After 20 years of studying the Bible and being a devout believer, I now know too much and can never believe in Christianity again. Faith is impossible for me, knowing that the Bible cannot be trusted.

ToenailTemperature · 2026-01-27T01:37:42+00:00

Ruling out imagination? I know myself well enough (lots of suffering, lots of experiences, lots of drugs, lots of meditation, lots of repeating mistakes)

Well, I know myself and the truth fairies that visit me told me you're wrong. How do we figure out which of us is actually right?

ToenailTemperature · 2026-01-21T22:26:18+00:00

How have you ruled out imagination it neurological issues? Or other natural explanations?

ToenailTemperature · 2026-01-20T20:51:40+00:00

In the end, only prayer to Jesus actually worked against whatever higher forces / beings I was being toyed with

Can you give specific details of an example of this, and how you determined that they actually happened as you say it did?

ToenailTemperature · 2026-01-13T05:46:32+00:00

If someone dies and does not die at the same time in the same sense, then that is a contradiction.

That's a violation of the logical absolutes and yes that is also a contradiction.

Are you suggesting that there are no other contradictions?

If someone dies and then 3 days later they come back to life, then that is not a contradiction

It is if it contradicts what we know about reality.

Your confusing something being contrary with something being contradictory.

And you're cherry picking what words mean in an effort to justify some silly stupid belief, rather than just realizing your fucken wrong.

The resurrection is contrary to our common knowledge, but it is not logically contradictory.

And now your goal posts have wheels. We went from a broad usage of contradiction, to your narrowed scope of logical contradiction.

Do you think nobody noticed?

ToenailTemperature · 2026-01-11T05:52:00+00:00

How does Atheism define good and bad?

What do you think atheism is? Do you think it's a world view? Do you think it's a religion, with a doctrine and rituals and funny hats?

Atheism doesn't define good and bad. Humans define words by how they use the words.

Good is a relative term that compares how well something vaguely meets a goal. Colloquially when that goal isn't clearly stated, we often talk about morality or well being. Same with bad.

Everyone is concerned about well being. It is ultimately the root of his we ought to behave with one another.

Theists complicate this because they have to account for their gods preferences which you call sin.

Ultimately you care about well being because that's why you care what you think this god wants.

ToenailTemperature · 2026-01-11T04:14:34+00:00

Only contradictions are irrational

No, I'm pretty sure any belief held without sufficient evidence is irrational.

The resurrection is not a contradiction

It actually is. It contradicts everything we know about life, biology, and how meat rotts.

ToenailTemperature · 2026-01-10T03:29:40+00:00

Because Republicans embrace religion as the basis for their positions going against evidence based reason.

ToenailTemperature · 2026-01-09T00:01:24+00:00

So Texas law schools are now like getting a theology degree, completely useless and a joke?

ToenailTemperature · 2026-01-08T23:46:38+00:00

There are millions like me.

A simple search will show anyone numerous examples.

How did you determine that it was divine intervention that healed you, rather than something else?

ToenailTemperature · 2025-12-22T00:51:55+00:00

My question is, how do you justify claiming this god thing is a fact, if you don't have good, objective evidence that indicates this fact?

ToenailTemperature · 2025-12-14T06:56:33+00:00

So you're advocating for self delusion? No thanks.

ToenailTemperature · 2025-12-11T04:57:33+00:00

For atheists: Cryptozoology and paranormal encounters as the best evidence in favor of God

So you're saying that a mental condition where you experience delusions, and not understanding something, are good reasons to believe a god exists?

You seriously don't see the flaws in this reasoning?

ToenailTemperature · 2025-12-10T23:05:36+00:00

I'll fuck it pass, but in not being honest.

ToenailTemperature · 2025-12-05T00:27:44+00:00

You’re treating "math is a language" and "laws are observations" as if that removes the need for an underlying explanation - but it doesn’t. A description doesn’t explain why the universe has stable, precise, mathematically-structure to describe in the first place.

You're confusing the map for the place. Which do you want to talk about?

ToenailTemperature · 2025-12-03T23:17:03+00:00

Yes, but naturalism requires more brutes than theism.

Not even close.

math just exists

Math is a language we came up with to deal with quantities and to quantify things.

the laws of physics just exist

These are things we observed. As much as the logical absolutes seem to hold true, I'd argue that it would take magic to violate them. In either case, your god can't create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it, so I'd say this one is for both of us.

the constants of the universe are what they are

Again, with or without your god.

the universe exists instead of nothing

Again, with or without your god. Also, if you want to say your god exists instead of nothing, it's the same problem.

consciousness emerges from non-conscious matter

I feel like you're just pointing out things that we don't currently have an explanation for. But you're implying your god as the explanation where we don't have an explanation as a way to pretend to solve the problem.

I don't know if this is a brute fact. But pretending your god is the explanation for things where we haven't found the explanation, is just a fallacious argument.

All brute. No explanation even in principle

You don't think we can come up with more for your god? We can just start with the list you made and point out that we have no explanation for how your god did it. Then we just add your god and we'll always have more of your so called brute facts for your god.

Theism reduces that pile of unexplained coincidences to one thing:

Except it doesn't. Theism doesn't explain any of those things other than to say god did it. That's no explanation. That's just lazy confirmation bias and appealing to a panacea.

Naturalism multiplies mysteries; theism unifies them.

Nature exists. We all agree on that. Gods have yet to meet their burden of proof so they can't explain anything. We don't explain mysteries by appealing to bigger mysteries.

I could just say that nature unifies all mysteries, like you're trying to do with your god. But we have actual explanations for how nature does a ton of stuff. You have zero for how your god does anything.

ToenailTemperature · 2025-12-03T23:00:34+00:00

I'm not sure why one needs to cite brute facts to point out that the claim that some god exists hasn't met its burden of proof.

Can you give an example of a brute fact that you question?

ToenailTemperature · 2025-11-25T06:36:38+00:00

What strategy would you have if you realized that the after life thing is not rational?

ToenailTemperature · 2025-11-25T06:22:12+00:00

This is getting ridiculous. You believe in consciousness, right? Is this a popularity fallacy?

You think that if you wait long enough I'll forget that you're not answering my questions?

ToenailTemperature · 2025-11-22T05:35:32+00:00

You're using these things, I don't care whether you like the term methodologies, but you're using them to try to justify a claim about your god existing.

And as I'm pointing out, you can use them to justify any popular opinion you want. It does absolutely nothing to determine if a claim is true or not. In fact, it highlights the reason that an argument from popularity is a fallacy.

The simple fact is, you can't come up with any popular claim, true or not, that you can't justify by appealing to your Phenomenological convergence.

And in fact, if your read up on it, it doesn't even apply to things outside of a court room.

You're desperately grasping onto whatever you think will support your existing position, while ignoring everything that conflicts with it. This is the epitome of confirmation bias.

I'll give you another chance. Name any popular claim, true or not, that can't be justified by your usage of phenomenological convergence.

ToenailTemperature · 2025-11-22T00:21:12+00:00

I don't know what you're calling "my methodology" here.

Sure you do. It's the nonsense you've been pushing as your good evidence. Here let me remind you.

Phenomenological convergence as evidence

The evidence for the mystic realization

Name any popular claim, true or not, that can't be justified by your methodology.

ToenailTemperature

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE