Life after church & not believing in God

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't grow up in church. Go now and raising kids. Presbyterian. Got God and community. I get some folks had bad childhoods in imposing climates, but it's not everyone, by far. Find peace and love however you need.

What do you mean by “I get some folks has bad childhoods in imposing climates”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Why cant every reasonable person see this? I think secretly they do, but the religion gives them comfort (which is fine) and they belive becaue they want to believe.

For many, the data are the scriptures of whatever religion they follow. You may not think it’s enough, but billions of people find their scriptures, and the stories behind the scriptures, perfectly credible.

And billions don't and still believe in God or that there's "something" out there. They can feel it, but they can't prove it, but they don't care. The idea of a force watching over them and possibly offering them an eternal life after this one is very compelling, albeit unreasonable.

You’re double counting the same religious people to argue that scripture plays no role. With a sprinkling of how belief (aka “feelings” in your lexicon) is invalid because instead it’s merely about the comfort of an eternal life. Neither of your arguments is valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Why cant every reasonable person see this? I think secretly they do, but the religion gives them comfort (which is fine) and they belive becaue they want to believe.

For many, the data are the scriptures of whatever religion they follow. You may not think it’s enough, but billions of people find their scriptures, and the stories behind the scriptures, perfectly credible.

And billions don't and still believe in God or that there's "something" out there. They can feel it, but they can't prove it, but they don't care. The idea of a force watching over them and possibly offering them an eternal life after this one is very compelling, albeit unreasonable.

You’re double counting the same religious people to argue that scripture plays no role. With a sprinkling of how belief (aka “feelings” in your lexicon) is invalid because instead it’s merely about the comfort of an eternal life. Neither of your arguments is valid.

How so? I don't think anyone is saying scripture is "invalid," it's just not evidence. They are what they are. Written by humans who couldn't possibly have known the truth of much of what is stated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Why cant every reasonable person see this? I think secretly they do, but the religion gives them comfort (which is fine) and they belive becaue they want to believe.

Because people can choose to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Why cant every reasonable person see this? I think secretly they do, but the religion gives them comfort (which is fine) and they belive becaue they want to believe.

For many, the data are the scriptures of whatever religion they follow. You may not think it’s enough, but billions of people find their scriptures, and the stories behind the scriptures, perfectly credible.

And billions don't and still believe in God or that there's "something" out there. They can feel it, but they can't prove it, but they don't care. The idea of a force watching over them and possibly offering them an eternal life after this one is very compelling, albeit unreasonable.

You’re double counting the same religious people to argue that scripture plays no role. With a sprinkling of how belief (aka “feelings” in your lexicon) is invalid because instead it’s merely about the comfort of an eternal life. Neither of your arguments is valid.

It's also quite likely that pp actually meant what was said and not your interpretation. Immediate pp sounds like someone who believes that religious belief is only valid if it comes through a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. All other forms of religious belief - and certainly non-belief - are tainted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Why cant every reasonable person see this? I think secretly they do, but the religion gives them comfort (which is fine) and they belive becaue they want to believe.

Because people can choose to believe.

And choosing to believe in religion is a special kind of belief, in that it's much more socially acceptable than other things people can choose to believe that can't be seen or proven.

For instance, people who choose to believe in fairies or werewolves, would be considered to be a little wacky and would probably keep their beliefs to themselves, knowing that society finds these beliefs to be unacceptable among adults.

But people who believe in religion are likely to discuss it openly and even try to get others to share their beliefs, sometimes going so far as to warn people of eternal punishment for not sharing their religious beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Why cant every reasonable person see this? I think secretly they do, but the religion gives them comfort (which is fine) and they belive becaue they want to believe.

For many, the data are the scriptures of whatever religion they follow. You may not think it’s enough, but billions of people find their scriptures, and the stories behind the scriptures, perfectly credible.

And billions don't and still believe in God or that there's "something" out there. They can feel it, but they can't prove it, but they don't care. The idea of a force watching over them and possibly offering them an eternal life after this one is very compelling, albeit unreasonable.

You’re double counting the same religious people to argue that scripture plays no role. With a sprinkling of how belief (aka “feelings” in your lexicon) is invalid because instead it’s merely about the comfort of an eternal life. Neither of your arguments is valid.

It's also quite likely that pp actually meant what was said and not your interpretation. Immediate pp sounds like someone who believes that religious belief is only valid if it comes through a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. All other forms of religious belief - and certainly non-belief - are tainted.

No, I’m not a fundamentalist. And there was a recent thread on whether the proximity of Paul and the gospel writers to Jesus was “good enough” and most religious people rejected your demand for apostolic tweets and thought the scriptures were pretty good evidence for something 2000 years old. I don’t want to rehash that thread. Just to make the point that your demand for at-the-moment evidence isn’t shared by many believers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Why cant every reasonable person see this? I think secretly they do, but the religion gives them comfort (which is fine) and they belive becaue they want to believe.

Because people can choose to believe.

And choosing to believe in religion is a special kind of belief, in that it's much more socially acceptable than other things people can choose to believe that can't be seen or proven.

For instance, people who choose to believe in fairies or werewolves, would be considered to be a little wacky and would probably keep their beliefs to themselves, knowing that society finds these beliefs to be unacceptable among adults.

But people who believe in religion are likely to discuss it openly and even try to get others to share their beliefs, sometimes going so far as to warn people of eternal punishment for not sharing their religious beliefs.

Accurate. If I said I am a Christian people would understand. If I say I am a Werewolvian they would move away quickly and make sure to avoid further eye contact.

If I said hey! Salvation can be yours! Some people would be ok with it. Some annoyed. Some in between. If I said beware the full moon, take this silver bullet and don’t miss or you’ll be a werewolf too, most people would be rightly annoyed or scared by my behavior.

I take it you are pro-werewolf rights. Honestly that will never be successful if you watch American Werewolf in London, from which I assume Werewolvians derive their origin story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't grow up in church. Go now and raising kids. Presbyterian. Got God and community. I get some folks had bad childhoods in imposing climates, but it's not everyone, by far. Find peace and love however you need.

+1

Yes, agreed. There’s a few people who constantly try to argue with religious folks. Honestly it annoys you other people are happy with their spirituality?

Get a hobby. Hopefully a peaceful and loving one.

[Anonymous]

Congratulations, OP. Religion is the opium of the people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Why cant every reasonable person see this? I think secretly they do, but the religion gives them comfort (which is fine) and they belive becaue they want to believe.

Because people can choose to believe.

And choosing to believe in religion is a special kind of belief, in that it's much more socially acceptable than other things people can choose to believe that can't be seen or proven.

For instance, people who choose to believe in fairies or werewolves, would be considered to be a little wacky and would probably keep their beliefs to themselves, knowing that society finds these beliefs to be unacceptable among adults.

But people who believe in religion are likely to discuss it openly and even try to get others to share their beliefs, sometimes going so far as to warn people of eternal punishment for not sharing their religious beliefs.

Accurate. If I said I am a Christian people would understand. If I say I am a Werewolvian they would move away quickly and make sure to avoid further eye contact.

If I said hey! Salvation can be yours! Some people would be ok with it. Some annoyed. Some in between. If I said beware the full moon, take this silver bullet and don’t miss or you’ll be a werewolf too, most people would be rightly annoyed or scared by my behavior.

I take it you are pro-werewolf rights. Honestly that will never be successful if you watch American Werewolf in London, from which I assume Werewolvians derive their origin story.

Oops I meant The Synod of American Werewolves. I meant. Hopefully you can point me to literature chronicling the rich and vast history of Werewolves and their creed, their traditions, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Why cant every reasonable person see this? I think secretly they do, but the religion gives them comfort (which is fine) and they belive becaue they want to believe.

For many, the data are the scriptures of whatever religion they follow. You may not think it’s enough, but billions of people find their scriptures, and the stories behind the scriptures, perfectly credible.

And billions don't and still believe in God or that there's "something" out there. They can feel it, but they can't prove it, but they don't care. The idea of a force watching over them and possibly offering them an eternal life after this one is very compelling, albeit unreasonable.

You’re double counting the same religious people to argue that scripture plays no role. With a sprinkling of how belief (aka “feelings” in your lexicon) is invalid because instead it’s merely about the comfort of an eternal life. Neither of your arguments is valid.

It's also quite likely that pp actually meant what was said and not your interpretation. Immediate pp sounds like someone who believes that religious belief is only valid if it comes through a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. All other forms of religious belief - and certainly non-belief - are tainted.

No, I’m not a fundamentalist. And there was a recent thread on whether the proximity of Paul and the gospel writers to Jesus was “good enough” and most religious people rejected your demand for apostolic tweets and thought the scriptures were pretty good evidence for something 2000 years old. I don’t want to rehash that thread. Just to make the point that your demand for at-the-moment evidence isn’t shared by many believers.

"Good evidence" for what? Be specific and stop ducking the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't grow up in church. Go now and raising kids. Presbyterian. Got God and community. I get some folks had bad childhoods in imposing climates, but it's not everyone, by far. Find peace and love however you need.

+1

Yes, agreed. There’s a few people who constantly try to argue with religious folks. Honestly it annoys you other people are happy with their spirituality?

Get a hobby. Hopefully a peaceful and loving one.

One can be spiritual without being "religious." I think it's the latter word that people are arguing about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't grow up in church. Go now and raising kids. Presbyterian. Got God and community. I get some folks had bad childhoods in imposing climates, but it's not everyone, by far. Find peace and love however you need.

+1

Yes, agreed. There’s a few people who constantly try to argue with religious folks. Honestly it annoys you other people are happy with their spirituality?

Get a hobby. Hopefully a peaceful and loving one.

One can be spiritual without being "religious." I think it's the latter word that people are arguing about.

Just you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't grow up in church. Go now and raising kids. Presbyterian. Got God and community. I get some folks had bad childhoods in imposing climates, but it's not everyone, by far. Find peace and love however you need.

+1

Yes, agreed. There’s a few people who constantly try to argue with religious folks. Honestly it annoys you other people are happy with their spirituality?

Get a hobby. Hopefully a peaceful and loving one.

One can be spiritual without being "religious." I think it's the latter word that people are arguing about.

Just you.

It's a 19 page discussion, and I've posted maybe 5 times.