Do religious believers actively avoid conversations with non-believers?

[Anonymous]

Internet discussions of religion tend to be non-constructive because it’s hard to be nuanced and people tend to talk past each other because they have different and incompatible priors. There tend to be vocal trolls who dominate the discourse, as often happens here. In-person discussions tend to be more productive since almost nobody is as sure of themselves in reality as compared to how they come across online.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love isn't supernatural.

Empathy isn't supernatural.

Love is an emotion and empathy is an understanding.

Both exist in the natural world.

Faith, an emotion and an understanding, exists in the natural world too.

No one claims faith doesn’t exist. What is your point?

my point was the same point that the poster made about love and empathy

No, that was in response to someone claiming that love and empathy are supernatural. You are the only one who brought up faith. Again, what was your intended point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love isn't supernatural.

Empathy isn't supernatural.

Love is an emotion and empathy is an understanding.

Both exist in the natural world.

Faith, an emotion and an understanding, exists in the natural world too.

No one claims faith doesn’t exist. What is your point?

my point was the same point that the poster made about love and empathy

No, that was in response to someone claiming that love and empathy are supernatural. You are the only one who brought up faith. Again, what was your intended point?

To add to the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love isn't supernatural.

Empathy isn't supernatural.

Love is an emotion and empathy is an understanding.

Both exist in the natural world.

Faith, an emotion and an understanding, exists in the natural world too.

No one claims faith doesn’t exist. What is your point?

my point was the same point that the poster made about love and empathy

No, that was in response to someone claiming that love and empathy are supernatural. You are the only one who brought up faith. Again, what was your intended point?

To add to the conversation.

Non-sequitur does not add to the conversation, it is exactly the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love isn't supernatural.

Empathy isn't supernatural.

Love is an emotion and empathy is an understanding.

Both exist in the natural world.

Faith, an emotion and an understanding, exists in the natural world too.

No one claims faith doesn’t exist. What is your point?

my point was the same point that the poster made about love and empathy

No, that was in response to someone claiming that love and empathy are supernatural. You are the only one who brought up faith. Again, what was your intended point?

To add to the conversation.

Non-sequitur does not add to the conversation, it is exactly the opposite.

We're adding to it, lol...but those were vague definitions that make even God exist. The original "emotion/understanding" poster, responded to someone who gave God the definition of love, basically told them, their God exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love isn't supernatural.

Empathy isn't supernatural.

Love is an emotion and empathy is an understanding.

Both exist in the natural world.

Faith, an emotion and an understanding, exists in the natural world too.

No one claims faith doesn’t exist. What is your point?

my point was the same point that the poster made about love and empathy

No, that was in response to someone claiming that love and empathy are supernatural. You are the only one who brought up faith. Again, what was your intended point?

To add to the conversation.

Non-sequitur does not add to the conversation, it is exactly the opposite.

We're adding to it, lol...but those were vague definitions that make even God exist. The original "emotion/understanding" poster, responded to someone who gave God the definition of love, basically told them, their God exists.

I'll try a different definition of God.

An infinite, all-powerful good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love isn't supernatural.

Empathy isn't supernatural.

Love is an emotion and empathy is an understanding.

Both exist in the natural world.

Faith, an emotion and an understanding, exists in the natural world too.

No one claims faith doesn’t exist. What is your point?

my point was the same point that the poster made about love and empathy

No, that was in response to someone claiming that love and empathy are supernatural. You are the only one who brought up faith. Again, what was your intended point?

To add to the conversation.

Non-sequitur does not add to the conversation, it is exactly the opposite.

We're adding to it, lol...but those were vague definitions that make even God exist. The original "emotion/understanding" poster, responded to someone who gave God the definition of love, basically told them, their God exists.

I'll try a different definition of God.

An infinite, all-powerful good.

Really? Then how do we explain all the $h!t in the world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love isn't supernatural.

Empathy isn't supernatural.

Love is an emotion and empathy is an understanding.

Both exist in the natural world.

Faith, an emotion and an understanding, exists in the natural world too.

No one claims faith doesn’t exist. What is your point?

my point was the same point that the poster made about love and empathy

No, that was in response to someone claiming that love and empathy are supernatural. You are the only one who brought up faith. Again, what was your intended point?

To add to the conversation.

Non-sequitur does not add to the conversation, it is exactly the opposite.

We're adding to it, lol...but those were vague definitions that make even God exist. The original "emotion/understanding" poster, responded to someone who gave God the definition of love, basically told them, their God exists.

I'll try a different definition of God.

An infinite, all-powerful good.

Really? Then how do we explain all the $h!t in the world?

really? new to internet religious debates? lol...free will
but perhaps you didn't have the will to ignore....hmmm

and this is getting off topic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love isn't supernatural.

Empathy isn't supernatural.

Love is an emotion and empathy is an understanding.

Both exist in the natural world.

Faith, an emotion and an understanding, exists in the natural world too.

No one claims faith doesn’t exist. What is your point?

my point was the same point that the poster made about love and empathy

No, that was in response to someone claiming that love and empathy are supernatural. You are the only one who brought up faith. Again, what was your intended point?

To add to the conversation.

Non-sequitur does not add to the conversation, it is exactly the opposite.

We're adding to it, lol...but those were vague definitions that make even God exist. The original "emotion/understanding" poster, responded to someone who gave God the definition of love, basically told them, their God exists.

I'll try a different definition of God.

An infinite, all-powerful good.

Really? Then how do we explain all the $h!t in the world?

really? new to internet religious debates? lol...free will
but perhaps you didn't have the will to ignore....hmmm

and this is getting off topic

You're not trying to make your point and then stop the discussion there, are you?

Do you believe in heaven? Is there free will in heaven? If so then it is possible for god to create a world with free will and no suffering/evil, so that argument is defeated.

[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:Love isn't supernatural.

Empathy isn't supernatural.

Love is an emotion and empathy is an understanding.

Both exist in the natural world.

Faith, an emotion and an understanding, exists in the natural world too.

No one claims faith doesn’t exist. What is your point?

my point was the same point that the poster made about love and empathy

No, that was in response to someone claiming that love and empathy are supernatural. You are the only one who brought up faith. Again, what was your intended point?

To add to the conversation.

Non-sequitur does not add to the conversation, it is exactly the opposite.

We're adding to it, lol...but those were vague definitions that make even God exist. The original "emotion/understanding" poster, responded to someone who gave God the definition of love, basically told them, their God exists.

I'll try a different definition of God.

An infinite, all-powerful good.

Really? Then how do we explain all the $h!t in the world?

really? new to internet religious debates? lol...free will
but perhaps you didn't have the will to ignore....hmmm

and this is getting off topic

You're not trying to make your point and then stop the discussion there, are you?

Do you believe in heaven? Is there free will in heaven? If so then it is possible for god to create a world with free will and no suffering/evil, so that argument is defeated.

lol...me again, and actually I'm a believer in life is a paradox, so I'm not happy with my thought process' unless I find the paradox.

[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:Love isn't supernatural.

Empathy isn't supernatural.

Love is an emotion and empathy is an understanding.

Both exist in the natural world.

Faith, an emotion and an understanding, exists in the natural world too.

No one claims faith doesn’t exist. What is your point?

my point was the same point that the poster made about love and empathy

No, that was in response to someone claiming that love and empathy are supernatural. You are the only one who brought up faith. Again, what was your intended point?

To add to the conversation.

Non-sequitur does not add to the conversation, it is exactly the opposite.

We're adding to it, lol...but those were vague definitions that make even God exist. The original "emotion/understanding" poster, responded to someone who gave God the definition of love, basically told them, their God exists.

I'll try a different definition of God.

An infinite, all-powerful good.

Really? Then how do we explain all the $h!t in the world?

really? new to internet religious debates? lol...free will
but perhaps you didn't have the will to ignore....hmmm

and this is getting off topic

You're not trying to make your point and then stop the discussion there, are you?

Do you believe in heaven? Is there free will in heaven? If so then it is possible for god to create a world with free will and no suffering/evil, so that argument is defeated.

lol...me again, and actually I'm a believer in life is a paradox, so I'm not happy with my thought process' unless I find the paradox.

I do not understand your response or how it relates to the posts it follows. Respectfully requesting explanation.

[Anonymous]

As an atheist I often avoid conversations with other atheists because they are often poorly educated jerks.

[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:Love isn't supernatural.

Empathy isn't supernatural.

Love is an emotion and empathy is an understanding.

Both exist in the natural world.

Faith, an emotion and an understanding, exists in the natural world too.

No one claims faith doesn’t exist. What is your point?

my point was the same point that the poster made about love and empathy

No, that was in response to someone claiming that love and empathy are supernatural. You are the only one who brought up faith. Again, what was your intended point?

To add to the conversation.

Non-sequitur does not add to the conversation, it is exactly the opposite.

We're adding to it, lol...but those were vague definitions that make even God exist. The original "emotion/understanding" poster, responded to someone who gave God the definition of love, basically told them, their God exists.

I'll try a different definition of God.

An infinite, all-powerful good.

Really? Then how do we explain all the $h!t in the world?

really? new to internet religious debates? lol...free will
but perhaps you didn't have the will to ignore....hmmm

and this is getting off topic

You're not trying to make your point and then stop the discussion there, are you?

Do you believe in heaven? Is there free will in heaven? If so then it is possible for god to create a world with free will and no suffering/evil, so that argument is defeated.

lol...me again, and actually I'm a believer in life is a paradox, so I'm not happy with my thought process' unless I find the paradox.

I do not understand your response or how it relates to the posts it follows. Respectfully requesting explanation.

The previous poster pointed out the free will paradox. If you don't understand, look it up, it is older than the greeks.

[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:Love isn't supernatural.

Empathy isn't supernatural.

Love is an emotion and empathy is an understanding.

Both exist in the natural world.

Faith, an emotion and an understanding, exists in the natural world too.

No one claims faith doesn’t exist. What is your point?

my point was the same point that the poster made about love and empathy

No, that was in response to someone claiming that love and empathy are supernatural. You are the only one who brought up faith. Again, what was your intended point?

To add to the conversation.

Non-sequitur does not add to the conversation, it is exactly the opposite.

We're adding to it, lol...but those were vague definitions that make even God exist. The original "emotion/understanding" poster, responded to someone who gave God the definition of love, basically told them, their God exists.

I'll try a different definition of God.

An infinite, all-powerful good.

Really? Then how do we explain all the $h!t in the world?

really? new to internet religious debates? lol...free will
but perhaps you didn't have the will to ignore....hmmm

and this is getting off topic

You're not trying to make your point and then stop the discussion there, are you?

Do you believe in heaven? Is there free will in heaven? If so then it is possible for god to create a world with free will and no suffering/evil, so that argument is defeated.

lol...me again, and actually I'm a believer in life is a paradox, so I'm not happy with my thought process' unless I find the paradox.

I do not understand your response or how it relates to the posts it follows. Respectfully requesting explanation.

The previous poster pointed out the free will paradox. If you don't understand, look it up, it is older than the greeks.

who else is singing Rush right now.

[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:Love isn't supernatural.

Empathy isn't supernatural.

Love is an emotion and empathy is an understanding.

Both exist in the natural world.

Faith, an emotion and an understanding, exists in the natural world too.

No one claims faith doesn’t exist. What is your point?

my point was the same point that the poster made about love and empathy

No, that was in response to someone claiming that love and empathy are supernatural. You are the only one who brought up faith. Again, what was your intended point?

To add to the conversation.

Non-sequitur does not add to the conversation, it is exactly the opposite.

We're adding to it, lol...but those were vague definitions that make even God exist. The original "emotion/understanding" poster, responded to someone who gave God the definition of love, basically told them, their God exists.

I'll try a different definition of God.

An infinite, all-powerful good.

Really? Then how do we explain all the $h!t in the world?

really? new to internet religious debates? lol...free will
but perhaps you didn't have the will to ignore....hmmm

and this is getting off topic

You're not trying to make your point and then stop the discussion there, are you?

Do you believe in heaven? Is there free will in heaven? If so then it is possible for god to create a world with free will and no suffering/evil, so that argument is defeated.

lol...me again, and actually I'm a believer in life is a paradox, so I'm not happy with my thought process' unless I find the paradox.

I do not understand your response or how it relates to the posts it follows. Respectfully requesting explanation.

The previous poster pointed out the free will paradox. If you don't understand, look it up, it is older than the greeks.

Yes I know about that. Not what I asked. The paradox is whether or not free will exists - for this discussion I will grant that it does. I asked if, in your belief system, it exists in heaven.