please answer ex-christians!!!

[nutrichuckles93]

1 hour ago, florduh said:

"Arguments" such as Pascal's are ridiculous for obvious reasons already mentioned. But there's another aspect people don't often address. You assume that belief is a choice and it is not. One can pretend and choose to go along, go through the motions and say all the right things but one cannot actually believe on command anymore than he can love someone on command. Either you can believe it or you can't. One may still desperately want to believe but not be able to swallow the fantastic tale as real.

Precisely this. Once I saw through it as a tale of impossibilities, I knew I could not go back to believing even if I wanted to. Because I had seen through the veil.

[disillusioned]

5 hours ago, Jon said:

My definition of God ,Jesus christ,God the father of the bible.

Creator and sustainor of the universe.

The life giving spirit,father of lights.

 

That's 5 answers, none of which is particularly robust, but let's see what we can do.

 

Your God is...

1) Jesus Christ

2) God the father of the bible

3) The creator and sustainer of the universe

4) The life giving spirit

5) The father of lights

 

I don't accept that these 5 can be seamlessly amalgamated into one, coherently defined notion of "God". Two of the five do not exactly make sense even of their own accord. What, precisely is meant by "the life giving spirit"? What on earth is meant by "the father of lights"? I understand that you are a Christian, but I'm afraid that I will need you to be a bit more specific. As the prof has suggested, there are multiple versions of Christianity, some of which directly contradict each other about the nature of God. My personal contention is that no one has ever been able to coherently and robustly define the Christian God. But this makes the statement "God exists" incomprehensible, and therefore, meaningless. So until what we mean by God is properly defined, Pascal's wager holds no meaning whatsoever.

 

I understand that this may seem a touch disingenuous on my part. I used to be a Christian. I understand many of the different Christian notions of God very well. So for me to pretend that I don't may seem somehow evasive. But I don't think that this is truly the case. Christianity claims that God's ways are not our ways, and that his thoughts are not our thoughts. So we can't be expected to be able to understand him. Ergo, my contention regarding the definition of God meshes with the Christian message. But it follows, then, that we can't know how God will react to our believing in him. We can't know that salvation is to be gained and damnation avoided by such belief. So, once again, Pascal's wager loses it's potency.

 

Florduh's objection is also very potent. I find myself in the position of actually not believing in God. I could pretend to believe, but surely God would see through that. I can't make myself think that Christianity is true. I sincerely don't believe it.

 

And then there is the issue of which God to choose, which has already been discussed. It bears noting, though, that if I were to pretend to believe in a God in order to evade some hypothetically horrendous afterlife, I wouldn't choose the Christian God. I'd convert to Islam. Their heaven is better, and their hell is worse. But I still might choose to do that and find myself waking up on the shores of the river Styx, with no coin to pay to Charon. See the problem?

 

I hope that by now you can see that Pascal's wager is troubling only to those non-believers who haven't really thought it through.

[★ Citsonga ★]

On 3/29/2017 at 3:26 PM, Jon said:

i always took athiests as opponents to christ,which i've learned is not true,from you brilliant people in this forum.

Now i know your not the enemy,never were.

 

Greetings, Jon.

 

It's good to see that you recognize that the church has mischaracterized nonbelievers. Have you given any consideration to the fact that if the church misled you on that issue, then they could be misleading you on other issues as well?

 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

10 hours ago, Jon said:

ok ,explain pascals wager?

please no war (this is just a question).

 

 

Some good points have already been made on the topic, but I'll throw in my two cents. Below is something I wrote a few years back dealing with Pascal's Wager. It's an excerpt from a letter I wrote explaining a lot of the problems I see with the Bible and Christianity.

 

Pascal's Wager

     Pascal's Wager is a very common Christian argument, even though many who use it are not familiar with the title. Basically, Pascal's Wager goes like this: Either Christianity is true or it is false. If it is false, then there will be no judgment and the Christian has nothing to fear. On the other hand, if Christianity is true, then there will be a judgment and the unbeliever will suffer severe consequences in Hell.

     This common argument is severely flawed. It sets up a false dichotomy, as though the only religious option is Christianity, and the odds of which side is right are 50/50. In reality, though, there are numerous religious views out there, including Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhism, and a bunch of others. Not only that, but there are multiple denominations within some religions, including Christianity. In fact, some of the different Christian denominations argue that they are the only true Christian church, and the others are wrong.

     So, when considering all of this, what if the Christian is wrong and the Muslim is right? Islam teaches that non-Muslims go to Hell, so therefore the Christian would have Hell to fear in this scenario, if the Christian is wrong. In fact, while Christianity requires you to accept Jesus as your savior, to a Muslim it is blasphemy to worship or honor a man as such!

     Even though Pascal's Wager is typically presented as though it's just a matter of whether the Christian or the nonbeliever is right, the wager still fails to acknowledge that there actually are losses for the Christian if he's wrong. Churches require a lot of funding, and many Christians tithe 10% of their income to the church, so there is monetary loss. There is also a lot of time involved in going to church, learning doctrine and doing other things such as witnessing or trying to get people to go to church; that time could be spent doing more productive things. Another factor is the needless fear of a fictional lake of fire, which Christianity fosters. There is also the issue of being trained to be prejudiced against (and even demonize) those the church doesn't like, such as nonbelievers, followers of other religious views, homosexuals, etc. For the conservative Christian, there is the unfortunate refusal to be open-minded toward science, due to the requirement to suppress information that doesn't conform to his dogma. Also, there is the unfortunate refusal to objectively evaluate evidence regarding Christianity, because the Christian is required to make everything conform to his preconceived notion that his religion just has to be true. And finally, some Christians have even lost their lives or loved ones because of trusting in "the power of prayer" instead of seeking medical help.

     Also, Pascal's Wager actually assumes that either belief is a choice or it can be faked. But how does that stack up to reality? Can you choose to believe something that you really don't believe? Just try to do it! Right now, choose to believe in Islam! Come on, choose it! OK, how did that work for you? Were you able to choose to believe Islam for a little bit? No? Well then, try another one. Right now, choose to believe in Santa Claus! Make that choice! OK, how did that one work for you? Were you able to choose to believe in Santa Claus? Oh, that didn't work either? You see, contrary to what a lot of Christians want to think, belief is not a choice. A lot of factors go into one's beliefs, and you can't just change your beliefs on a whim.

     And what about the other part, that belief can be faked? While it is true that one can pretend to believe something that he really doesn't believe, what would be the point in doing that in the context of a wager in which there is supposed to be an omniscient God as the judge? Would it be possible to fool an omniscient God by pretending to believe? That notion is rather silly, is it not?

     Those who use Pascal's Wager often also claim that Christianity is belief-worthy because it leads to a "better life." However, this claim is highly subjective. A Christian may think that he has a better life, but there are people of other belief systems who think that they have the better life. Many Muslims consider Islam to be the best life, many Buddhists consider Buddhism to be the best life, many Hindus consider Hinduism to be the best life, and many atheists consider atheism to be the best life. In reality, just because something works for you and seems best to you does not automatically mean that it is what is best for everyone.

     Considering all of this, Pascal's Wager is not as cut-and-dry as it is presented as being. It is a silly argument that gives Christians a cushy feeling that even if they're wrong, it doesn't matter, and they gullibly think that it is a valid argument to an outsider. For those who prefer to use logic and reason, though, the wager simply does not work.

     In reality, what matters more than a little wager is evidence. And, as has been detailed throughout this letter, the evidence against Christianity is insurmountable (and this letter has not hit on all the evidence!). Therefore, Pascal's Wager is wrong in the way it treats the matter as having 50/50 chance of Christianity being true, since the evidence indicates that such is not the case. I cannot believe that which the weight of the evidence indicates is not true, and no silly little wager can affect that.

 

[sdelsolray]

Excellent writing, Citisonga.  I forgot about your letter.  I need to work on remembering quality writing more.

[L.B.]

@florduh

 

Mods, either ban this asshole or block him from posting until he agrees to a debate.

 

I asked this moron twice now. This is the last time, before I forego my want for a structured exchange and go for the jugular.

 

@Jon

 

WHAT makes YOUR version of Christianity the one we should even be discussing? Forget whether we should be talking about A god - let's just say that I will admit to the existence (for arguments' sake) of a god that has dictated a religion to man called Christianity.

WHY is YOUR perspective the one I should accept as definitive? How do you come to the conclusion that some combination of your opinions, your "prayers", your "leading of the Spirit" and the teachings of some denomination lead to THE CORRECT version of Christianity - the one that, should you be right, I would be bound to accept?

Last time I'm playing nice... don't pass this chance up.

[L.B.]

my money is on self-righteous asshole troll, not in the least interested in a serious discussion.

[florduh]

Quote

 

@florduh

 

Mods, either ban this asshole or block him from posting until he agrees to a debate.

 

There is no requirement that he debate. I think he backed off after realizing what he was getting into. Meaningful, logical discussions are rare with Christians since their argument is driven by emotion rather than logic. Faith trumps logic every time, hence the "playing chess with pigeons" analogy.

[Castiel233]

On 3/25/2017 at 8:10 PM, Jon said:

The bible says "it proves they were not of us,becauce if they were they would if stayed"

The fact you turned away fron God;does this not prove you never were true christians in the first place?

True Christians give away all that they own, abandon their families and go out into the world dressed in rags and live a life of poverty  preaching the gospel to all creatures as the Bible commands.

 

Are you a true Christian?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

4 hours ago, Garry said:

True Christians give away all that they own, abandon their families and go out into the world dressed in rags and live a life of poverty  preaching the gospel to all creatures as the Bible commands.

 

Are you a true Christian?

Pauls writings do reflect that. During the early christian movement they believed that Christ would be coming very soon. As in within that generation. The single men were urged to lead celibate lives even. They were all under the impression that their rich reward was coming before they died. 

     It wasn't till later writings (forgeries) that the authors began making apologetic deceptions in the name of Paul and other apostles. They were trying to fix the issue regarding Christs coming since well...... he didn't come. Hence the reason behind some of the first reinterpretations and forgeries. 

     If they hadn't done that the church wou.do probably have died out a long time e ago.

 

DB

[Jon]

On 4 April 2017 at 5:17 PM, Garry said:

True Christians give away all that they own, abandon their families and go out into the world dressed in rags and live a life of poverty  preaching the gospel to all creatures as the Bible commands.

 

Are you a true Christian?

what and where did you get that from garry,complete nonsense about rags and depriving oneself,utter rubbish.

Christianity is about giving dead men life,show me in the bible things to back your statement up,Jesus himself wore a purple robe:look that up,please?

[Thurisaz]

Aaaaaaaand PLONK!

[L.B.]

@Thurisaz

 

PLEASE tell me Jon got the Ban Hammer.

 

Otherwise... "plonk'? :confused:

[LogicalFallacy]

 

4 hours ago, Thurisaz said:

Aaaaaaaand PLONK!

 

3 hours ago, L.B. said:

@Thurisaz

 

PLEASE tell me Jon got the Ban Hammer.

 

Otherwise... "plonk'? :confused:

Whats with your fascination with the ban hammer LB?  Jon just gave you free ammo to shoot his idea of the bible, Christianity and Jesus to shreds. His statement is so obscenely naive that we can conclude that Jon hasn't read the Gospels.

 

 

5 hours ago, Jon said:

what and where did you get that from garry,complete nonsense about rags and depriving oneself,utter rubbish.

Christianity is about giving dead men life,show me in the bible things to back your statement up,Jesus himself wore a purple robe:look that up,please?

 

@Jon First, learn how to debate, I'm not sure how old you are but you just loaded a cannon, stood in front of it, and challenged us to see if we could fire it. To that I say no problemo:

 

(My commentary of verses in blue)

 

Giving away what people own

Matthew 19:21

²¹ Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. (This concept of not being rich and giving to the poor is repeated throughout the New Testament)

 

 

Matthew 19:24King James Version (KJV)

24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (This is coming off the back of the last verse - the inference here is clear)

 

Luke 3:10-11 And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then? He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.

 

Matthew 5:42 Give to everyone who asks you for something. Don’t turn anyone away who wants to borrow something from you. (EVERYONE Jon, have you ever refused to give someone something?)

 

Acts 2:44-26 And all the believers met together in one place and shared everything they had. They sold their property and possessions and shared the money with those in need

 

 

Giving to your enemy

Romans 12:20-21 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. (Do you do this? Incidentally Paul ripped this straight from Proverbs.)

 

Abandon Families

Luke 14:25-27King James Version (KJV)

26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (So a clear command to love and follow Jesus above all else)

27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. (The cross here probably is a symbol of suffering and hardship - you cannot read it any other way)

 

The Purple Robe

Jesus did not 'wear' a purple/scarlet/gorgeous robe, it was placed on him by either King Herod or Pilates soldiers - the bible contradicts itself on this point, and clearly you haven't read the bible if you are suggesting that Jesus wore Purple clothing as if it was a sign of wealth.

 

 

So Who put the robe on Jesus?

---

Herod's soldiers

And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate. Luke 23:11

Pilate's soldiers

Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. Matthew 27:27-28

And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified. And they clothed him with purple. Mark 15:15-17

Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe. John 19:1-2

[Thurisaz]

1 hour ago, L.B. said:

@Thurisaz

 

PLEASE tell me Jon got the Ban Hammer.

 

Otherwise... "plonk'? :confused:

 

PLONK is a term from good old usenet and signified that a moron got added to the PLONK-poster's ignore list

[Jon]

The only reason i would get banned is becauce i believe in jesus,if im no threat let me continue in this forum with you lovely people.

 

[TABA]

47 minutes ago, Jon said:

The only reason i would get banned is becauce i believe in jesus,if im no threat let me continue in this forum with you lovely people.

 

 

Jon, you're not going to get banned for believing in Jesus, trust me.  But you may end up being ignored if you say you want to debate but don't do so in any kind of coherent manner. 

[L.B.]

@LogicalFallacy

 

I have no interest in "shredding" a barely-literate, possibly mentally-deficient person's challenges. He's stupid to think that I am (or any other reasonable person is) going to fall for his pretended innocence and naivete.

 

The reason I want him banned is as an example to the other Christards that come here thinking they're so clever.

I've said before and will continue to say that my beef is not with spirituality - it's not even with someone's self-identification as a Christian - I am married to one, and until about a year ago, every single person in my entire social and volunteer-work like was one, too.

 

My problem is with the self-appointed "missionary" types, the assholes who think (yet fucking AGAIN) that they're coming at this with some new, clever, insightful tactics or unanticipated challenges.

I asked a question at least three times, just like people have been doing with IronHorseShit, and @Jon has refused to deal with it in even the most casual way, let alone in a structured and mature way.

 

What makes HIS interpretation and understanding of Christianity the ONE that should represent biblegod - not as the "true religion" in the world, but simply as the true version of HIS religion?

 

That's why I want his ass banned from here - he's fucking wasting our time and he genuinely doesn't give a shit about what or how we answer - he keeps clogging multiple categories with inane threads full of bad spelling and the stupidest, most easily-refuted false logic. Ten minutes with Google could have answered every one of his posts, and the answers would have been from his fellow Christians - people who already know how shitty these arguments are.

[Jeff]

Lol. IH would have been banned ages ago. 

 

You sure are attacking Jon personally. I think his arguments so far have lacked focus and are full of assumptions but he has already admitted that he had wrong assumptions about atheist and ex-Cs here. 

[LogicalFallacy]

4 hours ago, L.B. said:

@LogicalFallacy

 

I have no interest in "shredding" a barely-literate, possibly mentally-deficient person's challenges. He's stupid to think that I am (or any other reasonable person is) going to fall for his pretended innocence and naivete.

 

That's why I want his ass banned from here - he's fucking wasting our time and he genuinely doesn't give a shit about what or how we answer - he keeps clogging multiple categories with inane threads full of bad spelling and the stupidest, most easily-refuted false logic. Ten minutes with Google could have answered every one of his posts, and the answers would have been from his fellow Christians - people who already know how shitty these arguments are.

 

LB I'd like to preface this post by saying I do agree with much of what you are saying, I don't however, agree with the manner in which it is said.

 

Fair comment on the 'shredding" I chose my words poorly. I look on it more as an opportunity to challenge this Christians perspective, and perhaps change their mind.

 

By saying "pretended" you are making the assuming that Jon is more informed and more intelligent than he makes out. This might be right, but as Jeff points out, when challenged Jon already backed down and asked for explanations.

 

I prefer to look on the situation as a Christian, overconfident, and not as knowledgeable as they think, coming here, and we have an opportunity to change the way he thinks. If he simply goes away from here being able to hold an argument better then we have achieved something.

 

He is only wasting your time IF you read his posts and IF you reply to them. You consider it a waste of time, I don't. You see it as an annoyance to be banned, I see it as an opportunity.

 

If we are looking at convincing others of our position, I don't think launching personal attacks is the way to go about it. As far as logic goes, launching an ad hominem is a logical fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

 

 

 

[Castiel233]

On 06/04/2017 at 6:41 AM, Jon said:

what and where did you get that from garry,complete nonsense about rags and depriving oneself,utter rubbish.

Christianity is about giving dead men life,show me in the bible things to back your statement up,Jesus himself wore a purple robe:look that up,please?

Matthew 19:21

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

 

Don't you want to be perfect my friend, will you answer the call of Christ..........

[LogicalFallacy]

On 4/7/2017 at 0:03 AM, Jon said:

The only reason i would get banned is becauce i believe in jesus,if im no threat let me continue in this forum with you lovely people.

 

 

Hmm I missed this.

 

This is called a christian persecution complex wherein the christian blames some action or disagreement because of their belief for Jesus rather than facing facts. What you believe is irrelevant on this site. There are many and varying beliefs. 

 

The only reason you would get banned is the same reason that any one else would get banned - you broke the rules. So far you haven't. So far you have simply produce limited, at times barely coherent posts. In this I agree with LB.

 

In post #65 I produced adequate references from the Bible to meet your challenge quoted below:

 

On 4/6/2017 at 5:41 PM, Jon said:

what and where did you get that from garry,complete nonsense about rags and depriving oneself,utter rubbish.

Christianity is about giving dead men life,show me in the bible things to back your statement up,Jesus himself wore a purple robe:l

 

You are most welcome to respond to that post. Perhaps you'd like to concede the point? Or challenge it?

[BroTom]

Hi Jon

 

My own personal, new and improved, definition of being a true believer (sorry--this is the best I can do in my current state of mind) involves the stipulation that what I believe in is true.  Therefore (speaking only for myself)  I agree with you--I was never a true Christian.  I'm tempted to pass judgment on whether there exist any true believers out there, but I'd better leave it at that.

 

Tom

 

 

[L.B.]

@LogicalFallacy

 

He's a hit-and-run troll who never directly answers any questions, and constantly tries to change the subject in one thread and then goes and starts new threads.

 

You keep insisting that I don't want dialogue and I don't want to help anyone change their mind.

 

That's bullshit, and the process of DIA (two, or pair) LOGOS (words) is necessarily a TWO (there's that number again) way street.

 

He never even came in with so much as a direct, basic introduction of himself and why he's here.

 

He started posting mumbly, wide-ranging, logically- and grammatically-incoherent challenges that amount to pointless challenges. The answers to the stupid demands he's made wouldn't change the mind

of anyone but nobody.

 

Again, I am not here to make friends. The idea that you keep bringing up, that of leaving the Christian religion and using a forum like this for support and dialogue and help, is a deep, deep, serious, life-changing, weighty thing.

 

I am in the middle of it right now, as it stands. I have lost EVERY social contact I had. I have NO friends save two, both of whom are struggling mightily with how to be close to me now that the foundational bond we had, our shared religion, is gone.

 

For the, let's see - EIGHTH time in my life over 40+ years, I have struggled with (and admitted struggles with) huge emotional and mental issues, and I have been abandoned by the church I was deeply involved with and committed to and serving in.

I have been crushed by the rejection of countless people who were at one time hugging me and telling me they loved me. I am, with the exception of my wife and children, essentially ALONE in this world right now, barring some huge changes to our lifestyle.

I am married to a convinced believer who is insisting on raising our children to believe just as assuredly. I have to wait for the same shit that nearly destroyed my life to fuck them up, too - because they won't listen to me otherwise.

Leaving Christianity, especially when someone's entire adult (and in my case, nearly entire, period) life has been DEEPLY entrenched in that worldview, is profoundly painful, scary and hard.

 

Do me a favor and save the "why can't you be nicer and more polite" shit. I have all the love and patience in the world for anyone who wants to DISCUSS and SHARE and EXPLORE nearly any religious, spiritual or philosophical worldview they care to. I have always been a person willing to listen and willing to accept people for who they are WHEN IT'S GENUINE.

 

THIS bullshit that Jon is pulling is NOT genuine, it doesn't lead to discussion, it's not revelatory about his true feelings - it's amateurish troll garbage.

 

You don't know the depths of the pain I am in - when a motherfucker comes in here and tries to play silly little shallow games with their junior-Sunday-School "apologetics" bullshit, it infuriates me and rips open wounds that are not even close to beginning to heal.

 

Please know that i was trying to make the hurt stop while I was still ACTIVELY involved in the Christ cult. That only made the frustration and running in circles even more damaging.

 

When someone comes here and disrespects the one safe place I have to vent and be my true, raw self, they get NOTHING from me except venom.

 

When you can explain how the fuck you see any sincerity or cogency or sense at all in the random, blindfolded dart-throwing of Jon, then you can ask me to be nicer about this.

 

I'm telling you, he's here to fuck around with his invisible-man superiority complex and "prove" that we godless atheists are wrong because "if [we] get offended, [we] prove the Bible". Remember that gold-plated turd he threw at us?

 

Fuck him.

[midniterider]

On 3/25/2017 at 1:10 PM, Jon said:

The bible says "it proves they were not of us,becauce if they were they would if stayed"

The fact you turned away fron God;does this not prove you never were true christians in the first place?

 

The bible also speaks of unicorns.

Job 39:9-12King James Version (KJV)

⁹ Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

 

...

 

The bible is not a useful source of truth and should be ignored.