Do you really think you are helping anyone?

[-Peacemaker-]

I found it impossible to read Thomas Paine's Age Of Reason and still be a Christian.
I am now a lightseeker.

Thank you for sharing. I'd love if all atheists would chime in if you don't mind. That's also interesting because Paine at least argued for the existence a creator

 

[Mister Emu]

I think the arrogance comes more from the attitude of "I know better than you do", which I do think is inherent in mainstream Christian belief.

I never argued that there is not an attitude of the believer having more knowledge. I just think there are arrogant and non-arrogant ways to handle that belief. It is not necessary to be arrogant when believing to "know better".

And therefore no way to address my suspicion that you have no factual evidence at all, then.

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

Because it "works for them", basically.

No, because it has been supported in the course of their lives.

Do you think there might be a bit of selection bias involved? I mean, the people who start out Christian but don't feel that their faith is supported don't generally stay Christian, do they? I'm sure you've met some converts away from Christianity, right?

No, I almost mentioned converts, but decided it was superfluous. We aren't talking about why people convert away, but whether or not those who believe do so because of aesthetic choice or because they understand it to be objective truth.

I don't see how this is a reasonable position. If this were the case, everyone would be Christian; no?

If people believed that the earth was round because it was objective truth, everyone would accept it; no?

Objective truth does not mean apparent truth.

Convenient.

I disagree... completely inconvenient.

 

[darkendless]

I'll tell you what I would find illuminating. I'd really like to know how you arrived at atheism. I mean this question in the most sincere way to. I promise that I don't want to use it as an opportunity to poke holes in the argument or inject the message of Christ somehow. I ask because I was an agnostic for most of my life. Even when I was agnostic the reason I never went straight atheism was because there were reasons it didn't make sense to me. If you don't mind could you tell me why you are atheist?

Complete lack of anything remotely credible in support for some form of divine being.

Complete lack of respect for regulated institutions who POTENTIALLY churn out some of the most useless individuals known to humanity.

More important things to devote time and thought to.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Complete lack of anything remotely credible in support for some form of divine being.

Complete lack of respect for regulated institutions who POTENTIALLY churn out some of the most useless individuals known to humanity.

More important things to devote time and thought to.

so you're not really Satanic? I also agree that our total body of work is hit or miss when it comes to churning out examples who live the message

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll tell you what I would find illuminating. I'd really like to know how you arrived at atheism. I mean this question in the most sincere way to. I promise that I don't want to use it as an opportunity to poke holes in the argument or inject the message of Christ somehow. I ask because I was an agnostic for most of my life. Even when I was agnostic the reason I never went straight atheism was because there were reasons it didn't make sense to me. If you don't mind could you tell me why you are atheist?

Because I don't believe in God, so that makes me an atheist.

Just so we're clear: what definition are you using for "atheist"? What do you mean by "straight atheism"?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Because I don't believe in God, so that makes me an atheist.

Just so we're clear: what definition are you using for "atheist"? What do you mean by "straight atheism"?

i guess I just invented the term needlessly. It doesn't mean anything other than whatever regular atheism is. We can leave it at that if you want.

 

[Draka]

I think the reality is that we can look at the evidence history has left behind to support the NT's veracity. Even if you believe that the evidence points towards the Gospels being true it's probably not going to completely eliminate the element of faith from the equation. If you are waithing for the element of faith to be completely eliminated before you follow Jesus, by having whatever you feel is the 100% conclusive evidence you need, then walking with Jesus probably isn't for you. I really do wish everyone the best in their search for truth.

See, I think you and I must have or see a different "reality". For I just don't see a whole lot of evidence to support either testament of the bible (though the old testament has mounds of evidence against it). I'm also not waiting for anything to prove anything. I've already found the truth that is for me and more is always revealed as I go on living.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i guess I just invented the term needlessly. It doesn't mean anything other than whatever regular atheism is. We can leave it at that if you want.

But that's what I'm getting at: what do you mean when you say "atheism"? I've found that many Christians define the term differently than I do.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

But that's what I'm getting at: what do you mean when you say "atheism"? I've found that many Christians define the term differently than I do.

A person who believes God doesn't exist nor has he ever existed

 

[Draka]

A person who believes God doesn't exist nor has he ever existed

When you capitalize "god" like that it normally refers to the Abrahamic god. If that is really your definition then anyone who is not a follower of an Abrahamic faith is an atheist. I know that can't be what you mean.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

When you capitalize "god" like that it normally refers to the Abrahamic god. If that is really your definition then anyone who is not a follower of an Abrahamic faith is an atheist. I know that can't be what you mean.

I think he knows what I mean. It's understood by the context that I'm not talking about paganism. At least, I think it's understood

 

[McBell]

I gave you the opportunity to learn about how the authenticity of historical documents is determined. If you're going to comment on the subject you might as well be educated on it first. The age is related to the distance between the time the event took place and the time it was recorded. It makes all the difference because it affects the accuracy of what's transmitted. As more time goes by, legend mixes with truth. The less time goes by the more truth is recorded. Relatively speaking, almost no time at all occured between the events of Jesus death and when it was recorded

Now you are moving the goal posts.

Thank you for fully demonstrating what I was talking about earlier.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Now you are moving the goal posts.

Thank you for fully demonstrating what I was talking about earlier.

Nobody's moving anything. It's your imagination

 

[McBell]

I think the reality is that we can look at the evidence history has left behind to support the NT's veracity. Even if you believe that the evidence points towards the Gospels being true it's probably not going to completely eliminate the element of faith from the equation. If you are waithing for the element of faith to be completely eliminated before you follow Jesus, by having whatever you feel is the 100% conclusive evidence you need, then walking with Jesus probably isn't for you. I really do wish everyone the best in their search for truth.

I have to disagree.
You took your belief and simply ratified it.
Nothing more.

 

[McBell]

If you apply a normal historical eye to the Gospel story, then you might get as far as belief in the literal existence of an itinerant preacher who ran afoul of the authorities and whose followers continued their community in his memory after his death. You don't get to Christianity.

Well, you do get to Christianity if you are merely looking to ratify your beliefs...

And speaking for myself, I'm not waiting for anything. I'm perfectly happy not being a Christian; I just thought it would be illuminating for you to understand why I don't seize on the Gospel story the way you apparently do.

Agreed.
Though I have to admit I am some what disappointed.
Not the least bit surprised, but still disappointed.

 

[McBell]

Nobody's moving anything. It's your imagination

Ah but you did.
You made the comment about the text being 2000 years old being evidence of their being accurate then changed to the time between the incident and the incident being written down.

That is moving the goal posts.

Nice try though.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Ah but you did.
You made the comment about the text being 2000 years old being evidence of their being accurate then changed to the time between the incident and the incident being written down.

That is moving the goal posts.

Nice try though.

If you don't see how those two comments are connected together I'm at a loss for words. The event took place around 2000 years ago, The earliest texts are like 40-70 years after the original event hence they're about 2000 years old give or take 50 years. See the connection? Texts are copied almost right after the event takes place.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A person who believes God doesn't exist nor has he ever existed

That's not quite my definition of atheism, but I suppose it works as a description of what I believe.

Frankly, I don't think that God is a reasonable proposition. I think the idea is a completely unnecessary one that creates more questions than it answers, and I think that religions have plenty of non-supernatural explanations for their existence.

I think that in an effort to relate to the universe, people assigned human attributes to it and called this anthropomorphization "God". I see no reason to accept God as a true proposition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you don't see how those two comments are connected together I'm at a loss for words. The event took place around 2000 years ago, The earliest texts are like 40-70 years after the original event hence they're about 2000 years old give or take 50 years. See the connection? Texts are copied almost right after the event takes place.

If you read an account of an event that happened in the 1880s that was first written down in the 1940s, would you consider this "almost right after the event takes place"?

 

[McBell]

If you don't see how those two comments are connected together I'm at a loss for words. The event took place around 2000 years ago, The earliest texts are like 40-70 years after the original event hence they're about 2000 years old give or take 50 years. See the connection? Texts are copied almost right after the event takes place.

Now I an stuck having to figure out if you are really that ignorant or if you are merely that dishonest.