Can a Married Bachelor Exist? (to the newly deconverting)

[ag_NO_stic]

Hello and greetings, heathens, doubters, skeptics and questioners!  I can't speak for everyone who is currently deconverting, but I'm about a year in. I am still in the "mildly bitter; making jokes about hell and god's grace" phase, I hope to soon completely not give any craps. I just wanted to post a video that has been helpful to me where Dan Barker makes several good general points against the existence of god. This will be pretty basic for many of you who have embraced your deconversion for years now, but for the newbies it might be refreshing material.

 

The reason it's helpful to me is because, like Dr. Bart Ehrman and Matt Dillahunty, he has a history based in the Christian faith. He was a pastor who was very serious about his faith who is now an atheist. The reason this is often so helpful for me is because they approach these discussions with a bit of sympathy and kindness towards those who are still mired in their faith. I love to watch Hitchens' or Sam Harris' approach too, but they do not come with much fundamental experience in the faith.

 

Enjoy and feel free to give feedback or anything that resonated with you! I liked the Married Bachelor bit myself.

 

 

[♦ Fuego ♦]

I agree that those who have lived it have a better foundation for criticizing the faith, and other faiths. Their arguments and quotes from the Bible are better and more contextual. I often think back to high school and the preachers that would come looking for the naive, and the few atheists who would argue with them, and the meaningless arguments that the preachers would use (misquoting science without understanding what they really meant, appeals to nature) that had nothing to do with their own faith and conversion, simply trying to sideline anything that might make the faith seem stupid. Atheists can get distracted by the shell game of apologetics and need to keep striking at the roots of faith, the non-existence of any god's intervention by prayer, the obviously fictional creation/fall story (which is the one and only reason for the crucifixion), and the non-history of the Bible which is the foundation for all of Christianity.

 

Believers want to use arcane god-of-the-gaps (we don't fully understand X, therefore Jesus!) arguments and a LOT of people still fall for that. Many atheists haven't thought through their arguments, nor have they even spoken with believers (and some have not even read the Bible) and are thus unprepared to deal with the Wall O' Faith they encounter and the poor arguments that leave them stunned. Believers don't believe because of the god-of-the-gaps, they believed because someone told them that God loved them enough to give his son to die for their sins, and who would oppose love? They don't get past that idea to say, "How is it love to demand blood for our ancestors eating a magic fruit that he planted in front of them? He set them up for failure when the magic talking snake tricked them. Seriously, a talking snake? You do know it doesn't say Satan, right?" "How is it love when he himself is the one making the demand for obedience, and inventing the punishment, and burning alive those who won't love him?" "He sounds an awful lot like a psychotic narcissist instead of a loving god"

 

"Oh, well He's holy!" 

     "But holy people are kind and good, and don't demand blood for being offended. They turn the other cheek instead of demanding payment for 'forgiveness' which by definition cannot have payment. Why does your god tell us to turn the other cheek when he isn't willing?"

"Oh, he's done that lots of times, just look at all the evil around us. I'm surprised he even gave us a way of salvation."

     "Doesn't his nature demand that, if he is good? And the satisfaction he has for the magic fruit tree incident is in someone being tortured to death? That is contradictory to being good. And you are equating the crimes and evil of mankind with the nature of all people, which is your belief, but not reality since many people are quite good."

"But all our righteousness is like filthy diapers to God, only He is good."

   "That is so clearly not true when we watch how many people go out of their way to be kind. If he regards all of the altruism and goodness that people show as shit, that tells me that HE is the problem rather than us. He's like an abusive husband hitting his wife and telling her she deserved it, and expecting her to agree and bow to his perfection. Your god is evil, and you are the abused wife that will only see good in his abuse."

"Hey, we're having a sing-along at the youth center today, why don't you come down and check it out, it'll be fun!" (and the shell game continues...)

 

 

[ag_NO_stic]

1 hour ago, Fuego said:

I agree that those who have lived it have a better foundation for criticizing the faith, and other faiths. Their arguments and quotes from the Bible are better and more contextual. I often think back to high school and the preachers that would come looking for the naive, and the few atheists who would argue with them, and the meaningless arguments that the preachers would use (misquoting science without understanding what they really meant, appeals to nature) that had nothing to do with their own faith and conversion, simply trying to sideline anything that might make the faith seem stupid. Atheists can get distracted by the shell game of apologetics and need to keep striking at the roots of faith, the non-existence of any god's intervention by prayer, the obviously fictional creation/fall story (which is the one and only reason for the crucifixion), and the non-history of the Bible which is the foundation for all of Christianity.

 

Believers want to use arcane god-of-the-gaps (we don't fully understand X, therefore Jesus!) arguments and a LOT of people still fall for that. Many atheists haven't thought through their arguments, nor have they even spoken with believers (and some have not even read the Bible) and are thus unprepared to deal with the Wall O' Faith they encounter and the poor arguments that leave them stunned. Believers don't believe because of the god-of-the-gaps, they believed because someone told them that God loved them enough to give his son to die for their sins, and who would oppose love? They don't get past that idea to say, "How is it love to demand blood for our ancestors eating a magic fruit that he planted in front of them? He set them up for failure when the magic talking snake tricked them. Seriously, a talking snake? You do know it doesn't say Satan, right?" "How is it love when he himself is the one making the demand for obedience, and inventing the punishment, and burning alive those who won't love him?" "He sounds an awful lot like a psychotic narcissist instead of a loving god"

 

"Oh, well He's holy!" 

     "But holy people are kind and good, and don't demand blood for being offended. They turn the other cheek instead of demanding payment for 'forgiveness' which by definition cannot have payment. Why does your god tell us to turn the other cheek when he isn't willing?"

"Oh, he's done that lots of times, just look at all the evil around us. I'm surprised he even gave us a way of salvation."

     "Doesn't his nature demand that, if he is good? And the satisfaction he has for the magic fruit tree incident is in someone being tortured to death? That is contradictory to being good. And you are equating the crimes and evil of mankind with the nature of all people, which is your belief, but not reality since many people are quite good."

"But all our righteousness is like filthy diapers to God, only He is good."

   "That is so clearly not true when we watch how many people go out of their way to be kind. If he regards all of the altruism and goodness that people show as shit, that tells me that HE is the problem rather than us. He's like an abusive husband hitting his wife and telling her she deserved it, and expecting her to agree and bow to his perfection. Your god is evil, and you are the abused wife that will only see good in his abuse."

"Hey, we're having a sing-along at the youth center today, why don't you come down and check it out, it'll be fun!" (and the shell game continues...)

 

 

 

It also makes arguing against the beliefs you used to hold HELLA frustrating. You're like "I KNOW YOUR ARGUMENT, I PROMISE! Let me show you why you're wrong" and they think we still need basic evangelism. 

[Geezer]

If the Bible is studied from the historical critical perspective I don't know anyone could continue to be a believer. That perspective makes it crystal clear that the Bible is literature not history. All the stories and characters in those stories are fictional. Liberal Christians would prefer to label them as theological myths, mythology or even book length parables as long as the word fiction doesn't appear in the description, even though this is what they are.  

 

I agree with the late D.M. Murdock that virtually all religions evolved from Astrotheology. The reality that ancient cultures would see the Sun as God and worship it is pretty much common sense. Even the ancients figured out the Sun is the source for all life. Without the Sun life cannot exists. Astrotheology is an interesting subject to study on it own merits. 

 

D.M. Murdock has some great books and youtube videos on Astrotheology for those that might have an interest in that subject. 

[ConsiderTheSource]

"You're like "I KNOW YOUR ARGUMENT, I PROMISE! Let me show you why you're wrong" and they think we still need basic evangelism."

 

This is soooo upsetting.  They expect full respect....but will not return the favor.  Yes, I used to be "them,  but, now 7 years removed, my empathy is wearing a bit thin.

•  

 

[LogicalFallacy]

On 11/10/2017 at 7:37 AM, Geezer said:

Even the ancients figured out the Sun is the source for all life. Without the Sun life cannot exists.

 

An interesting observation given the annoying claim that the bible 'revealed truths about the world before anyone knew about them scientifically" 

 

The favorite one being Isaiah "The Lord sits upon the circle of the earth." See God revealed the earth was round! Um... the word is literally translated as circle.... as a flat circle that you draw.

 

When we go back we find cultures far older were very aware of truths about the natural world. Some truths were lost for a time as civilizations rose and fell. Why somebody finds Isaiah interesting, but worship of the sun as the giver of life just nonsense I'll never know.

[♦ ficino ♦]

5 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

An interesting observation given the annoying claim that the bible 'revealed truths about the world before anyone knew about them scientifically" 

 

The favorite one being Isaiah "The Lord sits upon the circle of the earth." See God revealed the earth was round! Um... the word is literally translated as circle.... as a flat circle that you draw.

I don't know why people keep thinking that all the ancients believed that the earth is flat. That view does indeed seem to be the one reflected in many OT passages. But by the fourth century BCE Greek scientists and philosophers held that the earth is spherical and had arguments for this. I don't know whether they picked up the idea from earlier civilizations. The Babylonians had amassed a huge trove of astronomical data.

[LogicalFallacy]

2 minutes ago, ficino said:

I don't know why people keep thinking that all the ancients believed that the earth is flat. That view does indeed seem to be the one reflected in many OT passages. But by the fourth century BCE Greek scientists and philosophers held that the earth is spherical and had arguments for this. I don't know whether they picked up the idea from earlier civilizations. The Babylonians had amassed a huge trove of astronomical data.

 

Yes, my other point is that meanwhile a person using observation had figured out the earth was a sphere. I'm not sure on the earliest known reference? But it's certainly not that God revealed it eons ago, and it was only when Columbus sailed that we figure the truth out as so many Christians say. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Aristotle talks about how it's obvious that the earth is spherical because its shadow on the moon during eclipses shows its shape. Plus sails of ships at a distance.