Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think trying to walk the straight and narrow path without being a hypocrite would be so difficult. I wonder how the religious folks reconcile this?
I also think it would be so boring. Like denying much of our human impulses which, you know, God gave us in the first place.

What kind of human impulses are you talking about? Like having sex with someone you think is attractive even if they don’t consent?

Or seeing a material object you like that belongs to someone else, that you can’t afford to buy yourself, that you really want- so you take it for yourself?

Or you don’t want to pay taxes on your income so you just don’t file?


Or you get bored with your spouse and fall out of love so you decide to find someone you are more attracted to and leave in the middle of the night and start over afresh?

Or your neighbor is so darn annoying. Always complaining about your dog barking and arguing about noise laws. So one day you decide instead of dealing with your big mouth neighbor constantly complaining, you are going to punch him in his fat face.

These kinds of human impulses?

when I read a disgusting post like this I'm even more glad I'm an atheist. And I did give it a try going the other way, but never could buy into it. Maybe there's a gene that makes one susceptible to belief and some of us just don't have it?

a pp at 8:39 posted this:

“I think trying to walk the straight and narrow path without being a hypocrite would be so difficult. I wonder how the religious folks reconcile this?
I also think it would be so boring. Like denying much of our human impulses which, you know, God gave us in the first place.“

I’ve asked pp to clarify and they have thus far stayed silent.

To me, they seem to be saying:

1. “trying to walk the straight and narrow path without being a religious hypocrite is hard.” I agree. If you are religious and make no attempt to abide by the moral rules of your religion, acknowledge when you fail, ask for forgiveness, and put all your effort into abstaining from sin, you are possibly a hypocrite, depending on your attitude towards other people. But pp won’t clarify.

2. “It would be so boring.” Maybe to pp. That’s their opinion. I don’t think it’s boring. To them it is though and that’s valid for their life outlook.

3. “denying our human impulses” ok humans have alot of impulses. Murder, rape, violence, gun crime, etc. Impulse control is a big deal. We have to teach our kids to control their impulses to be successful adults. Adults with poor impulse control have higher rates of all the bad things in life. If you see a delicious chocolate cake and your impulse is to eat it all- that’s bad, too. If your toddler sees a bowl of candy at grandma’s house and runs to it and grabs two handfuls and starts eating candy with abandon that’s bad news.

4. “God gave us in the first place” so pp is a Christian? They believe God gave us these “impulsive” behaviors? A Christian would know God is holy. God is perfect. We are made in His image. He didn’t give us sin. But pp is a Christian who believes God made us sin.

So at the very least they could clarify their post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think trying to walk the straight and narrow path without being a hypocrite would be so difficult. I wonder how the religious folks reconcile this?
I also think it would be so boring. Like denying much of our human impulses which, you know, God gave us in the first place.

What kind of human impulses are you talking about? Like having sex with someone you think is attractive even if they don’t consent?

Or seeing a material object you like that belongs to someone else, that you can’t afford to buy yourself, that you really want- so you take it for yourself?

Or you don’t want to pay taxes on your income so you just don’t file?


Or you get bored with your spouse and fall out of love so you decide to find someone you are more attracted to and leave in the middle of the night and start over afresh?

Or your neighbor is so darn annoying. Always complaining about your dog barking and arguing about noise laws. So one day you decide instead of dealing with your big mouth neighbor constantly complaining, you are going to punch him in his fat face.

These kinds of human impulses?

when I read a disgusting post like this I'm even more glad I'm an atheist. And I did give it a try going the other way, but never could buy into it. Maybe there's a gene that makes one susceptible to belief and some of us just don't have it?

Inability to cope with uncertainty?
Fearful personality?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think trying to walk the straight and narrow path without being a hypocrite would be so difficult. I wonder how the religious folks reconcile this?
I also think it would be so boring. Like denying much of our human impulses which, you know, God gave us in the first place.

What kind of human impulses are you talking about? Like having sex with someone you think is attractive even if they don’t consent?

Or seeing a material object you like that belongs to someone else, that you can’t afford to buy yourself, that you really want- so you take it for yourself?

Or you don’t want to pay taxes on your income so you just don’t file?


Or you get bored with your spouse and fall out of love so you decide to find someone you are more attracted to and leave in the middle of the night and start over afresh?

Or your neighbor is so darn annoying. Always complaining about your dog barking and arguing about noise laws. So one day you decide instead of dealing with your big mouth neighbor constantly complaining, you are going to punch him in his fat face.

These kinds of human impulses?

when I read a disgusting post like this I'm even more glad I'm an atheist. And I did give it a try going the other way, but never could buy into it. Maybe there's a gene that makes one susceptible to belief and some of us just don't have it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically Jesus had no religion. How could he be Jewish because by him being the son of God it ended Judaism’s main premise. Also Christianity did not spread till after his Death.

He had faith and love, and this is what Christianity is about. It is not about relegion.

How is Christianity not about religion?

This is the most hilarious comment I've ever heard on the Religion forum. Christianity isn't about religion, really?,

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think trying to walk the straight and narrow path without being a hypocrite would be so difficult. I wonder how the religious folks reconcile this?
I also think it would be so boring. Like denying much of our human impulses which, you know, God gave us in the first place.

What kind of human impulses are you talking about? Like having sex with someone you think is attractive even if they don’t consent?

Or seeing a material object you like that belongs to someone else, that you can’t afford to buy yourself, that you really want- so you take it for yourself?

Or you don’t want to pay taxes on your income so you just don’t file?


Or you get bored with your spouse and fall out of love so you decide to find someone you are more attracted to and leave in the middle of the night and start over afresh?

Or your neighbor is so darn annoying. Always complaining about your dog barking and arguing about noise laws. So one day you decide instead of dealing with your big mouth neighbor constantly complaining, you are going to punch him in his fat face.

These kinds of human impulses?

No of course not. Just because someone is atheist doesn't mean they lack ethics and decency. That's just a dumb, bigoted take.

+1

That was a disgusting post.

I completely agree. The pp won’t clarify what they meant by their post, either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think trying to walk the straight and narrow path without being a hypocrite would be so difficult. I wonder how the religious folks reconcile this?
I also think it would be so boring. Like denying much of our human impulses which, you know, God gave us in the first place.

What kind of human impulses are you talking about? Like having sex with someone you think is attractive even if they don’t consent?

Or seeing a material object you like that belongs to someone else, that you can’t afford to buy yourself, that you really want- so you take it for yourself?

Or you don’t want to pay taxes on your income so you just don’t file?


Or you get bored with your spouse and fall out of love so you decide to find someone you are more attracted to and leave in the middle of the night and start over afresh?

Or your neighbor is so darn annoying. Always complaining about your dog barking and arguing about noise laws. So one day you decide instead of dealing with your big mouth neighbor constantly complaining, you are going to punch him in his fat face.

These kinds of human impulses?

No of course not. Just because someone is atheist doesn't mean they lack ethics and decency. That's just a dumb, bigoted take.

+1

That was a disgusting post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think trying to walk the straight and narrow path without being a hypocrite would be so difficult. I wonder how the religious folks reconcile this?
I also think it would be so boring. Like denying much of our human impulses which, you know, God gave us in the first place.

What kind of human impulses are you talking about? Like having sex with someone you think is attractive even if they don’t consent?

Or seeing a material object you like that belongs to someone else, that you can’t afford to buy yourself, that you really want- so you take it for yourself?

Or you don’t want to pay taxes on your income so you just don’t file?


Or you get bored with your spouse and fall out of love so you decide to find someone you are more attracted to and leave in the middle of the night and start over afresh?

Or your neighbor is so darn annoying. Always complaining about your dog barking and arguing about noise laws. So one day you decide instead of dealing with your big mouth neighbor constantly complaining, you are going to punch him in his fat face.

These kinds of human impulses?

No of course not. Just because someone is atheist doesn't mean they lack ethics and decency. That's just a dumb, bigoted take.

“I also think it would be so boring. Like denying much of our human impulses which, you know, God gave us in the first place.“

are you the pp that posted this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think trying to walk the straight and narrow path without being a hypocrite would be so difficult. I wonder how the religious folks reconcile this?
I also think it would be so boring. Like denying much of our human impulses which, you know, God gave us in the first place.

What kind of human impulses are you talking about? Like having sex with someone you think is attractive even if they don’t consent?

Or seeing a material object you like that belongs to someone else, that you can’t afford to buy yourself, that you really want- so you take it for yourself?

Or you don’t want to pay taxes on your income so you just don’t file?


Or you get bored with your spouse and fall out of love so you decide to find someone you are more attracted to and leave in the middle of the night and start over afresh?

Or your neighbor is so darn annoying. Always complaining about your dog barking and arguing about noise laws. So one day you decide instead of dealing with your big mouth neighbor constantly complaining, you are going to punch him in his fat face.

These kinds of human impulses?

No of course not. Just because someone is atheist doesn't mean they lack ethics and decency. That's just a dumb, bigoted take.

Anonymous wrote:I think trying to walk the straight and narrow path without being a hypocrite would be so difficult. I wonder how the religious folks reconcile this?
I also think it would be so boring. Like denying much of our human impulses which, you know, God gave us in the first place.

What kind of human impulses are you talking about? Like having sex with someone you think is attractive even if they don’t consent?

Or seeing a material object you like that belongs to someone else, that you can’t afford to buy yourself, that you really want- so you take it for yourself?

Or you don’t want to pay taxes on your income so you just don’t file?


Or you get bored with your spouse and fall out of love so you decide to find someone you are more attracted to and leave in the middle of the night and start over afresh?

Or your neighbor is so darn annoying. Always complaining about your dog barking and arguing about noise laws. So one day you decide instead of dealing with your big mouth neighbor constantly complaining, you are going to punch him in his fat face.

These kinds of human impulses?

I think trying to walk the straight and narrow path without being a hypocrite would be so difficult. I wonder how the religious folks reconcile this?
I also think it would be so boring. Like denying much of our human impulses which, you know, God gave us in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multiple studies show that people don’t like or trust atheists. I have always wondered why that is?

Probable multiple reasons, and they’re not exclusive.

People are afraid of something that challenges them and some may not have the background to argue back. That’s on believers.

Atheists’ own behavior can be off-putting and unlikable. Some atheists are great. But if we had to judge atheists on the basis of DCUM’s atheists who insist on insulting believers with words like “myth” and “fairy tale,” who impersonate other posters, who always have to have the last word, or who claim to be expert on Aquinas on the basis of what they’ve read on some atheist website, well that isn’t going to go well either.

You type all of these words saying how you don’t like atheists. Over and over and over again you say it. Over and over and over again you use ad hominem. But atheists never say they don’t like you. The atheists never resort to ad hominem.

Why do you think that is?

I’ll tell you why I think it is if you want.

With due respect, I'm an atheist and I really don't like her.

+1

I don't like ignorant bullies.

Maybe. But is there anything in that post that's wrong? Here it is again.

Anonymous wrote:
Probable multiple reasons, and they’re not exclusive.

People are afraid of something that challenges them and some may not have the background to argue back. That’s on believers.

Atheists’ own behavior can be off-putting and unlikable. Some atheists are great. But if we had to judge atheists on the basis of DCUM’s atheists who insist on insulting believers with words like “myth” and “fairy tale,” who impersonate other posters, who always have to have the last word, or who claim to be expert on Aquinas on the basis of what they’ve read on some atheist website, well that isn’t going to go well either.

PP would be lost without atheists to criticize. It's their favorite thing. And what's so insulting about the term "myth"? Every civilization has myths.

So a non-answer and then a deflection into whether you can call religion a myth. Pro tip: even the moderator (July 3rd blog I think) said atheists don’t get to decide this.

Maybe you spend too much time on this board.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically Jesus had no religion. How could he be Jewish because by him being the son of God it ended Judaism’s main premise. Also Christianity did not spread till after his Death.

He had faith and love, and this is what Christianity is about. It is not about relegion.

How is Christianity not about religion?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multiple studies show that people don’t like or trust atheists. I have always wondered why that is?

Probable multiple reasons, and they’re not exclusive.

People are afraid of something that challenges them and some may not have the background to argue back. That’s on believers.

Atheists’ own behavior can be off-putting and unlikable. Some atheists are great. But if we had to judge atheists on the basis of DCUM’s atheists who insist on insulting believers with words like “myth” and “fairy tale,” who impersonate other posters, who always have to have the last word, or who claim to be expert on Aquinas on the basis of what they’ve read on some atheist website, well that isn’t going to go well either.

You type all of these words saying how you don’t like atheists. Over and over and over again you say it. Over and over and over again you use ad hominem. But atheists never say they don’t like you. The atheists never resort to ad hominem.

Why do you think that is?

I’ll tell you why I think it is if you want.

With due respect, I'm an atheist and I really don't like her.

+1

I don't like ignorant bullies.

Maybe. But is there anything in that post that's wrong? Here it is again.

Anonymous wrote:
Probable multiple reasons, and they’re not exclusive.

People are afraid of something that challenges them and some may not have the background to argue back. That’s on believers.

Atheists’ own behavior can be off-putting and unlikable. Some atheists are great. But if we had to judge atheists on the basis of DCUM’s atheists who insist on insulting believers with words like “myth” and “fairy tale,” who impersonate other posters, who always have to have the last word, or who claim to be expert on Aquinas on the basis of what they’ve read on some atheist website, well that isn’t going to go well either.

PP would be lost without atheists to criticize. It's their favorite thing. And what's so insulting about the term "myth"? Every civilization has myths.

So a non-answer and then a deflection into whether you can call religion a myth. Pro tip: even the moderator (July 3rd blog I think) said atheists don’t get to decide this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically Jesus had no religion. How could he be Jewish because by him being the son of God it ended Judaism’s main premise. Also Christianity did not spread till after his Death.

He had faith and love, and this is what Christianity is about. It is not about relegion.

Christianity is a religion. It's a major religion, with dogma and many branches, e.g., Roman Catholicism, and numerous forms of Protestantism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multiple studies show that people don’t like or trust atheists. I have always wondered why that is?

Probable multiple reasons, and they’re not exclusive.

People are afraid of something that challenges them and some may not have the background to argue back. That’s on believers.

Atheists’ own behavior can be off-putting and unlikable. Some atheists are great. But if we had to judge atheists on the basis of DCUM’s atheists who insist on insulting believers with words like “myth” and “fairy tale,” who impersonate other posters, who always have to have the last word, or who claim to be expert on Aquinas on the basis of what they’ve read on some atheist website, well that isn’t going to go well either.

You type all of these words saying how you don’t like atheists. Over and over and over again you say it. Over and over and over again you use ad hominem. But atheists never say they don’t like you. The atheists never resort to ad hominem.

Why do you think that is?

I’ll tell you why I think it is if you want.

With due respect, I'm an atheist and I really don't like her.

+1

I don't like ignorant bullies.

Maybe. But is there anything in that post that's wrong? Here it is again.

Anonymous wrote:
Probable multiple reasons, and they’re not exclusive.

People are afraid of something that challenges them and some may not have the background to argue back. That’s on believers.

Atheists’ own behavior can be off-putting and unlikable. Some atheists are great. But if we had to judge atheists on the basis of DCUM’s atheists who insist on insulting believers with words like “myth” and “fairy tale,” who impersonate other posters, who always have to have the last word, or who claim to be expert on Aquinas on the basis of what they’ve read on some atheist website, well that isn’t going to go well either.

PP would be lost without atheists to criticize. It's their favorite thing. And what's so insulting about the term "myth"? Every civilization has myths.

+1