Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/12/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Hey Midniterider, Alright so i'm one of the ones you mentioned that read something and the whole house of cards collapsed. But I was also on shaky ground before hand asking questions and already assuming the more nonsensical stories in the bible (flood of noah, tower of babel, and pretty much the whole creation) were just that. An ancient peoples story's to explain life as they knew it. Now i'm agnostic, not having any deity but just an overall belief that there still may be something in the universe to believe in. As far as switching a switch back on? I personally dont see how that is possible. It would take some grand discovery to prove that the bible was actually factual to make me believe again. There is no way I could just "switch" my belief in the bible back on. Since I've deconverted I admit i've had my emotional week points where I was at church with my wife and I prayed for someone to come up to me, say something specific that I was asking for in my prayer, and that I would believe again. After all an all powerful god should be able to relay a simple message to prove he is worthy of my worship. But alas. that never happened and science is still disproving the bible more than proving it. So here i am. Great topic Midnite DB
  2. 3 points
    I very much appreciate your article. Although you and I have very different backgrounds and experiences, your conclusions look very much like mine. And while all of the arguments you make resonate with me, your concluding paragraph is the thing that really does so: That is very much my position. I was 52 years old when I realized I'd been practicing mythology most of my life. When I realized that my fundamentalist beliefs were untenable I wondered whether liberal Christianity was more correct, but I didn't consider it long. It seemed to be merely speculation about what a god would be like, if there were such things as gods. It treated the Old Testament as myths and legends, and yet expected us to treat the New Testament as history. And what of the even more liberal theologians who reject eternal torment but accept the resurrection and the need for salvation? Well, I've read their positions and they seem fairly well argued, but their argument in a nutshell is that Hell doesn't make sense. While true, that leaves us with Christianity being based on nothing more than legends and speculation, and there's no reason to believe any of it. It only took me about a month to completely deconvert. Though it isn't what got me started (that was realize that there was no Satan in Genesis 3), further study made me realize that the authors of the older parts of the Hebrew Bible were henotheists, not monotheists. The Song of Moses explains how "the LORD" came to be the god of Israel (it was his portion, bequeathed to him by his father, the Most High God), and it goes on to proclaim that he's a better god than all of his brothers, who are the gods of the other nations. Once I realized that, there was no going back. Anyway, thanks for sharing your story. I very much enjoyed reading it.
  3. 2 points
    He's been away for awhile. Whatever civilizing influence we had wore off after he was released back into the wild.
  4. 2 points
    This sounds about like the process I went through when deconverting. Finding out the whole story of moses was a myth, plus studying that it all started out as a pantheon of gods under EL. That basically like you said. Ba'al was Yahweh's brother originally. etc. once those things come to light there isn't much else holding anything between the cowhide together. DB
  5. 1 point
    The longer you act interested, the fewer people they can get to that day.
  6. 1 point
    I don't. But when the Mormons come a-knocking, I invite them in and offer them tea.
  7. 1 point
    Under the rule religion isn't covered but nationality is (on college campuses...I don't have the rule handy but I read it earlier). This order will do a couple of things. It will fight the Anti-Israel movements by making the religion a nationality. What this will mean is anti-Israel speech now becomes anti-Jewish speech. This means calls to boycott Israel over their behavior in the region can be met with anti-racist measures. So when Israel acts as an apartheid state calls to deal with them in such a fashion is seem as being as generally racist and can be dealt with as such. In the same vein, Jews are now seen, in the States, as a different nationality since their religion defines them as such. Simply by being a Jew you are now a "Jewish" national as opposed to someone who is an American but also of the Jewish religion. Neither of these things are pro-Jewish but rather pro-Israel. If Trump wanted to he could likely modify the rule to include religion but that would mean all religions would be covered and, as we know, there are some he simple does not care for and this move is more about Israel and less about the Jews themselves. This is a really shitty move and folks should be against it since it really isn't what it seems. mwc
  8. 1 point
    I want to enter my evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster into the record. That evidence is "I believe in it so it's evidence." I dont expect anyone to accept other things this way, just the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And if you dont believe it I'm gonna get pissed.
  9. 1 point
    A+B=C A+B+GOD=SQUIRREL Simple logic.
  10. 1 point
    Some things like morality are good. Other things like Obsessive Compulsive Jesus Christ Disorder, are not.
  11. 1 point
    I think a non-believer's demand is for the Christian to show us why he thinks his invisible friend is the originator of morality when obviously people have learned without God's help that it's better for society as a whole to, for the most part, not just kill anyone you want to. A non-believer's demand is for the Christian to show us why God comes up with rules and then breaks them himself ... and that's supposed to be ok...cuz it's God doing it. The takeaway being "do as I say, not as I do." People dont consider morality to be a person. Morality is not an invisible friend. It is a way of thinking that restrains us from harming others, hopefully to the benefit of all.
  12. 1 point
    Endgarcito3. Did you, either as End3 or Edgarcito, ever write, 'Morality is demonstrable'? If you did, then please cite where you did. But, if you never wrote those exact words, then your point is null and void. Also, seeing as BAA explained to you many times that proof doesn't apply to the empirical sciences, why are you still asking for it in this thread? This isn't bitching at you, btw. We aren't special. It just so happens that there are rules of logic, rules of science and rules of evidence that must be agreed upon and followed by all, if proper understanding is to prevail. We are prepared to use these rules. Are you? Thank you. Walter.
  13. 1 point
    Edgarcito, When you were End3, other members (especially BAA) were at pains to point out to you that there are no proofs in the empirical sciences of physics or chemistry. The only branch of science that deals in proofs is mathematics. If you want to talk physics and chemistry, then you must do so in the form of evidence. Thank you. Walter.
  14. 1 point

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.