From atheist to EX atheist . Hello.

[Smellyoldgit]

You could always fuck off, you slack-jawed trolling fuckwit.

[Ex Atheist]

Tenspace wrote

What are you referring to, precisely? That's too general a statement to respond to.



Using your logic, before we can discuss cosmology, we must show that the big bang took place. Before we can discuss any history, we must show that the initial conditions took place. Before we look back on a child's life, we must prove that the parents had sex.

Do you see how restrictive that is? That's not how theoretical science works. Do you think Mendeleev could have come up with the periodic table if he was restricted by having to show knowledge of fundamentals that had yet to be discovered?



At this point, I realize it's not worth continuing a discussion with you. It's obvious you haven't read Dawkin's works on evolution, or you would be conversant in convergent evolution. You know nothing about light-sensitive cells or anything about population and probability. Everything you're presenting are tired old anti-science canards that have been debunked repeatedly.

I agree to disengage dialogue with you too, since youre not up to speed on the specific Laws of Science which prevent macro evolution from ever occuring in addition to genetic limits, cyclical change, irreducible complexity, non viability of transitional forms, and molecular isolation -- all of which show Darwinnian Macro Evolution utterly bankrupt to which Darwin if here today, would agree and even proclaim in a profusily apologizing manner. Thanks for the brief chat. Regards.

[Kamikaze189]

Ex Atheist wrote

I am an Evidential Apologist and have debated many atheists and could very easily list the scientific evidences for a personal Theistic Creator but ive learned over the years that nearly ALL atheists arent truly interested in looking at it because it is an affront to them. I came to this NG to see if there is an atheist who can truly defend their atheist/humanist position, or, if they too want to resign to stating that atheism is simply declaring that 'No God exists' (as if they could factually know that beyond all doubt) .

I argue that position, that no god exists. And I understand a bunch of people have responded to your posts, you have more than enough to reply to, but I figure I'll answer your questions since they were addressed to me. I'll keep it short, and try not to repeat what others have said.

So, what id like to ask you is :

1. What have YOU done to look into the evidences for a personal Theistic Creator . Please list the sources youve gone to where you have diligently researched this issue.

To begin with, I've considered the philosophical arguments. I've read the works of many apologists, and encountered their arguments second hand from theists like yourself which have led to lengthy discussions about religious topics. I've read about and read the religious books, as well as taken a comparative religions course which required me to sit in on a few religious services.

2. Why are you an 'atheist' instead of an agnostic Seeker ? What is your personal ulterior motive for wanting to be an atheist ?

I'm an atheist because I believe god doesn't exist, at least as traditionally defined. Religious language is either poetic, or ambiguous, or meaningless, or superstitious. It can be poetic and ambiguous in the sense that the Old Testament occasionally says god shows someone his face or is seen in a vision sitting on a throne, and meaningless as in the phrase: "God exists." I've heard a Jewish theologian, Maimonides, wrote that god could only be described in negative terms. You can say what god isn't, but not what god is. If you're willing to accept religion as poetry, to not take it literally, this is fine.

But otherwise "God exists" is superstitious. If god is a man in the clouds, and heaven is in the sky, and hell is in the ground, then your beliefs are outright false. On the other hand, if this isn't what you mean by saying "God exists," then what are you saying?

As for a "personal ulterior motive for wanting to be an atheist," I have none. I don't believe in god for the reasons outlined above, and it's only a matter of truth to me. That's not to say I would consider myself a Christian if I believed god existed -- I wouldn't follow the religion. The character of the Christian god isn't one I would ever worship. A zen buddhist said, in regard to Christianity, he would choose to go to hell in an attempt to comfort the tortured. I think this is a good answer, better than being a Christian. But the Christians I've said this to tend to offer the enlightening reply that hell is eternal torment and no one can comfort anyone else. My decision would still stand, as a matter of protest and virtue. So I have no ulterior motive, though I wouldn't ever worship anything like the Christian god.

3. Does your human body look like it is a compilation of accidents upon accidents with some 60 systems working in delicate balance and in total unison ?
4. What concrete naturalistic source or process can you cite for abiogenesis being a fact ?
5. How does a materialistic universe give us highly non material personal traits such as reason, empathy, compassion, love, logic, intellect , and human rights ?

I'm skipping these since others have given lengthy answers to them.

6. What is the benefit of no ultimate moral accountability in the life of an atheist ?

Your question assumes Christians have more moral accountability. In fact, they are less accountable. All that matters to a Christian is whether or not he believes in Jesus. There's no call to be a better person. It's different with Judaism, where all people were supposed to be holy, and with Buddhism which had its own virtues. But Jesus never laid out a specific guide for living because his religion is essentially idolatrous. Again, the famous Christians of the past recognized this. Luther worshiped Jesus without emulating him -- he wrote an entire book called On The Jews and Their Lies:

Wikipedia wrote

In the treatise, Luther writes that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." Luther wrote that they are "full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine," and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut". He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also seems to advocate their murder, writing ..."we are at fault in not slaying them."

He lectured slaves on at least two occasions, telling them there was no contradiction between being a Christian and being free, berated them for wanting freedom, and depriving their masters of their rightful property.

Aquinas wrote that an infidel should only get one chance at conversion and then be killed:

Aquinas wrote

With regard to heretics there are two points to be observed, one on their side, the other on the side of the Church. As for heretics their sin deserves banishment, not only from the Church by excommunication, but also from this world by death. To corrupt the faith, whereby the soul lives, is much graver than to counterfeit money, which supports temporal life. Since forgers and other malefactors are summarily condemned to death by the civil authorities, with much more reason may heretics as soon as they are convicted of heresy be not only excommunicated, but also justly be put to death.

But on the side of the Church is mercy which seeks the conversion of the wanderer, and She condemns him not at once, but after the first and second admonition, as the Apostle directs. Afterwards, however, if he is still stubborn, the Church takes care of the salvation of others by separating him from the Church through excommunication, and delivers him to the secular court to be removed from this world by death.

Contrary to modern Christianity's views, historically speaking, Christianity has held the belief that nothing is too terrible for other human beings. In that light, we are all worthless and we never get less than we deserve, which is outright suffering, slavery, death and so on. Did the Christians above know the good stories and positive humanistic teachings of Jesus? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Why wouldn't they follow those? Because, to them, they demonstrated Jesus' perfection. No other human being could be so great. And all that matters is proper belief in Jesus.

I'd turn the question back on you. As an atheist, I have no reason to believe that all human beings deserve is suffering, slavery, and death, and that no punishment is below them. In fact, as far as I can see, it's impossible to say what people deserve -- and my morality stems from the observation all human beings want to achieve well-being, and I recognize the value in that. There's no inherent, objective value in it, but I see that as a much more positive, healthy view than the Christian one described above.

[Jahrta]

...and by the way, I didn't use any swears.

[Jahrta]

Ex Atheist wrote

Jahra, Thanks for your extended posts one and two. I do appreciate you forewarning me about the uncontrolled useage of foul language which you seem to think is plausible to use. And at one time i used to suppress my moral conscience in order to talk like that ; afterall, 'there is no Creator' to whom we must be responsible toward . If God were real, then of course it would be an affront to us because we wouldnt get to talk anyway we felt like. I came here to chat with atheists who still demonstrate some semblence of self control and who dont blur wrong and right . Ergo, I didnt read your posts per your warning , and again, I appreciate the thought. Call me counter-culture , but I greatly prefer it that way since our culture is also one big con . As an ex-atheist, ive been there done that. Regards.

so since I didn't use any swears does that mean you will read it? Where does this irrational fear of swear words come from? do you not agree that language only has the power over us that we would assign it ourselves? do you think that belief in god means you shouldn't swear? why would god care if you swore? I would hope that if he existed he'd have a lot more to worry about than your choice of self-expression. Is your god that much of a control freak? How about dirty thoughts? Are you allowed to have those? In your god's eyes, is it better never to swear or to stone a rebellious child for speaking out against his parents and the church?

[Sternwallow]

Welcome to our forum, David.

This was an unusually articulate description of your situation. More often we get "I am Christian" or less informative expressions. There are a few questions that some of your points expose and I'll shuffle them into your message.

Ex Atheist wrote

Hello. This looks like a good forum and im pleased i signed up. Im an ex proclaimed Atheist of 10 adult years .

Had you been a believer or generally uninterested in any religious issues before being an atheist? Atheism is the default position after all.

I came to seriously consider the emphirical[sic] evidence which can only come from an intelligent Mind at work (and never natural causes)

We have seen such statements before and they have all so far, been quite empty of any substantive content. Please break that trend by itemizing some of the specific evidence that you have investigated personally (i.e. not presented to you by a pastor or other authority figure), that can only have been done by an intelligence that is not an ordinary human mind.

You should know that many of us were religious at some time in our lives and diligently sought the very evidence that you say you have in abundance. So please lay out the information that can change a non-believer into a believer.

, then chose to willfully act on that knowledge by trying to get to know this personal Theistic Creator/Designer/Sustainer in a greater personal way.

How, exactly, did you come to the conclusion that the Mind you discovered was theistic or a creator or a designer or a sustainer or personal? How can you be sure that these evidences of intelligence are not simply greatly advanced beings who evolved just as all other animals have?

Haven't you made an unsupported leap from an unintelligent, though complex, creative force to a personal designer?

I take it that you know that complex things and systems can come from less complex and less powerful ones.

Thru intense diligent study of the Christian Faith from an apologetic standpoint, I willfully chose to surrender my life to The Creator which meant giving up my own desire to put myself on the throne of life .

What specific pieces of your evidence that you investigated diligently, directed you to the Christian faith rather than say, the Jewish or Scientological faiths? This information would be very helpful to us as we study Christianity because there are roughly 36,000 different and conflicting Christian faiths, each proclaiming that anyone who does not abide by their peculiar dogma will surely go to Hell.

Why would you behave contrary to the desires that, presumably God (MNQB) built into you. Isn't that ungrateful? Is gratitude relevant anyway, when you were not consulted and asked whether you wanted to be born into this "vale of sorrows"?

Please explain how chaining yourself, "body and soul and heart and mind" to what is clearly a despot, can be considered "free" or liberated in any sane sense of the words.

Having my many past sins totally forgiven is a freedom far greater than the 'freedom' of shunning the actual Creator of the Cosmos so i could live as i liked.

Can you explain exactly how perfect justice is compatible with the forgiveness of sins? Can you explain how it is possible to atone for sins by locating and punishing, not the sinner, but the most perfect, unblemished and innocent non-sinner in some other generation?

I completely believe in Jesus Christ and know why it is quite rational to do so based on the scientific and historical evidences ;

Please, how did you make the connection from a thoughtless creative force to a personal creator/designer then to Jesus (MNQB)?
Isn't that leaning pretty far into polytheism? If not, why not?

my Faith is based not on checking my mind at the door, but on evidence/reason/rationale/and a willingness to back it up with giving HIM the glory instead of Self.

I disagree that your dedication to Jesus (MNQB) is valid support for your "evidence/reason/rationale". If it did, then the dedication of the 9/11 pilots and all the other explosive suicides would make Allah (MNQB) the clear winner over Jehovah (MNQB). According to Islam, it is blasphemy to consider Jesus (MNQB) divine so, if Allah (MNQB) turns out to be the one true god, you and the other Christian believers will be screwed for your disobedience.

The evidence is out there in plenty, but few REALLY want to go looking at it. I wasnt[sic] one of those folks. Regards, David.

There have been lots of folks who REALLY REALLY wanted their religion to be true and worked hard to find the truths that you say are plentiful and yet they could not find any, not even to save their souls.

You know, of course, having been an atheist, that the burden of proof is not on us to search for the evidence but for you the claimant, to present the evidence to us (or point to it if it is in some convenient common location accessible to all).

Remember, we are talking about real evidence, not bedtime stories used to frighten children and primitives.

[Sternwallow]

Actually, the Christian version of the seat would be this one---

[Sternwallow]

ghoulslime wrote

He was once a rational person, but then somebody hit him on the head with a ball-peen hammer, and he got better.

No Leprechauns, no peas!
Know Leprechauns, know peas!

Now, Lep, recon snow, please

[Sternwallow]

Ex Atheist wrote

First, I want to give you kudos for not resorting to the type of foul and vile language and defamation that is so typical of atheists today. They somehow thing that it makes their position more tenable . ANd[sic] frankly, Im[sic] sadened[sic] that the Administrator to this Forum allows this type of lowlife language to blossom.

The principle of free speech, from which all the other freedoms derive, demands unfettered expression. The kind of speech that you deplore is exactly the kind of speech that is protected by our wonderful Consititution. Further, what you may call gutter speech is a part of the language and, used with care, greately expands the expressive power of written text and spoken word alike.

I am an Evidential Apologist and have debated many atheists and could very easily list the scientific evidences for a personal Theistic Creator but ive[sic] learned over the years that nearly ALL atheists arent[sic] truly interested in looking at it because it is an affront to them.

Actual facts are never an affront to someone who seeks truth.

I came to this NG to see if there is an atheist who can truly defend their atheist/humanist position, or, if they too want to resign to stating that atheism is simply declaring that 'No God exists' (as if they could factually know that beyond all doubt) .

No, we do not state as fact that "no god exists"; that would exceed the available facts. What we can and do say is that there is no reason (evidence) to believe in any god. We also declare that a God described with contradictory attributes cannot exist. Some of us point to faults in the common notion that one cannot prove a negative as definiet reasons not to believe in a god.

So, what id[sic] like to ask you is :

If you are unwilling to present the evidences that you claim then your starting premise, that your belief is based on them is unsupported.

I will answer your questions as an individual atheist, not a representative. I point out to you that I am not here to change your mind about anything. Feel free to believe any damned-fool thing you wish.

1. What have YOU done to look into the evidences for a personal Theistic Creator . Please list the sources youve[sic] gone to where you have diligently researched this issue.

For all the years I was a Christian, I searched diligently for any tiny bit of evidence that it could be true. I studied every subject that I could access (couldn't personally afford particle physics or bathymetrics etc.) Physics, Chemistry, Electronics, Astronomy, Cosmology, Computer science. In short, I searched all available sources of respectable facts, knowledge, and found precisely nothing to support the notion of any kind of god nor any supernatural realm for a god to wander around in. Quite obviously the Bible is not a serious source of knowledge about anything real or imagined, but I studied it anyway and, sadly, I found not one sliver of truth in the Bible that was unique to it.

2. Why are you an 'atheist' instead of an agnostic Seeker ? What is your personal ulterior motive for wanting to be an atheist ?

That is a mistaken assumption on your part. I do not want to be an atheist. I would be fat, happy and stupid if only there were some "sky-daddy (MNQB)" giving me everything and keeping me from all harm. However my desire for truth and intellectual integrity demands that I follow the known facts. Since there are none in support of gods, and hideous consequences if there are gods, it is not rational to believe in gods. We can't prove there is no god, but it is a damned good bet. There is quite a bit of evidence that natural forces have done what used to be attributed to God (MNQB) by ignorant primitives during ignorant, primitive times.

3. Does your human body look like it is a compilation of accidents upon accidents with some 60 systems working in delicate balance and in total unison ?

Absolutely! The human body is only a few chromosomes away from the other apes and it does indeed show compromize upon compromize. My favorite example, of many, is the human eye. It was made backward! That is not the work of an intelligent designer but it fits perfectly well with a trial and error, make do method. A method that manages to find a workable solution and almost never an optimal one. It is always such a chuckle when theists cite the perfection of the human eye.

4. What concrete naturalistic source or process can you cite for abiogenesis being a fact ?

Science does not yet know the exact steps in abiogenesis (but thanks for not lumping it with evolution as so many of your fellows so wrongly do). We do know many possible steps from complex organic molecules to ones that can replicate or can be replicated. We do know by experiments in artificial life, that there is no special "life force" marking the transition from non-living to living matter. There is, so far, no indication that the complete chain of combination steps from organic substances to replicating molecules is anything but natural. In short, we are sure that abiogenesis is a fact and we do not yet know every detail about it.
5. How does a materialistic universe give us highly non material personal traits such as reason, empathy, compassion, love, logic, intellect , and human rights ?[/quote]
The materialistic universe gives us (and any dynamic system that inherits variable traits, replicates and is culled by natural conditions) biological evolution.

You have bundled in many disparate things. The short answer is that when many complex elements get together, properties can emerge from the aggregate. Wetness is not a property of oxygen or hydrogen nor even of just a few water molecules, but, get a few thousand billion water molecules together and features like being a solvent, having surface tension and even wetness appear. So combining ten billion or so neurons and connecting them in an insanely complex pattern enables us to experience things, to remember things, to react to our experiences and our memories of them and to change the way we react slightly with every new experience. That ability to process information and to posit "what-if" questions to ourselves (a way to rehearse our responses before the actual experience) is the basis for all of the emergent notions you listed.

Human rights are derived from the needs of the individual as contrasted with the needs of society. People need freedom, society needs conformance. There is no absolute set of rights. Society, as the product of many individuals sets the human rights as it sees best. Some rights are common across societies and these derive from the evolved empathy and self-interest of humanity at large.

People would like not to starve but society doesn't want to tolerate theft. So a compromize by which it is OK to steal if one is indeed starving (and it does not cause someone else to starve). Texts that far predate the Bible report this practice.

6. What is the benefit of no ultimate moral accountability in the life of an atheist ?

There is no benefit of either having an ultimate moral code that no human can achieve or having no ultimate moral code at all. We each, atheist and Christian alike, bring our own morals to the table. The Christian takes the extra step of finding his pet morals in the book while frimly ignoring ALL of the other morals in that book.

Obviously, anyone who tried to actually live by all of the moral commandments in the Bible would be locked up as a sociopath (and likely as a murderer as well).

Atheists are at least as moral as Christians, we just use more rational and sane rules. The last figure I saw was over 50% of Christian marriages end in divorce while only a few percent of atheist marriages do. If the law is a reflection of morals written in an enforceable way then the great preponderance of Christians over atheists in jail, far outside the proportions in the regular population would suggest that Christians are less moral than atheists.

I was in a Christian marriage that did not end in divorce due entirely to my tolerance, dedication, fairness, humor, good will, generosity, affection, respect and strength of character that are hallmarks of the atheist.

[ghoulslime]

Ex Atheist wrote

I agree to disengage dialogue with you too, since youre not up to speed on the specific Laws of Science which prevent macro evolution from ever occuring in addition to genetic limits, cyclical change, irreducible complexity, non viability of transitional forms, and molecular isolation -- all of which show Darwinnian Macro Evolution utterly bankrupt to which Darwin if here today, would agree and even proclaim in a profusily apologizing manner. Thanks for the brief chat. Regards.

You are going to school Tenspace on Evolution?

Please tell us all about the Laws of Science!

Are these mystical and magical laws like turning water into wine and such?

(For future reference, dolt, there is no difference aside from scale in micro and macro evolution. Evolution is Evolution. It has been demonstrated as fact. Suck it up, you ninny!)

[Tenspace]

Ex Atheist wrote

I agree to disengage dialogue with you too, since youre not up to speed on the specific Laws of Science which prevent macro evolution from ever occuring in addition to genetic limits, cyclical change, irreducible complexity, non viability of transitional forms, and molecular isolation -- all of which show Darwinnian Macro Evolution utterly bankrupt to which Darwin if here today, would agree and even proclaim in a profusily apologizing manner. Thanks for the brief chat. Regards.

And you have yet to quote a single specific law. I called you out on your generalization once; you did it again, so I'm pretty sure you don't know an allele from a hole in the ground. What "Laws of Science" are you talking about? Conservation of energy? Entropy? Finagle's Laws of Experimental Science?

Making general statements and uttering Behe's inaccuracies does nothing to affect the tens of thousand of people who use the applied knowledge of Darwinian Evolution to better humanity every day. Keep living in your box. I know more about science and evolution than you've yet discovered. If you want to try me, I'd be happy to debate you on a specific topic, like neotony or allopatric speciation.

[Tenspace]

Jahrta wrote

so since I didn't use any swears does that mean you will read it? Where does this irrational fear of swear words come from? do you not agree that language only has the power over us that we would assign it ourselves? do you think that belief in god means you shouldn't swear? why would god care if you swore? I would hope that if he existed he'd have a lot more to worry about than your choice of self-expression. Is your god that much of a control freak? How about dirty thoughts? Are you allowed to have those? In your god's eyes, is it better never to swear or to stone a rebellious child for speaking out against his parents and the church?

I think it's your sig, motherfucker.

Doesn't Ex-Atheist remind you of someone else from long ago? Who was that polite, somewhat literate, yet annoying and thick-as-a-brick theist?

[ghoulslime]

Sternwallow wrote

It was made backward!

Extra Stupid Theist was made backward, too, by his drunken Uncle Joe and several cousins, out behind the wood shed.

[ghoulslime]

Tenspace wrote

I think it's your sig, motherfucker.

Doesn't Ex-Atheist remind you of someone else from long ago? Who was that polite, somewhat literate, yet annoying and thick-as-a-brick theist?

Doesn't that pretty much describe all theists?

[ghoulslime]

Ex Atheist wrote

Jahra, Thanks for your extended posts one and two. I do appreciate you forewarning me about the uncontrolled useage of foul language which you seem to think is plausible to use. And at one time i used to suppress my moral conscience in order to talk like that ; afterall, 'there is no Creator' to whom we must be responsible toward . If God were real, then of course it would be an affront to us because we wouldnt get to talk anyway we felt like. I came here to chat with atheists who still demonstrate some semblence of self control and who dont blur wrong and right . Ergo, I didnt read your posts per your warning , and again, I appreciate the thought. Call me counter-culture , but I greatly prefer it that way since our culture is also one big con . As an ex-atheist, ive been there done that. Regards.

WTF? Are you, like, and homeless guy at a library computer or something?

Can anybody translate this alcoholic rambling into an intelligible language?