Hired Gun

Any time my opponent admits that the only way to live successfully as an atheist is to be willfully or blissfully ignorant of atheism's logical ramifications, then yes, I consider myself victorious.

A.S.A. Jones

braces_for_impact

QoS, congratulations on another hillarious edition!

Hired Gun, I was brousing around your sight, and the problem I perceive is that your story doesn't strike me as sincere. I am willing to admit that the former atheist you describe yourself as is possible in terms of your behavior, thought processes, etc. What really "sets my alarm bells ringing" is that the atheist that you claimed to have been seems to be the exact same as the 'stereotypical' atheist that is in the mindset of many Christians.

Many of these same Christians I have met, both personally and on the net, claim to have behaved exactly as you do when they were 'atheists', especially when they're testifying. Although I do not know you, I find this suspiscious. It smacks of a conversion technique to me. If as your website claims, you are out to eradicate arguments against your faith, then what does this testimony you have offered really accomplish?

I will admit I have only browsed your webpage and have not gone through it in depth, and some of your statements I do agree with. The character you described as your former self seems rather two dimensional, however.

One thing is for sure, you have the arrogance of a "rabid atheist" and a "fundie" down pat.

I do encourage you to try to participate in the threads here, or start your own. I would enjoy speaking to you in the Moral Principles forum.

P.S.

Thanks for showing us how you live you Christianity and do not debate it.

Hired Gun

Is there no truth behind stereotypes? Do stereotypes just generate themselves, despite truth to the contrary, or are stereotypes formed based on observeable truths?

You know, Dan Barker and Farrell Till seem to have been 'stereotypical' fundies that are in the mindset of many atheists. I'll bet that you don't consider them to be lying about their past. But it is so much easier to call a person a liar than to deal with that person's truth. Dan Barker and Farrell Till? Why they never were Christians to begin with! A.S.A. Jones, C.S. Lewis, and Lee Strobel? Why they never were atheists to begin with! There. Let's just call every person who ever experiences a change in philosophy a liar so that we don't have to try and see the truth that caused the change.

I now attend a church with several members who knew me as an atheist for over ten years. What do you want? References? Want my parent's phone number? Believe what you wish; that's what you will do anyway.



My testimony has absolutely nothing to do with apologetics. I included my testimony to encourage those whom I once discouraged and to show them that some seeds are not watered in vain. I'm not interested in conversion through some self-indulgent, sentimental personal testimony. I'm interested in conversion through truth.



It seems two dimensional because that's exactly what I was. Check out the rest. It rocks. Really.



You think I'm bad now, you should have seen me before. Don't hate me just because I'm confident.

To clarify: Witness = live your Christianity, don't debate it.
Debate = Destroy your opponent's argument.

To see what the Bible has to say about debate, check out my essay titled, "Contending Earnestly for the Faith; Logic, Debate and Apologetics, http://www.ex-atheist.com

I can't show you how I live my Christianity through words on the Internet. But I sure can show you how I debate it.

A.S.A. Jones

ex-xian

So is this a first in the history of Nutwatch?

That wasn't his point. The mods here do their job well, and if this thread goes any more off topic, I suspect it will be moved or closed. That said, I have to comment (and contribute to the furtherance of this deliquant thread).

I guess you're in favor of racial profilling too, because there is "truth behind sterotypes."

So anyone who disagrees with isn't logical, huh? Which atheistic thinkers and philosophers did you read? Perhaps some of them would have had a solution to your quandry. Or are you so sure of your own thinking abilities that you need consult no one else?

I am a non-theist, in the way that theism is commonly defined, but I do believe that objective standards of morality can and are present without the need for a platonic-like idea. The fact that there are many, many atheists/non-theists who feel the same way should cause you to question your conclusion. Unless you're sure that we're all incapable of using logic for ourselves.

Hired Gun

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ex-xian
So is this a first in the history of Nutwatch?

That wasn't his point. The mods here do their job well, and if this thread goes any more off topic, I suspect it will be moved or closed. That said, I have to comment (and contribute to the furtherance of this deliquant thread).
[/b]
I guess you're in favor of racial profilling too, because there is "truth behind sterotypes."
[/b]

Actually, it wouldn't necessarily follow that I would be in favor of racial profiling just because I believe that there may be truth behind stereotypes. I made statements concerning the truth of stereotypical atheists as it applied to one individual, specifically, me. Racial profiling attempts to apply stereotypical truths to entire groups of people, not taking into account their individual capacities to not conform to the stereotype. Thus, it is one thing to say that an individual fits the stereotype and another to say that the stereotype applies to all individuals within the group. Nice attempt to paint me as a racist, though. I really admire that type of deviousness.

No, I stated in my site that two people can logically arrive at contrary conclusions. Disagreement doesn't constitute refutation, nor does agreement imply that anything has been 'proven'. It is, in my opinion, illogical to think that atheism, when followed to its ultimate end, can result in anything other than nihilism.

All of them. Yes, I have more confidence in my own thinking abilities than those of any others.

I see. You are saying that I should doubt my own conclusions based on the fallacy of ad populum. I haven't given into peer pressure since 1973.

A.S.A. Jones

braces_for_impact

Now come on, as an ex-atheist you should realize the bible will have no weight with me in any debate. This is exactly what I am talking about. Of course I'm not going to ask for references or your personal information. It's simple little mistakes like these that make me skeptical of your claims. If I were to ever feel that I had sufficient evidence to convert to Christianity, and I felt the need to debate a religious issue to atheists, the last thing I would do is offer the bible as any form of evidence.

Also, I do evaluate sincerity when someone tells me they used to be a Christian and are now atheists, but that wasn't the issue. In any case as I said welcome to the forums, I hope you stick around.

ex-xian

Attempt to paint you as a racist? Where the hell did you get that from? Nice attempt to paint my post as an ad hominem, though. I really don't admire that type of deviousness, espcially from a xian.

(edited comments in italics) My point in raising racial profiling was in support of braces_for_impacts comments that your "testimony" seemed stretched to reflect typical xian's attitude toward an atheist. Your story seems to be a "racial" profile of an atheist. I appreciate your comments that there is some truth in some stereotypes, but are you really sure you didn't fudge the truth? Not even a tinsy, winsy bit?


If two people logically arrive at contradictory conclusions, then one of them has used faulty logic. Two people can logically arrive at different conclusions, but not contradictory.

All of them? Could you give some names?
I see that you haven't sworn off misrepresenting those who disagree with you. To commit the appeal to popularity fallacy, I would contend that a proposition is true because a large number of people hold to it. I only made the statement that you should question your conclusions because there are many logical, reasoning people who arrived at a contradictory postition from yours.


Are you really sure that you know it all wrt atheistic morality? You yourself said that you didn't start out as a nihilistic atheist. You statements that men are like termites seems to reflect your final state of belief before conversion. Yet, I know of no modern atheist thinkers who would agree that men are not significantly different and infinitly of more value than termites.

Once again, I would like to know who you have read. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you summarize your arguements against their points.

I realized after I posted this that I did not express my reasons for bringing up racial profiling. Edited thusly.

Puam

ok, my assumption was wrong. You do not think that all atheists are immoral, but I get the feeling that the ones who are, are considered exceptions by you.

Alas, I have a degree in philosophy, so I ought to know that I have not a superior intellect, and that I do not know everything. I have no superior intellect, and I know it, and I'm not out in *proving* that my opinion is right to the rest of the world (I'm no missionary, not even a witness in your definition). That aside, you are just challinging for the sake of it.
Not that I have a problem with that, but give me some time to browse other forums (about morality and such). I'll meet you there.
Since this is far too much offtopic, this will be my last comment here. I do not want to risk any severe beating by the moderators!

Hired Gun

First of all, I realize that the Bible has no authority to an atheist and throughout my site I make comment about this; "Most of the explanations I heard rested on the Bible's authority. "The Bible says... the Bible says... the Bible says." Who cared what the Bible said? I certainly didn't. "It's all a bunch of made up, superstitious baloney."

Many atheists believe that Christians are hypocrites when they attempt to defend their faith because they take certain passages out of context. When you snidely (and take no insult, because I am one who can appreciate snide remarks!) threw back my quote about living my Christianity and not debating it, I assumed that you were implying that I was a hypocrite, not only unto my own philosophy, but unto my Christian faith as well. That is why I made reference to the Bible, not because I thought that it would 'carry weight' with you, but to defend my actions against what I thought was an implication of hypocrisy.

Quote:

This is exactly what I am talking about. Of course I'm not going to ask for references or your personal information. It's simple little mistakes like these that make me skeptical of your claims. If I were to ever feel that I had sufficient evidence to convert to Christianity, and I felt the need to debate a religious issue to atheists, the last thing I would do is offer the bible as any form of evidence.

Yes, yes, and I'm sure that now, despite all of my advice to Christians to not use the Bible as an authority with those who don't believe in the authority, my explanation will be seen as an elaborate coverup.

Thank you for the welcome! Debate is my only form of relaxation. I'll be visiting more often.

A.S.A. Jones

ex-xian

Implicit in this statement is that an atheist who does reach your conclusion is not applying logic. Is this your intent? If not, perhaps you should retract the statement. If so, where exactly is the flaw in the reasoning of the atheists?