CARM Founder's Daughter Turns To Atheism (Jehovah's Witness, Mormonism, Revelations, agnostics)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Freak80

Hmmmm how did the discussion go from CARM founder's daughter to Indiana Jones (snakes and archeology?)

It evolved. This happens when the original topic is talked out and a chance side -remark becomes a debate. It goes on until the Moderators catch up with us.

Yeah..I'd say it was diverted by jeffbase p 12 responding to why Rachel deconverted with a series of reasons why the Bible is true or the like.

[jeffbase40]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

It evolved. This happens when the original topic is talked out and a chance side -remark becomes a debate. It goes on until the Moderators catch up with us.

Yeah..I'd say it was diverted by jeffbase p 12 responding to why Rachel deconverted with a series of reasons why the Bible is true or the like.

Umm no, I jumped in way before page 12 giving my theory from a spiritual as to how Rachel deconverted. It was your side who pushed it into a defending the Bible direction.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Umm no, I jumped in way before page 12 giving my theory from a spiritual as to how Rachel deconverted. It was your side who pushed it into a defending the Bible direction.

If so I apologize, it was all our fault. sue us.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

You can also call the Bible a book of fiction, but that is a baseless assumption most likely rooted in an extremely negative biased perspective. You have ZERO proof for such a claim.

Nor is any required. If we are to treat the Bible as anything but fiction then it is up to those making that claim to support it. Something you have not just failed to do in the past, but consistently avoided the posts of anyone who suggests you might attempt it.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

God is real and forever.

Have you found yet any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to support this claim? Because thus far you have been 100% consistent in failing to provide a single shred of any.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Nothing I say with convince you

You do not know that. Actual evidence convinces me _every time_. Simply declaring things to be true by fiat however, and attempting to support those declarations by mere consistent repetition of them.... fails to convince me, _every time_.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

As far as I know, human beings are the only species to commit suicide, actually going against an evolutionary need to survive and live. How do you explain that one logically?

Very easily. We are the only species that contemplates the self and the future.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

on some level, yes we do have the accept the possibility of everything.

And we do. I am not personally aware of a single atheist who has EVER rejected the possibility of there being a god, for example. Not one. There might be some if you really trawl around trying to find one, but I have yet to meet one or hear of one.

I am included in this. The God Hypothesis is just as valid as any other hypothesis that might careen into the imagination of the deep thinker. It is entirely _possible_ there is such an entity as you would describe it.

But recognizing and acknowledging the possibility that a hypothesis could be true, is many miles away from substantiating or lending credence to it in ANY way. Something you have consistently failed to even attempt, let alone achieve.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

We do have numerous evidences

Then present them sometime.

[quote=jeffbase40;37755881Archaeology lends support to the Bible.[/QUOTE]

No, it does not. And I have explained to you numerous times why, and you have simply run away each and every time, only to pop up later making the exact same claim. ALL archaeology does is show that SOME of the locations mentioned in the bible actually existed in reality. But this is NOT remarkably in ANY way because this is very often true of fiction. 2000 years from now for example your archaeology will "lend support" the Bourne Identity books and the James Bond books. Because the places, buildings, businesses, many of the people, and much more mentioned in those works of fiction did (and do) exist.

[quote=jeffbase40;37755881A person becoming saved is an evidence.[/QUOTE]

How so? What do you mean here? Elaborate please. As far as I know so far the word "saved" simply means "Was converted to what I personally believe to be the correct religion". How is that evidence of anything except your bias, and their conversion?

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Notice how this thought of hers comes across as if someone is talking to her.

Notice however how the majority of our internal though process is conducted as an internal dialogue. If you want to tack on fantasy notions of god and satan by anthropomorphism of various aspects of the human thought process, then so be it, but it remains fantasy all the same.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Earlier in the article, she admitted that belief in no God also created lots of questions and problems

Of course it does. She once thought she had an explanation for her own existence. Now she does not. That is of course a scary problem and proposition for many people. She is no longer stuffing fantasy like cotton wool into the gaps in her knowledge, she has gaping holes in her view of the world and she wants them to be filled just as much as any of us do.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Just like you immediately dismiss my explanation.

No other choice. You have trotted out your "explanation" by fiat. You have not substantiated it in even the tiniest way. How can anyone do anything BUT dismiss it therefore? You appear to be under the mistaken and comical impression that an explanation gains worth merely for having been uttered. It does not work that way.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

The only thing you are proving here is that it is crazy to live your life completely by logic and reason.

Not really. It is certainly a lot less crazy than making up unsubstantiated nonsense and acting like it is true.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

If I have no proof that there is an afterlife then you equally have no proof that we turn into meaningless matter or energy when we die.

Yet the reality is that we have many evidences about how the brain and human consciousness works. While there is still MUCH to learn there, we can say one thing with confidence. At THIS time 100% of the evidence available to us links human consciousness, subjectivity and awareness to the brain. 0% of the evidence available to us at this time suggests a disconnect of any type exists or is possible between them.

So let us not pretend that the "After Life" v "No After Life" position are somehow equivalent or on a par with each other in some weird 50:50 way. Because it simply is not so. There is not just NO reason to think there is an after life at this time, there are numerous reasons to think there is NOT one. So it is clear where the claim lies on the probability spectrum and it is _not_ lying somewhere around the middle.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Even if there was dozens of eye witness records, you would remain unconvinced because you would say they could have been hallucinating or forced to write such things.

There are not just dozens but a MULTITUDE of eye witness records attesting to miracles performed by Sathya Sai Baba. Not testimonies in a book 2000 years ago either, but contemporary testimony by people still alive today. Yet I do not see you putting stock in them. You know EXACTLY how to treat eye witness accounts and testimony when they are not supporting your own biases. You simply turn off that reality check in your brain when it suits your agenda it seems.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Are you really saying that religion was NEVER supressed in the Soviet Union? Atheism became the banner ideology of Communism.

This is a lie that has been destroyed multiple times in the past, so get with the program. What happened there was not the suppression of religion, but the attempt to replace one religion with another. A state religion. They even had their own versions of witch trials and miracles.

Nothing that went on there bears ANY resemblance to what atheists in our society actually claim, supports, espouse and construct.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Science was the new god. Did it lead to a great period of enlightment and peace among men?

That is just tosh from you, the reality is that a true society of this form has never ACTUALLY been tried. A society based on logic and reason, free and open inquiry and a free and open press, democracy.

You find me a society that descended into famine, misery, dictatorship, shame or torture following the teachings of Lucritious, Democratus, Spinosa, Russel, Einstein, Jefferson, Thomas Paine then we have a level playing field and you can start pretending to have a point to make.

I am not aware of a SINGLE society that has suffered even a little from a break out of people being too reasonable. Show me one.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

High fiving the atheists? Really makes me wonder which side you are on.

The fact that you see it as "sides" in this way speaks volumes. This "with me or against me" mentality that alas punctuates your thinking and that of many of your theistic cohort. The "side" to be on is the side of truth and reason. The side of making up hypothesis and then rather than subscribing to them from the outset, attempt to verify them with actual arguments, evidence, data and reasoning while avoiding the fallacies. THAT is the "side" to be on. Try it sometime.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Snakes are evil. They only have one expression. Pissed off!

You really do value your anthropomorphism to a tee dont you?

[UsAll]

Say, I looked back at this thread that I myself had made 4 postings to in the more-distant past and a thought just crossed my mind that I'd like to particularly ask the Christian believers here who strongly objected to what Rachel Slick was reported to have done (such as past posters to this thread like Vizio, WayTruthandLife, Jeffbase40, and any others of similar leanings and outlook to them). I don't know for sure but I gather that most (if not all or nearly all) of said Christian believers posting strong objections on here to the OP's posting and to what Rachel Slick was reported to have done are likely Protestant conservative evangelical Christians (though there may be an exception here or there). The question(s) which crossed my mind which I'd like to put forth to said Christian believers who object to Rachel Slick having proclaimed to have rejected her fundamentalist-like Protestant Christian upbringing and become an atheist is:

Let's imagine that, instead of Rachel Slick rejecting Christianity alltogether to become a proclaimed atheist (or at least the type of Christianity she was reared in), she instead became a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon or a Christian Scientist or even became a liberal Christian (such as represented by the United Church of Christ or UCC in the United States). Would you still object or protest Rachel Slick having taken such a path and even say that she is not saved anymore because she now believes in "a false conception of Christ and Christianity and hence a false conception of what tenets, practices, and beliefs one's Christian faith should entail"? That is, would you still think that she is an apostate and hence not saved by her choosing another form of Christianity such as those mentioned above? Do C-D posters here such as those I named above (e.g., (Vizio, WayTruthandLife, Jeffbase40, and any others of like way-of-thinking to them) view Jehovah's Witnesses and/or Mormons and/or Christian Scientists and/or liberal Christians as "apostates" and hence among the "unsaved"? And so, would you say that you think that only your own version of Christianity is the correct one and any other or nearly any other subscription to another Christian-like religious school-of-thought is unacceptable for being considered to be "valid Christianity" to you?

As a corollary question, what about if Rachel Slick rejected her father's Calvinist outlook and instead embraced Roman Catholicism (i.e., conservative Catholicism? or even the views of the present Pope Francis [per year 2015], who seems to, at times, be somewhat leaning to being of a moderate-to-liberal outlook)? How would you feel about her choosing Catholicism instead?

For the edification of all of us, I'd appreciate it if you can find it in yourselves to answer and address these questions of mine. It would help us all understand what the dynamics of your particular way-of-thought are and hence what you view as "valid Christianity" (and therefore being among the "saved") versus "invalid" Christianity in your own view (and therefore being among the "unsaved").

Thank you for any willingness to address this set of interrelated questions as I stated it here.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by UsAll

Let's imagine that, instead of Rachel Slick rejecting Christianity alltogether to become a proclaimed atheist (or at least the type of Christianity she was reared in), she instead became a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon or a Christian Scientist or even became a liberal Christian (such as represented by the United Church of Christ or UCC in the United States).

Back in the day I would have thought it less egregious a problem if she at least retained belief in god. But as a conservative evangelical / fundamentalist, the further she got from my dogma the more I would think she were following after false gods or a false conception of my god or a reasonably accurate conception polluted with some form of worldiness and/or empty ritual in place of what I saw as a living, vital "relationship" with Christ.

We even condescendingly referred to Christians in mainline denominations as "weaker brothers in Christ".

My fundamentalist sister in law opined to my wife recently that I am just angry or bitter towards god because I misunderstood some trials he sent my way. My wife corrected her and said that, no, I simply re-evaluated my beliefs and changed them. However I suspect she will continue to prefer to believe that it is all a misunderstanding and that I will "come back" because in her mind there is something to "come back" TO and nothing to leave FOR.

I think this is the basic issue for fundamentalists ... it just doesn't compute and there is no way FOR it to compute so long as you are constrained by the relevant dogma.

[RonkonkomaNative]

Originally Posted by Vizio

Tacky, dude. Pretty tacky. How do you know she's telling the truth? But you are using this account (of which you have no way of verifying) to make statements regarding him and his parenting.

I'm sure NO kid has EVER made a false statement or alleged abuse that didn't actually happen regarding their parents, huh?

I have no doubt she is telling the truth. What makes you think she is lying?

I would trust her. I am sure if her story was full of good things to say about her father he would be putting her testimony on his web sight.

[overcastg4]

And yet the theistic lifestyle still shows the existence of God and its definition remains unchanged. So how did someone who was a part of the theistic lifestyle come to grow tenets on the existence of God that are partial to the conditions of the materialistic lifestyle?

Also, if the paths to God or of God cannot exist without God, how does materialism identify that someone converted from theism?

[mordant]

Originally Posted by overcastg4

And yet the theistic lifestyle still shows the existence of God and its definition remains unchanged.

The theistic lifestyle demonstrates that some people believe in one or more deities and choose to follow the associated dogma. It doesn't "show" or prove or demonstrate the existence of any deity, much less whichever one you are thinking about when you say such things.

Originally Posted by overcastg4

So how did someone who was a part of the theistic lifestyle come to grow tenets on the existence of God that are partial to the conditions of the materialistic lifestyle?

It's a matter of public record how she did, if you're talking about Slick's daughter. Read up on it.

Originally Posted by overcastg4

Also, if the paths to God or of God cannot exist without God, how does materialism identify that someone converted from theism?

If all you have to "evidence" the supernatural or gods is to seriously suggest that the existence of believers auto-validates the object of their belief, I suggest you go back to the drawing board and try again. By that logic, the mere existence of unbelievers invalidates the object they withhold belief from.

Theism is a belief position. To determine if a person is an atheist, one need only determine if their beliefs have changed in just one dimension -- from belief in one or more deities, to belief in zero deities.

Materialism doesn't identify anything, it is a view (philosophically speaking) that nothing but matter and energy and transitions among them actually exists. Most atheists are materialists, but not all. It is unhelpful to conflate the two, and arouses justified suspicion that you are trying to disparage atheism as "materialistic" in the non-philosophical sense of placing material possessions and physical comfort above spiritual concerns. Reducing yourself to guilt by association coupled with a muddled understanding of the things you're trying to associate, is, I'd hope, beneath you.

[UsAll]

Originally Posted by mordant

Back in the day I would have thought it less egregious a problem if she at least retained belief in god. But as a conservative evangelical / fundamentalist, the further she got from my dogma the more I would think she were following after false gods or a false conception of my god or a reasonably accurate conception polluted with some form of worldiness and/or empty ritual in place of what I saw as a living, vital "relationship" with Christ.

We even condescendingly referred to Christians in mainline denominations as "weaker brothers in Christ".

My fundamentalist sister in law opined to my wife recently that I am just angry or bitter towards god because I misunderstood some trials he sent my way. My wife corrected her and said that, no, I simply re-evaluated my beliefs and changed them. However I suspect she will continue to prefer to believe that it is all a misunderstanding and that I will "come back" because in her mind there is something to "come back" TO and nothing to leave FOR.

I think this is the basic issue for fundamentalists ... it just doesn't compute and there is no way FOR it to compute so long as you are constrained by the relevant dogma.

So, in your former capacity as a conservative evengelical/fundamentalist, what was your own view of those who proclaimed they were a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon? Did you still consider them to be "brother.and sisters in Christ (but of a somewhat different framework)?" Or were their different framing and outlooks on what faith in Christ and the Bible story entails and the conditions for salvation so very much a departure from your own sense of what was right and what was wrong that you viewed them as "apostates" and among "the unsaved"?

Note that, ff my sense of what being a Jehovah's Witness entails and then as well what being a Mormon entails are both correct, they each view themselves as the only ones who will be saved (i.e., that, in their thinking, no other ways-of-thinking that involve the character of Jesus Christ are valid but only their own set of tenets and narratives are valid for subscription to in order to be saved).