Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thread in which atheists and anti-theists are desperately trying to pretend they don’t care about religion or God or other people’s beliefs while desperately desperately worrying about religion, God, and other people’s beliefs 24/7/365. One would think they would have better things to do, but apparently, they center their lives worrying and debating and being focused on religious people.

You keep posting this canard in every thread, and it is just as silly every time.

Atheists post here because they care about what is true. Many atheists think religion is a problem and that logic needs to be exhibited to combat the problem.

No one says they don’t care. Despite your claim. Which is a lie.

You are free to think whatever you want. But most smart atheists know that Christianity is the foundation of western civilization, even if they don’t actually believe in god themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thread in which atheists and anti-theists are desperately trying to pretend they don’t care about religion or God or other people’s beliefs while desperately desperately worrying about religion, God, and other people’s beliefs 24/7/365. One would think they would have better things to do, but apparently, they center their lives worrying and debating and being focused on religious people.

You keep posting this canard in every thread, and it is just as silly every time.

Atheists post here because they care about what is true. Many atheists think religion is a problem and that logic needs to be exhibited to combat the problem.

No one says they don’t care. Despite your claim. Which is a lie.

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:It's affirmed my Christianity many times. I realize the people trying to talk me out of my relationship with God are from the other evil side and I'm not interested in that side at all.

I am an atheist. I am not evil and I am not trying to talk you out of your relationship with God any more than I'm trying to talk you out of your relationship with the tooth fairy, if you still believe in it.

I do think it's silly for an adult to believe in anything supernatural and will continue to say so. You might be very intelligent in other ways, but still believe in God. Many intelligent people do. I once believed in God and I'm intelligent. I'm no longer believe inGod, but I''m still just as intelligent. I'm more informed now. I've accepted my life as being finite and have given up childish ideas about living forever[u].

Wait until technology makes it possible to live potentially forever. What would that do to peoples' belief systems?

Hopefully, it will mean that people discard their religious beliefs, because technology, i.e., science, is the reason it's possible to live forever. Not religion. Advancements in science have made life easier and longer. Religion never has.

Religion only allows for everlasting life in a fantasy land called heaven. And you have to die before you can get there and you only get there if you believe in God and have died in good standing in whatever of the many earthly religions you belonged to while alive.

Plenty of people are religious without the idea that it means you will live forever. Seriously, the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all else on this forum is annoying.

Please tell us the sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death. I'm not familiar with any.

DP, but PP said "religious" not "Christian." You literally just made PP's point - that posters on this forum (IMHO the atheists specifically are the big offenders here) seem obsessed with equating "religion" with "Christianity."

I'd argue that many eastern religious don't have a concept of life after death. Reincarnation != eternal life exactly, and certainly the merging of your life force with the universe is different than having a distinct soul forever and ever.

Actually you are incorrect. PP said "...the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all else on this forum is annoying." So I asked for the "sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death." Personally, I do not know of any and I do know that Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, and Lutherans and Presbyterians believe in life after death. Do you know of any Christian sects that don't believe in life after death? If so, please advise.

PP here. My point was actually that religious =/= Christian. I specified evangelical Christianity, because beyond just citing Christianity, posters here often specifically cite evangelical theology, probably because it's the loudest. But, no, I wasn't distinguishing mainstream Christianity from evangelical. I was distinguishing other religions from Christianity, which this forum never seems to do. Maybe this rephrasing will make it clearer: "the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all [other religions] on this forum is annoying.

Understood. Now, could you address the issue of: "sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death." Thanks

PP back again. No, I can't address the issue of Christian denominations and their beliefs. That's not what I was referring to, as I think I've made clear by this point. I was responding to the debate upthread about eternal life vs technology. Someone said "Hopefully, it will mean that people discard their religious beliefs, because technology, i.e., science, is the reason it's possible to live forever." First, that PP kept referring to "religion" and "religious beliefs" as if all religions preach eternal life in heaven, and then assumed that technology that can keep us (or our digitally-stored consciousnesses) alive forever would mean people abandon religion.

So, again: not all religions preach eternal life in heaven, so "solving" that issue with technological advances wouldn't make ALL religion unnecessary. Someone else who is actually Christian would have to speak to whether or not other aspects of Christianity would be enough to keep their religion going if eternal life in heaven was no longer the only way to "live" beyond death. I suspect that there are other things that would keep them religious, since Christianity does have a full range of other theological underpinnings that probably help Christians find meaning in their lives. But, again, I'm not Christian and not every religious person on this thread is Christian and it would be great if we stopped using "religion" and "Christianity" interchangeably.

And back to OP's question - the inability of most posters on this forum (notably atheists) to distinguish between "religious" and "Christian" demonstrates that the DCUM Religion Forum community (by and large) does not have the capacity to change minds about any issue of religion, since they can't even correctly define what they're talking about.

You're missing the point that the religion doesn't matter, it's all make believe. The atheists are countering the main respondents who tend to come from Christian backgrounds.

It's not persuasive to just say, "religion is make believe." That's a statement, not a persuasive argument that is going to change minds, to OP's question.

So when the examples of the make believe are "Jesus couldn't have turned water into wine" that isn't a reason someone should be persuaded to change their mind about Islam or Buddhism or Judaism or [insert non-Christian religion here].

I understand the point that atheists see it as all the same. But in the context of OP's question about whether or not anyone has had their mind changed, it very much is the point.

It's not meant to be persuasive. It's a statement of fact. Whether someone accepts facts and incorporates it into their reasoning, it's up to them whether to live in a fantasy land or reality.

Wow, my mind is forever changed! You've done it! You've understood that the root of the religious mindset is that we're just too naive/ignorant of reality, and if only we were presented with a statement of what you believe instead, we would cast off our myths and live in an atheist reality.

Well, you got part of this true, nice job!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thread in which atheists and anti-theists are desperately trying to pretend they don’t care about religion or God or other people’s beliefs while desperately desperately worrying about religion, God, and other people’s beliefs 24/7/365. One would think they would have better things to do, but apparently, they center their lives worrying and debating and being focused on religious people.

You keep posting this canard in every thread, and it is just as silly every time.

Atheists post here because they care about what is true. Many atheists think religion is a problem and that logic needs to be exhibited to combat the problem.

No one says they don’t care. Despite your claim. Which is a lie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religion is for the stupid feeble minded

Religion cases such pain
Religion is number one cause of child abuse and domestic violence

Religion is BS

Assertions with no factual backup.

Like religion itself. e.g.,: Jesus is the son of God. He was crucified, died and was buried. Then, after 3 days, he rose from the dead and later ascended into heaven where he now sits at the right hand of God.

And actually , there IS factual backup because we now know, thanks to advances in science, that none of the above is pssible.

Science cannot refute Christianity because science is designed to study the natural world and observable phenomena, while Christianity deals with supernatural concepts like God and the afterlife, which are not within the scope of scientific investigation; essentially, science can't prove or disprove the existence of a deity due to its methodology focused on empirical evidence.

Science can refute some parts of Jesus's story. Take the water into wine story. It is impossible to do that, thus it is a made up story to fluff up Jesus's credentials.

Definition of a miracle (as it was taught to me):

- a sign: points to God somehow
- a wonder: something not natural (aka impossible to do) that makes people take note - like memorize it and later write it down, perhaps
- a mighty work: something that takes supernatural power in order to accomplish

Science also cannot prove or falsify whether a person outside of time and space can break into the time and space he created and change rules, and in so doing perform a miracle.

Tell me how you determined science cannot falsify "whether a person outside of time and space can break into the time and space he created and change rules".

Anonymous wrote:Another thread in which atheists and anti-theists are desperately trying to pretend they don’t care about religion or God or other people’s beliefs while desperately desperately worrying about religion, God, and other people’s beliefs 24/7/365. One would think they would have better things to do, but apparently, they center their lives worrying and debating and being focused on religious people.

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:It's affirmed my Christianity many times. I realize the people trying to talk me out of my relationship with God are from the other evil side and I'm not interested in that side at all.

I am an atheist. I am not evil and I am not trying to talk you out of your relationship with God any more than I'm trying to talk you out of your relationship with the tooth fairy, if you still believe in it.

I do think it's silly for an adult to believe in anything supernatural and will continue to say so. You might be very intelligent in other ways, but still believe in God. Many intelligent people do. I once believed in God and I'm intelligent. I'm no longer believe inGod, but I''m still just as intelligent. I'm more informed now. I've accepted my life as being finite and have given up childish ideas about living forever[u].

Wait until technology makes it possible to live potentially forever. What would that do to peoples' belief systems?

Hopefully, it will mean that people discard their religious beliefs, because technology, i.e., science, is the reason it's possible to live forever. Not religion. Advancements in science have made life easier and longer. Religion never has.

Religion only allows for everlasting life in a fantasy land called heaven. And you have to die before you can get there and you only get there if you believe in God and have died in good standing in whatever of the many earthly religions you belonged to while alive.

Plenty of people are religious without the idea that it means you will live forever. Seriously, the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all else on this forum is annoying.

Please tell us the sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death. I'm not familiar with any.

DP, but PP said "religious" not "Christian." You literally just made PP's point - that posters on this forum (IMHO the atheists specifically are the big offenders here) seem obsessed with equating "religion" with "Christianity."

I'd argue that many eastern religious don't have a concept of life after death. Reincarnation != eternal life exactly, and certainly the merging of your life force with the universe is different than having a distinct soul forever and ever.

Actually you are incorrect. PP said "...the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all else on this forum is annoying." So I asked for the "sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death." Personally, I do not know of any and I do know that Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, and Lutherans and Presbyterians believe in life after death. Do you know of any Christian sects that don't believe in life after death? If so, please advise.

PP here. My point was actually that religious =/= Christian. I specified evangelical Christianity, because beyond just citing Christianity, posters here often specifically cite evangelical theology, probably because it's the loudest. But, no, I wasn't distinguishing mainstream Christianity from evangelical. I was distinguishing other religions from Christianity, which this forum never seems to do. Maybe this rephrasing will make it clearer: "the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all [other religions] on this forum is annoying.

Understood. Now, could you address the issue of: "sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death." Thanks

PP back again. No, I can't address the issue of Christian denominations and their beliefs. That's not what I was referring to, as I think I've made clear by this point. I was responding to the debate upthread about eternal life vs technology. Someone said "Hopefully, it will mean that people discard their religious beliefs, because technology, i.e., science, is the reason it's possible to live forever." First, that PP kept referring to "religion" and "religious beliefs" as if all religions preach eternal life in heaven, and then assumed that technology that can keep us (or our digitally-stored consciousnesses) alive forever would mean people abandon religion.

So, again: not all religions preach eternal life in heaven, so "solving" that issue with technological advances wouldn't make ALL religion unnecessary. Someone else who is actually Christian would have to speak to whether or not other aspects of Christianity would be enough to keep their religion going if eternal life in heaven was no longer the only way to "live" beyond death. I suspect that there are other things that would keep them religious, since Christianity does have a full range of other theological underpinnings that probably help Christians find meaning in their lives. But, again, I'm not Christian and not every religious person on this thread is Christian and it would be great if we stopped using "religion" and "Christianity" interchangeably.

And back to OP's question - the inability of most posters on this forum (notably atheists) to distinguish between "religious" and "Christian" demonstrates that the DCUM Religion Forum community (by and large) does not have the capacity to change minds about any issue of religion, since they can't even correctly define what they're talking about.

You're missing the point that the religion doesn't matter, it's all make believe. The atheists are countering the main respondents who tend to come from Christian backgrounds.

It's not persuasive to just say, "religion is make believe." That's a statement, not a persuasive argument that is going to change minds, to OP's question.

So when the examples of the make believe are "Jesus couldn't have turned water into wine" that isn't a reason someone should be persuaded to change their mind about Islam or Buddhism or Judaism or [insert non-Christian religion here].

I understand the point that atheists see it as all the same. But in the context of OP's question about whether or not anyone has had their mind changed, it very much is the point.

It's not meant to be persuasive. It's a statement of fact. Whether someone accepts facts and incorporates it into their reasoning, it's up to them whether to live in a fantasy land or reality.

Wow, my mind is forever changed! You've done it! You've understood that the root of the religious mindset is that we're just too naive/ignorant of reality, and if only we were presented with a statement of what you believe instead, we would cast off our myths and live in an atheist reality.

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:It's affirmed my Christianity many times. I realize the people trying to talk me out of my relationship with God are from the other evil side and I'm not interested in that side at all.

I am an atheist. I am not evil and I am not trying to talk you out of your relationship with God any more than I'm trying to talk you out of your relationship with the tooth fairy, if you still believe in it.

I do think it's silly for an adult to believe in anything supernatural and will continue to say so. You might be very intelligent in other ways, but still believe in God. Many intelligent people do. I once believed in God and I'm intelligent. I'm no longer believe inGod, but I''m still just as intelligent. I'm more informed now. I've accepted my life as being finite and have given up childish ideas about living forever[u].

Wait until technology makes it possible to live potentially forever. What would that do to peoples' belief systems?

Hopefully, it will mean that people discard their religious beliefs, because technology, i.e., science, is the reason it's possible to live forever. Not religion. Advancements in science have made life easier and longer. Religion never has.

Religion only allows for everlasting life in a fantasy land called heaven. And you have to die before you can get there and you only get there if you believe in God and have died in good standing in whatever of the many earthly religions you belonged to while alive.

Plenty of people are religious without the idea that it means you will live forever. Seriously, the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all else on this forum is annoying.

Please tell us the sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death. I'm not familiar with any.

DP, but PP said "religious" not "Christian." You literally just made PP's point - that posters on this forum (IMHO the atheists specifically are the big offenders here) seem obsessed with equating "religion" with "Christianity."

I'd argue that many eastern religious don't have a concept of life after death. Reincarnation != eternal life exactly, and certainly the merging of your life force with the universe is different than having a distinct soul forever and ever.

Actually you are incorrect. PP said "...the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all else on this forum is annoying." So I asked for the "sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death." Personally, I do not know of any and I do know that Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, and Lutherans and Presbyterians believe in life after death. Do you know of any Christian sects that don't believe in life after death? If so, please advise.

PP here. My point was actually that religious =/= Christian. I specified evangelical Christianity, because beyond just citing Christianity, posters here often specifically cite evangelical theology, probably because it's the loudest. But, no, I wasn't distinguishing mainstream Christianity from evangelical. I was distinguishing other religions from Christianity, which this forum never seems to do. Maybe this rephrasing will make it clearer: "the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all [other religions] on this forum is annoying.

Understood. Now, could you address the issue of: "sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death." Thanks

PP back again. No, I can't address the issue of Christian denominations and their beliefs. That's not what I was referring to, as I think I've made clear by this point. I was responding to the debate upthread about eternal life vs technology. Someone said "Hopefully, it will mean that people discard their religious beliefs, because technology, i.e., science, is the reason it's possible to live forever." First, that PP kept referring to "religion" and "religious beliefs" as if all religions preach eternal life in heaven, and then assumed that technology that can keep us (or our digitally-stored consciousnesses) alive forever would mean people abandon religion.

So, again: not all religions preach eternal life in heaven, so "solving" that issue with technological advances wouldn't make ALL religion unnecessary. Someone else who is actually Christian would have to speak to whether or not other aspects of Christianity would be enough to keep their religion going if eternal life in heaven was no longer the only way to "live" beyond death. I suspect that there are other things that would keep them religious, since Christianity does have a full range of other theological underpinnings that probably help Christians find meaning in their lives. But, again, I'm not Christian and not every religious person on this thread is Christian and it would be great if we stopped using "religion" and "Christianity" interchangeably.

And back to OP's question - the inability of most posters on this forum (notably atheists) to distinguish between "religious" and "Christian" demonstrates that the DCUM Religion Forum community (by and large) does not have the capacity to change minds about any issue of religion, since they can't even correctly define what they're talking about.

You're missing the point that the religion doesn't matter, it's all make believe. The atheists are countering the main respondents who tend to come from Christian backgrounds.

It's not persuasive to just say, "religion is make believe." That's a statement, not a persuasive argument that is going to change minds, to OP's question.

So when the examples of the make believe are "Jesus couldn't have turned water into wine" that isn't a reason someone should be persuaded to change their mind about Islam or Buddhism or Judaism or [insert non-Christian religion here].

I understand the point that atheists see it as all the same. But in the context of OP's question about whether or not anyone has had their mind changed, it very much is the point.

It's not meant to be persuasive. It's a statement of fact. Whether someone accepts facts and incorporates it into their reasoning, it's up to them whether to live in a fantasy land or reality.

Wow, my mind is forever changed! You've done it! You've understood that the root of the religious mindset is that we're just too naive/ignorant of reality, and if only we were presented with a statement of what you believe instead, we would cast off our myths and live in an atheist reality.

It's usually fear that prevents those who have been indoctrinated all their lives from accepting reality, not just pure ignorance. Although, there are plenty of ignorant, out spoken believers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religion is for the stupid feeble minded

Religion cases such pain
Religion is number one cause of child abuse and domestic violence

Religion is BS

Assertions with no factual backup.

Like religion itself. e.g.,: Jesus is the son of God. He was crucified, died and was buried. Then, after 3 days, he rose from the dead and later ascended into heaven where he now sits at the right hand of God.

And actually , there IS factual backup because we now know, thanks to advances in science, that none of the above is pssible.

Science cannot refute Christianity because science is designed to study the natural world and observable phenomena, while Christianity deals with supernatural concepts like God and the afterlife, which are not within the scope of scientific investigation; essentially, science can't prove or disprove the existence of a deity due to its methodology focused on empirical evidence.

Science can refute some parts of Jesus's story. Take the water into wine story. It is impossible to do that, thus it is a made up story to fluff up Jesus's credentials.

Definition of a miracle (as it was taught to me):

- a sign: points to God somehow
- a wonder: something not natural (aka impossible to do) that makes people take note - like memorize it and later write it down, perhaps
- a mighty work: something that takes supernatural power in order to accomplish

Science also cannot prove or falsify whether a person outside of time and space can break into the time and space he created and change rules, and in so doing perform a miracle.

Tell me how you determined science cannot falsify "whether a person outside of time and space can break into the time and space he created and change rules".

Because it doesn't deal in metaphysics and time, space as a concept (as opposed to something observed), and God are metaphysical questions. Science may be able to help falsify some metaphysical theories, but it certainly cannot prove them.

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:It's affirmed my Christianity many times. I realize the people trying to talk me out of my relationship with God are from the other evil side and I'm not interested in that side at all.

I am an atheist. I am not evil and I am not trying to talk you out of your relationship with God any more than I'm trying to talk you out of your relationship with the tooth fairy, if you still believe in it.

I do think it's silly for an adult to believe in anything supernatural and will continue to say so. You might be very intelligent in other ways, but still believe in God. Many intelligent people do. I once believed in God and I'm intelligent. I'm no longer believe inGod, but I''m still just as intelligent. I'm more informed now. I've accepted my life as being finite and have given up childish ideas about living forever[u].

Wait until technology makes it possible to live potentially forever. What would that do to peoples' belief systems?

Hopefully, it will mean that people discard their religious beliefs, because technology, i.e., science, is the reason it's possible to live forever. Not religion. Advancements in science have made life easier and longer. Religion never has.

Religion only allows for everlasting life in a fantasy land called heaven. And you have to die before you can get there and you only get there if you believe in God and have died in good standing in whatever of the many earthly religions you belonged to while alive.

Plenty of people are religious without the idea that it means you will live forever. Seriously, the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all else on this forum is annoying.

Please tell us the sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death. I'm not familiar with any.

DP, but PP said "religious" not "Christian." You literally just made PP's point - that posters on this forum (IMHO the atheists specifically are the big offenders here) seem obsessed with equating "religion" with "Christianity."

I'd argue that many eastern religious don't have a concept of life after death. Reincarnation != eternal life exactly, and certainly the merging of your life force with the universe is different than having a distinct soul forever and ever.

Actually you are incorrect. PP said "...the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all else on this forum is annoying." So I asked for the "sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death." Personally, I do not know of any and I do know that Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, and Lutherans and Presbyterians believe in life after death. Do you know of any Christian sects that don't believe in life after death? If so, please advise.

PP here. My point was actually that religious =/= Christian. I specified evangelical Christianity, because beyond just citing Christianity, posters here often specifically cite evangelical theology, probably because it's the loudest. But, no, I wasn't distinguishing mainstream Christianity from evangelical. I was distinguishing other religions from Christianity, which this forum never seems to do. Maybe this rephrasing will make it clearer: "the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all [other religions] on this forum is annoying.

Understood. Now, could you address the issue of: "sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death." Thanks

PP back again. No, I can't address the issue of Christian denominations and their beliefs. That's not what I was referring to, as I think I've made clear by this point. I was responding to the debate upthread about eternal life vs technology. Someone said "Hopefully, it will mean that people discard their religious beliefs, because technology, i.e., science, is the reason it's possible to live forever." First, that PP kept referring to "religion" and "religious beliefs" as if all religions preach eternal life in heaven, and then assumed that technology that can keep us (or our digitally-stored consciousnesses) alive forever would mean people abandon religion.

So, again: not all religions preach eternal life in heaven, so "solving" that issue with technological advances wouldn't make ALL religion unnecessary. Someone else who is actually Christian would have to speak to whether or not other aspects of Christianity would be enough to keep their religion going if eternal life in heaven was no longer the only way to "live" beyond death. I suspect that there are other things that would keep them religious, since Christianity does have a full range of other theological underpinnings that probably help Christians find meaning in their lives. But, again, I'm not Christian and not every religious person on this thread is Christian and it would be great if we stopped using "religion" and "Christianity" interchangeably.

And back to OP's question - the inability of most posters on this forum (notably atheists) to distinguish between "religious" and "Christian" demonstrates that the DCUM Religion Forum community (by and large) does not have the capacity to change minds about any issue of religion, since they can't even correctly define what they're talking about.

You're missing the point that the religion doesn't matter, it's all make believe. The atheists are countering the main respondents who tend to come from Christian backgrounds.

It's not persuasive to just say, "religion is make believe." That's a statement, not a persuasive argument that is going to change minds, to OP's question.

So when the examples of the make believe are "Jesus couldn't have turned water into wine" that isn't a reason someone should be persuaded to change their mind about Islam or Buddhism or Judaism or [insert non-Christian religion here].

I understand the point that atheists see it as all the same. But in the context of OP's question about whether or not anyone has had their mind changed, it very much is the point.

It's not meant to be persuasive. It's a statement of fact. Whether someone accepts facts and incorporates it into their reasoning, it's up to them whether to live in a fantasy land or reality.

Wow, my mind is forever changed! You've done it! You've understood that the root of the religious mindset is that we're just too naive/ignorant of reality, and if only we were presented with a statement of what you believe instead, we would cast off our myths and live in an atheist reality.

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:It's affirmed my Christianity many times. I realize the people trying to talk me out of my relationship with God are from the other evil side and I'm not interested in that side at all.

I am an atheist. I am not evil and I am not trying to talk you out of your relationship with God any more than I'm trying to talk you out of your relationship with the tooth fairy, if you still believe in it.

I do think it's silly for an adult to believe in anything supernatural and will continue to say so. You might be very intelligent in other ways, but still believe in God. Many intelligent people do. I once believed in God and I'm intelligent. I'm no longer believe inGod, but I''m still just as intelligent. I'm more informed now. I've accepted my life as being finite and have given up childish ideas about living forever[u].

Wait until technology makes it possible to live potentially forever. What would that do to peoples' belief systems?

Hopefully, it will mean that people discard their religious beliefs, because technology, i.e., science, is the reason it's possible to live forever. Not religion. Advancements in science have made life easier and longer. Religion never has.

Religion only allows for everlasting life in a fantasy land called heaven. And you have to die before you can get there and you only get there if you believe in God and have died in good standing in whatever of the many earthly religions you belonged to while alive.

Plenty of people are religious without the idea that it means you will live forever. Seriously, the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all else on this forum is annoying.

Please tell us the sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death. I'm not familiar with any.

DP, but PP said "religious" not "Christian." You literally just made PP's point - that posters on this forum (IMHO the atheists specifically are the big offenders here) seem obsessed with equating "religion" with "Christianity."

I'd argue that many eastern religious don't have a concept of life after death. Reincarnation != eternal life exactly, and certainly the merging of your life force with the universe is different than having a distinct soul forever and ever.

Actually you are incorrect. PP said "...the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all else on this forum is annoying." So I asked for the "sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death." Personally, I do not know of any and I do know that Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, and Lutherans and Presbyterians believe in life after death. Do you know of any Christian sects that don't believe in life after death? If so, please advise.

PP here. My point was actually that religious =/= Christian. I specified evangelical Christianity, because beyond just citing Christianity, posters here often specifically cite evangelical theology, probably because it's the loudest. But, no, I wasn't distinguishing mainstream Christianity from evangelical. I was distinguishing other religions from Christianity, which this forum never seems to do. Maybe this rephrasing will make it clearer: "the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all [other religions] on this forum is annoying.

Understood. Now, could you address the issue of: "sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death." Thanks

PP back again. No, I can't address the issue of Christian denominations and their beliefs. That's not what I was referring to, as I think I've made clear by this point. I was responding to the debate upthread about eternal life vs technology. Someone said "Hopefully, it will mean that people discard their religious beliefs, because technology, i.e., science, is the reason it's possible to live forever." First, that PP kept referring to "religion" and "religious beliefs" as if all religions preach eternal life in heaven, and then assumed that technology that can keep us (or our digitally-stored consciousnesses) alive forever would mean people abandon religion.

So, again: not all religions preach eternal life in heaven, so "solving" that issue with technological advances wouldn't make ALL religion unnecessary. Someone else who is actually Christian would have to speak to whether or not other aspects of Christianity would be enough to keep their religion going if eternal life in heaven was no longer the only way to "live" beyond death. I suspect that there are other things that would keep them religious, since Christianity does have a full range of other theological underpinnings that probably help Christians find meaning in their lives. But, again, I'm not Christian and not every religious person on this thread is Christian and it would be great if we stopped using "religion" and "Christianity" interchangeably.

And back to OP's question - the inability of most posters on this forum (notably atheists) to distinguish between "religious" and "Christian" demonstrates that the DCUM Religion Forum community (by and large) does not have the capacity to change minds about any issue of religion, since they can't even correctly define what they're talking about.

You're missing the point that the religion doesn't matter, it's all make believe. The atheists are countering the main respondents who tend to come from Christian backgrounds.

It's not persuasive to just say, "religion is make believe." That's a statement, not a persuasive argument that is going to change minds, to OP's question.

So when the examples of the make believe are "Jesus couldn't have turned water into wine" that isn't a reason someone should be persuaded to change their mind about Islam or Buddhism or Judaism or [insert non-Christian religion here].

I understand the point that atheists see it as all the same. But in the context of OP's question about whether or not anyone has had their mind changed, it very much is the point.

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:It's affirmed my Christianity many times. I realize the people trying to talk me out of my relationship with God are from the other evil side and I'm not interested in that side at all.

I am an atheist. I am not evil and I am not trying to talk you out of your relationship with God any more than I'm trying to talk you out of your relationship with the tooth fairy, if you still believe in it.

I do think it's silly for an adult to believe in anything supernatural and will continue to say so. You might be very intelligent in other ways, but still believe in God. Many intelligent people do. I once believed in God and I'm intelligent. I'm no longer believe inGod, but I''m still just as intelligent. I'm more informed now. I've accepted my life as being finite and have given up childish ideas about living forever[u].

Wait until technology makes it possible to live potentially forever. What would that do to peoples' belief systems?

Hopefully, it will mean that people discard their religious beliefs, because technology, i.e., science, is the reason it's possible to live forever. Not religion. Advancements in science have made life easier and longer. Religion never has.

Religion only allows for everlasting life in a fantasy land called heaven. And you have to die before you can get there and you only get there if you believe in God and have died in good standing in whatever of the many earthly religions you belonged to while alive.

Plenty of people are religious without the idea that it means you will live forever. Seriously, the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all else on this forum is annoying.

Please tell us the sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death. I'm not familiar with any.

DP, but PP said "religious" not "Christian." You literally just made PP's point - that posters on this forum (IMHO the atheists specifically are the big offenders here) seem obsessed with equating "religion" with "Christianity."

I'd argue that many eastern religious don't have a concept of life after death. Reincarnation != eternal life exactly, and certainly the merging of your life force with the universe is different than having a distinct soul forever and ever.

Actually you are incorrect. PP said "...the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all else on this forum is annoying." So I asked for the "sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death." Personally, I do not know of any and I do know that Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, and Lutherans and Presbyterians believe in life after death. Do you know of any Christian sects that don't believe in life after death? If so, please advise.

PP here. My point was actually that religious =/= Christian. I specified evangelical Christianity, because beyond just citing Christianity, posters here often specifically cite evangelical theology, probably because it's the loudest. But, no, I wasn't distinguishing mainstream Christianity from evangelical. I was distinguishing other religions from Christianity, which this forum never seems to do. Maybe this rephrasing will make it clearer: "the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all [other religions] on this forum is annoying.

Understood. Now, could you address the issue of: "sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death." Thanks

PP back again. No, I can't address the issue of Christian denominations and their beliefs. That's not what I was referring to, as I think I've made clear by this point. I was responding to the debate upthread about eternal life vs technology. Someone said "Hopefully, it will mean that people discard their religious beliefs, because technology, i.e., science, is the reason it's possible to live forever." First, that PP kept referring to "religion" and "religious beliefs" as if all religions preach eternal life in heaven, and then assumed that technology that can keep us (or our digitally-stored consciousnesses) alive forever would mean people abandon religion.

So, again: not all religions preach eternal life in heaven, so "solving" that issue with technological advances wouldn't make ALL religion unnecessary. Someone else who is actually Christian would have to speak to whether or not other aspects of Christianity would be enough to keep their religion going if eternal life in heaven was no longer the only way to "live" beyond death. I suspect that there are other things that would keep them religious, since Christianity does have a full range of other theological underpinnings that probably help Christians find meaning in their lives. But, again, I'm not Christian and not every religious person on this thread is Christian and it would be great if we stopped using "religion" and "Christianity" interchangeably.

And back to OP's question - the inability of most posters on this forum (notably atheists) to distinguish between "religious" and "Christian" demonstrates that the DCUM Religion Forum community (by and large) does not have the capacity to change minds about any issue of religion, since they can't even correctly define what they're talking about.

You're missing the point that the religion doesn't matter, it's all make believe. The atheists are countering the main respondents who tend to come from Christian backgrounds.

It's not persuasive to just say, "religion is make believe." That's a statement, not a persuasive argument that is going to change minds, to OP's question.

So when the examples of the make believe are "Jesus couldn't have turned water into wine" that isn't a reason someone should be persuaded to change their mind about Islam or Buddhism or Judaism or [insert non-Christian religion here].

I understand the point that atheists see it as all the same. But in the context of OP's question about whether or not anyone has had their mind changed, it very much is the point.

It's not meant to be persuasive. It's a statement of fact. Whether someone accepts facts and incorporates it into their reasoning, it's up to them whether to live in a fantasy land or reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religion is for the stupid feeble minded

Religion cases such pain
Religion is number one cause of child abuse and domestic violence

Religion is BS

Assertions with no factual backup.

Like religion itself. e.g.,: Jesus is the son of God. He was crucified, died and was buried. Then, after 3 days, he rose from the dead and later ascended into heaven where he now sits at the right hand of God.

And actually , there IS factual backup because we now know, thanks to advances in science, that none of the above is pssible.

Science cannot refute Christianity because science is designed to study the natural world and observable phenomena, while Christianity deals with supernatural concepts like God and the afterlife, which are not within the scope of scientific investigation; essentially, science can't prove or disprove the existence of a deity due to its methodology focused on empirical evidence.

Science can refute some parts of Jesus's story. Take the water into wine story. It is impossible to do that, thus it is a made up story to fluff up Jesus's credentials.

Definition of a miracle (as it was taught to me):

- a sign: points to God somehow
- a wonder: something not natural (aka impossible to do) that makes people take note - like memorize it and later write it down, perhaps
- a mighty work: something that takes supernatural power in order to accomplish

Science also cannot prove or falsify whether a person outside of time and space can break into the time and space he created and change rules, and in so doing perform a miracle.

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:It's affirmed my Christianity many times. I realize the people trying to talk me out of my relationship with God are from the other evil side and I'm not interested in that side at all.

I am an atheist. I am not evil and I am not trying to talk you out of your relationship with God any more than I'm trying to talk you out of your relationship with the tooth fairy, if you still believe in it.

I do think it's silly for an adult to believe in anything supernatural and will continue to say so. You might be very intelligent in other ways, but still believe in God. Many intelligent people do. I once believed in God and I'm intelligent. I'm no longer believe inGod, but I''m still just as intelligent. I'm more informed now. I've accepted my life as being finite and have given up childish ideas about living forever[u].

Wait until technology makes it possible to live potentially forever. What would that do to peoples' belief systems?

Hopefully, it will mean that people discard their religious beliefs, because technology, i.e., science, is the reason it's possible to live forever. Not religion. Advancements in science have made life easier and longer. Religion never has.

Religion only allows for everlasting life in a fantasy land called heaven. And you have to die before you can get there and you only get there if you believe in God and have died in good standing in whatever of the many earthly religions you belonged to while alive.

Plenty of people are religious without the idea that it means you will live forever. Seriously, the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all else on this forum is annoying.

Please tell us the sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death. I'm not familiar with any.

DP, but PP said "religious" not "Christian." You literally just made PP's point - that posters on this forum (IMHO the atheists specifically are the big offenders here) seem obsessed with equating "religion" with "Christianity."

I'd argue that many eastern religious don't have a concept of life after death. Reincarnation != eternal life exactly, and certainly the merging of your life force with the universe is different than having a distinct soul forever and ever.

Actually you are incorrect. PP said "...the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all else on this forum is annoying." So I asked for the "sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death." Personally, I do not know of any and I do know that Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, and Lutherans and Presbyterians believe in life after death. Do you know of any Christian sects that don't believe in life after death? If so, please advise.

PP here. My point was actually that religious =/= Christian. I specified evangelical Christianity, because beyond just citing Christianity, posters here often specifically cite evangelical theology, probably because it's the loudest. But, no, I wasn't distinguishing mainstream Christianity from evangelical. I was distinguishing other religions from Christianity, which this forum never seems to do. Maybe this rephrasing will make it clearer: "the bias toward evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all [other religions] on this forum is annoying.

Understood. Now, could you address the issue of: "sects of Christianity that do not believe in life after death." Thanks

PP back again. No, I can't address the issue of Christian denominations and their beliefs. That's not what I was referring to, as I think I've made clear by this point. I was responding to the debate upthread about eternal life vs technology. Someone said "Hopefully, it will mean that people discard their religious beliefs, because technology, i.e., science, is the reason it's possible to live forever." First, that PP kept referring to "religion" and "religious beliefs" as if all religions preach eternal life in heaven, and then assumed that technology that can keep us (or our digitally-stored consciousnesses) alive forever would mean people abandon religion.

So, again: not all religions preach eternal life in heaven, so "solving" that issue with technological advances wouldn't make ALL religion unnecessary. Someone else who is actually Christian would have to speak to whether or not other aspects of Christianity would be enough to keep their religion going if eternal life in heaven was no longer the only way to "live" beyond death. I suspect that there are other things that would keep them religious, since Christianity does have a full range of other theological underpinnings that probably help Christians find meaning in their lives. But, again, I'm not Christian and not every religious person on this thread is Christian and it would be great if we stopped using "religion" and "Christianity" interchangeably.

And back to OP's question - the inability of most posters on this forum (notably atheists) to distinguish between "religious" and "Christian" demonstrates that the DCUM Religion Forum community (by and large) does not have the capacity to change minds about any issue of religion, since they can't even correctly define what they're talking about.

You're missing the point that the religion doesn't matter, it's all make believe. The atheists are countering the main respondents who tend to come from Christian backgrounds.

It's not persuasive to just say, "religion is make believe." That's a statement, not a persuasive argument that is going to change minds, to OP's question.

So when the examples of the make believe are "Jesus couldn't have turned water into wine" that isn't a reason someone should be persuaded to change their mind about Islam or Buddhism or Judaism or [insert non-Christian religion here].

I understand the point that atheists see it as all the same. But in the context of OP's question about whether or not anyone has had their mind changed, it very much is the point.