I looked in yesterday and I looked in again today. But what to post? Unless I post something people won't know I looked in. We've had more visitors today than I've seen in months. However, if I stop posting people will stop visiting. That will defeat my purpose. Can't let that happen.

I think here's what happened. I got into a discussion on exChristian on heavy theology. None of it really fits into what this forum is for so I haven't posted any of it on this forum. But I'm thinking: What's to keep me from doing so? I love discussing theology. It's all about what people believe and why they believe as they do. In a land where Christianity is the dominant religion, life decisions lead to social patterns. The different kinds of theology make for some very interesting social patterns and study.

If I am going to post theology discussion for its own sake, where am I going to post it? I am not sure at this point. I posted the link to the one discussion on exChristian so you can look at it, in case I decide against posting it here. This has been a really crazy day. I'm getting to the age where a lot of people say their doctors send them to all kinds of specialists for all kinds of tests. Seems I am no exception. I met people who came in from fifty miles out of town. I live close enough that I could go home in between, but it seriously disrupted my day. (We had to make two visits, three hours apart.) Because they had come from so far away they had to stay for a good part of the day.

While I was waiting for my second appointment our new premier came on tv and announced a new holiday. It's going to be the third Monday of February beginning this February and it's going to be called Family Day. I guess we'll have to get used to having a long weekend in February. I'm not sure if that's just for Ontario or if it's for the entire country. I saw articles about the election in the newspaper so I thought this time I would understand what the election was about but no such luck. I'm lost when it comes to politics. I thought the election was for the city mayor but a mayor can't announce a totally new holiday for the province.

And I know for certain that it's not just this city that gets the new holiday because the lady from fifty miles out of town was disgusted with it. She would hardly care what we do here in our city next winter.

One person can't be responsible for starting all the posts, or for posting every day. We need more people to join and contribute to the forum. I would encourage all of our visitors to sign up and participate; I'm sure they have many stories to add, ideas to share, and questions to ask.

Ex-COG, I saw this post back when you posted it and decided to take you at your word and not reply. I was exhausted and appreciated the your thought.

I don't really know too much to add to this thread right now. It's getting close to Christmas and I'm playing Christmas music. Tonight I will be participating in a Winter Solstice Event. The snow is piled up in front of my window.

I've been reminiscing about who visits these forums but maybe that's for another thread.

I'm playing Christmas music too; more specifically, a Celtic Christmas CD featuring bagpipes, whistles, mandolin, and button accordions. Very enjoyable.

Email from Acharya S

Hi there -

From us to you on this solstice end's eve, the merriest of times and best of fortune in the coming New Year!

Naturally, now is the time to reflect about the REAL reason for the season, which, as we now know, has nothing to do with a man of a particular ethnicity some 2,000 years ago.

In reality, the reason for the season is the birth of the new SUN, the promised annual renewal of life on Earth. And for thousands of years our ancestors around the world* celebrated this HOLY DAY with great rejoicing, for...

THE SUN WAS BORN AGAIN!

Happy Solstice to one and all!

Acharya S

* In the northern hemisphere, of course.

Never saw this much snow in my life.

We already had snow mountains all over the place and now a huge storm dumped a LOT of snow on us. There's a wall of snow in front of my window--it's driving me crazy. (I live in the basement for those who don't know.) Normally I can see the trees out my window. Not anymore. There's a deck out there. The snow is several inches higher than the floor of the deck. Part of the problem is that the landlady used to shovel the snow from earlier this winter off the side of the deck. Now this storm dumped around 20 inches on top of that.

I decided to go out and shovel it away so I can see out again. I knew I'd have to wade snow up to my knees but so what. I knew I'd get cold but so what. I'd warm up and dry out afterward.

I bundled up, got the shovel, stepped out into the tunnel of previously shoveled sidewalk that was filled up to halfway to my knees. I looked for the lowest pathway into the lawn. Snow always drifts, you know--deeper drifts follow about three to six feet from obstructions; in front and behind the drifts it's always shallower.

I was shocked.

Hip deep was the level.

Never seen so much snow in my life.

And I've been around for a while--since the middle of the twentieth century.

I searched the internet for a report on how much snow we actually got. It's too early for a report, I guess. All I know is that much of the snow had gone away a few weeks ago, then it started snowing again. And snowed. And snowed. And now we got this huge storm on top of everything.

Some people think it's directly related to environmental issues.

Anyway, I pulled the blinds down so I don't have to look at the wall of snow. Hopefully I won't feel so claustrophobic if it's only the blind I'm looking at.

Sorry I neglected this baby the past several weeks. My thesis supervisor informed me that he was going on Sabatical starting July 1 this year and that it really would be in everyone's best interests if we got me graduated before that happened. That meant I had to forget everything else and get my thesis paper written. July 1 is a long way away, but there are so many other schedules around school that I have to fit in that it's just best getting this paper out of the way at whatever cost that may entail, if humanly possible. It seems these forums just totally slipped my mind for a while. I'm amazed to see people are still visiting. I appreciate your loyalty, as they say.

I handed the paper in the other day--actually, I sent it as an email attachment, because he suggested that would be okay. As you probably guessed, it's about fundamentalism--the history of fundamentalist Christianity in North America. Hopefully I don't have to make too many revisions but that remains to be seen. For the time being I can breathe again.

Long time since my last entry on this thread. Thesis has been defended, I passed, and got my Masters degree in Theological Studies.

The present focus of my intellectual pursuits is to teach myself High German with the help of an online friend in Germany. I can read German with a dictionary but want to become a good deal more fluent. In fact, I want to learn to translate articles from English into German. I have a long way to go.

The other project is to write an overview on the relationship between Mithraism and the origins of Christianity. This latter project grew out of Don Closson's article Paul and the Mystery Religions which, in my opinion, contains historically inaccurate information. I challenged Closson that he should change it to more accurately reflect facts. He suggested I do an indepth review of his source and my own for him before he make any changes. Because the area of study interests me I am following his suggestions.

In order to feel competent to take on the project I am reading up on Mithraism. I am presently reading a German text, whose argument may be stronger than what I have found in English. Closson tells me he does not read German, which means I will have to translate. I feel vulnerable when it comes to translation, due to my own weak comprehension. I am aware that he may well have friends or colleagues who can read and interpret for him and refute anything I say. I like to know that what I say is based on a solid foundation, and that if it is refuted it is a fair refutation.

What I was reading today was Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion. Maybe another day I'll post a review on it. It has a lot of excellent resources in the back for anyone in need of a place to go for help when deconverting from religion. Some of those places are listed on these forums and the accompanying website and some are not. At the moment I have few resources for exMuslims and exJews. It'ss been a long day but maybe some other day I can look up some of those websites and, if they still exist, post them.

As for the book itself, I read the first several chapters and the last few chapters. Maybe another day I'll read the remaining middle chapters. This is the first "atheist" book I've read. So far, all my atheist reading has been online. Dawkins's first part of the book is mainly a refutation of God's existence. The last few chapters look closely at religion and what it really is and does to people. I find it overwhelmingly amazing and incredible to read in someone else's words the things that I have in my own mind and heart concluded simply by observation and logic.

Dawkins comes at it from the perspective of a professional biologist and scientist in general. But he also demonstrates a general knowledge of Christian theology and philosophy, and general deep thinking. I come at it with a lifetime of deep thinking, seeking to prove by whatever means are available to me whether God and the plan of salvation are credible and therefore true. Theology and religious studies on the undergraduate and Masters levels of study, as well as much personal study, were available to me. Independently, we arrive at similar conclusions.

I have seen many of Dawkins's views discussed on exChristian. However, at this point I have no way of knowing whether these views originated with Dawkins or whether they are general atheist views. Dawkins does quote a number of earlier atheists, including Bertrand Russel, and also some present-day atheists (Four Horsemen). Also, he has written extensively throughout his lifetime.

Greetings RSM. I have enjoyed your forum thus far. I especially like this black skin. At any rate, my name is Anthony from Windsor, Canada. I couldn't tell a deconversion story because, as you know, it would be a lie. However, I may be free from your site title because I am not a fundamentalist, not by Catholic definitions anyway. Fundamentalism, in fact, came about in and around the nineteenth century as a Protestant response to biblical criticism. I think the word is overused because the vast majority of Christians are not fundamentalists. Moreover, Islamic "fundamentalism" is a 21st century creation. In Islam, such a concept is illusory. There is the right and the left, but no Muslim "fundies". You may have different definitions than I, so I'll just tell you what I believe and you can tell me if I fit your definition of fundamentalist or not. When I refer to fundamentalist atheists, I am referring to those newer, close-minded, militant anti-theists who are skeptical and hateful of any and all beliefs that are not their own. But, based on what I know of you so far, you are not one of these.

I am a Christian, a Catholic to be exact. My beliefs are pretty easy to pin down because they are the beliefs of the Catholic church and such tenets are readily available and public for the world to see. I do believe that there is a God. I believe that humanity became fractured from this God and further, the only way to remedy this was for God to come down to our level. Thus, we get the notion of a revelation, Jesus and His establishment of the church. There is a lot of substance in those few lines, many of which I cannot adequately defend. However, my strengths are in the existence of God and other philosophical questions of that nature as well as ethics and the relationship between science and religion. I do uphold the adage that the unexamined life is not worth living and engage in philosophic and apologetic conversation on a fairly regular basis.

Feel free, when you can do so, to check out my site at www.eapologetics.tk and you'll get a better understanding of where I am coming from. I thought I might close with my perception of atheists rather than atheism (we all know how I feel about the latter). I find atheists fit one of two categories. Firstly, there is the open minded, yet tough minded critical thinker who seeks after truth wherever the evidence leads. Secondly, there is the rabid anti-theist who simply hates religion, religious believers and makes moral arguments instead of intellectual ones. I find that newer popular authors such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet tend to fit this latter bill (especially Hitchens and Harris). It is the first kind of atheist that is worth listening to and is worthy of the respect of all for seekers of truth are to be praised. The second kind are those like some of the writers above or sites like EvilBible.com etc. I tend to avoid folks like this for the simple fact that there is nothing to be done there but yelling and shaking of fists. Once again, RSM, you do not seem to be one of these and I am looking forward to some good discussion. Thanks for inviting me to your forum!

Anthony, I am glad you like what you see here but I wonder whether you have seen everything. I am probably more like Dawkins than you realize. He is, in fact, one of my real life heroes so far as I might be said to have any heroes. I do my own thinking, and I do not agree with every last thing I see in Dawkins. However, I agree very strongly with the position he is taking on the world stage with Dennet, Harris, and Hitchens. It is a position that I feel must be taken by someone at this point in history. Dawkins seems to be "in the right place at the right time."

I haven't seen as much of the other "Four Horsemen", or New Atheists as they are being dubbed, as I have of Dawkins. I notice that these days Dawkins is being touted in internet articles as "the world's most famous atheist," so I assume he's somewhat more famous than the other three. That probably accounts for the reason I have seen him more often on YouTube than the others. I have The Four Horsemen, so I have seen the other three. Fact of the matter is that I have had very limited access to videos, TV, and YouTube until the past few weeks.

The mid-twentieth century theologian Paul Tillich is another of my heroes. As are other liberal theologians, ministers, and individuals of the past several centuries--individuals who showed us how to live rich and cultured lives without being fanatical about religion. My problem with Tillich is that he insisted on having God in there but he fails--at least so far as I was able to determine when I was reading his Systematic Theology--to explain why God is required. The only reason I can figure out why he requires God is because he is a Christian, and without God one is hard-pressed to be a Christian. I would like to know why a person is a Christian, other than that one was born into it or that one was convinced by some religious propaganda.

Down to brass tacks. I'm going to have a seriously difficult time living with the C.S. Lewis quote in your sig. Frankly, it makes me feel sick to my stomach. Firstly, I just find Lee Strobel and C. S. Lewis to be revolting characters, and secondly, I have not yet found anything in life to be as all-illuminating as Lewis claims Christianity to be. I heard Alister McGrath quote the same piece on a video I watched yesterday but I thought he said "God" where this quote says "Christianity." (That looks to me like worshiping religion--talk about false gods.) I did not know it was by Lewis, nor did I anticipate seeing it on my own forums.

I know you did not mean to offend so I will expect to see it replaced with something else. I don't really know what to suggest because I don't normally have this reaction to stuff--possibly not something overtly religious, perhaps.

If you disagree, perhaps this calls for discussion. What do you think?...

I'm having an idea. I don't know what your objective is for your religious signature. I carry my rather provocative forum title in my signature on Christian forums and have not yet been asked to remove it. My reason for carrying it is to advertise my existence. I know other people who do similar things. Perhaps you feel a need to "wear an armband" or lapel-pin or something to inform visitors to these forums of your position in this "fight." If this is the case, I could accommodate something inconspicuous like "Soldier of Christ" in your avatar or signature. In fact, I am on forums on which every new member must during the registration process answer the question: Any Gods? The answer shows in the avatar and is helpful for understanding discussion.

Again, feel free to discuss it. In the meantime, can we just remove it till we get this figured out? Thanks.

Now that we've got the more important business out of the way...another Ontarian? I'm a "few miles up the creek" from you. Okay, a little bit more than a few but it's not every day that I meet a fellow Ontario person on here. I hesitate to post the name of my city for security reasons but I'm in the heartland of Southern Ontario, about an hour and a half south-west of Toronto.

As for the skin of the forums. You can change that by going into your profile. I don't have black. I had no idea what shows up when people find it. I think it's set so there are several choices available to members. If this is not the case, let me know and I'll see what I can do. As you can see, I'm using free stuff off the internet. That is what I can afford so that is what I'm using. It seems to be working. There have been no complaints from anyone so far.

Hello again. I'll restrict our discussion of the signature for pm. At any rate, I would like to remark about your love of Dawkins' work. I don't mean to offend but, how? The guy is a popular author but has consistently shown that he is not competent to speak on metaphysical questions with any strength. In fact, based on what I have read, nearly every one of his arguments is merely the restatement of an older one. I watched a video of him once of youtube in which he contradicted himself in the video no less than three times. It was if he was drunk. It is nothing against his atheism. In fact, I would point to philosophers such as Mackie as far more competent to speak on these issues. I might add, in a debate with William Lane Craig, I think it was Austin Dacey who gave a very comprehensive case for atheism. Dawkins is just not on these guys playing field. I have never understood the appeal. I think Dawkins bitches about religion quite a bit and his adherents are attracted more to that than his actual arguments. I am concerned about truth, not about how a position makes me feel. these new guys (with a particular emphasis on Hitchens) seem to just hate religion but cannot justify their positions without relying on opinionated, moral language.

Moreover, the majority of many of these folks' work hinges upon the presupposed incompatibility of evolution and intelligent design. I have NEVER seen this very crucial presupposition demonstrated. Rather, I see a bunch of buffoons (overzealous creationists on one side and hard care evolutionists on the other) assume said presupposition but no one can seem to show it. Let it be shown that evolution excludes God and perhaps I will get excited about most of these arguments. Otherwise, my response will consistently be "uh-huh". I am fairly open minded and, when it comes to the new atheism, I am very unimpressed. Like I said, i find that Richard Dawkins is more of a popularizer, much like Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. A lot of appeal with little intellectual strength.

I'm not exactly making rules here. However, I do reserve the right to decide what I will and will not tolerate on these forums. Human dignity will be respected. Obviously, what constitutes human dignity is in the final analysis a subjective judgment. However, I presented a strong argument for the removal of your quote, Anthony. If another very active poster had experienced such a strong reaction to a new-comer's signature I would have taken the same approach.

As you should know by the time you read this post, the disrespectful language with which you responded in your pm will not be tolerated. Nor will your signature be tolerated. If you do not like my forums you can find forums that you like.



In the case that you comply with my requests, as I hope you do because you demonstrate the ability to write, I suggest you read my post on a video I watched on a debate between Dawkins and a theologian. The Christian fails to provide convincing answers to the atheist's questions on every count.

You mention Austin Dacey. Never heard of him but looked him up just now and his Secular Conscience, endorsed by Sam Harris, looks like a book I will definitely have to read. Yes, I know that other books are out that are said to be better than Dawkins's. So what?

Richard is Richard. Sam is Sam. Each man works with what he's got and not with what he hasn't got. Surely you know the children's song:

Little drops of water
Little grains of sand
Make the mighty ocean
And the beauteous land.

Likewise, the accumulation of voices from reason will wake people from their mindless and drugged religions.

I better post this. We've got a thunder storm.

Anyway, if we are going to have a focused discussion we should probably start a thread in the appropriate forum. Possibly you want to watch that video and respond on the thread I started. Just an idea. And for what it's worth, I have done considerable research on William Lane Craig's beliefs. They don't stand up to the light of day. Nor does his scholarship. This, too, should be in a more focused discussion if you plan to comply with forums decorum and hang around.

Anthony informs me that he will not comply with the conditions set for him. As he was promised would be the case if he chose this route, he has been banned. All attempts at discussion failed.