hinduwoman

Ex-atheist, a far more interesting question is why you are an ex-atheist?

abe smith

In spite of the flourishing existence of this site, my impression izzz that most? atheists are not joiners; and do not meet to prattle about All-That.... Once you've decided that you don't believe in all that theistic trash, there isn't a whole lot left to discuss..... Abe

Bree

I'm an atheist because I'm intelligent enough to question what people tell me I'm supposed to believe.

Jamie_L

It seems to me like a good number of people have answered his question here - calmly, honestly, and without name-calling.

I would give an answer myself, except that my reasons have already been covered by others.

It seems to me that a common problem is our (atheists') reasons are often not believed or are discounted. When this happens enough, it can make a person a little testy.

Jamie

StrongMan

Excellent!

WWSD

Where did that crazy EX-ATHEIST get off to anyway?
Hmmmm...
Maybe no one gave the textbook answer he/she expected and so he/she couldn't go to step two in the "big book of converting atheists."

Ron Garrett

You are making broad and generalized assumptions about the participants here that I think are unwarranted.

If you would like to have whatever you regard as a "good faith discussion", I would love to join in. I am most curious to know what argument you have propounded that has defied the understanding of the regulars here [I assume you realize that rejection of an inadequate argument is not equivalent to misunderstanding the argument]. I assume that reasoned critique of dogma is acceptable in your discussions. I believe I can refrain from name-calling, at least as I define it.

I think a fun discussion would result if we were to take up the debate between Origen and Celsus. Of course all we have of Celsus' original work, estimated at 70%, is that quoted by Origen in Contra Celsum since the Christian emperors burned the works of the opponents of the church, but of what we have I think some telling points are made along with the usual facile arguments about Christianity being a faith of the ignorant and unlearned, which though true at that time is not completely so today.

Why don't you get a copy of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195041518/inktomi-bkasin-20/102-9687752-1148119" target="_blank">Celsus on the True Doctrine</a>, read it, or read Origen's Contra Celsum then we can discuss faith in that light. It's available on-line here:<a href="http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/polem.htm" target="_blank">Contra Celsum</a> If the two of you read these works you will know much more about your faith than 99.99999% of all Christians, and then we can hope to have an intelligent discussion.

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]</p>

DarkBronzePlant

Assuming that ex-atheist is just asking an honest question, I'll give an honest answer.

I simply do not believe that god exists. There's been no life-altering event, no sudden "Ah ha!" moment or anything. Growing up, my family was the type that went to church once in awhile. My parents would say that they are religious, and would probably freak if I outright told them I am an atheist, but the religion in my family was otherwise quite mild.

I just started comparing Christianity to other religions that have existed throughout time, and began to realize that there are a lot of them out there, each with their own conflicting view of what god, gods, or dieties exist or existed. So I figured that maybe I owed it to myself to rethink this concept. Maybe I should start not from a pre-suppositionalist point of view--just taking for granted that god exists because everyone says so--but actually look for real evidence. So I looked for evidence. And there was none. Absolutely none. And still it took awhile to be able to admit to myself what I had learned deep down... that god flat-out does not exist. But eventually, I was able to.

Atheism is not a religion. There is no dogma to follow. There is no set of beliefs. It's kind of like calling "clear" a color. The only reason the term "atheism" exists is because so many people believe in the existence of some god or another, those of us who don't are in the minority. So for convenience, someone coined the label. The fact that you do not recognize this is what likely caused the negative reaction from some of the regulars here... it makes it seem that you are misrepresenting yourself as an ex-atheist.

zamboniavenger

If I were to venture a guess(which I suppose I'm doing ), I'd guess that EX-ATHEIST was the type of "atheist" we are often accused of being by theists, that is a theist who is actually just mad at god and trying to "get back" by disbelieving.

BibleBelted

Michael posted:

Don't really have any comment on this, just thought it was funny enough to repeat.

Deputy42, Thanks for joining in. If EX-A's posts weren't so pugnacious, he might not have gotten slapped around so much.

EX-A, I too am aware that you are trolling; but, since I am new here and haven't really paid my dues yet, I will volunteer to swallow the hook for everyone else who just doesn't want to waste time with you. I'm sure the experience will be as edifying as any I had in 15 years of attending a fundamentalist church.

Without going into details, the church I was attending was very theologically confused. The preacher was always stating some "written in stone" principle from the bible, then giving exceptions to explain why it didn't work (except for "really faithful" people, I suppose). FYI, the church was nominally Southern Baptist but the preacher was a big fan of Hinn, Hagee, Robertson, Copeland and that crowd. People I personally came to despise, but kept silent about. Anyway, feeling "spiritually undernourished" (I had noted that in all the thousands of sermons I'd heard, there were only a handful of verses that ever got any airplay) I started seriously reading the bible and questions starting popping up about what the true character of this god really was. In looking for answers in multitudes of web-based ministries, the confusion just got worse. It wasn't just the disagreements between them that bothered me as much as why these great theological minds would have to devote so many years of their lives to crafting these densely convoluted solutions to problems any eight year old could point out to them. Do you want to know how desperate I got? How low I sunk in trying to find someone who could make sense of all this scrapyard of conflicting bad ideas? I started listening to Bob Enyart. Yes [SOB, SOB] I admit it. I had hit rock-bottom. Bob impressed me by openly taking on Benny Hinn, so I kept listening. Though he focused on a different handful of verses than the happy churches (he prefers the death and damnation ones) I still felt that he only had part of the picture, too. Still, I kept listening. Then one day an atheist called in. And Bob took the call. It was Doug the Atheist from Arkansas (Praise be unto him) <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />
Bob debated with him for six hours (different shows) and I listened, not closely at first, but more intently as they went on. I went to Bob's archives (2000) and listened again. And again. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Despite all of Enyart's bobbing and weaving, subject-changing, ad hominem attacks, declarations of victory and putting Doug on hold so he could make protracted bizarre points unchallenged, Bob was getting his ass waxed. Since Bob gave Doug's full name on the show (maybe trying to intimidate him, I don't know) I did a Google search for Doug and it brought me right here to the good old Internet Infidels. I did some surfing around and quite by chance (or was my hand guided by an unseen power?) I came across an essay by Robert Green Ingersoll called "The Truth about the Holy Bible" and started reading it. The contrast between the reason of Ingersoll and the opaque apologias of all the theologians I'd ever read was staggering. He was concise. He was cogent. He spoke plainly. He appealed to common sense and reason instead of miracles and divine revelations. It only took about 20 minutes of this "propaganda and brainwashing" before I began to feel a great weight being lifted from my shoulders, the sun seemed to be shining a little brighter as I came to the realization that revealed religion was all a big crock. Hell and the devil would never threaten me again (I'm sure you disagee). I was free to love this world and love this life without having to grovel and pay off any man in the sky. If you can read Ingersoll and respond, sensibly, to 1/4th of his objections, I'll start tithing to you. But I am going to prophesy that you won't even make the attempt.
So, EX-A, that's why I'm an atheist.

Now, respond or go back to Theologyonline.

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: BibleBelted ]</p>