Former Atheist turned Born Again Christian

a reply to: StandingTallForChrist

Show me the proof? you understand it as a fact, the proof must have been shown to you... Please, share it with us all...

PA

Haven't got time to read the whole thread so apologies if tha has been mentioned. But you say God died on the cross?

a reply to: Paschar0

Well said. Have any links to faith building sites or ways to understand the Bible better? I've got so many ups on YouTube for people like Ray Waters, etc. but am eager for more.

a reply to: MrCrow

If he did, it's not wholly inaccurate since God, the Son and Holy Spirit are ONE...the Triune.

If you recall the thread, I was being called a fake christian by some and a fake atheist by others, oh and troll. If you think you know me enough to make the statement that I am a fake anything, you are a fool.

This is not bullying, this is pointing out a truth to you, so perhaps you won't jump to conclusions about people. My OP does not encapsulate all of who I have become in 45 years, shocking I know.

And if you recall I did not jump to conclusions. What I pointed out to you was

Either you are a complete fraud, or you are all that you say you are

However I did offer a caveat to the latter possibility

and, from the simple little tactic with that member, a bully to boot.

The reason I added that was do to your interchange with one member. That member said

I have a hard time believing you were an atheist. But if that's the case you sure have done a big time 180 from that.

So are you a Young Earth Creationist Christian too??? Or do you still think the universe is old???

Here, this member does not offer any conclusions about you. NONE. He says that he (himself) has a hard time believing you were an atheist. Which is understandable. He then says that if it is so then offers the observation that you have done a complete about face. No accusations there either. He then goes on to ask you more about your beliefs, to which you reply

Well you have known me for ... what about.... zero seconds... and you already have drawn conclusions about me? This is going to be fun.

I had to pull up short here. I looked at your OP which was loaded with information you were presenting about yourself, not knowing if it was true or false. I read a long long list of experiences and beliefs. You did not just offer drips and dribbles of information but rather presented quite and interesting picture of yourself.

Then, fifty minutes later, that member made his reply. Not zero seconds as you suggest, but almost an hour, long enough for someone to have read your long long list of experiences and accomplishments and beliefs through a couple of times and then formulated a welcoming reply. To which you said he was jumping to conclusions, which by the way is what you just did with me, see it above?

But you are right. I do not know you. What I do know is that one tactic of a psychological bully is to disarm a perceived opponent, set them back on their heals so that the bully can command the conversation. It is a well know tactic from chapter one in any book on how to control and manipulate people. The fact, and I seldom use the term ''fact'' but in this case it is a fact, that you turned a boat load of introductory information about yourself and fifty whole minutes and flipped it on it's head to zero seconds and jumping to conclusions all from a simple reply shouts loudly of manipulation.

Finally

This is not bullying, this is pointing out a truth to you, so perhaps you won't jump to conclusions about people. My OP does not encapsulate all of who I have become in 45 years, shocking I know.

For some reason, you feel it necessary to ''point out a truth to me''. That jumping to conclusions about people is not a good thing, and I completely agree. But here is the thing. You assume, you jump to conclusions that I am not smart enough to have arrived at this truth on my own already so that it is necessary for you to ''teach'' me. Do you see what you have done here? It seems to me that what you have done is exactly what you are accusing others of having done. Jumping to conclusions.



a reply to: StandingTallForChrist

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Paschar0

Well said. Have any links to faith building sites or ways to understand the Bible better? I've got so many ups on YouTube for people like Ray Waters, etc. but am eager for more.

Anything Chuck Missler is fantastic!

Peace

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Paschar0

Well said. Have any links to faith building sites or ways to understand the Bible better? I've got so many ups on YouTube for people like Ray Waters, etc. but am eager for more.

For understanding, I've found "The Bible Project" on youtube to be an excellent learning tool. It doesn't read scripture to you. It explains what the book(s) are about, how they're structured and HOW to read and understand the common thread that runs throughout the bible in a very easy to understand way. Most of the videos are only 5-7 minutes and honestly I've more out of some of these than going to bible study for weeks on a single book...but that's just me

originally posted by: StandingTallForChrist
a reply to: myselfaswell

We are going to get along splendidly, especially when I bring you to my side of the truth... Which is to say, the only real side.

Aren't you glad you have the correct religion?

originally posted by: Paschar0

The biggest problem with Atheists, again from my perspective, is their equally stubborn insistence that the entire universe just "happened" and ignore God's fingerprints and clues.

Atheism is not science. It is philosophy. However, most atheists I know are empiricists and would say (correctly) that we simply do not know why the universe is here. It is at present unfalisifiable, and therefore largely beyond the purview of science, except in the most theoretical sense.

a reply to: StandingTallForChrist

How old are you, Keith, and do you have any published work we can read?

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Paschar0

The biggest problem with Atheists, again from my perspective, is their equally stubborn insistence that the entire universe just "happened" and ignore God's fingerprints and clues.

Atheism is not science. It is philosophy. However, most atheists I know are empiricists and would say (correctly) that we simply do not know why the universe is here. It is at present unfalisifiable, and therefore largely beyond the purview of science, except in the most theoretical sense.

I would agree. Atheism is not science. That said, many atheists seem to enjoy attacking people of faith and regularly use science as a club. It's one thing to say "I don't know" and quite another to say "You believe in fairy tales" is it not?

I had a Christian upbringing. I am curious how you can dispute evolution when evidence does clearly exist in support of it. What do you say about the existence of say, Neanderthals? They are proven to have existed and to be a separate species of hominid than Homo-sapiens. What about all the other hominid skeletons/fossils that have been recovered? They show clear links between ourselves and the past.

en.wikipedia.org...

What about this? Its quite a clear timeline of incremental changes. How can you deny it? What about the evidence of dinosaurs that show quite clearly that giant lizards roamed the Earth at one point in time. Do you also reject this? Do you believe that every piece of evidence is fabricated? So every university student or professional in the entire world is lying to fool the rest of the population?

Do you believe that everyone is created individually? What about people with no brain function? Why would a god create these individuals? Why is your religion the correct one to choose? Are followers of different religions all incorrect? If so, would you say they are delusional? If followers of other religions can be so sure they are following the correct one, and be wrong, doesn't that suggest that maybe you are wrong too? What about followers of ancient religions that are forgotten now? Were their gods false?

As I said, I was brought up in a Christian family. None of the church elders were able to answer my questions back then, and my questions back then were less thought out as they came from the mind of a 14 year old. Science gives us answers, religion gives us excuses.

What medical breakthroughs have come from religion? If you became seriously unwell would you place faith in prayers or in modern medicine? I had a childhood friend pass away. He was prayed for and it didn't help. Why?

Science gave us the internet, computers, smartphones, cars, radios..etc.

What has religion given us apart from minor changes to the same texts over thousands of years?

Why does a persons religion usually fall in line with where they are from? Why are most Hindus from India? Most Muslims from the middle east? Surely if one religion was correct, people would find it regardless of their birthplace? Or does Jesus only speak into the minds of people from certain countries where there is already a large Christian population? Of course their are exceptions, but focus on the majorities.

No option to give you a star?

congrats w that thar

originally posted by: Paschar0

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Paschar0

The biggest problem with Atheists, again from my perspective, is their equally stubborn insistence that the entire universe just "happened" and ignore God's fingerprints and clues.

Atheism is not science. It is philosophy. However, most atheists I know are empiricists and would say (correctly) that we simply do not know why the universe is here. It is at present unfalisifiable, and therefore largely beyond the purview of science, except in the most theoretical sense.

I would agree. Atheism is not science. That said, many atheists seem to enjoy attacking people of faith and regularly use science as a club. It's one thing to say "I don't know" and quite another to say "You believe in fairy tales" is it not?

Well, one of those things is rude. The other isn't as rude.

Also, saying "I don't know" is about the self, while "you believe in fairy tales" is about someone else.

However, those two expressions are congruent with one another.

As in, it is congruent for a person who only puts stock in that which can be empirically proven to refer to things which CANNOT be empirically proven as fairy tales.

Personally, I don't care what fairy tales a person believes in, provided they stick to things which are unfalsifiable. The instant they start supplanting tangible, empirical evidence with their fairy tales is where I draw the line.

So a person chooses to believe in God? Cool.

But if they try to cram creationism into my kid's science class, they're going to hear from me.

originally posted by: TheErlenmeyerFlask
a reply to: StandingTallForChrist

The best was debunking atheism. It can be done with very few words... "to know there is no God one must be omnipotent, and a god themselves, therefore atheism is a philosophical impossibility."

And then they quickly switch to agnosticism and argue that atheism is defined as a lack of belief in God(s) and that the flying spaghetti monster can also not be disproven (eventually leading to the argument that nothing can be proven or disproven conclusively, with 100% certainty, long live the agnostic philosophy of vagueness, 'science does not deal with absolutes', 'nothing is certain', etc.). Your proposed argument and the standard counter-arguments are a bit superficial lacking much substance. "Broad road"-stuff (Matthew 7:13,14), i.e. mainstream arguments and thinking. The 'we don't know (yet)' god of the agnostic gaps usually isn't far behind (or 'I don't know' when someone doesn't want to know something that is inconvenient or is in denial of it, always appealing to 'not knowing' when actually they do, but since they also argue it isn't certain they feel it's correct to argue that they don't know something, feigning or pleading ignorance where useful; that's not to say that the phrase can't be used genuinely as well).

You'll have a hard time getting someone to acknowledge the logical implications for philosophical naturalism of this acknowledgement (that probably includes Alexandre Meinesz himself as well):

“...no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.” - Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz, (How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.)

You might even get a 'anything is possible' type of argument. Who needs actual evidence for wishful speculations promoting evolutionary philosophies such as Haldane&Oparin's "chemical evolution theory of life" (a.k.a. abiogenesis, quoting from the wikipedia page on abiogenesis). Note the quotation in the presentation below after 30:50:

Evidence of Design from Biology. A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe at the University of Toronto

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: StandingTallForChrist
a reply to: myselfaswell

We are going to get along splendidly, especially when I bring you to my side of the truth... Which is to say, the only real side.

Aren't you glad you have the correct religion?

There is no one favored religion in God's eyes. The best religion is the one that brings you closer to God. Take your pick.

Great intro thread all... StandingTall are you going to share the story of your religious conversion here? Who, What, Where, Why, and How man? .

What happened to you that caused this fundamental soul pivot?

originally posted by: StandingTallForChrist
But not us pesky Humans... THE MOST HIGHLY EVOLVED creatures on EARTH. Our human babies are completely helpless FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. This is not a trait that would be passed on through evolution... We should pop out of our mothers and be running within a few days. But that's only if evolution were true, which it is not.

If were not born when we are, our heads would not fit through the birth canal. As long as you live to the age of reproduction, then your traits will be passed onto the next generation. Many different species of animals are helpless at birth and for a substantial period of time thereafter. Apparently, for humans, natural selection favored big brains and intelligence over being born fully mature and independent, probably because the latter would kill the mother and likely the child during the birthing process and the former is easily remedied by watchful parents. The amount of people who consider themselves religious in the U.S. drops every year. So, unfortunately, we haven't yet bred out irrational thought from the gene pool. Hopefully, we'll pull it off in the next 100 years.

I am about 80% sure that you are trolling this forum. Short of taking some L S D, a lot of L S D, or perhaps suffering some sort of stroke, no legitimate atheist would abandon rational thought and evidence-based reasoning. Maybe you thought you were an atheist, but I don't think you ever were.

originally posted by: TheErlenmeyerFlask
a reply to: StandingTallForChrist
some ask me to prove there is a God; then I ask, prove to me there isn't. If I am wrong then I only wasted an hour each Sunday and lived a life as a generally good human being who loves others and cares about people - if you're wrong, well you spend eternity in hell.

So, you're saying that an atheist cannot live life as a generally good human being who loves others and cares about people? If one did, you're saying that he would nevertheless eventually die and go to hell anyway? That religion sounds terrible. Why would anyone want to join a religion that sends good people to hell? It sounds like a fear-mongering cult. Enjoy the kool-aid.