People who were once non-believers and now believe in God...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:N.T. Wright argues that the early Christian movement could *only* have emerged if Jesus actually rose from the dead. He claims that the sudden belief in a bodily resurrection, the transformation of the disciples, and the rapid spread of the faith can’t be explained any other way. This is the basis of the evidence presented by some of the faithful posters.

Let's do a thought exercise and compare with Jediism.

We know 100% it is based entirely on a fictional story, and yet it has inspired thousands of people around the world. There are Jedi temples, codes of ethics, spiritual practices, and people who identify as Jedi as their religion.

If Jediism can become a religious movement with followers and even rituals—all without anything “historical” behind it—then why couldn’t the same have happened in the first century? Or, any other century for any other religion?

Wright insists that people wouldn't invent a resurrection story and stake their lives on it. But people today are building real belief systems around a myth they *know* is fiction.

Across history, religions have taken root and spread through factors like charismatic storytelling, community-building, shared rituals, and cultural adaptability. The rise of Christianity does not require a literal resurrection—just a compelling story that people believe in and are willing to build a community around.

It's made up - just like Jediism.

Some people just want to believe. So they do. And some of them look for good reasons to believe. I think they'd be better off just believing, instead of trying to convince people how right they are.

This should also apply to the non-believers as well...they would be better off just "not believing", instead of trying to convince believers how wrong they are.

When believers leave non-believers alone and actually respect separation of church and state, then maybe. Until then, I will preach against the harms of the brainwashed masses.

Separation of church and state is your motivation for trying to convince believers that there is no God?

As PP wrote, "(w)hen believers leave non-believers alone"... I will list out for you all the ways that the faithful keep interfering = abortion and reproductive rights, same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, public education (evolution vs creationism, school prayer, religious displays, etc), healthcare policy including access to contraceptives and end-of-life decisions, Blue Laws, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:N.T. Wright argues that the early Christian movement could *only* have emerged if Jesus actually rose from the dead. He claims that the sudden belief in a bodily resurrection, the transformation of the disciples, and the rapid spread of the faith can’t be explained any other way. This is the basis of the evidence presented by some of the faithful posters.

Let's do a thought exercise and compare with Jediism.

We know 100% it is based entirely on a fictional story, and yet it has inspired thousands of people around the world. There are Jedi temples, codes of ethics, spiritual practices, and people who identify as Jedi as their religion.

If Jediism can become a religious movement with followers and even rituals—all without anything “historical” behind it—then why couldn’t the same have happened in the first century? Or, any other century for any other religion?

Wright insists that people wouldn't invent a resurrection story and stake their lives on it. But people today are building real belief systems around a myth they *know* is fiction.

Across history, religions have taken root and spread through factors like charismatic storytelling, community-building, shared rituals, and cultural adaptability. The rise of Christianity does not require a literal resurrection—just a compelling story that people believe in and are willing to build a community around.

It's made up - just like Jediism.

Some people just want to believe. So they do. And some of them look for good reasons to believe. I think they'd be better off just believing, instead of trying to convince people how right they are.

This should also apply to the non-believers as well...they would be better off just "not believing", instead of trying to convince believers how wrong they are.

When believers leave non-believers alone and actually respect separation of church and state, then maybe. Until then, I will preach against the harms of the brainwashed masses.

Separation of church and state is your motivation for trying to convince believers that there is no God?

As PP wrote, "(w)hen believers leave non-believers alone"... I will list out for you all the ways that the faithful keep interfering = abortion and reproductive rights, same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, public education (evolution vs creationism, school prayer, religious displays, etc), healthcare policy including access to contraceptives and end-of-life decisions, Blue Laws, etc.

Then argue those things. Debating the existence of a God with a believer is a separate issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:N.T. Wright argues that the early Christian movement could *only* have emerged if Jesus actually rose from the dead. He claims that the sudden belief in a bodily resurrection, the transformation of the disciples, and the rapid spread of the faith can’t be explained any other way. This is the basis of the evidence presented by some of the faithful posters.

Let's do a thought exercise and compare with Jediism.

We know 100% it is based entirely on a fictional story, and yet it has inspired thousands of people around the world. There are Jedi temples, codes of ethics, spiritual practices, and people who identify as Jedi as their religion.

If Jediism can become a religious movement with followers and even rituals—all without anything “historical” behind it—then why couldn’t the same have happened in the first century? Or, any other century for any other religion?

Wright insists that people wouldn't invent a resurrection story and stake their lives on it. But people today are building real belief systems around a myth they *know* is fiction.

Across history, religions have taken root and spread through factors like charismatic storytelling, community-building, shared rituals, and cultural adaptability. The rise of Christianity does not require a literal resurrection—just a compelling story that people believe in and are willing to build a community around.

It's made up - just like Jediism.

Some people just want to believe. So they do. And some of them look for good reasons to believe. I think they'd be better off just believing, instead of trying to convince people how right they are.

This should also apply to the non-believers as well...they would be better off just "not believing", instead of trying to convince believers how wrong they are.

When believers leave non-believers alone and actually respect separation of church and state, then maybe. Until then, I will preach against the harms of the brainwashed masses.

Separation of church and state is your motivation for trying to convince believers that there is no God?

As PP wrote, "(w)hen believers leave non-believers alone"... I will list out for you all the ways that the faithful keep interfering = abortion and reproductive rights, same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, public education (evolution vs creationism, school prayer, religious displays, etc), healthcare policy including access to contraceptives and end-of-life decisions, Blue Laws, etc.

Then argue those things. Debating the existence of a God with a believer is a separate issue.

DP - argue the things you want to argue, and not the things you don’t. How convenient.

Also, they are the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:N.T. Wright argues that the early Christian movement could *only* have emerged if Jesus actually rose from the dead. He claims that the sudden belief in a bodily resurrection, the transformation of the disciples, and the rapid spread of the faith can’t be explained any other way. This is the basis of the evidence presented by some of the faithful posters.

Let's do a thought exercise and compare with Jediism.

We know 100% it is based entirely on a fictional story, and yet it has inspired thousands of people around the world. There are Jedi temples, codes of ethics, spiritual practices, and people who identify as Jedi as their religion.

If Jediism can become a religious movement with followers and even rituals—all without anything “historical” behind it—then why couldn’t the same have happened in the first century? Or, any other century for any other religion?

Wright insists that people wouldn't invent a resurrection story and stake their lives on it. But people today are building real belief systems around a myth they *know* is fiction.

Across history, religions have taken root and spread through factors like charismatic storytelling, community-building, shared rituals, and cultural adaptability. The rise of Christianity does not require a literal resurrection—just a compelling story that people believe in and are willing to build a community around.

It's made up - just like Jediism.

Some people just want to believe. So they do. And some of them look for good reasons to believe. I think they'd be better off just believing, instead of trying to convince people how right they are.

This should also apply to the non-believers as well...they would be better off just "not believing", instead of trying to convince believers how wrong they are.

When believers leave non-believers alone and actually respect separation of church and state, then maybe. Until then, I will preach against the harms of the brainwashed masses.

Separation of church and state is your motivation for trying to convince believers that there is no God?

As PP wrote, "(w)hen believers leave non-believers alone"... I will list out for you all the ways that the faithful keep interfering = abortion and reproductive rights, same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, public education (evolution vs creationism, school prayer, religious displays, etc), healthcare policy including access to contraceptives and end-of-life decisions, Blue Laws, etc.

Then argue those things. Debating the existence of a God with a believer is a separate issue.

DP - argue the things you want to argue, and not the things you don’t. How convenient.

Also, they are the same thing.

Happy to argue both, but separately. They are not the same, and you know it. That would be like someone arguing for the existence of a God, and citing the free exercise clause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is why all these debates lead nowhere. Atheists never experienced faith, they don't know what they are talking about. They try to reason their way into convincing religious people that God doesn't exist. But faith is never logical or mathematical. It's like love. Do you have to reason you way into loving your kids? I hope not.
It is completely irrational and yet it is the most beautiful thing I have known. Once you truly experience it, you never want to go back, because life is so empty without God in it.

The above is your opinion. I experienced faith and now I'm an atheist. Many atheists are like me, in that they were once religious.

I'm very happy. I enjoyed life when I was a believer and I enjoy it a bit more now, knowing that it's the only life I will have.

Curious what made you stop believing.

Watching the most religious people in my life get the worst treatment and outcomes in every circumstance sealed it for me. I'm adjacent to a west african community-- they are devout, god-loving, church-going, tithing folks. They live their whole lives with their god constantly on their mind. And they are poor and marginalized and often persecuted, despite being the hardest-working people I've ever met. And then there's the anti-christ folks, who gleefully cause harm to everyone they encounter, and amass inconceivable wealth and influence, that they then use to ... cause more harm.

To say "oh everyone gets theirs in the afterlife" seems like a scam. A way to keep the poor from rising up. And that's exactly how religion has been used historically. Don't make trouble on earth, and you'll be rewarded in heaven. How convenient, I guess?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:N.T. Wright argues that the early Christian movement could *only* have emerged if Jesus actually rose from the dead. He claims that the sudden belief in a bodily resurrection, the transformation of the disciples, and the rapid spread of the faith can’t be explained any other way. This is the basis of the evidence presented by some of the faithful posters.

Let's do a thought exercise and compare with Jediism.

We know 100% it is based entirely on a fictional story, and yet it has inspired thousands of people around the world. There are Jedi temples, codes of ethics, spiritual practices, and people who identify as Jedi as their religion.

If Jediism can become a religious movement with followers and even rituals—all without anything “historical” behind it—then why couldn’t the same have happened in the first century? Or, any other century for any other religion?

Wright insists that people wouldn't invent a resurrection story and stake their lives on it. But people today are building real belief systems around a myth they *know* is fiction.

Across history, religions have taken root and spread through factors like charismatic storytelling, community-building, shared rituals, and cultural adaptability. The rise of Christianity does not require a literal resurrection—just a compelling story that people believe in and are willing to build a community around.

It's made up - just like Jediism.

Some people just want to believe. So they do. And some of them look for good reasons to believe. I think they'd be better off just believing, instead of trying to convince people how right they are.

This should also apply to the non-believers as well...they would be better off just "not believing", instead of trying to convince believers how wrong they are.

When believers leave non-believers alone and actually respect separation of church and state, then maybe. Until then, I will preach against the harms of the brainwashed masses.

Separation of church and state is your motivation for trying to convince believers that there is no God?

As PP wrote, "(w)hen believers leave non-believers alone"... I will list out for you all the ways that the faithful keep interfering = abortion and reproductive rights, same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, public education (evolution vs creationism, school prayer, religious displays, etc), healthcare policy including access to contraceptives and end-of-life decisions, Blue Laws, etc.

Then argue those things. Debating the existence of a God with a believer is a separate issue.

The underlying problem is that they believe in the first place. If you had people making public policy decisions that affect your life based on belief in Santa, the Force, or unicorns, how would you react?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:N.T. Wright argues that the early Christian movement could *only* have emerged if Jesus actually rose from the dead. He claims that the sudden belief in a bodily resurrection, the transformation of the disciples, and the rapid spread of the faith can’t be explained any other way. This is the basis of the evidence presented by some of the faithful posters.

Let's do a thought exercise and compare with Jediism.

We know 100% it is based entirely on a fictional story, and yet it has inspired thousands of people around the world. There are Jedi temples, codes of ethics, spiritual practices, and people who identify as Jedi as their religion.

If Jediism can become a religious movement with followers and even rituals—all without anything “historical” behind it—then why couldn’t the same have happened in the first century? Or, any other century for any other religion?

Wright insists that people wouldn't invent a resurrection story and stake their lives on it. But people today are building real belief systems around a myth they *know* is fiction.

Across history, religions have taken root and spread through factors like charismatic storytelling, community-building, shared rituals, and cultural adaptability. The rise of Christianity does not require a literal resurrection—just a compelling story that people believe in and are willing to build a community around.

It's made up - just like Jediism.

Some people just want to believe. So they do. And some of them look for good reasons to believe. I think they'd be better off just believing, instead of trying to convince people how right they are.

This should also apply to the non-believers as well...they would be better off just "not believing", instead of trying to convince believers how wrong they are.

When believers leave non-believers alone and actually respect separation of church and state, then maybe. Until then, I will preach against the harms of the brainwashed masses.

Separation of church and state is your motivation for trying to convince believers that there is no God?

As PP wrote, "(w)hen believers leave non-believers alone"... I will list out for you all the ways that the faithful keep interfering = abortion and reproductive rights, same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, public education (evolution vs creationism, school prayer, religious displays, etc), healthcare policy including access to contraceptives and end-of-life decisions, Blue Laws, etc.

Then argue those things. Debating the existence of a God with a believer is a separate issue.

The underlying problem is that they believe in the first place. If you had people making public policy decisions that affect your life based on belief in Santa, the Force, or unicorns, how would you react?

Convincing someone that there is no God does not guarantee that he/she will change his/her mind on a public policy issue. There are atheists who are pro life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:N.T. Wright argues that the early Christian movement could *only* have emerged if Jesus actually rose from the dead. He claims that the sudden belief in a bodily resurrection, the transformation of the disciples, and the rapid spread of the faith can’t be explained any other way. This is the basis of the evidence presented by some of the faithful posters.

Let's do a thought exercise and compare with Jediism.

We know 100% it is based entirely on a fictional story, and yet it has inspired thousands of people around the world. There are Jedi temples, codes of ethics, spiritual practices, and people who identify as Jedi as their religion.

If Jediism can become a religious movement with followers and even rituals—all without anything “historical” behind it—then why couldn’t the same have happened in the first century? Or, any other century for any other religion?

Wright insists that people wouldn't invent a resurrection story and stake their lives on it. But people today are building real belief systems around a myth they *know* is fiction.

Across history, religions have taken root and spread through factors like charismatic storytelling, community-building, shared rituals, and cultural adaptability. The rise of Christianity does not require a literal resurrection—just a compelling story that people believe in and are willing to build a community around.

It's made up - just like Jediism.

Some people just want to believe. So they do. And some of them look for good reasons to believe. I think they'd be better off just believing, instead of trying to convince people how right they are.

This should also apply to the non-believers as well...they would be better off just "not believing", instead of trying to convince believers how wrong they are.

When believers leave non-believers alone and actually respect separation of church and state, then maybe. Until then, I will preach against the harms of the brainwashed masses.

Separation of church and state is your motivation for trying to convince believers that there is no God?

As PP wrote, "(w)hen believers leave non-believers alone"... I will list out for you all the ways that the faithful keep interfering = abortion and reproductive rights, same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, public education (evolution vs creationism, school prayer, religious displays, etc), healthcare policy including access to contraceptives and end-of-life decisions, Blue Laws, etc.

Then argue those things. Debating the existence of a God with a believer is a separate issue.

DP - argue the things you want to argue, and not the things you don’t. How convenient.

Also, they are the same thing.

Happy to argue both, but separately. They are not the same, and you know it. That would be like someone arguing for the existence of a God, and citing the free exercise clause.

Uhh, that is almost exactly what is happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:N.T. Wright argues that the early Christian movement could *only* have emerged if Jesus actually rose from the dead. He claims that the sudden belief in a bodily resurrection, the transformation of the disciples, and the rapid spread of the faith can’t be explained any other way. This is the basis of the evidence presented by some of the faithful posters.

Let's do a thought exercise and compare with Jediism.

We know 100% it is based entirely on a fictional story, and yet it has inspired thousands of people around the world. There are Jedi temples, codes of ethics, spiritual practices, and people who identify as Jedi as their religion.

If Jediism can become a religious movement with followers and even rituals—all without anything “historical” behind it—then why couldn’t the same have happened in the first century? Or, any other century for any other religion?

Wright insists that people wouldn't invent a resurrection story and stake their lives on it. But people today are building real belief systems around a myth they *know* is fiction.

Across history, religions have taken root and spread through factors like charismatic storytelling, community-building, shared rituals, and cultural adaptability. The rise of Christianity does not require a literal resurrection—just a compelling story that people believe in and are willing to build a community around.

It's made up - just like Jediism.

Some people just want to believe. So they do. And some of them look for good reasons to believe. I think they'd be better off just believing, instead of trying to convince people how right they are.

This should also apply to the non-believers as well...they would be better off just "not believing", instead of trying to convince believers how wrong they are.

When believers leave non-believers alone and actually respect separation of church and state, then maybe. Until then, I will preach against the harms of the brainwashed masses.

Separation of church and state is your motivation for trying to convince believers that there is no God?

As PP wrote, "(w)hen believers leave non-believers alone"... I will list out for you all the ways that the faithful keep interfering = abortion and reproductive rights, same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, public education (evolution vs creationism, school prayer, religious displays, etc), healthcare policy including access to contraceptives and end-of-life decisions, Blue Laws, etc.

Then argue those things. Debating the existence of a God with a believer is a separate issue.

DP - argue the things you want to argue, and not the things you don’t. How convenient.

Also, they are the same thing.

Happy to argue both, but separately. They are not the same, and you know it. That would be like someone arguing for the existence of a God, and citing the free exercise clause.

Uhh, that is almost exactly what is happening.

Actually, no. The right to free exercise has nothing to do with whether there actually is a God, or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:N.T. Wright argues that the early Christian movement could *only* have emerged if Jesus actually rose from the dead. He claims that the sudden belief in a bodily resurrection, the transformation of the disciples, and the rapid spread of the faith can’t be explained any other way. This is the basis of the evidence presented by some of the faithful posters.

Let's do a thought exercise and compare with Jediism.

We know 100% it is based entirely on a fictional story, and yet it has inspired thousands of people around the world. There are Jedi temples, codes of ethics, spiritual practices, and people who identify as Jedi as their religion.

If Jediism can become a religious movement with followers and even rituals—all without anything “historical” behind it—then why couldn’t the same have happened in the first century? Or, any other century for any other religion?

Wright insists that people wouldn't invent a resurrection story and stake their lives on it. But people today are building real belief systems around a myth they *know* is fiction.

Across history, religions have taken root and spread through factors like charismatic storytelling, community-building, shared rituals, and cultural adaptability. The rise of Christianity does not require a literal resurrection—just a compelling story that people believe in and are willing to build a community around.

It's made up - just like Jediism.

Some people just want to believe. So they do. And some of them look for good reasons to believe. I think they'd be better off just believing, instead of trying to convince people how right they are.

This should also apply to the non-believers as well...they would be better off just "not believing", instead of trying to convince believers how wrong they are.

When believers leave non-believers alone and actually respect separation of church and state, then maybe. Until then, I will preach against the harms of the brainwashed masses.

Separation of church and state is your motivation for trying to convince believers that there is no God?

As PP wrote, "(w)hen believers leave non-believers alone"... I will list out for you all the ways that the faithful keep interfering = abortion and reproductive rights, same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, public education (evolution vs creationism, school prayer, religious displays, etc), healthcare policy including access to contraceptives and end-of-life decisions, Blue Laws, etc.

Then argue those things. Debating the existence of a God with a believer is a separate issue.

The underlying problem is that they believe in the first place. If you had people making public policy decisions that affect your life based on belief in Santa, the Force, or unicorns, how would you react?

Convincing someone that there is no God does not guarantee that he/she will change his/her mind on a public policy issue. There are atheists who are pro life.

Yes, that is true. There are no guarantees. However, it is a fundamentally different debate. Next time there is a bill in a statehouse or in Congress, watch the debate. 99% (my view, not hard data) of the time, its believers using their beliefs to justify their positions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:N.T. Wright argues that the early Christian movement could *only* have emerged if Jesus actually rose from the dead. He claims that the sudden belief in a bodily resurrection, the transformation of the disciples, and the rapid spread of the faith can’t be explained any other way. This is the basis of the evidence presented by some of the faithful posters.

Let's do a thought exercise and compare with Jediism.

We know 100% it is based entirely on a fictional story, and yet it has inspired thousands of people around the world. There are Jedi temples, codes of ethics, spiritual practices, and people who identify as Jedi as their religion.

If Jediism can become a religious movement with followers and even rituals—all without anything “historical” behind it—then why couldn’t the same have happened in the first century? Or, any other century for any other religion?

Wright insists that people wouldn't invent a resurrection story and stake their lives on it. But people today are building real belief systems around a myth they *know* is fiction.

Across history, religions have taken root and spread through factors like charismatic storytelling, community-building, shared rituals, and cultural adaptability. The rise of Christianity does not require a literal resurrection—just a compelling story that people believe in and are willing to build a community around.

It's made up - just like Jediism.

Some people just want to believe. So they do. And some of them look for good reasons to believe. I think they'd be better off just believing, instead of trying to convince people how right they are.

This should also apply to the non-believers as well...they would be better off just "not believing", instead of trying to convince believers how wrong they are.

When believers leave non-believers alone and actually respect separation of church and state, then maybe. Until then, I will preach against the harms of the brainwashed masses.

Separation of church and state is your motivation for trying to convince believers that there is no God?

As PP wrote, "(w)hen believers leave non-believers alone"... I will list out for you all the ways that the faithful keep interfering = abortion and reproductive rights, same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, public education (evolution vs creationism, school prayer, religious displays, etc), healthcare policy including access to contraceptives and end-of-life decisions, Blue Laws, etc.

Then argue those things. Debating the existence of a God with a believer is a separate issue.

The underlying problem is that they believe in the first place. If you had people making public policy decisions that affect your life based on belief in Santa, the Force, or unicorns, how would you react?

Convincing someone that there is no God does not guarantee that he/she will change his/her mind on a public policy issue. There are atheists who are pro life.

+1 I believe in God and am pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-secular public education, etc. Belief is not the underlying problem and treating it like it is will just ensure that those people do not feel welcomed in your policy discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:N.T. Wright argues that the early Christian movement could *only* have emerged if Jesus actually rose from the dead. He claims that the sudden belief in a bodily resurrection, the transformation of the disciples, and the rapid spread of the faith can’t be explained any other way. This is the basis of the evidence presented by some of the faithful posters.

Let's do a thought exercise and compare with Jediism.

We know 100% it is based entirely on a fictional story, and yet it has inspired thousands of people around the world. There are Jedi temples, codes of ethics, spiritual practices, and people who identify as Jedi as their religion.

If Jediism can become a religious movement with followers and even rituals—all without anything “historical” behind it—then why couldn’t the same have happened in the first century? Or, any other century for any other religion?

Wright insists that people wouldn't invent a resurrection story and stake their lives on it. But people today are building real belief systems around a myth they *know* is fiction.

Across history, religions have taken root and spread through factors like charismatic storytelling, community-building, shared rituals, and cultural adaptability. The rise of Christianity does not require a literal resurrection—just a compelling story that people believe in and are willing to build a community around.

It's made up - just like Jediism.

Some people just want to believe. So they do. And some of them look for good reasons to believe. I think they'd be better off just believing, instead of trying to convince people how right they are.

This should also apply to the non-believers as well...they would be better off just "not believing", instead of trying to convince believers how wrong they are.

When believers leave non-believers alone and actually respect separation of church and state, then maybe. Until then, I will preach against the harms of the brainwashed masses.

Separation of church and state is your motivation for trying to convince believers that there is no God?

As PP wrote, "(w)hen believers leave non-believers alone"... I will list out for you all the ways that the faithful keep interfering = abortion and reproductive rights, same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, public education (evolution vs creationism, school prayer, religious displays, etc), healthcare policy including access to contraceptives and end-of-life decisions, Blue Laws, etc.

Then argue those things. Debating the existence of a God with a believer is a separate issue.

The underlying problem is that they believe in the first place. If you had people making public policy decisions that affect your life based on belief in Santa, the Force, or unicorns, how would you react?

Convincing someone that there is no God does not guarantee that he/she will change his/her mind on a public policy issue. There are atheists who are pro life.

+1 I believe in God and am pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-secular public education, etc. Belief is not the underlying problem and treating it like it is will just ensure that those people do not feel welcomed in your policy discussion.

It's great that you are the exception. You are not the norm, especially for elected repsentatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:N.T. Wright argues that the early Christian movement could *only* have emerged if Jesus actually rose from the dead. He claims that the sudden belief in a bodily resurrection, the transformation of the disciples, and the rapid spread of the faith can’t be explained any other way. This is the basis of the evidence presented by some of the faithful posters.

Let's do a thought exercise and compare with Jediism.

We know 100% it is based entirely on a fictional story, and yet it has inspired thousands of people around the world. There are Jedi temples, codes of ethics, spiritual practices, and people who identify as Jedi as their religion.

If Jediism can become a religious movement with followers and even rituals—all without anything “historical” behind it—then why couldn’t the same have happened in the first century? Or, any other century for any other religion?

Wright insists that people wouldn't invent a resurrection story and stake their lives on it. But people today are building real belief systems around a myth they *know* is fiction.

Across history, religions have taken root and spread through factors like charismatic storytelling, community-building, shared rituals, and cultural adaptability. The rise of Christianity does not require a literal resurrection—just a compelling story that people believe in and are willing to build a community around.

It's made up - just like Jediism.

Some people just want to believe. So they do. And some of them look for good reasons to believe. I think they'd be better off just believing, instead of trying to convince people how right they are.

This should also apply to the non-believers as well...they would be better off just "not believing", instead of trying to convince believers how wrong they are.

When believers leave non-believers alone and actually respect separation of church and state, then maybe. Until then, I will preach against the harms of the brainwashed masses.

Separation of church and state is your motivation for trying to convince believers that there is no God?

As PP wrote, "(w)hen believers leave non-believers alone"... I will list out for you all the ways that the faithful keep interfering = abortion and reproductive rights, same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, public education (evolution vs creationism, school prayer, religious displays, etc), healthcare policy including access to contraceptives and end-of-life decisions, Blue Laws, etc.

Then argue those things. Debating the existence of a God with a believer is a separate issue.

DP - argue the things you want to argue, and not the things you don’t. How convenient.

Also, they are the same thing.

Happy to argue both, but separately. They are not the same, and you know it. That would be like someone arguing for the existence of a God, and citing the free exercise clause.

No, wrong.

If you didn't believe the bulls*t, the rest wouldn't be an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:N.T. Wright argues that the early Christian movement could *only* have emerged if Jesus actually rose from the dead. He claims that the sudden belief in a bodily resurrection, the transformation of the disciples, and the rapid spread of the faith can’t be explained any other way. This is the basis of the evidence presented by some of the faithful posters.

Let's do a thought exercise and compare with Jediism.

We know 100% it is based entirely on a fictional story, and yet it has inspired thousands of people around the world. There are Jedi temples, codes of ethics, spiritual practices, and people who identify as Jedi as their religion.

If Jediism can become a religious movement with followers and even rituals—all without anything “historical” behind it—then why couldn’t the same have happened in the first century? Or, any other century for any other religion?

Wright insists that people wouldn't invent a resurrection story and stake their lives on it. But people today are building real belief systems around a myth they *know* is fiction.

Across history, religions have taken root and spread through factors like charismatic storytelling, community-building, shared rituals, and cultural adaptability. The rise of Christianity does not require a literal resurrection—just a compelling story that people believe in and are willing to build a community around.

It's made up - just like Jediism.

Some people just want to believe. So they do. And some of them look for good reasons to believe. I think they'd be better off just believing, instead of trying to convince people how right they are.

This should also apply to the non-believers as well...they would be better off just "not believing", instead of trying to convince believers how wrong they are.

When believers leave non-believers alone and actually respect separation of church and state, then maybe. Until then, I will preach against the harms of the brainwashed masses.

Separation of church and state is your motivation for trying to convince believers that there is no God?

As PP wrote, "(w)hen believers leave non-believers alone"... I will list out for you all the ways that the faithful keep interfering = abortion and reproductive rights, same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, public education (evolution vs creationism, school prayer, religious displays, etc), healthcare policy including access to contraceptives and end-of-life decisions, Blue Laws, etc.

Then argue those things. Debating the existence of a God with a believer is a separate issue.

DP - argue the things you want to argue, and not the things you don’t. How convenient.

Also, they are the same thing.

Happy to argue both, but separately. They are not the same, and you know it. That would be like someone arguing for the existence of a God, and citing the free exercise clause.

No, wrong.

If you didn't believe the bulls*t, the rest wouldn't be an issue.

Wrong again. See post at 15:37.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:N.T. Wright argues that the early Christian movement could *only* have emerged if Jesus actually rose from the dead. He claims that the sudden belief in a bodily resurrection, the transformation of the disciples, and the rapid spread of the faith can’t be explained any other way. This is the basis of the evidence presented by some of the faithful posters.

Let's do a thought exercise and compare with Jediism.

We know 100% it is based entirely on a fictional story, and yet it has inspired thousands of people around the world. There are Jedi temples, codes of ethics, spiritual practices, and people who identify as Jedi as their religion.

If Jediism can become a religious movement with followers and even rituals—all without anything “historical” behind it—then why couldn’t the same have happened in the first century? Or, any other century for any other religion?

Wright insists that people wouldn't invent a resurrection story and stake their lives on it. But people today are building real belief systems around a myth they *know* is fiction.

Across history, religions have taken root and spread through factors like charismatic storytelling, community-building, shared rituals, and cultural adaptability. The rise of Christianity does not require a literal resurrection—just a compelling story that people believe in and are willing to build a community around.

It's made up - just like Jediism.

Some people just want to believe. So they do. And some of them look for good reasons to believe. I think they'd be better off just believing, instead of trying to convince people how right they are.

This should also apply to the non-believers as well...they would be better off just "not believing", instead of trying to convince believers how wrong they are.

When believers leave non-believers alone and actually respect separation of church and state, then maybe. Until then, I will preach against the harms of the brainwashed masses.

Separation of church and state is your motivation for trying to convince believers that there is no God?

As PP wrote, "(w)hen believers leave non-believers alone"... I will list out for you all the ways that the faithful keep interfering = abortion and reproductive rights, same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, public education (evolution vs creationism, school prayer, religious displays, etc), healthcare policy including access to contraceptives and end-of-life decisions, Blue Laws, etc.

Then argue those things. Debating the existence of a God with a believer is a separate issue.

DP - argue the things you want to argue, and not the things you don’t. How convenient.

Also, they are the same thing.

Happy to argue both, but separately. They are not the same, and you know it. That would be like someone arguing for the existence of a God, and citing the free exercise clause.

No, wrong.

If you didn't believe the bulls*t, the rest wouldn't be an issue.

Wrong again. See post at 15:37.

You must be a prophet to post that at 15:23.

And just like all prophecies….