http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Allow me to explain. Approximately six thousand (6,000) years ago a pure genius thought up a less than scientific hypothesis called “The Bible”. I say pure genius because it took approximately six thousand (6,000) years to debunk the myths that were recorded in it. It says that it was written by more than one man but it also says that it was inspired by a being that is invisible and is backed by the usual scare tactic, “You’ll go to hell if you don’t believe”, which is the least of all the ways to prove something is true. The genius would have been filthy rich had he lived to the fifteen hundreds. Anyway, this genius made up this crazy list of rules to live by starting with the circular logic rules that scare people into believing that they’ll be killed or maimed if they don’t agree and follow the rules. Then a simple list of the usual rules; obey your parents, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t kill, and be content. Now the genius didn’t know that soon after he wrote his masterpiece, others would allegorize it and add it to a bigger book that essentially he wrote, and that six thousand years later that not only would he be the founder of the most popular religion, but his myths would be debunked by more believable myths like evolution. Sense the book “origin of species” the eight thousand year old myths that falsely led people to morality and hope and love has been trashed by some of the most immoral, elitist, apes for the sake of immorality and selfishness (judging by the consistent behavior of the evolutionist). They know how we got here and it wasn’t by being content. It was by being apes and killing the weak and promiscuity and a selfish drive to dominate the world. The genius who never got rich off his masterpiece has suffered shame sense then because of the preferred truth of the selfish apes. Stupidity has now been spotlighted by all of those in the know but here in lies the problem that I’ve taken so long to get to. You see, though the elitist apes aren’t responding the way you would expect them to. Sure they’re abrasive but they have still been weakened by the morality of the “creationist” (for lack of a better word). Before this stench of morality rose up the apes would have utterly destroyed the idiots. That’s how they survived all these years (what’s the count up to now, 4 billion? The only evolution that has been scientifically observed is the growth and changes found in the explanation of the theory of evolution. So I can’t be sure what the true number of years are now). You know, they want to be independent of the religiosity but I think it has still penetrated. They don’t want to kill stupid and weak people like their ancestors did before them. Their theory that they cling to is breaking down in many respects but this one thing is what got them here. I mean, sure the sex is nice and their animal instincts are still working in that respect but now their instinct that used to lead them to the pheromones of the opposite gender leads them to the pheromones of the same sex. Evolution is failing. For one, they can’t reproduce that way according to their theory and two, their instinct to reproduce is replace by a instinct to exercise there glands. Some of the apes don’t even develop relationships with people they would consider exercising their glands with. Instead, they look at pictures of them which is least of all conducive to reproducing offspring, again destroying the theory they support. And one last thing that proves the instincts have shifted is the fact that the apes that carry the offspring to term are actually killing the offspring before it is born. These are observable facts that have been documented time and time again by the idiots with the circular logic.

Now I know this has gone on long enough so I will say this in closing; we have to stop this idiocy. We are definitely the ones to blame here. If you’re going to be a believer in your origin then I say support it. You apes out there, have as many children as you can and kill the stupid people who think that there is an invisible being out there like, HELLO, the Taliban. Stop killing your offspring and exercising your glands for pleasure and start thinning out the stupidity that you say should not exist. Survival of the fittest, baby. If you adopt a stupid rule like, “Thou shalt not kill”, your only combining truth with the lie and bringing the world to an end.

All joking aside, I love how people leave their comments about religion, knowing all along they’re basing their beliefs on selfishness and greed, and pretending like they’re consistent in something that the whole world knows is true and that anyone who believes otherwise needs to be let down gently and with compassion because they’re like stupid children who need some guidance, when they themselves haven’t the slightest clue what they believe except, “I’m horny, hungry, and gosh darn it, I want to do whatever I want for eighty years and die clinging to a unfulfilled excuse for a life.” Gosh you people make me happy I’m stupid.

Sam

See comment #58, the paragraph that begins with “Here’s the bottom line…”

Karen,

I totally understand your two points, and do not disagree with those aims. I get the need to “let your hair down” and be free to express frustration, pain, offense, etc. I do the same thing on our blog, Confessions of a Seminarian. My only contention is with how that is expressed. Noone is winning friends (or de-Converts) by speaking truth harshly. Love without truth is neglect, but truth without love is abuse. These same things can be communicated clearly, effectively and lovingly without the need to insult those who disagree. This is absolutely necessary for any kind of logical/reasonable discussion.

Again, I understand the dissonance and frustration. I also understand how those frustrations and experiences can make it hard to speak truth with love on this topic and in response to Christian claims.

However, out of respect for the readers here, the other moderators, and Leo himself, I had to say something. I do not believe that the goal is to offend or insult anyone. Conversely, if I were coming off in that way, I would want the same loving rebuke, so I may have assumed that it would be welcome as well. If not, I apologize. Respect was my motivation for this entire tangent.

Good on ya.

You point, that you say I ignore, seems to be that God is loving. From one of your posts: God made the ULTIMATE statement of love by allowing his son (himself) to die.

Is that the point?

If so, I can’t see how to back it up. It makes no sense at all.

Anyway, is that your point? If not, then indeed I missed it.

Thanks, Samantha! Way back when I was deconverting and in the process of trying to puzzle out what in the world had happened to me, I “wrote out” a whole analogy based on that metaphor. It was sparked by a comment my therapist made to me.

Of course my “writing” took place in my head in the middle of a sleepness night while I was tossing and turning – isn’t that the way with all our masterpieces?! – and I never got around to actually writing it all out. At least, I don’t think I did. I’ll have to check and see. Glad you enjoyed the thought.

Brad:
However, when sweeping statements are made about the “twisted” or “pathetic” logic of sincere and affliction-tempered belief (or expression thereof), it sounds incredibly unloving and misunderstanding, particularly since most of you have been there at one time.

I think a couple things are going on here.

1) The problem with the OP’s logic is not that it was insincere, but that it was very offensive to those who lost loved ones. Someone trying to justify the tragedy doesn’t hurt me, he hurts people whose losses and pain are inconceivable to me. I understand where he’s coming from – yes, I have been there – and I also understand that it needs to be pointed out firmly that he’s wrong. It’s like the church folk at HIS’s picnic praising Jesus for bringing them sunshine for their party, while they ignore the fact that Jesus is letting thousands die in floods in Bangladesh, or earthquakes in Pakistan. Not only is the attitude wrong but it’s selfish, insensitive and cruel.

2) We’re here on a site for deconverters. It’s a place where we can let down our hair just a little bit. Most of us grew up surrounded by god-belief and we still are to a great degree. We have to be very polite and careful not to offend much of the time. This is a place where that constraint is not imposed on us, and we can speak our minds. Thus the sometimes venting of frustration that may come across as harsh.

“And looking for holes is a bad thing? You don’t want folks to point them out? When I make a point, you don’t try to counter it?”

You miss the forest for the trees, my friend. The forest is neither characterized nor accurately represented by any single (or even a few) trees. Your focus is not incorrect, but (in this specific instance) inaccurate, inefficient, and misplaced.

“You can do as you please, but when people state their opinions in an open forum, I take it that they are ready to have those opinions challenged, their logic critiqued, their arguments dissected, and their errors exposed.”

Agreed. But resorting to ad hominem is hardly working within that logic and is, by definition, a fallacy.

“If you want to walk because I’m not being nicey-nice with you, walk…. it’s the Church of whiny-wimps who can’t stand up to words on a screen.”

You make many many assumptions here. So many, that I find myself laughing rather than being offended at the insinuations you make. I actually agree with you, and find myself sick and tired of many of the emasculated, wishy-washy pastors who characterize the Western Christian landscape with maybe’s, I don’t knows, and other hesitant rhetoric not backed up by solid theology and reasoning. I guarantee you that I am not one of them. I stand by the truth claims I make, and am willing to hold those claims to scrutiny.

But you have left the critique of those arguments and have resorted to critiquing my character. I have (literally) risked my life for others, led war-hardened soldiers as a U.S. Army officer (MP), and left a well paying job to receive seminary education and training to plant churches. Am I the epitome of strength and selflessness? Doubtfully. But hardly would I consider myself “whiny and whimpy.” I say this not to pat myself on the back or defend myself, but to illustrate the ludicrousness of your assumptions.

I encourage you to not make these or any other assumptions about other bloggers who visit this site and expect the same freedom of thought and reason that you so rightfully expect from them. Constructive conversation cannot happen apart from a foundation of mutual respect.

Thanks for completely missing my main point (yet still proving it), not hearing the core of what I’m saying, and instead looking for potential holes in my argument. I think I’m done with this thread.

Now that it’s coming back your way, what do you see/hear? Does it sound petulant? dismissive? pouty? open? engaging? respectful? harsh?

And looking for holes is a bad thing? You don’t want folks to point them out? When I make a point, you don’t try to counter it?

You can do as you please, but when people state their opinions in an open forum, I take it that they are ready to have those opinions challenged, their logic critiqued, their arguments dissected, and their errors exposed. And all that does not always get done by Carnegie course graduates. If you can’t deal with that, what are you here for? This isn’t a kindly, Sunday crowd that sits in the pews and just nods to whatever you say.

If you want to walk because I’m not being nicey-nice with you, walk. But if you state your opinion, I will dissect it. And I you think I’m brusque about it, deal with it, grow thicker skin. You just may find that there are others out in the big world who lack my ever-sweet disposition. How will you ever face them, if you run from an internet persona?

Sheesh! Jesus and the apostles could be whipped, ridiculed, spat on, challenged in an open market-place, imprisoned, persecuted by emperors, and today’s Christians whine and run ’cause somebody isn’t all sweetness and light to them on on internet forum. If there was ever a Church that deserved to wither (like the fig tree that wouldn’t produce fruit) it’s the Church of whiny-wimps who can’t stand up to words on a screen.

Your last comment saddens me. I greatly respect authors on d-C like HeIsSailing, MysteryofIniquity, Thinking Ape, lostgirlfound, or The de-Convert (to name a few). We’ve had some wonderful and respectful discussions. This has degenerated into something not within that category. The aforementioned authors, at least, are mature enough to understand the difference between respectfully agreeing to disagree, and “running away.”

I hope that we can have discussions in the future that do not resort to insults and harsh judgments.