Charity

I watched the whole debate, and Sharpton repeatedly criticized Hitchens for talking about horrendous deeds done by those who believe in God (while not addressing Hitchens biblical references of God doing much the same). Instead, he wanted Hitchens to talk about God Himself, apart from the bible, whom Sharpton believes exists because of intelligent design and his personal experiences with Him. IMO, Sharpton's dismissal of the bible shows he has a "Build-a-God" mindset. I guess I am late to the party on recognizing how acceptable this has become.

- Well explained!

I took your question to mean there is no difference - a duck is a duck; and an atheist is no different from a made-up god because there is no "real" god in either case. Now if you and Waysider would like to stop communicating in a way that one has to guess what you're getting at (much like Jesus did when he used parables ), that would be honky-dory (satisfactory, first-rate, excellent) .

Not sure what the five means but the answer seems to be you do both at the same time.

Thank you for the clip . I found the whole debate and will watch it later.

You get my point then.

The video is a great example of the deconstruction that leads to deconversion. And although the emotions she displays are part of her comedic monologue, they are nonetheless a real part of the process of letting go of God. Ex: @ 51:30 - 53:40

Build-A-Bear Workshop is a fun-filled store where you will make a new best friend. Choose from more than 25 different animals priced from $12 to $27. Stuff your furry friend, make a wish and give it a heart. Dress it in over 250 outfits and accessories. Name it and make a personalized birth certificate or storybook. What is the difference between an atheist (who believes neither in a god or in the bible) and a non-fundamentalist (who "builds" a god through a subjective selection of which scriptures they interpret favorably)? IOW, what is the difference between a non-existent god and a made-up god?

The fact that Jesus would say to any believer, at any time or any place, that he would spit them out of his mouth for being lukewarm is sick stuff. Besides, there are plenty of other verses in the gospels where Jesus lays out what it takes to be a follower of his and being lukewarm is nowhere in the mix.

I just finished quickly reading through a prophecy given by an old poster on this forum. I am sharing his website if anyone is interested in reading it. On it, there is also a link for his YouTube channel where he reads the prophecy. https://www.eyesupandopen.org/index.php/prophecies-from-jesus-christ/sinners-come-to-me-in-this-last-time Why am I sharing it? Because it shows how two Christians, who became close online friends over the past year and a half ago, went in two extreme opposite directions within the past two months - me deciding to walk away from Christianity and him starting to share his fundamentalist prophecies online. I'm pretty sure most on this thread will reject this all-or-nothing way of thinking. So what is left? How does one decide for themselves which parts are allegories, fiction, myths, hyperboles, etc. and still believe the Bible is God's word? As it was pointed out to me in Revelation 3:15-22, being lukewarm is not pleasing unto the Lord.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts Raf. On the Harmonic Atheist podcast, I have watched a wide range of people tell their deconversion story from when they first started believing right through to the end - just as you described above. The videos are usually between 90-120 minutes long as their journey was never cut and dry. I think of what it must have been like for you to share and discuss your thoughts and feelings about the process you were going through at the time. It could not have been easy yet it must have been helpful. I give you much credit for doing so. P.S. I forgot to mention how I often can relate to what was being shared on these podcasts.

No, deconversion is done voluntarily. Really not where?

Your last sentence deserves a and made me each of the dozen times I reread it. Okay, I knew about Saturn but had to google the diamonds raining on Jupiter part - very cool. Among all the endings though that could have made your point, your choice is an entertainingly creative one.

Here are a couple of quotes from the website Raf shared in an earlier post from the American Humanist Association called What is Humanism. - Humanists seek to understand the universe by using science and its methods of critical inquiry-logical reasoning, empirical evidence, and skeptical evaluation of conjectures and conclusions-to obtain reliable knowledge. (Steven Schafersman) - Humanism considers the universe to be the result of an extremely long and complex evolution under immutable laws of nature...Because science cannot now and probably never will be able to explain the ultimate origin or destiny of the universe, I think Humanism can include more than atheists and agnostics. The lack of definite answers to these ultimate questions leaves room for reasonable people to hypothesize about the origin of the natural universe, and even to hope for some form of life beyond this one...Thus, in my opinion, people holding such views can be Humanists if they believe that humanity is on its own in this world, and the lack of any evidence for an afterlife means this life should be lived as though it’s the only one we have. (Joseph C. Sommer)

Deconversion isn't about walking away from a cult. After leaving twi, people began analyzing what they were taught and deciding which doctrines to discard and which to keep all the while retaining their Christian beliefs. That is called deconstructing. Deconversion is walking away from that belief along with believing in the entire book it is based on. Regarding your "dog in the manger" idiom and connecting it with egotistical viewpoints you say have been shown on this thread, I don't think that is an accurate statement. I have disagreed with your position on scripture and your explanations of some verses, but I don't think I have criticized you personally for sharing them. If I have, I apologize. But simply having disagreements doesn't mean someone is being egotistical or disrespectful. Oldskool, by the way, was not referring to comments made on the "Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith" forum.

Chockfull, If any of your posts you think are missing were to me, I have quoted the ones I have received above. Do you find one or more of these ones are missing?

"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." (good pun) Well if anyone does, I hope they don't displace whoever might be there already. Or if they're the first, I hope they share.

From the time which you started from in your post to the present day, religion (and the accompanying idea that one leader of a group of people has the right to declare their people superior over another) have been the reasons for wars, inquisitions, persecutions, forced emigration, etc., all of which were and are still crimes against humanity. Seriously, why could a supreme, loving, all-powerful spiritual being not come up with a quicker way of bringing about a "messiah," like say right away instead of 4,000 years later? I think the ideas in the song "Imagine" are more humane than the above bedtime story which whitewashes the wars, infanticides, genocides and slavery of POW's in the OT.

You're welcome oldiesman.

I'm reading about humanism for now.

Thanks Rocky. I'm giving it all a rest. I'll check in for topics of interest though and perhaps post about those.

Here’s what I know. My life is healthier since walking away from Christianity. It's healthier mentally and emotionally which is inspiring me to work on being healthier physically. It has freed up my time since there is no longer a need/desire to work on a 24/7 relationship with a god that supposedly wanted one with me. I’m now going to let go of the need/desire to learn more about why the bible was not inspired by any kind of God. Simply put, I want to be able to stop thinking about god to the extent that only the rare thought will pop into my head and then quickly dissipate. Thanks everyone for your input – it was much appreciated!

I’m watching a video called “Seeing Through Christianity - A Critique of Beliefs and Evidence” by Bill Zuersher. With the concept of God being human made, he’s covered so far the evolutionary stage of the OT from Canaanite polytheism to Jewish monotheism due to the history of the Babylonian conquest. He’s about to get into the transition of Jewish monotheism to Apocalyptic Judaism due to the Persian Zoroastrian influence. I’m beginning to better understand why some Christians who believe in God but agree with the fictional storytelling of the OT will balance or cancel out the negative character of the OT God leaving God with the more positive image shown in the NT. Is this why someone (like myself for instance) who refers to the scriptures in the OT that show God committing atrocities may be pointed out as having a fundamentalist point of view? In this way, fundamentalism can be taken as being subjective at times in contrast to the objective definition which refers to it as taking the whole bible literally and as being inherently accurate. Am I understanding this correctly?

Good question!

By definition, if one believed the account was fictional, then they should not refer to it as a record. The noun "account" by definition does not include the words "facts" or "proven to be true." This could be an alternative to using the word "record."