Goodbye Jesus
Our Picks
Top content from across the community, hand-picked by us.
Reasons for Disbelief
Wertbag posted a topic in Rants and Replies,
Many apologists will say that the arguments for God’s existence should be seen as a cumulative case rather than any single argument being a reason for belief on its own. This is understandable as the majority of arguments for God are second hand inference, God of the gaps or incredulity based, so as evidence goes none of it should not be convincing on its own.
The cumulative case works in both directions, as there are many reasons to disbelieve in a God’s existence, but any single argument may not be convincing on its own. With that in mind, here are a few of the more common reasons for disbelief and the rabbit hole of questions that these reasons lead to:
The cumulative case works in both directions, as there are many reasons to disbelieve in a God’s existence, but any single argument may not be convincing on its own. With that in mind, here are a few of the more common reasons for disbelief and the rabbit hole of questions that these reasons lead to:
-
-
- 52 replies
Picked By
webmdave,Post in Knowledge vs belief
TheRedneckProfessor posted a post in a topic,
The evidence is clear that evil and suffering exist.
The evidence that god exists? No one really has any.
Moreover, we know that even if a god does exist, evil and suffering obviously do not offend him. If it did, he'd have put a stop to it by now. After all, if he is omniscient, then he knows how much evil and suffering there is; and how broken and miserable it makes human existence. If he really is omnibenevolent, then he wants to prevent his children from brokenness and misery. If he really is omnipotent, then he has the ability to prevent the evil and suffering that causes brokenness and misery. And if he really is omnipresent, then he is present every where that evil and suffering exist.
If god is all of these things, and evil and suffering offend him, then why do evil and suffering continue to exist? Why has he not moved to alleviate his own offense and save us all in the process? The simple fact that evil and suffering continue in this world is, in itself, evidence that god is not offended by it... or maybe god isn't the omni-max he's made out to be... or maybe god simply does not exist.
The evidence that god exists? No one really has any.
Moreover, we know that even if a god does exist, evil and suffering obviously do not offend him. If it did, he'd have put a stop to it by now. After all, if he is omniscient, then he knows how much evil and suffering there is; and how broken and miserable it makes human existence. If he really is omnibenevolent, then he wants to prevent his children from brokenness and misery. If he really is omnipotent, then he has the ability to prevent the evil and suffering that causes brokenness and misery. And if he really is omnipresent, then he is present every where that evil and suffering exist.
If god is all of these things, and evil and suffering offend him, then why do evil and suffering continue to exist? Why has he not moved to alleviate his own offense and save us all in the process? The simple fact that evil and suffering continue in this world is, in itself, evidence that god is not offended by it... or maybe god isn't the omni-max he's made out to be... or maybe god simply does not exist.
Picked By
TABA,Animal suffering
Wertbag posted a topic in Rants and Replies,
Animal suffering is a subject which I have thought of as simply a variation on the problem of suffering. If God loved every one of His creations, then why would He set up a system where predators need to kill live prey to survive. It's a system designed around killing, which is hard to reconcile with a loving, good God.
However, I came across some other implications of animal suffering that expand the subject in several interesting ways. The first was that if you are an old Earth creationist, so accept evolution, then the creation of every species that we see was guided by the principles of survival of the fittest, with evolutionary pressure being horrendous suffering (predation, disease, starvation, conflict etc). The tool that God decided to use was untold misery for hundreds of millions of years, before we get to our current world of diverse life.
The fact that thousands of T-Rex stalked the lands killing to survive, can't be seen as necessary, when they are all extinct long before His chosen people come along. Hundreds of millions of years of creatures being torn limb from limb, before any of it mattered for our existence. Why have that time period of suffering without benefit?
I was talking to a vegan, who said God loves all of His creations, and believing that Christians should be vegan because killing His creations was against His will. This just led to pointing to the horrors of the OT, where God requests burnt sacrifices on a regular basis, saying that the smell was pleasing to Him. Or to the Israelites attacks on various cities, where they are told to kill all of the inhabitants, including the innocent animals. King Saul even angered God for not murdering all of the animals, as some were taken as plunder.
However, I came across some other implications of animal suffering that expand the subject in several interesting ways. The first was that if you are an old Earth creationist, so accept evolution, then the creation of every species that we see was guided by the principles of survival of the fittest, with evolutionary pressure being horrendous suffering (predation, disease, starvation, conflict etc). The tool that God decided to use was untold misery for hundreds of millions of years, before we get to our current world of diverse life.
The fact that thousands of T-Rex stalked the lands killing to survive, can't be seen as necessary, when they are all extinct long before His chosen people come along. Hundreds of millions of years of creatures being torn limb from limb, before any of it mattered for our existence. Why have that time period of suffering without benefit?
I was talking to a vegan, who said God loves all of His creations, and believing that Christians should be vegan because killing His creations was against His will. This just led to pointing to the horrors of the OT, where God requests burnt sacrifices on a regular basis, saying that the smell was pleasing to Him. Or to the Israelites attacks on various cities, where they are told to kill all of the inhabitants, including the innocent animals. King Saul even angered God for not murdering all of the animals, as some were taken as plunder.
-
-
- 7 replies
Picked By
TABA,Our purpose
Anodos posted a topic in Introductions,
Hello,
I guess our reasons for joining this site are slightly different for each person and yet perhaps desperation might be a common theme. So, with that said, a brief introduction. I have been involved with Christianity for many years. Out of sheer despair, I suppose I ended up finding this site.
Here is my experience with Christianity:
The unhappiest times of my life were when I got myself involved in Christianity. I marvel at those who appear to be at ease with it all. I conclude, there's something wrong with me.
Never, have I felt more powerless, worthless, unfree.
I guess our reasons for joining this site are slightly different for each person and yet perhaps desperation might be a common theme. So, with that said, a brief introduction. I have been involved with Christianity for many years. Out of sheer despair, I suppose I ended up finding this site.
Here is my experience with Christianity:
The unhappiest times of my life were when I got myself involved in Christianity. I marvel at those who appear to be at ease with it all. I conclude, there's something wrong with me.
Never, have I felt more powerless, worthless, unfree.
-
- 9 replies
Picked By
TABA,What is the number 1 reason why you do not believe?
quantum posted a topic in Rants and Replies,
Failed prayer, the idea that there is an invisible being , listening to everyones thoughts is beyond laughable.
-
-
- 33 replies
Picked By
TheRedneckProfessor,Fallacies in arguing for god...
Joshpantera posted a topic in The Lion's Den,
Here's an interesting episode that breaks down popular fallacies that many theists who are knowledgeable about the arguments prefer to steer clear of:
-
- 3 replies
Picked By
Joshpantera,Bible as Allegory
Robert_Tulip posted a topic in General Christian Theological Issues,
Fundamentalist Christians tend to say either you are a Christian or you are not a Christian. That may be true for the irrational tribal identity of their churches, but it does not make sense in terms of philosophy and theology. If you read the Bible as deliberate metaphor, as symbolic allegory, not as literal history, then it is possible to retain the ethical value of the texts while accepting none of the surface claims. The value of the Bible is enhanced by assuming the original authors did not intend that any of their supernatural poetry should be read as literal fact.
-
-
- 39 replies
Picked By
Joshpantera,Is Logic an Absolute? A Simple Test
TheRedneckProfessor posted a topic in The Lion's Den,
One of the benefits of logic is the ability to test whether a particular proposition is true or not. It often follows the progession: A=B, B=C, C does not equal D; therefore, the proposition that A=D is not likely to be true. With this in mind, let's look at a particular proposition and follow the progression to its logical conclusion.
If logic is the absolute standard for reasoning , then everyone should either agree with the conclusion, or, if disagreeing, be able to point out a flaw in the logic. Let's begin:
PROPOSITION: god is both all-loving and all-powerful.
OBSERVATION: Evil exists
GIVEN:
A. If god is both able and willing to prevent evil, then evil would not exist.
B. If god is neither able nor willing to prevent evil, then god is neither all-loving nor all-powerful.
PROGRESSION:
1. If god is able to prevent evil, but not willing to, then god is not all-loving.
2. If god is willing to prevent evil, but not able to, then god is not all-powerful.
CONCLUSION: The proposition that god is both all-loving and all-powerful is not true.
DISCUSSION: It is possible that god is all-loving but not all-powerful. It is possible that god is all-powerful but not all-loving. It is possible that god is neither all-loving nor all-powerful, which raises the question: why worship god?
But it is not possible for god to be both all-loving and all-powerful.
If logic is the absolute standard for reasoning , then everyone should either agree with the conclusion, or, if disagreeing, be able to point out a flaw in the logic. Let's begin:
PROPOSITION: god is both all-loving and all-powerful.
OBSERVATION: Evil exists
GIVEN:
A. If god is both able and willing to prevent evil, then evil would not exist.
B. If god is neither able nor willing to prevent evil, then god is neither all-loving nor all-powerful.
PROGRESSION:
1. If god is able to prevent evil, but not willing to, then god is not all-loving.
2. If god is willing to prevent evil, but not able to, then god is not all-powerful.
CONCLUSION: The proposition that god is both all-loving and all-powerful is not true.
DISCUSSION: It is possible that god is all-loving but not all-powerful. It is possible that god is all-powerful but not all-loving. It is possible that god is neither all-loving nor all-powerful, which raises the question: why worship god?
But it is not possible for god to be both all-loving and all-powerful.
-
-
- 85 replies
Picked By
Joshpantera,"I Believe!!!"
Joshpantera posted a topic in The Lion's Den,
My ex christian beliefs are as follows in 10 simple points, each of which has been the focus of one debate / discussion or another around here:
1 ) I believe that all religions are man made social constructs geared towards politicizing ancient mythology and folklore.
2 ) I believe that no one really knows with certainty the answer to the question of origins or destination.
3 ) I believe that the bible is demonstrably false from the outset as a guide to the truth of the universe or the human condition.
4 ) I believe that anything basing itself on the assumption that the bible is true is automatically false, as the bible is demonstrably false.
5 ) I believe that morality is an evolved concept which continues to evolve and has never been static or handed down from on high.
6 ) I believe that the morality of the biblical writings is long since outdated and mostly irrelevant to modern society.
7 ) I believe that modern scholarship has revealed the truth about the biblical writings and the evolving theistic concepts contained therein.
8 ) I believe that it's both intellectually honest and well intended to expose what truths can be demonstrated about the bible and christianity, through counter apologetics.
9 ) I believe that as painful as it may be at times, it's ultimately for the greater good that christianity and similar religions are losing membership and declining into the future under the weight of their own growing lack of relevance.
10 ) I believe that humanity doesn't need the fluff and circus show of religion in order for people to do what's right, be decent, and get along.
What do you believe????
1 ) I believe that all religions are man made social constructs geared towards politicizing ancient mythology and folklore.
2 ) I believe that no one really knows with certainty the answer to the question of origins or destination.
3 ) I believe that the bible is demonstrably false from the outset as a guide to the truth of the universe or the human condition.
4 ) I believe that anything basing itself on the assumption that the bible is true is automatically false, as the bible is demonstrably false.
5 ) I believe that morality is an evolved concept which continues to evolve and has never been static or handed down from on high.
6 ) I believe that the morality of the biblical writings is long since outdated and mostly irrelevant to modern society.
7 ) I believe that modern scholarship has revealed the truth about the biblical writings and the evolving theistic concepts contained therein.
8 ) I believe that it's both intellectually honest and well intended to expose what truths can be demonstrated about the bible and christianity, through counter apologetics.
9 ) I believe that as painful as it may be at times, it's ultimately for the greater good that christianity and similar religions are losing membership and declining into the future under the weight of their own growing lack of relevance.
10 ) I believe that humanity doesn't need the fluff and circus show of religion in order for people to do what's right, be decent, and get along.
What do you believe????
-
-
- 71 replies
Picked By
Joshpantera,Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that complex life evolved on its own? Is an alternative explanation offered by LDS belief reasonable?
TheDude posted a topic in The Lion's Den,
Is there sufficient evidence to believe complex life could have evolved on its own from non-life without some intelligent creative force? Is it at all plausible that some intelligent being, perhaps from another universe, could have been the creator of the complex life on our planet (and any other planet in this universe that may have complex life) using evolution as a tool?
-
- 67 replies
Picked By
Joshpantera,Episode 001 - B's Conversion Story
HHand posted a topic in Podcasts,
"No bibles, no preaching, no god-bothering!" These were the conditions B put upon his two brothers, who had recently converted to Pentecostal Christianity, if he were to visit them while on holidays. What happened next would change the course of his life and still continues to impact who he is today.
View the full article
View the full article
-
- 0 replies
Picked By
webmdave,Post in Can We Know Eternal
alreadyGone posted a post in a topic,
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.
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.
Picked By
webmdave,Precession as the Framework of Christian Origins
Robert_Tulip posted a topic in General Christian Theological Issues,
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.
Thanks
Precession as the Framework of Christian Origins by Robert Tulip, published in The Christ Conspiracy Second Edition.pdf
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.
Thanks
Precession as the Framework of Christian Origins by Robert Tulip, published in The Christ Conspiracy Second Edition.pdf
-
-
- 101 replies
Picked By
Joshpantera,
Ecclesiastes 12:13 and the Meaning of Life
Lerk posted a blog entry in Be Ready Always to Give an Answer,
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.
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.
-
-
- 2 replies
Picked By
webmdave,Something rather than nothing
disillusioned posted a topic in Colosseum,
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.
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.
-
-
- 100 replies
Picked By
Joshpantera,
My Reasons for De-Converting
Steviejay posted a topic in Pinned Testimonials,
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
-
-
- 18 replies