Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

And I question your reading comprehension. Once more, very clearly for you: The majority of Christians are not literalists. Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. When you insist on defining Christianity by the fringe of literalists, you look ignorant of the breadth and range of Christian doctrine and belief (especially when you've been repeatedly told that the majority of Christianity is not literalist), and demonstrate your disinterest in learning more or having a good faith conversation on the topic of religion.

Saying your theology is based on more than the Bible is like saying that your dragonology is based on more than a Song of Fire and Ice, no matter how many PhDs you may have in the lore of George RR Martin. You're piling made up interpretations on top of previous fiction.

There is no good faith conversation to be had with one who doesn't accept reality.

NP. I am new to this conversation but it's correct, Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. The Bible itself as we understand it was not decided on until the councils of Hippo and Carthage around AD 400. Catholics and Orthodox say that Christian theology is more than the Bible as a matter of basic doctrine. The Christian form of worship, whether liturgical or a Protestant service, has origins that predates the Bible. The Nicene Creed also predates the Bible.

And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.

I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.

I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?

Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.

Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.

So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?

Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?

Here is the thing: if I find your belief system stupid, I don't need to engage with you about it. If you find someone's beliefs stupid, why are you engaging with them? Neither of you are gaining anything from the conversation if you can't maintain basic respect. That's actually stupid and a waste of time in my view. I find plenty of ideas stupid, I don't engage with their adherents.

You're right, you don't have a need to engage. That's your choice. Yet, you continue to post here.

I find all belief systems stupid, since we keep using that word. However, why should I respect something stupid if it is having an affect on my life because there are those in positions of power - judges, politicians, etc - that make decisions based on those stupid beliefs? It says a lot about a person's reasoning skills when they say they believe in "insert whatever religion you want here".

I don't want things that affect me to be based on stupid reasoning from stupid beliefs.

I’m the person you’re responding to and I am not very active in this debate, nor do I intend to be.

What I think this comes down to is if you can’t manage to engage respectfully, you’re never going to recognize when you are wrong or where your blind spots are. You’re never going to acknowledge those blind spots. You can’t grow, and you can’t recognize the intelligence of the person who believes whatever thing you find “stupid.” So, a conversation with you is fundamentally useless.

Then why continue to post?

And, you are making unfounded assumptions. Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer.

I'm posting because the religion forum has been unreadable pretty much forever, and it's basically because of the endlessly nasty posts from people who find themselves too intelligent. Sorry, if you can't engage politely, you're not indicating your intelligence, you are indicating a fundamental lack of seriousness and ability to stay on topic.

Further, you are calling out unknown "unfounded assumptions" while making unfounded assumptions in the literal next sentence: "Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer." Ok cool?

Even worse, you state the following, above: "However, why should I respect something stupid" --- no one is asking you to respect "something" stupid, but rather the people you are talking to. It's clear you find the people who believe the "stupid" things beneath you. Ok, awesome. But nothing about your own writing indicates intelligence so remarkable that you have good reason to dismiss others.

Poor wittle Christian can't handle criticism of his myths.

+1

What is not serious is to demand people to be respectful of their unreasonableness. As a PP wrote, would you argue that I should engage in a respectual conversation with someone who believed in Lord Leprechaun and his never ending pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

Given the lack of a direct response, the only conclusion is to assume the answer is no.

The answer is yes. If you want to talk to someone about their beliefs, the answer is you respect them even if you find their belief stupid. The alternative is to not engage.

The fact that this is so difficult for you to understand is alarming.

There is at least one additional choice. To say "Your beliefs are stupid and harmful, and without evidence to support them". You know this, because you do it with plenty of other things. As in this very post of yours! Why don't you follow your own rules? Why not chose "alternative is to not engage"? You engaged! Why? So ironic.

I'll tell you why you don't follow your own rules. Because you only want YOUR silly beliefs respected.

Sorry!

And what is gained by this choice? You told someone you thought their beliefs are stupid. They probably don’t care one bit. What has been accomplished?

I haven’t indicated what my “silly” beliefs even are- so I would be wasting my time to worry about your assumptions.

The only information we know from this conversation is that you guys like to shake your fists at the sky. The rest of your post doesn’t make a lot of sense if you were trying to say something else.

Not every move needs to have an accomplishment. What is your "accomplishment" in replying to me? It's a silly standard.

But if you MUST know, it is showing others who don't believe that they are allowed to tell the emperor he is naked.

And thanks for completely ignoring my pointing out your hypocrisy. You don't want anyone telling you what to do here, but you are plenty OK with you telling others. It's such hypocrisy it is funny.

Let’s be real- the bolded makes no sense, especially in the context of anonymous internet posts.

Complaining about religion on the internet is more a type of mental masturbation than anything- it makes you feel good.

And maybe it changes some minds. You just don't know. I do know that it changed my mind.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but calling something “stupid” over and over again on the internet isn’t exactly the highest form of persuasion. And that’s ok! But maybe you can do better?

DP - why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

Listen, if this is the only argument you're capable of making, that's fine. That's been the standard of discourse on this board for a long time.

It’s hard when you don’t even answer the simplest questions.

Why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

It's totally ok to call "stupid things" stupid. It's totally ok to say the word stupid.

Good.

That doesn't make it a sophisticated discussion or a good use of your time. It's just the level of discourse you're operating at.

So which is it? And have you done it?

You’re not tracking logically, here.

It's never a sophisticated discussion when belief in a supernatural being like Santa Claus, fairies, or God is being discussed. What makes it a good use of your time is the possibility that some of the discussion will get you thinking and cause you to no longer believe in things like fairies, Santa or God. You probably already no longer believe in fairies or Santa. God is next.

Why is that not a valid point? Why is it not "sophisticated" enough about those comparisons? This is what you need to explain if you want that to change.

What is the difference between your belief in supernatural beings and others? I am asking sincerely.

PP from above post that you're responding to. I doubt that you'll get a sincere response from believers. I think they are more likely to just disappear from this thread, after reading your sincere request for a response. I suspect that they are stuck, wanting to persist in their beliefs - - - so they will.

Maybe some readers will think about it and change their views, but I doubt that it will happen quickly or that they would acknowledge it here. Maybe they'll eventually quietly become one of us. And we are becoming more numerous. The number of non-believers is growing and religious belief and observance is way down.

You're not likely to get a response from believers because the question doesn't actually read as "sincere." It's condescending and dripping with judgement.

But why? What about it makes it insincere? I swear I am asking sincerely.

I think it's impossible to come off as sincere when the question is steeped in condescension. And I say that less because of the comparison of God to fairies, and more because the question led with the statement that the discussion couldn't be "sophisticated" with people who believe in God. The question framed that way assumes that people who believe in God have never critically examined our beliefs, that we are stuck in some kind of child-state and need to be talked-down-to.

Also, there seems to be a regular poster on this forum (maybe it's many posters; I don't know) who makes the God-Santa-fairies comparison regularly and also refers to God as "sky-daddy" which is obviously derisive. It's not necessarily fair of me to bring those previous comments to this thread and assume insincerity, but it happens often enough on this thread for anyone who is a regular to be aware of it and bring that baggage to your question. These conversations aren't happening in a vacuum.

Sky Daddy is derisive, in my opinion. Comparison of God to Santa and Fairies is not, because they are invisible beings that, with the exception of God, people stop believing in when they grow up. As they get older, people see Fairies and Santa as the kiddie stories that they are, but some people don't see God that way. God has lots of rules and promises eternal life, unlike Santa and fairies.

I think the difference, as I see it, is that Santa and fairies are ideas of mythical creatures that could conceivably exist with a physical form in our world. The fact that they aren't real, then, is something we grow out of as we age and understand more about our reality. God is conceived of as the source of the universe, without physical form, outside of natural law, so God can't be "disproven" in the same way.

That makes sense, but I doubt if most people think so deeply about it. I think it's more a simple matter of fairies not doing anything, really, Santa bringing toys to kids (and the toys keep coming even if you no longer believe in Santa). Meanwhile, God, in all his forms and according to many different religions, offers eternal life.

Why would you assume that most people who believe in God haven't, at some point, examined that belief?

Mostly from experience. The believers here are far more knowledgeable than the believers I meet IRL. The overwhelming majority are very ignorant of their own belief system.

Sorry you surround yourself with very ignorant people. Maybe try to expand your circle?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

And I question your reading comprehension. Once more, very clearly for you: The majority of Christians are not literalists. Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. When you insist on defining Christianity by the fringe of literalists, you look ignorant of the breadth and range of Christian doctrine and belief (especially when you've been repeatedly told that the majority of Christianity is not literalist), and demonstrate your disinterest in learning more or having a good faith conversation on the topic of religion.

Saying your theology is based on more than the Bible is like saying that your dragonology is based on more than a Song of Fire and Ice, no matter how many PhDs you may have in the lore of George RR Martin. You're piling made up interpretations on top of previous fiction.

There is no good faith conversation to be had with one who doesn't accept reality.

NP. I am new to this conversation but it's correct, Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. The Bible itself as we understand it was not decided on until the councils of Hippo and Carthage around AD 400. Catholics and Orthodox say that Christian theology is more than the Bible as a matter of basic doctrine. The Christian form of worship, whether liturgical or a Protestant service, has origins that predates the Bible. The Nicene Creed also predates the Bible.

And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.

I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.

I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?

Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.

Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.

So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?

Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?

Here is the thing: if I find your belief system stupid, I don't need to engage with you about it. If you find someone's beliefs stupid, why are you engaging with them? Neither of you are gaining anything from the conversation if you can't maintain basic respect. That's actually stupid and a waste of time in my view. I find plenty of ideas stupid, I don't engage with their adherents.

You're right, you don't have a need to engage. That's your choice. Yet, you continue to post here.

I find all belief systems stupid, since we keep using that word. However, why should I respect something stupid if it is having an affect on my life because there are those in positions of power - judges, politicians, etc - that make decisions based on those stupid beliefs? It says a lot about a person's reasoning skills when they say they believe in "insert whatever religion you want here".

I don't want things that affect me to be based on stupid reasoning from stupid beliefs.

I’m the person you’re responding to and I am not very active in this debate, nor do I intend to be.

What I think this comes down to is if you can’t manage to engage respectfully, you’re never going to recognize when you are wrong or where your blind spots are. You’re never going to acknowledge those blind spots. You can’t grow, and you can’t recognize the intelligence of the person who believes whatever thing you find “stupid.” So, a conversation with you is fundamentally useless.

Then why continue to post?

And, you are making unfounded assumptions. Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer.

I'm posting because the religion forum has been unreadable pretty much forever, and it's basically because of the endlessly nasty posts from people who find themselves too intelligent. Sorry, if you can't engage politely, you're not indicating your intelligence, you are indicating a fundamental lack of seriousness and ability to stay on topic.

Further, you are calling out unknown "unfounded assumptions" while making unfounded assumptions in the literal next sentence: "Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer." Ok cool?

Even worse, you state the following, above: "However, why should I respect something stupid" --- no one is asking you to respect "something" stupid, but rather the people you are talking to. It's clear you find the people who believe the "stupid" things beneath you. Ok, awesome. But nothing about your own writing indicates intelligence so remarkable that you have good reason to dismiss others.

Poor wittle Christian can't handle criticism of his myths.

+1

What is not serious is to demand people to be respectful of their unreasonableness. As a PP wrote, would you argue that I should engage in a respectual conversation with someone who believed in Lord Leprechaun and his never ending pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

Given the lack of a direct response, the only conclusion is to assume the answer is no.

The answer is yes. If you want to talk to someone about their beliefs, the answer is you respect them even if you find their belief stupid. The alternative is to not engage.

The fact that this is so difficult for you to understand is alarming.

There is at least one additional choice. To say "Your beliefs are stupid and harmful, and without evidence to support them". You know this, because you do it with plenty of other things. As in this very post of yours! Why don't you follow your own rules? Why not chose "alternative is to not engage"? You engaged! Why? So ironic.

I'll tell you why you don't follow your own rules. Because you only want YOUR silly beliefs respected.

Sorry!

And what is gained by this choice? You told someone you thought their beliefs are stupid. They probably don’t care one bit. What has been accomplished?

I haven’t indicated what my “silly” beliefs even are- so I would be wasting my time to worry about your assumptions.

The only information we know from this conversation is that you guys like to shake your fists at the sky. The rest of your post doesn’t make a lot of sense if you were trying to say something else.

Not every move needs to have an accomplishment. What is your "accomplishment" in replying to me? It's a silly standard.

But if you MUST know, it is showing others who don't believe that they are allowed to tell the emperor he is naked.

And thanks for completely ignoring my pointing out your hypocrisy. You don't want anyone telling you what to do here, but you are plenty OK with you telling others. It's such hypocrisy it is funny.

Let’s be real- the bolded makes no sense, especially in the context of anonymous internet posts.

Complaining about religion on the internet is more a type of mental masturbation than anything- it makes you feel good.

And maybe it changes some minds. You just don't know. I do know that it changed my mind.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but calling something “stupid” over and over again on the internet isn’t exactly the highest form of persuasion. And that’s ok! But maybe you can do better?

DP - why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

Listen, if this is the only argument you're capable of making, that's fine. That's been the standard of discourse on this board for a long time.

It’s hard when you don’t even answer the simplest questions.

Why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

It's totally ok to call "stupid things" stupid. It's totally ok to say the word stupid.

Good.

That doesn't make it a sophisticated discussion or a good use of your time. It's just the level of discourse you're operating at.

So which is it? And have you done it?

You’re not tracking logically, here.

It's never a sophisticated discussion when belief in a supernatural being like Santa Claus, fairies, or God is being discussed. What makes it a good use of your time is the possibility that some of the discussion will get you thinking and cause you to no longer believe in things like fairies, Santa or God. You probably already no longer believe in fairies or Santa. God is next.

Why is that not a valid point? Why is it not "sophisticated" enough about those comparisons? This is what you need to explain if you want that to change.

What is the difference between your belief in supernatural beings and others? I am asking sincerely.

PP from above post that you're responding to. I doubt that you'll get a sincere response from believers. I think they are more likely to just disappear from this thread, after reading your sincere request for a response. I suspect that they are stuck, wanting to persist in their beliefs - - - so they will.

Maybe some readers will think about it and change their views, but I doubt that it will happen quickly or that they would acknowledge it here. Maybe they'll eventually quietly become one of us. And we are becoming more numerous. The number of non-believers is growing and religious belief and observance is way down.

You're not likely to get a response from believers because the question doesn't actually read as "sincere." It's condescending and dripping with judgement.

But why? What about it makes it insincere? I swear I am asking sincerely.

I think it's impossible to come off as sincere when the question is steeped in condescension. And I say that less because of the comparison of God to fairies, and more because the question led with the statement that the discussion couldn't be "sophisticated" with people who believe in God. The question framed that way assumes that people who believe in God have never critically examined our beliefs, that we are stuck in some kind of child-state and need to be talked-down-to.

Also, there seems to be a regular poster on this forum (maybe it's many posters; I don't know) who makes the God-Santa-fairies comparison regularly and also refers to God as "sky-daddy" which is obviously derisive. It's not necessarily fair of me to bring those previous comments to this thread and assume insincerity, but it happens often enough on this thread for anyone who is a regular to be aware of it and bring that baggage to your question. These conversations aren't happening in a vacuum.

I am sorry but what makes it "steeped in condescension"? What follows does not really address that, and in fact it indicates something else - that certain beliefs warrant special consideration over others. That's the only thing that could make a comparison inappropriate.

Does one person's supernatural belief have more sophisticated essence than another's? Why? And which ones? Why do some deserve "respect" and not others?

I am seriously asking here, because I do not see it, and I am guessing some others here don't either. If you truly think there is a distinction then you need to explain.

I explained what "steeped in condescension" means. It means PP talks down to people who believe in God. A person can disagree with the existence of God without mocking it and treating those who believe like uneducated children.

You are still not answering the question.

Why is it mocking someone who believes in the Christian god to compare that to someone believing in fairies?

That wasn't the question. The question was why aren't people who believe in God taking the question sincerely? And the answer is NOT that the comparison of God to fairies is necessarily the problem. The answer is the tone in which it is asked. I actually did answer the god-fairy question above separately when it was asked without starting their question with the belief that anyone who believes in God is unsophisticated. They probably still believe that I'm wrong and dumb, but kept that to themselves, which allowed me to engage as if I were going to take it seriously, and not treated as a child.

It is the question I am asking. And you still haven’t answered, unless you are saying now that it is NOT mocking (contrary to before). Maybe I am misunderstanding your answer? If I ask the question again, can you answer with “It isn’t” or why it is? That would help me understand. I am saying I am the ignorant one here, not you, and I need it answered simply.

Why is it mocking someone who believes in the Christian god to compare that to someone believing in fairies?

My answer is the same one I've given. Let me try saying it a different way.

It's not necessarily mocking to ask how belief in God is different from belief in fairies. I answered that question up at 11/12/2025 19:44. There, the person asking started by finding common ground on one issue (the idea that "sky daddy" is derisive) and then explained their logic behind comparing God and fairies. Finding common ground and then opening up about the reasoning behind their question allowed me to open up in return with semi-confidence that I would be taken seriously, even though I still fully expected that we would continue to disagree about God's existence. I'm not here to convince anyone to believe in God, but if someone wants to understand why I do, I'm happy to share.

It is mocking when the question begins by stating that "It's never a sophisticated discussion when belief in a supernatural being like Santa Claus, fairies, or God is being discussed." By starting with the stated assumption that I'm incapable of sophisticated discussion about how I see the differences between fairies and God, PP doesn't engender a spirit of sincere dialogue. They instead imply that I'm stupid or childishly-ignorant. What about being treated that way would make me want to share my journey of leaving behind fairies and Santa while holding onto my belief in God?

Is that a clearer answer to your question?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

And I question your reading comprehension. Once more, very clearly for you: The majority of Christians are not literalists. Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. When you insist on defining Christianity by the fringe of literalists, you look ignorant of the breadth and range of Christian doctrine and belief (especially when you've been repeatedly told that the majority of Christianity is not literalist), and demonstrate your disinterest in learning more or having a good faith conversation on the topic of religion.

Saying your theology is based on more than the Bible is like saying that your dragonology is based on more than a Song of Fire and Ice, no matter how many PhDs you may have in the lore of George RR Martin. You're piling made up interpretations on top of previous fiction.

There is no good faith conversation to be had with one who doesn't accept reality.

NP. I am new to this conversation but it's correct, Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. The Bible itself as we understand it was not decided on until the councils of Hippo and Carthage around AD 400. Catholics and Orthodox say that Christian theology is more than the Bible as a matter of basic doctrine. The Christian form of worship, whether liturgical or a Protestant service, has origins that predates the Bible. The Nicene Creed also predates the Bible.

And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.

I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.

I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?

Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.

Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.

So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?

Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?

Here is the thing: if I find your belief system stupid, I don't need to engage with you about it. If you find someone's beliefs stupid, why are you engaging with them? Neither of you are gaining anything from the conversation if you can't maintain basic respect. That's actually stupid and a waste of time in my view. I find plenty of ideas stupid, I don't engage with their adherents.

You're right, you don't have a need to engage. That's your choice. Yet, you continue to post here.

I find all belief systems stupid, since we keep using that word. However, why should I respect something stupid if it is having an affect on my life because there are those in positions of power - judges, politicians, etc - that make decisions based on those stupid beliefs? It says a lot about a person's reasoning skills when they say they believe in "insert whatever religion you want here".

I don't want things that affect me to be based on stupid reasoning from stupid beliefs.

I’m the person you’re responding to and I am not very active in this debate, nor do I intend to be.

What I think this comes down to is if you can’t manage to engage respectfully, you’re never going to recognize when you are wrong or where your blind spots are. You’re never going to acknowledge those blind spots. You can’t grow, and you can’t recognize the intelligence of the person who believes whatever thing you find “stupid.” So, a conversation with you is fundamentally useless.

Then why continue to post?

And, you are making unfounded assumptions. Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer.

I'm posting because the religion forum has been unreadable pretty much forever, and it's basically because of the endlessly nasty posts from people who find themselves too intelligent. Sorry, if you can't engage politely, you're not indicating your intelligence, you are indicating a fundamental lack of seriousness and ability to stay on topic.

Further, you are calling out unknown "unfounded assumptions" while making unfounded assumptions in the literal next sentence: "Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer." Ok cool?

Even worse, you state the following, above: "However, why should I respect something stupid" --- no one is asking you to respect "something" stupid, but rather the people you are talking to. It's clear you find the people who believe the "stupid" things beneath you. Ok, awesome. But nothing about your own writing indicates intelligence so remarkable that you have good reason to dismiss others.

Poor wittle Christian can't handle criticism of his myths.

+1

What is not serious is to demand people to be respectful of their unreasonableness. As a PP wrote, would you argue that I should engage in a respectual conversation with someone who believed in Lord Leprechaun and his never ending pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

Given the lack of a direct response, the only conclusion is to assume the answer is no.

The answer is yes. If you want to talk to someone about their beliefs, the answer is you respect them even if you find their belief stupid. The alternative is to not engage.

The fact that this is so difficult for you to understand is alarming.

There is at least one additional choice. To say "Your beliefs are stupid and harmful, and without evidence to support them". You know this, because you do it with plenty of other things. As in this very post of yours! Why don't you follow your own rules? Why not chose "alternative is to not engage"? You engaged! Why? So ironic.

I'll tell you why you don't follow your own rules. Because you only want YOUR silly beliefs respected.

Sorry!

And what is gained by this choice? You told someone you thought their beliefs are stupid. They probably don’t care one bit. What has been accomplished?

I haven’t indicated what my “silly” beliefs even are- so I would be wasting my time to worry about your assumptions.

The only information we know from this conversation is that you guys like to shake your fists at the sky. The rest of your post doesn’t make a lot of sense if you were trying to say something else.

Not every move needs to have an accomplishment. What is your "accomplishment" in replying to me? It's a silly standard.

But if you MUST know, it is showing others who don't believe that they are allowed to tell the emperor he is naked.

And thanks for completely ignoring my pointing out your hypocrisy. You don't want anyone telling you what to do here, but you are plenty OK with you telling others. It's such hypocrisy it is funny.

Let’s be real- the bolded makes no sense, especially in the context of anonymous internet posts.

Complaining about religion on the internet is more a type of mental masturbation than anything- it makes you feel good.

And maybe it changes some minds. You just don't know. I do know that it changed my mind.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but calling something “stupid” over and over again on the internet isn’t exactly the highest form of persuasion. And that’s ok! But maybe you can do better?

DP - why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

Listen, if this is the only argument you're capable of making, that's fine. That's been the standard of discourse on this board for a long time.

It’s hard when you don’t even answer the simplest questions.

Why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

It's totally ok to call "stupid things" stupid. It's totally ok to say the word stupid.

Good.

That doesn't make it a sophisticated discussion or a good use of your time. It's just the level of discourse you're operating at.

So which is it? And have you done it?

You’re not tracking logically, here.

It's never a sophisticated discussion when belief in a supernatural being like Santa Claus, fairies, or God is being discussed. What makes it a good use of your time is the possibility that some of the discussion will get you thinking and cause you to no longer believe in things like fairies, Santa or God. You probably already no longer believe in fairies or Santa. God is next.

Why is that not a valid point? Why is it not "sophisticated" enough about those comparisons? This is what you need to explain if you want that to change.

What is the difference between your belief in supernatural beings and others? I am asking sincerely.

PP from above post that you're responding to. I doubt that you'll get a sincere response from believers. I think they are more likely to just disappear from this thread, after reading your sincere request for a response. I suspect that they are stuck, wanting to persist in their beliefs - - - so they will.

Maybe some readers will think about it and change their views, but I doubt that it will happen quickly or that they would acknowledge it here. Maybe they'll eventually quietly become one of us. And we are becoming more numerous. The number of non-believers is growing and religious belief and observance is way down.

You're not likely to get a response from believers because the question doesn't actually read as "sincere." It's condescending and dripping with judgement.

But why? What about it makes it insincere? I swear I am asking sincerely.

I think it's impossible to come off as sincere when the question is steeped in condescension. And I say that less because of the comparison of God to fairies, and more because the question led with the statement that the discussion couldn't be "sophisticated" with people who believe in God. The question framed that way assumes that people who believe in God have never critically examined our beliefs, that we are stuck in some kind of child-state and need to be talked-down-to.

Also, there seems to be a regular poster on this forum (maybe it's many posters; I don't know) who makes the God-Santa-fairies comparison regularly and also refers to God as "sky-daddy" which is obviously derisive. It's not necessarily fair of me to bring those previous comments to this thread and assume insincerity, but it happens often enough on this thread for anyone who is a regular to be aware of it and bring that baggage to your question. These conversations aren't happening in a vacuum.

I am sorry but what makes it "steeped in condescension"? What follows does not really address that, and in fact it indicates something else - that certain beliefs warrant special consideration over others. That's the only thing that could make a comparison inappropriate.

Does one person's supernatural belief have more sophisticated essence than another's? Why? And which ones? Why do some deserve "respect" and not others?

I am seriously asking here, because I do not see it, and I am guessing some others here don't either. If you truly think there is a distinction then you need to explain.

I explained what "steeped in condescension" means. It means PP talks down to people who believe in God. A person can disagree with the existence of God without mocking it and treating those who believe like uneducated children.

You are still not answering the question.

Why is it mocking someone who believes in the Christian god to compare that to someone believing in fairies?

That wasn't the question. The question was why aren't people who believe in God taking the question sincerely? And the answer is NOT that the comparison of God to fairies is necessarily the problem. The answer is the tone in which it is asked. I actually did answer the god-fairy question above separately when it was asked without starting their question with the belief that anyone who believes in God is unsophisticated. They probably still believe that I'm wrong and dumb, but kept that to themselves, which allowed me to engage as if I were going to take it seriously, and not treated as a child.

It is the question I am asking. And you still haven’t answered, unless you are saying now that it is NOT mocking (contrary to before). Maybe I am misunderstanding your answer? If I ask the question again, can you answer with “It isn’t” or why it is? That would help me understand. I am saying I am the ignorant one here, not you, and I need it answered simply.

Why is it mocking someone who believes in the Christian god to compare that to someone believing in fairies?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

And I question your reading comprehension. Once more, very clearly for you: The majority of Christians are not literalists. Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. When you insist on defining Christianity by the fringe of literalists, you look ignorant of the breadth and range of Christian doctrine and belief (especially when you've been repeatedly told that the majority of Christianity is not literalist), and demonstrate your disinterest in learning more or having a good faith conversation on the topic of religion.

Saying your theology is based on more than the Bible is like saying that your dragonology is based on more than a Song of Fire and Ice, no matter how many PhDs you may have in the lore of George RR Martin. You're piling made up interpretations on top of previous fiction.

There is no good faith conversation to be had with one who doesn't accept reality.

NP. I am new to this conversation but it's correct, Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. The Bible itself as we understand it was not decided on until the councils of Hippo and Carthage around AD 400. Catholics and Orthodox say that Christian theology is more than the Bible as a matter of basic doctrine. The Christian form of worship, whether liturgical or a Protestant service, has origins that predates the Bible. The Nicene Creed also predates the Bible.

And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.

I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.

I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?

Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.

Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.

So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?

Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?

Here is the thing: if I find your belief system stupid, I don't need to engage with you about it. If you find someone's beliefs stupid, why are you engaging with them? Neither of you are gaining anything from the conversation if you can't maintain basic respect. That's actually stupid and a waste of time in my view. I find plenty of ideas stupid, I don't engage with their adherents.

You're right, you don't have a need to engage. That's your choice. Yet, you continue to post here.

I find all belief systems stupid, since we keep using that word. However, why should I respect something stupid if it is having an affect on my life because there are those in positions of power - judges, politicians, etc - that make decisions based on those stupid beliefs? It says a lot about a person's reasoning skills when they say they believe in "insert whatever religion you want here".

I don't want things that affect me to be based on stupid reasoning from stupid beliefs.

I’m the person you’re responding to and I am not very active in this debate, nor do I intend to be.

What I think this comes down to is if you can’t manage to engage respectfully, you’re never going to recognize when you are wrong or where your blind spots are. You’re never going to acknowledge those blind spots. You can’t grow, and you can’t recognize the intelligence of the person who believes whatever thing you find “stupid.” So, a conversation with you is fundamentally useless.

Then why continue to post?

And, you are making unfounded assumptions. Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer.

I'm posting because the religion forum has been unreadable pretty much forever, and it's basically because of the endlessly nasty posts from people who find themselves too intelligent. Sorry, if you can't engage politely, you're not indicating your intelligence, you are indicating a fundamental lack of seriousness and ability to stay on topic.

Further, you are calling out unknown "unfounded assumptions" while making unfounded assumptions in the literal next sentence: "Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer." Ok cool?

Even worse, you state the following, above: "However, why should I respect something stupid" --- no one is asking you to respect "something" stupid, but rather the people you are talking to. It's clear you find the people who believe the "stupid" things beneath you. Ok, awesome. But nothing about your own writing indicates intelligence so remarkable that you have good reason to dismiss others.

Poor wittle Christian can't handle criticism of his myths.

+1

What is not serious is to demand people to be respectful of their unreasonableness. As a PP wrote, would you argue that I should engage in a respectual conversation with someone who believed in Lord Leprechaun and his never ending pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

Given the lack of a direct response, the only conclusion is to assume the answer is no.

The answer is yes. If you want to talk to someone about their beliefs, the answer is you respect them even if you find their belief stupid. The alternative is to not engage.

The fact that this is so difficult for you to understand is alarming.

There is at least one additional choice. To say "Your beliefs are stupid and harmful, and without evidence to support them". You know this, because you do it with plenty of other things. As in this very post of yours! Why don't you follow your own rules? Why not chose "alternative is to not engage"? You engaged! Why? So ironic.

I'll tell you why you don't follow your own rules. Because you only want YOUR silly beliefs respected.

Sorry!

And what is gained by this choice? You told someone you thought their beliefs are stupid. They probably don’t care one bit. What has been accomplished?

I haven’t indicated what my “silly” beliefs even are- so I would be wasting my time to worry about your assumptions.

The only information we know from this conversation is that you guys like to shake your fists at the sky. The rest of your post doesn’t make a lot of sense if you were trying to say something else.

Not every move needs to have an accomplishment. What is your "accomplishment" in replying to me? It's a silly standard.

But if you MUST know, it is showing others who don't believe that they are allowed to tell the emperor he is naked.

And thanks for completely ignoring my pointing out your hypocrisy. You don't want anyone telling you what to do here, but you are plenty OK with you telling others. It's such hypocrisy it is funny.

Let’s be real- the bolded makes no sense, especially in the context of anonymous internet posts.

Complaining about religion on the internet is more a type of mental masturbation than anything- it makes you feel good.

And maybe it changes some minds. You just don't know. I do know that it changed my mind.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but calling something “stupid” over and over again on the internet isn’t exactly the highest form of persuasion. And that’s ok! But maybe you can do better?

DP - why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

Listen, if this is the only argument you're capable of making, that's fine. That's been the standard of discourse on this board for a long time.

It’s hard when you don’t even answer the simplest questions.

Why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

It's totally ok to call "stupid things" stupid. It's totally ok to say the word stupid.

Good.

That doesn't make it a sophisticated discussion or a good use of your time. It's just the level of discourse you're operating at.

So which is it? And have you done it?

You’re not tracking logically, here.

It's never a sophisticated discussion when belief in a supernatural being like Santa Claus, fairies, or God is being discussed. What makes it a good use of your time is the possibility that some of the discussion will get you thinking and cause you to no longer believe in things like fairies, Santa or God. You probably already no longer believe in fairies or Santa. God is next.

Why is that not a valid point? Why is it not "sophisticated" enough about those comparisons? This is what you need to explain if you want that to change.

What is the difference between your belief in supernatural beings and others? I am asking sincerely.

PP from above post that you're responding to. I doubt that you'll get a sincere response from believers. I think they are more likely to just disappear from this thread, after reading your sincere request for a response. I suspect that they are stuck, wanting to persist in their beliefs - - - so they will.

Maybe some readers will think about it and change their views, but I doubt that it will happen quickly or that they would acknowledge it here. Maybe they'll eventually quietly become one of us. And we are becoming more numerous. The number of non-believers is growing and religious belief and observance is way down.

You're not likely to get a response from believers because the question doesn't actually read as "sincere." It's condescending and dripping with judgement.

But why? What about it makes it insincere? I swear I am asking sincerely.

I think it's impossible to come off as sincere when the question is steeped in condescension. And I say that less because of the comparison of God to fairies, and more because the question led with the statement that the discussion couldn't be "sophisticated" with people who believe in God. The question framed that way assumes that people who believe in God have never critically examined our beliefs, that we are stuck in some kind of child-state and need to be talked-down-to.

Also, there seems to be a regular poster on this forum (maybe it's many posters; I don't know) who makes the God-Santa-fairies comparison regularly and also refers to God as "sky-daddy" which is obviously derisive. It's not necessarily fair of me to bring those previous comments to this thread and assume insincerity, but it happens often enough on this thread for anyone who is a regular to be aware of it and bring that baggage to your question. These conversations aren't happening in a vacuum.

Sky Daddy is derisive, in my opinion. Comparison of God to Santa and Fairies is not, because they are invisible beings that, with the exception of God, people stop believing in when they grow up. As they get older, people see Fairies and Santa as the kiddie stories that they are, but some people don't see God that way. God has lots of rules and promises eternal life, unlike Santa and fairies.

I think the difference, as I see it, is that Santa and fairies are ideas of mythical creatures that could conceivably exist with a physical form in our world. The fact that they aren't real, then, is something we grow out of as we age and understand more about our reality. God is conceived of as the source of the universe, without physical form, outside of natural law, so God can't be "disproven" in the same way.

That makes sense, but I doubt if most people think so deeply about it. I think it's more a simple matter of fairies not doing anything, really, Santa bringing toys to kids (and the toys keep coming even if you no longer believe in Santa). Meanwhile, God, in all his forms and according to many different religions, offers eternal life.

Why would you assume that most people who believe in God haven't, at some point, examined that belief?

Mostly from experience. The believers here are far more knowledgeable than the believers I meet IRL. The overwhelming majority are very ignorant of their own belief system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

I stay religious because I actually believe in God. You can doubt all the way you want, no one really cares. I have two graduate degrees by the way.

Wow, you must be smart to get 2 graduate degrees! Too bad you're dumb about believing in God.

They're probably degrees in theology from a highly respected institution like Bob Jones Uni.

Wrong. All three degrees are in STEM.

For someone who has three degrees in STEM, you failed to catch the sarcasm.

One of my degrees allows me to understand that sarcasm is used as a copying mechanism by people with certain mental conditions. You failed in masking your diagnoses.

Fail.

Numerous studies suggest a link between the use and understanding of sarcasm and higher intelligence, as it requires complex cognitive skills.

An inability to detect it can, in some cases, be an early sign of neurological issues like dementia or traumatic brain injury.

Keep trying Bob Jones Guy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

And I question your reading comprehension. Once more, very clearly for you: The majority of Christians are not literalists. Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. When you insist on defining Christianity by the fringe of literalists, you look ignorant of the breadth and range of Christian doctrine and belief (especially when you've been repeatedly told that the majority of Christianity is not literalist), and demonstrate your disinterest in learning more or having a good faith conversation on the topic of religion.

Saying your theology is based on more than the Bible is like saying that your dragonology is based on more than a Song of Fire and Ice, no matter how many PhDs you may have in the lore of George RR Martin. You're piling made up interpretations on top of previous fiction.

There is no good faith conversation to be had with one who doesn't accept reality.

NP. I am new to this conversation but it's correct, Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. The Bible itself as we understand it was not decided on until the councils of Hippo and Carthage around AD 400. Catholics and Orthodox say that Christian theology is more than the Bible as a matter of basic doctrine. The Christian form of worship, whether liturgical or a Protestant service, has origins that predates the Bible. The Nicene Creed also predates the Bible.

And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.

I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.

I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?

Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.

Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.

So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?

Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?

Here is the thing: if I find your belief system stupid, I don't need to engage with you about it. If you find someone's beliefs stupid, why are you engaging with them? Neither of you are gaining anything from the conversation if you can't maintain basic respect. That's actually stupid and a waste of time in my view. I find plenty of ideas stupid, I don't engage with their adherents.

You're right, you don't have a need to engage. That's your choice. Yet, you continue to post here.

I find all belief systems stupid, since we keep using that word. However, why should I respect something stupid if it is having an affect on my life because there are those in positions of power - judges, politicians, etc - that make decisions based on those stupid beliefs? It says a lot about a person's reasoning skills when they say they believe in "insert whatever religion you want here".

I don't want things that affect me to be based on stupid reasoning from stupid beliefs.

I’m the person you’re responding to and I am not very active in this debate, nor do I intend to be.

What I think this comes down to is if you can’t manage to engage respectfully, you’re never going to recognize when you are wrong or where your blind spots are. You’re never going to acknowledge those blind spots. You can’t grow, and you can’t recognize the intelligence of the person who believes whatever thing you find “stupid.” So, a conversation with you is fundamentally useless.

Then why continue to post?

And, you are making unfounded assumptions. Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer.

I'm posting because the religion forum has been unreadable pretty much forever, and it's basically because of the endlessly nasty posts from people who find themselves too intelligent. Sorry, if you can't engage politely, you're not indicating your intelligence, you are indicating a fundamental lack of seriousness and ability to stay on topic.

Further, you are calling out unknown "unfounded assumptions" while making unfounded assumptions in the literal next sentence: "Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer." Ok cool?

Even worse, you state the following, above: "However, why should I respect something stupid" --- no one is asking you to respect "something" stupid, but rather the people you are talking to. It's clear you find the people who believe the "stupid" things beneath you. Ok, awesome. But nothing about your own writing indicates intelligence so remarkable that you have good reason to dismiss others.

Poor wittle Christian can't handle criticism of his myths.

+1

What is not serious is to demand people to be respectful of their unreasonableness. As a PP wrote, would you argue that I should engage in a respectual conversation with someone who believed in Lord Leprechaun and his never ending pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

Given the lack of a direct response, the only conclusion is to assume the answer is no.

The answer is yes. If you want to talk to someone about their beliefs, the answer is you respect them even if you find their belief stupid. The alternative is to not engage.

The fact that this is so difficult for you to understand is alarming.

There is at least one additional choice. To say "Your beliefs are stupid and harmful, and without evidence to support them". You know this, because you do it with plenty of other things. As in this very post of yours! Why don't you follow your own rules? Why not chose "alternative is to not engage"? You engaged! Why? So ironic.

I'll tell you why you don't follow your own rules. Because you only want YOUR silly beliefs respected.

Sorry!

And what is gained by this choice? You told someone you thought their beliefs are stupid. They probably don’t care one bit. What has been accomplished?

I haven’t indicated what my “silly” beliefs even are- so I would be wasting my time to worry about your assumptions.

The only information we know from this conversation is that you guys like to shake your fists at the sky. The rest of your post doesn’t make a lot of sense if you were trying to say something else.

Not every move needs to have an accomplishment. What is your "accomplishment" in replying to me? It's a silly standard.

But if you MUST know, it is showing others who don't believe that they are allowed to tell the emperor he is naked.

And thanks for completely ignoring my pointing out your hypocrisy. You don't want anyone telling you what to do here, but you are plenty OK with you telling others. It's such hypocrisy it is funny.

Let’s be real- the bolded makes no sense, especially in the context of anonymous internet posts.

Complaining about religion on the internet is more a type of mental masturbation than anything- it makes you feel good.

And maybe it changes some minds. You just don't know. I do know that it changed my mind.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but calling something “stupid” over and over again on the internet isn’t exactly the highest form of persuasion. And that’s ok! But maybe you can do better?

DP - why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

Listen, if this is the only argument you're capable of making, that's fine. That's been the standard of discourse on this board for a long time.

It’s hard when you don’t even answer the simplest questions.

Why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

It's totally ok to call "stupid things" stupid. It's totally ok to say the word stupid.

Good.

That doesn't make it a sophisticated discussion or a good use of your time. It's just the level of discourse you're operating at.

So which is it? And have you done it?

You’re not tracking logically, here.

It's never a sophisticated discussion when belief in a supernatural being like Santa Claus, fairies, or God is being discussed. What makes it a good use of your time is the possibility that some of the discussion will get you thinking and cause you to no longer believe in things like fairies, Santa or God. You probably already no longer believe in fairies or Santa. God is next.

Why is that not a valid point? Why is it not "sophisticated" enough about those comparisons? This is what you need to explain if you want that to change.

What is the difference between your belief in supernatural beings and others? I am asking sincerely.

PP from above post that you're responding to. I doubt that you'll get a sincere response from believers. I think they are more likely to just disappear from this thread, after reading your sincere request for a response. I suspect that they are stuck, wanting to persist in their beliefs - - - so they will.

Maybe some readers will think about it and change their views, but I doubt that it will happen quickly or that they would acknowledge it here. Maybe they'll eventually quietly become one of us. And we are becoming more numerous. The number of non-believers is growing and religious belief and observance is way down.

You're not likely to get a response from believers because the question doesn't actually read as "sincere." It's condescending and dripping with judgement.

But why? What about it makes it insincere? I swear I am asking sincerely.

I think it's impossible to come off as sincere when the question is steeped in condescension. And I say that less because of the comparison of God to fairies, and more because the question led with the statement that the discussion couldn't be "sophisticated" with people who believe in God. The question framed that way assumes that people who believe in God have never critically examined our beliefs, that we are stuck in some kind of child-state and need to be talked-down-to.

Also, there seems to be a regular poster on this forum (maybe it's many posters; I don't know) who makes the God-Santa-fairies comparison regularly and also refers to God as "sky-daddy" which is obviously derisive. It's not necessarily fair of me to bring those previous comments to this thread and assume insincerity, but it happens often enough on this thread for anyone who is a regular to be aware of it and bring that baggage to your question. These conversations aren't happening in a vacuum.

Sky Daddy is derisive, in my opinion. Comparison of God to Santa and Fairies is not, because they are invisible beings that, with the exception of God, people stop believing in when they grow up. As they get older, people see Fairies and Santa as the kiddie stories that they are, but some people don't see God that way. God has lots of rules and promises eternal life, unlike Santa and fairies.

I think the difference, as I see it, is that Santa and fairies are ideas of mythical creatures that could conceivably exist with a physical form in our world. The fact that they aren't real, then, is something we grow out of as we age and understand more about our reality. God is conceived of as the source of the universe, without physical form, outside of natural law, so God can't be "disproven" in the same way.

That makes sense, but I doubt if most people think so deeply about it. I think it's more a simple matter of fairies not doing anything, really, Santa bringing toys to kids (and the toys keep coming even if you no longer believe in Santa). Meanwhile, God, in all his forms and according to many different religions, offers eternal life.

Why would you assume that most people who believe in God haven't, at some point, examined that belief?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

And I question your reading comprehension. Once more, very clearly for you: The majority of Christians are not literalists. Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. When you insist on defining Christianity by the fringe of literalists, you look ignorant of the breadth and range of Christian doctrine and belief (especially when you've been repeatedly told that the majority of Christianity is not literalist), and demonstrate your disinterest in learning more or having a good faith conversation on the topic of religion.

Saying your theology is based on more than the Bible is like saying that your dragonology is based on more than a Song of Fire and Ice, no matter how many PhDs you may have in the lore of George RR Martin. You're piling made up interpretations on top of previous fiction.

There is no good faith conversation to be had with one who doesn't accept reality.

NP. I am new to this conversation but it's correct, Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. The Bible itself as we understand it was not decided on until the councils of Hippo and Carthage around AD 400. Catholics and Orthodox say that Christian theology is more than the Bible as a matter of basic doctrine. The Christian form of worship, whether liturgical or a Protestant service, has origins that predates the Bible. The Nicene Creed also predates the Bible.

And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.

I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.

I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?

Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.

Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.

So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?

Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?

Here is the thing: if I find your belief system stupid, I don't need to engage with you about it. If you find someone's beliefs stupid, why are you engaging with them? Neither of you are gaining anything from the conversation if you can't maintain basic respect. That's actually stupid and a waste of time in my view. I find plenty of ideas stupid, I don't engage with their adherents.

You're right, you don't have a need to engage. That's your choice. Yet, you continue to post here.

I find all belief systems stupid, since we keep using that word. However, why should I respect something stupid if it is having an affect on my life because there are those in positions of power - judges, politicians, etc - that make decisions based on those stupid beliefs? It says a lot about a person's reasoning skills when they say they believe in "insert whatever religion you want here".

I don't want things that affect me to be based on stupid reasoning from stupid beliefs.

I’m the person you’re responding to and I am not very active in this debate, nor do I intend to be.

What I think this comes down to is if you can’t manage to engage respectfully, you’re never going to recognize when you are wrong or where your blind spots are. You’re never going to acknowledge those blind spots. You can’t grow, and you can’t recognize the intelligence of the person who believes whatever thing you find “stupid.” So, a conversation with you is fundamentally useless.

Then why continue to post?

And, you are making unfounded assumptions. Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer.

I'm posting because the religion forum has been unreadable pretty much forever, and it's basically because of the endlessly nasty posts from people who find themselves too intelligent. Sorry, if you can't engage politely, you're not indicating your intelligence, you are indicating a fundamental lack of seriousness and ability to stay on topic.

Further, you are calling out unknown "unfounded assumptions" while making unfounded assumptions in the literal next sentence: "Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer." Ok cool?

Even worse, you state the following, above: "However, why should I respect something stupid" --- no one is asking you to respect "something" stupid, but rather the people you are talking to. It's clear you find the people who believe the "stupid" things beneath you. Ok, awesome. But nothing about your own writing indicates intelligence so remarkable that you have good reason to dismiss others.

Poor wittle Christian can't handle criticism of his myths.

+1

What is not serious is to demand people to be respectful of their unreasonableness. As a PP wrote, would you argue that I should engage in a respectual conversation with someone who believed in Lord Leprechaun and his never ending pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

Given the lack of a direct response, the only conclusion is to assume the answer is no.

The answer is yes. If you want to talk to someone about their beliefs, the answer is you respect them even if you find their belief stupid. The alternative is to not engage.

The fact that this is so difficult for you to understand is alarming.

There is at least one additional choice. To say "Your beliefs are stupid and harmful, and without evidence to support them". You know this, because you do it with plenty of other things. As in this very post of yours! Why don't you follow your own rules? Why not chose "alternative is to not engage"? You engaged! Why? So ironic.

I'll tell you why you don't follow your own rules. Because you only want YOUR silly beliefs respected.

Sorry!

And what is gained by this choice? You told someone you thought their beliefs are stupid. They probably don’t care one bit. What has been accomplished?

I haven’t indicated what my “silly” beliefs even are- so I would be wasting my time to worry about your assumptions.

The only information we know from this conversation is that you guys like to shake your fists at the sky. The rest of your post doesn’t make a lot of sense if you were trying to say something else.

Not every move needs to have an accomplishment. What is your "accomplishment" in replying to me? It's a silly standard.

But if you MUST know, it is showing others who don't believe that they are allowed to tell the emperor he is naked.

And thanks for completely ignoring my pointing out your hypocrisy. You don't want anyone telling you what to do here, but you are plenty OK with you telling others. It's such hypocrisy it is funny.

Let’s be real- the bolded makes no sense, especially in the context of anonymous internet posts.

Complaining about religion on the internet is more a type of mental masturbation than anything- it makes you feel good.

And maybe it changes some minds. You just don't know. I do know that it changed my mind.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but calling something “stupid” over and over again on the internet isn’t exactly the highest form of persuasion. And that’s ok! But maybe you can do better?

DP - why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

Listen, if this is the only argument you're capable of making, that's fine. That's been the standard of discourse on this board for a long time.

It’s hard when you don’t even answer the simplest questions.

Why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

It's totally ok to call "stupid things" stupid. It's totally ok to say the word stupid.

Good.

That doesn't make it a sophisticated discussion or a good use of your time. It's just the level of discourse you're operating at.

So which is it? And have you done it?

You’re not tracking logically, here.

It's never a sophisticated discussion when belief in a supernatural being like Santa Claus, fairies, or God is being discussed. What makes it a good use of your time is the possibility that some of the discussion will get you thinking and cause you to no longer believe in things like fairies, Santa or God. You probably already no longer believe in fairies or Santa. God is next.

Why is that not a valid point? Why is it not "sophisticated" enough about those comparisons? This is what you need to explain if you want that to change.

What is the difference between your belief in supernatural beings and others? I am asking sincerely.

PP from above post that you're responding to. I doubt that you'll get a sincere response from believers. I think they are more likely to just disappear from this thread, after reading your sincere request for a response. I suspect that they are stuck, wanting to persist in their beliefs - - - so they will.

Maybe some readers will think about it and change their views, but I doubt that it will happen quickly or that they would acknowledge it here. Maybe they'll eventually quietly become one of us. And we are becoming more numerous. The number of non-believers is growing and religious belief and observance is way down.

You're not likely to get a response from believers because the question doesn't actually read as "sincere." It's condescending and dripping with judgement.

But why? What about it makes it insincere? I swear I am asking sincerely.

I think it's impossible to come off as sincere when the question is steeped in condescension. And I say that less because of the comparison of God to fairies, and more because the question led with the statement that the discussion couldn't be "sophisticated" with people who believe in God. The question framed that way assumes that people who believe in God have never critically examined our beliefs, that we are stuck in some kind of child-state and need to be talked-down-to.

Also, there seems to be a regular poster on this forum (maybe it's many posters; I don't know) who makes the God-Santa-fairies comparison regularly and also refers to God as "sky-daddy" which is obviously derisive. It's not necessarily fair of me to bring those previous comments to this thread and assume insincerity, but it happens often enough on this thread for anyone who is a regular to be aware of it and bring that baggage to your question. These conversations aren't happening in a vacuum.

I am sorry but what makes it "steeped in condescension"? What follows does not really address that, and in fact it indicates something else - that certain beliefs warrant special consideration over others. That's the only thing that could make a comparison inappropriate.

Does one person's supernatural belief have more sophisticated essence than another's? Why? And which ones? Why do some deserve "respect" and not others?

I am seriously asking here, because I do not see it, and I am guessing some others here don't either. If you truly think there is a distinction then you need to explain.

I explained what "steeped in condescension" means. It means PP talks down to people who believe in God. A person can disagree with the existence of God without mocking it and treating those who believe like uneducated children.

You are still not answering the question.

Why is it mocking someone who believes in the Christian god to compare that to someone believing in fairies?

That wasn't the question. The question was why aren't people who believe in God taking the question sincerely? And the answer is NOT that the comparison of God to fairies is necessarily the problem. The answer is the tone in which it is asked. I actually did answer the god-fairy question above separately when it was asked without starting their question with the belief that anyone who believes in God is unsophisticated. They probably still believe that I'm wrong and dumb, but kept that to themselves, which allowed me to engage as if I were going to take it seriously, and not treated as a child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

And I question your reading comprehension. Once more, very clearly for you: The majority of Christians are not literalists. Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. When you insist on defining Christianity by the fringe of literalists, you look ignorant of the breadth and range of Christian doctrine and belief (especially when you've been repeatedly told that the majority of Christianity is not literalist), and demonstrate your disinterest in learning more or having a good faith conversation on the topic of religion.

Saying your theology is based on more than the Bible is like saying that your dragonology is based on more than a Song of Fire and Ice, no matter how many PhDs you may have in the lore of George RR Martin. You're piling made up interpretations on top of previous fiction.

There is no good faith conversation to be had with one who doesn't accept reality.

NP. I am new to this conversation but it's correct, Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. The Bible itself as we understand it was not decided on until the councils of Hippo and Carthage around AD 400. Catholics and Orthodox say that Christian theology is more than the Bible as a matter of basic doctrine. The Christian form of worship, whether liturgical or a Protestant service, has origins that predates the Bible. The Nicene Creed also predates the Bible.

And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.

I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.

I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?

Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.

Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.

So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?

Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?

Here is the thing: if I find your belief system stupid, I don't need to engage with you about it. If you find someone's beliefs stupid, why are you engaging with them? Neither of you are gaining anything from the conversation if you can't maintain basic respect. That's actually stupid and a waste of time in my view. I find plenty of ideas stupid, I don't engage with their adherents.

You're right, you don't have a need to engage. That's your choice. Yet, you continue to post here.

I find all belief systems stupid, since we keep using that word. However, why should I respect something stupid if it is having an affect on my life because there are those in positions of power - judges, politicians, etc - that make decisions based on those stupid beliefs? It says a lot about a person's reasoning skills when they say they believe in "insert whatever religion you want here".

I don't want things that affect me to be based on stupid reasoning from stupid beliefs.

I’m the person you’re responding to and I am not very active in this debate, nor do I intend to be.

What I think this comes down to is if you can’t manage to engage respectfully, you’re never going to recognize when you are wrong or where your blind spots are. You’re never going to acknowledge those blind spots. You can’t grow, and you can’t recognize the intelligence of the person who believes whatever thing you find “stupid.” So, a conversation with you is fundamentally useless.

Then why continue to post?

And, you are making unfounded assumptions. Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer.

I'm posting because the religion forum has been unreadable pretty much forever, and it's basically because of the endlessly nasty posts from people who find themselves too intelligent. Sorry, if you can't engage politely, you're not indicating your intelligence, you are indicating a fundamental lack of seriousness and ability to stay on topic.

Further, you are calling out unknown "unfounded assumptions" while making unfounded assumptions in the literal next sentence: "Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer." Ok cool?

Even worse, you state the following, above: "However, why should I respect something stupid" --- no one is asking you to respect "something" stupid, but rather the people you are talking to. It's clear you find the people who believe the "stupid" things beneath you. Ok, awesome. But nothing about your own writing indicates intelligence so remarkable that you have good reason to dismiss others.

Poor wittle Christian can't handle criticism of his myths.

+1

What is not serious is to demand people to be respectful of their unreasonableness. As a PP wrote, would you argue that I should engage in a respectual conversation with someone who believed in Lord Leprechaun and his never ending pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

Given the lack of a direct response, the only conclusion is to assume the answer is no.

The answer is yes. If you want to talk to someone about their beliefs, the answer is you respect them even if you find their belief stupid. The alternative is to not engage.

The fact that this is so difficult for you to understand is alarming.

There is at least one additional choice. To say "Your beliefs are stupid and harmful, and without evidence to support them". You know this, because you do it with plenty of other things. As in this very post of yours! Why don't you follow your own rules? Why not chose "alternative is to not engage"? You engaged! Why? So ironic.

I'll tell you why you don't follow your own rules. Because you only want YOUR silly beliefs respected.

Sorry!

And what is gained by this choice? You told someone you thought their beliefs are stupid. They probably don’t care one bit. What has been accomplished?

I haven’t indicated what my “silly” beliefs even are- so I would be wasting my time to worry about your assumptions.

The only information we know from this conversation is that you guys like to shake your fists at the sky. The rest of your post doesn’t make a lot of sense if you were trying to say something else.

Not every move needs to have an accomplishment. What is your "accomplishment" in replying to me? It's a silly standard.

But if you MUST know, it is showing others who don't believe that they are allowed to tell the emperor he is naked.

And thanks for completely ignoring my pointing out your hypocrisy. You don't want anyone telling you what to do here, but you are plenty OK with you telling others. It's such hypocrisy it is funny.

Let’s be real- the bolded makes no sense, especially in the context of anonymous internet posts.

Complaining about religion on the internet is more a type of mental masturbation than anything- it makes you feel good.

And maybe it changes some minds. You just don't know. I do know that it changed my mind.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but calling something “stupid” over and over again on the internet isn’t exactly the highest form of persuasion. And that’s ok! But maybe you can do better?

DP - why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

Listen, if this is the only argument you're capable of making, that's fine. That's been the standard of discourse on this board for a long time.

It’s hard when you don’t even answer the simplest questions.

Why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

It's totally ok to call "stupid things" stupid. It's totally ok to say the word stupid.

Good.

That doesn't make it a sophisticated discussion or a good use of your time. It's just the level of discourse you're operating at.

So which is it? And have you done it?

You’re not tracking logically, here.

It's never a sophisticated discussion when belief in a supernatural being like Santa Claus, fairies, or God is being discussed. What makes it a good use of your time is the possibility that some of the discussion will get you thinking and cause you to no longer believe in things like fairies, Santa or God. You probably already no longer believe in fairies or Santa. God is next.

Why is that not a valid point? Why is it not "sophisticated" enough about those comparisons? This is what you need to explain if you want that to change.

What is the difference between your belief in supernatural beings and others? I am asking sincerely.

PP from above post that you're responding to. I doubt that you'll get a sincere response from believers. I think they are more likely to just disappear from this thread, after reading your sincere request for a response. I suspect that they are stuck, wanting to persist in their beliefs - - - so they will.

Maybe some readers will think about it and change their views, but I doubt that it will happen quickly or that they would acknowledge it here. Maybe they'll eventually quietly become one of us. And we are becoming more numerous. The number of non-believers is growing and religious belief and observance is way down.

You're not likely to get a response from believers because the question doesn't actually read as "sincere." It's condescending and dripping with judgement.

But why? What about it makes it insincere? I swear I am asking sincerely.

I think it's impossible to come off as sincere when the question is steeped in condescension. And I say that less because of the comparison of God to fairies, and more because the question led with the statement that the discussion couldn't be "sophisticated" with people who believe in God. The question framed that way assumes that people who believe in God have never critically examined our beliefs, that we are stuck in some kind of child-state and need to be talked-down-to.

Also, there seems to be a regular poster on this forum (maybe it's many posters; I don't know) who makes the God-Santa-fairies comparison regularly and also refers to God as "sky-daddy" which is obviously derisive. It's not necessarily fair of me to bring those previous comments to this thread and assume insincerity, but it happens often enough on this thread for anyone who is a regular to be aware of it and bring that baggage to your question. These conversations aren't happening in a vacuum.

I am sorry but what makes it "steeped in condescension"? What follows does not really address that, and in fact it indicates something else - that certain beliefs warrant special consideration over others. That's the only thing that could make a comparison inappropriate.

Does one person's supernatural belief have more sophisticated essence than another's? Why? And which ones? Why do some deserve "respect" and not others?

I am seriously asking here, because I do not see it, and I am guessing some others here don't either. If you truly think there is a distinction then you need to explain.

I explained what "steeped in condescension" means. It means PP talks down to people who believe in God. A person can disagree with the existence of God without mocking it and treating those who believe like uneducated children.

You are still not answering the question.

Why is it mocking someone who believes in the Christian god to compare that to someone believing in fairies?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

And I question your reading comprehension. Once more, very clearly for you: The majority of Christians are not literalists. Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. When you insist on defining Christianity by the fringe of literalists, you look ignorant of the breadth and range of Christian doctrine and belief (especially when you've been repeatedly told that the majority of Christianity is not literalist), and demonstrate your disinterest in learning more or having a good faith conversation on the topic of religion.

Saying your theology is based on more than the Bible is like saying that your dragonology is based on more than a Song of Fire and Ice, no matter how many PhDs you may have in the lore of George RR Martin. You're piling made up interpretations on top of previous fiction.

There is no good faith conversation to be had with one who doesn't accept reality.

NP. I am new to this conversation but it's correct, Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. The Bible itself as we understand it was not decided on until the councils of Hippo and Carthage around AD 400. Catholics and Orthodox say that Christian theology is more than the Bible as a matter of basic doctrine. The Christian form of worship, whether liturgical or a Protestant service, has origins that predates the Bible. The Nicene Creed also predates the Bible.

And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.

I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.

I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?

Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.

Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.

So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?

Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?

Here is the thing: if I find your belief system stupid, I don't need to engage with you about it. If you find someone's beliefs stupid, why are you engaging with them? Neither of you are gaining anything from the conversation if you can't maintain basic respect. That's actually stupid and a waste of time in my view. I find plenty of ideas stupid, I don't engage with their adherents.

You're right, you don't have a need to engage. That's your choice. Yet, you continue to post here.

I find all belief systems stupid, since we keep using that word. However, why should I respect something stupid if it is having an affect on my life because there are those in positions of power - judges, politicians, etc - that make decisions based on those stupid beliefs? It says a lot about a person's reasoning skills when they say they believe in "insert whatever religion you want here".

I don't want things that affect me to be based on stupid reasoning from stupid beliefs.

I’m the person you’re responding to and I am not very active in this debate, nor do I intend to be.

What I think this comes down to is if you can’t manage to engage respectfully, you’re never going to recognize when you are wrong or where your blind spots are. You’re never going to acknowledge those blind spots. You can’t grow, and you can’t recognize the intelligence of the person who believes whatever thing you find “stupid.” So, a conversation with you is fundamentally useless.

Then why continue to post?

And, you are making unfounded assumptions. Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer.

I'm posting because the religion forum has been unreadable pretty much forever, and it's basically because of the endlessly nasty posts from people who find themselves too intelligent. Sorry, if you can't engage politely, you're not indicating your intelligence, you are indicating a fundamental lack of seriousness and ability to stay on topic.

Further, you are calling out unknown "unfounded assumptions" while making unfounded assumptions in the literal next sentence: "Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer." Ok cool?

Even worse, you state the following, above: "However, why should I respect something stupid" --- no one is asking you to respect "something" stupid, but rather the people you are talking to. It's clear you find the people who believe the "stupid" things beneath you. Ok, awesome. But nothing about your own writing indicates intelligence so remarkable that you have good reason to dismiss others.

Poor wittle Christian can't handle criticism of his myths.

+1

What is not serious is to demand people to be respectful of their unreasonableness. As a PP wrote, would you argue that I should engage in a respectual conversation with someone who believed in Lord Leprechaun and his never ending pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

Given the lack of a direct response, the only conclusion is to assume the answer is no.

The answer is yes. If you want to talk to someone about their beliefs, the answer is you respect them even if you find their belief stupid. The alternative is to not engage.

The fact that this is so difficult for you to understand is alarming.

There is at least one additional choice. To say "Your beliefs are stupid and harmful, and without evidence to support them". You know this, because you do it with plenty of other things. As in this very post of yours! Why don't you follow your own rules? Why not chose "alternative is to not engage"? You engaged! Why? So ironic.

I'll tell you why you don't follow your own rules. Because you only want YOUR silly beliefs respected.

Sorry!

And what is gained by this choice? You told someone you thought their beliefs are stupid. They probably don’t care one bit. What has been accomplished?

I haven’t indicated what my “silly” beliefs even are- so I would be wasting my time to worry about your assumptions.

The only information we know from this conversation is that you guys like to shake your fists at the sky. The rest of your post doesn’t make a lot of sense if you were trying to say something else.

Not every move needs to have an accomplishment. What is your "accomplishment" in replying to me? It's a silly standard.

But if you MUST know, it is showing others who don't believe that they are allowed to tell the emperor he is naked.

And thanks for completely ignoring my pointing out your hypocrisy. You don't want anyone telling you what to do here, but you are plenty OK with you telling others. It's such hypocrisy it is funny.

Let’s be real- the bolded makes no sense, especially in the context of anonymous internet posts.

Complaining about religion on the internet is more a type of mental masturbation than anything- it makes you feel good.

And maybe it changes some minds. You just don't know. I do know that it changed my mind.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but calling something “stupid” over and over again on the internet isn’t exactly the highest form of persuasion. And that’s ok! But maybe you can do better?

DP - why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

Listen, if this is the only argument you're capable of making, that's fine. That's been the standard of discourse on this board for a long time.

It’s hard when you don’t even answer the simplest questions.

Why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

It's totally ok to call "stupid things" stupid. It's totally ok to say the word stupid.

Good.

That doesn't make it a sophisticated discussion or a good use of your time. It's just the level of discourse you're operating at.

So which is it? And have you done it?

You’re not tracking logically, here.

It's never a sophisticated discussion when belief in a supernatural being like Santa Claus, fairies, or God is being discussed. What makes it a good use of your time is the possibility that some of the discussion will get you thinking and cause you to no longer believe in things like fairies, Santa or God. You probably already no longer believe in fairies or Santa. God is next.

Why is that not a valid point? Why is it not "sophisticated" enough about those comparisons? This is what you need to explain if you want that to change.

What is the difference between your belief in supernatural beings and others? I am asking sincerely.

PP from above post that you're responding to. I doubt that you'll get a sincere response from believers. I think they are more likely to just disappear from this thread, after reading your sincere request for a response. I suspect that they are stuck, wanting to persist in their beliefs - - - so they will.

Maybe some readers will think about it and change their views, but I doubt that it will happen quickly or that they would acknowledge it here. Maybe they'll eventually quietly become one of us. And we are becoming more numerous. The number of non-believers is growing and religious belief and observance is way down.

You're not likely to get a response from believers because the question doesn't actually read as "sincere." It's condescending and dripping with judgement.

But why? What about it makes it insincere? I swear I am asking sincerely.

I think it's impossible to come off as sincere when the question is steeped in condescension. And I say that less because of the comparison of God to fairies, and more because the question led with the statement that the discussion couldn't be "sophisticated" with people who believe in God. The question framed that way assumes that people who believe in God have never critically examined our beliefs, that we are stuck in some kind of child-state and need to be talked-down-to.

Also, there seems to be a regular poster on this forum (maybe it's many posters; I don't know) who makes the God-Santa-fairies comparison regularly and also refers to God as "sky-daddy" which is obviously derisive. It's not necessarily fair of me to bring those previous comments to this thread and assume insincerity, but it happens often enough on this thread for anyone who is a regular to be aware of it and bring that baggage to your question. These conversations aren't happening in a vacuum.

I am sorry but what makes it "steeped in condescension"? What follows does not really address that, and in fact it indicates something else - that certain beliefs warrant special consideration over others. That's the only thing that could make a comparison inappropriate.

Does one person's supernatural belief have more sophisticated essence than another's? Why? And which ones? Why do some deserve "respect" and not others?

I am seriously asking here, because I do not see it, and I am guessing some others here don't either. If you truly think there is a distinction then you need to explain.

I explained what "steeped in condescension" means. It means PP talks down to people who believe in God. A person can disagree with the existence of God without mocking it and treating those who believe like uneducated children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

And I question your reading comprehension. Once more, very clearly for you: The majority of Christians are not literalists. Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. When you insist on defining Christianity by the fringe of literalists, you look ignorant of the breadth and range of Christian doctrine and belief (especially when you've been repeatedly told that the majority of Christianity is not literalist), and demonstrate your disinterest in learning more or having a good faith conversation on the topic of religion.

Saying your theology is based on more than the Bible is like saying that your dragonology is based on more than a Song of Fire and Ice, no matter how many PhDs you may have in the lore of George RR Martin. You're piling made up interpretations on top of previous fiction.

There is no good faith conversation to be had with one who doesn't accept reality.

NP. I am new to this conversation but it's correct, Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. The Bible itself as we understand it was not decided on until the councils of Hippo and Carthage around AD 400. Catholics and Orthodox say that Christian theology is more than the Bible as a matter of basic doctrine. The Christian form of worship, whether liturgical or a Protestant service, has origins that predates the Bible. The Nicene Creed also predates the Bible.

And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.

I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.

I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?

Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.

Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.

So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?

Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?

Here is the thing: if I find your belief system stupid, I don't need to engage with you about it. If you find someone's beliefs stupid, why are you engaging with them? Neither of you are gaining anything from the conversation if you can't maintain basic respect. That's actually stupid and a waste of time in my view. I find plenty of ideas stupid, I don't engage with their adherents.

You're right, you don't have a need to engage. That's your choice. Yet, you continue to post here.

I find all belief systems stupid, since we keep using that word. However, why should I respect something stupid if it is having an affect on my life because there are those in positions of power - judges, politicians, etc - that make decisions based on those stupid beliefs? It says a lot about a person's reasoning skills when they say they believe in "insert whatever religion you want here".

I don't want things that affect me to be based on stupid reasoning from stupid beliefs.

I’m the person you’re responding to and I am not very active in this debate, nor do I intend to be.

What I think this comes down to is if you can’t manage to engage respectfully, you’re never going to recognize when you are wrong or where your blind spots are. You’re never going to acknowledge those blind spots. You can’t grow, and you can’t recognize the intelligence of the person who believes whatever thing you find “stupid.” So, a conversation with you is fundamentally useless.

Then why continue to post?

And, you are making unfounded assumptions. Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer.

I'm posting because the religion forum has been unreadable pretty much forever, and it's basically because of the endlessly nasty posts from people who find themselves too intelligent. Sorry, if you can't engage politely, you're not indicating your intelligence, you are indicating a fundamental lack of seriousness and ability to stay on topic.

Further, you are calling out unknown "unfounded assumptions" while making unfounded assumptions in the literal next sentence: "Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer." Ok cool?

Even worse, you state the following, above: "However, why should I respect something stupid" --- no one is asking you to respect "something" stupid, but rather the people you are talking to. It's clear you find the people who believe the "stupid" things beneath you. Ok, awesome. But nothing about your own writing indicates intelligence so remarkable that you have good reason to dismiss others.

Poor wittle Christian can't handle criticism of his myths.

+1

What is not serious is to demand people to be respectful of their unreasonableness. As a PP wrote, would you argue that I should engage in a respectual conversation with someone who believed in Lord Leprechaun and his never ending pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

Given the lack of a direct response, the only conclusion is to assume the answer is no.

The answer is yes. If you want to talk to someone about their beliefs, the answer is you respect them even if you find their belief stupid. The alternative is to not engage.

The fact that this is so difficult for you to understand is alarming.

There is at least one additional choice. To say "Your beliefs are stupid and harmful, and without evidence to support them". You know this, because you do it with plenty of other things. As in this very post of yours! Why don't you follow your own rules? Why not chose "alternative is to not engage"? You engaged! Why? So ironic.

I'll tell you why you don't follow your own rules. Because you only want YOUR silly beliefs respected.

Sorry!

And what is gained by this choice? You told someone you thought their beliefs are stupid. They probably don’t care one bit. What has been accomplished?

I haven’t indicated what my “silly” beliefs even are- so I would be wasting my time to worry about your assumptions.

The only information we know from this conversation is that you guys like to shake your fists at the sky. The rest of your post doesn’t make a lot of sense if you were trying to say something else.

Not every move needs to have an accomplishment. What is your "accomplishment" in replying to me? It's a silly standard.

But if you MUST know, it is showing others who don't believe that they are allowed to tell the emperor he is naked.

And thanks for completely ignoring my pointing out your hypocrisy. You don't want anyone telling you what to do here, but you are plenty OK with you telling others. It's such hypocrisy it is funny.

Let’s be real- the bolded makes no sense, especially in the context of anonymous internet posts.

Complaining about religion on the internet is more a type of mental masturbation than anything- it makes you feel good.

And maybe it changes some minds. You just don't know. I do know that it changed my mind.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but calling something “stupid” over and over again on the internet isn’t exactly the highest form of persuasion. And that’s ok! But maybe you can do better?

DP - why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

Listen, if this is the only argument you're capable of making, that's fine. That's been the standard of discourse on this board for a long time.

It’s hard when you don’t even answer the simplest questions.

Why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

It's totally ok to call "stupid things" stupid. It's totally ok to say the word stupid.

Good.

That doesn't make it a sophisticated discussion or a good use of your time. It's just the level of discourse you're operating at.

So which is it? And have you done it?

You’re not tracking logically, here.

It's never a sophisticated discussion when belief in a supernatural being like Santa Claus, fairies, or God is being discussed. What makes it a good use of your time is the possibility that some of the discussion will get you thinking and cause you to no longer believe in things like fairies, Santa or God. You probably already no longer believe in fairies or Santa. God is next.

Why is that not a valid point? Why is it not "sophisticated" enough about those comparisons? This is what you need to explain if you want that to change.

What is the difference between your belief in supernatural beings and others? I am asking sincerely.

PP from above post that you're responding to. I doubt that you'll get a sincere response from believers. I think they are more likely to just disappear from this thread, after reading your sincere request for a response. I suspect that they are stuck, wanting to persist in their beliefs - - - so they will.

Maybe some readers will think about it and change their views, but I doubt that it will happen quickly or that they would acknowledge it here. Maybe they'll eventually quietly become one of us. And we are becoming more numerous. The number of non-believers is growing and religious belief and observance is way down.

You're not likely to get a response from believers because the question doesn't actually read as "sincere." It's condescending and dripping with judgement.

But why? What about it makes it insincere? I swear I am asking sincerely.

I think it's impossible to come off as sincere when the question is steeped in condescension. And I say that less because of the comparison of God to fairies, and more because the question led with the statement that the discussion couldn't be "sophisticated" with people who believe in God. The question framed that way assumes that people who believe in God have never critically examined our beliefs, that we are stuck in some kind of child-state and need to be talked-down-to.

Also, there seems to be a regular poster on this forum (maybe it's many posters; I don't know) who makes the God-Santa-fairies comparison regularly and also refers to God as "sky-daddy" which is obviously derisive. It's not necessarily fair of me to bring those previous comments to this thread and assume insincerity, but it happens often enough on this thread for anyone who is a regular to be aware of it and bring that baggage to your question. These conversations aren't happening in a vacuum.

Sky Daddy is derisive, in my opinion. Comparison of God to Santa and Fairies is not, because they are invisible beings that, with the exception of God, people stop believing in when they grow up. As they get older, people see Fairies and Santa as the kiddie stories that they are, but some people don't see God that way. God has lots of rules and promises eternal life, unlike Santa and fairies.

I think the difference, as I see it, is that Santa and fairies are ideas of mythical creatures that could conceivably exist with a physical form in our world. The fact that they aren't real, then, is something we grow out of as we age and understand more about our reality. God is conceived of as the source of the universe, without physical form, outside of natural law, so God can't be "disproven" in the same way.

That makes sense, but I doubt if most people think so deeply about it. I think it's more a simple matter of fairies not doing anything, really, Santa bringing toys to kids (and the toys keep coming even if you no longer believe in Santa). Meanwhile, God, in all his forms and according to many different religions, offers eternal life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

And I question your reading comprehension. Once more, very clearly for you: The majority of Christians are not literalists. Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. When you insist on defining Christianity by the fringe of literalists, you look ignorant of the breadth and range of Christian doctrine and belief (especially when you've been repeatedly told that the majority of Christianity is not literalist), and demonstrate your disinterest in learning more or having a good faith conversation on the topic of religion.

Saying your theology is based on more than the Bible is like saying that your dragonology is based on more than a Song of Fire and Ice, no matter how many PhDs you may have in the lore of George RR Martin. You're piling made up interpretations on top of previous fiction.

There is no good faith conversation to be had with one who doesn't accept reality.

NP. I am new to this conversation but it's correct, Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. The Bible itself as we understand it was not decided on until the councils of Hippo and Carthage around AD 400. Catholics and Orthodox say that Christian theology is more than the Bible as a matter of basic doctrine. The Christian form of worship, whether liturgical or a Protestant service, has origins that predates the Bible. The Nicene Creed also predates the Bible.

And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.

I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.

I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?

Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.

Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.

So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?

Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?

Here is the thing: if I find your belief system stupid, I don't need to engage with you about it. If you find someone's beliefs stupid, why are you engaging with them? Neither of you are gaining anything from the conversation if you can't maintain basic respect. That's actually stupid and a waste of time in my view. I find plenty of ideas stupid, I don't engage with their adherents.

You're right, you don't have a need to engage. That's your choice. Yet, you continue to post here.

I find all belief systems stupid, since we keep using that word. However, why should I respect something stupid if it is having an affect on my life because there are those in positions of power - judges, politicians, etc - that make decisions based on those stupid beliefs? It says a lot about a person's reasoning skills when they say they believe in "insert whatever religion you want here".

I don't want things that affect me to be based on stupid reasoning from stupid beliefs.

I’m the person you’re responding to and I am not very active in this debate, nor do I intend to be.

What I think this comes down to is if you can’t manage to engage respectfully, you’re never going to recognize when you are wrong or where your blind spots are. You’re never going to acknowledge those blind spots. You can’t grow, and you can’t recognize the intelligence of the person who believes whatever thing you find “stupid.” So, a conversation with you is fundamentally useless.

Then why continue to post?

And, you are making unfounded assumptions. Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer.

I'm posting because the religion forum has been unreadable pretty much forever, and it's basically because of the endlessly nasty posts from people who find themselves too intelligent. Sorry, if you can't engage politely, you're not indicating your intelligence, you are indicating a fundamental lack of seriousness and ability to stay on topic.

Further, you are calling out unknown "unfounded assumptions" while making unfounded assumptions in the literal next sentence: "Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer." Ok cool?

Even worse, you state the following, above: "However, why should I respect something stupid" --- no one is asking you to respect "something" stupid, but rather the people you are talking to. It's clear you find the people who believe the "stupid" things beneath you. Ok, awesome. But nothing about your own writing indicates intelligence so remarkable that you have good reason to dismiss others.

Poor wittle Christian can't handle criticism of his myths.

+1

What is not serious is to demand people to be respectful of their unreasonableness. As a PP wrote, would you argue that I should engage in a respectual conversation with someone who believed in Lord Leprechaun and his never ending pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

Given the lack of a direct response, the only conclusion is to assume the answer is no.

The answer is yes. If you want to talk to someone about their beliefs, the answer is you respect them even if you find their belief stupid. The alternative is to not engage.

The fact that this is so difficult for you to understand is alarming.

There is at least one additional choice. To say "Your beliefs are stupid and harmful, and without evidence to support them". You know this, because you do it with plenty of other things. As in this very post of yours! Why don't you follow your own rules? Why not chose "alternative is to not engage"? You engaged! Why? So ironic.

I'll tell you why you don't follow your own rules. Because you only want YOUR silly beliefs respected.

Sorry!

And what is gained by this choice? You told someone you thought their beliefs are stupid. They probably don’t care one bit. What has been accomplished?

I haven’t indicated what my “silly” beliefs even are- so I would be wasting my time to worry about your assumptions.

The only information we know from this conversation is that you guys like to shake your fists at the sky. The rest of your post doesn’t make a lot of sense if you were trying to say something else.

Not every move needs to have an accomplishment. What is your "accomplishment" in replying to me? It's a silly standard.

But if you MUST know, it is showing others who don't believe that they are allowed to tell the emperor he is naked.

And thanks for completely ignoring my pointing out your hypocrisy. You don't want anyone telling you what to do here, but you are plenty OK with you telling others. It's such hypocrisy it is funny.

Let’s be real- the bolded makes no sense, especially in the context of anonymous internet posts.

Complaining about religion on the internet is more a type of mental masturbation than anything- it makes you feel good.

And maybe it changes some minds. You just don't know. I do know that it changed my mind.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but calling something “stupid” over and over again on the internet isn’t exactly the highest form of persuasion. And that’s ok! But maybe you can do better?

DP - why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

Listen, if this is the only argument you're capable of making, that's fine. That's been the standard of discourse on this board for a long time.

It’s hard when you don’t even answer the simplest questions.

Why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

It's totally ok to call "stupid things" stupid. It's totally ok to say the word stupid.

Good.

That doesn't make it a sophisticated discussion or a good use of your time. It's just the level of discourse you're operating at.

So which is it? And have you done it?

You’re not tracking logically, here.

It's never a sophisticated discussion when belief in a supernatural being like Santa Claus, fairies, or God is being discussed. What makes it a good use of your time is the possibility that some of the discussion will get you thinking and cause you to no longer believe in things like fairies, Santa or God. You probably already no longer believe in fairies or Santa. God is next.

Why is that not a valid point? Why is it not "sophisticated" enough about those comparisons? This is what you need to explain if you want that to change.

What is the difference between your belief in supernatural beings and others? I am asking sincerely.

PP from above post that you're responding to. I doubt that you'll get a sincere response from believers. I think they are more likely to just disappear from this thread, after reading your sincere request for a response. I suspect that they are stuck, wanting to persist in their beliefs - - - so they will.

Maybe some readers will think about it and change their views, but I doubt that it will happen quickly or that they would acknowledge it here. Maybe they'll eventually quietly become one of us. And we are becoming more numerous. The number of non-believers is growing and religious belief and observance is way down.

You're not likely to get a response from believers because the question doesn't actually read as "sincere." It's condescending and dripping with judgement.

But why? What about it makes it insincere? I swear I am asking sincerely.

I think it's impossible to come off as sincere when the question is steeped in condescension. And I say that less because of the comparison of God to fairies, and more because the question led with the statement that the discussion couldn't be "sophisticated" with people who believe in God. The question framed that way assumes that people who believe in God have never critically examined our beliefs, that we are stuck in some kind of child-state and need to be talked-down-to.

Also, there seems to be a regular poster on this forum (maybe it's many posters; I don't know) who makes the God-Santa-fairies comparison regularly and also refers to God as "sky-daddy" which is obviously derisive. It's not necessarily fair of me to bring those previous comments to this thread and assume insincerity, but it happens often enough on this thread for anyone who is a regular to be aware of it and bring that baggage to your question. These conversations aren't happening in a vacuum.

Sky Daddy is derisive, in my opinion. Comparison of God to Santa and Fairies is not, because they are invisible beings that, with the exception of God, people stop believing in when they grow up. As they get older, people see Fairies and Santa as the kiddie stories that they are, but some people don't see God that way. God has lots of rules and promises eternal life, unlike Santa and fairies.

I think the difference, as I see it, is that Santa and fairies are ideas of mythical creatures that could conceivably exist with a physical form in our world. The fact that they aren't real, then, is something we grow out of as we age and understand more about our reality. God is conceived of as the source of the universe, without physical form, outside of natural law, so God can't be "disproven" in the same way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

And I question your reading comprehension. Once more, very clearly for you: The majority of Christians are not literalists. Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. When you insist on defining Christianity by the fringe of literalists, you look ignorant of the breadth and range of Christian doctrine and belief (especially when you've been repeatedly told that the majority of Christianity is not literalist), and demonstrate your disinterest in learning more or having a good faith conversation on the topic of religion.

Saying your theology is based on more than the Bible is like saying that your dragonology is based on more than a Song of Fire and Ice, no matter how many PhDs you may have in the lore of George RR Martin. You're piling made up interpretations on top of previous fiction.

There is no good faith conversation to be had with one who doesn't accept reality.

NP. I am new to this conversation but it's correct, Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. The Bible itself as we understand it was not decided on until the councils of Hippo and Carthage around AD 400. Catholics and Orthodox say that Christian theology is more than the Bible as a matter of basic doctrine. The Christian form of worship, whether liturgical or a Protestant service, has origins that predates the Bible. The Nicene Creed also predates the Bible.

And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.

I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.

I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?

Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.

Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.

So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?

Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?

Here is the thing: if I find your belief system stupid, I don't need to engage with you about it. If you find someone's beliefs stupid, why are you engaging with them? Neither of you are gaining anything from the conversation if you can't maintain basic respect. That's actually stupid and a waste of time in my view. I find plenty of ideas stupid, I don't engage with their adherents.

You're right, you don't have a need to engage. That's your choice. Yet, you continue to post here.

I find all belief systems stupid, since we keep using that word. However, why should I respect something stupid if it is having an affect on my life because there are those in positions of power - judges, politicians, etc - that make decisions based on those stupid beliefs? It says a lot about a person's reasoning skills when they say they believe in "insert whatever religion you want here".

I don't want things that affect me to be based on stupid reasoning from stupid beliefs.

I’m the person you’re responding to and I am not very active in this debate, nor do I intend to be.

What I think this comes down to is if you can’t manage to engage respectfully, you’re never going to recognize when you are wrong or where your blind spots are. You’re never going to acknowledge those blind spots. You can’t grow, and you can’t recognize the intelligence of the person who believes whatever thing you find “stupid.” So, a conversation with you is fundamentally useless.

Then why continue to post?

And, you are making unfounded assumptions. Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer.

I'm posting because the religion forum has been unreadable pretty much forever, and it's basically because of the endlessly nasty posts from people who find themselves too intelligent. Sorry, if you can't engage politely, you're not indicating your intelligence, you are indicating a fundamental lack of seriousness and ability to stay on topic.

Further, you are calling out unknown "unfounded assumptions" while making unfounded assumptions in the literal next sentence: "Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer." Ok cool?

Even worse, you state the following, above: "However, why should I respect something stupid" --- no one is asking you to respect "something" stupid, but rather the people you are talking to. It's clear you find the people who believe the "stupid" things beneath you. Ok, awesome. But nothing about your own writing indicates intelligence so remarkable that you have good reason to dismiss others.

Poor wittle Christian can't handle criticism of his myths.

+1

What is not serious is to demand people to be respectful of their unreasonableness. As a PP wrote, would you argue that I should engage in a respectual conversation with someone who believed in Lord Leprechaun and his never ending pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

Given the lack of a direct response, the only conclusion is to assume the answer is no.

The answer is yes. If you want to talk to someone about their beliefs, the answer is you respect them even if you find their belief stupid. The alternative is to not engage.

The fact that this is so difficult for you to understand is alarming.

There is at least one additional choice. To say "Your beliefs are stupid and harmful, and without evidence to support them". You know this, because you do it with plenty of other things. As in this very post of yours! Why don't you follow your own rules? Why not chose "alternative is to not engage"? You engaged! Why? So ironic.

I'll tell you why you don't follow your own rules. Because you only want YOUR silly beliefs respected.

Sorry!

And what is gained by this choice? You told someone you thought their beliefs are stupid. They probably don’t care one bit. What has been accomplished?

I haven’t indicated what my “silly” beliefs even are- so I would be wasting my time to worry about your assumptions.

The only information we know from this conversation is that you guys like to shake your fists at the sky. The rest of your post doesn’t make a lot of sense if you were trying to say something else.

Not every move needs to have an accomplishment. What is your "accomplishment" in replying to me? It's a silly standard.

But if you MUST know, it is showing others who don't believe that they are allowed to tell the emperor he is naked.

And thanks for completely ignoring my pointing out your hypocrisy. You don't want anyone telling you what to do here, but you are plenty OK with you telling others. It's such hypocrisy it is funny.

Let’s be real- the bolded makes no sense, especially in the context of anonymous internet posts.

Complaining about religion on the internet is more a type of mental masturbation than anything- it makes you feel good.

And maybe it changes some minds. You just don't know. I do know that it changed my mind.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but calling something “stupid” over and over again on the internet isn’t exactly the highest form of persuasion. And that’s ok! But maybe you can do better?

DP - why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

Listen, if this is the only argument you're capable of making, that's fine. That's been the standard of discourse on this board for a long time.

It’s hard when you don’t even answer the simplest questions.

Why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

It's totally ok to call "stupid things" stupid. It's totally ok to say the word stupid.

Good.

That doesn't make it a sophisticated discussion or a good use of your time. It's just the level of discourse you're operating at.

So which is it? And have you done it?

You’re not tracking logically, here.

It's never a sophisticated discussion when belief in a supernatural being like Santa Claus, fairies, or God is being discussed. What makes it a good use of your time is the possibility that some of the discussion will get you thinking and cause you to no longer believe in things like fairies, Santa or God. You probably already no longer believe in fairies or Santa. God is next.

Why is that not a valid point? Why is it not "sophisticated" enough about those comparisons? This is what you need to explain if you want that to change.

What is the difference between your belief in supernatural beings and others? I am asking sincerely.

PP from above post that you're responding to. I doubt that you'll get a sincere response from believers. I think they are more likely to just disappear from this thread, after reading your sincere request for a response. I suspect that they are stuck, wanting to persist in their beliefs - - - so they will.

Maybe some readers will think about it and change their views, but I doubt that it will happen quickly or that they would acknowledge it here. Maybe they'll eventually quietly become one of us. And we are becoming more numerous. The number of non-believers is growing and religious belief and observance is way down.

You're not likely to get a response from believers because the question doesn't actually read as "sincere." It's condescending and dripping with judgement.

But why? What about it makes it insincere? I swear I am asking sincerely.

I think it's impossible to come off as sincere when the question is steeped in condescension. And I say that less because of the comparison of God to fairies, and more because the question led with the statement that the discussion couldn't be "sophisticated" with people who believe in God. The question framed that way assumes that people who believe in God have never critically examined our beliefs, that we are stuck in some kind of child-state and need to be talked-down-to.

Also, there seems to be a regular poster on this forum (maybe it's many posters; I don't know) who makes the God-Santa-fairies comparison regularly and also refers to God as "sky-daddy" which is obviously derisive. It's not necessarily fair of me to bring those previous comments to this thread and assume insincerity, but it happens often enough on this thread for anyone who is a regular to be aware of it and bring that baggage to your question. These conversations aren't happening in a vacuum.

Sky Daddy is derisive, in my opinion. Comparison of God to Santa and Fairies is not, because they are invisible beings that, with the exception of God, people stop believing in when they grow up. As they get older, people see Fairies and Santa as the kiddie stories that they are, but some people don't see God that way. God has lots of rules and promises eternal life, unlike Santa and fairies.

I think the difference, as I see it, is that Santa and fairies are ideas of mythical creatures that could conceivably exist with a physical form in our world. The fact that they aren't real, then, is something we grow out of as we age and understand more about our reality. God is conceived of as the source of the universe, without physical form, outside of natural law, so God can't be "disproven" in the same way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

And I question your reading comprehension. Once more, very clearly for you: The majority of Christians are not literalists. Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. When you insist on defining Christianity by the fringe of literalists, you look ignorant of the breadth and range of Christian doctrine and belief (especially when you've been repeatedly told that the majority of Christianity is not literalist), and demonstrate your disinterest in learning more or having a good faith conversation on the topic of religion.

Saying your theology is based on more than the Bible is like saying that your dragonology is based on more than a Song of Fire and Ice, no matter how many PhDs you may have in the lore of George RR Martin. You're piling made up interpretations on top of previous fiction.

There is no good faith conversation to be had with one who doesn't accept reality.

NP. I am new to this conversation but it's correct, Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. The Bible itself as we understand it was not decided on until the councils of Hippo and Carthage around AD 400. Catholics and Orthodox say that Christian theology is more than the Bible as a matter of basic doctrine. The Christian form of worship, whether liturgical or a Protestant service, has origins that predates the Bible. The Nicene Creed also predates the Bible.

And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.

I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.

I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?

Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.

Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.

So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?

Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?

Here is the thing: if I find your belief system stupid, I don't need to engage with you about it. If you find someone's beliefs stupid, why are you engaging with them? Neither of you are gaining anything from the conversation if you can't maintain basic respect. That's actually stupid and a waste of time in my view. I find plenty of ideas stupid, I don't engage with their adherents.

You're right, you don't have a need to engage. That's your choice. Yet, you continue to post here.

I find all belief systems stupid, since we keep using that word. However, why should I respect something stupid if it is having an affect on my life because there are those in positions of power - judges, politicians, etc - that make decisions based on those stupid beliefs? It says a lot about a person's reasoning skills when they say they believe in "insert whatever religion you want here".

I don't want things that affect me to be based on stupid reasoning from stupid beliefs.

I’m the person you’re responding to and I am not very active in this debate, nor do I intend to be.

What I think this comes down to is if you can’t manage to engage respectfully, you’re never going to recognize when you are wrong or where your blind spots are. You’re never going to acknowledge those blind spots. You can’t grow, and you can’t recognize the intelligence of the person who believes whatever thing you find “stupid.” So, a conversation with you is fundamentally useless.

Then why continue to post?

And, you are making unfounded assumptions. Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer.

I'm posting because the religion forum has been unreadable pretty much forever, and it's basically because of the endlessly nasty posts from people who find themselves too intelligent. Sorry, if you can't engage politely, you're not indicating your intelligence, you are indicating a fundamental lack of seriousness and ability to stay on topic.

Further, you are calling out unknown "unfounded assumptions" while making unfounded assumptions in the literal next sentence: "Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer." Ok cool?

Even worse, you state the following, above: "However, why should I respect something stupid" --- no one is asking you to respect "something" stupid, but rather the people you are talking to. It's clear you find the people who believe the "stupid" things beneath you. Ok, awesome. But nothing about your own writing indicates intelligence so remarkable that you have good reason to dismiss others.

Poor wittle Christian can't handle criticism of his myths.

+1

What is not serious is to demand people to be respectful of their unreasonableness. As a PP wrote, would you argue that I should engage in a respectual conversation with someone who believed in Lord Leprechaun and his never ending pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

Given the lack of a direct response, the only conclusion is to assume the answer is no.

The answer is yes. If you want to talk to someone about their beliefs, the answer is you respect them even if you find their belief stupid. The alternative is to not engage.

The fact that this is so difficult for you to understand is alarming.

There is at least one additional choice. To say "Your beliefs are stupid and harmful, and without evidence to support them". You know this, because you do it with plenty of other things. As in this very post of yours! Why don't you follow your own rules? Why not chose "alternative is to not engage"? You engaged! Why? So ironic.

I'll tell you why you don't follow your own rules. Because you only want YOUR silly beliefs respected.

Sorry!

And what is gained by this choice? You told someone you thought their beliefs are stupid. They probably don’t care one bit. What has been accomplished?

I haven’t indicated what my “silly” beliefs even are- so I would be wasting my time to worry about your assumptions.

The only information we know from this conversation is that you guys like to shake your fists at the sky. The rest of your post doesn’t make a lot of sense if you were trying to say something else.

Not every move needs to have an accomplishment. What is your "accomplishment" in replying to me? It's a silly standard.

But if you MUST know, it is showing others who don't believe that they are allowed to tell the emperor he is naked.

And thanks for completely ignoring my pointing out your hypocrisy. You don't want anyone telling you what to do here, but you are plenty OK with you telling others. It's such hypocrisy it is funny.

Let’s be real- the bolded makes no sense, especially in the context of anonymous internet posts.

Complaining about religion on the internet is more a type of mental masturbation than anything- it makes you feel good.

And maybe it changes some minds. You just don't know. I do know that it changed my mind.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but calling something “stupid” over and over again on the internet isn’t exactly the highest form of persuasion. And that’s ok! But maybe you can do better?

DP - why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

Listen, if this is the only argument you're capable of making, that's fine. That's been the standard of discourse on this board for a long time.

It’s hard when you don’t even answer the simplest questions.

Why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

It's totally ok to call "stupid things" stupid. It's totally ok to say the word stupid.

Good.

That doesn't make it a sophisticated discussion or a good use of your time. It's just the level of discourse you're operating at.

So which is it? And have you done it?

You’re not tracking logically, here.

It's never a sophisticated discussion when belief in a supernatural being like Santa Claus, fairies, or God is being discussed. What makes it a good use of your time is the possibility that some of the discussion will get you thinking and cause you to no longer believe in things like fairies, Santa or God. You probably already no longer believe in fairies or Santa. God is next.

Why is that not a valid point? Why is it not "sophisticated" enough about those comparisons? This is what you need to explain if you want that to change.

What is the difference between your belief in supernatural beings and others? I am asking sincerely.

PP from above post that you're responding to. I doubt that you'll get a sincere response from believers. I think they are more likely to just disappear from this thread, after reading your sincere request for a response. I suspect that they are stuck, wanting to persist in their beliefs - - - so they will.

Maybe some readers will think about it and change their views, but I doubt that it will happen quickly or that they would acknowledge it here. Maybe they'll eventually quietly become one of us. And we are becoming more numerous. The number of non-believers is growing and religious belief and observance is way down.

You're not likely to get a response from believers because the question doesn't actually read as "sincere." It's condescending and dripping with judgement.

I think it's typical of people resistant to change to make a comment like the above: "It's condescending and dripping with judgement."

A response like that makes it easy to simply ignore anything that's said, no matter how much sense it makes.

I'm always so curious about why atheists on this board simply assume that religious people have never considered the alternative, as if they have been waiting all their lives for someone to tell them Santa and God are the same on an internet message board. It's so interesting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because they like it. It feels good. Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe? I doubt it. I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin. He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him. If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now. You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’ They’re not angry about it. They just tell you: ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions. People who listen carefully to the answers.”

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever". Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast

There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor, or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.

" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that you are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

Some comments:

What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought?

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical. You believe like Jefferson did. And yes, that is a compliment.
Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.

By interpreting the scripture your own way, you are basically creating your own sect. This is essentially how Christianity evolved from Judaisim.

And, like everything that came before, you're making it all up.

DP: It's not PP's "own way" -- it is literally the mainstream way. Literalism is a tiny, tiny sect of people generally though of as fringe, criticized by actual theologians, but touted by people who never leanred anything about religion as THE only thing. These threads are full of these attemtped "gotchas" that are premised on a false understanding of what most people actually believe and understand about theological writing and teaching.

+1

The literalism is easier to pick apart for arguments like this. But the fact is that most people and their religious beliefs are more nuanced.

And the fact is that if you are not relying on the actual words in your religious codex, then you are making up your own interpretation.

If you think literalism is crazy, then what is your rationale for what to believe?

It's not our fault that you don't understand how religion works. It's not just a text-based thing or literalist interpretation. Centuries of theology and interpretation have been built upon/around the Bible that inform how a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Methodist live their lives today. Multiple posters have tried to tell you that at this point. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to process complexity and nuance.

There is nothing complex about religion. It is very simple.

You "believe" something is true even though there is zero evidence in support of it.

Ergo, I question your ability to understand reason at all.

And I question your reading comprehension. Once more, very clearly for you: The majority of Christians are not literalists. Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. When you insist on defining Christianity by the fringe of literalists, you look ignorant of the breadth and range of Christian doctrine and belief (especially when you've been repeatedly told that the majority of Christianity is not literalist), and demonstrate your disinterest in learning more or having a good faith conversation on the topic of religion.

Saying your theology is based on more than the Bible is like saying that your dragonology is based on more than a Song of Fire and Ice, no matter how many PhDs you may have in the lore of George RR Martin. You're piling made up interpretations on top of previous fiction.

There is no good faith conversation to be had with one who doesn't accept reality.

NP. I am new to this conversation but it's correct, Christian theology is based on more than the Bible. The Bible itself as we understand it was not decided on until the councils of Hippo and Carthage around AD 400. Catholics and Orthodox say that Christian theology is more than the Bible as a matter of basic doctrine. The Christian form of worship, whether liturgical or a Protestant service, has origins that predates the Bible. The Nicene Creed also predates the Bible.

And you missed the meaning of the analogy. Stacking sh!t on top of previous sh!t just makes it a giant turd pile.

I think I’ve encountered you, or at least your “style,” in the religion forum before.

I wouldn’t want to discuss any serious issue with someone who talks the way you do. Not religion, not the weather. Why engage with someone whose points are so stupid and disrespectful?

Disrespectful it may be, but it is not stupid. You may be the poster that keeps using that word, specifically. However, you are using it incorrectly. The statement, while crass is spot on, correct, true. If you find truth stupid, maybe that says something about your reasoning.

Well no, I am new to this conversation. A better word to stupid would be trivial. I don’t mind if someone is stupid if they’re capable of a serious discussion. But if you are not, you are wasting your time.

So which NP are you from the quoted sections? The one who hasn't given an explanation for the basis of their beliefs if they are not going to use the actual words in their guiding document, the Bible? Or are you who said religion is more complex and nuanced? Or is it the same?

Nevertheless, the atheist made a valid point. Would you say it was a serious discussion if they were defending believing in Zeus or Zoroaster? Mormonism? How about scientology or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Do you think they have equally valid claims to demanding respect for their beliefs?

Here is the thing: if I find your belief system stupid, I don't need to engage with you about it. If you find someone's beliefs stupid, why are you engaging with them? Neither of you are gaining anything from the conversation if you can't maintain basic respect. That's actually stupid and a waste of time in my view. I find plenty of ideas stupid, I don't engage with their adherents.

You're right, you don't have a need to engage. That's your choice. Yet, you continue to post here.

I find all belief systems stupid, since we keep using that word. However, why should I respect something stupid if it is having an affect on my life because there are those in positions of power - judges, politicians, etc - that make decisions based on those stupid beliefs? It says a lot about a person's reasoning skills when they say they believe in "insert whatever religion you want here".

I don't want things that affect me to be based on stupid reasoning from stupid beliefs.

I’m the person you’re responding to and I am not very active in this debate, nor do I intend to be.

What I think this comes down to is if you can’t manage to engage respectfully, you’re never going to recognize when you are wrong or where your blind spots are. You’re never going to acknowledge those blind spots. You can’t grow, and you can’t recognize the intelligence of the person who believes whatever thing you find “stupid.” So, a conversation with you is fundamentally useless.

Then why continue to post?

And, you are making unfounded assumptions. Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer.

I'm posting because the religion forum has been unreadable pretty much forever, and it's basically because of the endlessly nasty posts from people who find themselves too intelligent. Sorry, if you can't engage politely, you're not indicating your intelligence, you are indicating a fundamental lack of seriousness and ability to stay on topic.

Further, you are calling out unknown "unfounded assumptions" while making unfounded assumptions in the literal next sentence: "Just what I would expect from the reasoning of a believer." Ok cool?

Even worse, you state the following, above: "However, why should I respect something stupid" --- no one is asking you to respect "something" stupid, but rather the people you are talking to. It's clear you find the people who believe the "stupid" things beneath you. Ok, awesome. But nothing about your own writing indicates intelligence so remarkable that you have good reason to dismiss others.

Poor wittle Christian can't handle criticism of his myths.

+1

What is not serious is to demand people to be respectful of their unreasonableness. As a PP wrote, would you argue that I should engage in a respectual conversation with someone who believed in Lord Leprechaun and his never ending pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

Given the lack of a direct response, the only conclusion is to assume the answer is no.

The answer is yes. If you want to talk to someone about their beliefs, the answer is you respect them even if you find their belief stupid. The alternative is to not engage.

The fact that this is so difficult for you to understand is alarming.

There is at least one additional choice. To say "Your beliefs are stupid and harmful, and without evidence to support them". You know this, because you do it with plenty of other things. As in this very post of yours! Why don't you follow your own rules? Why not chose "alternative is to not engage"? You engaged! Why? So ironic.

I'll tell you why you don't follow your own rules. Because you only want YOUR silly beliefs respected.

Sorry!

And what is gained by this choice? You told someone you thought their beliefs are stupid. They probably don’t care one bit. What has been accomplished?

I haven’t indicated what my “silly” beliefs even are- so I would be wasting my time to worry about your assumptions.

The only information we know from this conversation is that you guys like to shake your fists at the sky. The rest of your post doesn’t make a lot of sense if you were trying to say something else.

Not every move needs to have an accomplishment. What is your "accomplishment" in replying to me? It's a silly standard.

But if you MUST know, it is showing others who don't believe that they are allowed to tell the emperor he is naked.

And thanks for completely ignoring my pointing out your hypocrisy. You don't want anyone telling you what to do here, but you are plenty OK with you telling others. It's such hypocrisy it is funny.

Let’s be real- the bolded makes no sense, especially in the context of anonymous internet posts.

Complaining about religion on the internet is more a type of mental masturbation than anything- it makes you feel good.

And maybe it changes some minds. You just don't know. I do know that it changed my mind.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but calling something “stupid” over and over again on the internet isn’t exactly the highest form of persuasion. And that’s ok! But maybe you can do better?

DP - why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

Listen, if this is the only argument you're capable of making, that's fine. That's been the standard of discourse on this board for a long time.

It’s hard when you don’t even answer the simplest questions.

Why is it not ok to call a stupid thing stupid?

So you have never said anything was stupid in your life?

It's totally ok to call "stupid things" stupid. It's totally ok to say the word stupid.

Good.

That doesn't make it a sophisticated discussion or a good use of your time. It's just the level of discourse you're operating at.

So which is it? And have you done it?

You’re not tracking logically, here.

It's never a sophisticated discussion when belief in a supernatural being like Santa Claus, fairies, or God is being discussed. What makes it a good use of your time is the possibility that some of the discussion will get you thinking and cause you to no longer believe in things like fairies, Santa or God. You probably already no longer believe in fairies or Santa. God is next.

Why is that not a valid point? Why is it not "sophisticated" enough about those comparisons? This is what you need to explain if you want that to change.

What is the difference between your belief in supernatural beings and others? I am asking sincerely.

PP from above post that you're responding to. I doubt that you'll get a sincere response from believers. I think they are more likely to just disappear from this thread, after reading your sincere request for a response. I suspect that they are stuck, wanting to persist in their beliefs - - - so they will.

Maybe some readers will think about it and change their views, but I doubt that it will happen quickly or that they would acknowledge it here. Maybe they'll eventually quietly become one of us. And we are becoming more numerous. The number of non-believers is growing and religious belief and observance is way down.

You're not likely to get a response from believers because the question doesn't actually read as "sincere." It's condescending and dripping with judgement.

But why? What about it makes it insincere? I swear I am asking sincerely.

I think it's impossible to come off as sincere when the question is steeped in condescension. And I say that less because of the comparison of God to fairies, and more because the question led with the statement that the discussion couldn't be "sophisticated" with people who believe in God. The question framed that way assumes that people who believe in God have never critically examined our beliefs, that we are stuck in some kind of child-state and need to be talked-down-to.

Also, there seems to be a regular poster on this forum (maybe it's many posters; I don't know) who makes the God-Santa-fairies comparison regularly and also refers to God as "sky-daddy" which is obviously derisive. It's not necessarily fair of me to bring those previous comments to this thread and assume insincerity, but it happens often enough on this thread for anyone who is a regular to be aware of it and bring that baggage to your question. These conversations aren't happening in a vacuum.

Sky Daddy is derisive, in my opinion. Comparison of God to Santa and Fairies is not, because they are invisible beings that, with the exception of God, people stop believing in when they grow up. As they get older, people see Fairies and Santa as the kiddie stories that they are, but some people don't see God that way. God has lots of rules and promises eternal life, unlike Santa and fairies.