I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me?

[Tabula Rasa]

I'd say nothing is wrong with you.

 

Kind of depends on how long you've been out of the fold.

 

I agree.

 

I've been out for just under 1.5 years. For about the first half of it, I wouldn't dare say nary a nasty word about Jesus. I would steer around it by a country mile.

 

Nowadays I have no problem saying things like "I told Jesus to kiss my ass" or "Jesus can suck my dick."

 

However, I haven't gone so far as to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Either I see no symbolic need to do so, or I'm too chickenshit. I guess as a committed agnostic I'm hedging my bets.

 

Oh, and who's this LNC guy? I dislike him already.

 

Edit: LNC, you want to try and evangelize us, you take it to the Lion's Den. Evangelizing is not permitted here and the fact that you didn't take the time to read the rules I find very disrespectful. Mods, I think LNC's comments should be removed because they can't be good for Mjolnir to hear.

 

Now that's out of the way...

 

Vomit, I know what you mean about having trouble blaspheming the Holy Spirit. After having the church scare us shitless with all these dire warnings of doom if we even accidentally did it, to purposely do it is requires an amazing amount of courage and will. I get the heebie jeebies even now sometimes. The first time I did it vocally I whispered it. No lightning bolt came down, and the earth didn't open up and swallow me, so I posted my denial in my Throwing Down the Gauntlet thread. I denied the divinity and existence of Yahweh, Jesus Christ(didn't want to miss anyone) and especially the Holy Spirit for being warned not to do so.

 

For those who feel they want to jump the final hurdle, I'll admit it's pretty hard, but what helped me do it is the idea that even if the christians are right, they're just as fucked as we are, because they're going to be forever in the presence of the lowdown, shitsucking, little girl eating, genocidal motherfucker who'd create such an obscene thing as an eternal hell.

 

But no worries, none of them exist, so since it's good to air out the psyche,.. FUCK YOU YAHWEH, FUCK YOU JESUS, AND ESPECIALLY FUCK YOU WITH ONE HUNDRED TRILLION DICKS HOLY SPIRIT!!

 

Nah, that's not enough.

 

Hey Yahweh, think you're so bad?!! Come down here and fight me ya chickenshit!! Cagematch bitch!! I'll get your broke down old ass in the ring and slam you up against the cage!! I'll put the chokehold on you grampa!! I'll put the bodyslam on your world drowning ass and smash your head into the floor with a piledriver!! Bring it fucker...

 

For those wondering about the wrestling references, somewhere in Genesis it mentions Jacob wrestling an angel which some people interpreted to mean he literally wrestled with Yahweh. Therefore I decided to challenge Yahweh to a steel cage match

 

Yahweh, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit don't exist.

If there's something running the universe, is isn't those three douchebags.

 

Peace,

Tabula Rasa

[LNC]

You're confusing truth with unhealthy addiction, which is what Christianity is. It's like a drug and it messes with you. The evidence shows that over time, feelings of guilt and fear subside. It takes time, just as it takes time for a drug addict to completely overcome their addiction. There is a withdrawzl process, but once you get through it, you're fine. The fact that there are people here on this thread testifiying to the fact they no longer have feelings of fear or guilt is proof that Jesus existance is not "truth".

 

Sorry, your explanation does not fit the facts. I have examined the facts of Christianity and followed them to their logical conclusion. I do find it interesting that you many of you apparently find it difficult to escape the truth of Christianity, while many atheists who I know of have left that belief system without the same type of withdrawal symptoms that many of you express here. When one finds truth, leaving behind old unfounded belief systems is not hard to do. Now, I am sure that all of you on this board have not experienced these withdrawal feelings when abandoning Christianity; however, I have never heard of a former atheist even having these experiences when becoming a Christian. So, it is interesting to hear these feelings so often expressed on this board.

[LNC]

Edit: LNC, you want to try and evangelize us, you take it to the Lion's Den. Evangelizing is not permitted here and the fact that you didn't take the time to read the rules I find very disrespectful. Mods, I think LNC's comments should be removed because they can't be good for Mjolnir to hear.

 

Sorry, it was not my intention to evangelize, nor do I think that I did. I was simply trying to help Mjolnir to put his/her feelings into perspective. If I have said anything untruthful, feel free to correct me rather than trying to censor me.

[Amethyst]

LNC, Rants and Replies is meant to be a safe haven for people to rant. Please respect our rules and take your posts to the Lion's Den. I am moving this thread there.

[LNC]

LNC, Rants and Replies is meant to be a safe haven for people to rant. Please respect our rules and take your posts to the Lion's Den. I am moving this thread there.

 

I don't believe that I was ranting. I was being respectful of people on this site, especially to Mojinir. However, if this is better suited for the Lion's Den, I will respect those rules. Thanks.

[Amethyst]

So, I am not sure why there is so much resistence to what I have posted as this thread is part of the "Lion's Den:

 

Ex-Christian.Net Forums » Discussions » The Lion's Den » I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me? (copied from the header)

 

I moved it because of this post:

 

Sorry, your explanation does not fit the facts. I have examined the facts of Christianity and followed them to their logical conclusion. I do find it interesting that you many of you apparently find it difficult to escape the truth of Christianity, while many atheists who I know of have left that belief system without the same type of withdrawal symptoms that many of you express here. When one finds truth, leaving behind old unfounded belief systems is not hard to do. Now, I am sure that all of you on this board have not experienced these withdrawal feelings when abandoning Christianity; however, I have never heard of a former atheist even having these experiences when becoming a Christian. So, it is interesting to hear these feelings so often expressed on this board.

 

People have a right to rant on this board about Christianity and to do so without a Christian telling them that Christianity is "truth". This is an obvious attempt to evangelize. Most, if not all Excers on this board have enough trouble with people evangelizing to them in real life. We do not need them in the rants forum.

[LNC]

Let me see if I understand where you are coming from:

 

You believe that a struggle to reject an idea or belief is indicative of the objective truth of that belief.

 

Conversely, if one does not struggle when discarding a belief, then that is indicative that the discarded belief is, indeed, invalid, and the new belief, objectively true.

 

Is that right?

 

If I have it wrong, I am willing to try again until I have it right to your satisfaction.

 

Phanta

 

No, I did not say that. I am saying that if one has a struggle to abandon a belief that is grounded in good evidence, then one should re-examine the evidence. It should not be difficult to abandon a belief that is easily refuted by good evidence. I have done that in my life and not felt any regret or angst. I am saying that evidence should lead us in the direction of truth and when we operate in this manner, then we should not regret or struggle with abandoning false beliefs as they have been shown to be false. However, when someone struggles to abandon a belief, then they clearly have not established enough evidence to move them from that belief. In essence, they may be making a leap of faith.

 

Now, I am not saying that we always have completely conclusive evidence in one direction or another, there is faith involved whether one is a Christian or an atheist; however, we should be able to establish good evidence to ground our belief, and when that ground is weak or shakey, we should continue to pursue truth until we see the pieces fit together as consistently and coherently as possible. I hope that makes sense.

[LNC]

People have a right to rant on this board about Christianity and to do so without a Christian telling them that Christianity is "truth". This is an obvious attempt to evangelize. Most, if not all Excers on this board have enough trouble with people evangelizing to them in real life. We do not need them in the rants forum.

 

So, let me see if I understand, my pointing to evidence that is testable and historical to help correct an apparently incorrect supposition is considered evangelizing? That seems to me to be a strained understanding of what evangelism means. I am also curious about your definition of what it means to rant. I don't believe that I have engaged in that here, if you would care to let me know your definition, I will be happy to consider it.

[Guest Net Eng]

No, I did not say that. I am saying that if one has a struggle to abandon a belief that is grounded in good evidence, then one should re-examine the evidence. It should not be difficult to abandon a belief that is easily refuted by good evidence. I have done that in my life and not felt any regret or angst. I am saying that evidence should lead us in the direction of truth and when we operate in this manner, then we should not regret or struggle with abandoning false beliefs as they have been shown to be false. However, when someone struggles to abandon a belief, then they clearly have not established enough evidence to move them from that belief. In essence, they may be making a leap of faith.

 

Now, I am not saying that we always have completely conclusive evidence in one direction or another, there is faith involved whether one is a Christian or an atheist; however, we should be able to establish good evidence to ground our belief, and when that ground is weak or shakey, we should continue to pursue truth until we see the pieces fit together as consistently and coherently as possible. I hope that makes sense.

 

Bolded: I call bullshit!

 

Religions using emotions to sway people to their beliefs and keep them there. Christianity is constantly telling its followers that they are unworthy and will never be good enough because you need jeebus to save you. If a parent talked to their kids that way the parents would be accused of emotional abuse.

 

When you find out that what you've believed is crap there is an emotional let down that takes place. Some feel it more than others.

 

I leave it to others more capable than I to tear your "evidence" apart.

[Neon Genesis]

No, I did not say that. I am saying that if one has a struggle to abandon a belief that is grounded in good evidence, then one should re-examine the evidence. It should not be difficult to abandon a belief that is easily refuted by good evidence. I have done that in my life and not felt any regret or angst. I am saying that evidence should lead us in the direction of truth and when we operate in this manner, then we should not regret or struggle with abandoning false beliefs as they have been shown to be false. However, when someone struggles to abandon a belief, then they clearly have not established enough evidence to move them from that belief. In essence, they may be making a leap of faith.

That's a load of crap. That's like saying that since ex-cult members have struggles leaving behind their cult, that mean Jim Jones' cult was right and that if you didn't believe Jim Jones, then you're making a leap of faith. Do you actually think before you spout out whatever pops into your head?

 

So, let me see if I understand, my pointing to evidence that is testable and historical to help correct an apparently incorrect supposition is considered evangelizing? That seems to me to be a strained understanding of what evangelism means. I am also curious about your definition of what it means to rant. I don't believe that I have engaged in that here, if you would care to let me know your definition, I will be happy to consider it.

You are presenting Christianity as the one true way and insisting that if somebody wants to be happy, they should join your religion, implicating that people who don't belong to your religion will always be unhappy. Essentially, you are using emotional blackmail and threats to get people to join your religion. If that's not what evangelizing is, tell me what is. And forgeries don't count as "evidence." You're going to have to do better than known forgeries like Josephus if you want us to believe you.

[LNC]

Bolded: I call bullshit!

 

Religions using emotions to sway people to their beliefs and keep them there. Christianity is constantly telling its followers that they are unworthy and will never be good enough because you need jeebus to save you. If a parent talked to their kids that way the parents would be accused of emotional abuse.

 

When you find out that what you've believed is crap there is an emotional let down that takes place. Some feel it more than others.

 

I leave it to others more capable than I to tear your "evidence" apart.

 

So, are you saying that Christianity is completely devoid of evidence? When you say that "Christianity is constantly telling its followers that they are unworthy" to what are you referring? Unworthy of what? Maybe you can explain further.

[LNC]

I think I understand.

 

You encourage those who are struggling to continue to explore a variety of data and input because you believe that eventually enough evidence will emerge for them to get ground under their feet in one belief system or another.

 

You also have a strong belief in where that data (evidence) will lead a persistent seeker.

 

You observe ex-Christians struggling to shed their beliefs. You believe that Christianity is grounded in decent evidence, and this is the primary reason for their difficult feelings around deconversion.

 

Conversely, you observe in your own life and in those who come to Christianity from atheism, a lack of such struggle, and to you conclude that this is because atheism is based on weak evidence.

 

Is that right?

 

Phanta

 

I do encourage those who are seeking truth to continue that pursuit and that they can find the truth because we are able to comprehend truth.

 

Yes, I believe that when a person honestly and truly pursues truth that they will move in the direction of the answers. So, yes, there is one direction that an honest pursuit of truth will lead and that is to the truth.

 

Again, yes, I believe that Christianity is grounded in evidence that is testable and verifiable and when someone tries to deviate from truth it is often difficult. I do believe that this is why some on this site struggle with that decision, although, I am sure that others have other reasons that may even be emotionally based (family, friends, etc.)

 

Yes, I have never experienced an atheist who has come to Christianity who has struggled in leaving their former worldview behind them. I do believe that atheism is built on a weak foundation and is unjustifiable from evidence. Agnosticism can be a philosophically justifiable position as a lack of enough evidence should lead to that conclusion; however, I have never heard anyone justify atheism without changing the historic definition as some like Dawkins have.

[LNC]

Thank you for affirmation. I think I am understanding better your point of view. Thanks for hanging with me on this.

 

You're welccome and glad to hear it.

 

There is truth out there, and it is knowable through open-minded pursuit. Open-minded pursuit inevitable leads to the discovery of truth.

 

I believe that open-minded pursuit of truth should lead one to the discovery of that truth, yes.

 

Christian truth can be proven.

 

This depends upon your definition of proof - people do define it differently. However, if you mean can evidence be givnen that would lead to that logical conclusion, again I would say yes.

 

Those who choose to act in opposition to truth experience distress in various form. Therefore, ex-Christian distress is often the effect of trying to act out falsehoods. The effects of interpersonal emotional abuse or harm sometimes also contributes to this distress.

 

I believe that acting knowingly living contrary to the truth can lead to despair which would cause distress in a person's life, especially when that truth is core to who one is. So, again I would say yes that an ex-Christian's distress may very well be tied to their choice to live contrary to the truth. How that plays itself out is probably going to differ by individual, so I won't make any assumptions here.

 

Unlike a total non-belief in God (atheism), agnosticism can be a reasonable position to hold, because the reasonable agnostic is moving toward Christian truth as they gather evidence or is static in the pursuit as they refuse to consider new evidence.

 

You would have to define what a "reasonalbe agnostic" means to you. However, I will say that there is more than just evidential pursuit that impacts one's acceptance or rejection of the avialable evidence. However, I will reiterate that if one pursues the truth, it should lead them in the direction of an acceptance of theism first, and at least the acceptance of the reasonableness of the Christian worldview. However, I believe that there are other factors involved in one truly becoming a Christian.

[mahjong]

Hi Moljinir- Just recalling when I found this site. I was so enraged and paranoid and just began getting it all out here. 'Yelling and screaming' at christians who would show up here. Catharsis is great! I like to be obnoxious and foul sometimes.

 

This site was almost brand new and I was in such awe of Dave for doing this. So grateful to have a place to blow off steam. My internal dialogue was toxic and keeping me from growing. I am an 'extrovert' meaning that I process 'out loud'. If I don't get it out it keeps me traveling in small circles like a hamster in a cage. Or a hamster up a butt.

 

The thing I figured is that if god was not big enough to handle me then god was not big enough at all.

 

I 'tell on myself' here when I 'relapse' back into guilt and fear. It really helps me to get it out.

 

I think it's great that you are talking about it and I agree with everyone who already said there is nothing wrong with you.

 

There is a Jesuit saying "Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man."

 

And of course the bible says 'Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it.'

 

'They' make it intentionally difficult to shake religion.

[LNC]

Thanks for clarifying.

 

I understand you to be saying that evidence leads rationally to "Christian Truth" for you and, by extrapolation, for everybody.

 

Denial of that truth, especially conscious denial of already revealed truth, is self-damaging. This is part of what you see happening here.

 

First, I don't separate truth into categories like "Christian Truth." Truth is truth, whether we are speaking of it in relation to Jesus Christ, the universe, or a host of other topics. That being said, I do believe that evidence would lead anyone who is honestly seeking truth to conclude that Jesus existed and was who he said he was.

 

You seem to be saying that agnosticism is a logical progression in the path of one seeking truth who is coming from a place of non-theism. The rational consideration of evidence has a natural progression: theism, Christianity, more complex acceptance (integration?) of Christianity.

 

I mearly said that agnosticism is a logically tenable position as that person is claiming not to have enough knowledge to claim one position or another. Whether the agnostic ever progresses from that position to another is dependent upon their motivation and openness to seek truth and follow it to its logical conclusion. However, given that motivation and openness, I would say that that pursuit of truth should lead them to conclude that theism fits with the best evidence and the Christian worldview also fits that evidnece. Again, I believe that there is more than a natural progression involved in actually becoming a Christian as the Bible describes one.

[Neon Genesis]

I mearly said that agnosticism is a logically tenable position as that person is claiming not to have enough knowledge to claim one position or another. Whether the agnostic ever progresses from that position to another is dependent upon their motivation and openness to seek truth and follow it to its logical conclusion. However, given that motivation and openness, I would say that that pursuit of truth should lead them to conclude that theism fits with the best evidence and the Christian worldview also fits that evidnece. Again, I believe that there is more than a natural progression involved in actually becoming a Christian as the Bible describes one.

This is a double standard. You claim that atheists are illogical for disbelieving in God but agnostics are logical for not having enough knowledge to claim one position or another. Yet at the same time you turn around and say that if agnostics were in the pursuit of truth, then they would wind up converting to Christianity because you claim Christianity is the truth. Since you yourself admit that agnosticism is the logical position, are you admitting you are illogical for claiming that Christianity is the truth?

[Justin]

I do encourage those who are seeking truth to continue that pursuit and that they can find the truth because we are able to comprehend truth.

 

Yes, I believe that when a person honestly and truly pursues truth that they will move in the direction of the answers. So, yes, there is one direction that an honest pursuit of truth will lead and that is to the truth.

 

Again, yes, I believe that Christianity is grounded in evidence that is testable and verifiable and when someone tries to deviate from truth it is often difficult. I do believe that this is why some on this site struggle with that decision, although, I am sure that others have other reasons that may even be emotionally based (family, friends, etc.)

 

Yes, I have never experienced an atheist who has come to Christianity who has struggled in leaving their former worldview behind them. I do believe that atheism is built on a weak foundation and is unjustifiable from evidence. Agnosticism can be a philosophically justifiable position as a lack of enough evidence should lead to that conclusion; however, I have never heard anyone justify atheism without changing the historic definition as some like Dawkins have.

 

Yoy think that the ones who struggle with deconversion is because they have taken the opposite direction of the truth? Anyone who has left any religion can say they struggled with it. People who leave cults as NG said sometimes struggle with it far more than ex-christians. It is something that you have been conditioned to your entire live, brainwashed in as the case often is. You expect the transition from believing to not is as easy as flipping on a switch? Going from believing something your entire life, having it as all you have ever known, to throwing it all away, you think that is easy and not difficult and painful?

 

Answer this LNC. I left the faith in early 06 and then went back to christianity a few weeks after. In april of last year i left it once again, for good. How do you explain this? If christianity is the truth then how was it i was able to leave it TWICE? Plus, after i converted back to christianity in early 06, i struggled with my christian walk right up until april of last year. When i say struggled i mean it was difficult for me to go on as a christian because i knew that there was a lot of it that made no sense, wasn't true, etc. That is why i eventually left it for good. How do you explain your own philosophy turned right back against itself?

 

As for christianity being groudned in evidence, you aparrently haven't read much on this site or anywhere except what the preacher tells you to.

[Astreja]

I mearly said that agnosticism is a logically tenable position as that person is claiming not to have enough knowledge to claim one position or another. Whether the agnostic ever progresses from that position to another is dependent upon their motivation and openness to seek truth...

I would like to critique your interpretation of agnosticism. I am an agnostic who is also a weak atheist with regards to non-omnimax supernatural beings, and 99.9...% strong atheist regarding entities such as the god described in the Bible.

 

Even if you could physically produce your god, that would not be sufficient to push Me away from agnosticism.

 

Let's say for the sake of argument, that a super-powerful being shows up and claims to be the Ultimate Ruler of the Universe, with All the Power There Is. How, exactly, are beings of lesser power supposed to assess a claim like that? There may be other gods. There may be other universes. The purported god could be a technologically clever extraterrestrial.

 

So, for Me at least, agnosticism is at the core of My worldview. There is nothing to which I need "progress"; I'm exactly where I want to be and where I feel I need to be.

 

And, for Me, the Christian worldview is the antithesis of what I feel to be moral and reasonable. I find substitutionary atonement barbaric, Original Sin preposterous, and the teachings of Jesus unoriginal and not particularly inspiring.

[Antlerman]

I am saying that if one has a struggle to abandon a belief that is grounded in good evidence, then one should re-examine the evidence. It should not be difficult to abandon a belief that is easily refuted by good evidence. I have done that in my life and not felt any regret or angst. I am saying that evidence should lead us in the direction of truth and when we operate in this manner, then we should not regret or struggle with abandoning false beliefs as they have been shown to be false. However, when someone struggles to abandon a belief, then they clearly have not established enough evidence to move them from that belief. In essence, they may be making a leap of faith.

Oh you bloody don't know what you're talking about.

 

You said before you've never seen an atheist who converts have to try to "shake" their ideas from their former beliefs? What fantasy land were you in to imagine that? Are you kidding? The type of church you're in requires people to reprogram themselves, working on rejecting ideas that they were taught in science class, history class, and any other thought or idea that challenges your doctrines. Ask me about me. Did I experience that as someone who converted to religion? Yep! You betcha. So much for your argument. You now have someone talking with you who did have to struggle to leave behind those ideas, ways of thinking, habits, etc that were inconsistent with the new rules of truth as define by the conservative wing of the Christian faith.

 

So... yes, it is quite common indeed for someone to have to shake all these programmed ideas that came out of the books of the religionists. You seem to have no understanding of human beings. No one, religion or not, can instantly change all the facets of their learned thought processes instantly by a simple acknowledgment of a new belief. You speak with such confidence about unsupported ideas that sound good to you in theory. I'm reality. So's everyone else here.

 

Now, I am not saying that we always have completely conclusive evidence in one direction or another, there is faith involved whether one is a Christian or an atheist; however, we should be able to establish good evidence to ground our belief, and when that ground is weak or shakey, we should continue to pursue truth until we see the pieces fit together as consistently and coherently as possible. I hope that makes sense.

Why? Why should the Christian need evidence? "Blessed are those that have not seen yet believe". I guess you have a different opinion than Jesus on that one. But no matter, like everyone else who creates God in their own image, I guess your ideas are the truth, since you clearly are right that we don't truly believe what we do since we struggle with shaking off that patterns of thought from the past. You know better.

[LNC]

This is a double standard. You claim that atheists are illogical for disbelieving in God but agnostics are logical for not having enough knowledge to claim one position or another. Yet at the same time you turn around and say that if agnostics were in the pursuit of truth, then they would wind up converting to Christianity because you claim Christianity is the truth. Since you yourself admit that agnosticism is the logical position, are you admitting you are illogical for claiming that Christianity is the truth?

 

I think you changed my statement. I said that agnosticism is a philosophically tenable position as it is mearly a claim of not having enough information to take a position, which is logically possible. Atheism is a claim of knowledge (as classically understood) that God does not exist, which is not a philosophically tenable position as it makes a claim of truth that is not possbile to prove. I see no justification in your last statement as I believe that there is enough evidence to lead one to the logical conclusion that the Christian worldview is true. On what basis do you draw your conclusion?

[LNC]

Yoy think that the ones who struggle with deconversion is because they have taken the opposite direction of the truth? Anyone who has left any religion can say they struggled with it. People who leave cults as NG said sometimes struggle with it far more than ex-christians. It is something that you have been conditioned to your entire live, brainwashed in as the case often is. You expect the transition from believing to not is as easy as flipping on a switch? Going from believing something your entire life, having it as all you have ever known, to throwing it all away, you think that is easy and not difficult and painful?

 

Answer this LNC. I left the faith in early 06 and then went back to christianity a few weeks after. In april of last year i left it once again, for good. How do you explain this? If christianity is the truth then how was it i was able to leave it TWICE? Plus, after i converted back to christianity in early 06, i struggled with my christian walk right up until april of last year. When i say struggled i mean it was difficult for me to go on as a christian because i knew that there was a lot of it that made no sense, wasn't true, etc. That is why i eventually left it for good. How do you explain your own philosophy turned right back against itself?

 

As for christianity being groudned in evidence, you aparrently haven't read much on this site or anywhere except what the preacher tells you to.

 

If you will reread my first post, you will realize that my position is that it is difficult to deny the existence of Jesus based upon the available evidence. I don't argue or address any person who has left any religion or people involved with cults. I am simply saying that evidence should lead one to truth when honestly pursued, and denial of truth is a difficult place to be and can lead to anxiety.

 

I can't explain your situation as I don't know your situation beyond the brief explanation you have given. I don't know what you left as I don't know what you believed in the first place.

 

As for the evidence of the Christian worldview and counter arguments to the same, I am very well versed in both sides and have engaged in a past discussion on this board on one of the arguments for God's existence. So, yes I have read and studied beyond what my preachear has told me. However, if you have specific claims or evidence that you would like to discuss I would be happy to do so.

[LNC]

I would like to critique your interpretation of agnosticism. I am an agnostic who is also a weak atheist with regards to non-omnimax supernatural beings, and 99.9...% strong atheist regarding entities such as the god described in the Bible.

 

Even if you could physically produce your god, that would not be sufficient to push Me away from agnosticism.

 

Let's say for the sake of argument, that a super-powerful being shows up and claims to be the Ultimate Ruler of the Universe, with All the Power There Is. How, exactly, are beings of lesser power supposed to assess a claim like that? There may be other gods. There may be other universes. The purported god could be a technologically clever extraterrestrial.

 

So, for Me at least, agnosticism is at the core of My worldview. There is nothing to which I need "progress"; I'm exactly where I want to be and where I feel I need to be.

 

And, for Me, the Christian worldview is the antithesis of what I feel to be moral and reasonable. I find substitutionary atonement barbaric, Original Sin preposterous, and the teachings of Jesus unoriginal and not particularly inspiring.

 

I guess your mind is made up and there is nothing that I could say to convince you, so I wish you well.

[LNC]

Oh you bloody don't know what you're talking about.

 

You said before you've never seen an atheist who converts have to try to "shake" their ideas from their former beliefs? What fantasy land were you in to imagine that? Are you kidding? The type of church you're in requires people to reprogram themselves, working on rejecting ideas that they were taught in science class, history class, and any other thought or idea that challenges your doctrines. Ask me about me. Did I experience that as someone who converted to religion? Yep! You betcha. So much for your argument. You now have someone talking with you who did have to struggle to leave behind those ideas, ways of thinking, habits, etc that were inconsistent with the new rules of truth as define by the conservative wing of the Christian faith.

 

So... yes, it is quite common indeed for someone to have to shake all these programmed ideas that came out of the books of the religionists. You seem to have no understanding of human beings. No one, religion or not, can instantly change all the facets of their learned thought processes instantly by a simple acknowledgment of a new belief. You speak with such confidence about unsupported ideas that sound good to you in theory. I'm reality. So's everyone else here.

 

I didn't say that a person's thinking wouldn't change. That seems to be a given as they are going from one worldview to another. Yet, you mention that a person has to reject what they learned in science, history and other classes. What were you thinking there? Are you implying that a person has to deny truth to follow Christianity? If so, you are mistaken. However, my point stands that I have never met a convert from atheism who has ever struggled with that change.

 

Why? Why should the Christian need evidence? "Blessed are those that have not seen yet believe". I guess you have a different opinion than Jesus on that one. But no matter, like everyone else who creates God in their own image, I guess your ideas are the truth, since you clearly are right that we don't truly believe what we do since we struggle with shaking off that patterns of thought from the past. You know better.

 

You seem to confuse Chritians with existentialists. Christianity is steeped in truth claims that are falsifiable. The events recorded in the Bible are recorded as history and therefore can be falsified in untrue. Jesus' life, which was the basis of the original post, is verifiable by extra-Biblical sources. If you have counter arguments that you would like to present, I will entertain them. However, so far no one on this thread has posted any, you included.

[white_raven23]

The events recorded in the Bible are recorded as history and therefore can be falsified in untrue. Jesus' life, which was the basis of the original post, is verifiable by extra-Biblical sources. If you have counter arguments that you would like to present, I will entertain them. However, so far no one on this thread has posted any, you included.

 

 

It's because we are incredulous LNC. What you do not comprehend is the basic rule of logic. The person making the positive claim is the one responsible for providing evidence.

 

You just asked for counter-evidence disproving the existence of a character in a book. Why the hell should any of us do that? This is no different than you claiming a unicorn is in orbit around the planet, then trying to claim it is our job to prove otherwise. Nope. Sorry. Burden of proof is on you to establish evidence of your claims. If there are extra-biblical sources for the existence of your character....it is YOUR job to provide it...not OURS to prove otherwise.

 

And by the way...I really hope you have stayed current because some of your likely sources have already been discredited.

[OnceConvinced]

You're confusing truth with unhealthy addiction, which is what Christianity is. It's like a drug and it messes with you. The evidence shows that over time, feelings of guilt and fear subside. It takes time, just as it takes time for a drug addict to completely overcome their addiction. There is a withdrawzl process, but once you get through it, you're fine. The fact that there are people here on this thread testifiying to the fact they no longer have feelings of fear or guilt is proof that Jesus existance is not "truth".

 

Sorry, your explanation does not fit the facts. I have examined the facts of Christianity and followed them to their logical conclusion.

If you had followed it to its logical conclusion you would be an ex-Christian like us. The conclusions you come to can only really be based on faith.

 

I do find it interesting that you many of you apparently find it difficult to escape the truth of Christianity, while many atheists who I know of have left that belief system without the same type of withdrawal symptoms that many of you express here. When one finds truth, leaving behind old unfounded belief systems is not hard to do. Now, I am sure that all of you on this board have not experienced these withdrawal feelings when abandoning Christianity; however, I have never heard of a former atheist even having these experiences when becoming a Christian. So, it is interesting to hear these feelings so often expressed on this board.

Atheism cannot be compared to a religion. There are no doctrines of atheism, there's no threat of Hell if you become an ex-atheist, no guilt heaped on you for questioning it, no rules that you must adhere to. The type of indoctronation and brainwashing that goes on in religion is the reason why it is so hard to withdraw from it. It is addictive like a drug. That's the reality of it. Truth or the lack thereof has nothing to do with it.

 

I examined the facts of Christianity and lived for God for over 30 years and came to the conclusion it is not truth. I wonder how many years you have studied it and lived it?