 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
Personal de-conversion testimonials submitted to ExChristian.Net
Sent in by Jonathan S
It took me a long time to figure it out... but it finally happened. I’m 18, and I make absolutely no claim to being the most intelligent person alive, but I’m now an atheist. I refuse to say agnostic, as it is quite possible to be an agnostic theist as well.
I was born into a Christian family, and dedicated into Christianity (Pentecostal, if you find that relevant) by my parents. They raised me up in their beliefs as they swore to, and until 12 weeks ago, I had attended church every week, disregarding some holidays. I had my first communion at four years old, and was baptised at 12. I started to go to youth at 13, with probably now my most hated youth pastor. I’ll explain why later.
I started switching between churches, not particularly fitting into the perfectionist style that my parents’ church portrayed, and leaving eventually as a result. My life group, which I still attend at the moment (They aren’t threatening at all, and I’m good friends with a few people that go), strengthened my belief in God temporarily.
But my conversion to Atheism all started with a Christian youth conference called Planetshakers, in Sydney. It was an amazing time, and my parents put off our return trip home so that I could attend the last night with a few of my friends.
And my conversion is thanks to that decision.
I won’t go into monstrous detail (partly because it’s very personal, but also because it’s very long), but I had what I thought was a word of god that night. I followed it, and spent half the service meditating on that, as opposed to actually listening to the man up front. It really interested me afterwards, and really strengthened my belief in god. I vowed to actually follow up and actually partake in what every person should do before they really call themselves a Christian; analyse their own beliefs.
Once we arrived home from our trip, I spent weeks analysing the Bible, not what it taught me, but watching it for inconsistency with my own beliefs, and the actions of Christianity as a whole.
I soon realised that the Bible was quite far fetched. It taught great morals (which the church didn’t follow, but nevertheless), but the stories it tells are, in most cases, utterly ridiculous. This wasn’t what converted me, but it was what grabbed me and made me follow on to the next step.
It was then that I started reading up on atheism, and proof that god doesn’t exist. And whilst mostly subjective material, there as one article that I read that hit on one of my major concerns. I won’t go into a monologue, as you can find the article at
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/atheism.html
It was right at that point that I realised that I didn’t believe any of it. I’d spent years of my life conforming to a world that I didn’t really believe in, though I admit I tried to.
I don’t go to church each week any more, my Sundays now being spent going to friend’s houses for a few hours, or going for a walk. My parents still haven’t found out about my conversion yet, and I’m hoping I have a few months to leave home before they find out (I’ll tell them myself once I leave home, my father and his family are anal about Christianity). My good friends know, and whilst many of them are Christian, I was surprised to find that many of them are willing to accept the conversion, although there were some that were totally hostile to the concept of atheism. Needless to say, we don’t keep in contact any more.
I’ve met some great friends in my absence from the religion too. We have more in common than just a shared belief, which leads to great communication, and interesting conversation, as they can talk about more things than just how god saved them from an eternal fire. Although I still have many of the morals that Christianity teaches... I feel no need to follow them where it seems wrong to do so.
I have just one question though. I don’t talk to people so that I can have deep theological discussion, yet I find 90% of the people who ask me this question then monologue about Jesus Christ and point out my eternal damnation and basically all the "die in a fire" propaganda that I've already refuted as scare tactics. It doesn't help their case that I've looked through every book and seen every DVD regarding converting unbelievers that they have fifty times already.
So I ask you, how do I tell people I’ve never met, when they inevitably ask me about my religious beliefs, that I’m atheist, whilst avoiding theological discussion?
It took me a long time to figure it out... but it finally happened. I’m 18, and I make absolutely no claim to being the most intelligent person alive, but I’m now an atheist. I refuse to say agnostic, as it is quite possible to be an agnostic theist as well.
I was born into a Christian family, and dedicated into Christianity (Pentecostal, if you find that relevant) by my parents. They raised me up in their beliefs as they swore to, and until 12 weeks ago, I had attended church every week, disregarding some holidays. I had my first communion at four years old, and was baptised at 12. I started to go to youth at 13, with probably now my most hated youth pastor. I’ll explain why later.
I started switching between churches, not particularly fitting into the perfectionist style that my parents’ church portrayed, and leaving eventually as a result. My life group, which I still attend at the moment (They aren’t threatening at all, and I’m good friends with a few people that go), strengthened my belief in God temporarily.
But my conversion to Atheism all started with a Christian youth conference called Planetshakers, in Sydney. It was an amazing time, and my parents put off our return trip home so that I could attend the last night with a few of my friends.
And my conversion is thanks to that decision.
I won’t go into monstrous detail (partly because it’s very personal, but also because it’s very long), but I had what I thought was a word of god that night. I followed it, and spent half the service meditating on that, as opposed to actually listening to the man up front. It really interested me afterwards, and really strengthened my belief in god. I vowed to actually follow up and actually partake in what every person should do before they really call themselves a Christian; analyse their own beliefs.
Once we arrived home from our trip, I spent weeks analysing the Bible, not what it taught me, but watching it for inconsistency with my own beliefs, and the actions of Christianity as a whole.
I soon realised that the Bible was quite far fetched. It taught great morals (which the church didn’t follow, but nevertheless), but the stories it tells are, in most cases, utterly ridiculous. This wasn’t what converted me, but it was what grabbed me and made me follow on to the next step.
It was then that I started reading up on atheism, and proof that god doesn’t exist. And whilst mostly subjective material, there as one article that I read that hit on one of my major concerns. I won’t go into a monologue, as you can find the article at
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/atheism.html
It was right at that point that I realised that I didn’t believe any of it. I’d spent years of my life conforming to a world that I didn’t really believe in, though I admit I tried to.
I don’t go to church each week any more, my Sundays now being spent going to friend’s houses for a few hours, or going for a walk. My parents still haven’t found out about my conversion yet, and I’m hoping I have a few months to leave home before they find out (I’ll tell them myself once I leave home, my father and his family are anal about Christianity). My good friends know, and whilst many of them are Christian, I was surprised to find that many of them are willing to accept the conversion, although there were some that were totally hostile to the concept of atheism. Needless to say, we don’t keep in contact any more.
I’ve met some great friends in my absence from the religion too. We have more in common than just a shared belief, which leads to great communication, and interesting conversation, as they can talk about more things than just how god saved them from an eternal fire. Although I still have many of the morals that Christianity teaches... I feel no need to follow them where it seems wrong to do so.
I have just one question though. I don’t talk to people so that I can have deep theological discussion, yet I find 90% of the people who ask me this question then monologue about Jesus Christ and point out my eternal damnation and basically all the "die in a fire" propaganda that I've already refuted as scare tactics. It doesn't help their case that I've looked through every book and seen every DVD regarding converting unbelievers that they have fifty times already.
So I ask you, how do I tell people I’ve never met, when they inevitably ask me about my religious beliefs, that I’m atheist, whilst avoiding theological discussion?
Never one to mince words, Ms. Hepburn.
One recommendation I have is to avoid volunteering the word atheism, or any of the hot-button words. My usual reply is "I'm non-religious." This provides an out for someone who really isn't seeking out a chance to get in your face about it. They can take it however they like. For instance, they can take it to mean that you just don't like the church-y type of life, if that's their pleasure. (Many of them probably don't much care for it themselves.) Or they can write you off as having a low level of awareness, sort of a spiritual autism, and take the line that you are missing the mental loops necessary to put together some kind of religious worldview.
If, in reply to your claim that you are non-religious, they ask You mean you're an atheist?, you can say, If you like to put it that way. Make them do the work; they're trying to make you do it, and, after all what right do they have for such presumption? You're not getting paid for it and you never signed up for the job. It's their job, not yours, to carry that ball; make them carry it every step of the way.
I'm from Australia too. The minute I started reading your post I recognised all the jargon of typical aussie pentecostal christianity!! Congratulations on getting out!! It took me till I was 29 to come to my senses! If you don't mind me asking, what church did you go to?
Jacstar
simplyecclesia.com
First and foremost, your individuality comes first, especially where people you've "never met" are concerned. Be forthright, with not only them, but with everyone, and just tell yourself that those who mind your position don't matter, and those who matter, won't mind.
Jonathan...Although I still have many of the morals that Christianity teaches... I feel no need to follow them where it seems wrong to do so.
If you have determined that it "seems wrong" in certain cases to adhere to "Christian morals", then that should be all the evidence you need to realize that there is no totally objective, immovable, Universal "morality", as Christians would just love for you to believe. If biblegod's "Word" were intrinsically "good", then that would mean that he could one day instruct your parents to kill you(for non-belief), and it would be seen as the "moral" thing to do.
'Knapp...I don't understand. If you truly have a faith in atheism then just tell people unashamedly.
I don't understand, either. I reread the article, and nowhere do I see where the author said he had "a faith" in Atheism. In that case, I'm left to believe that you are simply projecting your own misinformed views on to him. If I'm wrong, then feel free to explain how much "faith" it takes you, as a Christian, to lack belief in "Allah", "Quetzacoatl", or any of the tens of thousands of other deities you don't believe in.
Honestly, why ask her/him? It would make much more sense, not to mention, economize on time, to hear such a definition from a "True Christian", first-hand.
I like the first post about being "non-religious," well said!
Make them do the work.
nina
You can say "I'm an atheist" and wait for the bomb to drop. You've been there/done that already.
You can say "I'm a rationalist [or freethinker]"; sometimes that satisfies people.
You can say "And this is any of your business why, exactly?"
Or you can say, "I'm not superstitious." I've had the best luck with this one, simply because it causes the person to suddenly consider that religion is superstition - if only for a split second. If they dispute that, you can always (sweetly) ask them to list the substantive differences between religion and superstition. This is especially fun to do if you have time on your hands and you want to spend it seeing people squirm.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
That's why there are 1,300 denominations, all claiming to be the one "true" Christian church. There is no agreed upon definition.
I'm surprised that this issue comes up with any great frequency, though. I don't find that new acquaintances are likely to ask about religion -- perhaps you are alluding to your former faith more than you realize. That's easy to do when you have spent years enmeshed in a certain culture.
As for why I'm not completely open about it at the moment. With my father being anal about his Christianity, and myself still unable to move out for possibly another 6 months, I find it quite unlikely that my father would allow a non-christian influence on his other Children. As far as I see it, I don't really have much of a choice at the moment.
As for the "faith in atheism", I would've thought it didn't take faith to not believe in something, just as it doesn't take skill to not play chess. This is why I never adhered to the phrase "faith in atheism"
Thanks eel_shepherd, that sounds like the way to go actually, and thanks to everyone else who's replied.
Jonathan Schutz
Ah, David Knapp, you're using the old "I'm a true Christian" and "most people who claim to be aren't" lines. We've heard it before. Many times. So tell us, since you are one, why don't YOU define it? Keep in mind that many people who call themselves Christians will disagree with your definition but be just as sure about their own. What makes you any different?
To everyone: I say that the God of the Bible is the only God. You want me to prove it? First prove to me that I am wrong. Prove to me that there is no God. It really looks like we are in the same boat.
To webmdave: I belong to a denomination but I recognize that people of other denominations are trying there best to follow Jesus. Who cares if there are 1300 denominations?? The point was never to follow the denomination, the point was to follow Jesus. I follow Jesus and if somebody from another denomination or no denomination is following Jesus then they are my brother and sister in Christ.
To whateverlolawants: A true Christian is a follower of Jesus. In an apprenticeship program the apprentice aims to become like his journeyman. In this life I seek to become like my teacher Jesus. Anybody else who does this regardless of there denomination is a follower of Jesus. If one follows Him then they are a Christian and if one does not follow Him they are not. It is as simple as that. People who say they are Christian but only say this because they attend church each Sunday, well... they are missing the point. Church is fine but if one does not follow Jesus then for them church is just a social club.
What about Roman Catholics who believe salvation is connected with baptism. Are they your brothers and sisters?
What about those who deny the Trinity? Are they your brothers and sisters?
What about Universalists? They follow Jesus. Are they your brothers and sisters?
What about Christian Scientists? They follow Jesus too!
The point, Knapp, is that there has been overwhelming disagreement on every tenant of your "faith" since it's initial inception. Even James, the brother of Jesus, was in major disagreement with Paul over many points. Of course all we have is Paul's side of the argument in Galatians and since it was his version of Christianity that the Roman Catholic Church eventually ratified under Constantine, James and real Christianity were lost to history.
Oh well.
Next, prove to me that Allah is not the one true God! Prove to me that UFOs are not visiting this planet. Prove to me that Santa doesn't exist.
Proving a negative is not how it works. It is the one making positive claims who bears the burden of proof. All you have to do to prove your case is present some testable evidence. It shouldn't be that difficult if the things you believe in live anywhere outside your imagination.
I have an invisible tree in my yard which grants me the desires of my heart. Prove to me it doesn't exist.
"...First I want to say to everyone that no matter what I say you will not believe or understand because you enjoy refuting everything..."
And what were they enjoying all those years of their Xtianity? Remember...? Ex-Christian? E.X-C.h.r.i.s.t.i.a.n? Look up and live; look wa-a-a-a-y-y-y up; like, at the title bar in the window: EXXXX-Christian....
"...When somebody claims to be an atheist they have faith that they are right..."
No. They have GROUNDS for thinking they are right. Faith = belief without grounds. Big difference, but, anyway, you don't see it; probably never will.
"...Atheism is a religion whether you like it or not..."
Alright! Problem solved! Then that makes you an atheist, since you don't subscribe to atheism! But wait... Something's not right there... Whatever, from now on, you hafta call yourself an atheist atheist, 'k? Makes you an atheist.
"...I say that the God of the Bible is the only God. You want me to prove it? First prove to me that I am wrong..."
No. You go first.
"...Prove to me that there is no God. It really looks like we are in the same boat..." [boat: a type of ark]
What may be asserted without evidence may equally be dismissed without evidence.
"...I follow Jesus..."
I follow Fred The Turtle. He's easier to keep up with. Full-immersion Fredism, but I suppose that goes without saying.
"...and if somebody from another denomination or no denomination is following Jesus then they are my brother and sister in Christ..."
Or, at least, your cousin in Christ.
There was other stuff in the post, but why bother. Same old same old. Each one of these robots thinks he's running the program for the first time, like the replicants in Blade Runner.
Yeah, right, that's why, every minute, of every day, we have to believe, with all our hearts, there is no such thing as Santa. We have to have an unwavering faith, that he will not come down our chimneys and deliver toys to us. The nonexistence of Santa and the belief that he doesn't exist, consumes us and the whole shtick has been a huge negative, in our lives. [sarcasm]
The only thing that is absurd, is you trying to make the case, atheism is a belief. You try to make this ridiculous comparison to associate atheism to your own beliefs. You are in essence trying to put atheism on the same playing field as theism and you want people to conclude they are equal, so as to justify your faith.
What you have is faith. Faith is believing in something that has no evidence, no logical proof or material evidence. Do you believe in leprechauns? Can they magically grant you wishes? Do you believe in leprechauns even though the evidence is largely conclusive that they do not exist? If you did believe in them, then you could only believe in them, on faith. But being a reasonably, educated person do you really go around living day to day practicing in a belief system that believes in the non-existence of leprechauns? NO, that's absurd. You just, simply DO NOT believe in leprechauns, because you see zero proof of them existing -- you don't have to have faith that they DON'T exist. And, in exactly the same way, we simply do not believe in your Bible-God -- It doesn't take belief or faith, there is just no evidence.
There is an INFINITE amount of conceivable things we can come up with that are non-existent: The list is only limited to the imagination. Do you have a belief in the non-existence of all those things that can be imagined? Take for example Allah, Zeus, Aphrodite, Thor, Mother Earth, Krishna , Brahma, or any of the 330,000 deities in the Hindu religion, alone -- are you going to honestly say you have a belief system in place that has to BELIEVE that all these deities are NON-EXISTENT? Or is it simply you don't have any knowledge or evidence of these deities existing?
The God's honest truth (pun intended) is you are just as atheistic in regards to those Gods. The same way you (think real hard why you dismiss those Gods without having a belief system in the non-existent) dismiss those Gods, is the same way we dismiss your God.
Honestly, Davey, you just lap up christian apologist drivel to fuel your own delusional beliefs, without really thinking.
--S.
Read this quote; study it; learn it, because it's about you.
Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the spot of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call FAITH, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.
-- Thomas Jefferson
So you don't believe in Jesus Christ any longer because there are some inconsistencies between the Bible and your own beliefs? I kinda stumbled here this morning in search of some creation/evolution audio debates...babble, babble, babble, yadda, yadda, yadda, gibberish, Bullshit, gibberish, blabber, bunk, claptrap, cuckoo, cuckoo, drivel, fudge, gabble, gobbledygook, hogwash, jabber, jabberwocky, jazz, bull puckey, mumbo jumbo, nonsense, piffle, prattle, rigmarole, rot, chatter, clatter, gab, cuckoo, cuckoo, gibber, prate, tattle, twaddle; double-talk, hocus-pocus, cuckoo, cuckoo, jive; gas, hot air, wind, babble, babble...most of them have seen and experienced demons. Satanists know that God is real. Alright friends, holler at me when you get a chance.
istillbelieve -- Somewhere near you, a cuckoo clock cuckoos, incessantly.
Put the cuckoo back in the cuckoo clock!
--S.
Attacking the messenger brings you no credibility. Don't look into any of the real life political/economic claims that I made, it won't change the fact that they are there and clearly point to the Bible's relevance in our society. Leave your frustration and insults at the door for some adult conversation.
You are only worthy of disrespect and mockery. Take your demented fuck-knob god and shove him up your ass, you delusional fuck-tard.
--S.
here are some more of your brothers and sisters in christ. Christian rebels of the Lord's Resistance Army are conducting a civil war in the north of Uganda. Their goal is a christian theocracy whose laws are based on the Ten Commandments. They abduct, enslave and/or raped about 2,000 children a year.
I await your illogical rationalization.
--S.
when I deconverted, I became more aware of the scare tactics.
I am also pentecostal.
What you do , is you dont tell them what you beleive. All the comebacks people list are good ones.
I would also HIGHTLY recommend reading:
Letter to a Christian Nation
by sam harris.
In it, Sam gives you advice on what to say in response to people who would give you monolouges on Jesus Christ and Hell. There is my favorite line " morality is based on human suffering, this is why we feel no moral obligation to rocks" ( approx).
Im sorry to say, but since you are new to atheism, you need some time to learn in a safe enviornment. Dont go around parading your athiesm. Its not just radical, it can be dangerous.
The other book is:
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
There is a chapter detailing the way humans evole and how being kind to each other helps the human race survive. It's inborne, not taught or else we would not be alive.
To watch:
Robert Beckford
Who Wrote The Bible?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=suseKsLEWKo
Richard Dawkins
The Root of All Evil
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oooitli1reg
Which is exactly how your little christian club was born. Sick twisted individuals, with selfish goals are to blame for the the horrors of the Crusades and Inquisitions, that left rivers of blood in its wake -- the untold torture, suffering and mass killing, that spanned centuries.
"If you don't think the way we do and you don't become a Christian, then we will torture you and slaughter you".
istillamanignorantdumbfuck said, sconnor I'm very sorry I've upset you but I've said nothing to deserve your temper. Continue to waste your effort at insulting me if you'd like, your insecurities are on display.
Thanks for giving me permission to verbally spank you. I have sympathy for the mentally challenged and the mentally ill. I have sympathy for the sick and the addicted, but you, istillbelieve, choose to be a delusional, ignorant, brain-dead, deer in the headlight, dumb ass drone, completely worthy of my vulgar ridicule. I am very secure in my motives and ways and I can assure you I am not upset -- to the contrary, I am very calm. your loquacious bullshit is complete and utter nonsense and shines of a babbling, moronic, religious zealot wallowing in their own delusional bliss. You are a fuck-knob with, nothing but goo in your head.
Again, take your stupid-fuck superstitious, proselytizing and your imaginary, sadistic, cloud daddy, and, shove it up your shit-hole.
--S.
Likewise, leave your strawman arguments, bare-assertions, and hyper-sensitivity at the door.
So, the "Bible's relevance in our society"? Where? How? Who? Are you suggesting that Christians - that is, people who presumably get their "moral" code from the "Bible" - agree on what is "moral", and what isn't? If that's what you are suggesting, you live under a rock. Take ANY social issue of the day, and you'll find "Christians" falling on opposite sides of the "moral" fence, showing clearly, that there is no objective "morality" in the body of "Christ".
In other words, "if you don't agree with me, you are thinking unclearly."
Boy, you're off to a good start; a real "Mr. Diplomacy".
istillbelieve...God is real..
Prove it.
istillbelieve...... His Word is coming to pass precisely the way it was written
Consider this, your Highness:
If your biblegod's predictions are "coming to pass", and yet, one of those "predictions" was that there would be apostates(non-believers), then of course, non-believers are completely necessary is the fulfillment of said "Prophecy". Otherwise, it's a FAILED prophecy. Furthermore, to make such predictions, you'd need to be omniscient, and thus, if that is the case, then said "omniscient" being's free will is limited to make changes in the future, or else, it never knew the future to begin with. Duh? You cannot know that you will be granting "Mercy" at 12:00 noon on April the 10th, 3020, and then at that precise time decide to NOT do it, or obviously, you didn't "know" your decision to begin with. Think about it(if at all possible)
David Knapp: "muttmutt you really should define what a Christian is because I am one of them and I know that most of the people in the USA are not Christian."
To which I responded...
"Honestly, why ask her/him? It would make much more sense, not to mention, economize on time, to hear such a definition from a 'True Christian', first-hand."
To which, David Knapp's latest response, is...
First I want to say to everyone that no matter what I say you will not believe or understand because you enjoy refuting everything. I suppose that is okay because we are human after-all but in the end it is futile. Let's be honest, to believe in something that we cannot really prove is to have a faith. When I say that I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God I have faith that this is true. When somebody claims to be an [atheist] they have faith that they are right. Atheism is a religion whether you like it or not. The difference between you and I is that I have faith in the Lord of heaven and earth and you have a faith that He doesn't exist.
'Knapp, you are seriously misinformed. Again, I will dismantle and exploit your ignorant and erroneous views - not because I "enjoy refuting everything" - but because if you feel it's your duty to pass-off and propagate your "faith" as Universal Truth, then in turn, it is MY duty to see to it that you can substantiate that claim.
Well, both interestingly, and amusingly, we have your own admission that you do not have any such substantiation. Here, again, are your words:
David Knapp: Let's be honest, to believe in something that we cannot really prove is to have a faith.[bold added]
To my understanding, we have your unequivocal admission that you do not have enough evidence, and/or, you don't have the type of evidence needed to substantiate your beliefs, which, also by your own admission, amounts to "faith".
Point-by-point, here we go......
You...First I want to say to everyone that no matter what I say you will not believe or understand because you enjoy refuting everything.
I "enjoying refuting everything". STRAWMAN argument. I "enjoy" no such thing.
You...I suppose that is okay because we are human after-all but in the end it is futile.
Irrelevant conclusion. What does being "human" have to do with my rejection of what you admittedly cannot show me to be true? I mean, likewise, you are "human", and yes, for a Muslim to get you to believe in "Allah" is likely "futile". So?
'Did you get that, 'Knapp??? SO WHAT???
Next, you say...Let's be honest, to believe in something that we cannot really prove is to have a faith.
Yes, thank you. We've covered this much, above......and also, about a bazillion times prior to this. You, the Theist, have "a faith". Yes, similar to Mormons; similar to Muslims; similar to myriad other "faiths" that oppose yours.
Again - and loosely assuming that you'll actually pay attention to anything that's being said to you - with "faith", ANYTHING conceivable then becomes "possible", because, AGAIN, "faith" doesn't require evidence.'Get it? Duh.
You...When I say that I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God I have faith that this is true.
Assuming "God" exists, yes, we're perfectly aware of what you believe, and the reasons you believe it. That disclosure is totally redundant, unnecessary, and frankly, annoying. Notwithstanding, I believed it for 2/3rds of my life, for similar reasons. I CHANGED my mind. Get over it, or get evidence.
You...When somebody claims to be an [atheist] they have faith that they are right. Atheism is a religion whether you like it or not.
"Atheism" is NOT a "claim", you insipid &*%$#. Please stop getting your information from your own side. I simply don't believe that any "Gods" exist. I am not "claiming" that NO gods exist. 'Understand the difference?
Now, I do, however, claim that concepts that fail to align with logic do not/cannot exist. For example: "married bachelors" do not/cannot exist. Likewise, a being - ANY being - who is claimed to be both ALL-knowing, and ALL-powerful, cannot logically exist. That would include your biblegod. Mind you, I wasn't the one who gave your 'divine-babysitter-in-the-sky' its attributes. Either it did, or early Christians did. Thus, your problem should be with them; not me.
You...The difference between you and I is that I have faith in the Lord of heaven and earth and you have a faith that He doesn't exist.
No. The difference between belief and NO belief, is that the latter does not require evidence, nor "faith", nor anything involving religious devotion, whatsoever. If I'm wrong, then please oblige me on the following:
Please delineate, in clear terms, how you employ "faith", and/or "religion", in denying that "Muhammad" was the one True Prophet of "God". In fact, try to add up all the time you've spent lacking belief in "Islam", and I'll wager that over your lifetime it hasn't amounted to over 2 minutes.
That is a direct challenge. And remember, be HONEST. After all, bearing false witness is a "sin", which evidently makes your eyes bleed. BOO!
No, I don't believe in Jesus because I don't see anything of value coming from someone who might have existed nearly 2,000 years ago but (if he lived at all) is now dead, dead, dead.
Everything of social or personal value in the Gospel message was said far earlier and far, far better by sages from other philosophical traditions such as Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism and Jainism.
And the rest of the "message", such as substitutionary atonement and Original Sin and the eschatology of Revelation, is pure excrement that continues to poison lives worldwide.
"Man God is good and His Word is truth."
Prove that your god exists. While you're at it, you can also explain the alleged "good" in drowning the planet and ordering the genocide of the Amalekite people.
"Christianity is NOT here to enslave people or control societies."
Too. Fucking. Late. Christianity already did it, many times, to the pain and detriment of innumerable cultures. Christianity owes a huge debt to the people that it has dispossessed.
"I would love to tell you of many more things that are happening in our current society that is paving the way for "end time" events--"
You think the "end time" is a good thing?
You, sir or madam, are sick. Morally bankrupt, too. You are a mindless believer-drone unwilling or unable to challenge emerging situations that could endanger all life on earth because they might delay your precious Second Coming and deprive you of your comfy chair in Heaven.
Go away.
Robert Beckford
Who Wrote The Bible?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=suseKsLEWKo
Meranda,
This documentary on "Who wrote the bible" was excellent !!
I'm not sure if our WM has posted this video before, but I sure think it should be; if it hasn't been already.
Anyone considering watching this video, be prepared with your popcorn and drink, as it's quite a long one.
ATF (Who wants to say THANKS to Meranda for that great find!!)
“First I want to say to everyone that no matter what I say you will not believe or understand because you enjoy refuting everything”
Enjoy refuting? No. Think about my beliefs? Yes.
“Let's be honest, to believe in something that we cannot really prove is to have a faith.”
I’m glad you pointed this out. The problem with the bible after realising you can’t prove it, is realising you can disprove it. The ideals of god are twisted, and for a god who desires people to follow him in love he sure seems to enjoy giving Satan reign over the earth... and leaving us to fend for ourselves with an irrational, illogical, contradictory book.
Irrational/Illogical: God went to so much effort to flood the earth by doing so many miracles just to keep the boat floating, just to get the animals inside, to create a totally ridiculous story that nobody can ever prove happened. Why didn’t he just do it the way he did it in 1919 and kill off twenty million people off with Spanish influenza for no foreseeable good purpose?
Contradictory: God tells us not to kill. He then proceeds to flood the world, and destroy all civilisation in the promised land. Not out of self defence, but out of spite. Irony?
“When I say that I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God I have faith that this is true”
It is such a shame I don’t share your optimism.
“Atheism is a religion whether you like it or not.”
I’d like to know what you base your statement on. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, it is not a belief that there are no gods.
“When somebody claims to be an [atheist] they have faith that they are right”
This is a blatant lie. When I claim to be an atheist, I have found inconsistencies in your religion that prove you *wrong* until you can justify those inconsistencies to a reasonable level.
“The difference between you and I is that I have faith in the Lord of heaven and earth and you have a faith that He doesn't exist.”
There is no proof to tell me that god exists, so how is it that I need faith to tell you that I’m atheist. I need no more faith to be an atheist than I need skill to not play chess.
Christians! Atheism isn’t a belief. It’s a *lack* of belief, nothing else. This is really something you need to get through your thick skulls.
I can't let one comment go by though. . .
"for a god who desires people to follow him in love he sure seems to enjoy giving Satan reign over the earth." Sorry. that's naive thinking. I don't know how old you are or if you have your own children but we all do that: We care for and love our children but we release them into the world to do what they will - and there's a lot of bad stuff out there to hurt and destroy people. God's no different in that respect. It's about having the choice - to believe or not to believe.
There are somethings in the bible that cannot be proven one way or the other. Some things can be proven to be true and some things don't wash with what we know. All that proves is what we already know - human beings put pen to paper - it wasn't etched in stone by the finger of god. And some of the stories were (according to Jewish tradition) carried for thousands of years as oral history before being written down. Gee, I think that there might be some "mistakes" in there. call me crazy but hey. . we're only human.
S.H., When I was 18 I did what you're doing. Like muttmutt, I've experienced things that demand an explanation that cannot be given by simple science. In my case, I used those experiences (and there were several years of them) and returned to Christianity - but not the Christianity I was involved with before my "departure."
Everyone needs to make decisions in life and sometimes our way of thinking changes. If it doesn't change, it proves we are rigid, inflexible beings who do not know how to adapt and will pass the way of the dinosaurs. I tell lots of church groups that very thing. But it's true for all of us in all our thinking - Christian, non-Christian, atheist, pagan, seeker. We need to periodically re-evaluate ourselves and see if our thinking matches our actions. I dare say that most people in pews on Sunday morning don't do that. In fact you've given me a great title for my next blog on the subject.
Just keep re-accessing things over time and see where you end up. I did - for more than 50 years. And where I am now is not where I woudl have figured myself to be even 20 years ago.
Peace!
to the rest: I will agree with you all that atheism is not a faith. I think when Christians say that then they're assuming the atheist believes the theory of evolution. I guess they're not distinguishing the difference. Can we agree that atheists agree with the theory of evolution which is an unproven science and requires some level of faith to believe? We haven't agreed on much so far but maybe on that we can. :)
Boomslang: No I was not referring to morality. I was referring to current events and biblical prophecy. The fact that many "christians" don't know their Bible well enough for there to be clarity on morals in the body of Christ does not mean the Bible is not clear. It means these proclaimed "christians" don't know the Bible. Also, I did not intend to assert that if you did not agree with me that you weren't thinking clearly. I was just trying to tie current events to Bible prophecy and provide clarity in that regard--my apologies. Prove that there's a God with physical evidence? If I could do that would this site exist? We are talking about faith here. I tried to show prophetic biblical consistencies between the events of our day and the bible but you have rejected those. You've called them "strawman arguments" and "bare assertions" these terms mean the same thing. I argue that you are incorrect. I argue that there are world leaders pulling strings behind the scenes that are bringing about their one-world government. These events are occurring exactly how we should expect them to occur if in fact the "end times" prophecies are correct. Referring to your scenario you said "think about it (if at all possible)"--okay...it didn't take much thought. First, God is not in our realm of time, He's not restricted by time. Second, an omniscient being, (God) can certainly know that he will intervene on one's behalf. It doesn't mean He didn't know the future, it means He knew the future, and He knew He would be intervening, He's not changing anything He didn't already have planned.
astreja: I won't waste space/time giving you biblical answers concerning God's judgment that as an exchristian you probably already know. And again, "christianity" is not God, the things that PEOPLE do in the name of christianity often do not represent God (such as the crusades). Also, the fact that I would love to discuss something does not mean that I love to see that thing take place. The "end times" subject is not a joke and I do not take pleasure in considering the many horrible things that are to come. But if I can use facts from today and show in the Bible how these things must come to pass to fulfill prophecy then yes, I would LOVE to discuss. That makes me morally bankrupt? Why would a christian be excited about considering other christians being slaughtered for their faith. Remember, while I do believe there will be a "rapture" I know that it will only occur before the Tribulation period--which doesn't begin until the anti-christ signs the false peace covenant with Israel. There can certainly be persecution against christians up to that point. No, I take no pleasure in that, nor did I demonstrate any. Also which emerging situations are threatening all life on earth and are delaying Christ's return? Not sure where that came from or even what you're referring to...maybe I'll go away after you explain. :)
spakkeh: Let me have it! Everyone else has! Sorry for my lack of paragraphs; I'll forgive your comma use. Has a christian ever told you that God was not a God of judgment? If you create a planet you can do with it as you please. If the life on your planet doesn't do what you want, then feel free to send any calamity of your choosing to "persuade" your planet's life an opportunity to get right with you.
Until you prove that your god actually exists, the "Christianity is not God" argument is so much hand-waving. Your hypothetical god is represented on this earth only by people who profess belief.
The very fact that Christianity has caused grievous harm on this planet, coupled with the fact that your purported god did nothing to stop the abuses committed by believers, shows that Christianity is capable of inspiring people to act like vicious bastards. For that reason alone I will not be in the least bit sad to see it fade away into history.
"But if I can use facts from today and show in the Bible how these things must come to pass to fulfill prophecy..."
Are you familiar with the concept of a self-fulfilling prophesy? If people believe that something is due to happen, or must happen, they frequently participate in making it happen.
"Also which emerging situations are threatening all life on earth..."
Religious zealotry, wars being waged in the names of various imaginary gods.
Science education being hijacked by superstitious people, endangering our future by robbing future scientists of a proper education.
People shrugging when they hear of things like famines, genocides and global warming because they think the Rapture is going to happen Any Day Now.
In a more general sense... People with unverifiable beliefs hoping for a reward in Heaven and letting Earth go to hell in a handbasket because they don't think it's their "real" life. *shudder*
Huh? I fail to grasp how the general acceptance or rejection of ANY scientific theories compares in any way to mystical beliefs that there are invisible, immaterial, magical entities floating around in the atmosphere.
Let's say that evolution is false. If evolution is false, that doesn't mean Christianity is true. And regardless of the relative merits of any of the myriad of scientific theories available, none threaten to keep human beings alive for all eternity in a horrific torture chamber.
If there were a sovereign God, and she did create the world, wouldn't that give her the right to do whatever she wanted with that world?
Yes.
Would she have the right to eternally torment and torture the people she created for not believing and obeying her specially created religion?
Yes.
Is torturing people ever considered a good thing to do?
No.
Is punishing people forever and ever and ever, for temporal crimes, without even the hint of a possibility of rehabilitation, parole, or time off for good behavior, a good example of justice?
No. It's a primitive, sick version of justice.
Is your version of "god" good?
No.
webmdave: Sir why are you arguing a point that I said I agreed with you on? If you read and retained what I wrote then you noticed that I said "I guess they're not distinguishing the difference" (between atheism/evolution). Again, my point was NOT that if evolution is false that God must be real; (that's an argument from personal incredulity, right?) it was that evolution requires faith and some christians confuse the atheist with the evolutionist...thus assuming the atheist has a faith in something. They are not distinguishing the difference. You asked, "Is torture ever considered a good thing to do?" Well...our government seems to think so. :) That might have been a cheap shot but it's true. Your definition of good is based on your opinion, because obviously many people think that torture is good. So, back to your female god, if she is the creator...then her opinion of what is good is the opinion that matters--it doesn't make her sick and primitive it makes you unable to accept her nature. My God does not think it is good that sinners must spend eternity in hell--that's why He sent Jesus...but hey, you know all about that already. So, I'm back to my theory that (besides PHYSICAL evidence) many atheists are rejecting God because they can't accept that a loving God would allow punishment--it's just too inconsistent with who He claims to be, (in your opinion), thus He is not real.
All: I kept seeing your promotions for "The God Delusion"--you guys are obsessed with this militant atheist! It took me only a few minutes to find atheists who are removing themselves from Dawkins, and of course there are countless rebuttles to his book that I'm sure none of you in your "free-thinking" quest for "truth" have taken the time to read. If there are people who have left the "Christian" faith SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THAT BOOK then I'm convinced that they were looking for an excuse to leave the faith anyway. When you read an honest critique of that book you may be less likely to promote.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XaL7CkQaQpU&feature=related
-Couldn't get a link created....bah.
I was taking issue with this: “Can we agree that atheists agree with the theory of evolution which is an unproven science and requires some level of faith to believe?”
No. It isn’t “unproven” and it takes no faith to study and attempt to understand the claims of science. It does, however, take a considerable amount of “faith” to believe in an invisible, unverifiable goddess with an extremely bad temper and a Bronze-Age definition of justice.
You see, Istill…, the point of your god’s justice is retributive punishment.
I still wrote, “So, back to your female god, if she is the creator...then her opinion of what is good is the opinion that matters--it doesn't make her sick and primitive it makes you unable to accept her nature.”
So that means it is good to retributively punish lawbreakers with the most heinous torture imaginable. The death penalty is out, but everlasting horror is in! Praise the Lord!
No, Istill…, I cannot accept that a monster that would keep billions of human beings alive and torture them for all eternity for the heinous crime of not believing she exists.
We would expect that a god’s ways would not be our ways, but it is reasonable to expect that a god’s ways would at least be superior to our ways. Your god is a shallow, unimaginative, vindictive, petty, dictator when it comes to justice. It’s comprehension of right and wrong is underdeveloped and not fitting of a god.
Further, the whole idea of salvation is nothing more than a bribe with a threat. “Accept my great love-gift or I’ll make sure you suffer forever” isn’t the typical sales pitch one is accustomed to falling for. In fact, that kind of “gift” sounds more like something offered by a serial rapist: “Love me or I’ll slit your throat. It’s your free choice. If you bleed out, it won’t be anyone’s fault but your own.”
“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter.” – Thomas Paine, Chapter III of “The Age of Reason.”
Dear istillbelieve,
When/if time permits, feel free to share your expert perspective on failed biblical "Prophecies". Please tell me why I shouldn't expect True "perfection"; and True "omniscience"; and revelation of a "Divine" nature, to yield a 100% success rate. 'Listening.
In the mean time, here are just a few failed "Prophecies" for you to mull over:
Isaiah 17:1-2
"An oracle concerning Damascus. See, Damascus will cease to be a city, and will become a heap of ruins. Her towns will be deserted forever..."
Status: Failed.
Ezekiel 29:8-12
"thus says the Lord God..and the land of Egypt shall be a desolation and a waste...no foot of man shall pass through it and no foot of beast shall past through it; it shall be uninhabited for forty years. And I will make the city of Egypt a desolation in the midst of desolated countries; and her cities shall be desolated forty years... I will scatter Egyptian among the nations, and disperse them through the countries."
Status: Failed.
My next question pertains to the biblical "Prophecy" that there will be apostates in the "end times". The problem should be obvious, but in case it's not---skeptics, "back-sliders", nonbelievers, "apostates", etc., etc., are actually necessary in the fulfullment of said "Prophecy". 'See the problem?
You continue....The fact that many "christians" don't know their Bible well enough for there to be clarity on morals in the body of Christ does not mean the Bible is not clear. It means these proclaimed "christians" don't know the Bible.
Oh, goodness gracious! Okay, thanks-so-much for hammering my entire point on home!
I have a question for you:
What is the distinction/difference between a "proclaimed christian" and a "christian"? Notice that I ask the question, rhetorically. Why?.... because the answer is that there IS NOT one drop of f%cking difference; there IS NO distinction, whatsoever.
Listen closely, and tell me if you agree with this statement: No second or third party gets to determine if "istillbelieve" is a "True Christian", or not.
If the above is true, then by the same consideration, "istillbelieve" doesn't get to determine if other people are "True Christians", or not. You cannot have it both ways. In other words, putting quotes around the title "Christian", or trying to make a distinction by putting the word "proclaimed" ahead of the word Christian, is totally redundant, and frankly, just silly. It suggests that there are "false Christians"...i.e...Christians who don't believe they are "Christian". Again, silly.
The bible is claimed to be parable, poetic, metaphor, symbolic, and even literal in places. My point, again, is that due to the aforementioned, said book will never, in your wildest dreams, be understood precisely the same way by any two bible-believing denominations/sects. While true, Christians may agree on some "essentials"..i.e..Jesus saves!!"..and "God is love!!", etc..they will NEVER agree on "morality", and the reason for that, is simply because it boils down to what each person believes; NOT what the bible "says". For instance, if Shirley Phelps and her inbred "congregation"(family) wanted to start killing all non-christians tomorrow, she could justify it with the bible! (ref: Deuteronomy) If the KKK wanted to buy/sell/trade some "niggers"?..JUSTIFIED!
istillbelieve...Also, I did not intend to assert that if you did not agree with me that you weren't thinking clearly. I was just trying to tie current events to Bible prophecy and provide clarity in that regard---my apologies.
Apology accepted. Attempt at clarification? Failed.
istillbelieve...Prove that there's a God with physical evidence? If I could do that would this site exist? We are talking about faith here. I tried to show prophetic biblical consistencies between the events of our day and the bible but you have rejected those.
Yes, rejected. And guess what?...I am justified in rejecting them, because I see no consistancy, whatsoever, in the outcome. What I see, is a combination of the rewriting of history, and the shoe-horning of current events into past, extremely vague, extremely ambiguous, "holy text".
istillbelieve...You've called them "strawman arguments" and "bare assertions" these terms mean the same thing.
I don't necessarily agree, but either way, how does that help your position?
istillbelieve...I argue that you are incorrect.
Right, hence, "i-still-believe"? 'Got it. Of course, belief and reality are not mutually inclusive, but I'm sure you know that, right?
istillbelieve...I argue that there are world leaders pulling strings behind the scenes that are bringing about their one-world government. These events are occurring exactly how we should expect them to occur if in fact the "end times" prophecies are correct.
First and foremost, these "events" are occuring "exactly how we should expect them to occur", if there is no Divine "pie-in-the-sky" watching over its creation; if there is no "Perfect" being revealing "Perfect" answers to its "believers". Common sense, plus a review of history, is all one needs to "predict" that people will have problems with their enemies, and that mankind seeks to dominate others.
istillbelieve...Referring to your scenario you said "think about it (if at all possible)"--okay...it didn't take much thought. First, God is not in our realm of time, He's not restricted by time.
What "God"? And seriously, am I expected to be impressed when a person comes along and tries to define their respective deity in terms of what it doesn't do? Let's see how that works:
Dear istillbelieve,
Count Chocula DOES NOT care if you eat Frosted Flakes; he gives you free will to choose, because he DOES NOT hate the traitor!
Convinced?
istillbelieve continues...Second, an omniscient being, (God) can certainly know that he will intervene on one's behalf. It doesn't mean He didn't know the future, it means He knew the future, and He knew He would be intervening, He's not changing anything He didn't already have planned.
You are NOT listening.
Okay, once more:
If "God" knows it will intervene in someone's life, say, at 1:00 PM on June 9th, 4089. Then he KNOWS it. There is nothing to contemplate; there is nothing to deliberate on---the decision is made, based again, on "God's" alleged knowledge of all future events.
When that time comes to pass, if "God" changes its mind at the last second, for instance, if it comtemplates a situation and decides to let a child live, instead of "calling him/her home" as orginally planned, then logic says that "God" did NOT know the future to begin with. 'Get it?
Simultanious "omniscience"/"free will" is an impossible concept.
istillbelieve...Evolution IS an unproven science...it's a theory right?
This - I'm sorry - is pathetic. You are exploiting your own ignorance. If you find it an "insult", so be it--perhaps it'll drive you to learn about Evolution from credible sources, instead of apologetic websites and the like. Yes, Evolution is "only a theory"--just like electromagnetic theory is "only a theory"; just like Atomic Theory is "only a theory". FYI, the "theory" part is simply the explanation behind each thing.
Notwithstanding, did you know that "creation" is neither fact, nor theory? "GOD DID IT!!!" isn't a "theory"; it explains nothing.
istillbelieve, to Astreja...Did you forget that atheists have done evil things in the name of atheism?
Not-to-shockingly, you have seriously misrepresented Atheism.
These people did what they did, not because of the non-belief in "God", but because they attempted to be "God", and by association, attempted to claim that they had a monopoly on objective morality, the same way Theists insist that their respective "gods" have the same.
istillbelieve, to Astreja: your argument of a self fullfilling prophecy could hold water if Christians were in control of world events--Christians are not the ones pulling the strings.
Right, biblegod is presumably "pulling the strings", and in that case, we are puppets, and our "free will" is an illusion.
Repeat: "omniscience" and "free will" are mutually incompatible.
Wrong.
What I mean is, to say something is a "theory" is not to say it is just a guess that needs faith, or that it is "unproven." Take for instance, the "Theory of Gravity." You wouldn't suggest that it takes any faith to accept the reality of gravity even though it's only explained by a mere scientific theory, would you?
From Wikipedia: "In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable."
The Theory of Evolution does not address the origin of life on Earth. Evolution is about the development, mutation, and proliferation of various species of life on Earth. An observation of Evolution would be that Apes and Humans share a remarkable 98% of the same DNA.
The beginning of life is covered under another discipline called Abiogenesis. Christians frequently confuse the two sciences, arguing from a foundation of misunderstanding, ignorance, and religious apologetic rhetoric.
There are many things science can't tell us about the universe yet, or may be ever. It is a really big universe. But just because we don't know all the answers doesn't mean there is any reason to think a magical deity who is ready to roast most of humanity in a horrific bottomless pit of torment actually exists.
As science as progressed, god has retreated. God was once thought responsible for lightning, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes eruptions, plague, drought, pestilence, sickness, health, famine, plenty, pregnancy, bareness, etc. As we learn more about the natural world, the magical world of god fades into the myths of ancient men and women. Now god has retreated all the way back to the origin of life. Hope and pray we are never able to recreate the beginning of life in a lab. Your god will have to make another retreat.
You have a number of common misconceptions about what a "theory" is and what it means to accept it. I'll elaborate below.
istillbelieve: "Evolution IS an unproven science...it's a theory right?"
ALL science is "unproven", since ALL science is provisional. That is, any conclusion reached by science can be overturned or modified if new information casts doubt on it. The label "theory" has nothing at all to do with being "unproven". What it connotes is an explanation that fits the available facts, makes predictions, and has thus far survived all attempts at falsification.
istillbelieve: "It's taught as the most ACCEPTABLE explanation that science can give as to the origin of human life--but there is no such evidence that has proven it as fact."
No, it's the most factually supported explanation available to date. It has made thousands of detailed predictions that have been verified through genomics and biochemistry. That's the best any theory can do. So, it's one of the more robust ideas to emerge from science; it's not in any danger of being toppled any time soon.
istillbelieve: "Science is limited to that which can be physically proven, right?"
No. I hope you see how inappropriate the word "proven" is now. Let me offer a rephrasing of your statement: Science is limited to that which admits objective evidence. See the difference?
istillbelieve: "Under that rule can science agree that 'love' exists? I don't think it can..."
Science has explained much regarding our emotions--even very complicated emotions such as "love" (which has numerous varieties). If you study evolutionary psychology, you'll discover that human emotions are not nearly as mysterious as you seem to suggest.
istillbelieve: "...I'm saying science by it's very nature can't recognize EVERYTHING that exists."
If there is objective evidence for it, then yes, science can "recognize" it. If there is no evidence, science remains silent about it.
istillbelieve: "...that's [eternal damnation] been the basis of most atheists arguments..."
No, I think that's a very poor characterization. While I think the majority of atheists see eternal damnation as a crude and reprehensible man-made fiction, and it may have even been a catalyst to start one questioning whether Christianity is true, I'd wager that that idea has produced very few apostates by itself. I think it is far more common for people to reject Christianity after seeking substantive evidence for it and finding none.
istillbelieve: "You [webmdave] have your perception of what a 'god' should be, the God of the Bible does not fit and thus you've dismissed Him as God. I comple