Ex-atheist.com

[Shrykull]

http://www.ex-atheist.com

What do you think? Do you think she's legit about the science degree and stuff?

[K. A. Pital]

HAVE THE INTERNET INFIDELS GOT YOU DOWN?

Has your liberal, Marxist college professor given you a List of 1001 Reasons, A Mathematical Equation, And A Pie Chart that prove why God can't possibly exist? Have Courage!

Oh woes...

Do you think she's legit about the science degree and stuff?

Personally I don't. However, even if so, why would I care? There's a few people with Degrees in the Cretinist camp. Degree is only a paper. Although it reflects the level of education, some can progress quite far and still not attain critical thinking. Or turn it off when it comes to personal beliefs.

[Shrykull]

From her hate mail section

God doesn't threaten us with Hell; He warns us of
its reality and offers us His Son, through whom we can be changed. To
complain loudly that one 'isn't going to believe in a god who would 'send'
people to Hell' becomes the equivalent of saying that one isn't going to
believe in physical laws which sentence children to their deaths when they
fall from a significant height.

[K. A. Pital]

To complain loudly that one 'isn't going to believe in a god who would 'send' people to Hell' becomes the equivalent of saying that one isn't going to
believe in physical laws which sentence children to their deaths when they
fall from a significant height.

So what can we infer from this?
1) God for her is an objective reality that is not moral or immoral by human standards - it's just a "law"
2) However, unlike laws, God is deemed to be conscious and moral - that's a contradiction
3) Actually, people do "complain" about physical laws that kill (like sicknesses and etc.). They work daily to save the lives of other people, prevent children dying, etc. They work against aging, against AIDS, etc.

So if God is a real threat to humanity, like AIDS, maybe it's time to battle God? After all, only God's own media rupor (the Bible) tells us he's undefeatable - perhaps reality will prove otherwise :lol;

[Flagg]

To complain loudly that one 'isn't going to believe in a god who would 'send' people to Hell' becomes the equivalent of saying that one isn't going to
believe in physical laws which sentence children to their deaths when they
fall from a significant height.

So what can we infer from this?
1) God for her is an objective reality that is not moral or immoral by human standards - it's just a "law"
2) However, unlike laws, God is deemed to be conscious and moral - that's a contradiction
3) Actually, people do "complain" about physical laws that kill (like sicknesses and etc.). They work daily to save the lives of other people, prevent children dying, etc. They work against aging, against AIDS, etc.

So if God is a real threat to humanity, like AIDS, maybe it's time to battle God? After all, only God's own media rupor (the Bible) tells us he's undefeatable - perhaps reality will prove otherwise :lol;

[Southpark] Yeah! Lets kill God![/southpark]

Seriously though, this person is either educated beyond her intelligence or she is willing to ignore reality in favor of a fairy tale that she thinks gives her life some greater meaning. Then again, she could just be a lying bitch.

[mr friendly guy]

I will like to go over her crap, but I am busy at the moment. Later on I will have a more detailed look into her arguments. If anything this is a good way of testing your debating skills.

[Zero]

For me, Biblical truth wasn't verified through historical accuracy, inerrancy or reliability of the Gospels, because my initial assumptions didn't include these things. I saw divine inspiration in the actual content of the words attributed to Jesus Christ. The fact that I, or anyone, was capable of understanding spiritual matters became my evidence for the soul.

It's very obvious that the change was brought about because of her own lack of emotional fulfillment with her life, and had absolutely nothing to do with logic or rationality. The same is true of every ex-atheist christian that I've come across. They try to find rational reasons to explain it AFTER the conversion, although they might claim in some places that rationality had a place in the change, that atheism is an inherantly irrational position, blah blah blah. They also frequently arrogantly assume that atheists are all as emotionally unfulfilled as they are, and that conversion is necessary.

[Imperial Overlord]

It is very common for converts to exaggerate how bad their lives were before they found (insert name of current religion). Its sort of an unconcious one upmanship with other converts, making their salvation bigger and more profound because they had a science degree/took drugs/were unhappy/littered/whatever. From skimming the site I would take anything said about her life with several large bags of salt.

[Dooey Jo]

That's lovely. Instead of an Argument from Design, we now have an Argument from Game Design. Possibly even more retarded than its predecessor.

If the design argument shows that God is a terrible designer, the game design argument shows that he is an even more terrible game designer, as objective evidence clearly show that he relies on absolutely nothing but emergence effects from a few inital parameters. Even worse, he neglected to state the rules and purpose of his "game" until some 100 000 years after his main players started playing the game (probably because he didn't know and sees the world as his personal playground or something and not something anyone would like to play). Worse still, those rules he did state were initially contradictory, but then he retconned them and made them even more contradictory, and in ways that totally destroys suspension of disbelief.

I'm sorry, if I designed a game like that, I'd fully expect to recieve death threats and no-one would play it. Of course, if I was God, I'd just force them to play it. As per the Game Design argument's twisted logic, this would rightly make me the supreme base of morality.

Then again, I don't expect morons to understand game design any more than they understand other types of design.

[Guardsman Bass]

It definitely sounds like an emotional conversion, especially with the whole "soul-sucking job" and "unfulfilled needs."

[K. A. Pital]

If anything this is a good way of testing your debating skills.

Actually, she's claiming to win debates with atheists over theology web, and certainly has delusions of grandeur ("see as I'm attacked by 20 atheists and I still win"). Having seen into those debates, I'm just willing to give her "wanking too hard" award.

[Zero]

That's lovely. Instead of an Argument from Design, we now have an Argument from Game Design. Possibly even more retarded than its predecessor.

If the design argument shows that God is a terrible designer, the game design argument shows that he is an even more terrible game designer, as objective evidence clearly show that he relies on absolutely nothing but emergence effects from a few inital parameters. Even worse, he neglected to state the rules and purpose of his "game" until some 100 000 years after his main players started playing the game (probably because he didn't know and sees the world as his personal playground or something and not something anyone would like to play). Worse still, those rules he did state were initially contradictory, but then he retconned them and made them even more contradictory, and in ways that totally destroys suspension of disbelief.

I'm sorry, if I designed a game like that, I'd fully expect to recieve death threats and no-one would play it. Of course, if I was God, I'd just force them to play it. As per the Game Design argument's twisted logic, this would rightly make me the supreme base of morality.

Then again, I don't expect morons to understand game design any more than they understand other types of design.

The whole game argument, in terms of morality, is completely flawed anyways. If you're trying to make the game analogy and compare a game to the real world, then the rules of the game are more like the physical laws of our world: you aren't supposed to be able to break them at all, within the context of the game. Morality would be more akin to strategy, since it relates to how you play the game, not how the rules say you have to play the game.

Just another dumb fundie. I doubt she was ever actually an atheist.

[mr friendly guy]

"It isn't a matter of validating or invalidating arguments. It's about being able to see those same arguments from a different perspective. . . What I discovered was an intellectual riddle that couldn't be solved by the logical mind. It had to be solved by the intuitive heart." ~ A.S.A. Jones in The Unexpected Journey by Thom S. Rainer.

And 3 paragraphs down

Help Yourself To The Inspirational Essays, Logical Arguments and Knock-Down, Drag-Out Debates of An Ex-Atheist.

Wait, didn't they say that some things can't be solved by logic, and you need intuition. Then why are bringing up logical arguments on something which "can't be solved by logic".

I can't say that's a promising start for the website. Whats the betting that he would resort to the apolegetic arguments which when they get demolish, they fall back to "Well you can't use logic, you need intuition any way".

Examine this argument, which explains why eternal suffering does not negate the existence of a loving God.

http://www.ex-atheist.com/Hell.html

Ok since this seems to be his first argument. Note its not a good sign when they take lines and lines to say something which can basically be broken down into a few. It smacks of using rhetorical bullshit.

1. God wants to create his holy paradise full of good people
2. God can’t instantly create people with this holy nature.
3. Good people must have the characteristic of choosing to do good because morality involves conscious decision
4. God creates a perfect free will agent in order to accomplish point one.
5. The soul lives on despite physical death - insert some spill about why God will not destroy the soul
6. Because the human soul is immortal, sin has eternal consequences.
7. Humans have the opportunity to make the right choice.
8. The right choice leads to heaven
9. For Heaven’s sake, God separates those who have agreed, through their free will, to turn over their free will to Him, from those who have not.
10. Therefore, Hell is the inevitable result of man’s unwillingness to part from his sin through surrender of his free-will agency (you see, because the suffering from hell isn't from the nature of the place, but rather its from the nature of the sin).

point 11 and 12 is just repeating the same theme as point 10.

I want to draw particular attention to point 2 first since its blatantly bullshit

2) God can’t instantly create people with this holy nature.

a. There are some things that God can’t do. For example, he can’t lie. He can't go against His own moral nature.

b. The things that God cannot do serve to define God, as well as those things that He can do.

c. God cannot do things that breach logic. For example, He may be able to create a square or a circle, but he cannot create a circle that is a square. Such an object cannot logically exist.

d. The fact that he cannot do everything does nothing to compromise His existence as the most powerful force that can possibly exist.

e. Therefore, the description of God being ‘all powerful’ should not be held to a rigid, hyper literalism. It is hyperbole.

Alright, this is just basically stating the qualities of God and then using these qualities justify why God just can't create people of Holy nature. However we already run into problems.

Characteristic a) that God cannot lie or go against his own moral code does not prevent him from creating people of holy quality, since people of such quality match his own moral code. If you turn around and argue that God's moral code involves people having choice and that free will thing, then you just contradicted yourself, since you deny God the choice of free will. (Notice how he says God can't go against his own nature, not that he chooses not to).

Point two - option a) is contradicted by the Bible itself. Notice the times God lies or tells someone to lie : see 2 Thessalonians 2:11 , 2 Chronicles , 1 Samuel 16:2 ,Genesis 2:17 among others.

To summarise his arguments


1) Your sin causes Hell , and not God. (Because apparently our sins also creates the sulphur and brimstone hell is brimming with. Obviously. How did I ever miss that one?).

Note all that jazz about free choice while it might be relevant against other anti-christian arguments, is utterly a red herring in this one. We are essentially debating whether the punishment fits the crime, not whether God could/should limit choices or not.

2) Since the soul is immortal the suffering will last for eternity. Tough love right?

Lets ignore for a moment who made the soul immortal - God. And lets ignore the fact that God could theoretically give them a chance to repent in death just like in life after appropriate length of punishment has elapsed. This would of course not contradict his supposed moral code which the author spends shit loads of lines raving about.

And lets not forget that God could also end suffering my destroying the soul. Instead lets rant on about how the soul is like a painting, and God shouldn't destroy someone else's creation even if he finds it repugnant just like how a parent won't destroy a child's painting even if they hate it. Of course, we can only accept this analogy if we conveniently forget that the child's painting isn't causing him any suffering, the "painting of the soul" is causing suffering which is the central tenant of what we are debating.

In short, its rhetorical bullshit which hurts your head just reading it.

[K. A. Pital]

The problem with Hell is the following - despite the claims that Hell is created by man, it's explicitly stated it's created by God. Despite the claims that Hell is just isolation from God, the Bible explicitly states that it's a specific place of torment devised by non other than God.

Therefore, Hell is not "inevitable consequence" - if God wanted to just isolate the sinners, he could easily leave them on Earth or wherever he finds suitable, without tormenting them.

The counter that God needs to "waste" energy to "maintain" universe, Earth, etc. running is ridiculous since God has done it thus far and he's not really that upset, and he also is omnipotent, so his "resource" doesn't run out.

The counter that God is all-encompassing and therefore suffers from man's sin is not viable - if God is all-encompassing and really permeates all and creates and maintains all, this is also true for Hell, so God would not be out of touch with sinners - he just makes their conditions beyond worse for some fucked up reason of his own.

So essentially, yes, God is a dick - the omnipotence-malevolence problem has not yet been adequately solved by a single theist.

This weak sophistry is just pathetic in the light of the enormous contradiction.

[Wicked Pilot]

http://www.ex-atheist.com

What do you think? Do you think she's legit about the science degree and stuff?

Read her testimony page. It sounds to me like another disenfranchized Christian who suddenly after regaining her devotion then goes back and overemphasized her past atheist Christian-hating life. If I had a nickle for every apologist who once claimed to be a devout atheist.

[K. A. Pital]

She's also totally full of shit in her "story":

I recalled staring at a swarming mass of termites one sunny day, thinking that, from a comparative distance, there was little difference between them and us. I smashed a few dozen with my shoe and ground them into the dirt. What did it matter if these died? What did it matter if they all died? People died every day. The end result would always be death for both the individuals and, eventually, the species.

Bull-fucking shit. There are nigh-eternal (by human standards) organisms, and evolution ensures the survival and development of the species. So she's just so full of shit on that one. Species "dying out" doesn't mean that the line of this species is not carried on via evolution. Stuff like "homo erectus" becoming "homo sapient" obviously evaded our "friend" - it's good "homo erectus" weren't thinking that their lifes are worthless, and so human came to be.

If mankind's goal was to alleviate its own suffering, a bullet to the head was more efficient and made more sense in my thinking than screwing around with medication or disease control.

Ah... the old bullshit "no life - no suffering" argument. Especially funny to see it coming from an Xtian. But she's wrong again: the "temporary emotional experiences", as she calls them, and our own survival instinct outweigh the suffering for most of humanity - that's why humans live on. Otherwise, yes, we'd all just put a bullet to the head.

My extreme point of view had reduced people into throwaway metabolic units

The point of science was to embetter the life of man, so she's full of shit again - what kind of good scientist views people like disposable machines? That's totally contrary to her initial motive for science, so where's the "extreme"? She's just not into science, clearly. Only Nazi scientists saw people working for them as disposable - perhaps she took a clue from the nazi racist scum, eh?

Science had done nothing to answer the questions that raged in my head

Science is not meant for that. But it does - altruism is a genetic trait and that helps the survival of species. Take a clue and move on, help humanity. Then you venture into humanism Q&A, but she was too weak to realise that, right.

If our life is the result of randomness and chance, it is meaningless, no matter how we try to convince ourselves otherwise.

Well, that's bull. A person believes what he convinces himself in - just like Xtians believe in a God cause they convince themselves. Does it make their life purposeful? I believe every Xtian would say yes. So what's up with the idiocy?

Oh well. She's just making shit up, so why should we care?

[Davis 51]

Looking briefly through that site, I found a link to this video

The whole thing is so ridiculous and stupid, I can't tell whether to laugh or cry.

[Mange]

I can't get through all that garbage. This is absolutely hilarious:

Has your liberal, Marxistcollege professor given you a List of 1001 Reasons, A Mathematical Equation, And A Pie Chart that prove why God can't possibly exist? Have Courage!

'Liberal' and 'Marxist' doesn't quite belong in the same sentence. As a non-American I wonder: Is it still common for atheists to be labelled as Communists?

[K. A. Pital]

'Liberal' and 'Marxist' doesn't quite belong in the same sentence.

Perhaps she meant "NeoMarxist" or "Late-Marxist", you never can tell. But actually, they do . Libertarian and Marxist - that's what doesn't come together.

[Civil War Man]

As a non-American I wonder: Is it still common for atheists to be labelled as Communists?

Not really, in my experience. Though this may only be that most people I know consider Communism to be a paper tiger. China, Cuba, and North Korea are pretty much the only Communist regimes you hear about over here since the fall of the Soviet Union. And even that isn't considered much of a big deal since capitalism has made some inroads into the Chinese economy and Cuba is ruled by an aging dinosaur who hasn't really had much to do with the US since Kennedy.

More often I hear people on the Right harping that atheism is a bigger threat to America than Communism ever was. Hell, some consider atheism to be a bigger threat than terrorists.

[Civil War Man]

Ghetto Edit:

Forgot to add a point that I wanted to make. In general, it seems to me that Christians make for pretty crappy atheists. It seems all too often that a Christian of this person's ilk will have a crisis of faith, eventually get it reaffirmed in some way (oftentimes through good ol' Catholic guilt), and then consider the period of the crisis to be when they were "atheist".

[Flagg]

The fact that this dumb bitch has a degree reminds me of an old joke:

Q: What do you call the person that finished last in their class at Med-School?
A: Doctor.

[Knife]

9. For Heaven’s sake, God separates those who have agreed, through their free will, to turn over their free will to Him, from those who have not.
10. Therefore, Hell is the inevitable result of man’s unwillingness to part from his sin through surrender of his free-will agency (you see, because the suffering from hell isn't from the nature of the place, but rather its from the nature of the sin).

This little bit does little to explain the idea that God still made us with all our urges and quirks, and yet still see's fit to punish us for those urges and quirks.

It also seems a bit of circular reasoning to me; he have us free will for the sole purpose of giving it back to him? What a bunch on nonsense just so they can slide the words 'free will' in there and try to keep the concept on their side.

*barf*

[FedRebel]

So if God is a real threat to humanity, like AIDS, maybe it's time to battle God? After all, only God's own media rupor (the Bible) tells us he's undefeatable - perhaps reality will prove otherwise :lol;

Actually Judges tells us that Iron chariots are immune to his power, so...

Break out the tanks!

Or we we could just wait for him to come down and judge humanity, and nuke him with everything we've got. Perhaps his essense would be disipated and posioned enough that he'll be unable to reconstitute himself.

[Wyrm]

It also seems a bit of circular reasoning to me; he have us free will for the sole purpose of giving it back to him? What a bunch on nonsense just so they can slide the words 'free will' in there and try to keep the concept on their side.

*barf*

It's worse than that. He creates these puny creates knowing... knowing... that some will not choose to follow his will, dispite their best intentions. He then punishes these unlucky souls for their best-intensioned but ultimately wrong choices with eternal punishment!

He creates a special place for souls to be eternally punished for doing exactly as their tech sheet specified. We don't punish a screw that fails to bear a load beyond its rating: the screw didn't do anything wrong -- we did for putting a screw in a situation that it couldn't cope with to our satisfaction. God, who knows that people were put in situations where they couldn't cope to his satisfaction, punishes them anyway with eternal damnation.

The purpose of hell is to punish people who fail dispite their best intations. To create such a place is an evil act. Therefore, a God we would describe as 'good' is incompatible with a God that would make a hell.

There, I've shot my logical load.