poppys said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

No it isn't personal. But the discussion is about how WE the org members in P&R respond.

I said YA'LL that means more than 1. That means everyone who fits the scenario.

.

Please, the way you and other go after OnlyNDusa? please

.

We are talking about the reaction to Islam vs Christianity in the few recent threads.
This thread isn't about what's happening out there in the world but about Org members reactions.

Your post #14, did you make it about you. When Rodeo didn't directly address you?

Rodeo started the thread. I posted on it. What do you mean about reply #14? I sincerely do not get it.

Except - this is about Only? Probably one of the most prolific bullshitters on this board? I've never told Only to delete his account....why me??

Debate is an art - just like any other art. But there are guidelines, c'mon. Think I'll start a thread about it, because it seems to be a very misunderstood part of this forum.

You do this lol

Sorry, I meant your post #12 was not a 'general' post it was all in the 1st person

.

No one posting on THIS thread so far is upset with religious people. I do not consider myself an atheist. I've said repeatedly I was raised Anabaptist but did not join the church, that's all. My grandmother wore the prayer cap her entire life and read the Bible every single day. Her father was Amish but he married a non-Amish, so he had to leave the church. That does not make him an atheist either. They became Bretherns and were not shunned in their community, although some are.

.

I said that to reiterate that this thread is about how WE on the Org respond to religious discussion.
You jumped into the deep end, because what Rodeo is talking about is not just these few threads, but how it has been since I've been on the org. But more specifically again, the difference in how some responded in the Islam thread vs dudes 'Christian thread'

.

Who told anyone to delete their account? Where did that come from? why throw a monkey wrench in this?

.

The Org rules are loose enough but, do you follow the 'art of debate' in those political threads when you and others go after OnlyNDusa? are you guys following the org rules?

The Org P&R forum does what it does since before you joined a few years ago. You have not been using the art form of debate. That doesn't apply here.

.

Back to what I was saying. How people tried to 'cover' Islam and attack Christianity, while saying they treat them equally in these discussions are not balanced. If what I re-posted in #13 was said about Islam we would have gotten the same reaction a few of you gave in the Islam thread.

RodeoSchro said:

The thing I notice most on religion threads is that they usually end up with atheists attacking Christians. The atheists use terms like "Tooth Fairy" and "invisible unicorns" and "fact-resistant bubbles" to attack Christianity.

Why?

There have been many Orgers through the years who've used similar terms when discussing Christianity. All these terms are pretty harsh, and seem to me to spring from a place of fear or uncertainty, rather than from actual animosity.


You know, you don't see a Muslim or a Jew telling Christians they believe in the Tooth Fairy, even though we certainly have different beliefs with respect to the Son of God. (We all know what radical Muslims believe, so let's not turn this into a political thread.)

It seems like the only people who use those kinds of terms are atheists.

I try to avoid religion threads, but I don't agree with your OP, so I'll try as best as I can to explain why.

I don't see the terms such as "Tooth Fairy" and "invisible unicorns" etc... as an attack on Christianity, more as a broader term used by non-believers/Atheists to describe any believer in anything that cannot be proved unequivocally to be real. This would apply to any religion, not just Christianity. I think the terms are used to show how when we are children we believe, but when we grow and mature, we realise that Santa doesn't exist, nor does the Easter bunny, nor the Tooth Fairy etc... Atheists apply the same logic to God, believers do not. That is why you won't get a Muslim, Jew, or other believer making those sorts of comments.

If I'm honest I didn't even see any particular attacks on Christianity going on. The Orger that made those comments is well known for being blunt, direct and 'in your face' and his manner of posting was no different in the religion threads to any other thread he has commented on. In fact I think he has said much worse TBH.

I don't think your comments on Hell are correct either. An Atheist doesn't believe in Heaven, nor do they believe in hell, they simply believe we die. That our time is up. Nothing to do with being a good, or a bad person, or with what others think of them.

On the whole I think religions in the Western world live relatively peacefully alongside each other. I think when we fear for our lives over our decision of which religion to believe, or our decision not to believe, then we are in trouble. A few cross words in P&R are par for the course on the Org.

[Edited 9/14/19 0:04am]

deebee said:

RodeoSchro said:

What seems to set off atheists is the Christian belief that by not accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior, we Christians believe said atheists will spend eternity in Hell.

Hell, of course, is where the bad people go.

So it seems like atheists may be thinking, "If those Christians think I'm going to Hell, that means they think I am a BAD PERSON. And I'm not! But they think I am!" I can understand reacting harshly if an atheist thinks that's the way Christians think about them.

I didn't read much of the other thread, so I can't comment on what was afoot there, but I'm not sure that that's it in general. The way I read it is that many people who are now atheists were once believers, and have had their own struggles with belief. So I think there can be a sense of incredulity and frustration when encountering others that haven't turned away from that and 'still' believe the very things one now thinks are wildly misleading - which one perhaps even now thinks were oppresssive or humiliating - and are so far at odds with those ideas that one now sees as credible and accurate.

And there's also, I suppose, just a straightforward issue about hearing people express beliefs that one regards as fundamentally incorrect and even deleterious - a little like how I can't wrap my head around how anyone would believe that voting for Trump or the Tories is a good idea. When I hear that, I really, really want to persuade that person that there's another way to see things.

Naturally, I think it's better to try to be polite and respectful when having these conversations, though I do understand how people's halos can slip with that. There's often something mindbending about what I call 'the otherness of other people', i.e. how one discovers that the friendly, intelligent people one interacts with on a daily basis are actually walking around holding dear beliefs that are totally at odds with those ideas that one holds to be fundamental to oneself, and no amount of what one feels is rational explaining will persuade them otherwise. (This could be the experience on either side of 'the divide', so to speak.) I often feel that there can be something genuinely unsettling about that, even though it's an ineluctable part of interacting with other people in our highly differentiated societies.

I think the comment on the otherness of others is interesting, especially in the devisive times we are currently in. What troubles me is the idea of rational explaining in order to persuade to, or from, religion (I completely agree that rational explaining has its place). I think people find, and lose, religion in different ways, at different ages, and may even convert to different religions over their lifetime. I think personal experience leads people to a particular religion, or non-religion, and no rational explaining will persuade that person to shift from their beliefs (obviously I'm generalising here).

I find religious otherness fascinating, the different festivals, celebrations, even clothing and foods that different religions command. But rather than be unsettled by this otherness, surely it's better to accept it, to learn and grow in trying to understand and be comfortable with the different belief systems of others. Maybe otherness in itself is divisive, in that we are either comfortable with our differentness, or that we seek to find more sameness.

I often wish otherness would be allowed more on the Org. For example I'd love to 'get in the head' of a Trump supporter, to understand why they support a man with so many obvious flaws, yet the few Trump supporters that dare speak their name on the Org get chased off here or abused to the point where I feel, politically, we cannot begin to understand their psyche as it simply descends into the usual name-calling and abuse. And that's a shame, because name-calling and abuse gets us nowhere (that is not to say that my own halo has never slipped ). Anyway, thank you for your thought-provoking post, as always.

OldFriends4Sale said:

poppys said:

Rodeo started the thread. I posted on it. What do you mean about reply #14? I sincerely do not get it.

Except - this is about Only? Probably one of the most prolific bullshitters on this board? I've never told Only to delete his account....why me??

Debate is an art - just like any other art. But there are guidelines, c'mon. Think I'll start a thread about it, because it seems to be a very misunderstood part of this forum.

You do this lol

Sorry, I meant your post #12 was not a 'general' post it was all in the 1st person

.

No one posting on THIS thread so far is upset with religious people. I do not consider myself an atheist. I've said repeatedly I was raised Anabaptist but did not join the church, that's all. My grandmother wore the prayer cap her entire life and read the Bible every single day. Her father was Amish but he married a non-Amish, so he had to leave the church. That does not make him an atheist either. They became Bretherns and were not shunned in their community, although some are.

.

I said that to reiterate that this thread is about how WE on the Org respond to religious discussion.
You jumped into the deep end, because what Rodeo is talking about is not just these few threads, but how it has been since I've been on the org. But more specifically again, the difference in how some responded in the Islam thread vs dudes 'Christian thread'

.

Who told anyone to delete their account? Where did that come from? why throw a monkey wrench in this?

.

The Org rules are loose enough but, do you follow the 'art of debate' in those political threads when you and others go after OnlyNDusa? are you guys following the org rules?

The Org P&R forum does what it does since before you joined a few years ago. You have not been using the art form of debate. That doesn't apply here.

.

Back to what I was saying. How people tried to 'cover' Islam and attack Christianity, while saying they treat them equally in these discussions are not balanced. If what I re-posted in #13 was said about Islam we would have gotten the same reaction a few of you gave in the Islam thread.

For like the 20th time, I am not trying to cover Islam and attack Christianity. I was discussing the VIDEO freaky posted, in which the Christian Pastor and the Muslim Imam were discussing the same thing, that Islam is misunderstood and not every Muslim is a radical.

As far as my religious background is concerned, I've spoken about it many times in this forum, all the regulars probably know it already. I was raised in a Christian sect and even though I did not join the church, I am not an atheist or a hater of any religion, period. I also believe if there is a heaven, gay people should be allowed in.

Why you are dragging Only into this religion discussion is a mystery to me. And yes, he has been told to delete his account multiple times here. It's all in the threads.

[Edited 9/14/19 7:05am]

I could care less what folks choose to believe - do whatever floats your boat. I only get nasty when religious folks tell me I'm lost or going to hell because I don't accept their book as historical or scientific fact,

I was a believer long ago, but walked away once I studied history more and more. I don't regret my decision one bit.

[Edited 9/14/19 8:33am]

poppys said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

You do this lol

Sorry, I meant your post #12 was not a 'general' post it was all in the 1st person

.

No one posting on THIS thread so far is upset with religious people. I do not consider myself an atheist. I've said repeatedly I was raised Anabaptist but did not join the church, that's all. My grandmother wore the prayer cap her entire life and read the Bible every single day. Her father was Amish but he married a non-Amish, so he had to leave the church. That does not make him an atheist either. They became Bretherns and were not shunned in their community, although some are.

.

I said that to reiterate that this thread is about how WE on the Org respond to religious discussion.
You jumped into the deep end, because what Rodeo is talking about is not just these few threads, but how it has been since I've been on the org. But more specifically again, the difference in how some responded in the Islam thread vs dudes 'Christian thread'

.

Who told anyone to delete their account? Where did that come from? why throw a monkey wrench in this?

.

The Org rules are loose enough but, do you follow the 'art of debate' in those political threads when you and others go after OnlyNDusa? are you guys following the org rules?

The Org P&R forum does what it does since before you joined a few years ago. You have not been using the art form of debate. That doesn't apply here.

.

Back to what I was saying. How people tried to 'cover' Islam and attack Christianity, while saying they treat them equally in these discussions are not balanced. If what I re-posted in #13 was said about Islam we would have gotten the same reaction a few of you gave in the Islam thread.

For like the 20th time, I am not trying to cover Islam and attack Christianity. I was discussing the VIDEO freaky posted, in which the Christian Pastor and the Muslim Imam were discussing the same thing, that Islam is misunderstood and not every Muslim is a radical.

As far as my religious background is concerned, I've spoken about it many times in this forum, all the regulars probably know it already. I was raised in a Christian sect and even though I did not join the church, I am not an atheist or a hater of any religion, period. I also believe if there is a heaven, gay people should be allowed in.

Why you are dragging Only into this religion discussion is a mystery to me. And yes, he has been told to delete his account multiple times here. It's all in the threads.

[Edited 9/14/19 7:05am]

Well let it go, but your reply in the Islam thread about 'they are trying to single out Islam' and a few other comments you made, were covering.

I take the Bible Seriously but not literally. Best way to be. Eden is just the place we need to get back to because it was lost.

maplenpg said:

RodeoSchro said:

The thing I notice most on religion threads is that they usually end up with atheists attacking Christians. The atheists use terms like "Tooth Fairy" and "invisible unicorns" and "fact-resistant bubbles" to attack Christianity.

Why?

There have been many Orgers through the years who've used similar terms when discussing Christianity. All these terms are pretty harsh, and seem to me to spring from a place of fear or uncertainty, rather than from actual animosity.


You know, you don't see a Muslim or a Jew telling Christians they believe in the Tooth Fairy, even though we certainly have different beliefs with respect to the Son of God. (We all know what radical Muslims believe, so let's not turn this into a political thread.)

It seems like the only people who use those kinds of terms are atheists.

I try to avoid religion threads, but I don't agree with your OP, so I'll try as best as I can to explain why.

I don't see the terms such as "Tooth Fairy" and "invisible unicorns" etc... as an attack on Christianity, more as a broader term used by non-believers/Atheists to describe any believer in anything that cannot be proved unequivocally to be real. This would apply to any religion, not just Christianity. I think the terms are used to show how when we are children we believe, but when we grow and mature, we realise that Santa doesn't exist, nor does the Easter bunny, nor the Tooth Fairy etc... Atheists apply the same logic to God, believers do not. That is why you won't get a Muslim, Jew, or other believer making those sorts of comments.

If I'm honest I didn't even see any particular attacks on Christianity going on. The Orger that made those comments is well known for being blunt, direct and 'in your face' and his manner of posting was no different in the religion threads to any other thread he has commented on. In fact I think he has said much worse TBH.

I don't think your comments on Hell are correct either. An Atheist doesn't believe in Heaven, nor do they believe in hell, they simply believe we die. That our time is up. Nothing to do with being a good, or a bad person, or with what others think of them.

On the whole I think religions in the Western world live relatively peacefully alongside each other. I think when we fear for our lives over our decision of which religion to believe, or our decision not to believe, then we are in trouble. A few cross words in P&R are par for the course on the Org.

[Edited 9/14/19 0:04am]

.

It is interesting comparing the two responses you made, one to a religious person, the other to a non-religious person. In the latter, you are "fascinated" and want to encourage acceptance, learning, and growth by mutual understanding of why people's beliefs are different. That it is a shame we all can't get along with the others.

.

In the reply to the religious person you justify mocking meme level arguments and justify them as being OK because you apply them to all religious people equally, not just one group. As you say, it is a shame how people treat the people that they consider to be others.

.

Now the Santa, Easter Bunney, and Tooth Fairy comparison is a poor argument because it presents adults as children - Not just religious people, but it presents atheists as children. It reduces the reasons why religious and non-religious people believe things to a highly inaccurate us and them - the kindergarten kids still believe in the tooth fairy, but we in primary school kids know so much better that them - but you are saying this to adults. Firstly, children don't realise there is no tooth fairy, they realise it is mum or dad doing it - it is not rocket science. It is the same with Santa and the Easter Bunny. This is a normal progression of cognitive development.

.

The assertion that atheists only believe in things that are "unequivocably provable to be real" is false. This is a latter phase of cognitive development but by no means a final phase. Children generally develop the skills start to apply empirical thought with its requirement for proof around the age many question or cease to believe in religions - 9 to 14 ish. The final stages of cognitive development involves the development of rational thought - Not to be rational, but to be able to rationalise with less or no unequivocal empirical evidence. This is key for theoretical physicist, the artist, the philosopher, the adult religious and all of us adults in many different areas. Not one of us is able to uneqivocably prove anything more than a small fraction of everything we personally believe. You need to learn a lot more about why people believe before you can state my people are logical and all you lot are not.

It's not just believers and non-believers. Everyone who is not a believer is not an atheist, or has the need to define themselves religiously. There is an entire spectrum of people who are not religious, but agree with many of the teachings of religion from a moral standpoint. I don't have a desire to be part of an organized religion or church, some do. For example, cheating on a spouse/partner is wrong in my book, not because of the 10 Commandments, but because of what it does to both people and the trust that is broken. We still feel the same, we just got there different ways.

poppys said:

It's not just believers and non-believers. Everyone who is not a believer is not an atheist, or has the need to define themselves religiously. There is an entire spectrum of people who are not religious, but agree with many of the teachings of religion from a moral standpoint. I don't have a desire to be part of an organized religion or church, some do. For example, cheating on a spouse/partner is wrong in my book, not because of the 10 Commandments, but because of what it does to both people and the trust that is broken. We still feel the same, we just got there different ways.

.

Absolutely, and broad spectrum of beliefs applies to all the agnostics and religious as well. If you gave a percentage of certainty that there is a God from 0% to 100%, there is unlikely to be anyone whose beliefs have 0% or 100% certainty.

IanRG said:

maplenpg said:

I try to avoid religion threads, but I don't agree with your OP, so I'll try as best as I can to explain why.

I don't see the terms such as "Tooth Fairy" and "invisible unicorns" etc... as an attack on Christianity, more as a broader term used by non-believers/Atheists to describe any believer in anything that cannot be proved unequivocally to be real. This would apply to any religion, not just Christianity. I think the terms are used to show how when we are children we believe, but when we grow and mature, we realise that Santa doesn't exist, nor does the Easter bunny, nor the Tooth Fairy etc... Atheists apply the same logic to God, believers do not. That is why you won't get a Muslim, Jew, or other believer making those sorts of comments.

If I'm honest I didn't even see any particular attacks on Christianity going on. The Orger that made those comments is well known for being blunt, direct and 'in your face' and his manner of posting was no different in the religion threads to any other thread he has commented on. In fact I think he has said much worse TBH.

I don't think your comments on Hell are correct either. An Atheist doesn't believe in Heaven, nor do they believe in hell, they simply believe we die. That our time is up. Nothing to do with being a good, or a bad person, or with what others think of them.

On the whole I think religions in the Western world live relatively peacefully alongside each other. I think when we fear for our lives over our decision of which religion to believe, or our decision not to believe, then we are in trouble. A few cross words in P&R are par for the course on the Org.

[Edited 9/14/19 0:04am]

.

It is interesting comparing the two responses you made, one to a religious person, the other to a non-religious person. In the latter, you are "fascinated" and want to encourage acceptance, learning, and growth by mutual understanding of why people's beliefs are different. That it is a shame we all can't get along with the others.

.

In the reply to the religious person you justify mocking meme level arguments and justify them as being OK because you apply them to all religious people equally, not just one group. As you say, it is a shame how people treat the people that they consider to be others.

.

Now the Santa, Easter Bunney, and Tooth Fairy comparison is a poor argument because it presents adults as children - Not just religious people, but it presents atheists as children. It reduces the reasons why religious and non-religious people believe things to a highly inaccurate us and them - the kindergarten kids still believe in the tooth fairy, but we in primary school kids know so much better that them - but you are saying this to adults. Firstly, children don't realise there is no tooth fairy, they realise it is mum or dad doing it - it is not rocket science. It is the same with Santa and the Easter Bunny. This is a normal progression of cognitive development.

.

The assertion that atheists only believe in things that are "unequivocably provable to be real" is false. This is a latter phase of cognitive development but by no means a final phase. Children generally develop the skills start to apply empirical thought with its requirement for proof around the age many question or cease to believe in religions - 9 to 14 ish. The final stages of cognitive development involves the development of rational thought - Not to be rational, but to be able to rationalise with less or no unequivocal empirical evidence. This is key for theoretical physicist, the artist, the philosopher, the adult religious and all of us adults in many different areas. Not one of us is able to uneqivocably prove anything more than a small fraction of everything we personally believe. You need to learn a lot more about why people believe before you can state my people are logical and all you lot are not.

I am really, really short of time so I'll quickly address the bold.

I'm sorry if it came across as a justification of mockery. That was not the case. Rodeo asked why they said it, I tried to explain. I didn't see it as a justification. I doubt Bombsquad will stop with his comments anytime soon though, that's not on me, sorry.

Lastly, I agree, I do need to learn more about why people believe. I think I know a fair bit about the what people believe, but not so much the why. I will make a valid effort to do this more as it's interesting. I do find personally, as an atheist, the idea of religious belief illogical though, so maybe I just missed out on the final stage of cognitive development

maplenpg said:

IanRG said:

.

It is interesting comparing the two responses you made, one to a religious person, the other to a non-religious person. In the latter, you are "fascinated" and want to encourage acceptance, learning, and growth by mutual understanding of why people's beliefs are different. That it is a shame we all can't get along with the others.

.

In the reply to the religious person you justify mocking meme level arguments and justify them as being OK because you apply them to all religious people equally, not just one group. As you say, it is a shame how people treat the people that they consider to be others.

.

Now the Santa, Easter Bunney, and Tooth Fairy comparison is a poor argument because it presents adults as children - Not just religious people, but it presents atheists as children. It reduces the reasons why religious and non-religious people believe things to a highly inaccurate us and them - the kindergarten kids still believe in the tooth fairy, but we in primary school kids know so much better that them - but you are saying this to adults. Firstly, children don't realise there is no tooth fairy, they realise it is mum or dad doing it - it is not rocket science. It is the same with Santa and the Easter Bunny. This is a normal progression of cognitive development.

.

The assertion that atheists only believe in things that are "unequivocably provable to be real" is false. This is a latter phase of cognitive development but by no means a final phase. Children generally develop the skills start to apply empirical thought with its requirement for proof around the age many question or cease to believe in religions - 9 to 14 ish. The final stages of cognitive development involves the development of rational thought - Not to be rational, but to be able to rationalise with less or no unequivocal empirical evidence. This is key for theoretical physicist, the artist, the philosopher, the adult religious and all of us adults in many different areas. Not one of us is able to uneqivocably prove anything more than a small fraction of everything we personally believe. You need to learn a lot more about why people believe before you can state my people are logical and all you lot are not.

I am really, really short of time so I'll quickly address the bold.

I'm sorry if it came across as a justification of mockery. That was not the case. Rodeo asked why they said it, I tried to explain. I didn't see it as a justification. I doubt Bombsquad will stop with his comments anytime soon though, that's not on me, sorry.

Lastly, I agree, I do need to learn more about why people believe. I think I know a fair bit about the what people believe, but not so much the why. I will make a valid effort to do this more as it's interesting. I do find personally, as an atheist, the idea of religious belief illogical though, so maybe I just missed out on the final stage of cognitive development

.

Thanks for this - And for me to reciprocate: I am sorry if it came across that I was questioning your cognitive development (even jokingly), I was referring to the basis behind the meme not any person.

[Edited 9/15/19 0:11am]

RodeoSchro said:

Since jfenster's thread got locked, I'm starting a new one that I am sure will not be controversial in any way, shape or form. Yeah, right!

The thing I notice most on religion threads is that they usually end up with atheists attacking Christians. The atheists use terms like "Tooth Fairy" and "invisible unicorns" and "fact-resistant bubbles" to attack Christianity.

awwwhh thanks for the nod LOL


the unconvinient truth however reamains, the state of evidence supporting the existance of the Bible God is equal to the one supporting tooth fairy and unicorns. call me up once that changes

and add to that list Zeus, Isis, Odin, Brahma, Shiva, Tlaloc, Belenus, Izanami, Zipacna and hundreds more

you are an multiple Atheist to all of those. you simply do not believe in any of the above, cause you can see no evidence for their existance, so with very good reason. so there is absolutley no difference to how I think about the Christian god. NONE.

IanRG said (on the other thread):

But I can tell the difference between a straight line and circle.

well, quite obviously not


but I'll give it a try, so then what is the staring point of your line. God? and the Bible came from God, correct? alrigthy, so putting the Bible aside, you know about God because... because.... ?

[Edited 9/16/19 4:16am]

BombSquad said:

IanRG said (on the other thread):

But I can tell the difference between a straight line and circle.

well, quite obviously not


but I'll give it a try, so then what is the staring point of your line. God? and the Bible came from God, correct? alrigthy, so putting the Bible aside, you know about God because... because.... ?

[Edited 9/16/19 4:16am]

.

Wrong again - Firstly you are breaking the rules by cross posting from another thread.

.

I believe in God because of God. When I first read the Bible, I was an atheist and I remained an atheist for years afterward. It was not by reading the Bible that I became a Christian. We are called Christians not biblists because we are followers of Christ. Our faith is not in a set of books, we do not pray to a set of books.

.

You are just seeking a confirmational bias response to bolster your beliefs and, as ever, fooling only yourself. This is all you can expect when all you have to rely is internet memes and pictures to promote your faith.

IanRG said:

I believe in God because of God.

are you even aware how incredibly dumb this sounds?

I believe in Odin because of Odin.
I believe in Flat Earth becasue of a Flat Earth

I believe 9/11 was a inside job becasue 9/11 was an inside job.

okay

so to sum it up: you do not have a starting point

IanRG said:

You are just seeking a confirmational bias response to bolster your beliefs and, as ever, fooling only yourself. This is all you can expect when all you have to rely is internet memes and pictures to promote your faith.

cool thing to say for someone who has absoultly NOTHING to bolster his beliefs, not even a meme

BombSquad said:

IanRG said:

I believe in God because of God.

are you even aware how incredibly dumb this sounds?

I believe in Odin because of Odin.
I believe in Flat Earth becasue of a Flat Earth

I believe 9/11 was a inside job becasue 9/11 was an inside job.

okay

so to sum it up: you do not have a starting point

.

To sum it up, my starting point is God, what is your's

BombSquad said:

RodeoSchro said:

Since jfenster's thread got locked, I'm starting a new one that I am sure will not be controversial in any way, shape or form. Yeah, right!

The thing I notice most on religion threads is that they usually end up with atheists attacking Christians. The atheists use terms like "Tooth Fairy" and "invisible unicorns" and "fact-resistant bubbles" to attack Christianity.

awwwhh thanks for the nod LOL


the unconvinient truth however reamains, the state of evidence supporting the existance of the Bible God is equal to the one supporting tooth fairy and unicorns. call me up once that changes

and add to that list Zeus, Isis, Odin, Brahma, Shiva, Tlaloc, Belenus, Izanami, Zipacna and hundreds more

you are an multiple Atheist to all of those. you simply do not believe in any of the above, cause you can see no evidence for their existance, so with very good reason. so there is absolutley no difference to how I think about the Christian god. NONE.

OK, thanks.

IanRG said:

To sum it up, my starting point is God, what is your's

Flat Earth



my starting point concerning religion? easy: No God

[Edited 9/16/19 7:36am]

BombSquad said:

IanRG said:

To sum it up, my starting point is God, what is your's

Flat Earth



my starting point concerning religion? easy: No God

[Edited 9/16/19 7:36am]

The starting point of THIS thread is that those who believe do not think non-believers are bad people, despite what some of them (i. e. yes - you included) say about our beliefs. So knowing that we don't think you are a bad person, it'd be nice if the name-calling stopped.

RodeoSchro said:

BombSquad said:

Flat Earth



my starting point concerning religion? easy: No God

The starting point of THIS thread is that those who believe do not think non-believers are bad people, despite what some of them (i. e. yes - you included) say about our beliefs. So knowing that we don't think you are a bad person, it'd be nice if the name-calling stopped.

Could you define what you mean by non-believers? The OP pretty much implies that everyone who is a non-believer is an atheist.

RodeoSchro said:

The starting point of THIS thread is that those who believe do not think non-believers are bad people [...]

why do you have the authority to speak for those who believe?

you don't. and your claim is wrong anyway. we had countless threads in this forum alone, proving the opposite. for example where Christians stated, that without the Bible or without faith it is impossible to have a moral guidline, so basically calling every non-Christian an amoral and therefore bad person. not you, but others did. I'm sure you can remember.

RodeoSchro said:

BombSquad said:

Flat Earth



my starting point concerning religion? easy: No God

[Edited 9/16/19 7:36am]

The starting point of THIS thread is that those who believe do not think non-believers are bad people, despite what some of them (i. e. yes - you included) say about our beliefs. So knowing that we don't think you are a bad person, it'd be nice if the name-calling stopped.

What in the world did they think of Prince then...

poppys said:

RodeoSchro said:

The starting point of THIS thread is that those who believe do not think non-believers are bad people, despite what some of them (i. e. yes - you included) say about our beliefs. So knowing that we don't think you are a bad person, it'd be nice if the name-calling stopped.

Could you define what you mean by non-believers? The OP pretty much implies that everyone who is a non-believer is an atheist.

Good point.

I do tend to lump non-believers and atheists into the same category but for the purposes of this thread, I am specifically referring to atheists. They are the ones who seem to lash out at Christians, whereas agnostics(?) usually don't.

BombSquad said:

RodeoSchro said:

The starting point of THIS thread is that those who believe do not think non-believers are bad people [...]

why do you have the authority to speak for those who believe?

you don't. and your claim is wrong anyway. we had countless threads in this forum alone, proving the opposite. for example where Christians stated, that without the Bible or without faith it is impossible to have a moral guidline, so basically calling every non-Christian an amoral and therefore bad person. not you, but others did. I'm sure you can remember.

I know lots of believers and I don't know any who think atheists or non-believers are bad persons simply because they do not believe. With exceptions like those idiots at the Westboro Baptist Church (who have actually picketed MY church and it was so sad/funny), I've not run across examples of Christians calling atheists "bad" just because of their atheism.

Sorry, but you'll have to point me to someone saying that you can't have a moral guideline or compass without the Bible. I will admit, I rarely read far into religious threads because they usually devolve into 1,000-foot deep discussions of Catholic-Secular points on which I am not qualified to join in, or honestly care anything about.

Look - bottom line is that no one ever convinces anyone to change their belief system on these threads. And I'm not trying to do that.

All I'm trying to do is let those who do not believe know that we Christians do not consider any kind of non-belief to be an indication of a character failing, so we'd sure like it if those who are under that mistaken assumption would accept that and quit with the name-calling and derision.

RodeoSchro said:

BombSquad said:

why do you have the authority to speak for those who believe?

you don't. and your claim is wrong anyway. we had countless threads in this forum alone, proving the opposite. for example where Christians stated, that without the Bible or without faith it is impossible to have a moral guidline, so basically calling every non-Christian an amoral and therefore bad person. not you, but others did. I'm sure you can remember.

I know lots of believers and I don't know any who think atheists or non-believers are bad persons simply because they do not believe. With exceptions like those idiots at the Westboro Baptist Church (who have actually picketed MY church and it was so sad/funny), I've not run across examples of Christians calling atheists "bad" just because of their atheism.

Sorry, but you'll have to point me to someone saying that you can't have a moral guideline or compass without the Bible. I will admit, I rarely read far into religious threads because they usually devolve into 1,000-foot deep discussions of Catholic-Secular points on which I am not qualified to join in, or honestly care anything about.

Look - bottom line is that no one ever convinces anyone to change their belief system on these threads. And I'm not trying to do that.

All I'm trying to do is let those who do not believe know that we Christians do not consider any kind of non-belief to be an indication of a character failing, so we'd sure like it if those who are under that mistaken assumption would accept that and quit with the name-calling and derision.

Do you remember the thread a few years back where the orgmember told believers to pray while looking in the mirror next time and we will find that we are not really talking to God but to ourselves?

RodeoSchro said:

BombSquad said:

why do you have the authority to speak for those who believe?

you don't. and your claim is wrong anyway. we had countless threads in this forum alone, proving the opposite. for example where Christians stated, that without the Bible or without faith it is impossible to have a moral guidline, so basically calling every non-Christian an amoral and therefore bad person. not you, but others did. I'm sure you can remember.

I know lots of believers and I don't know any who think atheists or non-believers are bad persons simply because they do not believe. With exceptions like those idiots at the Westboro Baptist Church (who have actually picketed MY church and it was so sad/funny), I've not run across examples of Christians calling atheists "bad" just because of their atheism.

Sorry, but you'll have to point me to someone saying that you can't have a moral guideline or compass without the Bible. I will admit, I rarely read far into religious threads because they usually devolve into 1,000-foot deep discussions of Catholic-Secular points on which I am not qualified to join in, or honestly care anything about.

Look - bottom line is that no one ever convinces anyone to change their belief system on these threads. And I'm not trying to do that.

All I'm trying to do is let those who do not believe know that we Christians do not consider any kind of non-belief to be an indication of a character failing, so we'd sure like it if those who are under that mistaken assumption would accept that and quit with the name-calling and derision.

Whilst BombSquad says you do not have the authority to speak for those who believe, I think it's fair to also say that he does not have the authority to speak for all atheists. Of course the vast, vast majority of believers are good people, the vast majority of non-believers are good people, and every shade of purple in between the two are majority good people. Bombsquad always writes provocative posts. He's not going to apologise, or change anytime soon. Don't let the posts rile you, just as I will not let any posts calling me amoral or a bad person rile me (not that I remember any like that).

6 Kinds of Atheism

https://prince.org/msg/105/399405?&pg=1

.

.

46% Of Americans Believe Man Was Created By God 10,000 Years Ago Or Less

https://prince.org/msg/105/382118?pr

Hey! Only 46% of Americans believes in myths and fairy tales still! Not bad

46% is still scary. That's a lot of stupidity.

Some dumb Mofo's walking around. What else is new?

Don't you have schools in America?

.

"When I die, fuck it, I wanna go to hell.."

https://prince.org/msg/105/341453

Atheism = the only rational, logical way.

.

Certainty without evidence is more like it. Just as schizophrenics believe in things that aren't visibly there and even communicate with said invisible beings, religous people tend to do/claim the same. I wrote a paper in college on parallels between schizophrenics and Christians, focusing on the facts not my own atheist-bias. People in my peer-review group were offended but nobody really disagreed with anything I wrote. I think it just made them uncomfortable. But my schizophrenic aunt exhibits many of the same behaviors as Christians. She just isn't socially accepted like Christians are.

.

GOD: An extension of yourself or a Simulacrum?

https://prince.org/msg/10...?&pg=1

.

My own experience of deconversion was a long and drawn out process of coming to realise that what I was calling "God" was indistinguishable from simply an imaginary friend.

.

I'm British. People over here are nowhere near as religious as you guys in the States. When we see the role religion plays in public life over there it strikes us as strange. Same goes for your gun culture. I'm almost 40 now and I've never seen a gun in my life except on TV.

To me my issue is with irrational, unreasonable thought in general. Religion is obviously the biggest example of that, but in truth you can see it everywhere. People deceive themselves and indulge in sophistry all the time without realizing it. If not for this flaw in the human psyche religion could not exist.

.

RodeoSchro said:

poppys said:

Could you define what you mean by non-believers? The OP pretty much implies that everyone who is a non-believer is an atheist.

Good point.

I do tend to lump non-believers and atheists into the same category but for the purposes of this thread, I am specifically referring to atheists. They are the ones who seem to lash out at Christians, whereas agnostics(?) usually don't.

Thank you for your reply. There are many of us who live moral lives and strive to do better without organized religion. Needing to know if there is a God in the the way most organized religions go about it, which is a lot about rules and doctrines, is just not an issue for some of us. Not everyone carries guilt for not joining a church. I don't have a need to accept Jesus or any other prophet in the way others do, that's all. Some people don't make art. Others can't not make art. It's a personal choice. Live and let live.