Why I Lost My Christian Faith (forgiveness, influence, translation, hell)
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.
the universe work the way it works. Just because some person is po-ed their child died doesn't mean I have to change how the universe works. I don't have to change how the universe works because some silly person thinks god saved their kid from an illness that kills millions.
That's the way atheists think, too. When something like that happens, it is natural to ask "Why". Not the method, but the reason. We think, there often isn't any reason. It's hard to accept, sometimes, but we think it is true.
But the mindset when you argue is putting yourself into the Godfaith -mindset so perfectly (it even looks instinctive) that it is 'theist -think' even if you are not a theist.
What's instinctive for me is not wanting to be biased, and so I try to understand theists in light of what they're saying rather than just what everyone is saying about them.
Quote:
The God -claim is without merit. The rejection of the claim is valid as the burden of proof is on the claimant - the God -believer.
In situations like that, yes. But I've not taken at aim at merely rejecting "the god -claim"; I've taken aim at those who oppose theism (which is only the belief in a god) and/or those who make the opposite claim (this being "There is no god").
Quote:
'God is a delusion' is a claim that is a hypothesis based on some quite convincing evidence. God is not a delusion (where it is in the human head} Is a claim and without merit.
So you assert. I've not seen one shred of evidence that theism is a false belief.
Quote:
Yes, some say that indoctrinating children with religion is 'Child abuse'. But you must see that child indoctrination being seen as a form of 'abuse' (I see it as abuse of adults, too) is Not the same as sexual abuse (for instance) of children with religion as an enabler and a cover. The religion itself in not the abuse.
Intellectually dishonest. To indoctrinate is to teach someone to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. This should be considered "child abuse" across the board (including teaching kids to accept strong atheism uncritically, I might add) or not at all. And yet, these so-called "free thinkers" specifically attack religion.
They also either:
a. perpetuate the stereotype that raising your child to be a theist is indoctrinating them
or b. recognize that it isn't necessarily indoctrination but refuse to bring that to light publicly in their speeches, books, etc.
Quote:
The (negative) evidence of anything intervening to make the world better
If you mean by "(negative) evidence" an absence of evidence, I reject that term completely. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And I'll also reiterate that it depends on who you ask, whether the world is being morally governed or not. Whereas some will readily agree "Nothing's being done!" others will protest and say karma is a powerful and very real force.
What's instinctive for me is not wanting to be biased, and so I try to understand theists in light of what they're saying rather than just what everyone is saying about them.
If you want to understand theists you're in the wrong forum. Go over to the Christianity forum and you'll get more wrong-headed theists thrown at you than you can stomach.
What's instinctive for me is not wanting to be biased, and so I try to understand theists in light of what they're saying rather than just what everyone is saying about them.
I don't care whether you are biased or not. A person can be as biased as hell, but if their argument is sound, that's all that matters. if their argument is unsound, they can be as middle ground as they like. They are still unsound.
Quote:
In situations like that, yes. But I've not taken at aim at merely rejecting "the god -claim"; I've taken aim at those who oppose theism (which is only the belief in a god) and/or those who make the opposite claim (this being "There is no god").
Those at whom you took aim can speak for themselves. I am speaking for myself, and so far I'm trouncing you, even if you ignore and deny it.
Quote:
So you assert. I've not seen one shred of evidence that theism is a false belief.
No, you haven't. This has mainly been arguing about ways of thinking and the morality argument. None of that addresses the evidence. Perhaps one day we can get around to that. In the meantime, the Bible is unreliable and that is the best evidence against Christianity that I know. We have touched on First cause and the problem of evil, and it has been explained that you have nothing but appeal to Faith - really.
Quote:
Intellectually dishonest. To indoctrinate is to teach someone to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. This should be considered "child abuse" across the board (including teaching kids to accept strong atheism uncritically, I might add) or not at all. And yet, these so-called "free thinkers" specifically attack religion.
If you think that atheism issues dogmatic statements as Religious indoctrination does, rather than explaining its' position against torrents of argument and denial, then you have no business calling yourself an atheist.
Quote:
They also either:
a. perpetuate the stereotype that raising your child to be a theist is indoctrinating them
or b. recognize that it isn't necessarily indoctrination but refuse to bring that to light publicly in their speeches, books, etc.
Well, we say it is, so the second point doesn't arise.
Quote:
If you mean by "(negative) evidence" an absence of evidence, I reject that term completely. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And I'll also reiterate that it depends on who you ask, whether the world is being morally governed or not. Whereas some will readily agree "Nothing's being done!" others will protest and say karma is a powerful and very real force.
I already explained 'absence of evidence', but you still have your fingers stuffed in your ears. Do you want me to instruct you in the matter again?
I don't care whether you are biased or not. A person can be as biased as hell, but if their argument is sound, that's all that matters. if their argument is unsound, they can be as middle ground as they like. They are still unsound.
Those at whom you took aim can speak for themselves. I am speaking for myself, and so far I'm trouncing you, even if you ignore and deny it.
The issue is WHO is qualified to assess the soundness and on what basis, certainly NOT you, Arq, despite your ubiquitous anal-sourced proclamations.
Quote:
No, you haven't. This has mainly been arguing about ways of thinking and the morality argument. None of that addresses the evidence. Perhaps one day we can get around to that. In the meantime, the Bible is unreliable and that is the best evidence against Christianity that I know. We have touched on First cause and the problem of evil, and it has been explained that you have nothing but appeal to Faith - really.
You seem stuck in the rut of religions (specifically Christian) and seem unable to deal with theism itself. You do not indicate even a recognition that theism is a separate issue from ANY specific religious beliefs. This causes you to argue against religions when the issue is theism (belief in the existence of God). It is also why you and other atheists try to muddle the waters with the definition of atheism (belief in the non-existence of God). The ones doing all the "wriggling" are the atheists, especially with their unsupported (and unsupportable) defaults.
I don't care whether you are biased or not. A person can be as biased as hell, but if their argument is sound, that's all that matters. if their argument is unsound, they can be as middle ground as they like. They are still unsound.
Those at whom you took aim can speak for themselves. I am speaking for myself, and so far I'm trouncing you, even if you ignore and deny it.
I already explained 'absence of evidence', but you still have your fingers stuffed in your ears. Do you want me to instruct you in the matter again?
and that's why I will never join your sect of atheism trans. You do not apply the same rigor to your beliefs as you do others. Your filter ...
The issue is WHO is qualified to assess the soundness and on what basis, certainly NOT you, Arq, despite your ubiquitous anal-sourced proclamations.
You seem stuck in the rut of religions (specifically Christian) and seem unable to deal with theism itself. You do not indicate even a recognition that theism is a separate issue from ANY specific religious beliefs. This causes you to argue against religions when the issue is theism (belief in the existence of God). It is also why you and other atheists try to muddle the waters with the definition of atheism (belief in the non-existence of God). The ones doing all the "wriggling" are the atheists, especially with their unsupported (and unsupportable) defaults.
I disagree ... trans is the all powerful atheist. he knows whats best for us all.
In the meantime, the Bible is unreliable and that is the best evidence against Christianity that I know.
A concession I'm happy to see. Because it means you have no evidence against Christianity, since if only a few defining points in the bible are true we have a confirmation of Christianity on our hands! I'd say, that if there is a god and Jesus was his son who was crucified but rose on the third day and ascended to heaven where some/all of us will eventually join him, then that's Christianity right there.
Quote:
We have touched on First cause and the problem of evil, and it has been explained that you have nothing but appeal to Faith - really.
I don't recall actually discussing "first cause" though you mentioned it once or twice (what was your argument, exactly?), and the problem of evil argument is incomplete because no one's ever been able to support the premise that god allowing suffering/evil to exist means he isn't all-loving, moral, or some such. Since it is possible he could have morally sufficient reasons, it's not established that there's some inconsistency between omnibenevolence and the existence of suffering/evil.
Quote:
If you think that atheism issues dogmatic statements as Religious indoctrination does,
I never said or implied that, no. Atheism is not a person, for starters. Nor is it sensible to compare plain "atheism" with "religious indoctrination!!" I'd say, however, that anti-theism is dogmatic at times and its subscribers demand people follow certain rules (however unspoken) blindly, and that would be a good comparison to religious indoctrination.
A concession I'm happy to see. Because it means you have no evidence against Christianity, since if only a few defining points in the bible are true we have a confirmation of Christianity on our hands! I'd say, that if there is a god and Jesus was his son who was crucified but rose on the third day and ascended to heaven where some/all of us will eventually join him, then that's Christianity right there.
I don't recall actually discussing "first cause" though you mentioned it once or twice (what was your argument, exactly?), and the problem of evil argument is incomplete because no one's ever been able to support the premise that god allowing suffering/evil to exist means he isn't all-loving, moral, or some such. Since it is possible he could have morally sufficient reasons, it's not established that there's some inconsistency between omnibenevolence and the existence of suffering/evil.
I never said or implied that, no. Atheism is not a person, for starters. Nor is it sensible to compare plain "atheism" with "religious indoctrination!!" I'd say, however, that anti-theism is dogmatic at times and its subscribers demand people follow certain rules (however unspoken) blindly, and that would be a good comparison to religious indoctrination.
where were you when I first got here.
They said things to me like ...
"that's valid but we don't like to talk about it because it gives theist something to use."
"Its valid, but it doesn't change our lives so don't talk about it. religion effects us so much more that its just best we don't address them."
"due to my atheism I am forced to answer ..."
and when I called them out on it ... guess what happened? they tried team unity, don't rock the boat, and others. things like ... it doesn't help ... bla bla bla. and when I pointed out that our goals are not the same they ran away.
one guy even tried "but its my personal reasons." and when I told him that his personal reason mean no more to me than theist personal reason ... lmao, he vacated the site, for the most part. talk about trounced. he knew he was wrong and didn't care. Just like fundy theist.
anti-theism can be very religious looking. trans ripped me up and down for some of the things I said, and then, turned around and used some of it. talk about apologetics atheism.
I made a duck list ... I should post it for you.
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.
