non-believers are going to fry for etenity; well, I just leave it up to the (smarter than me) atheists to pull a can of whoopass out on them, and they don't stick around long. Again, Welcome....Roger A/A
"Anyway I prayed before sending you this e-mail and opened bible for God's words."
Nothing like good ole biblomancy huh? That's a form of divination ya know (look it up) - so you're gonna be joining us in hell due to your unrepented sin ;)
But don't feel too bad - I used to do the same when I was a xian. Only after I left did I learn the truth.
Ah, yes, letting a "sacred" book fall open and concluding that the first section one sees is God's message to YOU, personally!
This is known as Stichomancy. It is as old as sacred writings themselves and traditionally is used in fortune-telling and decision making. Muslims even do it with the Quran.
It's like any other superstitious practice. It doesn't mean anything because it doesn't actually work.
Thanks Roger, I consider myself forewarned. : ) I appreciate your welcome.
Its good to so see a website that doesn't take kindly to evangelical, fundamentalist christians. I'm glad were really sticking the truth to this Gina girl. That the bible is just a bunch of bullshit written by man to try to control people.
Hey now, I think I found this site through stumbleupon.com. I listed "atheism" as an interest and it sent me here, if I remember correctly. So we might be getting some unfriendly visitors through stumbleupon.com, but we also may be getting some new members!
Also... have you ever noticed how many people arrive here through Google to articles here about masturbation? Says something interesting about the struggles between humanity and religious precepts...
You're all sooooo clever and enlightened! Well done to you fantastically amazing clever people.
One day we'll know the truth. And someone's going to look a fool. Personally, if God exists, I've got eternity to look forward to. And if he doesn't, I've lost nothing by believing in Him. His peace Gina.
OOOOOOOh anonymous. The poor Xtian ain't intelligent enough to TYPE A NICKNAME, but she sure as hell can fume and fuss and threaten her fellow human beings with everlasting horrific torture, just because those other human beings think her mythology is stupid.
Whatever.
Gina, if your immaterial, invisible, flying, un-dead, zombie on a stick doesn't exist (and, btw, it doesn't exist) you've completely wasted your one and only life.
Hail Zeus, Allah, and RA!
Religion is nonsense.
Gina hun,do you think I have to worship the god of the bible in order to get into heaven, or just any god will do as long as I love him/she/it? Peace and Love, Roger
Gina said:
Personally, if God exists, I've got eternity to look forward to. And if he doesn't, I've lost nothing by believing in Him
----
Oh Gina,
Don't you realize that most of us USED to believe in this idea, just as you obviously do?
The 'bet' you speak of actually has a name......Pascals Wager
It has many flaws and you would do well to read this article CAREFULLY ....
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html
What you assuming is that one can FORCE oneself to believe in the xtian god, thereby gaining entry to his heaven after death.
Well, one can't force oneself to believe in anything, it has to come through reason.... or brainwashing perhaps.
Do you actually think any person (yourself?) can FAKE this belief and fool this xtian god of yours, into making him think we were believers the whole time?
If god is so powerful, how can anyone PRETEND to believe in him and get away with that fakery?
So we can't win heaven with your suggestion here.
However, you are incorrect that if you're wrong and there is no god, that you lost nothing.
The fact is you will have lost the life you COULD have had and it would be the ONLY LIFE you'll ever get.
Don't you realize how ticked-off we all are about the years we lost to your fake god already and most of us still have plenty life left to make up for it.
Ah, but what if you spent 99% of your lifetime serving this make-believe god, only to discover he wasn't ever there and now you have something like 1 year left to live.
Just think how angry you would be at this point, knowing you blew away your whole life on some myth.
Gina, you better take a darn closer look at your belief system of a god before too much of your life has been pissed away on foolishness.
Again, keep in mind we are EX Christians for a reason, and that reason has everything to do with discovering your god can't exist.
We did not one day decide to reject your god because we just FELT like it.
We did not turn our backs on him because we wanted to have fun sinning either, just in case you are assuming that is the case.
If you study your bible book history and all it's contradictions, flaws, and how god and jesus each give the appearance of having a multiple personality disorder, then you might realize what we all did.
Your god can NOT exist, at least not the one from your bible storybook Gina.
ATF (who wonders why the newest comments aren't showing up today???)
Gino.
Through all the years I was a christian, I thought the warm feeling I got was God and Jesus..
But guess what. I can get that same feeling through any group activity.
Be it a concert or a dance or a party.
I do love the line in Pascal's Wager that states if believe(and go through all the motions) it isn't true and I die, I have lost nothing.
Let me start by using this fine snowy Michigan Sunday morning as an example. This Sunday morning was mine. Oh how I love to get up when I feel like it, drink my coffee while enjoying some time online. Along with checking the news, weather, ExC.net, and a few Youtube vids, I will confess to all of you in this forum that I did look at a porn site or two and felt nothing but guilt free visual pleasure. And speaking of guilt free visual pleasure my son turns 18 this week and instead of giving him a new fancy leather King James Bible, I am going to by him two passes to Lansing Michigan's finest strip club so he and a friend can have some fun during his Christmas break.
If my family and I were still attending church my ass would have been up at 7am dragging my poor kids out of bed, and then watching my wife toss more of my hard earned money in the collection plate than I ever liked. It was never close to 10% I am happy to say.
To say you have lost nothing by following a religious cult is complete and utter bullshit. I was never that devout, but it was always a pain in the ass doing what little I did with the church.
And as ATF said,
"If god is so powerful, how can anyone PRETEND to believe in him and get away with that fakery?"
Jesus Christ all that snow shoveling this morning has really screwed up my proofreading skills. This is how my first paragraph should havee read.
"I do love the line in Pascal's Wager that states if I believe(and go through all the motions)and it isn't true and I die, I have lost nothing."
I too am enjoying my Sunday morning at my leisure, contemplating breakfast and Christmas shopping (no belief in jesus needed to buy gifts for my loved ones). When I was a christian, I used to think about non-christian friends and wonder how they could look so happy and content without worshipping god and going to church. Now I know because I am one of those people. Enjoy your Sunday everyone!
That anonymous post wasn't made by Gina. It said "His peace" 'to' Gina. It was my mistake in not typing in a nickname. Clearly this is quite an issue for one or two people, so I apologise. I see the weakness in not using one.
'Webmaster' assumed it was because 'she' wasn't intelligent enough. There are two errors in your hasty illogical judgements webmaster. One, I am a 'he'. Second, I am not convinced that intelligence has anything to do with typing in a nickmane. It has to do with choice. But, to make you happy, I have now typed in a name. Just in case you missed it, it's Adam.
It's nice to see some people in here do try to form valid arguments. Those are worth responding to, and sometimes raise interesting challenging points. Thank you for those posts.
It does appear however that a number of people just want to express anger, bitterness, disgust, and generally, just be abusive, in a vain attempt to crush 'Gina', or anyone else into the ground. I must admit, that type of verbal diarrhoea doesn't seem to serve much purpose, and certainly doesn't convince anyone. It shows no intelligence, or sincerity of belief. It just shows that you're defensive and insecure. If you believe something, support it intelligently. Try and convince me, if you've found the 'answer', and you have some 'truth' to impart. Being abusive doesn't achieve this. It just invalidates anything you have to say. Please, use your intelligence, show some level of maturity, and discuss things like an adult. If you can't, leave the discussion to those clearly intellectual mature atheists in here, and just observe the discussion. One of the atheists in here (freethinker 05) put it well
"I just leave it up to the (smarter than me) atheists to pull a can of whoopass out on them....Roger A/A"
Anyway, these were just a few of my thoughts after reading through this discussion. Trust you all had a fantastic Sunday.
Adam
" But, to make you happy, I have now typed in a name. Just in case you missed it, it's Adam.
That, my dear little Adam, was the entire point of my mockery -- to get you to assume a moniker.
As to the rest of your self-righteous vomit, read the god-damned Site Purpose and Disclaimer. Your opinion on how others should express themselves is irrelevant. Your judgment on the value of this kind of expression was unsolicited, and is unappreciated. Before you get your panties all in a wad again, how about you read a few dozen of the hundreds of testimonials of former Christians posted here, and then maybe -- just maybe -- you'll understand why some people are pissed off at your lunatic religion.
As far as Gina goes, she can talk for herself, can't she?
"Try and convince me,"
Adam, nothing on this site is designed to "convince" a mind-numbed Christian of anything. This site is entirely intended for those leaving Christianity. We're not evangelizing here, Adam. We're ranting, relating, and generally having a good time. It's YOU and other fanatics who are intent on evangelizing.
In a nutshell: You come here and rebuke us for how we behave on our website? Excuse me, but get stuffed.
You have seriously over-reacted to my post. It was not intended to cause offense. Its a pity you took it the way you did.
I have not tried to evangelise at all. In fact, if you re-read my post, if you feel so inclined, you will notice that there is no mention of God, or a perceived lack there-of, at all! It does not even make any claims!
All it asked for was a level of intellectual discussion, to enable people (yes, including myself) to agree or disagree with other posts, and actually come to some sort of conclusion. Reading through a hundred posts of abuse clearly does not really benefit anyone, or show any level of intellectual reasoning.
Anyway, after having read your response, clearly my post did not have the desired effect. I apologise for the offence it caused you. It really was not intended to make you as upset as it did. My apologies.
And just for your interest, I was reading through this merely to see if there were any valid arguments for your 'belief', not to evangelise, as you have presumed to be the case.
Webmaster said,
"We're not evangelizing here, Adam. We're ranting, relating, and generally having a good time."
Adam,
Yes this is our little club and sometimes our members are nice and sometimes they are complete assholes(most of us can go either way), but you must remember we don't have a building on ever corner to hang out as you do. When you reveal that fact that you are a Christian, unfortuneately whether warrented or not, you take a risk of getting lambasted. Sometimes a Christian here is receieved like a black man making his point at a KKK meeting, but for the most part we are respectful if your message is delieved with respect. If you have read a minute part of this site and haven't found any good arguements against Christianity you are(with all due respect) completely numb to reality. Information was the key to me giving up God belief. Information found on this site.
I have no clue why you would be here if you don't question your beliefs in some way. I wouldn't surf a Christian website/message board if you paid me. It would bore me to tears, and I would not even dream of making a case agaist God there. Oh well Adam you seem like a nice chap and I wish you well.
Bill
Adam: "You have seriously over-reacted to my post."
No. You posted without taking the time to find out what we were all about.
"And just for your interest, I was reading through this merely to see if there were any valid arguments for your 'belief'..."
Perhaps you should take the time to examine the arguments for your own beliefs before you attempt to deconstruct ours, young man.
Adam,
Read Matthew 7:6,12-14.
And don't apologize to these guys. You have nothing to be sorry for.
"Xrayman", or Bill, thank you for your response. Its greatly appreciated. And the level-headedness is a welcome interlude amidst the barrage of abuse! :) And I hear your point. It makes sense.
"Astreja", you are seriously mistaken on every single one of your points. In fact, I'm not certain that you've actually read my posts! There are no grounds for anything you said. But just to clarify for you:
1) I posted AFTER I had taken the time to find out what you are about
2) I haven't attempted to deconstruct ANY of your beliefs
3) I HAVE taken the time to examine my own beliefs
4) And calling me "young man"? I can only assume that either you are very old, without the possibility of me being older than yourself, or you have some 'magical' way of discerning other people's ages? I am sure neither are true, so please feel free to simply call me Adam.
And "biblethumper", thank you for the scripture. I must point out to you, as I'm sure you know, that if I do cause offence to anyone in here, when it is not intended, it's only right that I apologise. I don't apologise for my belief, merely for causing offence.
Adam....And just for your interest, I was reading through this merely to see if there were any valid arguments for your 'belief', not to evangelise, as you have presumed to be the case
If the testimonies and comments of the regulars on this website are not indicative enough that we denounce Christianity, and thus, that we subsequently lack "belief" in said religion's alleged figurehead, then surely, EX-christian.net would be indicative enough. Yes?
Now that we've hopefully established that much...
Adam...2) I haven't attempted to deconstruct ANY of your beliefs
Observation---when you say, "I was reading through this merely to see if there were any valid arguments for your 'belief'....", apostrophies/quotation marks on "belief", or not, it is an implicit challenge.
BTW, one doesn't need a "valid argument" to not believe somone elses fantastic claim. The onus of "validation" is in the lap of the one making the claim in the affirmative. To illustrate---I don't need a "valid argument" to not believe, nor to disprove, that invisible gremlins are in deed responsible for when our car keys, wallets, and reading glasses sometimes turn up missing. 'Questions?
"Boomslang". Regarding the fact that you don't believe in God, I'm not certain why you felt you had to make that point. It would seem that that is quite obvious! If you were instead referring to the fact that I called it a 'belief', I was aware that some may misunderstand me and be offended by the reference to atheism as a belief. That is the very reason I placed the word in inverted commas! Don't worry, I know you don't believe in God.
Regarding your next point. You're quite right. You don't need to prove anything. Although hundreds upon hundreds of posts by the athesists here appear to try and do otherwise. But, yes, I understand your point in that you don't have to validate anything. If you take the view-point that God doesn't exist as a given, it might seem logical that you don't have to support this 'belief'.
Perhaps the reason we differ on who should have to validate their claim is the following: You take it as a given that God doesn't exist, and therefore a claim that He does would be a positive claim (as you mentioned). I have the converse starting point. I take it as a given that He does exist, and therefore a claim that He doesn't exist is now the positive claim.
Anyway, I do appreciate your logical reasoning. I realise we won't reach agreement on this point. Its merely an observation as to the different starting points in our reasoning.
Anyway, enough time wasted going around in circles. Thank you for the mature responses toward the end of this blog. Have a lovely evening.
Adam,
Just remember who you are dealing with. These people are not looking to have an intellectual discusion with Christians. They can do that between themselves but reserve their aggression for us. I have noted that the tamest of comments will be twisted into something it is not. Then an argument ensues and things quickly degenerate into mindless name calling. Don't expect a lot of satisfaction or understanding here.
Adam said:
"I have the converse starting point. I take it as a given that He {God} does exist, and therefore a claim that He doesn't exist is now the positive claim."
Either way, there is no logical way to 'prove' a universal negative.
So if I say I believe that unicorns exist, its up to you to "prove" that they dont? Logic does not work that way Adam. You will never be able to prove that they dont exist. I have made the positive claim: Unicorns exist, therefore I have the responisbility to support my claim.
"Proving" somthing does not exist is not a POSITIVE claim no matter how you try and phrase the argument.
Adam said "You take it as a given that God doesn't exist, and therefore a claim that He does would be a positive claim (as you mentioned). I have the converse starting point. I take it as a given that He does exist, and therefore a claim that He doesn't exist is now the positive claim."
Adam, I think you are confused about who has the burden of proof. You cannot simply assert that the existence of something is the neutral position and insist that others who do not agree are making the positive claim. Here is why: existence and non-existence are not symmetric. The former admits positive evidence while the latter may not (and usually does not). Moreover, if we were to adopt your reasoning, then I could claim anything at all to exist (such as invisible chocolate Easter bunnies) and it would be up to you to prove me wrong. If those were the rules of engagement, then we would be in sorry shape as a society. People would go to prison because they could not disprove the existence of imaginary murder weapons. Thousands would die because some country could not disprove that it possessed imaginary WMD. Oh, wait... we are in that mess.
Biblethumber, I take umbrage at your characterization. If you wish to have a civil and substantive discussion about your theology, I'll happily engage you. Perhaps one in a hundred Christians who visit this site are capable of having such a discussion. Far more often than not they make threats, rude accusations, and fail to either construct or grasp even the most rudimentary of arguments. Those few who can are generally treated well. The ball is in your court.
Adam..."Boomslang". Regarding the fact that you don't believe in God, I'm not certain why you felt you had to make that point. It would seem that that is quite obvious!
Evidently, not "obvious" enough.
Adam...Regarding your next point. You're quite right. You don't need to prove anything. Although hundreds upon hundreds of posts by the athesists here appear to try and do otherwise.
Well, as I point out quite often, this, apparently because of the need to--if it were not for Christians barging in here and challenging our non-belief in "God" by insisting that "God" exists(and of course, that is assming that "God" is "Yahweh"), then these "hundreds and hundreds of posts" by Atheists would not exist. Such comments, however you regard them, would be needless. Do you understand that? Let me illustrate it further: We would not need an flu' vaccine if influenza did not exist.
Adam...But, yes, I understand your point in that you don't have to validate anything. If you take the view-point that God doesn't exist as a given, it might seem logical that you don't have to support this 'belief'.
Let me ask you, Adam.....**do you take, "as a given", the "view-point" that Buddha, Allah, Poseiden, Odin, Shazam, and the Great Pumpkin do not have a referent in reality? Or, are you assuming that the aforementioned do exist, until the time that someone comes along and "proves" to you that they don't exist? If you chose the former option, then you should be able to relate quite well with my position on "Yahweh", his "Son", and their "ghost".
Adam attempts...You take it as a given that God doesn't exist, and therefore a claim that He does would be a positive claim (as you mentioned). I have the converse starting point. I take it as a given that He does exist, and therefore a claim that He doesn't exist is now the positive claim.
A valiant attempt, but no, I'm sorry, logic doesn't work like that. But we can solve this rather easily, if you can just produce some convincing evidence for your fantastic religious claim(s). Remember, my position isn't so "fantastic", because after all, you deny all the same "gods" that I do, with the exception of one. In other words, don't make the common mistake of asking ME to prove that your biblegod doesn't exist, unless you can "prove" that the gods that you disbelieve in don't exist, m'kay?
Adam...Anyway, I do appreciate your logical reasoning.
Do you? I'm not convinced.
Adam...I realise we won't reach agreement on this point.
Oh? And why is that? Please explain your conviction on this.
Adam...Its merely an observation as to the different starting points in our reasoning.
The "starting point" is that we come into this world with a clean "slate"; we come into this world with zero notion, ideas, or concepts of what the letters "G-O-D" mean. In other words, the "starting point" is non-belief in "God". Atheism is the default position.
'enjjpt', and 'jim arvo', I hear both your arguments. They do seem to make sense. I need to reason through this for myself, so maybe if I use an example, it might help you to understand what I mean, as well as helping me understand what you mean! :)
I exist. If you then claim that I don't, why is it that the burden is to prove that I do exist. I exist! Anyone who wishes to talk to me may do so. If someone then claims that I don't exist, surely they then must prove to the thousands of people who have conversed with me, that I don't in actual fact exist? How can it be that the status quo must be proved? Surely someone who contradicts the 'given' (I realise you don't accept it as a given), bears the onus of proof?
Does this make sense?
Oh, by the way, 'jim arvo' you mentioned that you take umbridge to 'biblethumpers' comment. You have been very mature, and taken the time to explain your view-point. This is much appreciated. You must admit though, apart from a small handful of others, you are quite unique in the maturity of your responses. All you have to do is read the hundred odd posts above to see this point. Perhaps however, this has in part been a result of arrogance, or sometimes perceived arrogance, on the part of us Christians. This is not always the case though.
Anyway guys. It's been interesting. Enough time wasted though. (I say that, yet I feel I'll end of responding to another post in the future!) :)
Keep well, and thank you for your time and patience with me. Again, apologies for any offense caused. It really wasn't intended. Just wanted to discuss this a bit. And it has been interesting.
Without meaning to offend anyone, or appear or sound arrogant, I hope God does reveal Himself to you, in a TANGIBLE way.
I clearly don't have all the answers, but I'm happy to discuss anything with anyone here, with the same courteous manner you have treated me, should you wish.
Adam
Adam:
It has been awhile since I brushed up on my formal logic from college, but I will try and answer your question.
First let me say that I can see your point of view and where you are comming from, though your argument contains faulty logic. and when I say 'faulty logic' I dont mean that in a 'you are an idiot' sense. The premises of your argument do not support your claim, that is all, nothing personal aginst you at all.
Without getting way off into the existential weeds about what it means 'to exist' or how we can tell that 'reality' is not an illusion, I suggest that we lay some simple ground rules and define our terms so we can both speak the same language.
You exist, I exist, for the reasons that you mentioned. You can see me, converse with me, and the like. The physical universe 'exists' for the sake of our excercise. That is to say, that which can been seen, like you and I.
The claim that a supernatural being exists is a proposition that lies outside of our physical universe and estlablished reality. We cannot see him/her/it, or speak with him/her/it.
Now you might say 'god' speaks to you, but has anyone else ever heard that converstaion take place? Our existance is real, becasue everyone in this forum can see our converstaion, so the proposition is not analogus.
You are saying;
I exist:it is obvious, you cant disprove it THEREFORE God exists, you can disprove it.
You can substitute the word "God" with anything you like. Gremelins, ghosts, Bigfoot, Chupacabra etc. You are going from a natural proposition to a supernatural one. The premises are not equal.
I hope that made some sense. Hopefully some of the others here will clrea it up better than I did!
Adam said "I exist. If you then claim that I don't, why is it that the burden is to prove that I do exist."
Because "existence" is a claim that admits direct evidence!
Adam: "I exist! Anyone who wishes to talk to me may do so."
Right! You are offering evidence of your existence, which is easy to do BECAUSE YOU EXIST!
Adam: "If someone then claims that I don't exist, surely they then must prove to the thousands of people who have conversed with me, that I don't in actual fact exist?"
You are mixing two things here. If the "someone" has never heard any of the evidence of your existence, then it is rational for them to doubt you exist (especially if you are supposedly endowed with magical capabilities). If, however, you say "Here I am!", standing before them, then it is up to the skeptic to either accept your claim, or REFUTE YOUR POSITIVE EVIDENCE. In the latter case, they are indeed making a positive claim: e.g. that your evidence is faulty. If that is what they claim, then they are absolutely obliged to back it up (e.g. by demonstrating that "you" are simply a hologram, or some such). Positive claims require evidence.
Adam: "How can it be that the status quo must be proved? Surely someone who contradicts the 'given' (I realise you don't accept it as a given), bears the onus of proof?"
To many people alien abductions are "real". Many people claim to converse with their dead ancestors, bend spoons telepathically, etc. To them these are the "status quo". Are you obliged to believe them simply because they do? If I told you I kept a heard of elephants in my swimming pool would you believe me without some evidence?
By the way, the "status quo" for your god is that she is nowhere to be found. I've never seen a trace of her, or any other invisible conscious entity for that matter.
I see your points. Clear and concise. For you, the status quo, or default, is that God doesn't exist. And from this premise, your arguments make sense. I understand where you are coming from. Thank you for explaining, and even more so, for trying to be as un-offensive as possible. I really do appreciate it.
As I mentioned above, I can only hope and pray (without meaning to sound arrogant, self-righteous or offensive) that God reveals Himself to you TANGIBLY, so that you might have a change in default position. I understand completely that until that happens, your default position is absolutely logical, and defensible, and there is no reason for you to change your view-point. You do not need to defend your position.
Adam, just to be clear, my point was not that you need to honor my "status quo", or anybody else's. My point is that believing and NOT believing in the existence of something are not symmetrical positions. They are inherently different, the former being a positive claim that admits evidence. As a purely practical matter one cannot ignore this asymmetry, or we would be obliged to accept all manner of silly assertions, and we would be mired in contradictions.
Adam,
For you, the default position is that Allah doesn't exist, right? And you would also quickly dismiss from your mind claims to the existence of the gods of Mt. Olympus, Thor, RA, and in fact all of the over 10,000 gods that thousands and millions of people have worshiped in human history. I would guess that you think all other gods and goddesses are imaginary, right? If I'm wrong here, please maturely correct me. Don't put on any airs of arrogant superiority when you respond. Just keep it civil.
Adam, when you are able to admit why it is OK for you to lightly dismiss the claims of thousands of other religions without so much as a blink, then you'll understand how others can dismiss the claims of your religion so easily.
If you are able to present tangible evidence for your god or any other god, then that would be interesting. In the meantime, all you really have a is a storybook filled with amazing talking animals, flying chariots, swimming ax heads, fantastic invisible powerful spirit creatures, witches, divination, magic, and a sexless, un-dead, zombie, god-man.
It resembles mythology and fantasy just a little to much.
To doubt that all these interesting stories are less than reality, especially in light of the lack of evidence supporting the existence of all these odd things, seems not only reasonable, but wise.
All it asked for was a level of intellectual discussion, to enable people (yes, including myself) to agree or disagree with other posts, and actually come to some sort of conclusion. Reading through a hundred posts of abuse clearly does not really benefit anyone, or show any level of intellectual reasoning.
No, you did not ask. You mandated. There is a difference. You stated your desire, and then expressed shock and offense at any who would see things differently. If a stranger walked into your house and started criticizing how you managed your affairs, even in a polite tone of voice, would you consider that person discourteous? Or would you thank him, hug him, and give him a big wet sloppy kiss for his observations? Well, whatever you might do, that kind of "polite" behavior pisses me off.
When I suggested you read the posts on this site, I wasn't talking about all the comments on this or any thread. I was talking about the individual testimonials and articles. There are hundreds of those, and there is not a single harsh word directed toward you in any of them. I suppose when you use the word "abuse," you mean harsh sounding rhetoric. Adam, if you can't handle a little strong language, I would suggest to you that you might want to purchase some muffs for your sensitive ears, or simply avoid conversation with people who don't play by your rules. Or, perhaps it's just that you are too lofty, far above, and lifted above the vain rabble of hell destined humanity.
However, don't take offense at any of this. I had a pretty high opinion of myself when I was a Christian, too. So I do understand where you are coming from.
Oh, and Biblethumper. I followed the lunacy of your ridiculous religion for three decades, and I was an idiot for doing it.
However, just because I think your religion is retarded, I don't dislike you or any other Christian. It's a pity that your religion encourages you to snub your nose at most of humanity, and glory in the everlasting torture of your fellow creatures, just because most of humanity doesn't believe in your myths. That "Christian" attitude alone is enough to make your religion detestable to anyone.
wm,
Explain to me how I am snubbing most of humanity? All I did was tell someone to be careful dealing with you guys. And rightly so.
And if you don't dislike Christians idont understand why you post articles about Christians and church leaders screwing up. Should we bring down democracy because some of our government leaders are corupt? Even the Dali Lama (spelling?) said that Christianity works if people would just follow the rules.
For someone who says he doesn't dislike Christians you sure have a lot of material here that proves otherwise
Be careful dealing with...?
That's not what you wrote!
Let me quote you: "Adam,
Read Matthew 7:6,12-14.
And don't apologize to these guys. You have nothing to be sorry for.
[...]
Just remember who you are dealing with. These people are not looking to have an intellectual discusion with Christians. They can do that between themselves but reserve their aggression for us. I have noted that the tamest of comments will be twisted into something it is not. Then an argument ensues and things quickly degenerate into mindless name calling. Don't expect a lot of satisfaction or understanding here."
That's a snub. It was completely unnecessary to make a comment like that. It was intended to insult, demean and generally adopt an air of superiority.
And, implicit in the conversation or comments of every Christian is that those who do not believe in a magical holy ghost, will be deliciously tortured forever in horrific agony by a god of infinite love.
You're right. It's not a snub. It's horrifyingly cold.
I don't dislike Christians. However, I hate what Christianity does to people. People become easy dupes to predatory people -- people who don the cloak of religion to bilk millions from millions, make impossible promises, and fulfill the basest lusts under the protection of the faithfully foolish.
When people can be convinced to believe in myth and legend, they can be easily fooled by any charismatic charlatan.
Yes, if it's hate to point out the terrible behavior of so-called Christian ministers, then I am I guess I am filled with hate. And you, friend, are filled with denial.
wm,
I told Adam that tame comments or twisted into something there're not. I mentioned nothing of hellfire and torture but you managed to inject that into my comment. I said nothing about you or your buddies being hatefilled but that somehow also made it into your "imaginative translation" of my simple post.
You are smart enough to know exactly what I was saying to Adam and you are smart enough to spin it into something you know it wasn't meant to be. I guess you can take the man out of Christianity but you can't take christianity out of the man, huh?
Adam,
If you did indeed take the time to read some of this site before posting, you have no excuse for the statement "You have seriously over-reacted to my post."
That, in My opinion, is alarmingly similar to an abusive person calling his victim "too sensitive". It is not for you to decide if we under- or over-reacted to anything.
Ex-C is a place for ranting, raving, swearing and generally venting about our bad experiences with Christianity. Not a playground for wandering evangelicals trying to shame, threaten or love-bomb us back into their delusional little world.
Hey Adam,
I like your style. Are you really that nice of a guy, or is this all an act? I've never seen a Christian respond as you have.
I do want to comment on the fact that you pray for God to reveal himself to us. Adam I am 44 and for the first 42 years of my life I tried so hard to find God. I am not an exChristian because I never found Christ other than the decrative ones hanging on walls. I went through life with mostly tepid God belief because I could never have that born again experience I so desired. Every time I got down on my knees to ask Jesus to come to me, I came up empty. I never felt the love and I wanted to so bad. I guess I believed in God becasue everyone else did and I guess heaven and hell were big motivational factors.
Many people tell me that God was with me at certain times in my life but I failed to take note. Was it a time I had a tingle in my left leg? How are we to know when God reveals himself to us? What is the key element that says to one, "Hey this is God himself. The real deal." What would set a God experience apart from let's say a highly emotional moment with one's self?
To sum it up Adam, the reason I never found Jesus is becasue deep down inside I knew it(religion/God belief) was a crock all along. I was raised by parents who let me think for myself and I never had religion shoved down my throat. My adult mind could never be fully convinced of the reality of the Christian God.
Finding people like Dave the WM who once were as hard core as it gets, and now atheist really seals the deal for me. If no Christian ever lost their faith and became an atheist, I would be seriously question my non belief, but we discover there are many. Thanks Adam for stopping by and generating such great dialogue and more reinforcement of my non belief.
Bill
BT wrote, "I mentioned nothing of hellfire and torture but you managed to inject that into my comment."
No, here's what I said: "And, implicit in the conversation or comments of every Christian is that those who do not believe in a magical holy ghost, will be deliciously tortured forever in horrific agony by a god of infinite love."
Perhaps you should look up the word "implicit." I twisted nothing. I did quickly extend the topic to its logical (in a Christian reality) conclusion. Christianity teaches that all non-Christians, false Christians, and the only think they are Christians, are going to be horrifically tortured in everlasting agony by a fatherly, loving, god full of tender mercies.
You may not have written those words, but that's what Christianity is all about, isn't it? Escaping everlasting torment in hell and living forever in heaven, looking down on all the poor wretches who just didn't get the right religious thoughts in their heads before their bodies died?
Ideas have consequences, kiddo. And Christianity teaches as foundational that all human beings are worthless, to be thrown on the garbage heap of eternity, unless they adopt the correct version of Christianity. So, whenever a Christian starts commenting, no matter what is said, implicit are threats of eternal damnation.
However, I second Bill. Thanks for spurring the conversation.
wm,
I am not a mainstream Christian and do not yet claim to "KNOW" that there is only one way to heaven or one way out of hell. Yet you group me with other insufferable and intollorant (spelling?) Christians. That reeks of arrogance and does not demonstrate to me the level of "free thought" and "open mindedness" that I hear preached here.
That last coment was from me
So much to respond to! :) I'm not sure where to start.
'Astreja', you said this is "Not a playground for wandering evangelicals trying to shame, threaten or love-bomb us back into their delusional little world."
I haven't threatened anyone. I haven't tried to shame anyone. I haven't tried to 'love-bomb' anyone. Did you actually read any of my posts?
I struggle with with the idea of having to respond to, or defend myself for something I haven't done, said or implied! Please don't build your own straw-men (presuming that your opinion of what you think I might think and say is correct), and then expect me to defend such a position. I haven't built up straw-men for you to defend. Anyone can think they have a good argument against something. Its only a good argument though, if someone actually asserted the counter argument. Otherwise it's just the random musings of one's own mind. Perhaps another Christian said something that made you respond the way you did. I cetainly don't think I did.
'Xrayman', or 'Bill', thank you for the compliment, I think! :) And no, I promise you, it's not just all an act. I realise, as always, that I'm asking you to take my word for it. You're entitled to think it is an act, and I'd understand that.
'Webmaster', you keep on referring to the fact that I, or other Christians, rub our hands together gleefully at the thought of other people being, what you called being 'deliciously tortured forever' in hell. You also claimed that this was an implied 'threat' from us. Perhaps some of us have been arrogant, and in our human nature, appeared to be overjoyed at the thought of hell. I can't answer for what other Christians may have said.
All I can say is that I certainly don't think this is 'delicious', or pleasant. I am not overjoyed by this thought. I hope I have not inadvertently created this impression. Does that really strike you as a reasonable thought on my part; that I'm sitting here looking forward to people experiencing such horror? Well, to clarify, I am not. The thought terrifies me. I cringe thinking about it. I wouldn't wish it on anyone, and I will do as much as I can to make sure it doesn't happen to anyone I come into contact with! I'm not saying you should cringe or change your belief. I know you don't believe its real. Thats your choice. I'm just making clear what I believe, so you can stop mis-quoting me. Hopefully most other Christians share the same feelings as I (hopefully!). No more needed on this point.
I spent some time thinking about the points a few of the people in here made, about the existence of God being a positive claim, and therefore bearing the burden of proof. And I thought their arguments were great. I still do. Having spent some more time thinking about it, I have realised why I have been confused on this issue.
"Boomslang" wrote "Atheism is the default position".
'Jim Arvo' said "By the way, the "status quo" for your god is that she is nowhere to be found. I've never seen a trace of her..."
Both are fair enough points, for any atheist to make. What is confusing me though is that this group is called "Ex-Christians". So I can only assume that you changed your default position, as did I, to 'God does exist' at some stage. When you later changed your mind back to 'God doesn't exist', surely you were making a positive claim? You were changing from the default that YOU chose. Its not my default that I chose for you. If you were a Christian, as 'Ex-Christian' implies, then you accepted Gods existence as default. I merely discussed from this starting point, which was once also your default position. I hope I'm making sense :)
Also, I'm not certain how you can be an "Ex-Christian" atheist. If you were a Christian, this implies that you had a relationship with God, and had evidence for His existence. You chose to be a Christian. Did the evidence of God disappear? Or were you mistaken in calling yourself a Christian in the first place? Hopefully no one forced you to call yourself a Christian. So I can only assume that one of the two options above is correct? Either you experienced Him tangibly and thus chose to believe in and follow Him (thus legitimately calling yourself a Christian), and then somehow this tangible experience reversed itself; or you never really experienced Him tangibly, and were therefore mistaken in calling yourself a Christian... I really hope this is making sense. It makes sense in my head, as non-sensical as that may sometimes be! :)
Anyway, this is getting very long, so I'll stop here. There was just so much to try and respond to! I tried to keep it concise!
Hope you've all had a lovely day.
Adam
PS. 'Webmaster', I have to correct a claim that you made. You said "Christianity teaches as foundational that all human beings are worthless". No. It doesn't. This is not true at all. I'm not sure where you heard it, but its not in the Bible (whether you believe it as true or not). You've built a straw-man to try and support your view. Christianity instead teaches that we are prized possessions, worth the life of the Son of God. Thats certainly not worthless. Yes, we might struggle to be righteous, but we're not, by any stretch of the imagination worthless. I won't patronise you by quoting scripture to you on this point. You know it well enough.
And your comment about we're "to be thrown on the garbage heap of eternity". Do you really think that if this was the plan, and true, Jesus would've died for us? His death would seem a bit pointless really then wouldn't it.
You also said "that's what Christianity is all about, isn't it? Escaping everlasting torment in hell and living forever in heaven, looking down on all the poor wretches who just didn't get the right religious thoughts in their heads before their bodies died?" You asked "isn't it". So, in answer, NO, it isn't! Where do you get this stuff? Stop building straw men, and then arguing against them! This is not "what Christianity is all about"! Do you really believe this, or are you just trying to put together an emotive statement? If you want to know what it's all about, just ask. Don't make up your own theories for something you don't even believe. It would be like me trying to tell you what you, as an atheist believe. I haven't done so. I have asked what you believe, and why you believe it.
Adam:
As a recent de-convert from the Christian faith, I am still trying to answer a lot of the questions you asked about evidence-or lack thereof.
Essentially what it comes down to is this: I had faith in what someone else had told me ABOUT god. God never appeared to me, never spoke to me, never performed any miracles, gave me visions or any other conclusive proof of His existance.
I believed in Jesus based completely on others testimonies. In the end, my faith wa built on the words of others. There is no difference between someone who believes God and in someone who believes in UFO abductions based on nothing more than the claims of others.
When I began to examine the tough questions that my christian faith raised, I could not find any satisfactory answers. I approached the question for God's existence from a netural 'Agnostic' point. If you begin with the premise that God exists, then every road will lead to him. You will make the evidence fit to support your presupposition. If you begin from: God may/may not exist, you can either find the proof for the existence of God, or not. It is the honest way to approach any claim.
If your 'default' poisition is to believe what everyone esle believe based only on hear-say then you have to beleieve every claim, no matter how crazy until you can prove it false.
So, I say my default position is that Pink spotted elephants live under oak trees and spread magical dust that lets me turn invisible at will. Now you have to disprove this claim because it is my 'default' position. How can you possibly do this? Would not the logical starting point be to proceed from a netural position, and force the person making the positive calim about the existence of something to offer evidence of said existence?
Adam said,
"I won't patronise you by quoting scripture"
Adam you are on track to becoming my favorite Christian poster of all time. If you really want to rile up a group of atheists, start quoting the Bible. Somehow it's as if Christians approach us from some rediculious approah as if we don't believe in God, but a Bible(a very boring book of man written bullshit) quote will suddenly ignight this bulb of God belief in our heads.
I must agree with the WM that calling every human born into this world as a sinner from day one, is right on course with being born worthless. It's a fucked up self fulfilling phophecy drilled in the Christian mindset. Then the only way to escape this feeling of sinfullness or worthlessness is to bow down and worship this God man each and every moment possible and be made to feel shamefully guilty about many of life's simlple pleasues like lusting after a babe with a great ass, or jerking off.
Question for you Adam: This one stumps my everyday garden variety Church goers I know....
How could you possibly be happy in Heaven if a loved one is in Hell?
Bill
adam wrote:
What is confusing me though is that this group is called "Ex-Christians". So I can only assume that you changed your default position, as did I, to 'God does exist' at some stage
Adam, many people had religion shoved down their throats as children, so it really wasn't a choice.
If you were a Christian, this implies that you had a relationship with God, and had evidence for His existence. You chose to be a Christian. Did the evidence of God disappear?
The other party in the relationship turned out to be imaginary, and the "evidence" fell apart under scrutiny. That's the problem with Christianity and religion in general, the harder you look at the evidence, the more you see how poor it is. The only evidence for any religion is the central text (which believers assume is true,) various psychological experiences that are attributed to "supernatural" forces, and the fact that others share the belief. Some claim the unexplainable is evidence (the "god of the gaps" approach. ) None of this is particularly compelling, unless you are a child that doesn't know any better, or someone in a vulnerable mental state.
'enjjpt'. You raise a few points I need to respond to.
1. I don't believe what I believe, based on what other people have told me, on what they believe, or on 'hear-say', as you suggest. It is a reality for me personally. I understand that this was not your experience, and hence I am not trying to, and probably wouldn't be able to convince you otherwise.
2. As I've said two or three times above, I understand the "pink spotted elephants don't exist until you've seen them for yourself" theory. Its a valid point. You don't need to re-raise it, as several people have done. I have already accepted it.
3. You assume that I have approached this from a biased or non-neutral view-point. You are correct. I approached it from the view-point that God doesn't exist. Only when I experienced Him tangibly, did I change my opinion. Until you experience Him tangibly, I don't expect you to change your view-point.
4. You seem to have, and I say this without meaning to cause offence, entirely missed the point of my post, about "Ex-Christian" atheists, and how that might affect our default position.
5. You said you were a "recent de-convert from the Christian faith", followed by this statement. "Essentially what it comes down to is this: I had faith in what someone else had told me ABOUT god. God never appeared to me, never spoke to me, never performed any miracles, gave me visions or any other conclusive proof of His existance." The truth then would be that you are not in fact a "de-convert from the Christian faith", but rather a "de-convert" from what "someone else had told you ABOUT God", and from what you thought was the Christian faith. You see, the Christian DOES tangibly experience God. By even the most broad, basic definition, you are not a Christian if you don't have this experiential relationship with Him. That's what a Christian is. If you didn't experience a relationship with Him, you couldn't have been a Christian. So perhaps it is more correct to state that you are an atheist, and perhaps to add that while dabbling with the idea of Christianity, you didn't find evidence to continue dabbling, or to convince you to become a Christian. That would be a fair defensible point.
Of course you are free to call yourself whatever you want. I'm merely pointing out an inconsistency that exists when you refer to yourself as an "Ex-Christian" atheist.
Adam
Adam,
How has God tangibly appeared to you? Did he speak to you? Did you see him in person? Or was it a subjective personal evidence and a gut 'feeling' in not evidence. Did God, out of the blue one fine day just come to you in a tangible way and reveal himself to you? Or did you find out about the existence of God from others? If someone had not told you about God, you would be agnostic. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would be a muslim because that is what you would be taught by others. God did not come to you with any special revelation of himself as much as you would like to believe.
Even basing your faith on the bible is trusting in the words of others. Do you believe in UFO's based on 'Contact' by Carl Sagan?
I was jsut like you 2 years ago. I spent 17 years in the church. Lead the worship team. Was a intern youth minister. Went on missions trips and hosted small groups in my home. I graduated from Vanguard University and have a minor in comparitive religious studies. I was a Christian based on anyone but Dan Marvins deffinition. So please dont make the case that I 'was never a real christian' based on my decision to leave the faith.
I haven't even started listing my philisophical and theological reasons for leaveing the faith.
Adam and Biblethumper:
You've both gone to some length to decry that you are NOT this or that type of Christian. Ok, so what flavor of Christian are the two of you? My viewpoint on these matters is transparently clear to the point of being in-your-face. You don't have to guess my position, background, or history. It's all here on this website in naked relief. What not reveal your position openly, if you are both so offended at my apparently pathetic guesses? Hmm?
Regardless.
When I say that Christianity rejoices at the damnation of sinners, here's what I mean:
Christians worship a god who threatens to burn forever in horrific agony all human beings who don't find the correct version of the right religion. By worshiping, loving, bowing down to, and adoring such a cruel inhuman sadist, you validate your approval of this god's wonderful "plan." All people on Earth, says Christianity, are born damned, by default. And they are born damned because of the plan of this god of yours. Then, supposedly, it is only by accepting Jesus (whatever that really means) that anyone can escape this everlastingly long death sentence that was assigned at birth. Humans, according to Christianity, is completely worthless unless humans become Christians.
As far as the so-called son of god suffering so much for us, let's get real here. He was scouraged, crucified and was dead in three hours. Then he only stayed dead for a couple of days. Do you really think that three terrible days compares at all to what any of the Jews suffered in concentration camps? Or the agony that is suffered on a daily basis by the vast parts of the world suffering from starvation? Or the ravages of cancer, Alzheimer’s, or any of the other long-term debilitating diseases. Do you think his self-sacrifice is any greater than the self-sacrifice of thousands of war heroes, who either die permanently or live in crippled bodies for most of their lives following their sacrifices?
I mean, why does your god get so pissy if he is dissed? Huh? Is his ego so fragile? What possible harm could a single human being do to this mighty soverign of eternity that he feels it necessary to eternally punish mortals for anything? The punishment should fit the crime, shouldn't it? Do you honestly think you've done anything so terrible that the only just punishment would be an eternity of torture?
Torture? Since when is torture, without possibility of reformation or parole, a tool of justice?
Your god's ways may not be our ways, but it would seem reasonable to expect that your god's ways would be superior to our ways. Instead, we find that your god's sense of justice is firmly rooted in an archaic, ancient mindset. Of course, that makes perfect sense when one realizes that ancient people invented this tribal deity.
Adam, feelings and emotions are tangible evidence of feelings and emotions. They don't necessarily reflect reality. Someone who has a spiritual experience is having nothing more than an emotional experience based on what the experiencer believes about reality.
For instance, do you remember the feeling you had when a child on Christmas morning? Remember the empty cookie dish? Remeber the evidence of presents under the tree? Remember the magic of the season? Then, later in life, you realized it was just a fantasy. Your feelings, however, were real. But your feelings were based on a fantasy. Christianity, with all it's magical angels, demons, talking animals, prognositators, witches, etc., is nothing but fantasy.
It made me sad when I found out Santa wasn't real. It made me mad when I realized I'd fallen for something even more ridiculous in the form of Christianity.
Finally, you keep saying "what an atheist believes."
Like atheists are united? Ah, no! All "atheist" means is having a lack of belief in any gods. You too lack belief in gods. You lack belief in every single god ever worshiped on earth (about 10,000 at last count) except the one you were taught to believe in. I, as an atheist, simply lack belief in one more god -- yours.
Now, if you want me to believe in your inivisble friend, present some evidence that it exists. However, if you present evidence, I won't have to believe it exists, it will have evidence that it exists. I don't believe my computer exists, I am using it. I know it exists. Belief is only necessary when there is no evidence for it. I don't believe in Big Foot, Cyclops or UFOs because there is no real evidence for those things, no matter how many books and legends about them there happens to be. Legends are not evidence.
You do, I hope, see the differnce between belief and non-belief. I don't believe. I lack belief. It is not, "I do believe that there is a no-god out there."
Get it?
Enjjpt said,
"Essentially what it comes down to is this: I had faith in what someone else had told me ABOUT god. God never appeared to me, never spoke to me, never performed any miracles, gave me visions or any other conclusive proof of His existance."
In my desparate search for God/Jesus thoughtout my life, all I ever had as a basis of belief were what others told me. Sure I was convinced a prayer was answered quite often, but I was never willing to turn my life upsidedown, and deprive myself or many of life's great pleasures, to take that big leap of faith without something tangible. I spent literally hundreds of hours in deep prayer and meditation trying to get that "God Moment." Thankfully my sub concious knew it was bullshit all along so my adult Christian life consisted of about a month of church attendence. After a month I told my wife she was on her own. She never went back either.
I find it very interesting to hear former Christian come out and admit he simply believed in quite devout manner based only on what others said.
"Xrayman", or "Bill", I have to admit, it has been a pleasure to converse on a level that has not reduced to name-calling. Thank you. I realise the temptation to tell me to get out of your forum must be quite appealing at times! I'll try not to push your buttons :)
You said "I must agree with the WM that calling every human born into this world as a sinner from day one, is right on course with being born worthless." In response... Being a sinner doesn't make me worthless. It just makes me a sinner. I'm a Christian, but still a sinner. I suppose its like a child disobeying his parents, or letting them down. They don't suddenly think he's worthless. No. He just let them down. But they still value him highly, and love him. He's their child! He is highly highly valued, despite having let them down!
You then said "Then the only way to escape this feeling of sinfullness or worthlessness is to bow down and worship this God man each and every moment possible". In response... I don't escape the feeling of sinfullness by worshipping God. Not at all! In fact, the very fact that I worship Jesus makes me even more ashamed of my sin. The fact that He forgives me when I ask Him to, and more than that, He takes my punishment, increases my shame all the more! I don't escape the feeling of guilt. I am ashamed, and thus motivated to change. Again, the illustration might help. If a child disappoints his parents, the fact that they're his parents doesn't make him feel less ashamed. He wouldn't care less if he let down some random unknown. The fact that he's let HIS parents down, AND that they forgive him when he asks for it, without punishing him, makes him feel all the more ashamed, and inspires him to apologise, repent, and try to change.
My God's love abounds, and becomes all the more obvious when I sin! If I didn't sin, I wouldn't need His forgiveness or grace. This is why I am even more ashamed of my sin. Its BECAUSE of my sin that He died. How can I not worship Him, and love Him in return?
You then said "and be made to feel shamefully guilty about many of life's simlple pleasues like lusting after a babe with a great ass, or jerking off". In response... It's amazing, and I only speak from personal experience here, how the "simple pleasures" begin to lose their appeal, the closer I walk with Him. I'm not saying its easy. I continue to do the things I know I shouldn't all the time. But I now see them for what they are, sin. And when I see them in this light, it becomes all the more easy to not want to do them, even though I sometimes do :)
And your last point Bill was this. "How could you possibly be happy in Heaven if a loved one is in Hell?" I know it wasn't a rhetorical question, because you asked for an answer. You did mention it stumps a lot of church-goers. Like I said before, I clearly don't have all the answers. I'll do my best to try though :)
My response is as follows. You are absolutely right. The prospect is certainly not a "happy" one. It horrifies me. It disturbs me. And it moves me to tears. It's difficult to imagine being happy in heaven with loved ones in hell. Hence, I will do everything in my power to try and make sure that those people I have contact with, and have an influence upon, not only my loved ones, don't spend eternity in hell. I will try to lead them to Christ. I will try to answer any questions they have, to the best of my poor ability. I will try to explain to them the reality that I experience. I will pray for them. In fact, I have even pleaded with some of my friends, in tears, to just be open to the possibility of Jesus. (I'm not sure if I'm supposed to plead with people, but I did anyway). Ultimately, I will share all I know and have experienced of God with them. I can do no more than this. Then the ball is in their court.
Also, I don't try and convince people because of the fear of them going to hell. Yes, it is a real fear for me that some I know may go there. But that's not my motivation. I want my friends to experience what I have experienced in Christ. I want them to know the joy I know. I want them to share in the peace I have. I want them to have a similiar, or even better relationship with the Living God than I have. Not to prove that I'm right. I couldn't care less who wins an argument. I don't want to argue about it. I do it because I love them. I have something fantastic, that I want to share with them!
So yes, I find it difficult to imagine being happy in heaven, knowing loved ones are in hell. So I'll do all I can now, while there's still time, when I can make a difference.
Then, hopefully I will fully understand that I am not responsible for other people's choices. I will have done what I can. And, I'll be in the presence of the God, where there is no more sorrow. All else will fade into insignificance.
Adam
PS. I apologise if this sounded like I was preaching at you. I didn't mean to. You asked me a question. I tried to respond as well as I could.
So, as a parent, Adam, if your children "disappoint" you, will you torture them in the basement for the rest of eternity?
Only Christians are the adopted "children of god," Adam. Everyone else is so much chaff that by HOLY decree is to be burned and burned and burned.
Christianity encourages an "Us vs. Them" mentality. "We" are the children of god, on our way to heaven. "They" are going to hell, and "We" must do everything we can to help them.
At no time, however, does the Chrsitian stop to consider how sadistically cruel it is to send any human being to an everlasting torture chamber, without possibility of parole or reformation. Such a sense of justice by any government on earth would be considered heinously criminal by the rest of the planet. But when a god behaves this way, it's just peachy keen!
Allah and Jehovah must have been brothers.
"All else will fade into insignificance."
Yes, all those millions upon millions of screaming, tortured human beings, crying out day and night forever and ever and ever, will become insignicicant to your god somatized brain, and that's just all right with you.
Great are the ORI!
Adam said "I can't answer for what other Christians may have said."
Kudos on that. Thanks for not "apologizing" for them, as we hear so often. The latter makes no sense to me; how can someone apologize on behalf of someone else? Your statement is much more appropriate.
Adam: "When you later changed your mind back to 'God doesn't exist', surely you were making a positive claim?"
Yes, that's correct. Remember what I said about refuting purported evidence? When someone says "that reasoning is faulty", or "that evidence is not credible", those are indeed POSITIVE claims, and therefore require supporting arguments and/or evidence.
As an atheist, I make many many positive claims concerning religion, such as "ID is not scientifically supported", and "The claims of Christianity are poorly attested historically", etc. Each of those is a claim that I can substantiate, and I'm obliged to do so. However, "God does not exist" is NOT among my positive claims. You (and other believers) claim he/she/it does exist. That is where it starts. It's your serve. If there were no religionists, there would be no need for the word "atheist", as there would be no (or very few) positive claims concerning supernatural entities.
Adam: "Also, I'm not certain how you can be an 'Ex-Christian' atheist. If you were a Christian, this implies that you had a relationship with God, and had evidence for His existence. You chose to be a Christian. Did the evidence of God disappear?"
In my case, I never claimed to have "experience" god, except in juvenile way, as I became an atheist while still a child (approximately 8 years old). Others here most definitely have "experienced" god. I do not wish to speak for others, but in general the process of deconversion involves debunking the purported evidence one once held as compelling. When I was a child, I accepted the word of adults when they told me about Jesus and god--that was my "evidence". When I began to consider the facts on my own, I realized that there was no more to the stories I'd been told about Jesus than those of other mythical figures. Hence, I rejected the evidence I once accepted. Further research, as I grew older, revealed just how tenuous the evidence was, and how diverse religious opinions are. I now see Christianity as a mythical belief system which is no different, fundamentally, than any other man-made religion.
Adam: "...Or were you mistaken in calling yourself a Christian in the first place?"
That's a false dichotomy. It appears you are assuming that a "real" Christian would not have a change of mind. If your religion is indeed false (as most of us here believe), then there is absolutely nothing more to being a Christian than wishing/claiming to be one; i.e. no indwelling "Holy Spirit" that effects a magical change. Therefore, from that perspective, it's perfectly natural for one to cast off an erroneous belief. People do it all the time. I wish they would do it more often.
Adam, what do you make of Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus who "experience" their respective gods? Are they mistaken? Are they lying? Are they somehow less sincere? How about cultures (e.g. Native Americans) in which it is common to commune with one's long-dead ancestors? Are they mistaken? Deluded?
My point is this, Adam. People have very powerful mystical experiences all the time. I think we can agree that not all of them are what they purport to be. Not everyone who claims to have been abducted by an alien, or visited by Krishna, etc. is reporting an actual event, as real as it may have seemed to the person. Right?
I know you have not been insisting that we accept your personal experiences as evidence of anything. Good. That's an argument we needn't have. But I'd like for you to see why it is rational for us to dismiss your claims. If your claims were true, and the others were not, I would expect there to be some way to distinguish between them. Thus far, I've seen nothing to suggest that what Christians experience is any more real than what adherents to other religions and mystical belief systems experience. In fact, neurology is starting to uncover a common physiology which may explain all such experiences in purely biochemical terms.
One last question: As a parent, at what point would you give up on your child and allow him/her to suffer in agony for eternity. What if they didn't believe you existed because they had never seen you or even received a letter from you? What if they hated you because they read stories about how you participated in genocide and infanticide? Would you wash your hands of them?
Adam: "Boomslang" wrote "Atheism is the default position".
Yes, that's precisely what I wrote, and in review of your response, it's apparent to me that you have no idea what I meant by said statement. Here it is, in a nut-shell, again:
*Everyone is born with non-belief in "God", thus, everyone is born a passive "Atheist". Had you never been taught, or exposed to what the concept of "God" is, you'd obviously have no concept of "God". Notice that this doesn't necessarily apply across the board; it doesn't necessarily apply to material, inanimate objects. In other words, even if the concept of "H2O" was a foreign concept to you, you would eventually experience it at some point, because it is necessary that you ingest it daily. It doesn't matter if the concept of "water" is ever explained to you. On the other hand, it doesn't work that way with the concept of "God". The concept of "God" is first taught/explained/revealed to us, before we ever make claims to experience "God". For instance, a "gut instinct" is intuition. We have these feelings whether we ever come to believe in "God", or not. The difference is that people who believe in "God" attribute these types of natural feelings to "God"..only because they are taught to do so.
Adam...What is confusing me though is that this group is called "Ex-Christians".
No, no!... don't be confused; it's really easy to grasp: We once believed; now we don't. Similar to how we may've once believed in the Easter bunny; now we don't. Much like we may've once believed that our stuffed animals could talk; now we don't. See?
Adam...So I can only assume that you changed your default position, as did I, to 'God does exist' at some stage.
Yes, of course we did! Very good!...we changed our positions, not "to", but from THEE default position(there is only one), and we did this for the same reasons that you did. And that, of course, is because we were TAUGHT that a "God" exists. And we believed it, likely for the same reasons that you believed it---because we trusted the people telling us. For more information on the "default position", review here*, above.
Adam...When you later changed your mind back to 'God doesn't exist', surely you were making a positive claim?
Honestly, your attempt at leveling the playing field..i.e.. "tit-for-tat", is laughable.
Listen closely---when you assert that some-"thing" exists, you are making a positive assertion; an assertion in the positive...i.e.."it" exists. Non-belief, Adam, is NOT asserting that some-"thing" exists; it is not a "positive" claim. To illustrate, if I asked you if you believed in leprechauns, which of the following two answers would you most likely provide:
a) Why yes, boomSLANG!....I DO believe that leprechans don't exist!
or..
b) No, boomSLANG, I don't believe in leprechauns.
If you're honest, you'll likely answer "b", and if that is the case, you'll hopefully recognize how silly it would be to regard "b" as a "positive claim". As Jim Arvo pointed out, if you give your reasoning for why you don't believe, that could be construed as a "positive" claim. However, you are attempting something entirely different; you are asserting that the denial of the existence of "God", is a positive claim. It is NOT.
Adam...You were changing from the default that YOU chose. Its not my default that I chose for you. If you were a Christian, as 'Ex-Christian' implies, then you accepted Gods existence as default.
Bzzzzzt! To review "default", see here*, above.
Adam...I merely discussed from this starting point, which was once also your default position. I hope I'm making sense :)
No, actually, you are making non-sense :( Again, neither your, nor our "starting point" was one of Theism..i.e.."God exists". NO ONE starts from that premise. Please, stick in your memory-bank, and hit "save".
Adam...Also, I'm not certain how you can be an "Ex-Christian" atheist. If you were a Christian, this implies that you had a relationship with God, and had evidence for His existence.
No; all it implies is that we believed we "had a relationship with God", and that believed what we had what was evidence. Hopefully, you now see the stark difference between the two.
Adam...You chose to be a Christian. Did the evidence of God disappear? Or were you mistaken in calling yourself a Christian in the first place? Hopefully no one forced you to call yourself a Christian. So I can only assume that one of the two options above is correct?
Adam?.. do you know any divorced women, by any chance? I know several, a few of whom got their asses kicked regularly by their husbands on "drinking night". Now, obviously, these women "chose" to get married; no one "forced" them. But here's the clincher---just because these women mistakenly got married to the wrong dude, doesn't mean that they never were married, or that they didn't believe at the time, that they were married. See?....see how that works? Now, simply apply that concept to your questions concerning "Ex-christians", okay buddy?
Adam...Either you experienced Him tangibly and thus chose to believe in and follow Him (thus legitimately calling yourself a Christian), and then somehow this tangible experience reversed itself; or you never really experienced Him tangibly, and were therefore mistaken in calling yourself a Christian... I really hope this is making sense.
Again, no...it's not making sense at all; your logic is flawed, as I, and others, have already pointed out. BTW, for future discussions, there is no other way to be a "Christian", other than "calling yourself" one. Secondly, I'm curious about this "tangible evidence" you speak of. I'd love to hear about yours.
"Christianity encourages an "Us vs. Them" mentality."
And how do all the anti-christian posts on this site not promote an "us vs them" mentality? Every group or organization has some form off exclusivity. Your little group here does as well.
""They" are going to hell, and "We" must do everything we can to help them."
Yes, Christians believe this and they are wanting to help you. Holy crap there are such assholes. If you think they're nuts fine but no one is joyfully waiting for others to die off so they can burn in hell. Christians are not logging on to ticketmaster hoping to get front row seats for "Heathenpalooza", one performance only this eternity. But you do spin it that way.
You are a very skilled wordsmith, motivator, and you believe things that are not true. You would have been a great pastor.
To Jim Avro,
I have scanned this site searching for your thoughts and input and I have to say you really are the only one I have found here who can disagree and still maintain a non-aggressive, kind manner. Thank you.
"Webmaster", I must admit, you seem to be quite angry about people believing in God. All your posts seem to be attacking, as opposed to discussing anything. I suppose it is your site, so you're entitled to do whatever you want. Its just that it doesn't really seem to achieve much. I feel much less inclined to respond to you. But again, perhaps thats your intention. I will be courteous, and try to respond to your points though.
1. You asked "So, as a parent, Adam, if your children "disappoint" you, will you torture them in the basement for the rest of eternity?" My response... No. I wouldn't. And by obvious analogy, I don't believe God does either. You seem quite set on this 'hell' point, and on thinking you have my thoughts down 'pat', so let me try and clarify for you. The following is, I think in my limited understanding, the correct Christian perspective.
Contrary to what you have stated, I don't believe God desires to send us to hell. We make the choice. Back to the child parent analogy. It seems to help clarify things. If a parent tells his child not to put his hand in the fire, the child then chooses what to do. If the child ignores the parent, and puts his hand in the fire, he'll get burnt. He can't then turn around to the parent, and say "You made me get burnt". No. His parents tried to help him. They were crystal clear with their instruction. The child disobeyed them. Who is to blame? The parent? That would be a hard point to defend. Choose. Listen, or ignore. But don't then blame the parent or God for the consequences of ignoring the instruction.
And its not even as though its a harsh instruction! God invites us into a relationship with Him, the Living King of Kings. He created me. He knows what is best for me. He wants to bless me. Does a relationship with Him seem so bad. If I don't want that relationship, I certainly am in no position to blame God for the result of that rejection of Him. He wanted to give me a gift, not a snake. It was something good I rejected.
Furthermore, I don't for a moment believe that the parent is happy to see their child get burnt, or has any sense of 'sadistic' joy from this, as you keep implying, or stating outright. When the child is hooked on drugs, and is destroying their life, do you think the parent is happy about it. Of course not. They'd far far prefer that their child had followed their instruction, and stayed away from drugs. They'd love to give their child good things. But all the child wants is drugs. The parent can't force them to listen, or force them to stay away from drugs, or in the present practical case, force them to stay away from hell. The parent presents the options. The child makes the choice.
2. You said only Christians are the "adopted children of God". Yes, you're right. But that's like saying only people who have chosen to go to university have a university degree. It doesn't mean much. All the 'adopted children' were once not His children. They then chose to become part of His family. And now they are. It's back to choice. Free will, to use a better phrase. You have the choice. Its not like you were rejected, and God has shown favouritism to the Christians. We were all in exactly the same place as non-children!
3. You said "Yes, all those millions upon millions of screaming, tortured human beings, crying out day and night forever and ever and ever, will become insignicicant to your god somatized brain, and that's just all right with you." My response, as before... No, it's not a great thought. I will do all that I can to try to convince people not to choose such a horrific eternity. You keep implying that those people have no other choice. Thats just not true. They do. It's as if you believe you're incapable of choice? CHOOSE for goodness sake! Stop talking like a mindless zombie incapable of free-thinking, and CHOOSE. You are capable of choice! And stop blaming God for your decisions.
3. And your point that it is "sadistically cruel... to send any human being to an everlasting torture chamber, without possibility of parole or reformation. Such a sense of justice by any government on earth would be considered heinously criminal by the rest of the planet." ...I'm sorry, but this is such a weak argument. It's like the criminal saying, "I'll be a criminal now, and when I get caught, then you must give me the option to reform my ways". Rubbish! If he was genuine about reformation, he would've reformed his ways before he got caught. Of course punishment makes you want to change, simply to stop the punishment. Again, it's like saying, I'll steal, until I get caught, then I'll stop stealing so I don't get punished! What rubbish. If the thief chose to steal, knowing full well the punnishment theft incurred, he has no valid argument to raise, or excuse.
There's a simple choice to be made here. Decisions carry consequences. Don't choose hell! Choose life. Choose a loving God, who wants the best for you, and has the ability to accomplish this. It really is not a complicated decision.
And how do all the anti-christian posts on this site not promote an "us vs them" mentality?
Because the "anti-christians" posts on this site are not "all" made by Atheists. There are several Deists, and other types of spiritualists, who are former Christians. There is no completely unified "us"; I've disagreed many times with other former Christians, and they, with me.
I'm sorry "boomslang", but I think your point directly above really was one of your weakest arguments. Maybe one of the non-group "Ex-Christians" here will disagree with you, like you suggested happens.
"biblethumper" did not suggest that it was an atheist vs Christian mentality. He followed the original "us vs them" post. It should be obvious that "Ex-Christians" forms a group, capable of being either "us" or "them".
Adam:
If your child throws a ball in the house and breaks a lamp, which violates your explicit rule about throwing balls in the house, are you justified in thaking you child into the basement and slow roasting him over an open flame while the family dog takes bits out of his flesh?
Apparently, the 'weak' argument you cited:
"And your point that it is "sadistically cruel... to send any human being to an everlasting torture chamber, without possibility of parole or reformation. Such a sense of justice by any government on earth would be considered heinously criminal by the rest of the planet." ...I'm sorry, but this is such a weak argument. It's like the criminal saying, "I'll be a criminal now, and when I get caught, then you must give me the option to reform my ways". Rubbish! If he was genuine about reformation, he would've reformed his ways before he got caught. Of course punishment makes you want to change, simply to stop the punishment. Again, it's like saying, I'll steal, until I get caught, then I'll stop stealing so I don't get punished! What rubbish. If the thief chose to steal, knowing full well the punnishment theft incurred, he has no valid argument to raise, or excuse."
Oh, so we never learn for our mistakes? We should never have a chance to cahnge and obey the rules? Your 'god' of infinite love is a sadist who does exactly what I described above.
And how do all the anti-christian posts on this site not promote an "us vs them" mentality?
Because the "anti-christians" posts on this site are not "all" made by Atheists. There are several Deists, and other types of spiritualists, who are former Christians. There is no completely unified "us"; I've disagreed many times with other former Christians, and they, with me.
I think the us vs them is non-christians vs. Christians. Not a big deal but that is the "us vs. them"
Adam, how can we go about verifying your "tangible" experience of a deity? How can we determine that it was due to an outside force and not your own mental processes? Did this experience reveal new information to you, perhaps causing you to change some aspects of your belief, or did it reinforce what you already believed?
Adam, the difference is that most of us here have no agenda/desire to go out and evangelize our positions. If you want to be a Christian, go right ahead. It's your brain, you can believe what you want, and for any reasons you want (provided you harm nobody by doing so). The Christian, on the other hand, most often has an agenda of changing minds--of bringing more people into the fold; everybody "should" be a Christian. That is a far more divisive attitude than "believe as you wish (just don't expect me to believe it too)." Case in point: I discuss Christianity with Christians who come here; I generally do not post on Christian sites (although I have to a limited extent). If a Christian comes to this site, I assume they are ready and willing to defend their position, and I will challenge them. If they keep their beliefs to themselves, and in no way imply that I am somehow lacking or to be pitied because I do not share those beliefs, then I have absolutely no problem with them. See the difference?
Good grief!...after everything said here, Adam comes back with...
There's a simple choice to be made here. Decisions carry consequences. Don't choose hell! Choose life. Choose a loving God, who wants the best for you, and has the ability to accomplish this. It really is not a complicated decision.
He attempts to substantiate the above, with the annoyingly over-used, over-simplified, and perpetually failing, "parent/child" analogy---one that so many Christians love to employ. It starts here:
Adam...Contrary to what you have stated, I don't believe God desires to send us to hell.
Really? Then why create, and/or, allow a situation that makes it even remotely possible? And I beg you, don't hand me "freewill", because at least one branch of "True Christianity" says that we cannot meet biblegod's standard in this mortal life, anyway..and another branch of "True Chrisitanity" says that our destiny is predetermined. So that removes "freewill", doesn't it? Well, Adam?
Furthermore, if biblegod is omniscient/omnipotent, then the idea that this "all-powerful" being would be forced to make judgements---judgements, that according you, may result in situatuions that this "all-powerful" being "does not desire"---is, I'm sorry, but plain ridiculous. You are in effect saying that the will of man trumps the will of the creator of the universe; that the will of man takes precedence over the will of "God"(in this case, biblegod) Again, 'ridiculous.
Adam..We make the choice.
Choice? No, a "choice" is "do you want chives on your baked potato, or not?" Where theology is concerned, having to "choose" over two choices--one of which results in bodily harm--directly influences our "freewill".
Adam..Back to the child parent analogy. It seems to help clarify things. If a parent tells his child not to put his hand in the fire, the child then chooses what to do. If the child ignores the parent, and puts his hand in the fire, he'll get burnt. He can't then turn around to the parent, and say "You made me get burnt". No. His parents tried to help him. They were crystal clear with their instruction. The child disobeyed them. Who is to blame? The parent? That would be a hard point to defend. Choose. Listen, or ignore. But don't then blame the parent or God for the consequences of ignoring the instruction.
Goodness gracious!..whAT?!?!?! You are comparing a child doing something out of ignorance, with an invisible, alleged all-loving being, TORTURING someone for doubting it's existence! 'Not EVEN "apples to oranges"...more like, an apple to a farm tractor.
A better, more accurate analogy, would be if the parents hauled-ass the second the child was born, but they left a note saying, "never stick your finger in the fire!"..and then when child disregarded its parent's "authority"; when the child doubted their "love" and got burnt, the parents then came crashing through the door and proceded to toss the child head over heals back into the fireplace, this, for doubting their "authority".
THAT, my friend, is more analogous with the biblical concept of "salvation".
Adam said,
“You then said "and be made to feel shamefully guilty about many of life's simple pleasures like lusting after a babe with a great ass, or jerking off". In response... It's amazing, and I only speak from personal experience here, how the "simple pleasures" begin to lose their appeal, the closer I walk with Him.”
Adam my dear friend, with all due respect, WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU WANT THE PLEASURES OF APPRECIATING A HOT WOMAN TO LOOSE THEIR APPEAL?
I understand lust is one of the deadly sins, but I just can’t imagine the mindset of hot girls loosing their appeal. I am happily married to a very hot 40 year old Latino woman, but I work in the company of some serious smoking hot twenty somethings. That is why I love my job so much. Sexual fantasy is a normal healthy part of life. I may get my appetite elsewhere but I always eat at home. I just don’t get why all things sexual must be repressed. I theroize whomever wrote the Bible my have suffered from some form of sexual dysfunction so he didn't want anyone else to have any fun. It just ain’t natural throwing ice on your brain whenever a sexual thought enters. It’s funny that we are on this subject because my oldest child is 18 today and he and his friends are at Lansing Michigan’s finest strip clubs. I couldn’t be happier for the kid.
Adam I really appreciate you addressing my questions very much. Amongst the others in this conversation I sometimes feel like the retarded cousin, but thanks for hanging in there and making this thread such great copy. Hey Adam if you ever feel like it drop me a line. I love picking the brains of Christians on an email basis.
Bill
Xrayman@chartermi.net
'Thumper...I think the us vs them is non-christians vs. Christians. Not a big deal but that is the "us vs. them"
Right, this isn't "non-christian.net", however. "Non-christians" could mean anyone from Muslims, to scientologists. Your theology is, at best, implicitly against "them", too...which only reinforces my "weak argument" that it's christianity vs EVERYONE non-christian--- NOT "ex-christians" vs everyone.(Got it now, Adam?)
Adam...I'm sorry "boomslang", but I think your point directly above really was one of your weakest arguments.
.."one of your weakest" implies there are more than one. I clarified the one in question for your review. The long and short of it, Adam, is that Christianity implicitly implies the one-size-fits-all, "us or them", mentality. Why?... because it's doctrine says it's the Universal Truth. Conversely, "ex-christians" don't have any such doctrine.
Now, other than that, feel free to reference any of my other "weak arguments", and see if you can knock some holes in them, 'k?
Notice how many times the word "I" is mentioned in Adams responses! Heaven will be the destination for the worlds biggest spoiled brats.
Christianity is a self-serving mantra, which equates to: I am special and favored because I belong to the only True God cult which is supernaturally superior to all of you naturally inferior human beings.
Pandering to people’s raw emotions, making them feel as if they are without worth in their current form and at the bottom of the heap of humanity. Unless of course, they believe in the flying male zombie from on high, there may be a(false) hope for them yet!
It is no different than claiming your skin color indicates your favor in this world because your genetics are holy and that makes your kind the only righteous race alive. Silly isn't it?
Listen to their call to join them: God loves you, but if you do not accept and adopt my fears about my god you will be fed to the rabbid dogs and gnarly grizzly bears!
See how ungraceful and unappealing that is? Where did the love go?
Why would anyone want to keep up with a lifetime of living by and for, exclusivity and prejudice?
The Bible God is also very much self-serving in his quest for complete domination. He could have made us equal in his image, as there was no need for him to intentionally author evil at the prime of creation.
This pre-genesis act renders the Bible God, the Unholy Book and all of it’s teachings as dysfunctional and detrimental to the value of being born in the first place.
The simple plan of equal purity would not work for God, apparently. He wanted us to be beneath him. He demands servitude and obedience, thus giving him power over that which he designed to purposely fail because it served only HIS self-interest to be desired and worshipped by all.
Talk about an over bloated ego, only super size it to cosmic levels.
Now, how is that for a rotten apple? This polarizing dynamic that God allegedly designed has enslaved the minds and imaginations of generations of people, making it impossible for them to live up to God’s self-serving ultimate desire.
Attaining his level of holy haughtiness is beyond our natural capabilities, we should hope. We should not be responsible for propping up such nonsense.
In the end, the acceptable cult members arrive in heaven to win power and control over the bad people of Earth. Never mind what takes place after that.
It is U-G-L-Y, and God lovingly waits to open up his torture pit.
Upon comparison though, eternal suffering as payment for being born and growing up on the wrong side of the tracks is just as cruel and unjust as the argument that blames humaankind for the evil and sin that God himself authored and injected by design.
Bad is bad, no matter who or what is the cause for it. Do you agree?
Except now, God forces this strife upon the people of our world because it serves HIS purpose.
Again, self-serving.
That is a major problem for the followers of all the cults of Abraham, and specifically Christianity’s claim to be grounded in the act of saving grace.
A part from the sick reasoning that excuses it all, everything that has happened post creation was totally avoidable if only the bible God would have just left evil out of life's great equation.
It continues though, with God then killing his own son Jesus, now trying to save the world from his own father God’s bogus set up.
As if people are the enslaved warriors in his chess game, God strategically placed the board and pieces to exclusively benefit his kingdom alone. Meanwhile, he hides in waiting to conquer the evil enemy that HE hath made.
It just does not jive with me. Even when I was trying to be submissive to their cultist ways, I stood up and challenged them because it did not "feel" right to me to follow such mind numbing madness.
The evidence for my disbelief comes directly from studying the twisted acts of God and the words attributed to him in the man made Bible. My advice is, if you want to keep your faith, do not study the entire book or it's origins.
It seems to me that religious faith only serves a personal need to feel superior to others. Ego and arrogance leads the way for most Christians I see today, because they live in modern times with excessive amounts of everything; debt, junk, money, cars, houses, disposable this and that, fast food to go, supersized, etc…everything that Jesus hated!
Jesus said, to truly serve him and his father, you MUST rid your selves of personal possessions and family ties. So how is that working out for you Adam?
Alas, there is the great fake hope-as those golden church doors swing open just in time to save the believer’s conscience from spinning out into a major guilt trip. Their fear of falling short of God's grace is washed away by the sight of the their glittering manger scene next to the pagan tree in the living room, as they dream of having a Mercedes Benz in their driveway on Christmas morn.
It is damn near impossible to be a humble servant in a modern society. Unless you are a monk living in seclusion, your version of faith will probably never be acceptable for the temperamental God of the bible.
Sorry to tell you this.
The only people who aspire to such impossible heights are those who love to attain self-serving power and superficial worth here on this Earth and beyond.
Trivial as it may seem, the believers highest priorities in this life is the attainment of having supernatural ranking in the after life. Even these post-life aspirations are motivated by SELF interest.
I would like to suggest to you Adam and all the other Christian visitors, that your cult alone can not save the world from suffering. Ask God to come down here and do his all powerful job, so that his heaven is filled to capacity and his hell is left empty.
Outside of this self-serving faith, the only thing left that can ruin your mind is fear. The church has always used this to their advantage, as it is the holiest of tools in their dilapitated shed. Adam quietly admits to his worship of fear, and I think this admission alone speaks volumes about his motivation for believing in a runaway figment of fantasy.
An apologist’s argument falls into meaningless discourse because it will always depend upon their personal reasons as evidence for belief, despite the odds that the actual truth can be found all around them in nature.
Offering up the Bible and it’s Gods complicated capitulations as the answer to life’s most difficult questions only makes problems worse for the already struggling person in a world where religions run amok and the holy make money hand over fist.
The business of saving lives is best attributed to those who act out of compassion and empathy, like many PEOPLE I know, here on this planet. They are doing the work that all Gods fail to provide us: Help, Hope, and Healing.
It appears that the gods have abandoned thee Adam, and everyone else too! Welcome to the real world.
Ask yourself this: What great "father" walks away from his children to go play a life long game of hide and seek, leaving them behind in darkness and without certain knowledge of him, while they suffer the consequences of his very own ever failing plan?
A god that lives by HIS people, talks to us, teaches us, sits amongst us, and suffers along WITH us is a god of mercy and grace. We should not be here doing all his dirty work for him, while he is off enjoying peace and perfection.
God himself forced evil upon his creation, not the other way around. There is no point in keeping faith in the lost legends of antiquity when these invisible and dead icons have been a direct motivation for some of our histories darkest hours.
Why overlook the arguments that are presented by webmaster above? Instead, Adam injects more fluffy feelings about his fears and his desire for rewards, even though there are obvious indignations and flaws that should be challenged when thinking about joining him and his cult of superiority.
Adam, what you are advocating here puts Hitler and God on the same playing field. They are hanging out together in heaven, and they both appear to have the same objective: Domination.
Superior races born from supernatural causes, and I believe that narcissism should never be rewarded with love and adoration.
Zeus was a god to many people at one point, but then they figured it out for themselves and discovered the truth of reality. All we are is all we are.
If you can understand this, then it is the same reason why I dismiss all gods, as they were invented out of fear and unknowing.
Hey Adam,
When I see a a plastic glowing baby Jesus plugged in on the front yards of your fellow Christians, remember this: It does not matter if the religion you follow is based on carefully plotted deceptions and out right lies.
December 25 is not Christ’s birthday, but that does not stop the masses from joining in the great delusion and celebrating the manufactured myth.
It is the day the Roman Catholic Empire declared war on heretics and unbelievers, as they
re-invented the Christianity
you continue to worship today.
It is a call to the Christian warriors to act holy, even though the traditions and celebrations were stolen from others and they have been lying about ever since.
May we all remember the false witness that you Christians bare to this world, on the fake birthday of Christ Mass.
I bet you are like: You know, who cares. So long as all those bad people walking by can observe that this holy PVC-baby and know it was born of a virgin and then was offered up as an animal for sacrifice because his superior father required his son's life as payment for allowing forgiveness to be offered to us inferior people of Earth.
So long as everyone clearly understands that hell is your maniac god's tortured answer for the loving unbelieving man.
Good God where?
Give us an early holiday gift by keeping your unfounded fears to yourself and stop trying to spread this mind rotting faith to others.
Please, oh please!
Merry Winter Solstice and
Happy New Year!
Adam: "I haven't threatened anyone. I haven't tried to shame anyone. I haven't tried to 'love-bomb' anyone."
I disagree on the 'tried to shame' part. Again, I remind you that you claimed that we overreacted. You rendered judgement on our emotions on our website. Not cool, not at all.
"I don't believe God desires to send us to hell."
If Hell exists at all, your god's desires do include sending at least some people to Hell. And I, Myself, have chosen to go there, on purpose and of My own free will, if such a place actually exists. Read this.
1 Sweet Rock: "So long as everyone clearly understands that hell is your maniac god's tortured answer for the loving unbelieving man."
Well said. And Happy Yule to you!
Adam said:
Contrary to what you have stated, I don't believe God desires to send us to hell. We make the choice. Back to the child parent analogy. It seems to help clarify things. If a parent tells his child not to put his hand in the fire, the child then chooses what to do. If the child ignores the parent, and puts his hand in the fire, he'll get burnt. He can't then turn around to the parent, and say "You made me get burnt". No. His parents tried to help him. They were crystal clear with their instruction. The child disobeyed them. Who is to blame? The parent? That would be a hard point to defend. Choose. Listen, or ignore. But don't then blame the parent or God for the consequences of ignoring the instruction.
The problem with the concept of hell, Adam, is that God created it as a place of punishment. In your analogy, the parent is merely warning the child not to put his hand in the fire as the direct result would be getting burnt. To be truly analogous, the parent would then punish the child in some sort of horrific way for not heeding the warning.
God, if he existed, would not have had to create a place of eternal punishment for those who didn't believe in him, he could have just obliterated their very existence. So, in that way, yes, God does desire to send at least some people to hell.
His creation of hell as a place of punishment is one of the many attributes of God that I find abhorrent.
Respectfully,
Franciscan Monkey
To 1 sweet rock: Very profound and insightful comments!! Are you new here? May I use your post on by blog? I hope you get your blog going soon? Thanks!
Well, it's nice to see that this has sparked some interesting comments! :)
I just don't have the time, or to be honest, the energy, to respond to every post, and the many arguments often contained therein. Some of them are entirely valid, and make good points. These I accept. Where they are logical, I have gained from your insight and reasoning. I have learnt something. Thank you.
Other posts are wishy washy, long-winded, and mis-quote what I have said, misinterpret it, or twist the meaning to suit the posters own arguments. Perhaps I have done the same. Where I have twisted your words, I apologise. And feel free to correct my interpretation of what you actually said. As for your misinterpretations of me, as I said earlier, I don't have the energy to fight against straw men, or to try and un-twist what you have twisted. If I didn't say it, I won't try and defend it.
I know some of you will think it's a cop-out if I don't respond to your specific point, by blaming it on a lack of time. So let me pre-empt this. There have been 12 posts since I posted last night. One of them could be turned into a short book it is so long, no names mentioned. (I think the repetition and waffle could perhaps be summarised into a few sentences though, as my own posts could perhaps often be). All of these posts contain at a mnimum 2 or 3 points, and some contain many many many more (often repetition though). It should be clear that I don't have the time to respond to them all. I'm trying to respond to 20 different people. The majority of you seem to be responding just to me (or biblethumper). This is to be expected I suppose, as we are in the minority here! :)
Also, I don't have the time to respond to abuse of me, or God, or to every argument you can possibly think of to disprove God. For example, often someone says they don't believe in God, then tells me that the God they don't believe in is sadistic, evil etc, and that Hell is not cool etc. So what do I argue against? That God isn't evil? Or that He exists? Or both? It's a fruitless exercise. Time doesn't allow for this. And simply, I'd be wasting my time if I tried. No one really wants an answer, except to hear me say "Yes, you're right". Perhaps I have felt the same way at times. You know this, and I know this.
I have tried to only share my views when I have been asked to do so (except initially at my first post obviously), and only when I have thereby been given the implied right to comment on 'your' site. I've resonded to genuine questions or arguments. And I have tried my utmost not to be abusive or offensive. Again, where I have been, I apologise.
I do feel we're engaged in a never-ending discussion, in which we all feel we hold the 'correct' view, and are unwilling to genuinely 'listen', or examine the opposing arguments. Clearly, we can't all be right. But I don't think we're any closer to convincing one another of our view, or the real 'reality', than when I first posted here.
So, on that note, I thank you for your time, and your patience with me when I rudely interrupted your discussions. I don't apologise for my beliefs. I do apologise for any offence I may have caused anyone. It was not intended. And, where my arguments have been flawed or weak (as I am sure is often the case in my limited understanding), thank you for baring with me. I don't have all the answers. I've just tried to explain my views to the best of my ability, which clearly is often insufficient.
I don't wish to spend too much more time though, going around in circles. I'm sure you agree. If anyone really does have a genuine question, stick it up, and if I know how to, and if I have the time, I'll respond. And I'll ask if I have any more questions.
Keep well. I've enjoyed discussing things with you. And maybe we'll chat more in the future! :)
His peace,
Adam
Hi Adam,
Thanks for your thoughtful posts.
I do take issue with something you said earlier regarding the definition of a Christian and why it is that one could not be considered an ex-Christian.
You claim that a Christian is one who experiences god in a tangible way; that in order to be considered a Christian a person needs to have a relationship with Christ. According to the World Factbook, 78% of the US belongs to a denomination that identifies itself as Christian. Do you believe that all those who claim to be Christian have had a real experience of god in their lives?
To me a Christian is one who endeavors to follow Christ... regardless of whether they have really 'experienced' Christ or not. It is my opinion that most people have not really experienced god but believe because they were taught to, most likely from childhood. I do not feel that I have ever experienced god. Yet I grew up in a very religious home and attended church every Sunday without fail. I did not choose to be a Christian; it was simply a part of my lifestyle and I believed it up until the last couple of years. In spite of never having a real experience of Jesus I considered myself a Christian who believed in the correct teachings while trying to follow them. If I was not a Christian, what was I? A fool? But the fool is the one who says there is no god.
One does not need to have a tangible experience with god to be considered a Christian. Conversely, you cannot claim that an ex-Christian was never really a Christian; that would be a contradiction in terms.
Besides, Jesus said 'blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.' Would Jesus deny that these 'blessed' are those who followed him?
Adam wrote:
"...Its BECAUSE of my sin that He died. How can I not worship Him, and love Him in return?..."
Um, because he never existed?
Adam returns with...There have been 12 posts since I posted last night. One of them could be turned into a short book it is so long, no names mentioned. (I think the repetition and waffle could perhaps be summarised into a few sentences though, as my own posts could perhaps often be).
Let me say that "repetition" and "waffle"(waffling) are two entirely different charges. And BTW, what?..are you admitting that your posts, too, include such things? Regardless, if you can "summarize" your own arguments in just "a few sentences", then you can't really use "time" as an excuse, can you?(asked rhetorically)
Adam continues...All of these posts contain at a mnimum 2 or 3 points, and some contain many many many more (often repetition though).
I wonder, did you ever stop to think that maybe what you view(ed) as "repetition", is simply due to the fact that you can't---or better, that you won't---absorb the counter-arguments to your initial claims, so we must continually repeat ourselves?
Adam...It should be clear that I don't have the time to respond to them all. I'm trying to respond to 20 different people.
Then why not address the "weakest arguments", as you call them? C'mon...can't you do it using "a few sentences"? In fact, since you conveniently ignored all of my counter-arguments, and only singled-out the one that you felt was "weak", feel free to dismantle that one....how's that? Remember?...it was regarding biblethumper's question about "us vs them", when he or she asked how does this website NOT promote said mentality, too? My position on this issue remains the same, and I stand by it. It's like this, Adam(and any onlooking Xians): Your doctrine, the Christian doctrine, implicitly condones/promotes a "one-size-fits-all" mentality, simply because said doctrine explicitly claims a monopoly on the One Universal Truth, complete with threats for non-compliance. In fact, the killing of non-believers was once considered "politically correct"--even the killing of one's own family members--per Deuteronomy of your "Holy book". Ex-Christians, former Christians, anti-Christians---take your pick...NONE of them have any such "doctrine" to adhere to. Furthermore, and as I already pointed out, not all ex-christians are Atheists, nor do they all attempt to boycott ALL religion, in general.
So, while we may be unified in a "label", there IS no unified "us". If you still disagree, feel free to find that exclusive unity. Oh, and you can consider that a challenge.
Other than that--and the fact that you kept a restrained diplomacy about you(which is always appreciated)--the rest of your post was fluff. Your "parent/child" analogy was seriously lacking, and your "God is a choice" argument failed/fails miserably. I also suspect that this "tangible evidence" for "God" that you allegedly have, will amount to the same ol' anecdotal "evidence" that we can read about on any Muslim, Buddhist, or Mormon website.
Her peace(Isis'),
boomSLANG
Adam,
You seem to be trying to witness to us. We've been there. Are you really asking questions because you doubt your faith?
If not, please just go away. This site is for exchristians. It's not for people who have an underlying desire to win people over to Christ.
Bill
Bill, no I don't really doubt my faith. I have never claimed to. I'm not certain where you got that idea. I was here, simply because I was curious as to why you believe what you believe. I stated this in the beginning.
Also, I wasn't trying to witness to you. I was responding to people's questions (sometimes rhetoric I know) and arguments, which implied that I should respond. I realise this may have come across as witnessing. This is because any support I have for why I believe what I believe, in response to your arguments, is in a sense witnessing! Thats logical. And for this I make no apology. Similiarly, your arguments for Atheism have been in a sense 'witnessing' on your part. I don't expect you to apologise for defending what you believe.
And, on your main point, "Please just go away" ...I DID just go away! My last post essentially said, in a nutshell, "It's been interesting guys. Thanks for your time. Bye." Obviously though, every time you mention my name, you are re-engaging me. Don't then blame me for coming back to respond!
In case anyone is curious (and yes, I know many of you aren't); If you genuinely do want to engage with logical reasoning, either in favour of, or against your arguments, have a look at:
http://www.skepticalchristian.com/
I don't agree with everything there, and I'm sure you won't, but it certainly does give better responses than I gave. It tries to genuinely respond to the exact apparent 'flaws' with Christianity and God that you mentioned. And it identifies the obvious flaws that so many of you pointed out in some of my arguments (thats the very reason I found the site in fact!). Anyway, it'll certainly answer your questions better than I did!
Bye again :) ...(And please, if you genuinely don't want me posting again, don't adress me, or even quote me!)
Or, there's another way to look at this: If the person in question genuinely doesn't want us addressing/quoting them, then maybe they, themselves, should stop posting and not come back, since they are the "visitor". Then that way, even if we do "quote" and/or "address" them, they wouldn't know it. After all, is our fault that they find this site irresistible???
From the "Skeptical Christian":
"The notion that Christianity is based on a 'leap of faith' rather than an intellectual commitment of mind and soul to God is widespread in today’s culture. At The Skeptical Christian, this mistake is addressed head on. Christianity is *not* a worldview for the weak-minded and it is *not* based on a blind leap of faith."
No, heavens no!.... Christianity is not for the weak-minded, which is why we now have Christian apologetic links posted for our viewing pleasure, in lieu of rock-solid logical arguments....or EVIDENCE.
Adam,
I no longer want you posting here. However, I strongly encourage everyone here to address you all they like. And if you respond, your post will be deleted.
It is astoundingly arrogant of you to suppose you have the authority to dictate anything here.
See ya!
adam wrote:
I don't expect you to apologise for defending what you believe
Would someone please explain to me why we would EVER have a reason to "apologize for defending" our ex-xtian 'beliefs', on an EX-XTIAN site?
It really blows my mind that the fundies who come preaching to us on OUR site, think we have to conform to their ideas of posting behavior.
I'm telling you, there surely must be some god-bounty on our heads, if they ever succeed in getting a person to re-believe in their mythical god.
How much do you think we are worth to their god?
If we pretend to believe again, can we collect half the bounty and get rich that way?
ATF (who just bought a piggy bank, just for this new bounty endeavor)
Yes webmaster, I think you should do that to Adam. If we atheists don't want to engage intellectually, lets just delete their comments. Seems a mature response to me! And lets argue with them, knowing they can't respond. What a perfect plan! Now we can never lose! Our reasoning can't even be questioned! Wooohahahah (evil laugh)
Hi Adamymous,
Notice that your post is still there. What I'm saying, is that the "intellectual floor" is all yours. Now, do you have anything intelligent to say?...do you have any "tangible evidence" for your deity? Can you substantiate your belief any better than the person you've "mysteriously" shown up to defend? Something tells me you cannot...but let's see.
Thanks Boomslang. Evidence? Well, Christianity aside, let's talk about God. Look around you. Don't be blind to something just because you want to be, or because you dislike what you've heard. Look at the facts for yourself, not based on someone elses opinion, or someone elses poor explanation for their opinion. Decide based on the evidence that YOU see.
It's not complicated. A painting points to a painter. A building points to a builder. If this is logical, why when we discuss "God", does this concept suddenly become illogical.
Creation points directly to a ...wait for it... drum roll please... CREATOR!
Whether you think that's the Christian concept of God, or someone elses is irrelevant to this discussion. At the simplest level, using your concept of logic as being the highest form of explanantion, does it point to a creator?
If you choose to dislike or reject this Creator, you're free to do so, as am I. But please don't blame it on a lack of evidence! It's all around us.
Anonymous wrote: "Creation points directly to a ...wait for it... drum roll please... CREATOR!"
Just because something exists soes not mean it is a creation. If it does, that would mean that the God you believe in would also need a creator of some sort. You would then need an infinite regression of creators creating other creators.
Respectfully,
Franciscan Monkey
Anonymous,
I can only speak for myself here but personally I have no problem with a generic god with no personality who created the wonders of the earth we encounter daily. I find comfort and peace in the scenes I see from time to time. I especially like the feeling of looking up at a starry night sky when no other light is present. I arrive at a sort of cognitive dissonance when I try to inject images of the creator of these wonderful phenomenon sending poisonous snakes to bite and kill his 'beloved' creation who complained of hunger in the desert, opening up pits in the earth to swallow people for rebellion, etc. In other words, what I witness in creation points nothing to what you will presumably insist is the creator and god of the Bible, Yahweh, Elohim, Christ, whatever name you decide to give him.
Explain to me why this alleged creator of the universe happens to have the personality of a stubborn child who is proud of it and who simultaneously loves us more than we can possibly understand yet has no problems sending the majority of his creation to a fiery torture chamber for eternity.
I am curious what goes through your mind when you look at a sunset. Can you think of nothing other than a god who enjoys the sweet smell of burnt offerings and who died to save us from a hell that he created?
Every watch needs a watchmaker, a painting a painter, and a creator of the universe a ...... anoth... another creator??
Ulysses Everett McGill, looking at a toad: "I'm not sure that's Pete."
Delmar O'Donnell: "Of course it's Pete! Look at him!..."
Ahh! the "lookist" approach to finding the truth.
"We thought you was a tooaadddd!"
Thanks Boomslang. Evidence? Well, Christianity aside, let's talk about God.
Dear Anonymous/Adamynous..or whoever the hell you are,
No, let's not "talk about God"---let's talk about evidence. Yes, let's talk about evidence, because it does no good to talk about the former, until we establish that the latter exists. In other words, right from the get-go, you have committed the existential fallacy". Let's compare, to be sure:
"Thanks Anonymous. Evidence? Well, Lucky aside, let's talk about leprechauns!"
See?
In fact, let's apply your entire blatant, lookist, conformation biased argument to leprechauns, as well. Observe:
"Look around!..see all the clovers? See all the good things that happen to people when they wish upon a four-leave clover? See the pretty green trees, grass, and mountain ranges? There MUST be leprechauns...just look around!!!"
See? In other words, I could just as easily insist that Lucky, the cosmic, invisible, self-existing leprechaun, is the "creator" of everything good, and appealing to the senses.
You see, you, and your "creationist" ilk, have merely taken an unknown, and tried to answer it with what primitive man ultimately started, and propagated, due to their ignorance; due to their their need to know; and due to their desire to control the thoughts of others.
Bye now.
boomSLANG said...
In other words, I could just as easily insist that Lucky, the cosmic, invisible, self-existing leprechaun, is the "creator" of everything good, and appealing to the senses
---
Boom',
So you're saying that this new-found 'leprechaun god' is what made everything, including the tooth fairy (aka ME)?
Does that mean I should be green in color then, hmmm
I admit, I do become green at times, especially when hearing lame xtian apologetics.
So I guess if I now and then, turn into the favorite color of this 'leprechaun god', then surely that is the ultimate empirical proof that this leprechaun god is the real-deal.
ATF (who never thought to look for the secret god gold, when feeling all greenish)
boomslang don't be a chop. Clearly when anonymous said, lets talk about God instead of xtianity, she meant lets talk about the 'evidence' for him/her/it, as opposed to looking at it from a xtian point of view. It doesn't take a brain-surgeon to figure that out. If you're arguing with an xtian, at least argue well so you don't make atheists look like we don't actually have any good arguments. Thats what xtians do all the time. Read a Dawkins book or something for some 'well reasoned' atheist support. And the rest of your response wasn't particularly logical either. That said, there were some good responses above yours by nm156 and franciscan monkey, like "if everything created needs a creator, who created the creator"
I for one appreciate Boomslang's humor and think that his examples make perfect sense. Xtian's have all of their stupid non-sequitor analogies, so why can't he fight fire with fire?
Thanks enjjpt.
Moving on...
mandebvu...boomslang don't be a chop. Clearly when anonymous said, lets talk about God instead of xtianity, she meant lets talk about the 'evidence' for him/her/it, as opposed to looking at it from a xtian point of view.
Yeah, I know fully-well which route they were taking, thanks. Either way---if what they meant was so "clear", then said argument would be impervious to something so simple as a loophole, regardless of how trivial "mandebvu" views another's challenge. Thus, I don't think there'd be a need for a pinch-hitter to come to their rescue, do you?
And BTW, before we leave the subject---will a Theist overlook a "loophole" in a non-theist's argument?... simply because of something implied??? I think not.
And finally, Christian perspective, or not---appeals to emotion..i.e.."This snowcone sure is delicious on a hot sunny day! Therefore, God mUsT exist!", fail to be convincing "evidence" for any creator-god, nevermind, "Yahweh".
Mandebvu...If you're arguing with an xtian, at least argue well so you don't make atheists look like we don't actually have any good arguments.
Mandebvu, at the end of the day, the Atheist doesn't need a "good argument" against biblegod, or any other deity, for that matter. We're merely waiting on a "good argument" for a deity.
Shalom!
Dear Dan Marvin, may I ask, what is your real purpose of being on this site? I myself agree with someone else that suggested the only purpose of you being here is to learn from us non-believers.
I personaly think that many of the comments and questions that MANY of the non-believers posts really do make you wonder about your beliefs in god/bible.
I admit Dan, this is a great learning-tool for believers to gradually de-convert from christianity. It sure has helped me to become more opened minded about religion.
If it wasn't for this site, I would probably have no use for my pc. So hang in there Dan, and all you other christians, there is still hope for you all. just pay close attention to what's being said by us non-believers, and your de-conversion will come to you more easier. just remain opened minded, and also you can think better while reading on an empty stomach.
Best of luck, Roger...A/A
P.S. Dan, if you hear or see anything from Passerby, please tell him hello for me. Thanks.
If anyone with one once commen sense knows that if it weren't for the buy-bull, there would be no belief in biblegod.
Same goes for the quran or any other spiritual book for that matter. It all boils down to were you where born, and what you have been taught since you where very young. Case Closed
biblestomper said "were you where born?"
I'm sorry but WHAT?!
(Double check a dictionary there mate. Think you might be confused between 'where', and 'were')
OK SMARTASS Anonymouth, I admit to misplacing the words "were" and "where", but you know what I was saying, ASS-WHOLE<<<
P.S. "I might be left-handed, but i'm always right" mate!
FROM GINA'S LETTER TO WM:
"grab the NIV bible and fall to your knees."
Wait a minute! Don't you know that the KJV Bible is the only authentic bible Gina? The NIV was translated by evil doers who are Generals in Satan's Army. You need to fall on your knees Gina, and burn that NIV Bible of yours, and ask God to forgive you for reading a falsely translated bible. The KJV is the most accurate of them all. I am ashamed of you Gina, and so is God.
LMAO!!!!!
FROM GINA'S LETTER TO WM:
"I have a wonderful relationship with Him and he is as real to me as my own son, even though I can not see God."
Oh really? Now that's interesting Gina, are you and God currently dating, and do you have sex with God. Let me guess, your son is Jesus' half brother.
Or did he impregnate you by his spirit like he did Mary?
I'm falling on my knees right now laughing my ass off at your stupid letter Gina.
Goddamn, these christians just keep getting dumber and dumber as time passes on .
I guess Gina has "Stealth Sex" with God, since she is in a relationship with him.
Hey Adam,
Want to take a bite from my apple?
Actually I have two grapefruits which you might like even better.
I personally think Gina is the wife of "Dan Marvin".
If any of you remember, Dan took credit for his wife's 4th pregnancy, plus Gina is having an affair with God, because she is in a relationship with him.
Poor Dan and Gina Marvin.
I meant to say that "Dan gave God credit for his wife's 4th pregnancy."
Goddamn, maybe one day I'll start proofreading my posts.
I like the quoted passage... because it shows that all those clever Christians coming up with ever more fancy "explainations" for why their reading of the Bible works have the truth hidden from them...
It also means that poor Gina, who thinks she's so wise and clever in that she knows God, has the truth hidden from her.
On the other hand, those who don't come up with fancy stuff to explain things, those who look to reality and how it works, they are the ones finding the truth because they DON'T think they're clever and wise... they always think there's more to learn, to know.
Knowing God does not imply that one thinks he or she is all wise and clever. In fact, it implies that one acknowledges a God more wise than oneself. It shows that the theist is not so arrogant as to think that he or she has all the answers, and knows everything, and therefore rejects whatever one's little mind can't understand or comprehed. The theist acknowledges that they are not wise enough to comprehend everything!
It is perhaps the atheist who is the so-called "wise and clever" person, who thinks that if something is beyond their comprehension, it's not true. That sounds a lot more arrogant than the theist. It is that very arrogance that says, "If I, in all my incredible knowledge and wisdom, don't understand something, then it's not real."
Do you really suppose that your limited knowledge and experience is the yardstick by which everything shoul be explained and measured?
"Knowing God does not imply that one thinks he or she is all wise and clever."
No argument here. However, what you should have said is "Believing in God..." You only believe that you know a god.
"The theist acknowledges that they are not wise enough to comprehend everything!"
No, obviously there are lots and lots of things we human beings don't have a good handle on yet. It's a big universe out there. What the issue really is, is that the theist can't stand "I don't know" as an answer. The theist assuages the discomfort with ignorance by proudly proclaiming "I can't understand, but MY GOD knows all about it!"
In the end, the theist stops trying to understand, because "GOD KNOWS, and we can NEVER understand God." I think I'd rather keep searching for real answers rather than shutting down my mind and imagination with blind faith in mythology from the Bronze Age.
"It is perhaps the atheist who is the so-called "wise and clever" person, who thinks that if something is beyond their comprehension, it's not true."
Oh heavens to Betsy! If something is beyond your comprehension, then it is BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION! Obviously you and I can comprehend the idea of a god. Therefore the topic is not beyond our comprehension. So, please present some testable evidence verify the existence of this god of yours. That's all we're asking for. It doesn't sound like much.
"Do you really suppose that your limited knowledge and experience is the yardstick by which everything shoul be explained and measured?"
No. Do you believe your religion is the yardstick by which everything should be explained and measured?
Webmaster said "You only believe that you know a god."
You have consistently argued that what the theist believes is not real, because you haven't seen it. That is a very weak position.
Perhaps a stronger position would be to state that you have not experienced God, or seen evidence for Him, and therefore YOU don't believe in Him. That would be a fair position to hold.
Imagine me saying I've never met your parents, therefore you only believe they exist, but they don't really. Just because I haven't met them doesn't mean they aren't real. Yes, to me they aren't, but that is irrelevant.
But to state that every thesit is wrong, just because you haven't had the same experience is a little arrogant.
Who led you to beleive that your experience is the only reality. Millions have experienced things you haven't. This doesn't mean their experiences aren't real. It just means you haven't experienced those things.
Anonymous said the following...
1: "Knowing God does not imply that one thinks he or she is all wise and clever..." (Implication: somebody suggested that believers claim to know everything.)
2: "It is perhaps the atheist who is the so-called 'wise and clever' person, who thinks that if something is beyond their comprehension, it's not true." (Implication: non-believers dogmatically reject everything they cannot grasp.)
3: "Do you [WM] really suppose that your limited knowledge and experience is the yardstick by which everything shoul be explained and measured?" (Implication: The WM asserted that it is.)
4: "You have consistently argued that what the theist believes is not real, because you haven't seen it." (Really? Where?)
Anonymous, those are all straw men. Is there some reason you do not wish to address actual arguments? It really proves nothing to prop up a ridiculous argument (a straw man) and then scorn it.
Do you have some credible evidence for your deity? If not, then please pardon us for not sharing your beliefs. Do you see that as an unreasonable position?
Have a nice day.
Ooops, I forgot these...
5: "But to state that every thesit [sic] is wrong, just because you haven't had the same experience..."
6: "Who led you to beleive [sic] that your experience is the only reality."
More straw men.
"You have not experienced God, or seen evidence for Him, and therefore YOU don't believe in Him. "
I did once believe that I had experienced God and seen evidence for Him. Hence, I did believe in Him. I have since realized that my belief was erroneous, and that the subjective experiences I touted as evidence for His existence were fabrications within my own imagination.
"Imagine me saying I've never met your parents, therefore you only believe they exist, but they don't really. Just because I haven't met them doesn't mean they aren't real. Yes, to me they aren't, but that is irrelevant."
I hardly think the existence of human parents in any way compares to the existence of an ancient tribal deity who performs magical, nature-defying acts on a regular basis. We all observationally know that everyone has parents.
"But to state that every thesit is wrong, just because you haven't had the same experience is a little arrogant."
OK, so show me the evidence supporting your interpretation of reality.
"Who led you to beleive that your experience is the only reality. Millions have experienced things you haven't. This doesn't mean their experiences aren't real. It just means you haven't experienced those things."
Experiences are real to the people having the experiences. However, the interpretation of the experiences is what is here called into question. I had experiences that I interpreted as God. I have since concluded that I was mistaken.
Many people in strikingly differing cultures have experiences that interpret as being from a god. Interestingly enough, these experiences may be from a great variety of gods. People claim to have experienced extra-terrestrials as well. The human mind is a fascinating study, and sometimes the human mind is blind to the difference between fantasy and reality. Fortunately, in our day and age, we have the scientific method to help steer us toward a more rational understanding of the world around us.
"In fact, it implies that one acknowledges a God more wise than oneself."
What a absurd statement from another Anonymous (No Name) fundy.
These people seem to have a comprehension problem.
Post a Comment