Widow of Mark Fleischman reveals he turned from a 'complete Atheist' to believing in God

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like the snark here and I think OPs description was cruel and nasty (a vegetable? really?).

However, as to the general concept: I am an atheist who was raised in a very religious household, who became a secret atheist as a very young child. My family was and is very close and affectionate, and my parents remain devout. I believe it is highly likely that when I am dying, I will revert to my childhood religion. I doubt I will exactly believe in a god — I remember being skeptical very early though had no frame of reference to even explain that — but I am sure that the rituals and structure will be something familiar and probably comforting. My parents will be long gone, and I suspect that engaging with my childhood religion will be a way to feel close to them at a time when I am feeling scared and vulnerable.

That’s probably too earnest for this thread, though, and will probably make both the religious and atheist trolls who live in this forum now angry.

Who knows, maybe you'll die before your religious parents do and they'll be at your bedside being comforted by their religion and then give you a big religious funeral.

I am the PP. Well, if I have to go before them, that’s fine with me. Why would I care if my parents give me a big religious funeral? It would comfort them and I will be dead so it would be irrelevant to me.

You said above that you'd likely revert to your childhood religion when you were dying, assuming your parents would be long gone. Maybe they will still be here and you can all be religious together before you die. It would bring them great peace, and as you say -- it would be irrelevant to you, assuming you still don't believe. But if you actually revert back to religion, then you'll have a chance at heaven.

That’s not true.

That's not your belief, but you won't know if it's fact or not until you die. Nothing supernatural can be proven, because it's beyond nature. People can believe whatever they want

Yes, it’s rather difficult to prove a negative. Like it’s hard to prove that Santa doesn’t exist.

Except for little children, everyone knows, or at least accepts, that Santa doesn't exist.

God is like the opposite of Santa -- it's still uncool in many circles to openly acknowledge that you don't believe in God, but if an adult said they believed in Santa -- they'd be a laughingstock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you think this shameful and highly distasteful post makes any case for the existence of a god, you are sorely mistaken. It does quite the opposite.

It also reflects poorly on you personally and terrestrially, OP.

NP. That seems like an overreaction. Perhaps you’re the person who keeps posting about declines in faith, and this has triggered you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like the snark here and I think OPs description was cruel and nasty (a vegetable? really?).

However, as to the general concept: I am an atheist who was raised in a very religious household, who became a secret atheist as a very young child. My family was and is very close and affectionate, and my parents remain devout. I believe it is highly likely that when I am dying, I will revert to my childhood religion. I doubt I will exactly believe in a god — I remember being skeptical very early though had no frame of reference to even explain that — but I am sure that the rituals and structure will be something familiar and probably comforting. My parents will be long gone, and I suspect that engaging with my childhood religion will be a way to feel close to them at a time when I am feeling scared and vulnerable.

That’s probably too earnest for this thread, though, and will probably make both the religious and atheist trolls who live in this forum now angry.

Who knows, maybe you'll die before your religious parents do and they'll be at your bedside being comforted by their religion and then give you a big religious funeral.

I am the PP. Well, if I have to go before them, that’s fine with me. Why would I care if my parents give me a big religious funeral? It would comfort them and I will be dead so it would be irrelevant to me.

You said above that you'd likely revert to your childhood religion when you were dying, assuming your parents would be long gone. Maybe they will still be here and you can all be religious together before you die. It would bring them great peace, and as you say -- it would be irrelevant to you, assuming you still don't believe. But if you actually revert back to religion, then you'll have a chance at heaven.

That’s not true.

That's not your belief, but you won't know if it's fact or not until you die. Nothing supernatural can be proven, because it's beyond nature. People can believe whatever they want

Yes, it’s rather difficult to prove a negative. Like it’s hard to prove that Santa doesn’t exist.

Except for little children, everyone knows, or at least accepts, that Santa doesn't exist.

God is like the opposite of Santa -- it's still uncool in many circles to openly acknowledge that you don't believe in God, but if an adult said they believed in Santa -- they'd be a laughingstock.

No difference in reality. Just perception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this shameful and highly distasteful post makes any case for the existence of a god, you are sorely mistaken. It does quite the opposite.

It also reflects poorly on you personally and terrestrially, OP.

NP. That seems like an overreaction. Perhaps you’re the person who keeps posting about declines in faith, and this has triggered you.

Perhaps pp should not try to be an amateur psychologist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this shameful and highly distasteful post makes any case for the existence of a god, you are sorely mistaken. It does quite the opposite.

It also reflects poorly on you personally and terrestrially, OP.

NP. That seems like an overreaction. Perhaps you’re the person who keeps posting about declines in faith, and this has triggered you.

No, it is not an overreaction. Yes your shameful and highly distasteful post triggered me, and I am proud to have the values that the trigger was based on.

Perhaps the growing evidence of sharply dropping rates of religious belief has triggered you to be so shameless?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this shameful and highly distasteful post makes any case for the existence of a god, you are sorely mistaken. It does quite the opposite.

It also reflects poorly on you personally and terrestrially, OP.

NP. That seems like an overreaction. Perhaps you’re the person who keeps posting about declines in faith, and this has triggered you.

No, it is not an overreaction. Yes your shameful and highly distasteful post triggered me, and I am proud to have the values that the trigger was based on.

Perhaps the growing evidence of sharply dropping rates of religious belief has triggered you to be so shameless?

Yikes. I’m the “overreaction” poster but not OP. Perhaps you should go outside and take some deep breaths of fresh air.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this shameful and highly distasteful post makes any case for the existence of a god, you are sorely mistaken. It does quite the opposite.

It also reflects poorly on you personally and terrestrially, OP.

NP. That seems like an overreaction. Perhaps you’re the person who keeps posting about declines in faith, and this has triggered you.

No, it is not an overreaction. Yes your shameful and highly distasteful post triggered me, and I am proud to have the values that the trigger was based on.

Perhaps the growing evidence of sharply dropping rates of religious belief has triggered you to be so shameless?

Not OP. Spare us the drama queen outrage. Instead of vomiting insults, perhaps you could explain what’s “shameful” and “highly distasteful” about OP’s basically factual report on Fleishman’s return to religion, supported by a link. Also, my mom died of brain cancer, and I have no trouble saying she was a vegetable at the end because that’s factual, too. Or are reports of somebody’s death only “shameful” when the deceased gives up atheism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this shameful and highly distasteful post makes any case for the existence of a god, you are sorely mistaken. It does quite the opposite.

It also reflects poorly on you personally and terrestrially, OP.

NP. That seems like an overreaction. Perhaps you’re the person who keeps posting about declines in faith, and this has triggered you.

No, it is not an overreaction. Yes your shameful and highly distasteful post triggered me, and I am proud to have the values that the trigger was based on.

Perhaps the growing evidence of sharply dropping rates of religious belief has triggered you to be so shameless?

Not OP. Spare us the drama queen outrage. Instead of vomiting insults, perhaps you could explain what’s “shameful” and “highly distasteful” about OP’s basically factual report on Fleishman’s return to religion, supported by a link. Also, my mom died of brain cancer, and I have no trouble saying she was a vegetable at the end because that’s factual, too. Or are reports of somebody’s death only “shameful” when the deceased gives up atheism?

Whoa -- speaking of drama queen outrage!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this shameful and highly distasteful post makes any case for the existence of a god, you are sorely mistaken. It does quite the opposite.

It also reflects poorly on you personally and terrestrially, OP.

NP. That seems like an overreaction. Perhaps you’re the person who keeps posting about declines in faith, and this has triggered you.

No, it is not an overreaction. Yes your shameful and highly distasteful post triggered me, and I am proud to have the values that the trigger was based on.

Perhaps the growing evidence of sharply dropping rates of religious belief has triggered you to be so shameless?

Not OP. Spare us the drama queen outrage. Instead of vomiting insults, perhaps you could explain what’s “shameful” and “highly distasteful” about OP’s basically factual report on Fleishman’s return to religion, supported by a link. Also, my mom died of brain cancer, and I have no trouble saying she was a vegetable at the end because that’s factual, too. Or are reports of somebody’s death only “shameful” when the deceased gives up atheism?

During the time when you describe your mother as a vegetable was she holding conversations about her religious beliefs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this shameful and highly distasteful post makes any case for the existence of a god, you are sorely mistaken. It does quite the opposite.

It also reflects poorly on you personally and terrestrially, OP.

NP. That seems like an overreaction. Perhaps you’re the person who keeps posting about declines in faith, and this has triggered you.

No, it is not an overreaction. Yes your shameful and highly distasteful post triggered me, and I am proud to have the values that the trigger was based on.

Perhaps the growing evidence of sharply dropping rates of religious belief has triggered you to be so shameless?

Not OP. Spare us the drama queen outrage. Instead of vomiting insults, perhaps you could explain what’s “shameful” and “highly distasteful” about OP’s basically factual report on Fleishman’s return to religion, supported by a link. Also, my mom died of brain cancer, and I have no trouble saying she was a vegetable at the end because that’s factual, too. Or are reports of somebody’s death only “shameful” when the deceased gives up atheism?

During the time when you describe your mother as a vegetable was she holding conversations about her religious beliefs?

So, no attempt to justify all the faux outrage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this shameful and highly distasteful post makes any case for the existence of a god, you are sorely mistaken. It does quite the opposite.

It also reflects poorly on you personally and terrestrially, OP.

NP. That seems like an overreaction. Perhaps you’re the person who keeps posting about declines in faith, and this has triggered you.

No, it is not an overreaction. Yes your shameful and highly distasteful post triggered me, and I am proud to have the values that the trigger was based on.

Perhaps the growing evidence of sharply dropping rates of religious belief has triggered you to be so shameless?

Not OP. Spare us the drama queen outrage. Instead of vomiting insults, perhaps you could explain what’s “shameful” and “highly distasteful” about OP’s basically factual report on Fleishman’s return to religion, supported by a link. Also, my mom died of brain cancer, and I have no trouble saying she was a vegetable at the end because that’s factual, too. Or are reports of somebody’s death only “shameful” when the deceased gives up atheism?

If you have to ask, you will never understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this shameful and highly distasteful post makes any case for the existence of a god, you are sorely mistaken. It does quite the opposite.

It also reflects poorly on you personally and terrestrially, OP.

NP. That seems like an overreaction. Perhaps you’re the person who keeps posting about declines in faith, and this has triggered you.

No, it is not an overreaction. Yes your shameful and highly distasteful post triggered me, and I am proud to have the values that the trigger was based on.

Perhaps the growing evidence of sharply dropping rates of religious belief has triggered you to be so shameless?

Not OP. Spare us the drama queen outrage. Instead of vomiting insults, perhaps you could explain what’s “shameful” and “highly distasteful” about OP’s basically factual report on Fleishman’s return to religion, supported by a link. Also, my mom died of brain cancer, and I have no trouble saying she was a vegetable at the end because that’s factual, too. Or are reports of somebody’s death only “shameful” when the deceased gives up atheism?

If you have to ask, you will never understand.

So childish, and a transparent deflection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this shameful and highly distasteful post makes any case for the existence of a god, you are sorely mistaken. It does quite the opposite.

It also reflects poorly on you personally and terrestrially, OP.

NP. That seems like an overreaction. Perhaps you’re the person who keeps posting about declines in faith, and this has triggered you.

No, it is not an overreaction. Yes your shameful and highly distasteful post triggered me, and I am proud to have the values that the trigger was based on.

Perhaps the growing evidence of sharply dropping rates of religious belief has triggered you to be so shameless?

Not OP. Spare us the drama queen outrage. Instead of vomiting insults, perhaps you could explain what’s “shameful” and “highly distasteful” about OP’s basically factual report on Fleishman’s return to religion, supported by a link. Also, my mom died of brain cancer, and I have no trouble saying she was a vegetable at the end because that’s factual, too. Or are reports of somebody’s death only “shameful” when the deceased gives up atheism?

If you have to ask, you will never understand.

So childish, and a transparent deflection.

No, just factual. But if you insist it be spelled out for you: You are using a story about a man's sad death - a man you didn't know, and have no connection to, to evangelize your religious belief. That is shameful.

I could just as easily post a story about your grandmother using her last breath to say she could see there was no god and was mistaken her whole life. But I would not do that, because it would be shameful and repulsive.

Like what you did.

Do you prefer this response to my previous? Well, you did ask for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this shameful and highly distasteful post makes any case for the existence of a god, you are sorely mistaken. It does quite the opposite.

It also reflects poorly on you personally and terrestrially, OP.

NP. That seems like an overreaction. Perhaps you’re the person who keeps posting about declines in faith, and this has triggered you.

No, it is not an overreaction. Yes your shameful and highly distasteful post triggered me, and I am proud to have the values that the trigger was based on.

Perhaps the growing evidence of sharply dropping rates of religious belief has triggered you to be so shameless?

Not OP. Spare us the drama queen outrage. Instead of vomiting insults, perhaps you could explain what’s “shameful” and “highly distasteful” about OP’s basically factual report on Fleishman’s return to religion, supported by a link. Also, my mom died of brain cancer, and I have no trouble saying she was a vegetable at the end because that’s factual, too. Or are reports of somebody’s death only “shameful” when the deceased gives up atheism?

LOL. “Factual”? The wife’s account…to a tabloid.

You guys really do believe whatever random crap people tell you, huh? No questions asked.

Humanity is doomed if idiots like this are reproducing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this shameful and highly distasteful post makes any case for the existence of a god, you are sorely mistaken. It does quite the opposite.

It also reflects poorly on you personally and terrestrially, OP.

NP. That seems like an overreaction. Perhaps you’re the person who keeps posting about declines in faith, and this has triggered you.

No, it is not an overreaction. Yes your shameful and highly distasteful post triggered me, and I am proud to have the values that the trigger was based on.

Perhaps the growing evidence of sharply dropping rates of religious belief has triggered you to be so shameless?

Not OP. Spare us the drama queen outrage. Instead of vomiting insults, perhaps you could explain what’s “shameful” and “highly distasteful” about OP’s basically factual report on Fleishman’s return to religion, supported by a link. Also, my mom died of brain cancer, and I have no trouble saying she was a vegetable at the end because that’s factual, too. Or are reports of somebody’s death only “shameful” when the deceased gives up atheism?

If you have to ask, you will never understand.

So childish, and a transparent deflection.

No, just factual. But if you insist it be spelled out for you: You are using a story about a man's sad death - a man you didn't know, and have no connection to, to evangelize your religious belief. That is shameful.

I could just as easily post a story about your grandmother using her last breath to say she could see there was no god and was mistaken her whole life. But I would not do that, because it would be shameful and repulsive.

Like what you did.

Do you prefer this response to my previous? Well, you did ask for it.

I’m not OP. And you’re completely distorting both the story and what I said about it. Not wasting any more time with you. Bye!