Hi! My name is Lindsay, I’m from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. I’m married to my wonderful husband Gord, no kids yet!

Until recently I considered myself a person of faith. I was completely credulous and I would believe pretty much anything I read or anything somebody said to me with authority.

That all changed when I saw the movie Religulous, and the idea that doubt was a virtue and that questioning authority is healthy was introduced to me. I began to look at my beliefs with a critical eye and I saw that my blind faith was holding me back from learning all that the world had to offer.

I was struck by enlightning!

I am now a science enthusiast, a skeptic, and an atheist. It’s my hope that through this blog I’ll be able to share with as many people as possible the bolts of enlightning that I encounter in my day to day life.

I don’t have a background in any sciences. I have a BA in History and Anthropology, so I invite scrutiny to anything I post on this blog. I want to learn and I want to know when I’m wrong, otherwise I’ll never learn!

Please post a comment if there’s anything else you’d like to know about me.

______

Update: January 4, 2009: I just wanted to add some links to posts that go into more detail in describing my background with regards to my transition from a person of faith to an atheist and a skeptic:

My History With Religion (May 26, 2009)

My One Year Anniversary of Losing My Religion (October 3, 2009)

A Look at my Childhood Bible (December 27, 2009)

101 Responses to “About”


  1. 3 Jason June 8, 2009 at 2:32 am

    Cool to hear that Religulous had such a profound impact on you! This must mean your ‘struck by enlightenment’ happened very recently?

    For me it was Richard Dawkins’ many offerings, including the BBC 2-part doco’s ‘Root of All Evil?’ and ‘Enemies of Reason’ (both available to watch for free on google videos!), as well as his books The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker.

    Enjoying your blog.

  2. 4 linzeebinzee June 8, 2009 at 7:10 am

    Hi Jason, yeah it is very recent for me, I think Religulous came out in October, and that’s pretty much when I started down this road :)

    I actually just started watching Dawkins’ Enemies of Reason yesterday, I’ve seen episodes 1 and 2, I absolutely love it!

    Thanks for stopping by :)

  3. 5 altonwoods August 8, 2009 at 10:30 am

    I want to encourage you to continue to search, as I’m sure you will. There are plenty of bad examples of religion out there so it’s understandable that people might see a movie like that as being credible or valid in it’s criticism of the concept of faith. If you’re going to read people like Dawkins and watch movies like religilous you should also check out what people like the Institute for Christian Research says or Josh McDowell who started out trying to disprove the Christian faith, Instead,he converted to Christianity, after, as he says, he found evidence for it, not against it. No decision could be more important…

  4. 6 Susan Gregory August 8, 2009 at 11:08 am

    Good morning Lindsay!

    I can certainly identify with your situation. I too was there, but then . . .

    There is so much hypocracy in the world and that’s why the search for Truth is essential. I hope you don’t allow the hypocrits have power over your authentic faith, no matter how weak or unknowledgeable it may be.

    I commend you on your search for Truth. My hope is that you find it as it is the only way.

    Be blessed, dear one.

  5. 7 linzeebinzee August 8, 2009 at 3:44 pm

    I spent a long time reading and listening to what Christians had to tell me, but it only took watching Religulous and reading Dawkins introducing me to doubt and critical thinking to show me how ludicrous the arguments for belief in god, especially the god of the Bible, were. Now, rather than reading books that tell me what to believe, I like to read books that teach me how to think for myself.

  6. 8 linzeebinzee August 8, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    What is it that you mean by my “situation”?

    Why do you capitalize “Truth”?

  7. 9 Pyrrho September 10, 2009 at 2:21 am

    Truth is a city in Atlantis.
    You have a husband? I should tone down my flirty sillinesses then. WHOOPS!

  8. 10 linzeebinzee September 12, 2009 at 9:10 pm

    haha and he reads my blog too so LOOK OUT! lol

  9. 11 D.M.D. September 15, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    Oh and, Lindsay? I am really glad the Maher effect contributed to have you snap out lies. :)

    At least, when you have kids, they’ll be lucky to be born in a house free from indoctrination.

    Have fun out there in Winnipeg! :)

  10. 12 John September 16, 2009 at 4:07 am

    I am quite confused about how science is not considered a faith. In some sensed Dawkins and Religious have faith in science. Due to the fact that to believe in evolution you also have to take some pretty big steps over many holes in the same sense as in Christianity. Science can become a religion just like christianity. Though it may look different since no one was there when the world was created everything about it is a theory that will never become fact due to the nature of science. if no one was there to observe how the earth was created and how man came to be, even science is speculation disguised as fact. Just some thoughts to think about. Also that documentary just like any documentary finds the craziest irrational christians exploits them then says look this is what faith is. I would encourage you to listen to Mark Driscoll, John Piper, James mcdonald and other christians who do not run around being irrational. Also I would start taking science classes and maybe consider taking some bible classes from a credible university before taking a documentary and a view of one scientist over anything else. Faith is something you believe in and cannot fully prove. I believe that science fits into this category in some instances. Some things observed can be explained through science and are helpful.

  11. 13 linzeebinzee September 25, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    Thanks! lol the funny thing is I don’t really like Bill Maher anymore, and I’ve watched Religulous since and don’t really like it that much anymore either…it was enough to get me to laugh at my beliefs and start questioning them, but now I feel like it’s a bit over the top. Not that I’d expect anything else from him!

  12. 14 linzeebinzee September 25, 2009 at 7:40 pm

    You don’t have to have faith in science because it is consistently demonstrated to work, and it’s based on real, tangible evidence and repeated experiments. Christianity, like other religions, does not have the backing of evidence.

    You said “a theory will never become a fact due to the nature of science”, yes that’s true, but a scientific theory is as good as fact. A hypothesis doesn’t become a theory until it’s been tested and re-tested through observation, experimentation, and calculation. But scientists won’t call something a fact because there’s always a chance that new evidence will surface that refutes what we thought we knew. Science has to be willing to change in the face of new information.

    I get the impression that you think that the only reason I abandoned my faith was that I watched Religulous and read Dawkins, but that couldn’t be farther from the truth. I try to learn something new every day. I go to lectures about biology, physics, etc., I listen to and watch debates between atheists and religious people, I’m working to improve my critical thinking skills, lately I’ve even been listening to religious people and believers in all kinds of things talk about what they believe.

    I think you misunderstand what science actually is.

  13. 15 Carolina Maine September 30, 2009 at 1:04 pm

    Hmm. I actually converted after a long time of not believing. I think what you saw hurt you spiritually in that you gave up completely on your faith. It was a movie-someone’s opinion based on some facts that can be manipulated. All facts can be manipulated, by the way.

    Maybe you should find a denomination that you feel comfortable with-you never know–you might feel better about being spiritual. The thing is–spirit–we can’t quantify that–

    Have a nice day:)

  14. 16 trenchy September 30, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    Funny you should mention Josh McDowell. I was steeped in Josh McDowell and others -and the unsatisfactoriness of the pseudo reasoning only made me question more! An even ‘better’ book -Christianity for the Tough Minded – only made matters worse. But, fact was, that I NEEDED to believe because of the fear-sickness with which I was raised -and through the process of ‘identity forclosure’ I wasted the best years of my life -and of my kids’ lives -trying to remain one of the ‘faithful’!
    The worse thing about religion is that it discourages critical thinking, intellectual integrity, and rationality…and RELIES on fear and blind acceptance (or magical’apologetics’ and pseudo-science)- in ways that deeply affect the way people recieve and act on other critical information. Hence the “F” word among survivors of priest sexual abuse is is ‘forgiveness’ -because the sometimes appropriate practice of forgiveness is so often manipulated to minimize the violations and criminality in the church. Anything that displaces commonsense and grates against common decency (Abraham putting his poor child on an alter to kill him…People being instructed to stone their rebellious children to death) is a very very dangerous entity. Yep -I hate to hate -but I truly do hate religion.

  15. 17 linzeebinzee September 30, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    Wrong, what I saw didn’t hurt me at all. Rather it empowered me to start critically examining my beliefs and look for actual answers rather than a set of fairy tales that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. I felt no pain abandoning my beliefs because they were just holding me back from seeing the universe for what it is: mind-bogglingly incredible.

    I’ll say it again: Religulous wasn’t enough to make me shed my beliefs. It simply put me on the path towards finding out for myself whether my beliefs fit in with reality.

    By the way, what does that word “spiritual” even mean? Can you define it? Why would having spirituality in my life improve it?

  16. 18 linzeebinzee September 30, 2009 at 2:38 pm

    The fear thing is probably the worst part of religion. It really puts a strangle-hold on you and stops you from thinking for yourself.

    It’s interesting what you say about forgiveness. As a Christian I always saw forgiveness as one of the nicest things about my faith. No matter what you do, god will forgive you. But that really just lumps the worst kind of offenses like rape or murder in with the little things like working on a Sunday. People should have to work hard to earn forgiveness, and not just ask a sky fairy to magic their guilt away.

  17. 19 Carolina Maine September 30, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    I think you think that I am unschooled in the sciences. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I’ve always been very good at science and have kept up with such topics as theortetical physics and the like.

    Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive–both evolve.

    By the way-my religion doesn’t tell me to stone my children or anything like that–even Abraham was instructed to sacrifice his son–G-d didn’t say kill his son–Abraham could have said a prayer and offered him to G-d as a spiritual blessing–and that is what Abraham learned–

    We can offer ourselves to G-d in the same spirit.

    Having a spirit is what sets us apart from animals- having a conscience–having a belief system–

    We all have free will and you are exercising yours to reducing peoples’ faith in realizing we cannot know every little thing about life and creation to fairy tales.

    That is your choice.

    It is okay to realize you were taking a path in life that was wrong for you-but to insult others-there is no excuse for that-other than willful ignorance.

  18. 20 linzeebinzee September 30, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    “I think you think that I am unschooled in the sciences. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I’ve always been very good at science and have kept up with such topics as theortetical physics and the like.”

    I’m not sure where in my comment you got this from, but I wasn’t trying to make any implications about your knowledge. If you’re very good at science then you’re probably better at it than I am. I’ve always been more of a humanities person, it’s only recently that I’ve taken an interest in science.

    “Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive–both evolve.”

    By this do you mean that religion can be tested by science? I think that individual claims of religion should be tested by science. If evidence were found in favour of the existence of a god or that showed that prayer worked, then I would believe.

    “By the way-my religion doesn’t tell me to stone my children or anything like that–even Abraham was instructed to sacrifice his son–G-d didn’t say kill his son–Abraham could have said a prayer and offered him to G-d as a spiritual blessing–and that is what Abraham learned–

    We can offer ourselves to G-d in the same spirit.”

    I would have to be convinced that a) there is a god, and b) he is worthy of my worship before I would offer myself to him.

    How come you write “G-d”?

    “Having a spirit is what sets us apart from animals- having a conscience–having a belief system–”

    Can you define spirit? What evidence is there that we have a spirit?

    “We all have free will and you are exercising yours to reducing peoples’ faith in realizing we cannot know every little thing about life and creation to fairy tales.

    That is your choice.

    It is okay to realize you were taking a path in life that was wrong for you-but to insult others-there is no excuse for that-other than willful ignorance.”

    I don’t believe in free will, but I do believe in freedom of speech and I think it’s important to criticize all beliefs. I call religious beliefs fairy tales because they aren’t based on evidence, so the only difference between religion and fairy tales is that people believe that religions are true. I agree that we can’t know everything, but through science we can find out more and more about life, the universe, and everything every day. The gaps in our knowledge are the interesting puzzles that we’re trying to solve with science. Religion, in my opinion, takes the fun out of that by filling those gaps with god.

    Can you point out to me where I was insulting somebody? I try to only criticize beliefs and not the believers, so if I was insulting someone I would be grateful for you to point that out so I could apologize.

  19. 21 trenchy September 30, 2009 at 5:31 pm

    This just wreaks of condescension to me. So YOU think that because Lindzee doesn’t believe in God, she saw something that “HURT” her? HUH? She doesn’t sound the least bit hurt to me. ‘Maybe she SHOULD find a different denomination so she can FEEL BETTER’ about being spiritual? If Christianity (or whatever religion it is??? that you converted to) is true and has value, why ‘should’ someone have to hunt for a denomination to FEEL BETTER about ‘being spiritual’? If ‘being spiritual’ isn’t something someone feels good about, why would they keep trying to make it work? For the same reason why Christians need to keep finding more palateable ‘spin’ to put on things like God (through an angel) telling Abraham to sacrifice (on an alter with a knife -where animals were typically KILLED) his son I guess.

  20. 22 Carolina Maine September 30, 2009 at 7:42 pm

    Hi, Lindsay,

    I am curious as to why you don’t believe in free will but believe in free speech. Free will means that you are given a mind and can choose what to do with it and how you interact in the world.

    I’m sorry, but I don’t have to prove that we have a spirit.

    Science requires that humans DISPROVE a phenomenon. It is a step in the scientific method.

    So-I would rather you disprove that we have a spirit…as that would be more scientific.

    I am not trying to be mean or condescending at all. I hope this message doesn’t carry that tone.

  21. 23 Carolina Maine September 30, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    I read this last year and this conversation spurred me to find it again:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml

  22. 24 Carolina Maine September 30, 2009 at 8:51 pm

    You might like this–you don’t have to religious to be spiritual…there are plenty of religious non-spiritual people out there.

    I hope you do keep learning about the universe-my favorite subject of study.

    This is a wiki–but it is good enough:

    The meaning of spiritual:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality

    You can prove certain things to be true-but those are usually things that are not accepted. It is accepted that humans have a higher conscious power that we term spirit. Just as if you were to say there is no sun warming our Earth-you would have to state why and find evidence that supports you assertion that the sun is not warming our Earth–universally accepted based on what we humans can sense and see.

  23. 25 linzeebinzee September 30, 2009 at 10:31 pm

    I don’t believe in free will because I believe that our decisions and actions are based on a combination of our experience and our genetics. I believe in free speech because I think everyone should be free to say what they believe. That’s how ideas are opened up to discussion and criticism.

    Science is not about disproving. You can’t disprove anything. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You claim that we have a spirit so you must provide evidence for that. Have you heard of Russell’s Teapot? It illustrates this idea of the burden of proof. I say that there’s a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars, and it’s too small to be seen by our most powerful telescopes. Now prove that there’s no teapot there. You can’t, and it would be ridiculous for me to ask you to do that. I’m the one making the claim, so I would have to give you evidence that the teapot exists to convince you. See what I’m saying? You might want to google Russell’s Teapot for a better explanation because I’m just saying it from memory here.

    Don’t worry about coming across as condescending or mean…it takes a whole lot to offend me!

  24. 26 linzeebinzee September 30, 2009 at 10:59 pm

    I would like to know the context in which he said this quote: “A serious case could be made for a deistic God.” I did some googling and found his response to this claim that he’s coming around to deism:

    The article was published October, 2008

    On April 30, 2009 Dawkins wrote:

    “Melanie Phillips is, and was, utterly wrong to say that my Eddington Concession means that I am soft on deism. John Lennox was utterly wrong to say the same thing. Both Melanie Phillips and John Lennox are, either deliberately or inadvertently, telling falsehoods about that. I am not soft on deism. Anybody with half a brain who listens to my lecture, even without my laborious explanation of the Eddington concession, should be able to see that.”
    http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=80390&start=50 (I’m not sure if this quote is in reference to the debate that Melanie Phillips was talking about, but it’s still a comment on his position on deism which leads me to believe that Phillips was misrepresenting the position that Dawkins presented in the debate.)

    In that article Phillips’s criticism of Dawkins seems to be that he’s changing his position. Even though it wasn’t true that he was cozying up to deism, why would it be a bad thing to change his position? If new evidence were to arise that showed that he were wrong in some respect then of course he would change his position. That’s science. He confirms this here:

    “If there really is a creative intelligence at the root of the universe, even if only a deist god who no longer does anything, it would be a MASSIVELY significant fact about the universe: a scientific fact. It would constitute a totally different world view to the atheist world view. It is not that I am emotionally hostile to the idea of a deistic god. If any evidence for a deistic god existed, I would be fascinated and intrigued. But I think the idea is false, for good reasons, and since I am a scientist I care about that, even if a deistic god would have no implications for, say, morality.” (my bold)
    From here: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=80390&start=75

  25. 27 linzeebinzee September 30, 2009 at 11:13 pm

    I know you don’t have to be religious to be spiritual…but still, why would I want to be spiritual? And how could I be spiritual if I don’t even believe in spirits or the soul?

    You said: “It is accepted that humans have a higher conscious power that we term spirit.”
    It is not accepted by me. There’s no evidence of this higher conscious power that I’ve seen.

    I might be wrong about this, but I think that scientifically, if I were to claim that the sun was not warming the Earth, the way that I would convince people that this claim is true would be to provide evidence that there is something else warming the Earth. To try to explain this better: lets say we know nothing about our solar system. What would be the best way to prove to you that the Moon is not warming the Earth? It would be to demonstrate that the Sun is warming the earth.

  26. 28 Carolina Maine September 30, 2009 at 11:16 pm

    You know nothing about science if you make such a ridiculous statement about disproving phenomenon. The reason why you seek to disprove is to reduce bias.

    By the way, do you not understand that free will depends on our life experiences and genetic makeup–OMG–what is wrong with you? Why don’t you understand we aren’t talking fatalism? I don’t think you know basic vocabulary–you know–the meaning of words.

    Dawkins aknowledged an existence of G-d and that is what I was pointing out. I am very well read on Dawkins since before my conversion days–and I know the fallout from this article.

    The truth is that you are hostile.

    Oh–and it’s because I used my free will to choose Catholicism.

    I could care less about your atheism–been there–done that:)

  27. 29 Carolina Maine September 30, 2009 at 11:20 pm

    Seriously? The moon is not a radiant entity. You can tell that by its formation-it structure–what it is–a rock, honey.
    I feel like I am slumming here…
    I gotta get a new place to chat.

    And yes, other radiant objects also warm the Earth.

    But unless you are a stupid person with one brain cell–you will feel the sun’s warmth on your skin when below it–and you might use some speck of intelligence to realize that it gets cooler at night and warms when the sun rises.

  28. 30 linzeebinzee September 30, 2009 at 11:56 pm

    You know nothing about science if you make such a ridiculous statement about disproving phenomenon.

    You mean my statement about Russell’s Teapot and burden of proof? In what way is it ridiculous?

    do you not understand that free will depends on our life experiences and genetic makeup

    I thought that this is the definition of determinism, not free will. If your definition of free will is that our decisions are determined by our experience and genetic makeup, then okay I believe in that version of free will. But I don’t know why you would call that free will.

    Dawkins aknowledged an existence of G-d and that is what I was pointing out. I am very well read on Dawkins since before my conversion days–and I know the fallout from this article.

    Um, no he didn’t acknowledge the existence of god.

    The truth is that you are hostile.

    I’m not trying to come off as hostile, and I don’t feel any animosity towards you. Saying that the “truth” is that I’m hostile is pure speculation, and it’s false.

    I don’t need you to care about my atheism. I’ve been enjoying this conversation, and I hope that you can stop making unfounded assertions about my feelings so that we can continue discussing the actual arguments.

  29. 31 Carolina Maine October 1, 2009 at 12:06 am

    I’m surprised that you don’t understand that determinism is an exercise of the will.

    You really want to base your opinions and learning on this guy?
    If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[2] Bertrand Russell

    Okay-a CHINA teapot cannot be between Earth and Mars and revolve around the sun because it would be crushed in space by various gravitational fields. If it did exist, it would be disintegrated by the sun..I could go on and on…you see–this is ABSURD….

    So fine–be absurd–

    Oh–and yeah–this is old news…so stop acting like you found a Teapot Eureka.

  30. 32 linzeebinzee October 1, 2009 at 12:06 am

    I know that heat doesn’t come from the moon. I’m not an idiot, I was making an analogy. Maybe it was a bad one because it’s so obvious that heat comes from the Sun, but I was trying to build off of what you were saying about the sun.

    Let me try this again…if I wanted to show scientifically that evolution were false, the best way to do it would be to provide an alternate theory for the diversity of life that was more strongly supported by evidence.

  31. 33 Carolina Maine October 1, 2009 at 12:08 am

    The stupid guy assumes that all we have is a telescope–hello–he left out the part about OBSERVATION–yes we have senses–but we also OBSERVE trends, likelihoods….and sure….scientists have been confused–but you overlook that many fine scientists also believe in G-d and are religious. I know a girl here on WP who is a scientist (physicist) and a Christian.

  32. 34 linzeebinzee October 1, 2009 at 12:29 am

    Are you being serious right now? Russell’s Teapot is an analogy designed to illustrate why the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You honestly think he was claiming that there’s a teapot in space? He wasn’t. What he was saying is that you can’t prove that there isn’t a teapot in space, but it’s not up to you to prove that. It’s up to the person making the extraordinary claim to provide the evidence, just like since you’re making the claim that there’s such thing as a spirit it’s your responsibility to provide evidence that there’s a spirit.

  33. 35 Carolina Maine October 1, 2009 at 12:39 am

    You know–you must have missed the ABSURD point of the conversation.

    Yeah-I know there is no teapot.

    Yes, I understand burden of proof–I’ve taken plenty of law classes….

    Why are you trying to measure something scientifically that is not scientific-like spirit?

    Why do you insist on trying to prove there is a G-d when you can’t disprove G-d?

    And why do you insist on being a scientific person only?

    Science is not the only way to approach the world…and it has the pesky human error problem.

    My point all along has been–you cannot make an absurd assertion and tell the other party that they have the burden of proof–that is idiocy.

    You aren’t a spiritual person so you don’t have use of all your brain’s faculties–what a shame.

  34. 36 TheBaron October 1, 2009 at 1:37 am

    “Why do you insist on trying to prove there is a G-d when you can’t disprove G-d?”

    So you’re telling me that there’s a Celestial Fairy up in the sky that grants wishes to people who badger it enough and he sent a holy Zombie-Carpenter to get nailed to two parallel two-by-fours to “redeem us of sin” even though this Fairy is supposed to be “all forgiving”. Tell me how that isn’t absolutely ridiculous.

    “And why do you insist on being a scientific person only?”

    I’d say out of the two of you she’s the only one here.

    “Science is not the only way to approach the world…and it has the pesky human error problem.”

    So you’re saying that human error doesn’t creep into religion? Priests are divinely sanctioned to rape innocent boys and girls then?

    Science in all its forms is the only way to approach the world and has been far more reliable than religion. I do believe when the church ruled the world it was the “Dark Ages” thank you very much.

    Also, seeing as how science is quantified reality, I’d say that it’s not wrong, despite people being able to be wrong. It makes a hell of a lot more sense too. Tell me how I’m supposed to believe that some dude with long flowing hair wearing a white robe who never showed any interest in women and had 12 guys he hung with day and night who he “loved” would be against gays (in fact, if anything, evidence points to something much different…)

    “My point all along has been–you cannot make an absurd assertion and tell the other party that they have the burden of proof–that is idiocy.”

    You have the burden of proof seeing as how there *IS NO PROOF* for the existence of any benign sock puppet running around up in the sky. There’s plenty of proof to be found in evolution.

    “You aren’t a spiritual person so you don’t have use of all your brain’s faculties–what a shame.”

    So she doesn’t use the part of her brain that blindly follows whatever a guy with a fancy collar tells her. I’d say that’s not a bad thing at all.

  35. 37 Pyrrho October 1, 2009 at 1:58 am

    Carolina, you’ve made nothing but puerile errors throughout this blog. Resorting to ad hominem, appeals from ignorance and other logical fallacies, misunderstanding an argument (or presenting a straw man which has been caught each and every time) and then claiming you knew all along what the argument pertained was precisely where absurdity started to enter the argument.
    Almost every single opinion you’ve brought forth has done nothing but embarrass yourself and then your attempts to redeem yourself via your repetitious claims of a vast repository of knowledge which are in complete contradiction to that which you’ve shown here have been mind boggling.
    I’d type more but I don’t feel like ruining the surprise.

  36. 38 Pyrrho October 1, 2009 at 1:59 am

    Why did i pop up way up there in the middle of a convo? :(

  37. 39 James October 1, 2009 at 2:06 am

    @Carolina Maine…

    I hope you didn’t actually graduate as a lawyer, because your clients would be in trouble with logic like yours!

    You wrote “My point all along has been–you cannot make an absurd assertion and tell the other party that they have the burden of proof–that is idiocy.”

    Let’s look at the facts…

    1. YOU made an absurd assertion (ie. Son of a virgin and a deity who could perform magic, died & resurrected and beamed up to heaven. Pretty absurd if you ask me! Even more absurd, you also believe as indisputable fact, that out of the millions of “gods” that we humans have had, the god of Catholics’ happens to be the only one that’s correct)

    2. You AGREE (above) that it is “idiocy” to “tell the other party they have the burden of proof”. The other party in this case, is the atheist, so you’re saying it is NOT the atheist who has burden of proof, which is correct.

    3. Therefore, YOU have the burden of proof, my dear, to demonstrate why Catholicism is correct and every other religion apart from atheism is incorrect.

    If you fail to grasp this, then you’re beyond reasoning with.

  38. 40 Pyrrho October 1, 2009 at 2:07 am

    “a theory will never become a fact due to the nature of science”
    However, a fact can be explained by science far better than any religious scriptures or personal revelation from God. Unlike LSD which does really well for personal revelation. Ask Francis Crick.

    I need to learn how to quote.

  39. 41 James October 1, 2009 at 2:09 am

    ATTN. MODERATOR!! I made an error in my last post, here is the corrected text…. Thankyou!!

    ————————————————–

    @Carolina Maine…

    I hope you didn’t actually graduate as a lawyer, because your clients would be in trouble with logic like yours!

    You wrote “My point all along has been–you cannot make an absurd assertion and tell the other party that they have the burden of proof–that is idiocy.”

    Let’s look at the facts…

    1. YOU made an absurd assertion (ie. Son of a virgin and a deity who could perform magic, died & resurrected and beamed up to heaven. Pretty absurd if you ask me! Even more absurd, you also believe as indisputable fact, that out of the millions of “gods” that we humans have had, the god of Catholics’ happens to be the only one that’s correct)

    2. You AGREE (above) that it is “idiocy” to “tell the other party they have the burden of proof”. The other party in this case, is the atheist, so you’re saying it is NOT the atheist who has burden of proof, which is correct.

    3. Therefore, YOU have the burden of proof, my dear, to demonstrate why Catholicism is correct and every other religion and atheism are incorrect.

    If you fail to grasp this, then you’re beyond reasoning with.

  40. 42 Scott October 1, 2009 at 4:42 am

    The absurd assertions are that a person has an none material spirit, or that there is a supernatural god responsible for creating the universe etc. etc.

    The default state isn’t that god and a human spirit exist, and that anyone claiming otherwise is the person making an assertion that needs to be verified.

    The assertion is that god and a human spirit exist.

    The scientific method is fully aware of Human fallibility, which is why it has checks and controls to eliminate it, with blind tests for example.

    “Why are you trying to measure something scientifically [that is not scientific]-like spirit?”

    This again is an assertion. A convenient, dodging, appologetic assertion.

  41. 43 Scott October 1, 2009 at 4:47 am

    “You aren’t a spiritual person so you don’t have use of all your brain’s faculties–what a shame.”

    How condescending. I guess Einstein used less of his brain than you do then…

    Your brain also has faculties for killing people, doesn’t mean you have to, or should use them.

    Utter mentally vapid tosh.

    You should try engaging the parts of your brain responsible for logical coherence.

  42. 44 linzeebinzee October 1, 2009 at 7:31 am

    Pyrrho: “Why did I pop up way up there in the middle of a convo?”

    Sorry, I had nested comments turned on…I turned that off now so we’ll try that out and see how it goes. I’m off to work now but I’ll try to pop in from time to time & respond to some of the comments. Later!

  43. 45 Carolina Maine October 1, 2009 at 12:35 pm

    Hi, all,

    I let my Brahmin Hindu husband (surprise–a liberal in your midst) read these comments.

    He said, “If you touch shit, you get shit on you.”

    Hahaa! So true.

    By the way, Pyrrho–I deleted your comment. I don’t allow rudeness on my blog.

    You people can do what you like.

  44. 46 linzeebinzee October 1, 2009 at 12:49 pm

    Wow, early on you accused me of insulting you (I didn’t), and now you’ve gone from making offhand rude remarks to outright calling my blog shit. What a good Christian you are.

    I was actually enjoying our conversation and I hope we can continue the dialogue in spite of your rude remarks. Funny that you don’t allow rudeness on your blog yet you see no hypocrisy in spewing rudeness on someone else’s.

    I had a look at your blog and got the impression from reading it and from your comments here that you think that someone who talks about their atheism is hateful and is writing hateful things. Is this accurate? And if so, why do yout think this?

  45. 47 TheBaron October 1, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    “I let my Brahmin Hindu husband (surprise–a liberal in your midst) read these comments.”

    What the hell does the political spectrum have anything to do with this? I have two testicles and a penis and I read these comments and I found you to have very little grasp on the issues.

    How also, is your husband an unbiased source? Also, are you really being a good catholic, marrying a Hindu? The pope would have a heart attack!

    “You people can do what you like.”

    Thank you for the invitation. I do believe I shall! :P

  46. 48 Fredrik October 1, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    Carolina is now actively censoring her comments, deleting anything that could be thought of as critical. The hypocrisy from this woman is astounding. She thinks it’s all well and good when she comes on other people’s blogs and taint them with her brand of stupidity, but when people call her on it on her own blog, she throws a hissy-fit and start censoring and threatening with legal action (yes, indeed).

    All I can say now is that Carolina has effectively shot down her credibility. She’s a hypocrite, and not even a good Christian. I hope she learns something from this incident, but I very much doubt she’s capable of that.

  47. 49 Fredrik October 1, 2009 at 7:22 pm

    Oh, forgot to mention: She is also a liar. She claims she is being harassed by members of RD.net because she’s a catholic. That’s an outright lie, and she knows it very well. A clear breach of one of her God’s commandments, further evidencing her being a poor Christian.

  48. 50 Tim October 1, 2009 at 8:09 pm

    I saw this posted on the WordPress forums. Here’s a heads-up if you didn’t already know, she’s trying to get your blog deleted for harassment. I’ve bookmarked your site, if this goes any farther, I’ll spread it on my blog/twitter/etc. and make sure it gets the attention it deserves.

    Ah, just another Creationist littering the internet.

  49. 52 TheBaron October 1, 2009 at 9:55 pm

    Wow… I can’t believe she’d actually bring a claim and that she actually believes that she has a harassment case going. I’d say that her claim of being involved with in law is false.

    Got to say, if she actually bothers with a harassment case, then Miss Lindsay can bring a harassment case against her. Of course, I have a feeling the judge’s response would be something along the lines of “Are you two serious?” before dismissing the whole thing as ludicrous.

    Hell, the very fact I told people “I am not at all saying you go to her blog…” pretty much says everything right there.

  50. 53 linzeebinzee October 1, 2009 at 10:07 pm

    I have no idea why the comment I posted on her blog warrants deletion…I have it saved to another computer so I’ll post it up tomorrow so you can judge.

    And now she wants me deleted from WordPress? She said: “they are actually putting it out there that I don’t moderate so I’m an easy target.” I did not say that! I didn’t even know she was unmoderated!

  51. 54 Global Villager October 1, 2009 at 11:03 pm

    “He who strikes the first blow admits he’s lost the argument”. This famous Chinese Proverb came into my head while reading this entertaining debate. It seems Carolina Maine (the latter name being an isolated and sparsely populated State – a delicious metaphor for her intellect) has resorted to name calling and is taking her ball and going home.

    You do not need her to admit she’s been defeated and does not know what the hell she is talking about – it’s pretty clear by her own behaviour!

  52. 55 Pyrrho October 2, 2009 at 4:36 am

    “He said, “If you touch shit, you get shit on you.”

    Hahaa! So true.

    By the way, Pyrrho–I deleted your comment. I don’t allow rudeness on my blog.”

    And yet you taint others’ blogs by not only being a vacuous twat but abusing the blog owner and other posters on the blog by calling them “shit”… admittedly only after you’ve been proved wrong by almost everyone else that posted. Smacks of poor sportsmanship and just a wee bit of ye olde hypocrisy.

    So your hubby’s a brahmin? Seems he let a bunch of ego creep in there when making his comments. Shouldn’t he be concentrating on his atman being brahman and universal oneness? Or maybe he doesn’t even exist… like your God. How do you two reconcile this? The belief of Catholicism (allow me a plenary indulgence–I have the money to sin!) and, well, I’m going to guess–Advaita vedanta–aren’t harmonious. Advaita, of course, accepts pretty much everything but Catholicism, well, hell, it’s the one true church, right? Your hubby’s an unsaved pagan who is bound for hell. How’s it feel knowing your hubby’s going to hell?
    Is there any weeping and gnashing of teeth in the happy homestead? Or do you prefer, as you’ve shown repeatedly in this blog, the fact that ignorance is bliss? I’m going for the latter if you don’t mind.

    As for any reporting, lol, how LAME is this broad?

    Attempting to censor people because YOU’RE asshurt is the ultimate bait for those crazy kids over at Ebaums!

    Good luck with that. KA-WINK!

    (I still need to learn how to quote).

  53. 56 Scott October 2, 2009 at 5:01 am

    What a supremely childish and ignorant person Carolina is.

    It’s like arguing with an infant used to getting their own way.

  54. 57 porno4pyrrho October 2, 2009 at 5:42 am

    Her tears make me excited in the pants though.

  55. 58 linzeebinzee October 2, 2009 at 12:13 pm

    Ok people it’s getting a little mean here…I’d prefer it if you would stick to picking on her words & actions rather than insulting her. We can get the point across without resorting to her rude behaviour!

    I said yesterday that I’d post this, so here it is…the comment I posted on her blog that she felt warranted deletion:

    This is clearly in response to the discussion we were having on my blog as you posted the same thing in the comments over there, so hopefully you’re ok with me responding here.

    You’re complaining that there are hateful blogs out there that say things that you find hurtful, and then you call my blog shit. Is that not hurtful or mean-spirited?

    I’m an atheist and I discuss my lack of beliefs on my blog, and I don’t understand how that can be seen as hateful. If I did say something that was hateful or that insulted you personally then I would appreciate if you could point that out so that I can apologize. I always try my best to criticize only the arguments, and not the person making them, so I’m sorry if I said something to insult you directly.

    I said it over there and I’ll say it again here, I thought we were having a good back-and-forth, and I would very much like to continue it.

    Thanks for letting me comment, hopefully we can continue our discussion either here or back on my blog.

    I didn’t know that she wasn’t moderating her comments (as she claimed) otherwise I wouldn’t have said “hopefully you’re ok with me responding here” and “Thanks for letting me comment”…not that it mattered though because the comment was taken down regardless.

  56. 59 porno4pyrrho October 2, 2009 at 11:40 pm

    Except for the last comment I thought I *was* commenting only on her words and actions as a representative of her Lord and Saviour, Mary… uh, Yahw…eh, brahman… oh, it just gets difficult with her irrationality.

    I’ll leave it alone, I guess.

  57. 60 linzeebinzee October 2, 2009 at 11:47 pm

    Maybe I was being a bit to sensitive, I just didn’t want people to start bashing her personally especially now that she’s not posting here anymore. I’m just a bit paranoid that she’ll keep pestering WordPress to delete me. Not so worried anymore though, as thankfully she seems to have moved on :)

  58. 61 porno4pyrrho October 3, 2009 at 12:03 am

    I think she just causes a ruckus at a blog so that people will click her name–the link to *her* blog–and get more views.

  59. 62 Tim October 5, 2009 at 2:50 pm

    If it’s any consolation, she’s allowing at least my comments.

  60. 63 Tim October 5, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    And they’re closed now. Thanks for the fun, guys.

  61. 64 tilt October 25, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    that is quite the reversal … my 2 cents … the reasoned based world view is also subject to manipulation …whoever controls the data sets will control the thinking because the “hidden” within the data are the conclusion to be drawn … taking climate change as a perfect example …
    Depending on the data you consider differences of opinion result … man made or not … the folks that say man made do not account for the impact of teh sun … you know the object that account for changes in seasons … a fairly big affect on the earth …the differences between winter and summer …
    limiting the changing sun from climate change data sets will affect conclusions drawn ….
    also … the old world .. indigenous peoples of the world ..who by no coincidence have been destroyed for attempting not assimilate into western culture … had as part of their understanding a connection to the earth ….
    a reason based world view is nice but not the best way of living one life in my humble opinion of course.
    be open.

  62. 65 EnlightningLinZ October 25, 2009 at 11:38 pm

    “a reason based world view is nice but not the best way of living one life in my humble opinion of course”

    You don’t think that using reason to make decisions and decide what is true and what is not true is the best way to live your life? What do you think is a better way to live?

  63. 66 mike November 7, 2009 at 11:11 am

    Science is better. In fact Christianity is an ill measure, it is the worse thing facing humanity to date. This is not an arbitrary truth. Global warming is caused by western society, mainly. All people who stand up and face this fact will suffer the wrath of fascism. We are screwing the planet. We are in an era of plunder and lottery. The U.S. pentagon received(stole) just under $2trillion w/in a 12month period. What would this be for? And we will never have truth health care by contrast. America is one of the windiest places on earth but yet we drill as evidence. A Christian can tell me all about God but of ‘habeas corpus’ and I get nothing. I ask that you take a look at something then speak w/ Christian about it and tell me what you get; http://www.voltairenet.org/article162630.html

  64. 67 Carolina Maine November 10, 2009 at 11:59 am

    Hi, Lindsay,

    I hope you are doing well. I’ve noticed traffic from this page and thought I would drop in to say, hello.

    I’m sorry that you thought my quote was about your blog; I don’t think your blog is shit. The quote meant-anger and negative emotions-things had gotten rude on here and I let if affect my sensibilities.

    I married my husband while we were both unbaptized-as I am actually a liberal thinker and value the viewpoints of others.

    I do hope we can mend this issue.

    Please take care-and happy searching.

  65. 68 Carolina Maine November 10, 2009 at 12:44 pm

    Hi, Lindsay,

    Thanks-no hard feelings.

    I think I just felt attacked–and I realized that maybe you did too. I didn’t realize you had a hard-core atheist blog at the time.

    Anyway, I am not going to be online very much over the next week as I am writing a book-it is about something that happened to me–and my conversion–but-I dont’ think you would find much value in it. I’m not being mean-I just don’t think it is your type of read.

    I am working on metaphysics right now-that just happens to be my favorite branch of philosophy.

    I’m rambling…perhaps we can pick up in a few weeks.

    Please take care.

  66. 69 EnlightningLinZ November 10, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    Hi Carolina,

    I’m glad to see you back here! Thanks for saying you don’t think my blog is shit, but if you did think it’s shit that’s fine by me too!

    I know what it’s like to let your emotions get the best of you, so I try my best (though I’m rarely successful) to keep my emotions out of discussions on hot topics like religion, especially my own religious past. Sometimes you just need step back and let yourself cool off, and then try to approach the topic again without those feelings. Maybe you want to pick up the discussion again where we left off? I’m up for it!

  67. 70 EnlightningLinZ November 10, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    mike- why do you think that Christianity is the worst thing facing humanity?

  68. 71 EnlightningLinZ November 11, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    Hi Again Carolina,

    That’s awesome that you’re writing a book, I wish I had that kind of discipline!

    What’s metaphysics? I’ve heard of it but don’t really know what it is.

    Good luck with your book, see you online when you have time again :)

  69. 72 Carolina Maine November 14, 2009 at 11:47 am

    Hi, Lindsay,

    Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of reality. The nature of reality is also present in the other branches of philosophy as well. Additionally, metaphysics can be applied in a theological sense as well. My favorite poets are metaphysical because they were highly symbolic and put the meanings of their poems into another reality-that which is not readily discernible.

    You might like it.

    I wish I were more disciplined, but sadly-that is not the case with me.

    I have a private blog that is a repository for metaphysical notes-right now-I am concentrating on metaphysical Hinduism and its poetry.

    My book is about me–and basically-a rather unfortunate illness.

    Take Care,

    CM

  70. 73 Kashif Shahzada December 17, 2009 at 9:54 pm

    I once blogged on a subject that might appear common to you. Please have a look, and comment. Thanks. Kashif

    The Dilemma of Faith

    http://kashifshahzada.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/the-dilemma-of-faith/

  71. 74 Gilbert Nirmal Bain January 30, 2010 at 12:33 am

    Hi Lindsay,

    Greetings to you from Bangladesh.
    My name is Gilbert Nirmal Bain. I am 56 years old and retired person. The name of my country is Bangladesh which have 90%Muslim, 9%Hindus and less than 04% is Christin. My gradfather was converted from Hinduism to Christianity.

    I really don’t know to handle computer in a modern way. May English is also not good engough for writting and reading as my country is less progressed. I also was not interested to write to anyone unknown. Actually it is my first writting to an unknown person in my lfe. I am not sure this will reach you, or you will read it and and answer me.

    Now, let me say on you. You did not completely leave Christianily. You sometimes pray to Him for His blessings when you face personal problems. I am sure that you will come back to Christian faith again some day. I have seen two persons like you.

    May God bless you a lot.

    In Christ love,
    Gilbert

  72. 75 Michael A. Vaughn January 31, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    My belief is that atheism is just as strong a religion as believing in a higher power. You choose to label yourself and ‘preach” atheistic views so therefore you put your “beliefs” at the forefront of your argument. How is this different from religion?

    Why can’t you just be a human who loves science rather than one who is bent on discrediting other belief systems?

    If you can’t do this, then atheism is a religion.

  73. 76 EnlightningLinZ January 31, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    Hi Gilbert, thanks for the comment, but you’re making assertions about me that aren’t true. I never pray, why would I when I don’t believe there’s anything to pray to? I don’t see myself returning to the Christian faith or any faith unless someone shows me evidence that Christianity is true.

  74. 77 EnlightningLinZ January 31, 2010 at 9:56 pm

    Michael – how is atheism a religion? It’s the absence of belief. There are no core beliefs of atheism. There’s a common saying – calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour, or calling atheism a religion is like calling ‘not stamp collecting’ a hobby. If I preach anything it’s the importance of using the principles of reason and science in determining your knowledge.

    Why is it a bad thing to respond to others’ beliefs? It’s not like I go around raining on peoples’ parades, I don’t make fun of my friends’ beliefs, but when I see something I disagree with why shouldn’t I post my opinion on it? Should all beliefs go uncriticized?

    I love science, and a large part of science is criticism – when someone writes a scientific paper, they have to try to be aware of all the criticisms that could be put against it. Their paper also has to go through rounds of peer review before it can be published in a journal. Criticism is an important part of how science determines what’s true, and I think criticism should be applied to all beliefs and ideas.

  75. 78 ellethorn May 4, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    Hi Lindsay,

    Greetings from Virginia Beach, VA. Being a Christian, I am sorry to hear you say you lost faith in Christianity. From reading your blog, I would ask you how you would rate the strength in your belief for God before becoming an atheist. It sounds to me that you never had a strong foundation from the beginning.

    Researching several science subjects has done nothing but strengthen my belief that there is an ultimate creator who is God. I didn’t grow up in a Christian family, I converted when I was in my 30’s. I would highly recommend that if you are still considering a science-based foundation for Christianity, that you read Lee Strobel’s “The Case for a Creator” and also go to http://www.answersingenesis.org

    I believe the ultimate deciding factor in one’s decision to believe in God or not isn’t the scientific evidence because both sides have the evidence but it’s how one wants to interpret that evidence.

  76. 79 EnlightningLinZ May 4, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    Hi ellethorn,

    Greetings to you too. No need for you to be sorry that I lost my faith in Christianity (and in every god and religion), I’m certainly not!

    I don’t know how the strength of my belief in God is at all relevent to my becoming an atheist. I linked to a few of my blog posts about my past with religion on this About page, so you can read those if you want to get an idea of what kind of Christian I was before I lost my faith, but it really doesn’t matter. Once I started questioning my religion and exploring the arguments for and against belief in God and learning about science and skepticism I realized I don’t believe in God because I see no evidence.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but you’re coming across as one of these people who would say that the only reason I’m an atheist now is that I wasn’t a true Christian to begin with. What this has to do with anything is beyond me, I’m an atheist now and what it would take to convince me that Christianity or any religion is true is evidence. I’m not going to snap out of atheism if I were to think back and go “oh wait, I guess I just wasn’t believing strong enough, this silly atheism was just a phase because of my lack of faith, sorry Jesus!”

    From what I’ve heard about Lee Strobel I’m not interested in reading his books, but maybe you could give me an example of some kind of evidence he would use to make his case for there being a creator and that could help me evaluate whether it would be useful to read his book? The description of it on Wikipedia says that it’s interviews with intelligent design advocates and Christian apologists on science…if he believes that science supports his Christianity, why wouldn’t he interview top scientists for his book, why feature only people who have a vested interest in advancing Christianity?

    And as for Answers in Genesis, that’s not science. These are the people who think that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, and that the global flood really happened! I think you ought to read some science books written by people who aren’t trying to mold reality to fit the biblical narrative. I have a reading list page on my blog, you could check there to see some examples of books that I’ve learned a lot from.

    I agree with you that the deciding factor on whether or not to believe in God should be based on the scientific evidence. That’s why I won’t believe in God until I see some scientific evidence to support that belief.

  77. 80 Wes Lindsey June 22, 2010 at 9:56 am

    Carolina – your whole point about “proving a soul exists” is complete nonsense.

    If scientists had to go around disproving every bit of nonsense folks like you uttered, they would never get any REAL science done.

    Science is about discovery and testing ideas (i.e., hypotheses).

    It works like this:

    Step one – Carolina’s hypothesis – soul’s/spirits (whatever woo she’s talking about) exist, and we each have one.

    Step two – construct and experiment, collect data and/or provide convincing empirical evidence to support your hypothesis.

    Step three – you fail

    Step four – null hypothesis (that there is, in fact, no such thing as a soul) is accepted. Caroline’s hypothesis is rejected.

    That’s science. You’re preaching woo (aka pseudoscience, wishful thinking, bullshit, etc).

  78. 81 Josh August 5, 2010 at 6:07 pm

    Hey,
    Just thought I’d share something. I am a christian and have recently been watching some clips of “Jesus Camp” “Religulous” and some of Dawkins videos (thats how I stumbled onto your site lol). I try to understand the Atheist point of view but can’t quite get my head around it. A lot of it is just totally bashing Christianity or any other organized religion, but mainly Christianity. I also watched a clip of Ben Steins video “Expelled” in which he interviews Dawkins and he comes up with a very complicated example of how live could have started. He believes that it is very much possible that a being of higher intelligence could have created life on earth. So essentially he is willing to believe in a higher intelligence, but it CANNOT be God.

    This is looking at a Scientific and logical perspective:

    The atheist generally claims that belief in a God without proof is essentially silliness. Additionally, an atheist generally accepts modern science and attempts to use it as means to prove or disprove the existence of God. But the problem comes in here for me: Science can only “prove” something if it is able to be tested. The possibility that God exists cannot be tested (because it is a spiritual existence not necessarily a physical one) and therefore cannot be proven to be non-existent. So if science cannot prove or disprove God (however, it can and does give evidence for both sides of the argument) then there is some “belief” involved in the unbelieving atheist. You see, the common atheist says God doesn’t exist because it can’t be proven, but therein lies the problem in their position: God cannot be disproven either. Therefore there is some type of belief/faith involved in being an atheist. They don’t have absolute proof they just think they do.

    Now I can tell you that God can be proven as real. If you have never experienced God, then you would never know how real He is. Atheists would logically explain that it is impossible to experience God because He isn’t real. How can you prove that? The truth of the matter is, you can’t if you don’t have a relationship with Him to really know Him. He isn’t like a boss that stays up in heaven and doesn’t like coming out of His office. He loves to be in fellowship with His children. Those who think of Him as that kind of God (the kind that just sits in heaven not showing Himself) will never be able to find out of God is real, its simply not possible.

    I am being very honest right now in saying that I know that I know that I know God is real, because of the relationship that I’v developed with Him. And people have no clue the power of prayer. Not prayer for selfish reasons or to fulfill our own goals, but the kind that believes in God’s power and is obedient, humble, and patient for God’s perfect timing.
    (Jeremiah 29:11-14)

    I mean I have seen God do amazing things in my life and in the people around me. I have seen 8 people healed of cancer in the same year, without Chemotherapy (mind you there is no cure for cancer). All these people believed in the power of God, and they waited patiently and humbly and were healed. I could share many more miracles (lost things coming back, running on an empty gas tank for 20 miles, many many more). It’s amazing how those who don’t have a relationship with God never experience such things. Many would argue why God would do that, but its not God at all. It was sin that destroyed man’s relationship with God. (Genesis 3:23-24) And when I say sin it sounds sooo cliche, but God created us in His image (Genesis 1:27) so that we could be in constant fellowship with Him. But if our spirit is not righteous and holy like He is, then we simply cannot fellowship with Him. Its like the polar sides of a magnet, they simply cannot attract its impossible.

    When it all comes to an end, every person on earth must die. We are NEVER guaranteed tomorrow. And when each person dies, at that moment, they will know the truth of this issue of if God is real or not. The scary part is if someone is unprepared when they finally face the truth. Because at that moment you cannot go back and try to relive your life correctly. Many say why live a Christian life because its so hard. Not really, not when you realize how much God loved us to sacrifice Himself to restore us to the place that he created us.

    I really don’t know why, but I felt like sharing this with you.

  79. 82 EnlightningLinZ August 23, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    Josh – I made an entire post out of my response to your comment. Here’s the link, hopefully you’ll give it a read!

    http://struckbyenlightning.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/response-to-a-christian-comment/

  80. 83 Gem Newman September 17, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    Hi, Lindsay.

    Have you considered attending any of the Winnipeg Skeptics events? If you’re at all interested, you can learn more at http://www.meetup.com/WinnipegSkeptics. We have Drinking Skeptically at the King’s Head the first Monday of each month, and we’re hosting a SkeptiCamp in October. (I believe that there’s also a visit to the Winnipeg Creation Museum in the works.) You seem like you’d fit right in, if you have the time/inclination. Keep up with the blog: it makes for great reading!

    All the best.
    Gem

  81. 84 Curious October 3, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    Curious indeed.
    Seems to me that what you gave up on was religion, and not the man Jesus.

    I too saw Jesus camp, and to me while there’s a lot of busyness, the real main character was the radio announcer, and he set the tone.
    All the other characters were bit players to his world view.

    Nonetheless, I too gave up on religion some 39-40 years ago, and 33 years ago I met Jesus. Wow… what a difference. No whackiness, no crazy, just a simple one to one relationship with someone who loves you no matter what. Some one who is there regardless, and is always ready to be the friend no one else is capable of being.

  82. 85 EnlightningLinZ October 6, 2010 at 1:49 am

    Gem – Thanks! I’ve been keeping an eye out for Winnipeg Skeptics events, but so far it hasn’t worked out :(

    Curious – oh no, I gave up on the man Jesus too, I have no need for any invisible friends in my life.

    I agree that the radio announcer was one of the great parts of Jesus camp. Loved him!

  83. 86 D October 25, 2010 at 10:26 am

    I’m really not trying to be a dick here, but I see a lot of binary thinking on your part as well as on many of the commenters here. I came to spiritual beliefs as an adult, having not been brought up with them other than a sense of doing good things for people, which is still at the core of it. I came to appreciate JC (who for me was a real person with political/revolutionary views, not some “invisible friend,” nor my “personal savior,” what have you) through reading Buddhist and other non-Christian writers who admired him. My sense of the religious would probably not be satisfying to either you or your old self.

    What I’m trying to say is that I find too many “new atheists” have a sort of Road-to-Damascus (Road to Dawkins?) attitude in which they have to throw out everything they knew or believed before.

    Reading your description of the Glee episode (I don’t watch it myself) it sounds like a stereotype of religious belief (again, not my experience. It could very well be that mid western Americans really believe that way). WOuldn’t at least one person say to Kurt that perhaps prayer is about comforting oneself rather than petitioning God? (And wouldn’t a fairly hip gay kid, even in the midwest, be familiar with the Metropolitan COmmunity Church?)

    And personally, I hated Religulous. It was simply Maher’s obnoxious caricature of what he thought religion was. Case in point: the RC priest who disagrees with a lot of what the Vatican says, which Maher portrays as being controversial. Priests disagree with the Pope all the time!

    Anyway, this is just a ramble, and I don’t know why I really wrote this. I just find that so many so-called “Internet Atheists” see things in black-and-white.

    BTW, I stumbled upon your blog because I was looking for Ponn Farr perfume.

  84. 87 D October 28, 2010 at 8:46 am

    WeS Lindsey – insulting people adds nothing to your argument.

    Oh, and LinZ – I basically agree with you on Jesus Camp, but you might be interested to know that I saw it at a church as part of a festival that also included Life Of Brian….

  85. 88 EnlightningLinZ October 31, 2010 at 10:12 pm

    D –

    I definitely saw things as binary when I was a Christian, but now I think I have much more nuanced views on things. I didn’t throw out everything I believed before, I threw out the things that didn’t make sense and didn’t hold up to scrutiny, and developed an appreciation for skepticism and critical thinking. Just because I don’t have some kind of fuzzy spirituality or some respect towards religious traditions doesn’t mean I think in black and white, I just have no need for any of it. If you’re interested in that stuff that’s your perogative.

    Also, I don’t see where Wes was insulting anyone – he was insulting ideas, that’s fair game.

  86. 89 Peter November 1, 2010 at 6:17 am

    Hi Lindsey

    I came across your site by accident when researching Donald Crowhurst (your #88 of famous hoaxes). I was born into a family of scientists and atheists and am one still. Its was a nice surprise to read your story about “enlightening”

    keep up the good thinking and questioning, its liberating

    Peter, Sydney Australia

  87. 90 D November 6, 2010 at 11:24 pm

    Maybe Wes is insulting “ideas, not people,” but language like “nonsense”, “bullshit” and “you fail” add little to his argument.

    And sorry, but if you can look at the whole of religion and claim to have “no respect,” yes, you are engaging in binary, black-and-white thinking. Like I said, your example of Glee, which sounds as if the writer bought into the binary of “either God is an invisible skyman who does magic or else God doesn’t exist.” That’s the same binary Maher tries to sell in Religulous, even when it contradicts the facts.

    Look, believe what you want. But don’t assume that every religious person believes that every nonbeliever is going to Hell, or that the choice is between an anthropomorphic sky god and nothing. That’s not what I believe in, and my beliefs are not “fuzzy.” Where you see “fuzzy spirituality,” I see nuance.

  88. 91 Ken December 20, 2010 at 11:25 am

    I am also married to a wonderful spouse. And my wife has very strong Christian beliefs (her father was a professor of theology).

    I began as an atheist when I attended a boy’s Christian boarding school in North Bay, Ontario, Canada. The priests (with one exception) demonstrated very un-Christian-like behaviour. I still dislike Catholic priests.

    But, aside from that, there is, for me, no sense in belief in a supernatural being. I have remained a confident athiest ever since.

    My father-in-law tells me that I would believe if only I would read the bible (I don’t). I suggest to him that he stop reading the bible (he won’t).

    It’s now been a few decades. If I had any advice for you, it is to be careful; believers seem to have a mission to convert non-believers and may keep pounding at you with arguments that might appear sound on the surface; or they may try to overwhelm you with their ‘love’ for you.

    You are correct in your beliefs although you may question them at times. There is no god.

    Ken

  89. 92 Alan January 28, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    Lindsey? did you go to college or high school? The reason I ask if ONE MOVIE can change a person from a believer to an atheist, you need to further your education honey. I will pray for you. Movies like that are promoted by evil. Im not shocked you were taken in. Thats why I asked about your education. Good Luck Lindsey. I will pray that you find Christ.

  90. 94 Ian Stuart Donaldson September 14, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    Your enthusiasm is welcome but tiresome. You are like a convert in a new religion who is jumping in with both feet to embrace as much as possible in the shortest amount of time (playing catch up?). There are hordes of us who have fought against your “prior” self all our lives. Now, all of a sudden, you see a movie and are enlightened? Have you yet seen “For the Bible Tells Me So” and are now jumping on the homosexual liberation bandwagon, as the disgusting parents in the movie do? Why not smoke a little pot and loudly proclaim that it’s not so bad? Maybe ride a motorcycle for the first time and then get in an SUV driver’s face about their sheer ignorance the very next time you’re out?

    Welcome to the team, but have some humility.

  91. 95 Oo December 11, 2011 at 2:42 am

    She is a Skeptik “a la mode”

  92. 96 brendan butler May 14, 2012 at 11:26 am

    There’s absolutely no contradiction between good science and true faith, checkout the ewtn series on how the Catholic church built western civilization, on you tube. Also checkout William Lane Craig (on youtube) and how the best atheist minds in the world avoid his arguments for God’s existence because their reasoning is emotionalism not true reason. The truth is that atheism is irrational, it just doesn’t fit with the facts of life.

  93. 97 brendan butler May 14, 2012 at 11:59 am

    Oh yeh almost forgot, God Bless you !

  94. 98 brendan butler May 15, 2012 at 11:45 am

    Just watched religulous, Maher’s a funny guy but he charicatures religion, uses extremist examples, puts words into their mouths, cuts away to ridicule the speaker, uses false “facts” to confuse, ie mis-represents ancient Myths to make them sound like christianity, etc etc etc. This is entertainment not something to base your life on, your marriage on, your children’s futures on. Your right not to just accept whatever someone in authority tells you, so why just accept what a comedian tells you? We doubt in order to find the real truth not as an end in itself.


  1. 1 Brilliant! « AnyEveryNot Trackback on October 1, 2009 at 8:31 pm
  2. 2 HATERS GONNA HATE « AnyEveryNot Trackback on October 4, 2009 at 7:56 pm
  3. 3 uberVU - social comments Trackback on December 21, 2009 at 7:48 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 51 other followers

AtheistBlogroll5
Free counters!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 51 other followers

%d bloggers like this: