So then, what were the discoveries you made that caused you to conclude the gospel is not true?
The discoveries piled up so deeply over a period of 10 years (preceding my outing as an atheist) that it would be difficult to rehearse them in the order that influenced me. But I will be happy to dig in, here on Timmy Talk, if order-of-discovery doesn't matter. I can try to handle all rebuttals, of course--I'm sure you will have many. But first I would need permission from AFF Admin to begin (on this more audacious level), as Amin may have to take heat in allowing this degree of free speech--one that crosses AFF purposes. I mean, blasphemy is simply to insult someone else's god.
So maybe they'll say "only in debate section" which would be a disincentive for me, as Timmy Talk is already the haunt of disbelief, thanks to its originator, the disbeliever Timmy.
The discoveries piled up so deeply over a period of 10 years (preceding my outing as an atheist) that it would be difficult to rehearse them in the order that influenced me. But I will be happy to dig in, here on Timmy Talk, if order-of-discovery doesn't matter. I can try to handle all rebuttals, of course--I'm sure you will have many. But first I would need permission from AFF Admin to begin (on this more audacious level), as Amin may have to take heat in allowing this degree of free speech--one that crosses AFF purposes. I mean, blasphemy is simply to insult someone else's god.
So maybe they'll say "only in debate section" which would be a disincentive for me, as Timmy Talk is already the haunt of disbelief, thanks to its originator, the disbeliever Timmy.
Admin?
Hmm. Apparently the admins don't pay attention to Timmy Talk.
Woohooooo!!!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
The discoveries piled up so deeply over a period of 10 years (preceding my outing as an atheist) that it would be difficult to rehearse them in the order that influenced me. But I will be happy to dig in, here on Timmy Talk, if order-of-discovery doesn't matter. I can try to handle all rebuttals, of course--I'm sure you will have many. But first I would need permission from AFF Admin to begin (on this more audacious level), as Amin may have to take heat in allowing this degree of free speech--one that crosses AFF purposes. I mean, blasphemy is simply to insult someone else's god.
So maybe they'll say "only in debate section" which would be a disincentive for me, as Timmy Talk is already the haunt of disbelief, thanks to its originator, the disbeliever Timmy.
Admin?
I wasn't really looking for an opportunity to debate. I was just wondering what your discoveries were.
Debates are all fine and dandy, and I like them. They serve a specific purpose. I do not view AFF as the proper venue for formal debate, however, except in certain rare circumstances (like when I'm feelin really froggy and want some entertainment, for example). Most of the folks here are more interested in sharing their views and discussing various 'topics of the day' rather than reading or participating in structured formal debates.
I think the last one I did was with brother Epley. (May have been on nFCF, tho... can't remember.) It was interesting, fun, informative, etc. But at the end of the day, real debating, to me anyway, is better done 'in person, live' than over the intardnets.
But, anyways, I'm really just interested in what the issues were that led you become an atheist. Whether they are intellectual/rational issues, or emotional, or 'experiences', or whatever. I'm just interested is all.
I wasn't really looking for an opportunity to debate.
Okay, debate was merely my presumption based on how you have responded to my posts before. If however, my "why I became atheist" writing is provocative and you begin rebutting it, then is that not also a de facto debate? Which is fine, however, I was not referring to a formal debate--not my style. I merely didn't want to be shunted over to the "Debate Section" of AFF, which implies (or should imply) a formal debate format.
Quote:
But, anyways, I'm really just interested in what the issues were that led you become an atheist.
The issues? They are legion. I will be happy to present a series of essays about what made me an atheist. But if it's only a very short answer you want, then here ya go (as previously posted in Timmy Talk.) Reading THE BIBLE made me an atheist! If that's sufficient answer, fine. Otherwise, hunker down. Your choice.
No, I have not read the Tibetan Book of The Dead. But since you bumped the question, I just now read the Wiki page about it.
Have you read Mary Baker Eddy's, Science and Health With Key to The Scriptures ?
I haven't read the whole thing but I have perused it.
Another interesting read is 'The Urantia Book'.
I mentioned the Tibetan Book of the Dead because it is describes the 'after-death state'. It is supposedly a guide for people to the 'after-death state' so they won't be so surprised with what they find there. In any event, the descriptions of the after-death state are exactly what one would find to be consistent with Tibetan buddhist thought. Of course, one may ask 'which came first?', the teachings in the Tibetan Book of the Dead or the Buddhist beliefs on the 'intermediate state'? Ie, was the book written because they expected to experience certain things based on their beliefs? Or were their beliefs shaped by experiences which came to be codified in the Book of the Dead?
The book is essentially a meditation manual designed to recreate a near-death experience.
I find it fascinating that people who experience NDE's generally experience what they expect to experience, more or less.
Which is further support (in my mind) that NDE's are biologically caused, and happen within the brain. Not to mention the fact that there are ketamine-induced NDEs, as well as neuro-electrical stimulation induced NDEs (I believe several neurosurgeons conducted some experiments on that, back in the 70s, showing that inserting electrodes into the brain at various points and aplying small electrical currents will create out of body experiences, NDEs, etc).
Which I find fascinating, as that seems to be what the Bible describes in regard to the 'after death state' - ie, 'the dead know nothing' etc etc.
I don't know of any other ancient religious text which describes the psychology of the after-death experience in a way consistent with discoveries in neuroscience (ie thought is based in the brain, not some ephemeral non-material ether called 'the soul' as postulated by Platonic and catholic metaphysics).
Probably coming to a church near you, since there's probably a popular website for such marquee-worthy aphorisms.
Linear Mode
