Former evangelical minister, now atheist

[Dan Barker]

I was an ordained evangelical minister who preached for 19 years before learning Christianity is untrue. I became an atheist in 1984 and left the ministry.

I wrote a book about my experiences:

Losing Faith In Faith:
From Preacher To Atheist
by Dan Barker

There is no evidence for a god. There is no good argument for a god. There is no conerent definition of a god. According to some definitions of a god (including the god of the bible), there are many positive disproofs of its existence.

And there is no need for a god. God belief does not result in higher morality or knowledge. The world is much better off without theology, using reason and kindness to help solve the world's problems rather than faith or dogma, which have led to divisiveness and cruelty.

One of the main reasons I reject Christianity and theism is because there is a BETTER way . . . a HIGHER moral ground.

I think most believers are good people, in spite of the errors of their teachings. People should be judged by their actions, not their beliefs.

You can find more details about my story online at:

http://ffrf.org/about/bio_dan.php

You can also find some of my online writings on various related topics at:

http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/

[salvationfound]

Wow cool Dan Barker. I've read your book.
Even though of course I disagree with your conclusions
it is still pretty cool to see you here on this website.

Nice to have ya

*waving*

[Cynic Sage]

I was an ordained evangelical minister who preached for 19 years before learning Christianity is untrue. I became an atheist in 1984 and left the ministry.

I wrote a book about my experiences:

Losing Faith In Faith:
From Preacher To Atheist
by Dan Barker

Are you the "The Golden Rule is bad, because it can be used by masochists" guy?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hi Dan. Good to see you around here. I'm curious about your position here. It seems that you're saying that there is a better way. A better way to what? You might say "removing religion solves the world's problems." Well even if it did, which I would doubt, does that make atheism true? The argument is meant to be logical but is worked out on a pragmatic basis.

And then, are we to test something solely by its results? A lie might get someone off the hook in a court room, but that hardly makes it true. Adultery can bring great joy to several people, but that doesn't make it right. Again, that doesn't make it wrong either.

And furthermore, in all of this, you still speak about morality. But why? What is the basis for morality? Why is it better to save a human life than to mutilate one? I'm told I shouldn't judge someone based on their beliefs but on their actions. Says who? Who gives you the authority to put that view on me.

And if we do speak about truth, where does truth come from? What is the basis for truth in an atheistic universe?

[Arterial Spray]

And if we do speak about truth, where does truth come from? What is the basis for truth in an atheistic universe?

Oh I don't know....reality?

Oh, and hi there Dan! Welcome to Tweb!

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Oh I don't know....reality?

Would you care to elaborate on that a bit? I'd state the laws of logic, but I've determined a basis for them. What's yours? Truth can't exist without logic after all

[Mountain Man]

And what is reality?

[Jin-Roh]

There is no evidence for a god. There is no good argument for a god. There is no conerent definition of a god. According to some definitions of a god (including the god of the bible), there are many positive disproofs of its existence.

And there is no need for a god. God belief does not result in higher morality or knowledge. The world is much better off without theology, using reason and kindness to help solve the world's problems rather than faith or dogma, which have led to divisiveness and cruelty.

Even though I'm non-OSAS, one of the reasons I have a difficult time taking ex-Christian testimonies seriously is that their statements about their former faith and what "faith" they attack now indicate that they had something shallow to begin with.

I actually believe I'll be reading that book of yours in an upcoming class though. So I guess I'll just watch and learn until then.

[Arterial Spray]

Would you care to elaborate on that a bit? I'd state the laws of logic, but I've determined a basis for them. What's yours? Truth can't exist without logic after all

The last bit there is a nonsensical statement. The laws of logic* presuppose truth, not the other way around.

*I assume you are talking about the laws of classical logic, rather than those of a paraconsistent or intuitionist logical system.

[JB]

I was an ordained evangelical minister who preached for 19 years before learning Christianity is untrue. I became an atheist in 1984 and left the ministry.

I wrote a book about my experiences:

Losing Faith In Faith:
From Preacher To Atheist
by Dan Barker

There is no evidence for a god. There is no good argument for a god. There is no conerent definition of a god. According to some definitions of a god (including the god of the bible), there are many positive disproofs of its existence.

And there is no need for a god. God belief does not result in higher morality or knowledge. The world is much better off without theology, using reason and kindness to help solve the world's problems rather than faith or dogma, which have led to divisiveness and cruelty.

One of the main reasons I reject Christianity and theism is because there is a BETTER way . . . a HIGHER moral ground.

I think most believers are good people, in spite of the errors of their teachings. People should be judged by their actions, not their beliefs.

You can find more details about my story online at:

http://ffrf.org/about/bio_dan.php

You can also find some of my online writings on various related topics at:

http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/

Pleased to meet you, Dan. I agree with salvationfound, it is pretty cool to have you around here. Hope you enjoy it.

[Arterial Spray]

And what is reality?

1) Everything that exists.
2) The state of being real or extant.

[GINH-Tony]

And what is reality?

If you need to ask such an over-worked question, then it is reasonable to derrive that you are severely detached from reality OR you are "firmly planed in relativism".

[ApologiaPhoenix]

The last bit there is a nonsensical statement. The laws of logic* presuppose truth, not the other way around.

*I assume you are talking about the laws of classical logic, rather than those of a paraconsistent or intuitionist logical system.

I am talking about the Law of Noncontradiction of course and the other two. Still, where do they come from? Are they material or immaterial? If immaterial, how do we explain their existence if matter is all there is?

[GINH-Tony]

paraconsistent

From Webster.com...

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.

Suggestions for paraconsistent:
1. procrastinates 2. procrastinate 3. procrastinatedI just love it when people make up words not found in the dictionary. It makes them sound so smart!

[Arterial Spray]

By the way, if we are really going to go off into presuppositionalist la la land we should probably take it out of Dan's thread...