I think I have. I have things on my mind as of late. Not really about like atheism, Christianity, religion, the many, many god concepts, science or anything like that. Just more subjective stuff for myself that I thought was once answered but I am not so sure about the answer, and I don't know why I am not sure, and I don't know why the answer to the question I ask myself as a constant "checks and balances" I just don't know if I am convinced of that answer. So that's something I am working out.

Besides that, I am at a content, peaceful place since deconverting. Its the right of free people to believe in things they can't prove, just as it my free-right to disbelieve and not be able to positively prove my disbelief. Life goes on regardless.

New Thoughts Going In My Head

For me its not a matter of one side being more sacred over another. The simple fact that the god concept cannot be proven or disprove, what is really the point to ridicule? I've been guilty of it many times myself but heck, when I was a believer I was guilty of making fun of atheists. So until one side can actually make a positive assertion that stands against all criticism, making fun of religion is exactly the same as making fun of disbelief. If one is making a claim that cannot be proven, it would go to think that both claims could maybe be irrational.

The Atheist wants to say a belief in god is irrational since it can't be proven but yet, many themselves admit that you cannot positively prove that god doesn't exist, so I would ask, if that is the case, how is that anymore rational than the religious person making their claims? Sure we don't go and make claims that defy the laws of the universe and that if it would be the case, it would have no other option but to be a "super"natural event, yet I don't know if one side is more rational than the other since either side cannot be proven either way.

So the ridiculing just seems pointless. I say live and let live.

Being an ex-Christian and towards the tail end I was a liberal Christian, here's my former perspective added with new things now that I think about the idea of "Liberal Christianity".

It is easy to trust your conception of what is known to be a 1st century Jew. You add in your social views that are not the same as the 1st century, things that you believe to be moral, immoral, the social norms of the society you live in etc., add in mythical beliefs towards that being be it orthodox, mainstream, or unorthodox and thus a per say "relationship" is built. It don't matter if one is a fundamentalist, moderate or liberal type of Christian. It is easy to do and thus it is easy to trust that perception simply because it makes sense to you as an individual.

One doesn't need biblical proof all the time. Am I expected to think that fundamentalist have it more right because they take a literal interpretation? How are even they 100 percent literal? Every believe applies moral relativistic views into their beliefs. Would Jesus stand for the fundamentalist agenda? I don't think so. Would Jesus stand for the liberal agenda? I don't think so. These are paradigms that, as far as I can see, were non-existant in the 1st century, and if they were in some "metaphorical" form, it would have to be a literal view of the Torah in relation to the fundamentalist, and no Christian fundamentalist takes the Torah "literal" as no liberal or moderate does.

Point being, yes, they can trust "Jesus" simply because the Jesus that modern day Christian of all systems of thought be it fundamentalist, moderate or liberal, do not and can not follow a 1st century Jew...they follow a Jesus that they created for themselves. I know this is probably tapping into the whole topic of, "Is Jesus myth?" type of stuff and its not my intention simply because I believe this is true for all types of religious figures regardless if they are a historical character or mythical character.

[Formerly You_Atheist_Arms...I got tired of that name]
I am a, live and let live type of person...as long as it is congruent to being a productive member of their society to the best of their ability. Facts are, religious people, in the majority even, live productive lives. What need is there then for me to impose my disbelief? Is it morally acceptable for one to take away one's hopes, ideas and beliefs simply because we believe they are wrong? Isn't it the right of a free person to believe in things I consider delusions if they see fit as long as they live a productively in the society they are in? Plus evangelizing disbelief, in my opinion is dangerous to the individual because if they choose to deconvert because I convinced them of my perception of reality (I am an atheist), that may be bad for their lives. If they choose to be atheistic, it can't be based on my reasonings...they have to come to it on their own.

Now I am all game for conversations that make people think about their beliefs and when they come to their OWN conclusion, maybe even changing, then I'm all game for that, and I hope the best with it. They made that choice, they came to their new beliefs in whatever manner they did...so be it but they did it on their own terms...not because I tried to change them.

The only thing that should be imposed is secularism in my opinion, and secularism does not equate atheism.