Faith is not evidence. This is why atheism has more of an advantage.

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When I speak of faith in this thread, I'm referring to faith in Jesus Christ. That faith is knowledge, the evidence of things not seen

Faith is not knowledge. It is unjustified belief. If I have faith that Bigfoot exists, I do not have knowledge. If you think otherwise, please expalin how such faith is knowledge.

And faith is evidence of nothing except the willing to believe without sufficient reason. Evidence has to be evident.

It doesn't invalidate my other arguments, which I still believe adequately prove God's existence

As you probably already know, to me, proof is that which convinces. Your arguments have convinced nobody. You already believed them, and nobody else was convinced by them. Yet you call that proof.

Isn't that a bit like a comedian who got no laughs claiming that he killed on stage? Your audience is the judge of that, not you.

it isn't verifiable by the scientific method. Who says you need such a method or something similar to prove anything?

If by the scientific method you mean applying reason to physical evidence, something we all do repeatedly every day, then yes, there is no other path to useful knowledge about reality. Looking both ways before crossing the street is the scientific method (empiricism) in daily llife. It's how the crosser determines what is true about his local reality.

Like radiometric dating, evolution has enormous problems with it, and for anyone to present either as infallible is to completely discredit themselves.

That's a straw man fallacy. I don't recall anybody claiming that radiometric dating is infallible. The argument is that when done properly, it is reliable. There are issues with contamination and looking at the proper isotopes.

There are far too many people who disagree, and they are absolute experts in their respective fields. Yet they are summarily dismissed by your like because they can't possibly be as smart as you guys. Such arrogance.

I've told you the fate of unsupported claims made to skeptics. We don't consider it arrogant to reject them. What is possibly arrogant is to expect others to believe them on your say so.

There is plenty of geological evidence that there was a flood, and it's all available if you just search the internet for it. Sure, there are people in both camps, but to pretend as though there is no credible evidence is just plain BS.

The evidence against a global flood is overwhelming. I'm guessing that you're not familiar with it. For one thing, where did all that extra water come from, and then where did it go afterward? An additional 4,500,000,000 cubic kilometers of water would be needed for the oceans to rise above the highest mountains, which almost three times the volume of water in the world's oceans, lakes, rivers, aquifers, glaciers, and atmosphere.

Have you ever calculated how hard the rainfall would need be to immerse all dry land? Forty days is 960 hours. For the water to rise 29029 feet in 960 hours, 30.2 feet of water must fall ever hour over every square inch of the earth at once (or twice as much over half of the earth at once), enough to fill a three story building in an hour. How do you think a craft made of gopher wood would fare in that kind of rainstorm?

Subduction Zone gave you a genetic argument. There are also the various logistic arguments - collecting, housing, feeding, then disseminating these animals back to Antarctica and Australia.

 

[1137]

I mean atheism led to materialism, the most faith driven and irrational position I've heard of.

 

[Michael1981]

I don't see any simplification comparing my account to yours. You've made "cause for a universe" into "a source for matter," then jumped to a god as the only possible explanation.

Yes, there are alternatives. These are the six I came up with :

Candidate hypotheses for the origin of the universe:

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.

It appears that your list is down to one possibility. That cannot be justified. It must be done as a leap of faith.

A source for matter is the better way to put it because it's more specific and addresses the first law of thermodynamics. Again, by our natural laws as we know them, nothing could ever have been created. Thus, a supernatural explanation must be the only viable one. Show me how any of the arguments you listed address the law of the conservation of energy. They don't, and can't. No one has ever provided a solid scientific theory explaining the origin of matter. It simply hasn't happened. Yeah, there's a lot of twisting things into different angles and such, which certainly sound really clever, but ultimately the question of creating something from nothing remains unanswered.

No. It is obvious to me that if a god exists and can think and act, then there must be laws that transcend it to make this possible - things that it couldn't be responsible for, such as the time that it exists in, or its consciousness. It isn't possible for an already conscious entity to be the creator of consciousness. Simply using the word omnipotent doesn't make the impossible become possible.

I have a thought here. Who says God is subject to time if He exists in the past, present and the future simultaneously? In fact, the Scriptures declare that God does indeed manipulate time:

"They (the Hebrew people in the desert) all ate the same spiritual food, and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:5)

The Scriptures also declare that He knows the future from prophecies that were fulfilled. If He knows His future thoughts, future actions, and the like, then how is time elapsing? Again, I say that it is beyond our understanding.

But with all due respect, that claim is not credible. Your belief can only be arrived at and supported by faith, and by interpreting some of your internal mental states as sensing God. I know what the limits of knowledge are in this area. You have no special senses or inside information, and thus no access to any knowledge not available to others.

Nor have you demonstrated this logic. What you presented were fallacious arguments. Remember the non sequitur above regarding the problem of the origins of the universe? If you want to make a claim of a logical foundation for your beliefs, you ought to be able to generate sound arguments.

Well, we can go back and forth on this ad nauseam. I don't see any point in continuing down this road.

 

[Audie]

I mean atheism led to materialism, the most faith driven and irrational position I've heard of.

Been around much?

Atheism, "materialism" and science are cultures of doubt.
Based on evidence, math, and logic.

Religion is a culture of faith. Based on a book full of fairy tales. You want irrational? Believe in a world wide flood.
Christianity makes faith a main virtue.
With evidence, let along proof, there is no need for, no value in faith.

You didnt know that?

 

[Polymath257]

A source for matter is the better way to put it because it's more specific and addresses the first law of thermodynamics. Again, by our natural laws as we know them, nothing could ever have been created.

Simply false: see below.

Thus, a supernatural explanation must be the only viable one.

Nope. Doesn't help the basic issue at all. Even if a supernatural is involved, there would still be a violation of the conservation of energy. Except, of course, that your understanding of that law is faulty.

Show me how any of the arguments you listed address the law of the conservation of energy. They don't, and can't. No one has ever provided a solid scientific theory explaining the origin of matter. It simply hasn't happened. Yeah, there's a lot of twisting things into different angles and such, which certainly sound really clever, but ultimately the question of creating something from nothing remains unanswered.

Well, the first and most basic fact here is that the gravitational field of any bit of mass has *negative* energy. And, in fact, if you add up the *positive* energy of the mass (relativity says all mass has energy) and subtract the negative energy of the gravitational field, the two cancel and you get *wait for it* exactly zero.

So, the total energy of the universe is ZERO.

And *that* is why the conservation of energy isn't violated when matter comes into existence through quantum processes: the energy total *is still zero*.

Now, the details of the mechanics are still being debated. But the fact that the first law of thermodynamics (I bet you don't know anything else about thermodynamics other than the first and, perhaps a poor statement of the second laws) isn't violated in these processes.

 

[1137]

Been around much?

Atheism, "materialism" and science are cultures of doubt.
Based on evidence, math, and logic.

Religion is a culture of faith. Based on a book full of fairy tales. You want irrational? Believe in a world wide flood.
Christianity makes faith a main virtue.
With evidence, let along proof, there is no need for, no value in faith.

You didnt know that?

Lol right, "doubt".

 

[Michael1981]

Faith is not knowledge. It is unjustified belief. If I have faith that Bigfoot exists, I do not have knowledge. If you think otherwise, please expalin how such faith is knowledge.

And faith is evidence of nothing except the willing to believe without sufficient reason. Evidence has to be evident.

I'll try explaining this another way. Logic proved to me that God exists (you can say it didn't actually prove anything or wasn't actually logic if you like, but this is my perspective). Faith proved to me, among other things, that God is the Lord Jesus Christ.

How it qualifies as knowledge is impossible to explain. As Morpheus said, "No one can be told what The Matrix is, you have to see it for yourself."

As you probably already know, to me, proof is that which convinces. Your arguments have convinced nobody. You already believed them, and nobody else was convinced by them. Yet you call that proof.

Isn't that a bit like a comedian who got no laughs claiming that he killed on stage? Your audience is the judge of that, not you.

How do you know my arguments have convinced nobody? Can you track all who visit this thread and don't participate? Not that convincing anyone is what I'm trying to do. I'm planting seeds, that's all. God makes them grow (1 Corinthians 3:7).

That's a straw man fallacy. I don't recall anybody claiming that radiometric dating is infallible. The argument is that when done properly, it is reliable. There are issues with contamination and looking at the proper isotopes.

Again with your argument rules and terms. No one has specifically said it is infallible, but the sentiment has certainly been implied, and more than once. The true issues with the dating are the assumptions made about the ages of strata which are used in the calculations. There is plenty of literature on this, and it's not my responsibility to supply any of you with it.

I've told you the fate of unsupported claims made to skeptics. We don't consider it arrogant to reject them. What is possibly arrogant is to expect others to believe them on your say so.

Then reject them. I have never expected or said that I expect others to believe me. I plant seeds.

The evidence against a global flood is overwhelming. I'm guessing that you're not familiar with it. For one thing, where did all that extra water come from, and then where did it go afterward? An additional 4,500,000,000 cubic kilometers of water would be needed for the oceans to rise above the highest mountains, which almost three times the volume of water in the world's oceans, lakes, rivers, aquifers, glaciers, and atmosphere.

Have you ever calculated how hard the rainfall would need be to immerse all dry land? Forty days is 960 hours. For the water to rise 29029 feet in 960 hours, 30.2 feet of water must fall ever hour over every square inch of the earth at once (or twice as much over half of the earth at once), enough to fill a three story building in an hour. How do you think a craft made of gopher wood would fare in that kind of rainstorm?

You're assuming that the mountains were there when the flood began. Have you ever heard of catastrophic plate tectonics? Not that I'm saying that that is what happened, but I certainly don't believe the mountains formed over millions of years. There are many possible explanations; it's all theoretical at this point.

Subduction Zone gave you a genetic argument. There are also the various logistic arguments - collecting, housing, feeding, then disseminating these animals back to Antarctica and Australia.

Multiple arks was my response; not that I claim to know the truth of the matter.

 

[Berlin]

Faith is not knowledge. It is unjustified belief. If I have faith that Bigfoot exists, I do not have knowledge. If you think otherwise, please expalin how such faith is knowledge.

And faith is evidence of nothing except the willing to believe without sufficient reason. Evidence has to be evident.



As you probably already know, to me, proof is that which convinces. Your arguments have convinced nobody. You already believed them, and nobody else was convinced by them. Yet you call that proof.

Isn't that a bit like a comedian who got no laughs claiming that he killed on stage? Your audience is the judge of that, not you.



If by the scientific method you mean applying reason to physical evidence, something we all do repeatedly every day, then yes, there is no other path to useful knowledge about reality. Looking both ways before crossing the street is the scientific method (empiricism) in daily llife. It's how the crosser determines what is true about his local reality.



That's a straw man fallacy. I don't recall anybody claiming that radiometric dating is infallible. The argument is that when done properly, it is reliable. There are issues with contamination and looking at the proper isotopes.



I've told you the fate of unsupported claims made to skeptics. We don't consider it arrogant to reject them. What is possibly arrogant is to expect others to believe them on your say so.



The evidence against a global flood is overwhelming. I'm guessing that you're not familiar with it. For one thing, where did all that extra water come from, and then where did it go afterward? An additional 4,500,000,000 cubic kilometers of water would be needed for the oceans to rise above the highest mountains, which almost three times the volume of water in the world's oceans, lakes, rivers, aquifers, glaciers, and atmosphere.

Have you ever calculated how hard the rainfall would need be to immerse all dry land? Forty days is 960 hours. For the water to rise 29029 feet in 960 hours, 30.2 feet of water must fall ever hour over every square inch of the earth at once (or twice as much over half of the earth at once), enough to fill a three story building in an hour. How do you think a craft made of gopher wood would fare in that kind of rainstorm?

Subduction Zone gave you a genetic argument. There are also the various logistic arguments - collecting, housing, feeding, then disseminating these animals back to Antarctica and Australia.

Thank you for explaining what I have been trying to for ages. No way a great flood happened. The Ark journey was impossible.

 

[Michael1981]

Well, the first and most basic fact here is that the gravitational field of any bit of mass has *negative* energy. And, in fact, if you add up the *positive* energy of the mass (relativity says all mass has energy) and subtract the negative energy of the gravitational field, the two cancel and you get *wait for it* exactly zero.

So, the total energy of the universe is ZERO.

And *that* is why the conservation of energy isn't violated when matter comes into existence through quantum processes: the energy total *is still zero*.

Now, the details of the mechanics are still being debated. But the fact that the first law of thermodynamics (I bet you don't know anything else about thermodynamics other than the first and, perhaps a poor statement of the second laws) isn't violated in these processes.

This has all been covered elsewhere in the thread.

You, like so many others, are quick to vaunt yourself and dismiss people based on knowledge you have and which you assume others don't have. Regardless, you probably do know more of these things than I do.

But: "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, 'He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness.'" (1 Corinthians 3:19)

 

[Berlin]

This has all been covered elsewhere in the thread.

You, like so many others, are quick to vaunt yourself and dismiss people based on knowledge you have and which you assume others don't have. Regardless, you probably do know more of these things than I do.

But: "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, 'He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness.'" (1 Corinthians 3:19)

You're only saying the above because you believe in the scriptures, which is not evidence. Science is evidence.

 

[Michael1981]

Sorry, I must have missed that. Please show me (or retype) where you rebutted the claim that the words exist, think, and act all imply and require the passage of time.

I just did that a little while ago in another post.

That seem contrary to what Christianity teaches.

When I was a Christian, I was told that I would be filled with the spirit, achieve the victory, and that "we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." That didn't happen for me, nor for most of the other congregants, so eventually, I became a secular humanist.

Life has been fulfilling since, and feels more authentic. That shouldn't have happened if the Christian god were real, should it?

Christianity will generally address that as it does all matters that seem to contradict its claims - God has a plan for you, God works in mysterious ways, and the like. Why would I believe that God would reward me for my apostasy?

It seems to me that what likely happened in your case is the sad story of so many other so-called "Christians." You were taken in by false teachers, and likely never experienced true repentance. In order to repent, we must first be broken. I would say go to the site in my signature if you want the Truth, but I'm guessing you, like so many others, won't bother. Of course, I'm happy to answer any questions you or others might have pertaining to Christianity.

And there's your answer - I fulfill some unstated purpose

What purpose could that be of interest to God? I'm a counterexample to the claims of Christianity. If I were a Christian, you'd likely say that God has blessed me for my faith and piety, but since I'm not, you have no better answer than that I am serving some purpose for God.

If I'm going to throw a supernatural element into my interpretation of this, it would invoke some agent that seems to approve of my choice to move out of Christianity - something that approves of us using our natural reasoning and moral faculties rather than going to an ancient book for answers

First you have to actually and genuinely want the answers, and eventually this Scripture will be fulfilled:

"You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." (Jeremiah 29:13)

I will say that you're better off being an agnostic or atheist than you are being one of those in nominal Christendom who take His name in vain. Better that you're not adding sin to sin by doing that.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well, I suppose I hoped it would frighten you. Men who have no fear of God have no wisdom:
...Then you can start to see "the plan."
It's a great and terrible thing to be made in the image of Almighty God, a process to be enormously respected and feared.
The Reconciliation of All Things
And everyone will be chosen at some point.

To sum up, nearly none of what you say rings true to me. I deny that either God or Satan exists. However, in the completely unlikely even that either were to actually present themselves to me in this life (whether that be objectively with others present who could co-verify the event, or personally/secretly in the form of some mental/emotional feeling that I most probably couldn't distinguish from a form of dementia) I would tell them to buzz off. I have no need for belief in either, and cannot fathom my ever needing such. And even if I did completely accept such probable fictions as reality (this goes for nearly anything of suspicious caliber, mind you, not just religion), again... I ask... how could I be assured that I hadn't fallen victim to some form of dementia? Because I can always trust myself? Is even that statement "true?"

I'll read your paper, when I find the time. If there is anything interesting in there I will, sincerely, let you know. I will not be holding my breath, obviously.

 

[Michael1981]

To sum up, nearly none of what you say rings true to me. I deny that either God or Satan exists. However, in the completely unlikely even that either were to actually present themselves to me in this life (whether that be objectively with others present who could co-verify the event, or personally/secretly in the form of some mental/emotional feeling that I most probably couldn't distinguish from a form of dementia) I would tell them to buzz off. I have no need for belief in either, and cannot fathom my ever needing such. And even if I did completely accept such probable fictions as reality (this goes for nearly anything of suspicious caliber, mind you, not just religion), again... I ask... how could I be assured that I hadn't fallen victim to some form of dementia? Because I can always trust myself? Is even that statement "true?"

I'll read your paper, when I find the time. If there is anything interesting in there I will, sincerely, let you know. I will not be holding my breath, obviously.

Okay, fair enough. Despite what I've said, I do appreciate your attitude overall. Your disdain for orthodox Christianity is understandable and, I would say, justified.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Okay, fair enough. Despite what I've said, I do appreciate your attitude overall. Your disdain for orthodox Christianity is understandable and, I would say, justified.

And you have maintained being a very good sport, despite the times I may have strayed into more slanderous or insulting tones. I can tell that you are very convicted in your beliefs, and I can respect that because I am also. I always enjoy a good challenge. Helps make sure I don't see any holes in what I accept/believe/support, and when there are it also helps me find them and patch them up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol right, "doubt".

Like so many theists you are simply assuming that others have your flaws. What makes you think that there is any faith involved in atheism?

 

[Polymath257]

This has all been covered elsewhere in the thread.

You, like so many others, are quick to vaunt yourself and dismiss people based on knowledge you have and which you assume others don't have. Regardless, you probably do know more of these things than I do.

But: "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, 'He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness.'" (1 Corinthians 3:19)

I see. So you ask for why 'something from nothing' doesn't violate the conservation of energy. When I show why it does not, you accuse me of, what? Not believing in your mythology?

Yes, I assume you have no real knowledge of thermodynamics. if you did, you wouldn't be making the arguments that you do.

You have also claimed that radioactive dating methods are flawed. Can you support that claim? And, can you show that they give results, when properly applied, that are bad enough to support your views?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, 'He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness.'" (1 Corinthians 3:19)

I haven't found wisdom in the Bible or in the words and deeds of the god described therein.

Furthermore, wisdom, by which I mean knowing what to want, intelligence being knowing how to get what you want, doesn't come from a book. It comes from understanding yourself. Learn as much as you can, be contemplative, be upright, learn to love and laugh, be industrious, and be content when your needs are met, and I suspect that you will be happy barring bad luck.

Attachment, conflict, and the like diminish happiness.

The Bible doesn't seem to be too concerned with the happiness of people. The scripture you cited seems to be antithetical to happiness. It would be for me if I applied it to my life.

It seems to me that what likely happened in your case is the sad story of so many other so-called "Christians." You were taken in by false teachers, and likely never experienced true repentance.

No. I just noticed what was going on around me, and how the promises of Christianity were not being kept, and how the Bible story never made sense. I entered Christianity from atheism in my late teens, and agreed to suspend disbelief in order to give God a chance to reveal Himself, and for the theology to eventually solidify into a structure worthy of and indicative of a god.

That didn't happen, so after most of a decade, I moved on. It was like trying on a pair of shoes that didn't fit properly at first, but you walk around in them for awhile and they either feel better or never quite fit properly

But thanks for not blaming me. That's what I usually get - things like my faith wasn't good enough.

I would say go to the site in my signature if you want the Truth, but I'm guessing you, like so many others, won't bother.

I looked at your link. All I saw was religious claims like the ones in this thread. That's not truth to me.

First you have to actually and genuinely want the answers, and eventually this Scripture will be fulfilled:

I studied Christianity with energy and passion for years. What do you think I missed?

Also, I have the answers I need. I did my searching in my twenties as a Christian, and in my thirties as an atheist, and came to my present humanist understanding of how best to live by testing ideas to see which brought desired outcomes and which didn't.

Notice that I don't claim to have the truth, or answers that would help you, or try to bring you into my world. You do all of those things.

Why? I presume that you're content. Plus, I wouldn't want to shake your foundation if you are not a young man like I was when I made the shift out of the faith. I had time to rebuild, and was still intellectually plastic enough to confront life anew. Later in life, this becomes difficult if not impossible, and there is so much less to be gained by making the effort.

Anyway, I agree that we have probably gone as far with this as we can. Thank you for your effort and good cheer. I still haven't seen the rebuttal that I politely asked you to link me to or repeat - just your claim that exists somewhere - but I can see that that is going nowhere. You'd have produced the rebuttal by now if there were one.

Remember, by rebuttal, I do not mean a mere contradiction, but your explanation for why the argument given doesn't support that conclusion.

"You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." (Jeremiah 29:13)

That is incorrect. This is yet another way I know that I was correct to leave the religion - another false promise. If promises aren't being kept here o earth, why should I believe the promises made about an afterlife?

 

[Michael1981]

I haven't found wisdom in the Bible or in the words and deeds of the god described therein.

Furthermore, wisdom, by which I mean knowing what to want, intelligence being knowing how to get what you want, doesn't come from a book. It comes from understanding yourself. Learn as much as you can, be contemplative, be upright, learn to love and laugh, be industrious, and be content when your needs are met, and I suspect that you will be happy barring bad luck.

Attachment, conflict, and the like diminish happiness.

The Bible will mean nothing to anyone who attempts to read it without eyes to see or ears to hear. I know that sounds stupid or falls annoyingly short of a satisfactory answer, but it's the truth. If God doesn't give understanding, man has no understanding at all. That's why so many "Christians" have wrested the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).


What you describe as wisdom and intelligence I would describe more as common sense. In any case, what I meant by wisdom in that passage is that there are theories like evolution or the Big Bang Theory, which sound wise/intelligent, but are ultimately foolish, because God has given over those who believe in such things to trusting in themselves and their intellectual powers. I believe in many cases it's a direct punishment for pride.

"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." (Romans 1:22-23)

Someone can be so sure of something and not realize at all that God has blinded them to the truth. Even if I were to say such a thing to people on here, no one would believe me, thinking they're able to think and reason just fine and that I'm crazy for suggesting otherwise.

God does these things, even as He hardened Pharoah's heart in Exodus so that he couldn't "let the people go."

The Bible doesn't seem to be too concerned with the happiness of people. The scripture you cited seems to be antithetical to happiness. It would be for me if I applied it to my life.

Okay, so I think I addressed that in my above point, that there is a different definition of "wisdom" going on here. Perhaps not.

The Bible isn't about providing people with happiness, it's about salvation from sin and being made in the image of God. This process of crucifixion (dying to the world and to self) is naturally painful and full of sorrow, even persecution. Of course, the end result of all of this is happiness, though I'm not sure I like that word because it goes far beyond that. It's spiritual contentment, that peace that passes all understanding. Not that I'm there yet.

No. I just noticed what was going on around me, and how the promises of Christianity were not being kept, and how the Bible story never made sense. I entered Christianity from atheism in my late teens, and agreed to suspend disbelief in order to give God a chance to reveal Himself, and for the theology to eventually solidify into a structure worthy of and indicative of a god.

That didn't happen, so after most of a decade, I moved on. It was like trying on a pair of shoes that didn't fit properly at first, but you walk around in them for awhile and they either feel better or never quite fit properly

"Agreeing to suspend disbelief" is not repenting of sin because God has given you a contrite spirit. The Bible wouldn't make sense to someone who is operating out of curiosity or "trying on a pair of shoes." It's a spiritual book, not something you can learn or understand under your own power. You need eyes to see and ears to hear.

But thanks for not blaming me. That's what I usually get - things like my faith wasn't good enough.

It's not about our faith. We're saved by grace; faith is a gift from God, therefore it's HIS faith, not ours. Our own faith is never "good enough."

I looked at your link. All I saw was religious claims like the ones in this thread. That's not truth to me.

Everything on that site is just like the Scriptures; without eyes to see or ears to hear, they are only words on a page.

I studied Christianity with energy and passion for years. What do you think I missed?

Energy and passion don't cut it:

"For He says to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then, it does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy." (Romans 9:15-16)

Also, I have the answers I need. I did my searching in my twenties as a Christian, and in my thirties as an atheist, and came to my present humanist understanding of how best to live by testing ideas to see which brought desired outcomes and which didn't.

Notice that I don't claim to have the truth, or answers that would help you, or try to bring you into my world. You do all of those things.

Why? I presume that you're content. Plus, I wouldn't want to shake your foundation if you are not a young man like I was when I made the shift out of the faith. I had time to rebuild, and was still intellectually plastic enough to confront life anew. Later in life, this becomes difficult if not impossible, and there is so much less to be gained by making the effort.

You can't claim to have the truth because you don't have the Truth, that is, the Lord Jesus Christ.

I can only shake my head at humanism. Look how far mankind has come, some will say. Yes, it only took men around 6,000 years to abolish slavery, and even today men still do horrible things like enslave children and even adults in some places. I'd mention the Nazis who very recently exterminated 6 million Jews, but there are more recent and equally reprehensible tragedies going on every day, even today, in countries like those in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Mankind has proven time and time again that it is totally corrupt, totally monstrous, and absolutely incapable of doing anything good. For those in western civilization to sit idly by while these atrocities occur and complain about things like oh, I don't know, slow internet, just shows that the western world is absolutely no better, no better at all, than those raping and pillaging in Africa.

I'm not at all content. But I'm not searching for contentment right now, I'm waiting on the Lord to save me. As I mentioned before, to be crucified with Christ means what it says...you have to die a slow and painful spiritual death.

That is incorrect. This is yet another way I know that I was correct to leave the religion - another false promise. If promises aren't being kept here o earth, why should I believe the promises made about an afterlife?

How do you know you ever sought Him with all your heart? From what you wrote above, it doesn't sound like you ever did. There is also this to consider:

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

 

[Sapiens]

The Bible will mean nothing to anyone who attempts to read it without eyes to see or ears to hear.

I agree. But what is "eyes to see or ears to hear"?

Why, presupposition of course.

So, even the bible tells you, upfront, that you must believe it before reading it in order to believe it.

 

[Michael1981]

I agree. But what is "eyes to see or ears to hear"?

Why, presupposition of course.

So, even the bible tells, you upfront, that you must believe it before reading it in order to believe it.

No, eyes to see and ears to hear are a broken spirit and a contrite heart.

"For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You are not pleased with burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise." (Psalm 51:16-17)