Sunday, November 2, 2014

The pros of atheism

In 1994 I walked away from the Pentecostal church once and for all. I had decided then that those beliefs no longer were rational nor able to stand up against the many challenges of logical reasoning. My departure from the faith was a very long and often fearful process.

The fear was one of the greatest obstacles for me to overcome because of how deeply ingrained my beliefs had become. The Bible for instance is full of ominous tidings in the form of eternal threats for those that dare to leave the faith.

26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Hebrews 10:26-27

It is my belief that the fear of death and the desire to live forever are the two driving forces behind Christianity. Taken to the extreme fundamentalist Christians tend to take this life for granted and neglect the many wonderful things it has to offer in the here and now. There is no evidence of the eternal utopia promised in the scriptures nor even for the existence of its Lord and ruler God himself.

The very first pro for my current atheist views is that I have overcome fear and have recognized it as irrational and unfounded. I now live a life based on reason and what can be known through science and logical deduction. Of course I am aware that there are some things that we may never know, but until they are finally discovered and proven I will live as if they don't exist. The idea of the existence of God as described in the Bible is one of those things. I no longer fear his imaginary wrath or contempt for my not believing in him when he (if he exists) has not given me reason nor sufficient evidence to do so.

The next positive thing I have gained from atheism is that I have learned to appreciate this life that we know to exist over the imaginary one presented in the Bible. I have found that I get more excited over a scientific discovery than I ever did over a so called divine revelation. The world we live in is a place of wonder and amazement with something new to teach us everyday. I find biology, astronomy, archaeology, and the many other scientific disciplines out there so much more interesting than the musings of an ancient and ignorant culture and society full of false beliefs and superstitions due to fear and a lack of knowledge about the world.

Being an atheist has taught me to be honest with myself. I know who I am and don't try to live by the hypocritical dogmas set forth by religion. I detest hypocrisy in all its forms and nothing disturbs me more than some stranger in the street telling me they love me in the name of Jesus. If that's not hypocrisy then I don't know what is.

The next thing I learned as an atheist is that I and only I am responsible for each and every action I take. For example if I were to strike my wife and when asked why I did it by the authorities, I cannot sit there and blame her for so called "provoking me," there are other courses of action that I could have taken. Everything we do in this life for better or for worse is entirely our responsibility and its results or consequences are entirely ours to bear. We don't have the Devil and his minions to blame for our behavior the only one we have to blame for our actions is ourselves.

I have learned that before I was a Christian I had morals. In fact, you don't need God or some commandments written in a book by those claiming to be his messengers to know right from wrong. Morals don't come from God but from our own cultures and the societies in which we are reared. If I was born in Iran I would most likely have been raised a Muslim it is what is taught to me by my parents and society that determines what I consider moral and correct.

As an atheist I continue to grow and learn as I go along but in the end I find that atheism and naturalism are far more reliable than any religion. I see religion for what it is: a creation of man and nothing more. There is no need for gods, angels, demons, or pie in the sky. This life has enough to keep us all quite occupied for several lifetimes.

Note: The biblical verse I have cited comes from the New International Version of the scriptures.

57 comments:

  1. ChatPilot, I see the links that you have on the right hand side, and after reading this, you need to re-evaluate again. You are waffling between two sides of the fundamentalist coin. You used to be on the Christian side, but now you are on the other side. Truth can't be found on either side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is nothing fundamental about my position. If you claim that the biblical God exists as he is described in the Bible and believed by many then the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove his claim. I don't have to disprove the existence of God but I do think that gods are nothing more than the creations of men based on their ignorance of how the world worked etc.

      Not a fundamentalist atheist. Just one who demands evidence before submitting to ancient myths and superstitions without any credible foundation or emprical or objective evidence to suppor the many claims to truth made by them. Basically, there is no reason for me to believe in God, gods, angels, demons, or any other mythological beings without proof of their existence.

      Delete
    2. It sounds like you believed before because of fear. I feel bad for you, but by your comments above, you are not doing yourself any favors. The facts are not on your side. Also, if you think that the Theist has to prove maybe you should tell that to this guy. He would love to hear your reasoning:

      Atheism-Analyzed.blogspot.com

      Delete
    3. JB: "It sounds like you believed before because of fear."

      I think you fail to read and interpret. Read again, Chatpilot's words:

      "My departure from the faith was a very long and often fearful process."

      That's the departure, not the belief or faith.

      JB argues from ignorance: "The facts are not on your side."

      LOL at you.

      JB: "if you think that the Theist has to prove"

      Of course the theist has to prove or else keep their irrational, illogical, crazy and incoherent beliefs to themselves. I'd also suggest that their god/s don't assist followers, but that's usual for fictional and imaginary gods.

      Delete
    4. Good job, Angela. Way to keep the echo chamber going strong.

      Delete
  2. My devotion to Jesus started out as love and gratitude for saving me a poor wretched piece of shit sinner. I praised and adored him every waking moment of every day. But... fear was always present when it came to displeasing him. In fact, the Bible often admonishes believers to fear the Lord.

    I could care less what that blogger says the rules of logical reasoning state that the one making the positive claim must bear the burden of proof. I can't disprove that God does not exist but I am not making that definitive claim that he does not exist. I am simply stating that if you say he does then prove it! If you don't understand that then I can't help you.

    "The facts are not on your side."

    What facts might those be please enlighten me so that I can show you all of your logical fallacies and prove you wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Can you prove fairies or leprechauns or the Ooga Booga monster don't exist? Do you believe any or all of them do?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here are 42 arguments for God:

    DOXA: List of God Arguments

    Also, this guy knows about 200 studies that show the value of mystical experience, and he has a book out called The Trace of God that boosts religious arguments for God to a much stronger level:

    Amazon: The Trace of God

    As for MattShizzle, I like what you say there. Keep it up with the childishness. That's what Atheism is about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing that link. But after a cursory perusal of the information provided by the author I have found no need to have to read his 418 page book. Let me explain:

      First off his idea of God is not the traditional view of God as recognized and believed in by the majority of the Christian churches of our day and age.

      He states clearly that his concept of God is "not an argument for the existence of God" so you are using this information improperly here. He also makes abstract assertions of God who he claims is beyond our understanding.

      "God is primordial being. God is ontologically prior to all that is (save himself of course that goes without saying)."

      " God is the framework in which our whole existence takes place, we can't think of God as "a being" because he's totlaly off scale, hes not a being along side other beings hes' the basis upon which beingness has any meaning."

      These are some very big claims that forego the most essential step of all which is proving the existence of God. This is also known as putting the horse before the carriage.Second, how can you make any assertions about something which at the same time you claim is beyond human understanding? God is supposed to be ineffable yet Christians put a lot of time and effort trying to describe and understand what is supposed to be impossible to know.

      The author brings nothing new to the table. It's nothing more than a bunch of empty assertions thought up in his mind in order to convince himself and others of the existence of a being he believes to exist. Finally, if anything his initial description of God sounds more like the deistic view of God making him a deist and not a Christian.

      You can't claim to know something on the one hand then in the same breath claim that he or it is unknowable. That is what is known as a contradiction or a paradox.

      Delete
  5. Chatpilot

    I've been searching the web for quite sometime now, hoping to find a formidable opponent to accept the Challenge to Atheists over at Atheism Analyzed.

    Tell us why you believe reality cannot accommodate God or why the challenge is invalid.Perhaps you, like most Atheists believe there are no valid arguments for God. Feel free to invoke Russell's teapot,FSM, pink unicorns, santa etc. Or you can tell us why terms such as "humble Atheist" and "honest Atheist" are not oxymorons. Let's see if there are any rational counter arguments.

    Perhaps, you will be the Atheist who finally get to put Stan in his place.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Perhaps, you will be the Atheist who finally get to put Stan in his place."

    Not my goal nor my intent. People in my opinion are free to believe what they want to believe as long as it in my opinion does not harm anyone else or impose on the beliefs of others.

    Onto your so called challege. The challenge is to prove that God does not exist which I will admit outright is impossible to do. I don't think that the existence or nonexistence of God could be proven conclusively but I do think that there is a higher probability that he does not exist.

    The so called challenge is actually not a valid challenge because of my above stated reason. First off contrary to science religion is not based on evidence it is based entirely on belief or faith on stories narrated from ancient texts based on ancient myths and superstitions of the day. All these ancient texts reveal the ignorance of the world and the universe we live in and how things work. For instance the Bible states in one tale that the sun and the moon stood still in the sky! This demonstrates a lack of understanding of cosmology which in those days is quite understandable. You can't claim that this tale was meant as a metaphor when in fact it is presented as historical.

    It is errors of this nature that reveal the true nature of these ancient texts: man. There is in my opinion no hint of so called divine inspiration which in my view does not exist. Thomas Paine said it best: Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man...But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it. (The Age of Reason)

    Subjective evidence does not count as evidence for the existence of God because I am convinced that they are caused by mental states. As a former believer I spoke in tongues, had visions, what I thought were divinely inspired dreams, prophesied, and believed that God spoke to me in my head all the time. The first thing I did when I left the church was to find ways to explain all of these experiences. I am satisfied with my search and the answers I have found to date.

    Regarding the burden of proof once again no matter how you choose to define or redefine it you as the claimant are the one who has to prove the existence of God. I don't believe he exists because I see no need for a God in my life nor even a trace of a God in the world. What some theists refer to as intelligent design I refer to as nothing more than an interpretation of believers that ignores the overwhelming choas in nature and the universe. Both of these things contradict the view that the earth and the universe was made specifically for man as taught in the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You seem like an honest guy but you are making the same mistake I made when I became an atheist. I grew up in a cult-like fundamentalism so because that group said they are the true church, if they are wrong then all Christianity is wrong. I could not see their ignorance or their prudential nature.

    I like Pentecostals because I am a charismatic. But they can be uneducated and simplistic. No offense. They are not the only true church. There are more sophisticated versions of the faith and you don't have a right to denounce them all based upon your experience.

    I will answer your essay on my blog, atheist watch in the next few days. you are welcome to respond over there. I hope you will respond. I promise no insults, dialogue in mutual respect.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I will answer in more detail on my sight but just a quick overview:

    You:"He states clearly that his concept of God is 'not an argument for the existence of God' so you are using this information improperly here. He also makes abstract assertions of God who he claims is beyond our understanding."

    ME>>>>
    (1) he is not using my arguments improperly. While I think God is beyond proof that is not to say that belief can't be justified and warranted by reason.

    (2) Being abstract does not invalidate a claim.

    (3) Being beyond understanding does not mean beyond experience. We can experience the reality of God and we can reason to a justified belief. I can't show you the hole in a donut but I can show you the donut around the hole.

    YOU: "God is primordial being. God is ontologically prior to all that is (save himself of course that goes without saying)."

    ME>>>yea, so?

    YOU quoting me:" God is the framework in which our whole existence takes place, we can't think of God as "a being" because he's totlaly off scale, hes not a being along side other beings hes' the basis upon which beingness has any meaning."

    These are some very big claims that forego the most essential step of all which is proving the existence of God.

    Me>>>sorry just because you have heard of something doesn't make it wrong. You will not hear of this in Pentecostal churches but I am dealing in an accident Christian tradition going back to the 800's and (Eastern Orthodox) and culminating in modern liberal theology. Aspects of the faith the Pentecostals didn't get around to.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I woulod love for youi to comke to my boards. I have the most unique boards on the net. intelligent well read people on both sides. we do not tolerate insulting or name calling, we like each other both Christians and atheists. We have great discussions.

    It's not too late. I once made the same mistake you are making.

    doxa forums
    http://www.doxa.ws/forum/viewforum.php?f=6

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Not my goal nor my intent. People in my opinion are free to believe what they want to believe as long as it in my opinion does not harm anyone else or impose on the beliefs of others"

    That's rather noble of you but I'm afraid the FFRF's blog which you recommend as well as a host of others do in fact care and wish to obliterate religion and belief in God off the face of the earth.


    "Onto your so called challege. The challenge is to prove that God does not exist which I will admit outright is impossible to do. I don't think that the existence or nonexistence of God could be proven conclusively but I do think that there is a higher probability that he does not exist"

    Then you have failed as an Atheist. One, Atheism is a negative worldview and two, it demands proof for all propositions. Yet you cannot satisfy this criteria, an internal paradox.

    "The so called challenge is actually not a valid challenge because of my above stated reason. First off contrary to science religion is not based on evidence it is based entirely on belief or faith on stories narrated from ancient texts based on ancient myths and superstitions of the day. All these ancient texts reveal the ignorance of the world and the universe we live in and how things work. For instance the Bible states in one tale that the sun and the moon stood still in the sky! This demonstrates a lack of understanding of cosmology which in those days is quite understandable. You can't claim that this tale was meant as a metaphor when in fact it is presented as historical"

    First of all the challenge is valid because one can prove a negative and given the worldview per Atheism as stated above. Secondly, you have not given reasons but mere assertions. Thirdly, Atheist claims are not based on scientific evidence,it's a superstitious belief system until proven otherwise. Attacking Biblical stories is a strawman since I did not cite my specific theistic views. Exposing errors in the bible only disproves the claim that the bible is inerrant, a claim I did not make.

    "t is errors of this nature that reveal the true nature of these ancient texts: man. There is in my opinion no hint of so called divine inspiration which in my view does not exist. Thomas Paine said it best: Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man...But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it. (The Age of Reason)"

    Sir, I cannot take your quote seriously and must dismiss it out of hand because it was relayed by a third party and not directly from Mr. Paine himself. Your quote violates its own condition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "That's rather noble of you but I'm afraid the FFRF's blog which you recommend as well as a host of others do in fact care and wish to obliterate religion and belief in God off the face of the earth."

      I cite those blogs for informational purposes only. Just because I subscribe to them does not mean that I agree one hundred percent with what those bloggers have to say as I am sure you don't agree with everything you read about theism online either.

      Obviously, you don't comprehend the burden of proof. We are not using it here in a legalistic sense but rather in a philosophical sense. What you are doing is a fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

      http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof

      If I told you that I had an invisible friend that walks with me, talks with me, and guides my life on a daily basis by giving me sage advice would you believe me? I wouldn't. In fact, I would ask you to prove that this invisible guy existed. I would think initially that you were either insane, deluded unless you can demonstrate the veracity of your claim. That means that you have the burden of proof not I. I don't have to prove to you that your friend does not exist. The same applies with discussing the existence of God.

      By demonstrating to you that the Bible has many errors and inconsistencies I have shown that it is a work of man and thus fallible. Not only that that it was not inspired by God as such since if it were it would have some kind of undeniable sign of divine authorship upon it. Whatever that could be I don't know.

      It follows that if I am convinced that the BIble is not the word of God then that excludes the BIble from the argument and thus leaves us with no concept of God from which to work from.

      Delete
    2. "Obviously, you don't comprehend the burden of proof. We are not using it here in a legalistic sense but rather in a philosophical sense. What you are doing is a fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof"

      Incorrect. If you had read the Challenge to Atheists, you would've known that the theist burden of proof has been met and the onus is on the Atheist to demonstrate the errors in the theist argument either with scientific evidence or with a logical deduction. Furthermore,you are the one who have confused the usage of the BoP. In a court of law an accused is innocent til proven guilty.The default position is assumed true til proven false.In formal debate the BoP is on the one making the claim,whether negative or positive, neither of which is a default position. Assuming either position true because it has not been proven false is to argue from ignorance. Moreover, a negative claim can be written as a positive claim. For example "God does not exist" could be written "God is imaginary" is then a positive claim.


      Burden of Proof: A debater who offers an argument must show that it is valid in order for it to be accepted. In Lincoln-Douglas debate, the affirmative team has the burden to prove the resolution true while the negative has the burden to prove the resolution false. -

      Delete
    3. "If I told you that I had an invisible friend that walks with me, talks with me, and guides my life on a daily basis by giving me sage advice would you believe me? I wouldn't. In fact, I would ask you to prove that this invisible guy existed. I would think initially that you were either insane, deluded unless you can demonstrate the veracity of your claim. That means that you have the burden of proof not I. I don't have to prove to you that your friend does not exist. The same applies with discussing the existence of God"

      What Atheists fail to understand is that you can't disprove a proposition by inventing fictitious scenarios then pointing out you don't believe in your make believe example therefore you don't believe in God either. X and Y lacks empirical evidence therefore X = Y. This is a fallacious false association. The onus is on you to demonstrate that X and Y share the same properties or characteristics.

      "It follows that if I am convinced that the BIble is not the word of God then that excludes the BIble from the argument and thus leaves us with no concept of God from which to work from."

      If you had read the Challenge to Atheists you would have known you are not asked to refute the bible, just a single and neccessary First Cause. The details are in the addendum. Attacking the bible is a straw man, since there are stronger philosophical arguments for God's existence.

      Delete
    4. "Incorrect. If you had read the Challenge to Atheists, you would've known that the theist burden of proof has been met "

      Not exactly. You have not proven the existence of God at all so what do you mean by the burden of proof has been met? Speaking of the attributes of God and your assumptions based on faith is not evidence. Again you continue to use the burden of proof in a legalistic sense. That does not apply here. You say God exists I say prove it! It's as simple as that. I patiently await your so called proof of God's existence. Till then this discussion is at a stalemate and will remain so until you have satisfactorily provided adequate evidence for your positive assertion and thus relieved yourself of the bop.

      Delete
    5. "Not exactly. You have not proven the existence of God at all so what do you mean by the burden of proof has been met?"

      You have not stated the type of proof that would take to convince you. Since you're an Atheist and a Philosophical Materialist by default (aka Physicalist) my guess is that only material evidence that has passed the rules of empiricism would suffice. This is the typical standard of evidence that Atheists demand for all claims, whether material or non-material. The epsitemological position of Atheists demand that all knowledge can only be acquired via the senses and tested via the scientific method. A claim they cannot prove scientifically.

      "Speaking of the attributes of God and your assumptions based on faith is not evidence."

      I made no mention of faith or attributes of God.

      "Again you continue to use the burden of proof in a legalistic sense. That does not apply here"

      This is just false, when in fact I made it specifically clear that legal BoP has a default position whereas the BoP in formal debate does not.

      "You say God exists I say prove it! It's as simple as that. I patiently await your so called proof of God's existence. Till then this discussion is at a stalemate and will remain so until you have satisfactorily provided adequate evidence for your positive assertion and thus relieved yourself of the bop"

      There exists evidence for God namely philosophical such as the Cosmological Argument and of course indirect evidence, which implicates God such as the evidence for NDEs and the existence of objective moral values.
      Naturally, Atheists reject such evidence out of hand because they are fixated on empirical evidence for all claims including for a non-physical being, irrational and an ontological error.

      Delete
    6. Phoenix will take a statement from you, misquote it, apply it against the definitions of terms he knows you don't assert, and claim your position is one of paradox, then imply you are dishonest (see above).

      Phoenix - prove that all variants of atheism, gnostic and agnostic, strong and weak, necessarily "demands proof for all propositions". If you can't, retract, please.

      Delete
  11. (Continued)
    "Subjective evidence does not count as evidence for the existence of God because I am convinced that they are caused by mental states."

    Your conviction is stated without scientific proof.

    "As a former believer I spoke in tongues, had visions, what I thought were divinely inspired dreams, prophesied, and believed that God spoke to me in my head all the time. The first thing I did when I left the church was to find ways to explain all of these experiences. I am satisfied with my search and the answers I have found to date."

    You are very much still a believer, albeit to a different ideology.

    "Regarding the burden of proof once again no matter how you choose to define or redefine it you as the claimant are the one who has to prove the existence of God. I don't believe he exists because I see no need for a God in my life nor even a trace of a God in the world. What some theists refer to as intelligent design I refer to as nothing more than an interpretation of believers that ignores the overwhelming choas in nature and the universe. Both of these things contradict the view that the earth and the universe was made specifically for man as taught in the Bible"

    The standard of evidence for the burden of proof and rebuttal is the same on both sides of the fence. The standard Atheist dodge of not being able to prove a negative is both false and intellectually irresponsible.
    "Some" theists may have evoked ID but I did not and I'm more interested in the answers for Atheism that your search led you to. Such as, does truth exist and how can we know it per Atheism or Philosophical Materialism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I stated earlier I do not care what others believe everyone is free to believe what they please. I personally do not seek to eradicate theism from the face of the earth. I think that that is nothing more than an exercise in futility since religion is so deeply embeded in our culture and society (American here).

      The only time I have a problem with theists is when they try to impose their beliefs on others through lobbying and legislation in support of their beliefs. The death penalty, abortion rights, stem cell research, euthanasia are just some examples of what I am referring to.

      Delete
    2. Chatpilot, you make a good point about people imposing beliefs on others. Nobody should do that. I agree that the Republican right-wing hijacking of Christianity is wrong (there is a blog that discusses this):

      The Politically Moderate Christian

      However, what I have a problem with is people who say ignorant things about Christianity and God with no facts. I have seen that on several boards (even sports ones).

      Delete
    3. "what I have a problem with is people who say ignorant things about Christianity and God with no facts."

      I actually wrote a blog post on this matter here: http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/2012/03/two-different-types-of-atheists.html

      One thing people fail to understand is that Christianity alone is a very diverse belief system with very diverse interpretations of the faith. In the end some atheists when confronting believers tend to make generalizations that do not hold true for all believers without even realizing it. I have been guilty of this myself in the past but have learned from my mistake and often try to catch myself before I do it.

      In the U.S. alone there are around 35,000 sects of Christianity! Think of each sect as an individual with different beliefs who branched off and started his own group. That is a whole lot of diversity and that is what makes reasonable discussions with theists difficult without first identifying what brand of Christian you are dealing with.

      Delete
    4. great I'lll lookforward to it

      Delete
  12. Joe, thanks for the invite to your boards. I love the idea of discussing these matters without having it devolve into name calling and idiotic insults from both sides. I will bookmark your link and visit there soon.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have answered you more extensively on Metacrock's blog

    Here

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I have answered you more extensively on Metacrock's blog"

      Thanks Joe, I have posted a reply in the comments section.

      Delete
  14. I answered, hope you come back on it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. either it doesn't show or its what I answered.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Regarding the burden of proof once again no matter how you choose to define or redefine it you as the claimant are the one who has to prove the existence of God:

    wrong. you make claims about Christianity and you have the burden to prove them, I only claim to prove rational warrant not to prove the existence of God. I have met that burden because I meet a prima pacie burden,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I only claim to prove rational warrant not to prove the existence of God."

      That is just silly. So your claim is that you can't meet the requirements to prove the existence of God because they are irrational? Too funny. That's nothing more than poor apologetics in my opinion.

      Delete
  17. "The death penalty, abortion rights, stem cell research, euthanasia are just some examples of what I am referring to."

    those are not a priori Christian positions. They are positions some Christians hold to;

    (1) I am pro death penalty, I'm not convened it's a deterrent.

    (2) I am anti-abortion but pro-choice

    (3) I have been told by graduate students who do stem cell research that they don't need to use fetuses.

    (4) euthanasia I can accept if people know the possibilities and are not pressured to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Replies
    1. Ooopa! I am sorry I meant to say 'not pro death penalty." little word makes big difference.

      Delete
  19. yes Ianswered that they are in thye omment section

    ReplyDelete
  20. Chatpilot

    You still haven't posted my rebuttal to your evidential requirements. I made it clear those requirements are irrational. What happened to the "honest Atheist"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't had a chance to read nor reply to anything I have been working 16 hour shifts since Tuesday. I will try and get back to you on Saturday after I am well rested and have taken the time to read everything you have posted. Still an honest atheist by the way. Also, my atheism has nothing to do with my character it is simply a label to indicate that I don't believe in God or gods or supernatural beings or deities of any sort.

      Delete
  21. I have answered your latest comment on the comment section, please read the essay it answers Loftus.Salvation and other faiths

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am sorry man somehow the software screwed up your second post and it did not come out it's gone. I did try to pu8blish. I don't know all you said but it was saying your relationship with God was sincere on you8r part. I already spoke to that.

    I said I was not judging your sincerity only the depth of your experience. You say: "The fear was one of the greatest obstacles for me to overcome because of how deeply ingrained my beliefs had become. The Bible for instance is full of ominous tidings in the form of eternal threats for those that dare to leave the faith."

    that fear should not have been there. study after study shows that people who have the mystical experiences and baptism of HS do not have that fear. It is life transforming you don't measure that by how fanatically dedicated you are. No offense.

    Also I enjoy talking to you but the board comment thing doesn't allow long enough posts. I think we are to a point where we need to go to the message board. I have a 1x1 boared if want to register.???

    ReplyDelete
  23. I found the missing post and answered it

    ReplyDelete
  24. I've answered again. I really think we should go to the 1x1 board. Here's an article summarizing the M scale. that's the major research tool in the studies I sight. HERE

    ReplyDelete
  25. One more point ChatPilot: In the Bible, the word fear is actually revere in the manuscripts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heard that one before too. It's fear as in respect and admiration blah blah blah.

      10Therefore, you kings, be wise;

      be warned, you rulers of the earth.

      11Serve the Lord with fear

      and celebrate his rule with trembling.

      12Kiss his son, or he will be angry

      and your way will lead to your destruction,

      for his wrath can flare up in a moment.

      Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

      Psalm 2:10-12

      That's a lot of reverence complete with a threat at the end!

      Delete
    2. You are focusing on only one part of God's nature, and making some verse out to be bigger than it actually is. God isn't a human, but God has feelings just like a human. Also, in the time of that writing, it wasn't nearly as civilized as it is today, so using that section of scripture to make God into a monster really is irresponsible.

      I feel bad for you. You abandoned the faith for stupid reasons, and you have made yourself an echo chamber out of this blog (with some exceptions).

      Delete
    3. JVsptfn said: " God isn't a human, but God has feelings just like a human."

      Lmfao! That's called anthropomorphism: : an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphism

      JBsptfn said: "Also, in the time of that writing, it wasn't nearly as civilized as it is today, so using that section of scripture to make God into a monster really is irresponsible. "

      Spoken like a true fundamentalist! That was the O.T. and a more primitive time and does not apply. But it also appears in the N.T. several times.

      Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling Philippians 2:12

      Reminds me of the cowardly lion when he stood before the hologram of the Great and Powerful Oz! Till he realized that it was all a sham and there was a man behind the curtain deceiving him and his friends.

      JBsptfn said: "I feel bad for you. You abandoned the faith for stupid reasons,"

      I don't need your sympathy. I am free and no longer bound by ancient myths and superstitions nor living in a delusion and complete denial of reality.

      Delete
    4. I'm the fundamentalist? You are the one who is taking some verses out of context. I am trying to keep them in context to the times.

      Delete
    5. Dude just leave me alone. I have no interest in anything you have to say. You have nothing to add to this conversation which I am trying to end. But being a fundie you can't seem to get that through your head. I don't care about your fucking beliefs. I'm got over my god delusions over 20 years ago. You are the one trapped in fantasy land. Stay there if you wish. If you don't agree with what I have to say don't read my blog and fuck off! Geeze!

      Delete
  26. Replies
    1. I'm done discussing your book and your so called evidence or trace of God through experience. I don't find it convincing at all.

      Delete
    2. Naturally. Just the response I would expect from you.

      Delete
    3. JBsptfn said:"Naturally. Just the response I would expect from you."

      Getting testy are you? It's okay, I don't take these things personally I expect this behavior from theists. "I'm right and your wrong" " I have the truth and you don't" " Jesus is the way."

      Same shit different day.

      Delete
  27. big bad atheist is going to show all those Christians how Bad Christianity is. Give you some evidence you can't answer, a book you refuse to read, but try to pretend you can disprove knowing nothing about it--not real intellectual.

    here's my answer (sit through advertisement)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This coming from someone whose entire argument for so called warrant for belief is based entirely on an argument from ignorance and poor interpretations of the so called "evidence" and apologetics to boot! You don't even know what faith it is yoiu're defending.

      Because having mystical experiences is a worldwide phenomena doesn't mean that it automatically means there is a god. The feelings of oneness with the universe and overwhelming love and peace that passeth all understanding can be obtained through certain forms of Eastern meditations. The so called presence of the divine is also obtainable through meditating on the divine whatever that may mean to you.

      Delete
  28. how would you know what's a poor interpretation when you haven't read any of the studies? As I said, the major researcher helped me with the book. My interpretation is largely in line with his.

    ReplyDelete