Why do the God-haters persist?

[daws101]

So Bossy, what's you stand on Jesus, he walk on water or not?

I don't know, maybe that is a metaphorical depiction told in a story to make a broader point? A lot of old ancient Hebrew stories are told this way, they didn't have sprite graphics and Youtube videos back then. They relied on imagination, so they often used metaphor as a tool to convey a story meaning.

I tell ya what I find more intriguing is the story of Paul of Tarsus. Here's a guy that was pretty much the epitome of you god-haters. He was a Roman who went around after Jesus died, killing Christians because of their faith. The Christians knew him well, he was brutal and violent, showed no mercy on them whatsoever. Hated and loathed everything they stood for, denounced their God and religious faith with every fiber of his being. He had learned that a group of Jesus' followers had fled to Damascus, so he went after them with the intents of killing them all, as he could not stand Christians. Wanted to stomp the religion out then and there, nip it in the bud. On the road to Damascus, the dead Jesus appeared before him. He was blinded by the experience and went nuts, so they locked him away for a bit. During that time, Jesus appeared to one of his disciples and told him to go find Paul of Tarsus, he had selected him to bring his word to the gentiles. The disciple thought the request was crazy, this was a man who hated Christians more than the ones who crucified Jesus, but he did as Jesus told him. He found Paul and miraculously restored his sight after Paul repented and asked forgiveness. Paul of Tarsus went on to write most of the New Testament, and aside from Jesus, is probably the most influential person in the New Testament.

I find this story a lot more compelling than Jesus walking on water, because it shows that even someone as full of hate for God as you, can be changed.

that's one of my favorite fairy tales out of the bible...

 

[thebrucebeat]

So Bossy, what's you stand on Jesus, he walk on water or not?

I don't know, maybe that is a metaphorical depiction told in a story to make a broader point? A lot of old ancient Hebrew stories are told this way, they didn't have sprite graphics and Youtube videos back then. They relied on imagination, so they often used metaphor as a tool to convey a story meaning.

I tell ya what I find more intriguing is the story of Paul of Tarsus. Here's a guy that was pretty much the epitome of you god-haters. He was a Roman who went around after Jesus died, killing Christians because of their faith. The Christians knew him well, he was brutal and violent, showed no mercy on them whatsoever. Hated and loathed everything they stood for, denounced their God and religious faith with every fiber of his being. He had learned that a group of Jesus' followers had fled to Damascus, so he went after them with the intents of killing them all, as he could not stand Christians. Wanted to stomp the religion out then and there, nip it in the bud. On the road to Damascus, the dead Jesus appeared before him. He was blinded by the experience and went nuts, so they locked him away for a bit. During that time, Jesus appeared to one of his disciples and told him to go find Paul of Tarsus, he had selected him to bring his word to the gentiles. The disciple thought the request was crazy, this was a man who hated Christians more than the ones who crucified Jesus, but he did as Jesus told him. He found Paul and miraculously restored his sight after Paul repented and asked forgiveness. Paul of Tarsus went on to write most of the New Testament, and aside from Jesus, is probably the most influential person in the New Testament.

I find this story a lot more compelling than Jesus walking on water, because it shows that even someone as full of hate for God as you, can be changed.

And that would be the god that you think Christians are mistaken in believing he cares about them at all?
That one, right?

 

[Boss]

So you still feel paradigm shifts are absolutely impossible, right?
Not being able to disprove something with certainty to you is "compelling evidence" that that something is actually true.
That makes martians true. Leprechauns. Pink unicorns. The Spaghetti Monster.
You need to think before bloviating.

Evidence = Proof is a dawsy argument, not mine. The only thing I've ever argued for is the possibility of something and the objective evaluation of relevant evidence. We all know that God can't be proved or disproved with physical evidence because God is not physical. In order to evaluate God's existence, we must look to spiritual evidence instead, because that's what God is. This becomes a problem for those who don't accept spiritual evidence.

 

[Boss]

So Bossy, what's you stand on Jesus, he walk on water or not?

I don't know, maybe that is a metaphorical depiction told in a story to make a broader point? A lot of old ancient Hebrew stories are told this way, they didn't have sprite graphics and Youtube videos back then. They relied on imagination, so they often used metaphor as a tool to convey a story meaning.

I tell ya what I find more intriguing is the story of Paul of Tarsus. Here's a guy that was pretty much the epitome of you god-haters. He was a Roman who went around after Jesus died, killing Christians because of their faith. The Christians knew him well, he was brutal and violent, showed no mercy on them whatsoever. Hated and loathed everything they stood for, denounced their God and religious faith with every fiber of his being. He had learned that a group of Jesus' followers had fled to Damascus, so he went after them with the intents of killing them all, as he could not stand Christians. Wanted to stomp the religion out then and there, nip it in the bud. On the road to Damascus, the dead Jesus appeared before him. He was blinded by the experience and went nuts, so they locked him away for a bit. During that time, Jesus appeared to one of his disciples and told him to go find Paul of Tarsus, he had selected him to bring his word to the gentiles. The disciple thought the request was crazy, this was a man who hated Christians more than the ones who crucified Jesus, but he did as Jesus told him. He found Paul and miraculously restored his sight after Paul repented and asked forgiveness. Paul of Tarsus went on to write most of the New Testament, and aside from Jesus, is probably the most influential person in the New Testament.

I find this story a lot more compelling than Jesus walking on water, because it shows that even someone as full of hate for God as you, can be changed.

And that would be the god that you think Christians are mistaken in believing he cares about them at all?
That one, right?

No, that would be Jesus, a prophet of God who brought the message of hope, love and kindness to mankind. After his death, he appeared in spiritual form to inspire one of his greatest adversaries and motivate him to pen most of the New Testament.

 

[Boss]

that's one of my favorite fairy tales out of the bible...

Except the people are real and the historic events well documented.

 

[thebrucebeat]

So you still feel paradigm shifts are absolutely impossible, right?
Not being able to disprove something with certainty to you is "compelling evidence" that that something is actually true.
That makes martians true. Leprechauns. Pink unicorns. The Spaghetti Monster.
You need to think before bloviating.

Evidence = Proof is a dawsy argument, not mine. The only thing I've ever argued for is the possibility of something and the objective evaluation of relevant evidence. We all know that God can't be proved or disproved with physical evidence because God is not physical. In order to evaluate God's existence, we must look to spiritual evidence instead, because that's what God is. This becomes a problem for those who don't accept spiritual evidence.

You want me to dig up your quote?
You specifically made the idiotic comment that the inability to prove something with certainty was compelling evidence that it was actually true.
It is a moronic position, one that can't be defended but only run from.
And so you are.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I don't know, maybe that is a metaphorical depiction told in a story to make a broader point? A lot of old ancient Hebrew stories are told this way, they didn't have sprite graphics and Youtube videos back then. They relied on imagination, so they often used metaphor as a tool to convey a story meaning.

I tell ya what I find more intriguing is the story of Paul of Tarsus. Here's a guy that was pretty much the epitome of you god-haters. He was a Roman who went around after Jesus died, killing Christians because of their faith. The Christians knew him well, he was brutal and violent, showed no mercy on them whatsoever. Hated and loathed everything they stood for, denounced their God and religious faith with every fiber of his being. He had learned that a group of Jesus' followers had fled to Damascus, so he went after them with the intents of killing them all, as he could not stand Christians. Wanted to stomp the religion out then and there, nip it in the bud. On the road to Damascus, the dead Jesus appeared before him. He was blinded by the experience and went nuts, so they locked him away for a bit. During that time, Jesus appeared to one of his disciples and told him to go find Paul of Tarsus, he had selected him to bring his word to the gentiles. The disciple thought the request was crazy, this was a man who hated Christians more than the ones who crucified Jesus, but he did as Jesus told him. He found Paul and miraculously restored his sight after Paul repented and asked forgiveness. Paul of Tarsus went on to write most of the New Testament, and aside from Jesus, is probably the most influential person in the New Testament.

I find this story a lot more compelling than Jesus walking on water, because it shows that even someone as full of hate for God as you, can be changed.

And that would be the god that you think Christians are mistaken in believing he cares about them at all?
That one, right?

No, that would be Jesus, a prophet of God who brought the message of hope, love and kindness to mankind. After his death, he appeared in spiritual form to inspire one of his greatest adversaries and motivate him to pen most of the New Testament.

So now you DO believe in a God the Father that personally cares about each believer?
Do you want to endorse that meme?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

God haters persist because God is pursuing them.

No matter how many times an atheist says there is no God, he can not help himself but to talk about God.

God works in mysterious ways indeed.

 

[Boss]

He has specifically stated he is not a Christian.
I think alot of believers would find that objectionable, don't you?

There's the first problem with your post, bolded in red... Perhaps you do 'think', it's just lacking in quality and quantity.

You have no idea what believers would find objectionable, claiming that you do is a fallacy. I love Boss, he owns every single one of you haters in here, and you all know it, it's why you persist and persist, you can't remotely win a debate with him.

And yet he doesn't endorse your faith in the least.
As a former pastor, I have a bit of understanding regarding believers.
If you think Boss owns anything, you aren't a very careful reader.
You both do the same thing. When cornered, here comes the swearing and the really crude comments and the ignoring of the actual arguments.

Wow, you can't help the lies spewing from inside, can you? I think I just roundly endorsed Paul of Tarsus, one of the most influential writers in the Bible. I see nothing in Newby's post that is either crude or swearing in any way. No, we're not all "clever" like you, God only made so many of us with the ability to distort and pervert the words of others for their own benefit. Pastor my ass. This is yet another LIE you tell to lend some sort of credibility to yourself in the face of having your ass handed to you repeatedly.

If you were a pastor, tell us something here... I want to know about the day and moment you decided you didn't believe anymore. Tell us about the events of that day which led to your abandoning faith in God?

 

[Boss]

And that would be the god that you think Christians are mistaken in believing he cares about them at all?
That one, right?

No, that would be Jesus, a prophet of God who brought the message of hope, love and kindness to mankind. After his death, he appeared in spiritual form to inspire one of his greatest adversaries and motivate him to pen most of the New Testament.

So now you DO believe in a God the Father that personally cares about each believer?
Do you want to endorse that meme?

Work on your reading comprehension skills a bit, moron.

 

[thebrucebeat]

No, that would be Jesus, a prophet of God who brought the message of hope, love and kindness to mankind. After his death, he appeared in spiritual form to inspire one of his greatest adversaries and motivate him to pen most of the New Testament.

So now you DO believe in a God the Father that personally cares about each believer?
Do you want to endorse that meme?

Work on your reading comprehension skills a bit, moron.

Answer the question, or be forever known as the coward who wouldn't.

 

[thebrucebeat]

There's the first problem with your post, bolded in red... Perhaps you do 'think', it's just lacking in quality and quantity.

You have no idea what believers would find objectionable, claiming that you do is a fallacy. I love Boss, he owns every single one of you haters in here, and you all know it, it's why you persist and persist, you can't remotely win a debate with him.

And yet he doesn't endorse your faith in the least.
As a former pastor, I have a bit of understanding regarding believers.
If you think Boss owns anything, you aren't a very careful reader.
You both do the same thing. When cornered, here comes the swearing and the really crude comments and the ignoring of the actual arguments.

Wow, you can't help the lies spewing from inside, can you? I think I just roundly endorsed Paul of Tarsus, one of the most influential writers in the Bible. I see nothing in Newby's post that is either crude or swearing in any way. No, we're not all "clever" like you, God only made so many of us with the ability to distort and pervert the words of others for their own benefit. Pastor my ass. This is yet another LIE you tell to lend some sort of credibility to yourself in the face of having your ass handed to you repeatedly.

If you were a pastor, tell us something here... I want to know about the day and moment you decided you didn't believe anymore. Tell us about the events of that day which led to your abandoning faith in God?

Do you endorse the "born again" fantasy? That it happens in a day?
Recovering from faith doesn't happen like that. It was a process of gradually realizing that what I was spouting from the pulpit I no longer could endorse. It is common. People leave the pulpit every day, all over the country. You can look it up.
I assure you I was a minister. You calling it a lie is more of your poor argumentation skills, accusations without evidence. I share it only to make you understand that I have been in the haze you are in now. I know how I convinced myself, and how it all fell away.
You are a very sad little man.

 

[Montrovant]

You didn't simply predict I'd reject evidence, you assumed you know the reason behind it, that I refuse any possibility of a god or gods, or of a spiritual nature. The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters, with anyone who doesn't have some kind of spiritual faith, it seems.

No, I clearly stated and we argued for two days about this... you cannot accept evidence for things you don't believe are possible. You don't believe God is real, spiritual nature is possible, that people have souls and spirits... you reject that concept entirely. Unless you believe in spiritual nature, you can't accept any evidence for it.

You did not specify that your evidence was overwhelming to any particular people. You just said it was overwhelming.
You did not specify that your results were indisputable to any particular people. You just said they were indisputable.

Uhm... no, I didn't. Go back and read it again if you missed it. I clearly stated that the evidence is overwhelming and results indisputable to those who accept spiritual nature.

You continue to misrepresent evolution and natural selection.

Which is why you've presented some compelling factual evidence of this charge here in your post?

There are plenty of possibilities, including who knows how many possibilities that humans have not thought up. That I don't find the fact there are myriad possibilities for the origin of life or the universe, or of things we cannot see in the physical realm, life after death, etc. to be overwhelming evidence of anything does not, again, mean I reject all possibility of either a god(s) or a spiritual nature.

Well GOOD! I am glad to know that you at least accept the possibility God exists and Spiritual Nature is real. That means you are open-minded enough to evaluate the volumes of spiritual evidence to support the existence of spiritual nature and God. That's really the best I can hope to expect here, nothing more.

Now, as I pointed out before, people lie all the time about what they believe and don't believe. I could post here that I believe in the possibility of pink unicorns, when in actuality, I don't really believe it's possible at all. The "proof" that I wouldn't be just lying to you about that, would be my ability to objectively look at some piece of evidence and say... okay, that does have some merit and credibility. So that's what you need to demonstrate now with your professed faith in spiritual nature. Tell us which aspects of evidence for spiritual nature you find compelling, so that I believe what you've said is true.

You can show me where you said that the overwhelming evidence and indisputable results are only for those who accept spiritual nature, I imagine :

Well, first and foremost is the existence of life. The fact that we exist, and a world exists within a universe that enables intelligence. On a planet with an environment specifically designed to support life and intelligence. The fact that things can be organic and organisms can exist. The fact that physics and principles are predictable and work every time. The fact that logic exists. So there's a whole list of things that are overwhelming evidence God exists. You'll reject that as evidence because you don't believe God can exist.

Then we can move on to human nature. The fact that you cannot explain origin of life because all life comes from other life. It didn't spontaneously generate, this is a mathematical impossibility. Humans have always connected to something greater than self, it is the source of human inspiration and responsible for everything we've become. It can't be something superficial or imaginary, and it's not "supernatural" as much as you will claim it to be. Whatever we are connecting to must be real, the results are indisputable.

From here we can move on to quantum physics and string theory, the most advanced science known to mankind. It suggests that we are living in but one of many universes, where as many "laws of physics" are also possible. Many more dimensions than we currently know about, where there are essentially endless possibilities to possibility. BUT... you have dismissed possibilities. So nothing can be shown to you that you won't reject.

You have again assumed I don't believe god or spiritual nature is possible. There is a difference between believing something is possible and accepting it as true. You often seem to conflate those two. I don't believe in god, I don't believe in a soul, but I do believe those things are possible. I simply haven't seen evidence of them that I find convincing.

You are the one who claimed that natural selection would have removed humanity's spiritual nature if it weren't necessary to survival. I would like to see where natural selection is defined in such a way, whether as part of modern evolutionary theory or Darwin's original ideas.

I did not, in any way, profess any faith in spiritual nature. Why do you continue to equate belief in the possibility of a thing to belief in the existence of a thing?

There are many things I cannot explain, do not have answers to, etc. That is why I consider some sort of god or spiritual nature possible. Supposed instances of telepathy, near death experiences, testimony from people about ghosts, miraculous healing, etc. etc. The world is full of wonders. In my opinion, based on my observations and reading of those types of occurrences, there is vastly more speculation than direct evidence. I think people create many different explanations when they don't have convincing evidence, and that tends to be the case with things of a seemingly supernatural or spiritual nature.

 

[Boss]

So now you DO believe in a God the Father that personally cares about each believer?
Do you want to endorse that meme?

Work on your reading comprehension skills a bit, moron.

Answer the question, or be forever known as the coward who wouldn't.

I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as you answer mine. I asked you about the day you decided you didn't believe in God anymore. You dodged my question with some bullshit about a process of gradual realization, but I don't accept that. There was some point at which you "convinced yourself" ...your words there... and that's the time period I want to know about. The moment you became fully convinced and stopped believing. What was it that did that for you?

Don't be a coward and dodge the question like you did the first time, spit it out. Tell us about that day, what happened, what event(s) caused this convincing realization? Was it something you are too embarassed to talk about? Did your church kick you out for doing something wrong? I promise, I won't judge you or ridicule you for it, I just honestly want to hear your story. Because, frankly, I believe you are lying about this. I think you are saying it so you can paint yourself as being "once like me" and you think this lends more credibility to your rejection of God. I say this based on your own remarks and your behavior towards others here, trying to use their faith against them, etc. I think you are a dishonest person who will do whatever you need to try and bolster your argument. So here's your chance to prove me wrong, give us a rundown on the events surrounding your spiritual demise.

 

[Boss]

You can show me where you said that the overwhelming evidence and indisputable results are only for those who accept spiritual nature, I imagine :

Yep, I could... but I'm not going to. I've posted it several times in this thread, we had a lengthy debate over whether you can believe evidence of something you don't believe in. You never could give me any example, it went on for two days and is back a few pages in this thread. If you want to show that I didn't qualify my argument for overwhelming evidence and indisputable results with the fact that you must first accept spiritual nature, be my guest.

You have again assumed I don't believe god or spiritual nature is possible. There is a difference between believing something is possible and accepting it as true. You often seem to conflate those two. I don't believe in god, I don't believe in a soul, but I do believe those things are possible. I simply haven't seen evidence of them that I find convincing.

Because you don't REALLY believe they are possible. You're only saying you do because it makes you look more credible and objective, the same reason Brucey claims to be a former pastor. Anyone can CLAIM they believe in the possibility of ANYTHING.

You are the one who claimed that natural selection would have removed humanity's spiritual nature if it weren't necessary to survival. I would like to see where natural selection is defined in such a way, whether as part of modern evolutionary theory or Darwin's original ideas.

Well, behavioral attributes of species are very much covered in On Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin. In fact, it is one of the cornerstones to natural selection. It doesn't "define" natural selection, there are various different aspects in the entirety of the theory, but behavioral attributes are covered. Spirituality is a behavioral attribute. And I didn't say it is "necessary" to survival, I said it is "fundamental" to survival. If it were "necessary" you'd die from lack of spirituality, and obviously people don't.

I did not, in any way, profess any faith in spiritual nature. Why do you continue to equate belief in the possibility of a thing to belief in the existence of a thing?

I never said you had faith in spirituality... man, you really work hard at drawing things completely out of context to try and make a point, don't you? I said if you honestly believe in the possibility, legitimately, you could cite some pieces of spiritual evidence you accept as valid support for spiritual nature. You can't, therefore, I believe you're lying.

There are many things I cannot explain, do not have answers to, etc. That is why I consider some sort of god or spiritual nature possible. Supposed instances of telepathy, near death experiences, testimony from people about ghosts, miraculous healing, etc. etc. The world is full of wonders. In my opinion, based on my observations and reading of those types of occurrences, there is vastly more speculation than direct evidence. I think people create many different explanations when they don't have convincing evidence, and that tends to be the case with things of a seemingly supernatural or spiritual nature.

there is vastly more speculation

You feel this way because you honestly don't believe in spiritual nature, you don't think it is possible, you think it is something people made up to "explain the unexplained" or "console fears of death" or whatever. You've made your mind up on this and that's what you believe. So whenever ANY evidence is presented, you reject it. But you realize that people might think you are closed-minded to the possibility, and so you construct the lie that you aren't dismissing such a possibility, when in actuality, you have.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Work on your reading comprehension skills a bit, moron.

Answer the question, or be forever known as the coward who wouldn't.

I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as you answer mine. I asked you about the day you decided you didn't believe in God anymore. You dodged my question with some bullshit about a process of gradual realization, but I don't accept that. There was some point at which you "convinced yourself" ...your words there... and that's the time period I want to know about. The moment you became fully convinced and stopped believing. What was it that did that for you?

Don't be a coward and dodge the question like you did the first time, spit it out. Tell us about that day, what happened, what event(s) caused this convincing realization? Was it something you are too embarassed to talk about? Did your church kick you out for doing something wrong? I promise, I won't judge you or ridicule you for it, I just honestly want to hear your story. Because, frankly, I believe you are lying about this. I think you are saying it so you can paint yourself as being "once like me" and you think this lends more credibility to your rejection of God. I say this based on your own remarks and your behavior towards others here, trying to use their faith against them, etc. I think you are a dishonest person who will do whatever you need to try and bolster your argument. So here's your chance to prove me wrong, give us a rundown on the events surrounding your spiritual demise.

Sorry real life isn't as compelling to you as the great drama you want to invent. I continued to study the bible and went through a similar process that Bart Ehrmann went through, and many, many others. The critical study of scripture just didn't hold up, and gradually, slowly, the defenses I had built up to defend myself against that truth withered away, bit by bit. There was no "moment". You see too many movies. I quit. I couldn't do it any more. No scandal. No firing. Not even a loss of ordination. I just quit.
Since you have chosen to invent a different narrative, I am helpless to change a closed mind.
By the way, I am not an atheist either.
Wrap your head around that one.
Keep running. I know you won't answer the question. It punks your whole game.
By the way, so far I have found many opportunities to prove you wrong. It is going very, very well.

 

[Montrovant]

You can show me where you said that the overwhelming evidence and indisputable results are only for those who accept spiritual nature, I imagine :

Yep, I could... but I'm not going to. I've posted it several times in this thread, we had a lengthy debate over whether you can believe evidence of something you don't believe in. You never could give me any example, it went on for two days and is back a few pages in this thread. If you want to show that I didn't qualify my argument for overwhelming evidence and indisputable results with the fact that you must first accept spiritual nature, be my guest.

You have again assumed I don't believe god or spiritual nature is possible. There is a difference between believing something is possible and accepting it as true. You often seem to conflate those two. I don't believe in god, I don't believe in a soul, but I do believe those things are possible. I simply haven't seen evidence of them that I find convincing.

Because you don't REALLY believe they are possible. You're only saying you do because it makes you look more credible and objective, the same reason Brucey claims to be a former pastor. Anyone can CLAIM they believe in the possibility of ANYTHING.



Well, behavioral attributes of species are very much covered in On Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin. In fact, it is one of the cornerstones to natural selection. It doesn't "define" natural selection, there are various different aspects in the entirety of the theory, but behavioral attributes are covered. Spirituality is a behavioral attribute. And I didn't say it is "necessary" to survival, I said it is "fundamental" to survival. If it were "necessary" you'd die from lack of spirituality, and obviously people don't.

I did not, in any way, profess any faith in spiritual nature. Why do you continue to equate belief in the possibility of a thing to belief in the existence of a thing?

I never said you had faith in spirituality... man, you really work hard at drawing things completely out of context to try and make a point, don't you? I said if you honestly believe in the possibility, legitimately, you could cite some pieces of spiritual evidence you accept as valid support for spiritual nature. You can't, therefore, I believe you're lying.

There are many things I cannot explain, do not have answers to, etc. That is why I consider some sort of god or spiritual nature possible. Supposed instances of telepathy, near death experiences, testimony from people about ghosts, miraculous healing, etc. etc. The world is full of wonders. In my opinion, based on my observations and reading of those types of occurrences, there is vastly more speculation than direct evidence. I think people create many different explanations when they don't have convincing evidence, and that tends to be the case with things of a seemingly supernatural or spiritual nature.

there is vastly more speculation

You feel this way because you honestly don't believe in spiritual nature, you don't think it is possible, you think it is something people made up to "explain the unexplained" or "console fears of death" or whatever. You've made your mind up on this and that's what you believe. So whenever ANY evidence is presented, you reject it. But you realize that people might think you are closed-minded to the possibility, and so you construct the lie that you aren't dismissing such a possibility, when in actuality, you have.

Did you not see that I quoted your post in which you both gave examples of evidence you called overwhelming and said the results of connecting to whatever it is we connect to are indisputable? I wasn't talking about everything you've discussed on this topic, I was pointing out things you said in a post I quoted. I quoted that entire post of yours in my previous response, and you can clearly see that there was no mention of your overwhelming evidence or indisputable results only being in regards to a certain set of people.

Here, let me provide yet another quote from you :

Now, as I pointed out before, people lie all the time about what they believe and don't believe. I could post here that I believe in the possibility of pink unicorns, when in actuality, I don't really believe it's possible at all. The "proof" that I wouldn't be just lying to you about that, would be my ability to objectively look at some piece of evidence and say... okay, that does have some merit and credibility. So that's what you need to demonstrate now with your professed faith in spiritual nature. Tell us which aspects of evidence for spiritual nature you find compelling, so that I believe what you've said is true.

Do you see how you said exactly what I said you did? You said I have a professed faith in spiritual nature. I denied having professed faith in spiritual nature, because I did not. You responded by telling me you never said I have faith in spirituality. Well, there's the quote for you, your own words, which say just what I told you they did. Ready with some sort of denial or attempt to pretend that's a distortion?

You're right, I don't believe in spiritual nature. I've freely admitted that. What you either fail to understand, refuse to understand, or just won't admit to understanding, is that not believing in a thing is different than not believing a thing is possible. That's odd, given your citing Paul of Tarsus as someone who didn't believe and then had his mind changed. But oh, wait, according to you he was a god-hater, meaning he secretly believed but didn't admit it. Oh, but if I'm a god-hater as well, then I secretly believe.....but that would mean your statement that I don't believe god or spirituality are possible is not only asinine assumption but contradicts your entire argument, wouldn't it?

Ready to explain how my quoting of your own words is a distortion? How you know what I think and believe and I do not? Or whatever other nonsense you want to try and pass off as reasoned conversation this time?

 

[Boss]

Answer the question, or be forever known as the coward who wouldn't.

I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as you answer mine. I asked you about the day you decided you didn't believe in God anymore. You dodged my question with some bullshit about a process of gradual realization, but I don't accept that. There was some point at which you "convinced yourself" ...your words there... and that's the time period I want to know about. The moment you became fully convinced and stopped believing. What was it that did that for you?

Don't be a coward and dodge the question like you did the first time, spit it out. Tell us about that day, what happened, what event(s) caused this convincing realization? Was it something you are too embarassed to talk about? Did your church kick you out for doing something wrong? I promise, I won't judge you or ridicule you for it, I just honestly want to hear your story. Because, frankly, I believe you are lying about this. I think you are saying it so you can paint yourself as being "once like me" and you think this lends more credibility to your rejection of God. I say this based on your own remarks and your behavior towards others here, trying to use their faith against them, etc. I think you are a dishonest person who will do whatever you need to try and bolster your argument. So here's your chance to prove me wrong, give us a rundown on the events surrounding your spiritual demise.

Sorry real life isn't as compelling to you as the great drama you want to invent. I continued to study the bible and went through a similar process that Bart Ehrmann went through, and many, many others. The critical study of scripture just didn't hold up, and gradually, slowly, the defenses I had built up to defend myself against that truth withered away, bit by bit. There was no "moment". You see too many movies. I quit. I couldn't do it any more. No scandal. No firing. Not even a loss of ordination. I just quit.
Since you have chosen to invent a different narrative, I am helpless to change a closed mind.
By the way, I am not an atheist either.
Wrap your head around that one.
Keep running. I know you won't answer the question. It punks your whole game.
By the way, so far I have found many opportunities to prove you wrong. It is going very, very well.

Okay, so you don't want to share the details of when you "became convinced" of your beliefs. This tells us everything we need to know about your integrity. Not a single example of scripture that didn't hold up or what defenses withered away, just a bunch of smoke blowing from your ass. You can't explain this in detail because it's not true.

No, you're not an atheist, you are a God-hater. You fully believe in God, but hate Him. You're too much of a coward to admit that, probably because it sounds superficial, selfish and trite, and you know this, so you'd rather pretend you're something you're not and hope you can sell that to everyone else. Problem is, I've blown your cover and you don't like that.

 

[Boss]

Do you see how you said exactly what I said you did? You said I have a professed faith in spiritual nature. I denied having professed faith in spiritual nature, because I did not. You responded by telling me you never said I have faith in spirituality. Well, there's the quote for you, your own words, which say just what I told you they did. Ready with some sort of denial or attempt to pretend that's a distortion?

No, that was called "sarcasm." If you BELIEVE something is possible, you HAVE FAITH something is possible. The words are synonymous.

You're right, I don't believe in spiritual nature. I've freely admitted that.

Exactly! Which is what I said all along.

What you either fail to understand, refuse to understand, or just won't admit to understanding, is that not believing in a thing is different than not believing a thing is possible.

No difference in this case. You don't believe in spiritual nature and don't believe it's possible. You are simply lying about the later in order to appear credible and objective.

That's odd, given your citing Paul of Tarsus as someone who didn't believe and then had his mind changed. But oh, wait, according to you he was a god-hater, meaning he secretly believed but didn't admit it. Oh, but if I'm a god-hater as well, then I secretly believe.....but that would mean your statement that I don't believe god or spirituality are possible is not only asinine assumption but contradicts your entire argument, wouldn't it?

Wow, that's actually a compelling point! You could honestly be someone who does believe in God but hates Him. This would explain why you have been so defensive and have spent days on this thread defending yourself. It would also explain your convoluted reasoning of how you don't believe in spirituality but believe it's possible, but not really.

Ready to explain how my quoting of your own words is a distortion? How you know what I think and believe and I do not? Or whatever other nonsense you want to try and pass off as reasoned conversation this time?

You're right. I can't speak for what's actually in your heart. But whether I have been right or wrong about you and your beliefs, it seems to have at least made you examine what you do actually believe. I've not let you get away with distorting my comments and taking them out of context, and I will never knowingly allow you to do this. You can keep trying, but I'm pretty sharp and generally know what I have said.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as you answer mine. I asked you about the day you decided you didn't believe in God anymore. You dodged my question with some bullshit about a process of gradual realization, but I don't accept that. There was some point at which you "convinced yourself" ...your words there... and that's the time period I want to know about. The moment you became fully convinced and stopped believing. What was it that did that for you?

Don't be a coward and dodge the question like you did the first time, spit it out. Tell us about that day, what happened, what event(s) caused this convincing realization? Was it something you are too embarassed to talk about? Did your church kick you out for doing something wrong? I promise, I won't judge you or ridicule you for it, I just honestly want to hear your story. Because, frankly, I believe you are lying about this. I think you are saying it so you can paint yourself as being "once like me" and you think this lends more credibility to your rejection of God. I say this based on your own remarks and your behavior towards others here, trying to use their faith against them, etc. I think you are a dishonest person who will do whatever you need to try and bolster your argument. So here's your chance to prove me wrong, give us a rundown on the events surrounding your spiritual demise.

Sorry real life isn't as compelling to you as the great drama you want to invent. I continued to study the bible and went through a similar process that Bart Ehrmann went through, and many, many others. The critical study of scripture just didn't hold up, and gradually, slowly, the defenses I had built up to defend myself against that truth withered away, bit by bit. There was no "moment". You see too many movies. I quit. I couldn't do it any more. No scandal. No firing. Not even a loss of ordination. I just quit.
Since you have chosen to invent a different narrative, I am helpless to change a closed mind.
By the way, I am not an atheist either.
Wrap your head around that one.
Keep running. I know you won't answer the question. It punks your whole game.
By the way, so far I have found many opportunities to prove you wrong. It is going very, very well.

Okay, so you don't want to share the details of when you "became convinced" of your beliefs. This tells us everything we need to know about your integrity. Not a single example of scripture that didn't hold up or what defenses withered away, just a bunch of smoke blowing from your ass. You can't explain this in detail because it's not true.

No, you're not an atheist, you are a God-hater. You fully believe in God, but hate Him. You're too much of a coward to admit that, probably because it sounds superficial, selfish and trite, and you know this, so you'd rather pretend you're something you're not and hope you can sell that to everyone else. Problem is, I've blown your cover and you don't like that.

Where do you invent this crap, and why?
Are you that embarrassed that I keep putting you in corners that you can't escape from? You keep running away from questions you have no answers for, and then go on this overwrought bloviation of some invented movie script because I don't choose to derail the thread with a long biography.
Not a god-hater at all. Nor am I an atheist.
Based on what do you think you have "blown my cover"? Some complete fabrication of your own? Blowing another's cover traditionally entails uncovering some fact that lends new light on a subject. I haven't noticed you had done that. You invented some and got very excited by your storytelling, hoping some of your equally dense sycophants will think you have gleaned something.
You are, I think, actually unhinged. This post of yours sincerely makes you look insane.