Jump to content
  1. Special Announcements & FAQs

    1. Special Announcements

      Moderator announcement area for sharing items of interest.

    2. Frequently Asked Questions and Topics

      A collection of frequently asked questions and topics that have been already addressed on this site. This section was created with the express intention of assisting newcomers.

  2. Discussions

    1. Got Questions?

      Got questions about life, leaving the faith or how to use the features on this site? Just ask! 

    2. Introductions

      Introduce Yourself Here

    3. Testimonies of Former Christians

      Help encourage someone else who is trying to deprogram themselves from religion - tell them how you did it or are doing it.

    4. 122.3k
    5. 207.1k
    6. Rants and Replies

      Here is where you may take the opportunity to respond to or comment on any of the articles and rants posted on the Main Blog. Or, just start your own topic.

    7. General Christian Theological Issues

      The Bible calls all those who do not believe in its god a fool.

    8. Science vs. Religion

      The bulk of science does not support belief in a deity, or does it? This is an open discussion area to hone your skills at supporting and understanding the various positions. Feel free to post any links of value in this important topic.

    9. Ex-Christian Spirituality

      This area is for those who have left Christianity for another form of theism or spirituality (Deism, Paganism, Wicca, Great Spirit, The Force, Buddhism, etc.).

    10. Podcasts

      Listen to streaming podcasts from a variety of sources.

  • Our picks

    • I owe pittsburghjoe, along with every member participating in this discussion 
      for helping free me from my former Christian belief.
      I'm forced to admit to myself and anyone reading here that as a Christian I had never truly considered the extent to which all Christian belief rests upon the silly-assed irrational concept of "original sin".
      There was no one in the Garden with an iPhone recording video, people.
      There was no one there with a quill and scroll of parchment writing it all down.
      There were no eye-witnesses at all.
      It's a MYTH.  A silly, ancient myth.
        • Like
    • My attached short essay on Precession as the Framework of Christian Origins was published last year as an Appendix in The Christ Conspiracy Second Edition by DM Murdock (Acharya S).  (4000 words)
      I helped Dr Robert M. Price to edit this new second edition. This book was quite controversial when it first came out in 1999, with its uncompromising presentation of the hypothesis that the myth of Jesus Christ arose as a personification of the Sun.  I agree with this argument, and consider that it presents a complex and coherent perspective on religion.
      Before her death in 2015, Acharya began editing her planned CC second edition, aiming to remove some of the more contentious material and present her main arguments more clearly. I had worked closely with her on some areas of her analysis of astrotheology, so was pleased to be able to help with this work, and enjoyed going through the book in detail to edit it. 
      My own long term theological interest is in this topic of Precession as the Framework of Christian Origins, which I consider provides a compelling scientific explanation of many of the perspectives that Acharya presents. This idea helps to explain the role of conspiracy in Christianity, firstly among the secret Gnostic mystic philosophers who first developed the Christ Myth as allegory, and secondly in the orthodox church, as they systematically rewrote Christian origins to exclude its founding natural cosmology and pretend that the events described in the Gospels actually happened.  
      As a hypothesis, the precession hypothesis raises such controversial material that it is difficult to discuss. The essential argument is that Jesus Christ was deliberately invented as avatar of the zodiac ages of Pisces and Aquarius. I think this idea should be of interest to ex-Christians, as a way to help excavate the abiding truths that are hidden beneath the supernatural rubble of Christendom. 
      I would welcome any questions or critique or conversation about the ideas in this paper.
      Precession as the Framework of Christian Origins by Robert Tulip, published in The Christ Conspiracy Second Edition.pdf
        • Like
      • 87 replies
    • Ecclesiastes 12:13 and the Meaning of Life
      Ecclesiastes 12:13 (ESV): The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.
      To which I ask: That's all you've got?
      I've never set goals. Really! Oh, I did finish college (after changing my major 3 times), but I've always lived my life a day at a time. And I've always found my "meaning" in my responsibilities. I have work, I have family, and I have things to do. What more meaning do I need? Well, I know what's going on in the world and have discussions about it, and contribute to causes and organizations that I feel are important, and I vote -- so there's more meaning. I'm thinking more and more about how I'm going to be able to retire and I should have made that more important many years ago, but even now I wouldn't call it a goal. I need to get as much put away as I can, but I don't really think I want to retire. I just know that I'll have to some day.
      The meaning in life just comes along. I have grandchildren and I love to spend time with them. I love having grown-up conversations with my kids and their spouses. I enjoy spending the evenings with my wife, even when it's boring, because we're together. I enjoy listening to music, but not as much as I used to. I listen to podcasts in the car while commuting every day. All of that stuff is just there, but it has meaning.
      Largely, this day-to-day attitude that I was either born with or picked up somehow has meant that I never thought about Heaven or Hell, and certainly never imagined what they would be like. Apologists sometimes say that without eternity, life is absurd. Maybe that's so, but eternity is absurd, also. How can sitting in front of a throne worshiping a deity forever and ever be meaningful?
      "Meaningful" is making things work, getting things done. Meaningful is enjoying a good meal. Meaningful is enjoying a fast-food meal. Meaningful is laughing with your friends and family. Meaningful is laughing at a TV show or a movie. Meaningful is experiencing anything -- a relationship or a story or anything -- that brings out emotion, happy or sad or just deep. Meaning and purpose are found in the everyday tasks and entertainment and relationships we experience. No ultimate goal is required. In fact, believing that there's an ultimate goal takes away from the true meaning, which is found in the everyday.
      And after life is over? Meaning is for the living who remember you.
      Maybe you're young and don't have some of those things, but you still have a 24-hour day that's full of meaning. Over time, the meaning changes, but it's there already, every waking hour.
        • Like
      • 2 replies
    • What follows is just a trace of the essence of a thought I've been having lately,  so forgive me if it's not terribly coherent. Feel free to critique,  disagree with,  or otherwise challenge what follows. I'm just trying to approach making sense. I want my thinking to be stretched on this, so please challenge me.
      I have often heard it asserted that something cannot come from nothing. I've also heard it asked (usually in a tone of voice which suggests a certain profundity) that something cannot come from nothing.  Now,  there are various possible responses to this,  and I've engaged in a number of arguments here and elsewhere regarding this assertion. In general,  I think a great deal turns on what one means by "nothing". But this is by the by, at least for now.
      Recently, on these boards, I have asserted that I've heard it said that something can emerge spontaneously from the quantum vacuum. But also, that I've heard it said that the quantum vacuum is not nothing. And further, that arguments have been made to the effect that no other kind of "nothing" is possible. Well, this is all very nice, but it does still leave the layperson pondering the original question: why is there something rather than nothing? And how does something come about from nothing?
      These are questions that deserves to be taken seriously. But they are also questions which demand that we take them seriously. That is to say, the subject and the content of the questions matter a great deal,  but so do the presuppositions of the questions. So if we are to move forward here, it seems to me that we must proceed with caution.
      To put it very bluntly, the question "why is there something rather than nothing" seems to me to presuppose that there ought to be nothing, but nevertheless, there is something. I think that if we think about this for more than a minute,  we will all realize that this is nonsensical.
      When have we ever experienced nothing?
      Could we ever experience nothing?
      It seems to me that the very nature of experience is that it is of something. But this is to say, we have no reason, and can have no reason to think that nothing is even a possibility. 
      To put this another way, try considering the original question in reverse. Why is there something rather than nothing, and how did it come about? No. Why might there be nothing rather than something, and does that even make sense?
      I think you'll find that it doesn't make sense. Or so it seems to me right now.
        • Like
      • 100 replies
    • A load of reasons why myself and others should deconvert
      Here are my reasons for deconversion. It's more to do with the reasons why, rather than telling my story, after all that's what matters. Some of my points are from great minds other than myself, and I do not appologise for this as these people have inspired myself and many others to lose faith. I started losing my belief with the 1st scenario below. To me this is ENOUGH proof that Bible god is NOT real
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 18 replies
  • Who's Online   11 Members, 0 Anonymous, 25 Guests (See full list)

  • Forum Statistics

    Total Topics
    Total Posts

  • Thank you for your support.

    Please note: Participation in this forum requires registration. Participation is some areas requires a paid subscription. 

  • Current Donation Goals

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Recent Posts

    • Ask Redneckprofessor. He was the moderator that closed this discussion in "Rants and Replies" and requested that arguments belong in the Lion's Den. And I am the one that says that falsification-of-theory belongs in another thread since it is too far from this topic. Arguments are not the same as disagreements. Disagreements involve a few statements by those involved, then they end. Arguments are continuing disagreements with discussions involving close to hostile statements.
    • Speaking of authority Pantheory, where did you acquire the authority to educate anyone in this forum?   We are all equals in this forum and there is no teacher/pupil hierarchy here.   If one member wants to learn from another then they do so as equals.   So, in Ex-C, where does your authority to teach come from?    
    • Pantheory,   JoshPantera created this thread, introduced the issue of falsification, cited you and I by name and, as a Moderator, has overall say as to what constitutes off-topic and on-topic.   Therefore, it's not your call, its his.   You don't get to exercise any authority over me as to how long something strays off topic.   Nor do you have the authority to tell me which arguments are off-topic and which aren't.   You can express your OPINIONS about these things.   But that's as far as it goes.   I'll meet you elsewhere on Josh's say so, not yours.     Walter.  
    • There have been, and will continue to be a number of discussions in this X-Ch forum concerning the validity of science theories and hypothesis for all the natural and social sciences. This thread involves discussions and different opinions concerning the validity of mainstream or alternative science theories and hypothesis, when arguments are involved. Note that arguments are not simply disagreements. Disagreements are stated but not continued like arguments.   Example: Falsification of theories.: “Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory   Example: Cosmology:   Although cosmological theories and hypotheses in general are difficult to disprove, whether mainstream or alternative,  strong evidence against them might be found. Maybe one or two years after the James Webb space telescope and the Atacama long baseline radio-scopes are fully functional, expected to be about 2023, if it were discovered that at the farthest observable distances some old, very large and red appearing elliptical and spiral galaxies, maybe with observably high metallicity, this would be in accord with predictions of cosmological models of an older or infinite-age universe. This would also be strong evidence that the universe is much older and that the Big Bang model would likely be wrong. On the other hand, if only small young, blue-appearing galaxies with minimal metallicity were instead be observed at these farthest distances (with no old appearing large galaxies or clusters), then all theories and hypothesis proposing an older or infinite age universe seemingly would also most likely be wrong — which would include nearly all of the alternative cosmologies today.   Or scientists could discover a very old star, that according to their calculations appears to be considerably older than the estimated BB age of the Universe, even much older than the "Methuselah star" and contrary to the BB model etc.         
    • I think it is simply that you don't understand how theories should be falsifiable. If you wish to learn about this further, argue about it,  theories etc., I've opened a thread in the Den for arguing problems in mainstream or alternative physics and science in general entitled: "mainstream/ alternative science." Such arguments are off-topic in this thread, and I think in the science forum in general. Disagreements and are one thing, arguments another.   Off-topic simply means not directly related to the thread's topic. Comments can go off-topic but should not continue for long off topic.
    • Here's the problem when it comes to falsifying your theories, Pantheory.   You reject modern physics and have your own, alternative physics.   Which means that there's no overlap between you and mainstream science.   Just like these two circles.   So, you will only accept falsification of your theories within your own terms.        
    • Pantheory,   15 hours ago JoshPantera raised the issue of falsifiability, citing my name.   You responded to his query one hour later, tackling the issue of falsifiability.   Therefore, discussion of a theory's falsifiability is not off-topic.   It is on the table and you helped put it there.         Thank you.   Walter.
    • The subject here is the double-slit experiment and directly related science. It seems that one of your favorite pastimes is arguing. As for me, I don't like to argue and never did. My purpose here in this science subforum  is education since I was once a teacher of college students. Maybe the main meaning of falsifiability of theories is that that they make predictions that can be falsified. If you have a desire to learn about my theories,  theory and hypotheses falsifiability in general etc., then argue about it,  I can explain the meaning of all of it in the Lion's Den if you want.   If not, you must stay on topic for me to answer your postings, questions, assumed statements, etc.
  • Clubs

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.