Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have often wondered (like with my 'deconversion') whether I've had some of these experiences that the Believers present as convincing proof (angelic voices, a presence in the head that I talk to, an inability to get out of bed for a while) but have simply not brought a religious belief to them. I know I have heard many claims that they were a staunch and convinced atheist before this revelation came out of the blue, but I believe that a gradual belief (or indeed a gradual disbelief) can build up until some minor thing makes the believer (or deconvert) realise it.
I have read a deconversion -story of someone who was giving an A course at the time he was deconverting. Just imagine how it would come across if it was an atheist giving atheist lectures all the time they were converting.
That's aside from the retrospective revision of the account. I (together with a couple of others) have watched someone - who wanted to justify their own screw -up by blaming it on others - revise their story several times when fatal flaws in the story were pointed out. It makes me think both of Mystic's revisions of his theory when I came up with some objections (He never said a Word about Maitreya -let alone being a Buddhist - until I pointed out that his spiritual fossil record - what I call the learning -curve theory - should have had Buddhism after Christianity and Islam before rather than the other way around) and Lee Strobel's claim to have been converted from atheism by Investigating the resurrection (1) that showed no a single atheist counter argument - just referencing the apologetics of the believers. Just as i so often see that those who claim to have been staunch and vociferous atheists "Like You... " until.... but don't seem to recall any of the arguments they would have used, or even how they would (as an atheist) have thought at the time. In fact not to put to fine a point on it, Lying for Jesus is ok.
(1) I read with near despair a post yet again making the claim that the resurrection is reliable eyewitness, attested to by Paul. I do hope that my argument will filter out into the public domain, showing that it is a story revised several times to suit the teller and the Gospel -account would not stand up in a law court for fifteen minutes of cross -examination and that dismissal on the grounds that 'miracles don't happen' is not even needed.
The urban myth that the gospels are broadly reliable eyewitness has to go and be replaced by the understanding that they are Christian fabrications. based possibly on a real event, but a total rewrite of the story nevertheless, and not even Paul's 'gentile friendly messianic Judaism' was like what Christianity later was turned into.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-24-2020 at 08:12 AM..
This is you ruling that your beliefs are exempt from testing. It appears that nothing is going to get you to consider for a second the possibility that your experience was anything other than how you have decided to interpret it.
You provide no counter arguments and are relying on characterization of my points rather than confronting them. The fair conclusion is that you are afraid of the possible consequences of alternative interpretations of your experience. And I think we all "get" that.
We all get that he doesn't get it and doesn't want to. In fact the illusions or delusions of Fatima or the rest do indeed nullify his claims in that they provide an alternative explanation to his claim that they reveals a reality. In fact his false claims, debunked explanations and ongoing denial pretty much shows everyone (other than those disciples who, starting out as anti atheists for political reasons (red flag ) latched onto Mystic's synthesis as the only explanatory hypothesis for God (believers go no further than a fairy -tale with a magic wand) and used that to debunk atheism while not becoming theist, though Gldnrule (having come a cropper over 'God has to be intelligent' tried to use Pantheism as a Theism that doesn't actually need a Thei...and we have all watched with amusement and bemusement, Arach's attempt to make everything 'alive',with a view to calling Everything "God" I have not the slightest doubt.
stop reading the tea leaves and let what is typed about you settle in for a day or two.
thats a good one last ... avoid whatever you want.
Something more, not more deities" beats "stop religion in the united states at all cost" when starting all religion/spirituality discussions using evidence.
oh right, thats boring, it hurts our atheist cause.
And somehow we are back with the anti - atheist atheists (since they don't have a Theism to defend) bashing and bashing at atheists and way off -topic, too. It is so tempting to clamp down on these derails, but you know they'd scream censorship, persecution, cattle trucks..
And somehow we are back with the anti - atheist atheists (since they don't have a Theism to defend) bashing and bashing at atheists and way off -topic, too. It is so tempting to clamp down on these derails, but you know they'd scream censorship, persecution, cattle trucks..
not bashing atheist trans. there you go again, you change what I actually say and then tell nme i am wrong based on what you say I said.
oh right, thats why you are hiding. You build walls to keep people in trans, never forget that. that's where this cowboy differs from you and why you are so afraid of me.
I'm
You really don't get it. There are no claims about Fatima or the Catholic church that nullify my experiences.
Clearly he does get it. You do not, despite us having explained this before. Those experiences do not nullify your experience for you, but they nullify your experience for us. We should no more believe your experience than those of Fatima or the Kakerlake man because we can not verify those experiences as valid, and have no reason to believe them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your simplistic binary conclusions are bogus. You need to read my posts more rigorously than you do.
I get it phet, you are just bored with it. when faced with a more logical approach than fight religion at all cost by any means necessary, you call it "I am bored"
its a great come back that your fellow anti-god-ers will jump all over.
how the universe works is independent of your boredom. You are bored of determining the best conclusions we have about the universe to start any line of logic for a god belief. You are bored that I call you a hypocrite in that you have non science claims but rail on others. You are bored with that I question how you base you stances on "but I don't tell others my beliefs" and not actual evidence.
"I am bored" is an excellent avoidance tactic ... don't address what is said ... say "I am bored" and run away.
I even laughed when I read it.
No Arach. I'm literally bored with your posts about it. There has been no real evolution on the topic from you since you started with it. Just rehash, rehash, rehash. Occasionally some other poster will say something a bit intriguing about it, which is why I occasionally might add something.
I told you -- you're welcome to be enthralled with the topic. That doesn't mean everyone else will be. It's very much like when I would visit a student's home and the parents would ask if I would like to see some videos of the kid's piano recitals. It was thrilling for them, boring for me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
until.... but don't seem to recall any of the arguments they would have used, or even how they would (as an atheist) have thought at the time. In fact not to put to fine a point on it, Lying for Jesus is ok. 
