Ex-Christian here.

[Beaudreaux]

After my entire life, I have finally had the courage to question my faith, and boy does it feel good. I feel a sense of enlightenment upon me, as if I am no longer being held back by some imaginative "force". That's becuase now I can allow myself to accept science as the fundamental explanation of our existence, not some book that claims the earth is flat and only 6000 years old, and somehow forgot to mention dinosaurs.

My argument is this, however.

Explain to me why you do not believe in the Olympian Gods and I will explain to you why any "God" postulated cannot and logically should not exist.

I have a similar story my friend. I agree. It is incredibly freeing to let go of the beliefs that you simply cannot make sense of. Congratulations and welcome to RF!

 

[Beaudreaux]

I honestly don't think you can do that as you cannot possibly know every concept of what "god" is all over the world.

I always find it interesting that the most hardcore atheists that think that they can prove that all concepts of Divine are bunk are ex-Christians. So jaded or misinformed by their previous beliefs and experiences they are willing to write off everything else out there without really knowing all there is to know. It's sad really.

I, in turn, am amazed at how many Christians who encounter ex-Christians are just positive that these poor people did not understand Christianity the way THEY do. The poor ex-Christians must have been uneducated boobs with pre-teen conceptions of God.

It's sad really.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Oh. I speak for the whole world;

Oh.....does that mean all of us should stop posting because you kind of have it taken care of?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree that science is the best tool that we have to help objectively explain and articulate the things we don't yet fully understand ...

Science explains and articulates what we don't understand. Hmmm ...

 

[Ethos88]

The gods of Mt. Olympus have provided no evidence of their existence. This is because they do not and have never existed. The true God has provided abundant evidence, including: 1) His creative works 2) fulfilled Bible prophecy 3) the wisdom and success of applying Bible counsel.
Where does the Bible claim the earth is flat? Where does it say it is only 6000 years old? Or is enough for you to not believe because the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs? I can understand why people who look at so-called "Christian" faiths and their evil deeds be turned away from the Bible by such hypocrisy. However, there is a true Christian faith that follows Bible teachings and worships God in spirit and truth (John 4:24)

I'm sorry but the fire and brimstone tactic doesn't work on everyone, and quoting bible passages to a book that I personally think isnt worth the paper it's printed on is even less intimidating.

Did you know that the bible says it's OK to beat your wife and children? Did you also know that it says if you make fun of someone who is bald you are to be mauled be a bear?


"As (Elisha) was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. 'Go on up, you baldhead!' they said. 'Go on up, you baldhead!' He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths" (2 Kings 2:23-24 NIV).

There's the passage if you don't believe me.

 

[Ethos88]

Science explains and articulates what we don't understand. Hmmm ...

The scientific method is one of the crown jewels of human ingenuity, not only does it say "if your hypothesis fails, repeat from a different approach" but it's meaning is, If you do not know, do not jump to conclusions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The scientific method is one of the crown jewels of human ingenuity, not only does it say "if your hypothesis fails, repeat from a different approach" but it's meaning is, If you do not know, do not jump to conclusions.

Stop babbling about things you barely understand. It's tiresome. :slap:

 

[Ethos88]

Stop babbling about things you barely understand. It's tiresome. :slap:

How am I babbling? What tiresome about it? I hope you dont mean tiresome as in looking through books to through religious scriptures at me, because that would be a waste of time.

I'm sorry but

Scientific Method > Religion

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How am I babbling? What tiresome about it? I hope you dont mean tiresome and in looking through bookbs to through religious scriptures at me, because that would be a waste of time.

I'm sorry but

Scientific Method > Religion

The only thing coherent in the above rantlet is "I'm sorry" ...

 

[Riverwolf]

Oh.....does that mean all of us should stop posting because you kind of have it taken care of?

My mistake. Poor wording. Sorry.

I meant that I speak while thinking of the whole world, not individual countries.

 

[Riverwolf]

How am I babbling? What tiresome about it? I hope you dont mean tiresome as in looking through books to through religious scriptures at me, because that would be a waste of time.

I'm sorry but

Scientific Method > Religion

What Jay is trying to say is that you need to word your arguments better. I, too, am not sure what you just said, here.

 

[Ethos88]

The only thing coherent in the above rantlet is "I'm sorry" ...

Sorry, I'm typing on a Mac and the keys are a bit different from my laptop. My point isn't within my ability to make typos however. If that's the only thing you're going to take away from a rebuttal then I suppose I'm wasting my time replying to your posts.

 

[Copernicus]

Explain to me why you do not believe in the Olympian Gods and I will explain to you why any "God" postulated cannot and logically should not exist.

One can make a good case that the Abrahamic "omnimax" God cannot logically exist, but I would prefer to argue that gods, in general, cannot "reasonably" exist. Otherwise, you quickly discover that the argument is about disproving the possibility of gods rather than the probability. You might mount a terrific argument that the Easter Bunny cannot reasonably exist, but not that it cannot logically exist.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry, I'm typing on a Mac and the keys are a bit different from my laptop.

I'm typing on a Mac as well. Which keys are "a bit different"?

 

[Ethos88]

What Jay is trying to say is that you need to word your arguments better. I, too, am not sure what you just said, here.

As in quoting passages from a book (the bible) which is fundamentally flawed, is not good debating tactics. Most Christians just resort to telling me I'm going to hell, which gets the argument nowhere.

 

[Ethos88]

One can make a good case that the Abrahamic "omnimax" God cannot logically exist, but I would prefer to argue that gods, in general, cannot "reasonably" exist. Otherwise, you quickly discover that the argument is about disproving the possibility of gods rather than the probability. You might mount a terrific argument that the Easter Bunny cannot reasonably exist, but not that it cannot logically exist.

That's the way I feel about the situation. I would consider myself an agnostic, I'm basing this on present knowledge that we so poses and the knowledge the we do not poses. Which unfortunately the knowledge we do not poses far out weighs what we do know. So I personally would take the middle ground. That seems most logical in my opinion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My point isn't within my ability ...

Apparently so. The 'argument'

Scientific Method > Religion​

has all the force and substance as the claim

Thursday > Gefilte Fish​

 

[Copernicus]

That's the way I feel about the situation. I would consider myself an agnostic, I'm basing this on present knowledge that we so poses and the knowledge the we do not poses. Which unfortunately the knowledge we do not poses far out weighs what we do know. So I personally would take the middle ground. That seems most logical in my opinion.

Surely you do not take the middle ground on the existence of the Easter Bunny, do you? I would urge you to similarly avoid it on the matter of whether any god exists.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Surely you do not take the middle ground on the existence of the Easter Bunny, do you? I would urge you to similarly avoid it on the matter of whether any god exists.

It's an imminently childish urge prompted by a no less juvenile comparison.

 

[Ethos88]

Apparently so. The 'argument'

Scientific Method > Religion​

has all the force and substance as does the claim

Thursday > Gefilte Fish​

Opinion wise yes, I do feel the scientific method is more useful then religion. It provides tangible and solid evidence for whatever it's suggesting. Religion on the other hand says "Believe this".

Lets just say there are 250 religions in the world, and only one can possibly be right. that means that if you classify yourself as a single religion you are 1 our of 250 possible candidates for a "correct" religion that's 1/250 which translates to a .004% chance that you are correct.

Now keep in mind there are several more religions then 250 that I suggested. Now that .004% is subject to review based on evidence. See where I'm going here? The possibility that you are even within "the correct" religion is so small that it's mind boggling