Spiritual vs Religious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How bizarre to think they can speak for all religious people.

100% true.

That statement applies to you also, correct?

Unlike you, I actually know a lot of religious people.

So rather than answer the question, you went right to insults and assumptions?

You may not be aware of this, but you are an unpleasant person.

Now answer the question. That statement applies to you also, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a teen, and up through college, I attended mass regularly even though I do not think I was ever a believer.

I did this because my parents wanted to me to, because it was a cultural heritage, and honestly, out of habit (no pun intended). My (incorrect) assumption was that everyone else went for the same reasons and thought as I did.

So I think the label “religious but not spiritual” definitely applied to me.

You don't sound religious (or spiritual). Most Americans are like that; they will check the box "Catholic" (in your case), but they really don't believe. They just go to church out of inertia. Thanks for commenting.

“Most” check the box but don’t actually believe? Cites, please.

“Churchgoers are there for the fellowship only” poster rides again. To continue the metaphor, why have you been beating this dead horse for years? You have no data to back it up.

Fellowship and sense of community and feeling good about love your fellow man and stuff. Religion lite. Which church do you go to? Church shop any?

Cites, please, for your frequent claim that “most” church-goers fall into this category?

That's just my sense of it, what's yours?

As somebody who is actually religious and goes to a house of worship, that’s not my sense at all.

You’re an outsider, and your sense is wrong and sounds more like wishful thinking. Time to stop making declarations about things you aren’t close to and don’t understand, how bizarre.

+1

Along with the fake stories posted about how some mother leaves her daughter with her mom/a religious family and the child is “proselytized” by “xtians.” Troll. Always a post giving an odd, not quite right story, and then the op disappears. Tbh the person or people posting like that needs help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a teen, and up through college, I attended mass regularly even though I do not think I was ever a believer.

I did this because my parents wanted to me to, because it was a cultural heritage, and honestly, out of habit (no pun intended). My (incorrect) assumption was that everyone else went for the same reasons and thought as I did.

So I think the label “religious but not spiritual” definitely applied to me.

You don't sound religious (or spiritual). Most Americans are like that; they will check the box "Catholic" (in your case), but they really don't believe. They just go to church out of inertia. Thanks for commenting.

“Most” check the box but don’t actually believe? Cites, please.

“Churchgoers are there for the fellowship only” poster rides again. To continue the metaphor, why have you been beating this dead horse for years? You have no data to back it up.

Fellowship and sense of community and feeling good about love your fellow man and stuff. Religion lite. Which church do you go to? Church shop any?

Cites, please, for your frequent claim that “most” church-goers fall into this category?

That's just my sense of it, what's yours?

As somebody who is actually religious and goes to a house of worship, that’s not my sense at all.

You’re an outsider, and your sense is wrong and sounds more like wishful thinking. Time to stop making declarations about things you aren’t close to and don’t understand, how bizarre.

Can I just point out that this is Sunday morning and any religious Christians are actually attending church online or in person. So drawing conclusions about what a few atheists here said they did is going to be off-base.

“Churchgoers are only there for the company” is up there with “people call themselves spiritual because they know the word “religious” is “uncool.” Is this the same poster? Both claims are from an outsider who detests religion and doesn’t understand the motivations of religious folks. How bizarre to think they can speak for all religious people.

Probably the same person. And then the poster that ALWAYS chimes in and says: “Ignore the haters/trolls, pp. Thank you for being brave and posting about this important topic” is probably the same person, too. Highly disturbing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How bizarre to think they can speak for all religious people.

100% true.

That statement applies to you also, correct?

Unlike you, I actually know a lot of religious people.

So rather than answer the question, you went right to insults and assumptions?

You may not be aware of this, but you are an unpleasant person.

Now answer the question. That statement applies to you also, right?

Excuse me, but you’re insulting me, calling me unpleasant and twisting my post. Where is the insult in my post?

If you hang out with lots of religious people, by all means say so. That doesn’t seem likely, though.

Which brings us back to: you can’t attribute motives to people you don’t know. Whether that’s the “coolness” of saying you’re spiritual or peoples’ motives for attending church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a teen, and up through college, I attended mass regularly even though I do not think I was ever a believer.

I did this because my parents wanted to me to, because it was a cultural heritage, and honestly, out of habit (no pun intended). My (incorrect) assumption was that everyone else went for the same reasons and thought as I did.

So I think the label “religious but not spiritual” definitely applied to me.

You don't sound religious (or spiritual). Most Americans are like that; they will check the box "Catholic" (in your case), but they really don't believe. They just go to church out of inertia. Thanks for commenting.

“Most” check the box but don’t actually believe? Cites, please.

“Churchgoers are there for the fellowship only” poster rides again. To continue the metaphor, why have you been beating this dead horse for years? You have no data to back it up.

Fellowship and sense of community and feeling good about love your fellow man and stuff. Religion lite. Which church do you go to? Church shop any?

Cites, please, for your frequent claim that “most” church-goers fall into this category?

That's just my sense of it, what's yours?

As somebody who is actually religious and goes to a house of worship, that’s not my sense at all.

You’re an outsider, and your sense is wrong and sounds more like wishful thinking. Time to stop making declarations about things you aren’t close to and don’t understand, how bizarre.

Can I just point out that this is Sunday morning and any religious Christians are actually attending church online or in person. So drawing conclusions about what a few atheists here said they did is going to be off-base.

“Churchgoers are only there for the company” is up there with “people call themselves spiritual because they know the word “religious” is “uncool.” Is this the same poster? Both claims are from an outsider who detests religion and doesn’t understand the motivations of religious folks. How bizarre to think they can speak for all religious people.

Probably the same person. And then the poster that ALWAYS chimes in and says: “Ignore the haters/trolls, pp. Thank you for being brave and posting about this important topic” is probably the same person, too. Highly disturbing.

Yep. I’m guessing a lot of sock-puppetry is going on. Why an atheist would spend days doing this is, of course, the subject of perpetual discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How bizarre to think they can speak for all religious people.

100% true.

That statement applies to you also, correct?

Unlike you, I actually know a lot of religious people.

So rather than answer the question, you went right to insults and assumptions?

You may not be aware of this, but you are an unpleasant person.

Now answer the question. That statement applies to you also, right?

Excuse me, but you’re insulting me, calling me unpleasant and twisting my post. Where is the insult in my post?

If you hang out with lots of religious people, by all means say so. That doesn’t seem likely, though.

Which brings us back to: you can’t attribute motives to people you don’t know. Whether that’s the “coolness” of saying you’re spiritual or peoples’ motives for attending church.

The insult is clear, the non-sequitur insinuation that I don’t know any religious people and don’t know what I am talking about. Both are very false.

You did that because you did not want to answer the question, and you still haven’t.

BTW, I am NOT the person you were debating the other points with, just someone reading who wanted to point out the irony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How bizarre to think they can speak for all religious people.

100% true.

That statement applies to you also, correct?

Unlike you, I actually know a lot of religious people.

So rather than answer the question, you went right to insults and assumptions?

You may not be aware of this, but you are an unpleasant person.

Now answer the question. That statement applies to you also, right?

Excuse me, but you’re insulting me, calling me unpleasant and twisting my post. Where is the insult in my post?

If you hang out with lots of religious people, by all means say so. That doesn’t seem likely, though.

Which brings us back to: you can’t attribute motives to people you don’t know. Whether that’s the “coolness” of saying you’re spiritual or peoples’ motives for attending church.

The insult is clear, the non-sequitur insinuation that I don’t know any religious people and don’t know what I am talking about. Both are very false.

You did that because you did not want to answer the question, and you still haven’t.

BTW, I am NOT the person you were debating the other points with, just someone reading who wanted to point out the irony.

That person, who constantly casts aspersions, never adds anything substantive ever. I've learned to just ignore them.

[Anonymous]

The most prolific posters here are stunned and offended we’d cast aspersions on their characters!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:



The most prolific posters here are stunned and offended we’d cast aspersions on their characters!

right on time! Just as I said, never anything substantive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How bizarre to think they can speak for all religious people.

100% true.

That statement applies to you also, correct?

Unlike you, I actually know a lot of religious people.

So rather than answer the question, you went right to insults and assumptions?

You may not be aware of this, but you are an unpleasant person.

Now answer the question. That statement applies to you also, right?

Excuse me, but you’re insulting me, calling me unpleasant and twisting my post. Where is the insult in my post?

If you hang out with lots of religious people, by all means say so. That doesn’t seem likely, though.

Which brings us back to: you can’t attribute motives to people you don’t know. Whether that’s the “coolness” of saying you’re spiritual or peoples’ motives for attending church.

The insult is clear, the non-sequitur insinuation that I don’t know any religious people and don’t know what I am talking about. Both are very false.

You did that because you did not want to answer the question, and you still haven’t.

BTW, I am NOT the person you were debating the other points with, just someone reading who wanted to point out the irony.

It’s absolutely germane to ask whether you know religious people. You’re an atheist who is trying to draw broad conclusions about religious people. Calling this a non-sequitur is baffling and an insult in its own right.

Then, instead of responding directly to the post by saying that you do in fact know religious people, you went straight to calling someone “unpleasant”. Pat yourself on the back?

It would be helpful if you could provide some examples, from the religious people you know, about (a) how they only attend because they want community, and (b) they describe themselves as spiritual instead of religious because they know the word religious is uncool. TIA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How bizarre to think they can speak for all religious people.

100% true.

That statement applies to you also, correct?

Unlike you, I actually know a lot of religious people.

So rather than answer the question, you went right to insults and assumptions?

You may not be aware of this, but you are an unpleasant person.

Now answer the question. That statement applies to you also, right?

Excuse me, but you’re insulting me, calling me unpleasant and twisting my post. Where is the insult in my post?

If you hang out with lots of religious people, by all means say so. That doesn’t seem likely, though.

Which brings us back to: you can’t attribute motives to people you don’t know. Whether that’s the “coolness” of saying you’re spiritual or peoples’ motives for attending church.

The insult is clear, the non-sequitur insinuation that I don’t know any religious people and don’t know what I am talking about. Both are very false.

You did that because you did not want to answer the question, and you still haven’t.

BTW, I am NOT the person you were debating the other points with, just someone reading who wanted to point out the irony.

It’s absolutely germane to ask whether you know religious people. You’re an atheist who is trying to draw broad conclusions about religious people. Calling this a non-sequitur is baffling and an insult in its own right.

Then, instead of responding directly to the post by saying that you do in fact know religious people, you went straight to calling someone “unpleasant”. Pat yourself on the back?

It would be helpful if you could provide some examples, from the religious people you know, about (a) how they only attend because they want community, and (b) they describe themselves as spiritual instead of religious because they know the word religious is uncool. TIA.

+1

this is a good post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



The most prolific posters here are stunned and offended we’d cast aspersions on their characters!

right on time! Just as I said, never anything substantive.

And you two atheists are contributing, what, solutions for world peace?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



The most prolific posters here are stunned and offended we’d cast aspersions on their characters!

right on time! Just as I said, never anything substantive.

And you two atheists are contributing, what, solutions for world peace?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How bizarre to think they can speak for all religious people.

100% true.

That statement applies to you also, correct?

Unlike you, I actually know a lot of religious people.

So rather than answer the question, you went right to insults and assumptions?

You may not be aware of this, but you are an unpleasant person.

Now answer the question. That statement applies to you also, right?

Excuse me, but you’re insulting me, calling me unpleasant and twisting my post. Where is the insult in my post?

If you hang out with lots of religious people, by all means say so. That doesn’t seem likely, though.

Which brings us back to: you can’t attribute motives to people you don’t know. Whether that’s the “coolness” of saying you’re spiritual or peoples’ motives for attending church.

The insult is clear, the non-sequitur insinuation that I don’t know any religious people and don’t know what I am talking about. Both are very false.

You did that because you did not want to answer the question, and you still haven’t.

BTW, I am NOT the person you were debating the other points with, just someone reading who wanted to point out the irony.

It’s absolutely germane to ask whether you know religious people. You’re an atheist who is trying to draw broad conclusions about religious people. Calling this a non-sequitur is baffling and an insult in its own right.

Then, instead of responding directly to the post by saying that you do in fact know religious people, you went straight to calling someone “unpleasant”. Pat yourself on the back?

It would be helpful if you could provide some examples, from the religious people you know, about (a) how they only attend because they want community, and (b) they describe themselves as spiritual instead of religious because they know the word religious is uncool. TIA.

+1

this is a good post.

It’s going to elicit sone made-up nonsense about how the Xian family she was staying with that took her to church told her in passing not to call them religious because they’re only going for the smells and bells. Or some such thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How bizarre to think they can speak for all religious people.

100% true.

That statement applies to you also, correct?

Unlike you, I actually know a lot of religious people.

So rather than answer the question, you went right to insults and assumptions?

You may not be aware of this, but you are an unpleasant person.

Now answer the question. That statement applies to you also, right?

Excuse me, but you’re insulting me, calling me unpleasant and twisting my post. Where is the insult in my post?

If you hang out with lots of religious people, by all means say so. That doesn’t seem likely, though.

Which brings us back to: you can’t attribute motives to people you don’t know. Whether that’s the “coolness” of saying you’re spiritual or peoples’ motives for attending church.

The insult is clear, the non-sequitur insinuation that I don’t know any religious people and don’t know what I am talking about. Both are very false.

You did that because you did not want to answer the question, and you still haven’t.

BTW, I am NOT the person you were debating the other points with, just someone reading who wanted to point out the irony.

It’s absolutely germane to ask whether you know religious people. You’re an atheist who is trying to draw broad conclusions about religious people. Calling this a non-sequitur is baffling and an insult in its own right.

Then, instead of responding directly to the post by saying that you do in fact know religious people, you went straight to calling someone “unpleasant”. Pat yourself on the back?

It would be helpful if you could provide some examples, from the religious people you know, about (a) how they only attend because they want community, and (b) they describe themselves as spiritual instead of religious because they know the word religious is uncool. TIA.

Do you even read the posts you respond to?

I repeat: I am not the person making the other claims, just someone who found the post quoted at the top of this one very ironic.

Does that statement apply to you also?