Saying Goodbye to Religous Dogma

So I remember listening to this song on the radio a while back, I remember thinking how much it captivated how I felt at that moment about leaving God, Religion, and Christianity.  That even though it was nice and I enjoyed being a christian; it was time to say Good-bye to Religious Dogma for it was all a show.

I now it’s a love song, but I truly was in love with God.  I was in love with Christ Jesus.  -I was in love with a delusion.  So I give dogma and religion an applause because it was entertaining.  It really had me going, but its over now, and now time to say Good-bye cause it is over now.  Belief for the sake of belief is over now.

Related Articles
Kiss My Dogma (
Saying Goodbye to God (
Why it’s so hard to say Goodbye to religion (
Faith and Reality ( )
Is it Illusion or Reality? (
The Draw of an Evangelistic Service ( )

About M. Rodriguez

When I first received Christ salvation, I made it a priority to read the whole bible and I did. But it was the Bible that made me question my faith. For I found it flawed and lacking. Due to this I launched a personal inquiry/investigation into my faith, and ultimately realized that the Christian God of the Bible was indeed man-made. Now I Blog about those findings and life after Christ.
This entry was posted in belief, religion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Saying Goodbye to Religous Dogma

  1. Fredericka says:

    Hi M. You say, “I was in love with Christ Jesus. -I was in love with a delusion.” But Jesus was a real, historical person, not a delusion.

    • arkenaten says:

      Jesus was his name, Christ was his title. It meant anointed one, the Messiah. The fictitious man-god is what Marcus refers to not the itinerant preacher.

      • Fredericka says:

        Hi arkenaten. But Jesus of Nazareth is not the only man who has ever claimed to be God. Wallace D. Fard and Father Divine both made the same claim within the past century. Would you refer to Father Divine as a “fictitious man-god,” or rather more naturally as ‘a man who claimed to be God’? What is “fictitious” about Father Divine? He went to prison you know.

    • arkenaten says:

      Your site is very interesting, by the way.

    • M. Rodriguez says:

      Yes Jesus was a real person. And just a person, not a god nor the son of a god.

      In my opinion he barely cracks my list of 5 greatest moral teachers

  2. arkenaten says:

    @ Frederika

    Jesus never claimed he was god, although apologists have interpreted several sayings that are apparently attributed to him as meaning that he was.
    I use the term man-god in reference to the erroneous claim of divinity of which during the time Jesus was around and immediately after he was executed, there was no consensus; even among his immediate followers.
    This is plainly evidenced from the amount of different beliefs – Arianism for one and Marcion’s teaching for another -that sprung up in the wake of Jesus’ demise.
    Even after the church declared that he was divine established the Trinity then set about liquidating every heretic christian sect the issue was not resolved and even today there are a few Gnostic sects.
    So there is nothing fictitious about the other individuals you cite, merely the divinity claim. Hope this cleared up any misunderstanding?

    • Fredericka says:

      Hi Arkenaten. Marcion and the Arians in no way denied that Jesus had claimed to be God, rather they interpreted this claim differently than did the larger church. They left room in their theology for a multiplicity of gods. A crowd of gods however does not fit into orthodox theology, which is monotheistic. The issue is “resolved” well enough when you concede there is only one God, because this admission leaves no room for the Old Testament creator God to be a lesser, fallen deity, as Marcion asserted. If you allow ‘ranks’ of deity, with lesser and greater gods, then this possibility, and also Arianism, remains ‘live.’ But of course this is polytheism. That Jesus claimed to be God is one of the best attested facts of ancient history, with multiple independent attestation; even the Talmud admits it, as does the hostile pagan critic Celsus.

      • M. Rodriguez says:

        actually the Jewish talmud says Jesus practiced sorcery and witchcraft and purposefully led people astray. That in the end, he was a student who turned to idolotary.

        The claim on Marcion, I am not as well knowledgable, but from what I recall in my readings, Marcion dismissed the O.T. and all passages and teachings that gave the impression of a Jewish messiah or a Judiaic savior God. He found the teachings of Jesus unequivocal to the jewish rabbinic teachings and culture. So true is this statement, that in his version of Luke, there was no Genealogy story of Jesus, like in our modern version. (Whether he took it out, or it was never in there, I ‘ll let yal decide that.)

      • Fredericka says:

        Marcus, ‘leading astray’ is ‘enticement.’ Where is this charge in the Bible? In Deuteronomy: “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
        But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.” (Deuteronomy 13:6-9).

        What ‘other god’ could Jesus credibly be accused of enticing Israel to follow? Zeus, Baal? Himself and no other.

      • Fredericka says:

        Marcus, Marcion alleged that ‘the Father’ of whom Jesus spoke was a new, hitherto unknown God, in no way to be identified with the lesser god who inspired the Old Testament. To understand Marcion’s attitude toward the God of the Old Testament, just take what the ‘New Atheists’ say against Him, it’s very similar. Marcion doesn’t in any way deny the deity of Jesus Christ. That’s true of gnosticism generally. No support there.

      • arkenaten says:

        LOL…spoken like a true apologist/evangelist. William Craig would be proud of you.But you don’t read so good, I’m afraid. Nowhere did i state that Arius or Marcion denied the divinity of Jesus. I mentioned them as examples of the the fact there was no consensus of WHAT Jesus was.

        “Jesus claimed to be God is one of the best attested facts of ancient history, with multiple independent attestation; even the Talmud admits it, as does the hostile pagan critic Celsus”

        Oh, dear. I can see we are dealing with a fundamentalist….and maybe mental is the operative word.
        A million bucks if you can point me to where it states that Jesus was God in the Talmud.
        Celsus…Smile. Not worth bothering refuting this silly claim.
        Multiple attestation? Good grief, are you smoking crack? There is not a single independent attestation. How could there be, if the there is no claim from Jesus.
        I strongly suggest you go and lie down….

      • M. Rodriguez says:

        hello Fredericka

        Now as to marcon, I think this is somewhat irrelevant point as to what Marconian thought of the divinity of Jesus, because Church history records him as a heretic. So no matter what, his opinion on the matter of Jesus divinity is not relevant.

        Now just to let you know, I pointed to the talmud, text as to what it actually said about Jesus, and it DOES NOT say he is a God nor the Son of a God. Just click on the link yourself to check for yourself.

        In addition, just to give you fair warning, quoting the bible as proof, is like quoting green eggs & ham as proof for the omnipotence of Dr. Seuss. It’s rather silly. And if you must quote the bible, please use something other than the KJV. It’s a rather lame version.

      • Fredericka says:

        arkenaten, you say, “I use the term man-god in reference to the erroneous claim of divinity of which during the time Jesus was around and immediately after he was executed, there was no consensus; even among his immediate followers.” The lack of consensus you diagnose is with specific reference to an allegedly “erroneous claim of divinity.” This is why I thought you meant to imply the Marcion denied the deity of Jesus Christ, which of course is not true. Where the Talmud concedes this point is in Tractate Sanhedrin, Babylonian Talmud, 43a: “On the eve of Passover, Jesus (of Nazareth) was hanged. For forty days, a herald went out before him, crying aloud: Jesus is going to be stoned for having practiced sorcery and for having enticed Israel and led them astray; let anybody who has something to say in his defense, come forward and defend him. Nobody came to defend him, so they hanged him on the eve of Passover. Ulla asked: Do you think that he was one in whose favor defenders should have been called? Was he not an enticer, to whom the Divine command applied, thy eye shall not pity him, neither shalt thou spare him (Deuteronomy 13, 8-9)?” (B Sanhedrin 43a., quoted p. 298, The Trial and Death of Jesus, Haim Cohn).
        Notice please what the charge is: ‘enticing Israel.’ This is a technical term of law. Another translation, “On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.'” The law Jesus is here accused of violating is in Deuteronomy 13:1-11. I take it you wish to deny that Jesus is here being accused of demanding that Israel worship Himself, a demand which can be found for example in John 5:23. So according to you, what foreign deity is Jesus here being accused of introducing? Thor? Athena?

      • Fredericka says:

        Hi Marcus, thank you for conceding that Marcion confessed the deity of Jesus Christ, your friend arkenaten does not seem convinced on this point. The dispute between orthodox Christians and gnostics is not over the deity of Jesus Christ, but more over the deity of the God of the Old Testament, and more particularly over monotheism (orthodox) versus polytheism (gnostics).
        I think you’re repeating something someone has told you is clever to say: “In addition, just to give you fair warning, quoting the bible as proof, is like quoting green eggs & ham as proof for the omnipotence of Dr. Seuss.” FYI, to quote Deuteronomy as proof of the state of Jewish law in the first century A.D. is perfectly kosher, because whatever the state of Jewish law was at that time, it would have had to come to terms with Deuteronomy in any event. When someone is accused of violating the law, it’s not like saying, ‘you’re a bad person. I can’t narrow it down any more than that, I just don’t like you.’ Rather, a specific law must be cited which the accused is alleged to have violated. The criminal violation in question in Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 43a, (forgetting ‘sorcery’ for the moment) is ‘enticement.’ What do you think that means, and where would it be found in the Old Testament (which after all, provides the underlying law code alleged to have been violated)?

      • M. Rodriguez says:

        ok, I thought you were quoting it as proof of the bible in general being divine and holy, not of the historical context. ok I understand were u r coming from.

  3. arkenaten says:

    @ Frederika

    Sorry, forgot to add…
    You use the title ‘Jesus of Nazareth’. Would you be able to tell me where the biblical Nazareth is, please?

    • Fredericka says:

      Hi arkenaten. 32°42′07″N 35°18′12″E, more or less.

      • arkenaten says:

        Is this where Bagatti conducted his excavation or where Constantine’s wife visited….Mary’s well”.
        Smile…dont bother replying, it was a rhetorical question.

      • Fredericka says:

        Arkenaten, you might want to check more recent finds, there is nothing to be gained by denying the existence of Nazareth, any more than by denying the existence of Jesus of Nazareth or Father Divine.

      • arkenaten says:

        I have read ALL the official reports, which is why I posed the silly question.
        There is nothing to be gained from kow towing to religious inculcation, any more than denying that Nazareth as described by the writer of Luke is no more real than Ankh Morpork.
        Jesus of Nazareth….smile…if you say so.

  4. I am curious-

    Do you really *believe* that you were a Christian at one time? Was your conversion experience merely an emotional commitment?

    • M. Rodriguez says:

      Yes,….but I didn’t believe, I knew that, that I knew, that God was real.

      What makes you think or question if I was never a christian?

      • And *now* you are equally convinced that God is not real? The epistemic foundation upon which you formerly built your belief in God seems to have been rooted in emotion. You mention your *love* of God however this seems to be more of a feeling that faded and was submarined by some supposed difficulties you had with the bible.

        Atheism is an easy fall-back position as this is generally an emotional commitment rather than a well-reasoned philosophical commitment to the [non]existence of God. I do not believe based on emotion- I believe [realizing of course that you did not ask nor do you likely care] because of the impossibilty of the contrary. Atheism reduces to absurdity because it cannot bear the weight of its own presuppositions.

      • M. Rodriguez says:

        Not on any generic god, but the Christian God of the bible Yes. I would actually say I am more convinced. My belief in God was rooted in many things, there is no one thing.

        However, Don’t be mislead by this post. This post is just a display of the emotional mindset of losing faith. It was after evaluating my faith in Christianity that I came to the conclusion that the Christian God of the bible does not exist. There were many things that led to the conclusion that the Christian God was an impossibility. I’ve narrowed it down to six major flaws, there are more, but they were not relevant enough for me to research or focus on.

        1. Bible Contradictions
        2. Historical Discrepancies
        3. Unanswered Prayer
        4. The Character of God
        5. Bible Morality and atrocities
        6. Science

        If you like, I will send you the pdf file if you would like to read it over and try to rebuttal it. I’m only an atheist, because what else should I call myself, when one discovers that the Christian God of the bible does not exist?

    • arkenaten says:

      Oh, dear, an evangelical soccer fan. Oh your god…is there a worse combination?
      Manchester United?
      Your god is not real. Although the man, Jesus, may well have been. Your belief is based on the erroneous and fallacious collection of writings known as the bible.
      Unless god’ announced himself to you over breakfast one morning? Or was it in answer to a prayer that your soccer team win the league or a trophy?
      Your eruditie posturing notwithstanding, your obvious inculcation has, as with most reborn evangelical god-botherers left you deaf and blind to any rational thought leaving just enough room for a few hallelujahs and some select pieces of philosophy that help shore up the nonsense you call faith.
      No doubt you spend your time honing witty ripostes and refuting “dumb atheists” then poison your kids with religious bed time stories – maybe I’m being presumptuous on this score, but I have an inkling I’m on target.
      Are you a member of the Ken Ham fan club or perhaps merely a William Lane Craig groupie?

      • @Arkenaten,

        Ice Hockey, first and foremost. Soccer is a distant second as if it matters, *since* you were looking for some point to offer scorn, quite typical really.

        For someone who fancies themselves the resident *atheist* expert (or alpha-male) you certainly and incorrectly assume that I am blindly devoted to W.L. Craig or Ken Ham. Assume this and be assured you couldn’t be more incorrect.

        More importantly you have offered a straw man argument in order to belittle my reasons for believing. The presumptuous *sigh* that you offer only belies the fact that you have no interest in really knowing why I believe, rather you have already labeled me a devotee of Craig and with your prepackaged refutations in hand are ready to dismiss me as a *seed-picker* with a sophomoric acquaintance with philosophy. A claim that is also incorrect.

        So let me ask you:

        On what epistemic foundation do you base your beliefs? In your worldview how is analogical predication possible? Based on your worldview please demonstrate how knowledge is possible?

  5. arkenaten says:

    @ Frederika.
    No, the Talmud does not acknowledge the Christian Jesus was divine, but you can interpret whatever message you come across in the Talmud (whichever version you wish to read). Fortunately, educated scholars are well versed in Jewish writing and don’t require any input from silly evangelical Chriatians who will utilize any source to shore up their ridiculous beliefs.

    • Fredericka says:

      Hi arkenaten. Let’s try a thought experiment, if thought is not too daunting a prospect. Imagine you have been tasked with prosecuting the charge of ‘enticement to apostasy’ against Jesus of Nazareth. Recall, this is the indictment against Jesus recorded in the Talmud, and it’s a serious crime, a capital crime in fact. Realize that if Jesus were a common-place “itinerant preacher” who made no exceptional claims for Himself, the allegation falls to the ground. Can you find any evidence in our four gospels which might substantiate such a claim? (I can find plenty.)

      • arkenaten says:

        Smile. You really don’t get it, do you?

        Far more intelligent Christian apologists than you have been trying to make such cases for divinity since before my granddad fell off the bus.
        When you know the full history of the Talmud and its variants come back and we can have a proper intellectual conversation.
        Meantime, If thought is not the daunting prospect you seem to believe, then why on earth are you still a Christian? Somewhat of an oxymoron.
        Silly person.

      • Fredericka says:

        Hi arkenaten. Gosh, what a surprise, no answer. Evidently thought is indeed too daunting. Pity.

      • arkenaten says:

        “Hi arkenaten. Gosh, what a surprise, no answer. Evidently thought is indeed too daunting. Pity.”
        Yes, it was an answer…but I fear not the one you wanted to read. Was it like this, maybe…
        “Oops, I am sorry. You are correct. The Jews really did believe Jesus was God. What silly billies they were for not realizing he was the Messiah after all. Oh, well, tough titty for them, right?
        Good for you for spotting this in the Talmud. Why not go a preach to the Jews? I’m sure they would really appreciate it.”
        Was that more or less the answer you were hoping for? Smile….

      • Fredericka says:

        The Great Oz would explain all, if the people were worthy. LOL.

      • arkenaten says:

        Oz, Christian god. Is there really a difference? Methinks you will never get back to Kansas now , Frederika.

  6. arkenaten says:

    “More importantly you have offered a straw man argument in order to belittle my reasons for believing.”

    As philosophy is the refuge of the religious-minded when reason will not suffice I cannot see the point in bandying such words with anyone whose emotional maturity requires belief in the supernatural to bolster his own insecurities.
    High brow theological debate is unnecessary, as the whole of Christianity is based on a ‘straw man’ – Jesus.
    I base my simple beliefs on the simple fact that the supernatural claims of the bible are lies.
    It’s that simple, and there really is nothing you can offer to refute this.

    You are entitled to your own opinion, of course, but fortunately you are NOT entitled to your own facts.
    So , not Manchester United then? Maybe there’s hope for you yet..

    • There are many atheistic philosophers that would take umbrage with your assertion that a)philosophy is the “refuge of the religious-minded” and b) that a dichotomy exists between philosophy and reason…?

      Simple beliefs have presuppositions just as complex beliefs; all that I am asking you is to explain based on your *worldview* how your presuppositions are able to provide the foundation for knowledge?

      Please pray tell, how did you come to know these facts to which you refer? Perhaps you are simple..but I don’t believe you are a simpleton [how’s that for Christian charity?] Please tell me how you came to know that all of the supernatural claims in the bible are lies?

      • arkenaten says:

        “Please tell me how you came to know that all of the supernatural claims in the bible are lies?”

        Please tell me how you came to know that all of the supernatural claims in the bible are not lies?

  7. arkenaten says:

    “Based on your worldview please demonstrate how knowledge is possible?|
    1+1=2. Accept
    Water is wet.Accept
    Some beer taste nice. Accept
    On the third day Jesus rose from the dead. Reject.
    Those that accept the 4th example based on the written account in the bible should be regarded as gullible.
    Where this acceptance stems from childhood inculcation it is understandable. Where i persists into adulthood is evidence of lack of maturity.
    Where this acceptance persists after the example (and many others) have been shown to be false, then this suggests an unwillingness to face reality.
    But you will never take the word of an atheist, naturally, and all the deconvertees I have encountered have generally arrived at the conclusion that the bible and its contents are little more than BS on their own. Afterwards they are usually dumbfounded that they ever accepted all the hogwash in the first place. That they blindly accepted that a donkey could talk, that a man walked on water and rose from the dead, etc etc ad nauseum.
    Maybe you will too. Or maybe you wont. It really does not matter.
    Silly person.

    • How did you come to know that 1+1=2? By the way the water example is a tautology and the beer comment is simply opinion [one area that we can agree on] and does not rise to the level of knowledge.

      You have not really offered me anything other than mere opinion. How do you know these things? The obscurantist answers are not helping your cause. I realize you are accustom to arguing evidentially “jackasses don’t speak, etc.” [perhaps you are empirical proof to the contrary? 🙂 ] and that most Christians do not reason with you since you bully them into the corner where they are left helpless and hopeless.

      You may have underestimated the challenge before you-let’s examine presuppositions and see whose can actually make sense of the world. I have every confidence that my world-view is logically superior [and is the only rational choice] and yours is inconsistent and reduces to absurdity.

      So please, pray tell how do you come to *know* things?

      • arkenaten says:

        Of course you have every confidence that your world view is superior, your god told you so and if you do not adhere to it then you will be going to hell.
        I am fairly confident any psychiatrist would have a field day with your perspective.
        How is one supposed to rationally argue against such a POV from this standpoint?
        Unfortunately I do not have a god in my corner so I am loathe to enter onto the fray, lest I catch whatever it is you are suffering from.

        Needless to say, I am happy that you have your invisible friend who keeps the monsters away and one day you will go to heaven. Super….

        However, it is worth remembering that your primary reference material is the bible, which I’m afraid is a crock.
        Of course you can cherry pick the bits that fit your ‘world view’ no doubt, but somehow that rather defeats the objective of declaring the bible ‘god breathed’ or whatever waffle you lot call it.

        I ‘know’ things in the same manner that I know that I do not need god or religion to understand and practice morality.
        If an omnipotent deity would like to jump in here and disagree, then I’m all ears.

        1+1 (does not)=2 Happy now?

        BTW I stand corrected. Donkeys do speak…well one does at least. I was reminded by my daughter that there is a talking donkey in Shrek. And, he sounds like Eddie Murphy.
        My apologies.

        Silly person.

      • M. Rodriguez says:

        Hi ark. I apologize while reading one of your comments on my phone. I accidentally deleted. I don’t know if I can recover it. But I’ll try.

      • arkenaten says:

        No problem, Marcus. Am having too much fun to notice! Happy new year btw.

      • You cannot argue rationally, therefore you continue down the path of belittling my world-view. When have I mentioned the bible?

        By the way, the question on how you come to “know” something is a question that any undergraduate should know how to anwer. Any formal training in critical thinking/logic should include at least a cursory explaination of epistemology.

        You have the mentality of a fundamentalist. Unwilling to look at any other perspective as you are dogmatically cock-sure of your position. This is a shame, you might have learned something. I can assure you, I am not in need of pyschiatric help but someone who can do nothing but call names and make epistemological claims that they can neither substantiate nor rationally justify might be considered irrational.

      • arkenaten says:

        “When have I mentioned the bible?”

        Er..You are a Christian. Did you have to mention the bible or are they now publishing biblical tracts on the back of Cornflake packets?

        “Any formal training in critical thinking/logic should include at least a cursory explanation of epistemology.”

        I never bother with this, to be honest. Plain old commonsense will do for me.
        Water is wet and 1+1=2. I wrote this out on a piece of paper and did it on my old Casio. Same both times.

        Fundamentalist? Nope Atheist . Plain and simple. Sorry.
        Why would I want to look at a religious perspective? Every one is utter crap and Christianity requires me to acknowledge and worship a mythical made-up deity called Yahweh or Yahoo or something, otherwise he’ll have my soul and I’ll go to hell. And this doesn’t sound in the least bit nuts to you, does it?
        Phew…..As I have mentioned before, people like you need to be watched…preferably from a distance.
        Me dogmatic and cock sure? Well, yes, when it comes to knowing that your christian POV is silly.

        Our Father who art made up
        Ridiculous be thy name,
        Thy kingdom’s dumb,
        Thy will’s a bum
        oh,forget it….

        Go and epistemologise someone else, for your god’s sake.
        Silly person.

      • How would you know whether my POV [as if everything is relative] is silly? All you do is argue against straw men. You can all me silly all you want, at least I am not a fool.

      • arkenaten says:

        You are a Christian, thus your POV is silly. It really is that simple. It is unfortunate that you are unable to grasp this concept.
        There is nothing straw man about arguing against religious doctrine that promotes belief in the worship of a supposed supernatural deity, virgins giving birth to a god ( and your Mary was certainly not the first) , walking on water,bodily resurrection, the Trinity, burning bushes etc and the almost slavish acceptance of a collection /book of myths and lies promoted as ‘god breathed’ and truth.

        And you would suggest I am a fool? LOL Methinks you protesteth too much, sir. (with apologies to Will the Bard.)
        Seriously…go and have a lie down. Maybe you will feel better.

      • And yet, if the proposition God exists is true nothing you have cataloged is a defeater of the Christian worldview and in fact is perfectly consistent. Here is a concept that you do not understand: internal consistency.

        The atheistic worldview is internally inconsistent therefore contradictory and false.

      • arkenaten says:

        Oh, but you are a stubborn man – or maybe just ignorant?
        What ever lured you to this position of blind acceptance, even though you may believe you chose freely, I do feel sorry for you..
        The notion of your god, and your religion, unlike most of the others, is wholly reliant on the bodily Resurrection, a fantasy found within the pages of the New Testament , and then only as a result of some rather clever redaction on the part of the compilers, as the oldest extant copies of Mark’s gospel – feature no bodily resurrection,merely an empty tomb.
        You have thus been blinded by your faith, with glorious salvation on the one hand and dire torture in Hell for non compliance on the other; a commendable achievement by those that have managed to physically and mentally enslave you and many millions.

        You may use all the philosophy you wish to justify your faith, all the non evidential reasoning you can wrap your head around, but in the end it will be to no avail.
        Simple common sense that even a child could grasp will show that what you hold on with such vehemence s false, that you have been lied to.
        However, the most striking thing about common sense is, that is is not so common.

        Ask the blog host, Marcus, or any other deconvertee.
        They have been in EXACTLY the same position you are in now.

        Whatever inner turmoil you are grappling with, may you find peace.

        The Ark


  8. arkenaten says:

    “Please tell me how you came to know that all of the supernatural claims in the bible are lies?”

    Please tell me how you came to know that all of the supernatural claims in the bible are not lies?

    Care to have a shot a this? You seem to have missed it.

  9. ignorantianescia says:

    Mr Blogging Bald Guy, I think you’ve noticed that arguing here and now may not be the most productive use of your time, for obvious reasons.

    Arkenaten, if you want to be persuasive your argument would need to establish that it is invariably silly to believe the things you mention. After all, two can play that game. I can claim atheistic moral realism is silly, but unless a coherent case is built such a claim may be ignored.

    • M. Rodriguez says:

      I agree, there comes a time when one must recognize a conversation as no longer fruitful or edifying. (And that goes for either party.)

    • arkenaten says:

      Ah, the ever erudite ignorantianescia, wondered when you would chirp in with one of your little gems of wisdom. LOL

      “Arkenaten, if you want to be persuasive your argument would need to establish that it is invariably silly to believe the things you mention.”

      Christianity is based primarily on belief in the supernatural, with the Resurrection a non negotiable aspect of this faith. Without it, Christianity is pretty much dead in the water, as it were – or dead on the cross, if you prefer?

      Thus any argument attempting to justify Christianity has to first explain and show beyond a reasonable doubt that the BODILY Resurrection actually took place.
      If it can;t be done then its merely faith; and that’s okay by me, to a point, providing you all keep it to yourselves etc.
      However, if you care to have a shot at it, then be my guest. If you succeed in proving your case – the only person in living history to do so – then I will become a Christian and you will get a Nobel Prize…or at the very least a Noddy Badge. Until then, Christianity is as ridiculous a belief system as one could possible get.

      So, take it away Maestro…show the world how super clever you really are…..the floor is yours.

  10. Well done, you! I always feel as though there’s an almost imperceptible lightening of the world’s burdens every time I learn of uet another who’s woken up and chosen to live and love life. Congratulations 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s