Life after church & not believing in God

[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:

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.

+1 I’ve been around a lot of religious people of all different stripes, but the atheist here posting constantly is even more extreme than any of them.

[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:

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.

+1 I’ve been around a lot of religious people of all different stripes, but the atheist here posting constantly is even more extreme than any of them.

+1 Yeah, that atheist on DCUM is so extreme. No matter what, the lone atheist (there's not more than one, is there?) still doesn't believe in God and keeps on saying it.

[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:

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.

+1 I’ve been around a lot of religious people of all different stripes, but the atheist here posting constantly is even more extreme than any of them.

+1 Yeah, that atheist on DCUM is so extreme. No matter what, the lone atheist (there's not more than one, is there?) still doesn't believe in God and keeps on saying it.

No, said atheist tries to “prove” there is no God and the people who do believe are brainwashed because they do believe. They just can’t be satisfied with their choice: they must prove others are “wrong.”

I never see posts that there is no Allah, thus Muslims are lacking logic and have no facts to prove their religion. Oddly the only God in the crosshairs is the Christian God.

I didn’t think atheism meant crapping on religion. I just thought it meant no belief in religion.

[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:

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.

+1 I’ve been around a lot of religious people of all different stripes, but the atheist here posting constantly is even more extreme than any of them.

+1 Yeah, that atheist on DCUM is so extreme. No matter what, the lone atheist (there's not more than one, is there?) still doesn't believe in God and keeps on saying it.

No, said atheist tries to “prove” there is no God and the people who do believe are brainwashed because they do believe. They just can’t be satisfied with their choice: they must prove others are “wrong.”

I never see posts that there is no Allah, thus Muslims are lacking logic and have no facts to prove their religion. Oddly the only God in the crosshairs is the Christian God.

I didn’t think atheism meant crapping on religion. I just thought it meant no belief in religion.

DP. And he tries to hijack every.single.thread with distortions of what others said and ad hominems, until often the moderator removes his posts.

[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:

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.

+1 I’ve been around a lot of religious people of all different stripes, but the atheist here posting constantly is even more extreme than any of them.

+1 Yeah, that atheist on DCUM is so extreme. No matter what, the lone atheist (there's not more than one, is there?) still doesn't believe in God and keeps on saying it.

No, said atheist tries to “prove” there is no God and the people who do believe are brainwashed because they do believe. They just can’t be satisfied with their choice: they must prove others are “wrong.”

I never see posts that there is no Allah, thus Muslims are lacking logic and have no facts to prove their religion. Oddly the only God in the crosshairs is the Christian God.

I didn’t think atheism meant crapping on religion. I just thought it meant no belief in religion.

DP. And he tries to hijack every.single.thread with distortions of what others said and ad hominems, until often the moderator removes his posts.

And his pure hate for Christians is pretty gross.

[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:

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.

+1 I’ve been around a lot of religious people of all different stripes, but the atheist here posting constantly is even more extreme than any of them.

+1 Yeah, that atheist on DCUM is so extreme. No matter what, the lone atheist (there's not more than one, is there?) still doesn't believe in God and keeps on saying it.

No, said atheist tries to “prove” there is no God and the people who do believe are brainwashed because they do believe. They just can’t be satisfied with their choice: they must prove others are “wrong.”

I never see posts that there is no Allah, thus Muslims are lacking logic and have no facts to prove their religion. Oddly the only God in the crosshairs is the Christian God.

I didn’t think atheism meant crapping on religion. I just thought it meant no belief in religion.

For the record, atheists don’t believe in all gods equally. They don’t believe in exactly one more god then you. No discrimination of any kind, there is insufficient evidence for any of them equally. Christianity is held with no special disdain more than Allah, Xenu, Vishnu, or any other.

[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:

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.

+1 I’ve been around a lot of religious people of all different stripes, but the atheist here posting constantly is even more extreme than any of them.

+1 Yeah, that atheist on DCUM is so extreme. No matter what, the lone atheist (there's not more than one, is there?) still doesn't believe in God and keeps on saying it.

No, said atheist tries to “prove” there is no God and the people who do believe are brainwashed because they do believe. They just can’t be satisfied with their choice: they must prove others are “wrong.”

I never see posts that there is no Allah, thus Muslims are lacking logic and have no facts to prove their religion. Oddly the only God in the crosshairs is the Christian God.

I didn’t think atheism meant crapping on religion. I just thought it meant no belief in religion.

I don't think that's correct -- atheism means no belief in God. Religion is a different subject -- this forum is for "Discussion of religion. Please try to respect differing views and traditions. Also, please try not to be easily offended."

I don't think being critical of religions is out of bounds in any way, although I agree there's no need to be offensive about it or engage in ad hominem attacks on other posters.

[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:

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.

+1 I’ve been around a lot of religious people of all different stripes, but the atheist here posting constantly is even more extreme than any of them.

+1 Yeah, that atheist on DCUM is so extreme. No matter what, the lone atheist (there's not more than one, is there?) still doesn't believe in God and keeps on saying it.

No, said atheist tries to “prove” there is no God and the people who do believe are brainwashed because they do believe. They just can’t be satisfied with their choice: they must prove others are “wrong.”

I never see posts that there is no Allah, thus Muslims are lacking logic and have no facts to prove their religion. Oddly the only God in the crosshairs is the Christian God.

I didn’t think atheism meant crapping on religion. I just thought it meant no belief in religion.

For the record, atheists don’t believe in all gods equally. They don’t believe in exactly one more god then you. No discrimination of any kind, there is insufficient evidence for any of them equally. Christianity is held with no special disdain more than Allah, Xenu, Vishnu, or any other.

Tell that to the hateful bigot at 10:02 and so many of his other posts and threads.

[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:

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.

+1 I’ve been around a lot of religious people of all different stripes, but the atheist here posting constantly is even more extreme than any of them.

+1 Yeah, that atheist on DCUM is so extreme. No matter what, the lone atheist (there's not more than one, is there?) still doesn't believe in God and keeps on saying it.

If you can’t cop to your sh!tty and obsessive behavior here, I have even less respect for you.

* There are plenty of great atheists here who add to constructive discussions. But not this obsessive bigot.

[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:

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.

+1 I’ve been around a lot of religious people of all different stripes, but the atheist here posting constantly is even more extreme than any of them.

+1 Yeah, that atheist on DCUM is so extreme. No matter what, the lone atheist (there's not more than one, is there?) still doesn't believe in God and keeps on saying it.

If you can’t cop to your sh!tty and obsessive behavior here, I have even less respect for you.

* There are plenty of great atheists here who add to constructive discussions. But not this obsessive bigot.

Try to remember, this forum is for "Discussion of religion. Please try to respect differing views and traditions. Also, please try not to be easily offended."

I think calling someone behavior "shxxtty and obsessive" and "obsessive bigot" doesn't meet this standard.

[Anonymous]

Everyone knows an atheist who posts daily on a religion forum and questions specifically Christians has a problem with Christianity. Despite the atheist label they give themselves -no belief in God, gods, or religion- this person has an obsessive-compulsive disorder that is centered on Christianity.

Which they should receive therapy for so they can actually be an atheist, and live their lives free of the obsession they have with religion.

[Anonymous]

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/818126.page

Thread in website feedback titled: You took away my morning fun.

(Trolling the religion forum is his/her morning fun)




Atheist troll:It was soooooo entertaining.

Party pooper

Jeff: You have a strange idea of fun.

Atheist troll: Like what?

And what exactly are you attributing to me? Please post links.

Atheist troll: I have repeatedly asked Jeff to remove Religion posts from Recent Topics. He won’t do it though.

That would cut out most of the posts you don’t like.

(So this person hates religion posts in recent topics. He/she wants Jeff to remove them. Why? Why does a troll not want Jeff to run his website as he wishes? And why should religion topics be excluded from Recent topics?)

So not only does this person want Jeff to modify his website to his or her standard, he or she thinks it’s fun to troll.

Tell me how healthy that is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows an atheist who posts daily on a religion forum and questions specifically Christians has a problem with Christianity. Despite the atheist label they give themselves -no belief in God, gods, or religion- this person has an obsessive-compulsive disorder that is centered on Christianity.

Which they should receive therapy for so they can actually be an atheist, and live their lives free of the obsession they have with religion.

Projection? perhaps pp has an obsession with atheists? Not a good idea to try to diagnose over the internet, though. Illegal if you're a professional and silly if you're not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows an atheist who posts daily on a religion forum and questions specifically Christians has a problem with Christianity. Despite the atheist label they give themselves -no belief in God, gods, or religion- this person has an obsessive-compulsive disorder that is centered on Christianity.

Which they should receive therapy for so they can actually be an atheist, and live their lives free of the obsession they have with religion.

Projection? perhaps pp has an obsession with atheists? Not a good idea to try to diagnose over the internet, though. Illegal if you're a professional and silly if you're not.

Not when there is an atheist in website feedback who is admitting that they troll here for fun. Trolls usually have at the least, a personality disorder, to spend hours of their time trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows an atheist who posts daily on a religion forum and questions specifically Christians has a problem with Christianity. Despite the atheist label they give themselves -no belief in God, gods, or religion- this person has an obsessive-compulsive disorder that is centered on Christianity.

Which they should receive therapy for so they can actually be an atheist, and live their lives free of the obsession they have with religion.

Projection? perhaps pp has an obsession with atheists? Not a good idea to try to diagnose over the internet, though. Illegal if you're a professional and silly if you're not.

Not when there is an atheist in website feedback who is admitting that they troll here for fun. Trolls usually have at the least, a personality disorder, to spend hours of their time trolling.

Yeah, but the OP made a sincere post, and a good one I think, and within 6 responses someone (you?) was calling her a troll.