Life after church & not believing in God

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here and I have less than zero interest in rehashing that earlier thread with you, as I already mentioned. My only point is that there was plenty of disagreement with the historical standard you(?) tried to set. Go back and re-read that thread if it’s so important to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here and I have less than zero interest in rehashing that earlier thread with you, as I already mentioned. My only point is that there was plenty of disagreement with the historical standard you(?) tried to set. Go back and re-read that thread if it’s so important to you.

No, there was no substantive disagreement. Maybe someone (you?) raised some objections without merit, but basically you never answer the question. Not important to me; a waste of time in fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here and I have less than zero interest in rehashing that earlier thread with you, as I already mentioned. My only point is that there was plenty of disagreement with the historical standard you(?) tried to set. Go back and re-read that thread if it’s so important to you.

No, there was no substantive disagreement. Maybe someone (you?) raised some objections without merit, but basically you never answer the question. Not important to me; a waste of time in fact.

Trill fail. Nobody is going to get sucked in by your abusive demands to rehash a recent thread here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here and I have less than zero interest in rehashing that earlier thread with you, as I already mentioned. My only point is that there was plenty of disagreement with the historical standard you(?) tried to set. Go back and re-read that thread if it’s so important to you.

No, there was no substantive disagreement. Maybe someone (you?) raised some objections without merit, but basically you never answer the question. Not important to me; a waste of time in fact.

Trill fail. Nobody is going to get sucked in by your abusive demands to rehash a recent thread here.

[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.

"I" made no such demands and understand that many believers do not need at-the-moment evidence. They need no evidence at all. They have faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"I" made no such demands and understand that many believers do not need at-the-moment evidence. They need no evidence at all. They have faith.

You’re trying to gloss over the main point here, which is that for many believers, their scriptures (of whatever religion) are “proof” in addition to their faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"I" made no such demands and understand that many believers do not need at-the-moment evidence. They need no evidence at all. They have faith.

You’re trying to gloss over the main point here, which is that for many believers, their scriptures (of whatever religion) are “proof” in addition to their faith.

A thing cant be its own proof that its true. That’s not how it works

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"I" made no such demands and understand that many believers do not need at-the-moment evidence. They need no evidence at all. They have faith.

You’re trying to gloss over the main point here, which is that for many believers, their scriptures (of whatever religion) are “proof” in addition to their faith.

A thing cant be its own proof that its true. That’s not how it works

That is exactly how it works. The “thing” is the proof that Moses/Jesus/Mohammed/Rama were true. Many religions regard their scriptures as miracles. You disagree, and that’s totally your prerogative. But understand that many disagree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"I" made no such demands and understand that many believers do not need at-the-moment evidence. They need no evidence at all. They have faith.

You’re trying to gloss over the main point here, which is that for many believers, their scriptures (of whatever religion) are “proof” in addition to their faith.

A thing cant be its own proof that its true. That’s not how it works

That is exactly how it works. The “thing” is the proof that Moses/Jesus/Mohammed/Rama were true. Many religions regard their scriptures as miracles. You disagree, and that’s totally your prerogative. But understand that many disagree with you.

It's a whole different standard. Religious people rely of faith, including faith that their holy scriptures are "true" - even knowing that people of other religions think their scriptures are true. It's a different kind of knowing that non-religious people don't experience once they give up religion (or if they never were religious)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"I" made no such demands and understand that many believers do not need at-the-moment evidence. They need no evidence at all. They have faith.

You’re trying to gloss over the main point here, which is that for many believers, their scriptures (of whatever religion) are “proof” in addition to their faith.

A thing cant be its own proof that its true. That’s not how it works

That is exactly how it works. The “thing” is the proof that Moses/Jesus/Mohammed/Rama were true. Many religions regard their scriptures as miracles. You disagree, and that’s totally your prerogative. But understand that many disagree with you.

+1 I’ve never seen anyone expend so much energy telling others how to feel. Why does it drive someone so, to worry and argue about other people’s religion? Most people don’t care that you don’t believe in their religion. Jews don’t care what gentiles think. Christians don’t care if you don’t believe, it’s your choice. Muslims go about their business and worship and live their lives. Other adults don’t care you don’t believe in a religion. It’s an obsession and not a healthy one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"I" made no such demands and understand that many believers do not need at-the-moment evidence. They need no evidence at all. They have faith.

You’re trying to gloss over the main point here, which is that for many believers, their scriptures (of whatever religion) are “proof” in addition to their faith.

A thing cant be its own proof that its true. That’s not how it works

That is exactly how it works. The “thing” is the proof that Moses/Jesus/Mohammed/Rama were true. Many religions regard their scriptures as miracles. You disagree, and that’s totally your prerogative. But understand that many disagree with you.

+1 I’ve never seen anyone expend so much energy telling others how to feel. Why does it drive someone so, to worry and argue about other people’s religion? Most people don’t care that you don’t believe in their religion. Jews don’t care what gentiles think. Christians don’t care if you don’t believe, it’s your choice. Muslims go about their business and worship and live their lives. Other adults don’t care you don’t believe in a religion. It’s an obsession and not a healthy one.

Actually, some Christians care very deeply what you believe and will proselytize to get you to believe as they do, in order to protect you from what they believe will be an eternity in hell. Some Christians will disown their children if the kids fall away.

Some Christians are very tolerant, but those who aren't are very in-your-face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"I" made no such demands and understand that many believers do not need at-the-moment evidence. They need no evidence at all. They have faith.

You’re trying to gloss over the main point here, which is that for many believers, their scriptures (of whatever religion) are “proof” in addition to their faith.

A thing cant be its own proof that its true. That’s not how it works

That is exactly how it works. The “thing” is the proof that Moses/Jesus/Mohammed/Rama were true. Many religions regard their scriptures as miracles. You disagree, and that’s totally your prerogative. But understand that many disagree with you.

+1 I’ve never seen anyone expend so much energy telling others how to feel. Why does it drive someone so, to worry and argue about other people’s religion? Most people don’t care that you don’t believe in their religion. Jews don’t care what gentiles think. Christians don’t care if you don’t believe, it’s your choice. Muslims go about their business and worship and live their lives. Other adults don’t care you don’t believe in a religion. It’s an obsession and not a healthy one.

Actually, some Christians care very deeply what you believe and will proselytize to get you to believe as they do, in order to protect you from what they believe will be an eternity in hell. Some Christians will disown their children if the kids fall away.

Some Christians are very tolerant, but those who aren't are very in-your-face.

Pot meet kettle. You’re very intolerant and hatefilled, especially against Christians—pp mentioned several religions, but you focus on Christianity, why? Would love to see you answer pp’s question re why you expend so much energy pushing your atheism in what seems like an unhealthy obsession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"I" made no such demands and understand that many believers do not need at-the-moment evidence. They need no evidence at all. They have faith.

You’re trying to gloss over the main point here, which is that for many believers, their scriptures (of whatever religion) are “proof” in addition to their faith.

A thing cant be its own proof that its true. That’s not how it works

That is exactly how it works. The “thing” is the proof that Moses/Jesus/Mohammed/Rama were true. Many religions regard their scriptures as miracles. You disagree, and that’s totally your prerogative. But understand that many disagree with you.

+1 I’ve never seen anyone expend so much energy telling others how to feel. Why does it drive someone so, to worry and argue about other people’s religion? Most people don’t care that you don’t believe in their religion. Jews don’t care what gentiles think. Christians don’t care if you don’t believe, it’s your choice. Muslims go about their business and worship and live their lives. Other adults don’t care you don’t believe in a religion. It’s an obsession and not a healthy one.

Actually, some Christians care very deeply what you believe and will proselytize to get you to believe as they do, in order to protect you from what they believe will be an eternity in hell. Some Christians will disown their children if the kids fall away.

Some Christians are very tolerant, but those who aren't are very in-your-face.

Pot meet kettle. You’re very intolerant and hatefilled, especially against Christians—pp mentioned several religions, but you focus on Christianity, why? Would love to see you answer pp’s question re why you expend so much energy pushing your atheism in what seems like an unhealthy obsession.

Discussing atheism or even discussing the merits of atheism (if you think there are any) is not pushing it. Also, discussing Christianity, or any religion, without believing in it is not unusual and certainly not hate filled or an unhealthy obsession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"I" made no such demands and understand that many believers do not need at-the-moment evidence. They need no evidence at all. They have faith.

You’re trying to gloss over the main point here, which is that for many believers, their scriptures (of whatever religion) are “proof” in addition to their faith.

A thing cant be its own proof that its true. That’s not how it works

That is exactly how it works. The “thing” is the proof that Moses/Jesus/Mohammed/Rama were true. Many religions regard their scriptures as miracles. You disagree, and that’s totally your prerogative. But understand that many disagree with you.

+1 I’ve never seen anyone expend so much energy telling others how to feel. Why does it drive someone so, to worry and argue about other people’s religion? Most people don’t care that you don’t believe in their religion. Jews don’t care what gentiles think. Christians don’t care if you don’t believe, it’s your choice. Muslims go about their business and worship and live their lives. Other adults don’t care you don’t believe in a religion. It’s an obsession and not a healthy one.

Actually, some Christians care very deeply what you believe and will proselytize to get you to believe as they do, in order to protect you from what they believe will be an eternity in hell. Some Christians will disown their children if the kids fall away.

Some Christians are very tolerant, but those who aren't are very in-your-face.

Pot meet kettle. You’re very intolerant and hatefilled, especially against Christians—pp mentioned several religions, but you focus on Christianity, why? Would love to see you answer pp’s question re why you expend so much energy pushing your atheism in what seems like an unhealthy obsession.

Discussing atheism or even discussing the merits of atheism (if you think there are any) is not pushing it. Also, discussing Christianity, or any religion, without believing in it is not unusual and certainly not hate filled or an unhealthy obsession.

Keep telling yourself you’re ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, that is NOT how it works, and the fact that you think it is illustrates the difference between you and rational people.

"I" made no such demands and understand that many believers do not need at-the-moment evidence. They need no evidence at all. They have faith.

You’re trying to gloss over the main point here, which is that for many believers, their scriptures (of whatever religion) are “proof” in addition to their faith.

A thing cant be its own proof that its true. That’s not how it works

That is exactly how it works. The “thing” is the proof that Moses/Jesus/Mohammed/Rama were true. Many religions regard their scriptures as miracles. You disagree, and that’s totally your prerogative. But understand that many disagree with you.