Personal de-conversion testimonials submitted to ExChristian.Net


AddThis Social Bookmark Button
By Brenden Rexford

Imagine your mind being taken over by some belief. Anything, just for example's sake. That belief infects you, taking over every ounce of free will and common sense you have. Your body now belongs to that belief. Every aspect of your life revolves around it. Every belief that is not the exact same as yours is wrong and evil, because only you and that small group that share your ideas are right. You don't have to even study other beliefs- by default, anything by another name is wrong, whether you know anything at all about it or not. And all that time, you are not really thinking, though you believe you fully are and that you are better off than you were. You also believe that your mind is clear and you have finally come to realize a great truth, when in actuality, you have never been more wrong and more lonely. Not understanding why others criticize you, why you are a misfit. And suddenly everything spirals downward in flames and you come to the shocking conclusion that you are alive, though you barely remember who you are to begin with. Starring myself, and a fictitious sky phantom called “god”.

A time in my life where I changed very much is when I quit religion and became an atheist. I went from being a narrow minded bigot to a normal person who accepts others for who they are. Before my change, my experience was not a pleasant one. Some people find comfort in religion- I found fundamental extremist Christianity: the most hateful, narrow minded, controlling, and contradictory thing I have ever laid eyes upon. By my change from bigot to atheist, my life is all around happier. I am more appreciative of life; I am more appreciative of others; I am more appreciative of myself.

My story begins about three years ago, in my Freshman year of High School. I had recently been in contact with my step sister Sherry, who I had not talked to since I was very little. Not because I don’t like her, we’re just not as close to that side of the family. I talked to my sister via phone and email. I suppose I enjoyed it; she was very friendly. Then one day she asked me if I wanted to go to church with her. I didn’t know that since last we met, she had become deeply religious. I very much did not want to go. I had always had a dislike for church. From what I had seen on TV, it seemed boring, and it didn’t really make any sense to me. Despite myself, I went anyways. I don’t know exactly why. It may have been partly intimidation, or maybe just wanting to make my sister happy. This was the beginning of my troubles.

I remember little of my first experience there. However, there are a few vivid and important details I remember. Some symbolic, some literal. Firstly I remember the atmosphere. It seemed both lax and strict at the same time. I don’t know exactly how to explain it. The congregation and pastor were nice enough. People smiled at me, shook my hand, and welcomed me to their church. Yet there was an aura of tenseness; somehow, I did not fit in here. The carpet in that building was almost the exact color of blood. There may have been a massacre there, I would never know. Although the color of the carpet doesn’t actually mean anything, it made me uneasy. Almost like symbolic details an author gives in a story. Also, the colored light from the stained glass windows, and the long shadows cast by the way the windows were set- it seemed more scary than inviting.

And then, as if a giant hand was moving me against my will, I found myself somehow up in the front of the church near the end of the service. I was stiff as a board, my throat tight with anxiety, surrounded by people chanting in a pretend language that they didn’t even know (it was a Pentecostal church). I didn’t know exactly what was going on; all I knew is that I wanted to be back in the comfort of my home. The pastor was by me, telling me of my sins, and how I was going to hell if I did not repent. Apparently (I don’t remember), I had told my sister I liked to play Pokemon and read Harry Potter. The pastor told me that these were of the devil. I didn’t understand his reasoning, but he had scared me to death. Was I really such a bad person? I never killed anybody Why was I going to hell for playing my favorite games and reading my favorite books?

They must have gotten their hold on me, because as soon as I got home I threw out my Pokemon games and Harry Potter books. I got into a huge fight with my mother. She was screaming at me to not believe what those “church freaks” said. But I was not immune to religious control. I began to obey the church rather than my own mother. I began to be interested in the church. For about a year or so, I went to that church with my sister. Not every Sunday, maybe twice a month. I was becoming a “church freak” myself.

I delved deeper and deeper into Christianity. It was a hole I dug myself into. I began to read and learn on my own at home. Eventually, I shifted my beliefs. I had gone deeper into religion than my sister had, and entered the denominational wars. I came to the conclusion that my sister’s church was evil- they were worshiping incorrectly. I formed my own beliefs, and associated myself more with the Baptist sect. Then began my Fundamentalist stage. The horrible dark period of my life.

What is fundamentalism? It is impossible to explain the full extent of it in a nutshell. But if I must, it’s basically extremism. Osama bin Laden is an extremist Muslim- I was an extremist Christian (only I didn’t kill people). It is a mind gone berserk, infected with an obsession with religion. It is taking the bible much too seriously. It is a brain programmed according to one 2000 year old book. The contents of the book are literal, not fables, and anything that disagrees with the book must be annihilated.

For approximately two years, I lived as an automaton, a slave to my “heavenly father”. Almost everyday, after school, I would go straight to my computer and read all day about Christianity. I was especially interested in the end times, doomsday scenarios, the mark of the beast, 666, the apocalypse. I became more and more deeply involved. My life changed drastically. It was my dream to wander around the earth and preach to people. In all seriousness, I planned to not take advantage of my intelligence and other good qualities, to roam about like some kind of nut and preach everywhere. I became very strict in my manner. Sometimes I would not listen to a song because it had a single swear word in it. I would not play certain video games that I had once loved, because of minor things that were an “abomination” to God. I grew distant from some of my friends because I believed they were too worldly. The biggest event due to my increasing extremist view occurred last year, my junior year, in honors English class. It was near the climax of my insanity, which was also, thankfully, near the end.

I deeply regret now what happened. I was in Ms. White’s class, and we were supposed to read a book called “Catcher in the Rye”. I had already refused to read “Of Mice and Men”, and a few of the movies in class that were too “immoral”. I refused to read this book too. I went through and noted numerous swear words without even getting through the first ten pages. I then quoted the book and wrote a letter of complaint to Mr. Jennings. And every day in class, I would just sit there. While the class read and did projects on the book, I sat very tensely. I was “standing up for my beliefs”. Ms. White and I would clash every day. We battled intensely over morality. I refused to read the book because it was too “immoral” and “ungodly”. Around this time I was deeply depressed. I don’t believe I was depressed in the medical sense of the word, but every day was a struggle and I was exhausted and miserable. But I kept going, for the sake of my beliefs, despite my downwardly spiraling grade. (I now am truly sorry for this and I regret my actions that made me look like an idiot.)

Then something happened. The funny part is I can’t remember exactly what happened, or when exactly I came to my senses. At the time I was heavily waging war with atheists online, in ferocious debates. And then an older part of me awakened. I had been reading the atheist’s arguments, and my mind opened up a bit. Instead of my usual mindset of “I’m right, you’re wrong, shut up”, I came to realize that I could be wrong. I was capable of being wrong, which I don’t think I believed before. I was convinced that the ideals I preached were the only ones to live by. Everybody else was wrong. Then for whatever reason, I opened my mind to other people’s arguments for a split second. And I came to see reason in their logic. LOGIC One characteristic of fundamentalism is the apparent lack of common reasoning and logic. The only answer I had known to questions was “God did it”. The atheist’s arguments had gotten into my mind and pried it open, and all for the better, opening up my mind to common sense and rationality.

And here I stand. I am a living, breathing human being. I am not under strict control. I have found my senses. I have returned from my horrible downfall. I am awake from my trance. Although I hate my past, I have gained a wealth of knowledge. First of all, ALWAYS question authority. Don’t be lazy and complacent, and don’t accept everything that is said to you. One must do research before they accept some large idea as true. I failed to do this, probably because I was young and stupid and intimidated. I learned that obsession drives a person mad. During my period of fundamental Christianity, I felt something in the back of my mind that was not quite right. It is the feeling of obsession. It is the feeling of living for one very specific cause, and I was corrupted by it. I lived every day to please this God. Not my family, not myself, not anyone. As a result, relationships suffered, even my relationship to myself. Lastly, I learned to be very careful in the world. It is very easy to trip up as I did. The world is full of people with their own agendas. Sometimes those people become too attached to that agenda, and force it on others (not always intentionally, and I forgive them for that). Never become brainwashed into thinking one way and one way only. Life is a multi-lane highway. Everybody is going to the same place, just not the exact same way.

I am VERY different now than I was, and it is all for the better. Relating to the previous paragraph, I now accept that everybody takes a different path in life, and that’s ok. As a fundamentalist, I believed that any other religion than my own specific one was wrong, and all of it’s followers were destined to burn in hell for eternity. Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, “Darwinists”, Atheists, were all evil sinners in my eyes. I now accept everybody. I am tolerant. I believe that if you sincerely believe what you are doing is right, and you try to do your best to be a good person, no wrathful God can blame you in the afterlife. I am open minded; this is the way I originally was. I am very open to new ideas, beliefs, practices, etcetera. Another difference is my whole lifestyle. In a way I am much “darker” than I used to be, but not in a negative sense. I used to condemn rock music as the devil’s. Now I love rock, particularly Screamo and the like. I don’t care about vulgarity anymore. I would have no problem with “Catcher in the Rye”; I even swear myself. I watch movies now with my friends that would make me run out of the theatre screaming before (Borat, Good Luck Chuck, Superbad, etc.). And maybe most importantly, I value myself and others much more. Christianity taught me that mankind was naturally evil, and that we all deserve to burn in hell forever, no matter how little our sins are. I now realize the stupidity of this thinking. I believe that mankind, despite it’s downfalls, generally works for the good of all, and is generally benevolent.

So my journey has brought me from extreme archaic ancient conservative theocratic thinking, to very liberal and open minded. I love my change. And I can credit it to myself, I’m not obligated to give God credit for everything now. I am an intelligent human being, and I dug myself out of a hole, and I’m very proud of my accomplishment.

I have gained valuable life lessons and am much stronger. People will not so easily get to me now. I remember to just do my very best in life, and if anybody has a problem with that they are delusional. I am changed: I believe no god exists, and I have never felt more wonderful.

Religion ends and philosophy begins, just as alchemy ends and chemistry begins and astrology ends and astronomy begins. - Christopher Hitchens
 
Anonymous notabarbie said...
Man, what a great post! You're so young and yet so wise.

You said, " I went from being a narrow minded bigot to a normal person who accepts others for who they are. Before my change, my experience was not a pleasant one."

That's my story too and the story of so many others. Thanks for sharing.


Anonymous carl k said...
This is a put-on, right? I'm about as far from being a believer as anyone can be, still this posting screams its bogosity.


I was conflict4ed too.

Then I found Darwin and invited him into my life.

Now I am a leader among primates!

http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/DarwinYouth/index.html


Anonymous Elizabeth said...
Darwins dead.


Anonymous This is true, the sky is blue...sometimes said...
A put on? This guy tells us his life story, and all he gets is this crap? I understand it is our nature to be skeptical, but come on, it sounds to me like he's opening up about his deconversion, just like most of you out there. Maybe we could support him a bit. You're sounding as fucked up as those fundies.

Thanks for your story. It was educational for me, since the truth is, I am not "deconverted," since I was never X-tian to begin with. Bravo to you for opening your mind and not living your life filled with hate, bigotry, self-righteousness, and guilt. And props to you for figuring it out while still so young.


Blogger Bill said...
This post has been removed by the author.


Blogger Bill said...
Thanks for sharing your de-conversion. I can relate.


Blogger Alexandra said...
Your testimony didn't read as bogus to me -- possibly because I can relate to so much of it. Especially running home after school every day to read about Christianity on the computer. That's what I did all evening too when I was a fundamentalist.

Fundamentalist Christianity preys on the weak and intimidated. The followers may not be malicious, but the ideas are. I can't believe that I almost gave up my brain for the Christian religion, either.


Anonymous Jeremiah said...
This is a great post! Thanks for sharing. It all rang true to me. Unless you've been there or seen it, it would be pretty hard to believe. Just as it's pretty hard to believe that the crusades and inquisition actually took place! All that torture killing in the name of God! Talk about terrorism!

One thing that I've been thinking about lately is that I think today's fundamental Christianity may be just as dangerous as fundamental Islam (you mentioned that fundamental Christianity was similar in a way to fundamental Islam, except the Christians didn't kill people). We must not let our government continue to be run by extremely religious people who will not separate church from state. There is very convincing evidence (proof, actually if you really look into it) that 9-11 was an inside job. The towers didn't fall because of jet fuel burning and melting things, they fell because of controlled explosions. You can see for yourself on 911truth.org or ae911truth.org. It was all staged so we could engage the terrorists and go to war.

Anyway, congratulations on escaping the insanity and congratulations for thinking for yourself!


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Jeremiah said,

"There is very convincing evidence (proof, actually if you really look into it) that 9-11 was an inside job. The towers didn't fall because of jet fuel burning and melting things, they fell because of controlled explosions. You can see for yourself on 911truth.org or ae911truth.org. It was all staged so we could engage the terrorists and go to war."

Oh my god, not another 9/11 conspiracy theorist! You have been watching Loose Change too much, without listening to the other side of the argument. You are starting to sound like a fundamentalist Christian who refuses to read the other side of the argument. If only you could have seen the special on the History Channel two weeks ago, which debunked ALL of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Oh wait, maybe the government paid the History Channel to air this program to help further conceal the truth! Maybe you just get kicks out of thinking your little whacko group has the truth while all others are blind and ignorant. You guys resemble fundamentalists more than you realize.


Anonymous Mandy said...
Alexandra Said: "Fundamentalist Christianity preys on the weak and intimidated. The followers may not be malicious, but the ideas are."

I fully agree with you Alexandra. Even the one's who don't act like a jerk take advantage of the weak.

I had one former christian friend who tried and tried his best to get me back into church and his faith.

He tried it in a very nice and "Non-threatening" way, however I could see through all of his kindness that his real agenda was to hopefully convince me that leaving Christianity was a bad decision. He told me later on that he had hoped through trying to minister to me, that I would give up my free will just to enslave myself to false teachings again.

He was hoping the "Holy Spook" would convict me of my sins, through his bible teachings, and it did not work. He found complete resistance in me, and it horrified him.

After he realized that he could not win the battle, that is when he started using the threats of hell, and damnation as a scare tactic which I consider pure manipulation. He reminded me once again, why I decided to leave the Christian Faith in the first place, and I became very angry with him.

I finally decided it was time to stop being nice, so I told him what I really thought about his God and his faith. We went separate ways after that.

You have to stand up to these christian bullies. If you don't they will run all over you.

I have even seen other people who are not "Mentally Strong" enough to take a stand against these christian cultists, including those who have mental illnesses that have been taken advantage of by christian fundamentalists many times.

I knew one guy who had schizophrenia and these people from his church along with his pastor kept him so confused and kept pressuring and pushing him so much to conform to the will of God, that he ended up in the hospital over it. This poor guy today is still enslaved to the christian God, and he beats himself up on a regular basis because he feels so dirty and unworthy of the christian God. It literally makes me sick to see someone live in that type of bondage, because of the christian lie.

It just pisses me off how these ignorant bible beaters bully people around with their fanatical ways and make these people who already have pain and depression worse than what they already are.

I have even heard the more "Charsmatic" Christians claim that if you suffer from depression that you are in sin, and God cannnot bless you. People like that are nuts, and I advise anyone to stay away from such people as that, because they are highly dangerous IMO.

I think christians who harass others like that should be held accountable for the damage that they have done to the lives of these people. They should be punished as far as I'm concerned.

People have a right to live their lives the way they want to as long as they do not hurt anyone else.


Anonymous Amy Black said...
Wow, i can relate. thanks for posting.


Anonymous Jeremiah said...
Dear Anonymous Moron,

I'll watch the history channel program because I want to know the truth, but I'd bet you didn't bother looking at the evidence on ae911truth.org, which is clear from the presentation, video, satellite images, and recorded eye witness reports. This isn't "conspiracy theory" it's evidence that can be verified by sight and sound -- ie, science. NASA satellites don't lie and video cameras showing controlled explosions don't lie and 2 planes can't take down 3 buildings.

But that wasn't my point.

My point was that fundamental Christians are just as or more dangerous than fundamental Islams, as history has shown repeatedly, and our leaders are not separating church and state. Now Pat Robertson thinks that Giuliani is going to be the next president because Revelations says so.

I did not mean to turn this post into a political debate. Sorry. I was just empathizing with Brenden on how dangerous and insidious fundamentalists are and that we have to be forever vigilant.

And government sponsored terror is a reality just as fundamentalist Christian or Roman Catholic sponsored terror has been in the past.


Blogger .:webmaster:. said...
That site, Jeremiah, is propagating urban legends: Hunt the Boeing!


Blogger stronger now said...
Hunt the Boeing! lol! That urban legend is sillier than the one about Iraq haveing WMD's!


Anonymous Anonymous said...
thank you This is true, the sky is blue...sometimes. i did indeed pur my soul into this essay. it's not a put on by any means. i spent hours and hours writing it.


Anonymous Anonymous said...
The author of this testimonial is Christopher Hitchens. Is this the same guy who wrote the book "God is not Great" or is it just a coincidence?


Blogger .:webmaster:. said...
The author of this testimonial is Brenden Rexford. Rexford ended his testimonial with a quote from Hitchens.


Anonymous Jeremiah said...
Webmaster,

"Hunt the Boeing" is about the pentagon; ae911truth's video is only about the twin towers and Building 7.

People are missing the point of what I was trying to say, so would you please delete my posts from this discussion thread?

Thanks,
Jeremiah


Anonymous Just wondering... said...
Hi Brenden,

your story is very authentic and I have no trouble believing it. Could it be though, that among all the religious fervor you have not had a peronal experience with a living God? If there is no God (even though you mention a slight possibility of an existence of some form of diety in your testimony) how do you explain the lives spent for the good of other in Chist´s name despite the obstacles and persecution? Brainwashing? Manipulation? Closed-mindedness? Do you really believe that the only result of one´s ability of critical thinking is atheism? I am afraid that atheism stops short of critical thinking. Brought up as an atheist and turned into a Chistian I know many reasons why atheism doesn´t hold. If, hypothetically, I was able to win an argument about that, would you then become a christian again? Thanks for bothering to read this.


Blogger boomSLANG said...
Christian guest chimes in with:

I am afraid that atheism stops short of critical thinking. Brought up as an atheist and turned into a Chistian I know many reasons why atheism doesn´t hold

Hmmm...that's odd, the non-belief in gods seems to "hold" just fine for the thousands of gods that you deny. I merely deny one more than you. 'Care to elaborate?


Blogger Jim Arvo said...
To "Just wondering...",

Please give us your definition of "atheist". I suspect you attack a straw man, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if you prove me wrong.


Anonymous AtheistToothFairy said...
Just wondering... wrote:
Brought up as an atheist and turned into a Chistian I know many reasons why atheism doesn´t hold

I am indeed most curious as to how an atheist suddenly decides one day to put faith in some god being.

Could your former 'atheist' self, actually be one who hadn't decided with his brain that god didn't exist, but just made a bland assumption of it?
i.e. you were once a very WEAK atheist, or one who just didn't give a hoot about any god(s).

You surely aren't telling us you were once a strong atheist and found intelligent reasons why that opinion was incorrect?

I also would love to see these great reasons you have why "atheism doesn't hold".
Perhaps you met god in-person and can put a word or two in for all of us here.
How about you ask him kindly to come to my house and introduce his holy self to me.


ATF (who is betting this xtian falls on his/her flat face here, just like all the others have)


Anonymous Mandy said...
Just Wandering Said: "Could it be though, that among all the religious fervor you have not had a peronal experience with a living God?"

Nobody ever has ever had a personal experience with some living God. It is all a bunch of hype based on emotions.

I'm sure like other christians you would like to believe that you have had one, however I hate to tell you this, but the only thing you have encountered is a very active imagination based on a ancient text that carries no weight in the real world.

Hopefully you'll get a taste of reality again.

Just so you know there have been others like yourself who have tried to bring us back to the fold. Do you guys all use the same script?

So far none of them have been able to throw down a staff or rod that turns into a snake, no red seas have been parted, and no plagues of locusts or frogs have appeared along with some burning bush.

Sorry Moses, you won't win anyone back to Christ on this site.


Anonymous AtheistToothFairy said...
Mandy wrote:
So far none of them have been able to throw down a staff or rod that turns into a snake, no red seas have been parted, and no plagues of locusts or frogs have appeared along with some burning bush.
Sorry Moses, you won't win anyone back to Christ on this site

--
I don't think we'll see the "just wandering" Moses again, for ohhh say about 40 years or so.
He's probably out looking for the promised land of milk and honey by now.
If we're lucky, his staff turned into a snake [talking?] by now and bit his lying tongue.


ATF (Who wonders if one can see a talking snake in a fundie zoo?)


Anonymous Just wondering... said...
Hi everybody (Boomslang, Jim Arvo, AtheistToothFairy and Mandy),

I´ll try to answer some of your questions even though I did not hear your answers to all of my questions (that were originally meant for somebody else - Brenden).

Let me start with my definition of an atheist: a person denying the existence of a supernatural, transcedent being called God. If your definition differs significantly from mine, I would like to know how.

The matter of what you deny is of a very high importance. Let´s say we stand on the edge of a mine field. You tell me that no mines are in the ground since you couldn´t see a single one of them. I tell you that there is definetely a one powerful mine. Using the equipment for mine searching would show one of us wrong. The fact that you were denying all the mines and I insisted on one mine to be there did not make you more likely to be true than me.

Here are my "great reasons why atheism doesn´t hold":
1. Atheism claims omniscience - anybody who insists that no god exists claims to know everything
2. Atheism builds its case on human senses - it can´t accept what one can´t see, feel or hear, while in non-threatening areas it allows reasoning to be the final authority (for example an atheist would find it easy to believe in the existence of an electricity even though he can´t see it, because it is reasonable to believe in its exitence. This approach crashes down for him in the questions of the metaphysics).
3. Atheism needs a meta-story to add to its credit. Atheism´s meta-story is the evolution theory and the "scientific evidence".
4. Atheism answers to the three basic questions (who am I?, where did I come from?, What´s the purpose?) leaves an individual worthless and offers no useful vision for the society ("If there is no God everything is permissible" - Dostoyevsky)
5. Atheism has no answer for our human ability to entertain "God concept".

Maybe there are more reasons, this is what is on my mind right now.

The last response goes to my personal experience with the risen Christ. I do not think that anybody can really interpret it for me because it was my experience and not somebody elses. If this experience is shared with millions of people around the world and through the Millenia, could it be that it is not simply of psychological origin or conditioned by society? Could it be that it is a witness of the Reality? Having said that, I also want to affirm that an experience itself is not a validation of the truth. People have all kinds of experiences under all kinds of conditions (all one needs to do to have an experience is to get high on drugs or get heavy into meditation, ivolved in the witchcraft,...etc.)But Mandy´s call to "get a taste of reality again" speaks a lot about her view on reality than about the reality itself.

Thanks for your comments!


Blogger stronger now said...
just wondering,

I think your list is all straw-men and no substance.

But I don't mean to get involved with this conversation. I'll just pop some popcorn, grab a drink, sit on the bleachers and wait for Jim, Boom', ATF, and Mandy to rip your army of straw-men to shreds.

This should be interesting.


Blogger Jim Arvo said...
To "Just wondering",

As I suspected, and as stronger pointed out, you attack straw men. Here we go...

1. Atheism claims omniscience...

Absolutely not. That is the number-one (self-serving) misconception among believers. As an atheist, I cannot claim to *know* anything at all about unseen and undetectable worlds. If you tell me there are invisible undetectable chocolate bunnies filling space, I have no way to prove you wrong. However, I have no reason to believe you either--not without some kind of evidence. The same with your god.

2. Atheism builds its case on human senses - it can´t accept what one can´t see, feel or hear, while in non-threatening areas it allows reasoning to be the final authority...

You seem to be equating "atheism" with "science". Although there is a correlation, the two are distinct. If I do not believe in gods or goddesses, for any reason, I am an atheist, regardless of the reasons. You also assert that science embraces claims that are "non-threatening" while (irrationally?) excluding theistic claims. No. Science deals with what is ultimately testable, directly or indirectly. It is silent about all else. If your god can be detected in some way, science has something to say. Otherwise, it's of no concern to science. Believe as you wish.

3. Atheism needs a meta-story to add to its credit.

No. As an atheist, I simply reject your claims as being fantastic and unsupported. I have no problem at all saying "I don't know"--I don't need to have a theory of everything in order to reject irrational claims.

4. Atheism answers to the three basic questions (who am I?, where did I come from?, What´s the purpose?) leaves an individual worthless...

Absurd. You make two errors here: 1) you assume that the questions you ask are all meaningful, and 2) you project your own imaginary view onto those who do not accept your theology. More on this below.

5. Atheism has no answer for our human ability to entertain "God concept".

No. Here you are making a broad claim based on ignorance. (And again you confuse atheism with science.) There is a large and growing literature on both the psychology and physiology of religious belief. While it would be wrong to claim that god concepts are completely understood, it's absurd to suggest there is no "answer". In a nutshell, the basic god concept can be easily explained as a common cognitive error that results from our highly social brains; we all-too-readily "explain" events as the result of agency, and are prone to false positives. Coupled with other mechanisms involved in child rearing, it's common and natural to imagine an invisible father figure.

Now, all of your assertions have something in common: You project a position onto atheists (or atheism) rather than address an actual position. If you're interested in doing the latter (addressing an actual position rather than a fictional one), then I'll happily accommodate you. Just let me know.


Blogger Jim Arvo said...
Oh, one more thing...

"Just wondering" (henceforth, JW) gave a minefield analogy that concluded with "The fact that you were denying all the mines and I insisted on one mine to be there did not make you more likely to be true than me."

This is a very silly analogy. Again, you project an absurd position onto the "atheist" by having him/her simply "deny" the existence of the mines. Why? Let's substitute a more reasonable position for your fictional one. Let's have the person ask "Why do you think there is a powerful mine out there?". How would you respond? If you were to respond by saying something like "I just know it in my heart", would the other person be obliged to trust your assessment?

So, to directly address your assertion as to which person is the more likely to be correct, it depends entirely on the facts that are known. If neither person knows a thing about the field, then neither can rationally affirm or deny the presence of mines. So, what are the known facts?


Blogger boomSLANG said...
J.W....Hi everybody (Boomslang, Jim Arvo, AtheistToothFairy and Mandy),

I´ll try to answer some of your questions even though I did not hear your answers to all of my questions (that were originally meant for somebody else - Brenden).


Just Wondering(pun intended), if you admittedly directed your "questions" to a specific person, in this case, the author of the original article, then I'm not quite sure why you'd expect any or all on-lookers to assume that said questions were meant for ex-christians, in general.

You asked Brenden:

...your story is very authentic and I have no trouble believing it. Could it be though, that among all the religious fervor you have not had a [personal] experience with a living God?

I cannot answer this for Brenden, but for sake of argument, let's assume, at the time, that Brenden believed that he had a personal experience the Christian biblegod, "Jesus". So what? A belief is a belief is a belief. People's beliefs are subject to change as people acquire new knowledge; as they grow. Just as a child who "believes" that they have an invisible playmate, but who then later abandons this belief when that belief is examined with a critical mind--- religious "belief" can work the same way. In other words, people can deceive themselves into believing what they want to believe, and hence, be thoroughly convinced that said belief is true. It's subjective "truth". However, to search for truth, objectively, means to accept the result of the search, regardless of what one wants to be true.

J.W.'s next question(originally for Brenden)...

If there is no God (even though you mention a slight possibility of an existence of some form of diety in your testimony) how do you explain the lives spent for the good of [others] in [Christ's] name despite the obstacles and persecution? Brainwashing? Manipulation? Closed-mindedness?

YES!.. all of those things, and add self-deception.

Now, may I be permitted to answer the first half of your question with a question? If there is NO "Allah", then how do you, the Christian, explain the lives spent for the good of others in Allah's name, despite the obstacles and persecution? How?...Brainwashing? Manipulation? Closed-mindedness?

Do you see the dilemma in your reasoning, here?

J.W.'s next question(originally for Brenden)...

Do you really believe that the only result of one´s ability of critical thinking is atheism?

The question is nonsensical to me. Simple: Atheism is the default position until convincing objective evidence can be offered for a "God". You obviously consider yourself a "critical thinker", yes? To be sure, I'm curious, what methodology do you use to dismiss Neptune, Osiris, Quetzacoatl, and a bazillion other gods that were believed to be real throughout history? Whatever the case, please bear in mind that however certain you are that those 'other' gods don't have a referent in reality---I am just as certain that "Yahweh" doesn't have a referent in reality. 'See how that works?

J.W.....Let me start with my definition of an atheist: a person denying the existence of a supernatural, transcedent being called God. If your definition differs significantly from mine, I would like to know how.

A more concise and comprehensive definition is simply a lack of belief in God/gods. To say that one "denys" something, is to implicitly imply that said thing already exists.(*see your very next statement)

You said...*The matter of what you deny is of a very high importance.

Something must exist for me to "deny" it. For argument's sake, I say it's more "important" that you first provide evidence for that which you claim I "deny".

J.W....Let´s say we stand on the edge of a mine field. You tell me that no mines are in the ground since you couldn´t see a single one of them. I tell you that there is definetely a one powerful mine. Using the equipment for mine searching would show one of us wrong. The fact that you were denying all the mines and I insisted on one mine to be there did not make you more likely to be true than me.

I'm sorry, but this analogy fails, simply because we don't have the "equipment" to test for "gods"..whether there's one "god", or a whole "field" full of gods. 'Got anything better?

J.W.: Here are my "great reasons why atheism doesn´t hold":

"1. Atheism claims omniscience - anybody who insists that no god exists claims to know everything."

Utterly FALSE.(but not shockingly) Atheists "insist" no such thing(no pun); if we are insisting anything, it is that "God" is UNproven, not that "God" is disproven. It is incumbent upon you, the Theist, to provide evidence for the "God" that you "insist", exists. Speaking of....'got any?

BTW, notice, that you'll find nothing about "omniscience" in any dictionary entry on "Atheist"/"Atheism". Let's review: Atheists don't BELIEVE in God. The end.

"2. Atheism builds its case on human senses - it can´t accept what one can´t see, feel or hear, while in non-threatening areas it allows reasoning to be the final authority (for example an atheist would find it easy to believe in the existence of an electricity even though he can´t see it, because it is reasonable to believe in its exitence. This approach crashes down for him in the questions of the metaphysics)."

The only thing that "crashes down" is the tired ol' analogies that Christians attempt.

Okay, 'ever seen lightening? News flash: That's "electricity", friend. Furthermore, electricity, while usually not overtly visible, is both testable and falsifiable; invisible flying spooks, are neither. Hmmm?

"3. Atheism needs a meta-story to add to its credit. Atheism´s meta-story is the evolution theory and the "scientific evidence".

Ridiculous. Do you need a "meta-story" to dismiss the existence of the Toothfairy? No, of course not.

BTW, evolution is both theory, and fact; "creationism" is NEITHER. You attack a straw man. Let's play a little game, though--let's assume that evolution is one big conspiracy from the scientific community. Alrighty----WHERE is your evidence for "creation"????

"4. Atheism answers to the three basic questions (who am I?, where did I come from?, What´s the purpose?) leaves an individual worthless and offers no useful vision for the society...."

Okay, here, you are merely projecting your pathetic God-dependency on to others. Only >>>I<<< determine my self-worth. 'Got that?

4(continued): "('If there is no God everything is permissible' - Dostoyevsky)"

The Atheist position = "Everything is permissible"? 'Sorry, friend...but that is utter bullsh*t. To be sure---even if we could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we don't get our morality from a "Divine Authority", I'm quite certain that causing unnecessary harm to others wouldn't all of the sudden become, um, "permissible". Remember?... we have these things called laws? And who determines these laws?...WE, the people, do. And let's remember, in the not-too-distant past, it was considered "moral" to chuck rocks at prostitutes, and to keep "n*ggers" as slaves...yet, who determined that this is now unacceptable? What?..did "God" swoop down and "amend" the bible when no one was looking? No, of course not---again, WE, the people, determined that such behavior is unacceptable. Bottom line: "Morality" comes from PEOPLE, not "God".

"5. Atheism has no answer for our human ability to entertain "God concept".

Oh, jesus! Um, we have an answer...'just not one that you'll likely want to hear, or accept. As long as humans can't fathom their own non-existence, they will retain the "ability" to "entertain" the concept of the one thing that "promises" they won't cease to exist...i.e.."God".

J.W.: I also want to affirm that an experience itself is not a validation of the truth.

Agreed! So where is the 'accompanying' evidence, then?


Anonymous Just wondering... said...
Hi Jim,

Thanks for your posts. who´s an atheist then? I gave my definition what´s yours? In my opinion, someone who says that "we can´t know" is not an atheist, but an agnostic.
The unseen world may not necesarilly be also undetectable. I would not want anybody to believe in my God without some evidence. The queston is what evidence is sufficient. And, at that, people would make different conclusions. I say that if your only measures for the validity of the evidence is what you can see, touch and smell, it is very limited and generally, in othe areas of life, impotent approach.

The matter of science is not as faith-free as you wish. Modern science was born based on a belief that a supernatural rational being created the universe that has an order and a structure. Therefore a man can discover this order and "rethink God´s thoughts". Without the faith in a rational order modern science would not existed. That was a side note. Science is used to explain the basic questions of life (I already named them) and is presented as a final authority that tells us the truth about the world around us. But the science itself, as you mentoin, should not be used this way. Science explores and provides us with data. It is an inndividual scientist who puts the data into a framework that makes sense to him. And as we study more, sometimes we have to think some thinks again and change the framework.

The three basic questions I mentioned are definetely meaningful and they are basic philosofic quetions. If atheism ignores them then it can not aspire to be a worldview worth considering. If I am so wrong all the time about what atheism is and is not can you answer those for me?

I wrote that atheism has no answer for our human notion of God, but I should have written that it doesn´t have a satisfying answer.

In the minefield analogy, I was trying to point out that a belief in one god can be right and a belief in many gods or no god(s) can be wrong. What really matters are the facts, as you wrote. How can we find out about the mines? In other words, hw can we find out there is God?

Looking forward to your response!


Blogger boomSLANG said...
J.W.....Modern science was born based on a belief that a supernatural rational being created the universe that has an order and a structure.

I'm sorry, but this is utterly preposterous.

Just Wondering?.... if you wouldn't mind---and provided it's based on someone elses words---could you please provide some kind of reference for this statement? If it's your own words, you needn't elaborate further. In fact, I beg you to NOT do so. Thanks.

I wrote that atheism has no answer for our human notion of God, but I should have written that it doesn´t have a satisfying answer.

"Satisfying" to who? You, right? Right, because I gave you a plausible answer to this question, already.

The unseen world may not necesarilly be also undetectable...

But the science itself, as you mentoin, should not be used this way....

It is an inndividual scientist who puts the data into a framework that makes sense to him....

The three basic questions I mentioned are definetely meaningful and they are basic philosofic quetions....


J.W., would you have a problem disclosing your age, and the highest level of education you've completed? This will let me know how, or if, I'll continue to stay in this discussion. Thanks, buddy.


Anonymous Mandy said...
Just Wondering Wrote: "The last response goes to my personal experience with the risen Christ. I do not think that anybody can really interpret it for me because it was my experience and not somebody elses."

Why should we take your word for it and anyone elses?

There have been several times people like you have come onto this site claiming such things and quoting bible scripture.

Those things are all "Hear Say" and faith does not make something a fact.

I am not convinced that the bible is authentic and is the word of God. I see it as more less a book that is made up of man's point of views about who and what god is supposed to be.

The theory is that these men were inspired by god and that is how the bible was made. Again, why should we take their word for it? I don't know how many times I have heard even the christians of today claim that god told them something.

More than likely that was the subconcious mind of those same men (bible writers) telling them that god was speaking to them when it was actually their very own thoughts speaking to them.

No matter what you say J.W. you will not be able to get me or anyone else on this site to change their minds about what they believe.

Until Jesus finds a better way to communicate with the people of the 21st Century, I will find no credibility with you or any other christian.

This personal experience that you claim you had with Jesus may very well be a figment of your imagination for all you really know. You are not the first one to claim such a thing. I am very leary of anyone who claims they had a personal experience with the living God.


Anonymous Mandy said...
J.W. Said: "But Mandy´s call to "get a taste of reality again" speaks a lot about her view on reality than about the reality itself."

So tell me then J.W.....what is your view on reality? Or let me put it this way, "Your opinion about what reality is".

You think that Jesus is reality? Prove it.

I have found in my own personal dealings with christianity that many of the beliefs are not practical in today's modern day world.


Blogger Jim Arvo said...
JW: "I gave my definition [of an atheist] what´s yours?"

Someone without a belief in god.

JW: "In my opinion, someone who says that 'we can´t know' is not an atheist, but an agnostic."

Agnosticism, by your very own definition (which I share), speaks of KNOWLEDGE, not belief. Atheism/theism speaks only to *belief*. If you believe in one or more gods or goddesses (for whatever reason), you're a theist. If you do not (for whatever reason), you're an atheist. If you don't think it's possible to know, then you're a (classical) agnostic.

JW: "I would not want anybody to believe in my God without some evidence."

Okay. We'll see.

JW: "The queston is what evidence is sufficient."

That's hard to say in advance, as evidence is a tricky concept to pin down. However, here are some guidelines. Credible evidence cannot be a matter of word play or definition, and it cannot depend on logical fallacies. It cannot depend on inference rules that produces nonsense when fairly applied in other contexts. As for when it is "sufficient", that's a judgment call. Let's see if you have any credible evidence at all; we'll worry about "sufficient" later.

JW: "...if your only measures for the validity of the evidence is what you can see, touch and smell,..."

Another straw man.

JW: "The matter of science is not as faith-free as you wish."

How is it that you presume to know my position on science?

JW: "Science is used to explain the basic questions of life (I already named them) and is presented as a final authority that tells us the truth about the world around us."

That's an extremely naive view. Where did you get that from?

JW: "...as we study more, sometimes we have to think some thinks again and change the framework."

Yes, that's right. And new observations can also cast doubt on existing theories. So it seems you do realize that science does not presume to have the final word (despite what you said above).

JW: "The three basic questions I mentioned are definetely meaningful and they are basic philosofic quetions."

"Who am I?" is a meaningful question? Not without extensive elaboration. I could answer "Jim Arvo". That's not what you're looking for, I presume, so tell me what you mean by it. I suspect there are numerous presuppositions behind your questions, which is why I question their meaningfulness.

JW: "If atheism ignores them then it can not aspire to be a worldview worth considering."

According to whom? By the way, different atheists will hold different opinions. State your questions clearly, and I'll gladly give you my opinion. I do not speak for all atheists, however, as I presume you do not speak for all Christians.

JW: "If I am so wrong all the time about what atheism is and is not can you answer those for me?"

Okay... "who am I?": Jim Arvo. "where did I come from?": I was in the kitchen a moment ago. "What´s the purpose?": I made myself a sandwich. If you don't like those answers, then please state your questions more carefully. If you want to save a little time, don't be coy about your presuppositions (e.g. that there *is* a grand purpose for which man was "created", etc.).

JW: "I wrote that atheism has no answer for our human notion of God, but I should have written that it doesn´t have a satisfying answer."

So amended. You, personally, do not find it satisfying. Fair enough.

JW: "In the minefield analogy, I was trying to point out that a belief in one god can be right and a belief in many gods or no god(s) can be wrong."

Right. Did that really require such an analogy?

JW: "How can we find out about the mines? In other words, h[o]w can we find out there is God?"

I would think that if there was an all-powerful god, and she wanted us to know about her, she would either tell us or give us the capacity to discover her. Other than that, I have no idea. If you think there is a way, then let us know what it is, and why you hold that opinion.


Blogger Jim Arvo said...
BoomSLANG said "J.W., would you have a problem disclosing your age, and the highest level of education you've completed? This will let me know how, or if, I'll continue to stay in this discussion."

That's an excellent idea, Boom. I second Boom's request.


Anonymous AtheistToothFairy said...
Just wondering... wrote:
>The matter of what you deny is of a very high importance

Is it really JW?
How many other folks who believe in something supernatural, have I also heard this from.
Answer....LOTS.

There are many things I've heard dire warnings about, such as:

--I should wear a lead plated suit to protect me from aliens spewing radiation.
--I should have my fortune read by some tarot card reader, just so I know what's coming.
--I should consult with an expert who will chart out my personal future using their special talents from the pseudo science of astrology.
--I should build an underground fortress, to protect me from the upcoming WWIII
--I should stock my home with many types of weapons, just in case the 'enemy' shows up at my door.

The list goes on and on and on, so why should I add your dire warning to this list of doomsday preparation?


>Here are my "great reasons why atheism doesn´t hold":
1. Atheism claims omniscience - anybody who insists that no god exists claims to know everything

Let me just add to what Jim and Boomslang have already said to this.

I don't have to prove there are no gods out there, and frankly, if I make a personal decree there are no gods out there, as long as no god is showing him/herself to truly exist in accordance with scientific methodology, then I have no more reason to believe ANY god exists, than I have to believe in any other supernatural mythical oddity.

It's not like your god is in front of our faces and I'm then denying it's existence or refusing to do as it wants me to. It's not even like this god is doing some miracles that clearly can't be explained by any other means we have.

Knocking on someone's emotional door proves exactly nothing, except perhaps to the person who refuses to seek other explanations for their odd mental experience.
One shouldn't have to shut down their cognitive brain, just to activate this god-receiver in their heads that you xtians claim you have.

If god is real and created out brains (from scratch) then I'm SURE he would know how to contact every brain he made, regardless how analytical that brain might be towards refuting anything beyond the natural.
Obvioulsy, your god is very selective about whom he chooses to make contact with, much as the space aliens are very selective about whom they abduct or perform sexual experiments upon.

If your god really existed (as advertised), if space aliens were frequenting our earth all the time, then there would be some tangible evidence for all to share, rather than just a special select bunch holding all the super special secrets of the creed.

Think about this JW, if god was really helping all you xtians out, then statistics would CLEARLY show the bias your god has for your kind, but yet, xtians don't seem overall, to be better off than the rest of the earth's populace.
e.g. One would think god would heal them up quicker and better, but he doesn't.


>2. Atheism builds its case on human senses - it can´t accept what one can´t see, feel or hear, while in non-threatening areas it allows reasoning to be the final authority (for example an atheist would find it easy to believe in the existence of an electricity even though he can´t see it, because it is reasonable to believe in its exitence. This approach crashes down for him in the questions of the metaphysics).

Wow JW, it sure seems you skipped out on college science courses and instead decided your minister knew far more about science than any college professor would. FOR SHAME!!

Science doesn't believe things on FAITH, like you do your god and his powers.
Scientists don't get to promote some personal bias up the ladder of science, as any hypothesis has to be proven out amongst his/her peers before being accepted.

Even invisible forces, such as the electricity you mention, can not only be measured but actually perform WORK when used, unlike your god who is known only by fairy tales and hear-say.
Oh, and don't even think about using that age-old analogy about the wind being invisible, we've all heard that one many times before and it will buy you nada.

>3. Atheism needs a meta-story to add to its credit. Atheism´s meta-story is the evolution theory and the "scientific evidence".

As I said before, you skipped those science classes, didn't you?
I would HIGHLY recommend you take a break from your religion classes and take a few science classes for a few months, then you might not sound so ridiculous when you try and explain science to us.

FYI.....A scientific THEORY is not like the common usage of the word 'theory', as one might hear in a court room.
By the time an idea reaches the THEORY stage in science, there is very little chance left that it might be wrong.

Not to mention here, that by denying the evolution theory, you are implying that our world is full of science folks that have formed some grand conspiracy to cast out the need for your god. I wouldn't doubt that you believe this sort of thing, as folks who buy into the xtian god tend to be the same folks who would also buy into conspiracy theories easily to.
They just lack any propensity for looking at things in a critical manner is all.


>4. Atheism answers to the three basic questions (who am I?, where did I come from?, What´s the purpose?) leaves an individual worthless and offers no useful vision for the society ("If there is no God everything is permissible" - Dostoyevsky)

JW, so who's asking the questions of where did I come from or what's the purpose...NOT I.
I know where I came from and my purpose in life is WHAT I MAKE IT and that sure has nothing to do with pleasing some imaginary god being.

I also very much disagree with your idea that without a god everything is permissible.
There have been societies throughout the history of humankind, that didn't have a belief in your god and they didn't fare any worse than those that were guided by your xtian god.
People are people, and society tends to be self correcting when it comes to keeping folks in-line in their behavior. Those who screw up in any society tend to be shunned (or worse) by the rest of us.
Therefore, it's in the best interest for most of us, to treat others with respect, for if we do not, then we become the outcast.

I would also suggest that your xtian god idea actually makes it easier to 'sin', as there is this built in idea that all one has to do is ask for forgiveness to fix things.
Gosh, I think I'll rob a bank today and god will just forgive me that I stole that money when I pray to him later etc..

What a COP OUT!!


>5. Atheism has no answer for our human ability to entertain "God concept".

Are you by chance talking about this fairly new idea of the GOD BRAIN?
There is a section of the brain that seems to come alive when one is thinking about their god.
The religious folks see this as a proof that god built-in some god-receiver into the human brain.

Alas, this god brain section seems to respond to ANY god one would conjure up and not just your xtian god alone....LOL.
Oh well, there goes that proof of god down the drain, along with all the others xtians come up with.


ATF (Who was right, as JW so far has fallen on his face, as I predicted....OH-OH, I must have ESP then...who knew I was so talented with supernatural stuff)


Anonymous I know who and what God is said...
God was a Roswell Gray.


Blogger freethinker05 said...
And all this time i thought god was a rocweillder dog,(sic). Thanks for the info...Roger A/A


Anonymous Just wondering... said...
JW: "I gave my definition [of an atheist] what´s yours?"

Someone without a belief in god.

That is a very interesting definition because it is based on faith. An atheist, in your definition, is someone who does not have a belief in god. So we both are on the platform of faith. You say you do not have a faith in god, that is, you do not believe that god exists. But you can not know for sure. That is a fair position to hold. I do not care right now if we call it agnostic or not.


What I wanted in the answers for these 3 questions (and I think you knew very well what I meant):
1. Who am I? - Am I an accident, collection of carbon and aminoacids, whatever I say, ruler of the universe, wapor in the air....
2. Where did I come from? - descendant of an ape, cosmic coincidence, ...
3. What´s the purpose? – there´s no pupose, whatevere I make it, what the society says, ....

I fully agree with your satement that „if there was an all-powerful god, and she wanted us to know about her, she would either tell us or give us the capacity to discover her“. I believe we have a capacity to know god and that is my answer for our ability to entertain the very notion of god. There is a way to know God, but we have to first understand that God in his very nature, as it is revealed in the Bible, transcends us in every way. We couldn´t know god if he wouldn´t want to be known. We can not insist on His revelation to us. If he does, it is his free decision. And he is revealing himself to all of us in the grandeur of his creation aroud us (that we call the nature) and in the creation of us, the human beings, who are capable of wondering about it. Our capability to wonder is one of God´s fingerprint in us. Another fingerprint is our ability to make moral judgements. The comment about societal pressure someone made in the discussion is not satisfactory. Societies sometimes make pressure to act in discordance of our understanding of moral right or wrong (as an example may well serve any totalitarian regime of the last century) and still, deep inside, we understand that some things are right or wrong. So these are the first two witnesses of „somebody bigger than you and I“. The God revealed on the pages of the Bible went beyond those two. He is calling individuals into a relationship with himself, a dynamic, true personal relationship. And in order to overcome all the obstacles between himself and us, he comes to the world in the flesh of a man, born some 2000 years ago. This person was a man named Jesus later called the Christ. He lived a life that matches to no one in history. After three years of scandalous teaching and acting, he willingly and sacrifically died on the cross. The third day he rose from the dead in the same body of a different quality in order to prove his sovereignity over all that is enemic to our human condition. By our recognition of his identity as the son of God and opening of our hearts to him in a dedication to be his followers we can know God. How do I know? Number one, He said it, number two I experienced it. God indeed told us about himself, he did it marvelously and consistently, and gave us the capacity to discover him. But this discovery is mpossible without a personnal commitment. We can´t know him and be detached from him. We can know him only through the commitment, similary to a relationship with may want with another person. God will never be the subject of our disinvolved scrutiny.

P.S. Mandy - sorry I didn´t answer your comments. I hope to sometimes soon.
P.P.S. Because Iam not worthy of Boomslang I am referring him to a book by Charles Thaxton: The Soul of Science


Anonymous AtheistToothFairy said...
Just wondering... wrote:
What I wanted in the answers for these 3 questions (and I think you knew very well what I meant


JW,
To think, we had HOPE for you being 'THE ONE' who was going to PROVE us wrong here.

As always though, you're just another brainwashed xtian who instead of offering evidence (as you implied you would) just hands us more of the same drivel, from his holy babble stories.

I'll answer these questions, even though they SEEM to be meant for Jim?


>1. Who am I? - Am I an accident, collection of carbon and aminoacids, whatever I say, ruler of the universe, wapor in the air....

I wouldn't say 'accident', but rather we are all exist from a lucky chance within our universe.
It really isn't so amazing if one considers the vastness of the material universe; the huge quantity of galaxies, stars and planets.
If chance hadn't put us here on this earth, you and I wouldn't be here pondering such questions.


>2. Where did I come from? - descendant of an ape, cosmic coincidence, ...

First off JW, no one came from an ape !!!
Perhaps you skipped that day of science class on evolution, but it's never too late to take some courses on the subject.
We did however have a common ancestor with the 'ape', which is NOT the same as coming from apes.

Yes indeed, we are here because of cosmic coincidence....no doubt about it.
Everything in all the branches of science indicates there was no miracle needed for us to be here...just pure chance alone.


>3. What´s the purpose? – there´s no pupose, whatevere I make it, what the society says,

Why is it all you religious folks think that their has to be some purpose?
What purpose do you suppose the rest of life on this planet has for being here?
The only difference is that our intelligence let's us ask this question.
Just because we can ask it, has nothing to do with some god having created us with such a mental capacity to be able to ask.

JW, how would YOU explain the millions of galaxies in our universe, most of which we couldn't even see until this past century. What is their god purpose?

What god purpose is there for all the planets in our own small solar system?
Yeah I know, you have no answer and you have some dumb rule that says you can't question god's motives etc..
How very convenient that your god makes up rules like this to keep you xtians dumbfounded and blind, huh.

ATF (who is still waiting for all this JW evidence he said he had for us)


Blogger .:webmaster:. said...
Just wondering wrote, "What I wanted in the answers for these 3 questions (and I think you knew very well what I meant):
1. Who am I? - Am I an accident, collection of carbon and aminoacids, whatever I say, ruler of the universe, wapor in the air....
2. Where did I come from? - descendant of an ape, cosmic coincidence, ...
3. What´s the purpose? – there´s no pupose, whatevere I make it, what the society says, ...."


My answer to #1: I don't know.

My answer to #2: I don't know.

My answer to #3: I don't know.

I would suggest, however, that positing that a transcendent reality which defies the known physical laws of the universe is unlikely. It appears logical to assume that whatever exists in the universe is native to the universe, or otherwise natural. So, until some evidence is presented that nature came into existence because of the magical whims of unnatural mythological beings who came from (excuse the expression) god knows where, then I'll have to disallow mythology as a viable solution to my ignorance.

In other words, "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer to the great philosophical questions. Many people find "I don't know" answers intolerable and choose instead to embrace fantasy. For centuries people were convinced that some god or other directly controlled rain, disease, famine, plenty, virility, reproduction, earthquakes, lightening, thunder, comets, etc. Now we know that all those things are merely natural, mindless, forces. Based on how often people have been incorrect in assigning supernatural responsibility to nature, it seems extremely likely that nature is nature and there is nothing super-duper-natural about any of it.

Of course, I could be wrong. Rather than exchange amatuer armchair philosophizing on why you think belief in in magical invisible entities makes sense, why not simply provide some verifiable evidence supporting your "faith."

Oh, and if you think belief or non-belief in mythology is equally based on faith, then I would guess that if you reject stories by believers in UFOs, leprechauns, or Allah, you are only rejecting them based on faith. In fact, you can never disprove the existence of Allah, therefore Allah exists! Right?

Listen, bub. You are the one making fantastic claims. All the atheist is saying is that fantastic claims require some pretty impressive evidence before anyone with half a brain can be expected to accept the claims.

And if you still don't get it, prove that there are not intelligent clouds of living gas floating around the atmosphere of Jupiter. If I dogmatically argue with you that such beings not only can exist but do, yet offer NO EVIDENCE, would you feel compelled to come over to my side of the issue? Or would you think me a bit potty?

Think about it.


Anonymous AtheistToothFairy said...
Hey Webmaster,
That was ONE EXCELLENT REPLY to JW !!


ATF (who knows those "intelligent clouds of living gas", really float in Bean Soup)


Blogger Jim Arvo said...
JW: "That is a very interesting definition [of atheism] because it is based on faith."

Do you equate "lacking belief" with having proof of the negation? It would seem so from what you wrote. If that's so, you are confused. Do you believe there is life on Pluto? Can you prove there is no life on Pluto? Case closed.

I do not hold important beliefs on faith. I'll thank you to not project your theories onto me. If you have a question, then feel free to ask. Don't assume and don't assert what I believe. Okay?

JW: "What I wanted..."

You gave examples rather than clarifying your questions. You think I am playing a game. Your questions are ill-defined and I challenge you to state them clearly. I'll wager you cannot without either making them mundane or revealing a host of supernatural presuppositions. For example, why the word "Who" in your first question? That has many connotations already. The word "purpose" presupposes an intention. Whose would that be?

JW: "There is a way to know God..."

You make lots of assertions, and you present a just-so theology. All extremely naive. Can you please tell us how old you are? I'm not going to waste my time arguing with another teenager. Sorry. My time is more valuable than that.


Anonymous Just wondering... said...
Dear Mandy,

Your concern is basically with the nature of the Bible and with the experience as an authority. I have already tried to say that I do not think that an experience can or should be our final, most important authority in the matters of the truth (thruth = how things really are regardless of what we think about them). But, at the same time, experience is a part of our humanity. So it plays a very significant role, but it is not the only factor in our decision making about the validity of a statement (you can easily find some examples from everyday life). I do not want anybody to believe in Christ just because I have some experience in the relationship with him. Of course, anybody except for me has a way of validating such an experience. It is personnal and individual. So the question is: „Why should your experience have any value for me or anybody else?“. Well, it only has a value if it is a witness about something that is real. How can we expect (not prove!) that someone´s experience reflects what is real? Let´s try to find some criteria:
a) this experience should not be isolated (limited to one individual or one event)
b) it should be accesible by anybody anywhere under the same conditions (regardless of time, culture, education or anything like that) without a need for a human mediator
c) it should not require any altering of one´s usual state (like drugs, disease, stress, mental technique, ...)
d) it changes the person for better (measured by his relationship to others)
e) ...any suggestions?...
Even if all of these above will be met, it is not a prove that this experience is a sure witness about what is real. But the chances are higher.
You asked what I think about what is real. Unlike some Greek philosophers of the past I think the world that I can touch, smell and feel is real, but it is not the ultimate reality. Because something could not find its origin in nothing unless this nothing is the ever existing nothing (a cause without a cause) with a potential to become something. Such a nothing is the origin of everything, it is The Source. The Source is the ultimate Reality. This ultimate reality is God (or god). Even though I can not see him visibly, nothing makes sense to me abou this world and myself withou him. At this moment, we don´t know if this god is personnal or not. And we could debate what is the likelihod that he is and that he is not.What can we know about this God? I have concluded that this God made himself visible in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. But there are other possibilities. Everybody has to make his own decision about it based on some very good reasons. Because that decision is the most important decision one has to make in life.

Now let me make a few comments about the Bible. First, I am not saying that I understand everything in the Bible and that I do not find any contradictions there. At the same time, some things that I thought were the contradictions, dissapeared to me with some more study. But I am not insisting this will be the case with all the contradictions I can see right now. But, more importantly, in the major themes, in the core message, the Bible is coherent and clear. The fact that it was put together by approximately 40 authors in the period of 1300 years and was able to keep its coherence is great witness about its origin. All you need to do to appreciate it is to read the Apocrypha of the Old or New Testament and see the difference. The authors of the bible books were not saying: „Listen people, this is what´s God like!“. More often, they were surprised by God´s revelation of himself to them and bore a witness about it. Another reason for the trust in the Bible is its witness about the real history (people, places and events). It is not just a „spiritual textbook“ like many other sacred books are. God is at work in our world, with the real people, in the real time. And the last thing for now is that we need to learn to read it well respecting the genre of the text. In this respect, a book „How to read the Bible for all its worth“ by G. Fee and D. Stuart was a big help for me.

Thanks for your post.


Blogger boomSLANG said...
Just Wondering,

Please state your age. You've been asked nicely to do so three times, now. Also, if you continue to post, please use paragraph breaks more frequently, as the content of your posts, alone, is brain-damaging enough...let alone, no breaks and horrendous spelling. Thanks.


Blogger .:webmaster:. said...
JW,

I was a lay-missionary English teacher in Japan for a couple of years. Guess what I learned! Buddhists also have spiritual experiences that validates their religion in their own minds.

How about that, huh? I found out, in Japan, that those rocking feelings I got out of my religion were not unique.

Hmm.


Blogger Jim Arvo said...
JW, the Bible says your god thinks disobedient children ought to be stoned to death, and that he assisted in the brutal slaughter and plunder of numerous communities. Is that part of the "coherent message" you speak of, or do you disregard books like Leviticus, Exodus, and Numbers for some reason?

Please answer some very basic questions before we go further.

1) How old are you?

2) Can you list the titles and/or authors of a few books you've read that are critical of Christianity?

3) Can you briefly summarize some of the reasons the regulars here have stated for rejecting Christianity?

4) Do you admit the possibility that your god is a myth?

5) Can you offer one element of the Jesus story that has credible extrabiblical corroboration?


Blogger boomSLANG said...
This post has been removed by the author.