Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About webmdave

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/02/1958

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Western Reserve, USA
  • Interests
    Stoic and Epicurean Philosophy.
  • More About Me
    It is invariably a shock to evangelical Christians to hear or read about someone who has turned his back on the "faith, which was once delivered unto the saints." The quick justification from most believers of such an announced occurrence will be to piously point out that anyone who turns away from Christ was never a real believer to begin with. Or as an insider might say it, "He was never born again."

    Read the rest at https://articles.exchristian.net/2002/04/sabbatical-or-my-anti-testimony.php

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Independent Skeptic - no gods

Recent Profile Visitors

15,364 profile views
  1. In today’s episode of the Atheist Experience, Matt Dillahunty is joined by Jim Barrows. Jim is one of ACA’s own hosts and we are happy to have him today! Welcome back Jim! First up we have Emyn in OH, who is calling in about the Monty Hall problem. Pick a door Jim! Matt is not sure how this ties to atheism and thinks the analogy is untenable. Maybe compose your thoughts in an email? Jeury in NY is up next. He is calling to ask how to deal with conversations when there is no point. Our hosts explain that you need patience and may have to know when to walk away and regroup. Oscar from IN is asking why Matt is an atheist and not agnostic. Matt was a southern baptist and was trying to demonstrate the belief in god and found his way out. There didn’t seem to be a point so on to more callers. Gerard in CT is calling in to challenge Matt on believing as many true things and as few false things as possible. The caller goes on to demonstrate he wants to believe as many true things as possible. Daniel from CA is saying that Christians don’t investigate the bible and points out the bible is a historical text. The hosts flex their Bible knowledge chops to point out it’s not historically accurate. Check out this call for a fun conversation about the Bible and Christians. Alex in VA is up next. His father is dying and although Alex isn't a believer he asks if it's ethical to let his father think he is still a believer. The hosts relate stories of their loved ones and give some great advice in this call. Who is chopping onions in here... Angel in NC has moved in with some atheists and has questions for us today. Angel is questioning her faith and uses a form of Pascal's Wager to stay a believer. A great call destructing Pascal's Wager and "Christianinanity" ensues. Justin in MN says the study of comets disproves evolution. Oh, boy, 12,000 year old comets prove a young earth? The hosts point out Justin is cherry picking data and short period comets aren’t the only types of comets. Mark in RI says you can be justified in believing that a miracle is an explanation for an event. Matt points out that you can’t appeal to the supernatural until it's been found to exist and could have explanatory power. Luke in GA wants to tell us that some people haven't received the holy ghost but anyone can. Apparently you just have to “die unto yourself” and take up a cross. Ugh. And moving on. The last call of the episode, Michael in San Diego, wants to know why they don’t believe in Spinoza's god. Matt points out there is no evidence for it and he doesn't care what Spinoza or Einstein believed. Thanks for tuning in folks! Check out Jim in other ACA shows. See ya next week and wear a dang mask! View the full article
  2. Wrong. If something cannot come from nothing, then your creator god cannot exist, because he must be something. If you say your god has always existed, then I would maintain an eternal universe is a better explanation. In other words, the universe has always existed. Evidence supports my position as we know that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Matter can only be changed from one form to another. Therefore it is apparent that matter has always been in existence in one form or another. There is no evidence that a Hebrew tribal god (or any other god) exists at all.
  3. I disagree with that simplistic definition, but you've deliniated the paramaters of your discussion. I'm out. Have fun.
  4. Who you hire is entirely up to you so long as you aren't obviously discriminating against a people group. However, you are not talking about law, you are talking about how people "feel." Since actions based entirely on people's feelings historically account for all sorts of travesties of justice, I don't assign much value there. Sorry for the interruption. Feel away.
  5. If my speech is not breaking any laws, then if I am fired for excercising my constitutional free speech right on my own time, regardless of my employer's personal opinion on the matter, I would have the right to litigate being fired, unless there is an established company employee policy addressing off-the-clock behavior firmly in place prior to the "offense." That is all there is. The same protection of free speech goes for a protestor caught on camera on her own time screaming at and denigrating a police officer. If fired, the protestor can expect to win in litigation, unless her behavior violated established company policy. Culturally disapproved language, so long as no laws are violated, is not illegal. So long as there are no company policies in place, firing is unlikely to uphold in court. Can certain language be generally considered tasteless? Rude? Course? Unwise? Perhaps. But that doesn't necessarily make it illegal. At least, not yet.
  6. Are we discussing offensive terminology or are we actually discussing socially disapproved terminology? Yelling fire in a theater when there is no fire is illegal. It is inciting panic, which is dangerous to human life. However, in general words are just sounds in the air or symbols on paper (or a screen). Words are neither good nor bad. Words only become approved (non-offensive) or disapproved (offensive) in the judgement of those reading or hearing the words. So, who is the final arbitrator of what words are disapproved versus what is approved? And when and how should such things be policed? Always? Everywhere? No matter the audience? No matter the venue? Is calling an alcoholic an alcoholic in public morally wrong? Is it criminal? Is it immature? Is it perhaps distasteful? How about rude? How about just saying "Wow that's kinda rude, dude, don't you think?" Why moralize it ad nausea? Why try to criminalize it?
  7. @Weezer: So your "biggest dissapointment" with this site is actually your only dissapointment with this site? Not trying to read anything into your comments, just trying to understand the total nature of your complaints, since by your choice of words you appear you may have several complaints. I have no problem with recieving criticisms from anyone, but do appreciate when those criticisms are more clearly delineated. Thanks in advance for your consideration in this matter.
  8. @Weezer: Your comment implies you are harboring more than one disappointment with this site. Would you be so kind as to list every grievance/disappointment you have with this site? Thanks for the input.
  9. Today we’re joined by Justin Looney, who helps the ACA by answering the e-mails you, the fans, send us! After some regular announcements, he offers some tips about e-mailing (or voice mailing) the ACA, its shows, or members. Then off to calls! Our first caller, Michael in Pennsylvania calls in to say he doesn't want to publicly label himself an atheist "because atheism is too close to communism." He won't budge from the position that America is inherently tied to theism due to particular words in its founding documents. David in Mexico City wants to call nature "God" for what he claims are pragmatic reasons when talking to theists. (AKA: It's easier to talk to theists about stuff if you just say you believe in God.) Next up, Steve in Ohio wants to bet $1,000 the following prediction is accurate: Trump will lose the election in November, refuse to give his position over in January, and become a military-backed King of the U.S...We'll see you in January, Steve. Questions...and agreements?! Josh in Israel doesn't buy Matt's claim that Judaism wasn't originally monotheistic, and has to have it explained...and accepts the explanation, seemingly! Yay! Comin' in hot! Chris in Tennessee assumes Matt wants Bibles removed from schools by law, not even realizing Matt actually wants Bibles and comparative religion courses in schools. The hosts also explain to Chris what the separation of church and state issues inside schools are, and what "secularists" want in that regard. Kevin in Oregon calls in to ask about specific comments from Matt about free will. He's quickly hung up on after seemingly refusing to listen. Here's an interesting one: Paulo in Boston has some ideas about why it is that moralities rooted in God belief are so incredibly appealing to people...and the truth is that it removes the thinking and makes morality seem easier to deal with. Our next caller, Cory in New York supposedly has a real reason to call, but immediately shows himself to be dishonest and uninterested in listening. Through that, Matt and Justin STILL try to help him understand...and he just doesn't want to understand. Seemingly questioning believer, Elijah in New Mexico seems to be thinking Christians don't have any hope if the resurrection myth turns up false, or if they stop believing it is true. The answer is a little more complicated than replacing faith with something else, because de-conversion is a hard, complicated process. Our last caller, Tory in Illinois is an "ex-JW" (ex-Jehovah's Witness) who disassociated, which inside of the JW organization means his family is intended to consider him dead. This means Tory may have to accept never speaking to his family again, and the hosts go over some useful resources for Tory and ex-JWs like him. View the full article
  10. That is awesome! Thanks so much for fully revealing your anti-intellectualism. With your beliefs, you would likely have made a wonderful mideavel cleric! Maybe even an Inquisitor! Poor Copernicus and Gallelio. Fortuantely it is the 21st century, so your mideavel beliefs are held by nearly no one. It was fun playing with you, but I will now step away from this conversation. G-bye.
  11. Says the guy who maintains that the entire universe and everything in it magically poofed into existence when a supposedly pre-existing, uncreated Hebrew tribal god burped.
  12. It's mythology, and just like any ancient mythology, it contains no real truth. Mythology just helps simple people living in an ignorant time feel they have some measure of understanding regarding their violent and harsh world. Nowadays trying to use ancient mythology to explain reality is silly.
  13. That Hebrew myths explain absolutely nothing, regardless of your or my ignorance as to exactly how it (nature) all works. Ben Franklin was condemned by the churches of his day for inventing the lightning rod. Why? Because lightning was the power and wrath of God and Franklin was thwarting the will of God. Religion is silly.
  14. Misunderstanding of Hebrew mythology, you mean.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.