I had to work at it for years, actually.

I'm sorry, but it just annoys me when I start typing out paragraphs and such, and some troll with 10,000 posts of one-liners comes along and quote-blocks a fragment out of context, and blithely moves on to post number 10,001, and that is another one-liner-nit at another one of my posts.

But what of it? Quite frankly, my inclination to embarrass or otherwise humiliate an atheist is actually a habit I formed as an atheist debating Christians. We all were doing it. YOU all are doing it, when a Christian comes in to share a testimony of some kind. Then, when that fire is bounced back, you act all pious and self-righteous and sternly uphold the nose.

I'm struggling with a learned habit. Others are just atheists coming and going into and out of the moral sphere as they please.

There's a real difference.

That doesn't exactly apply to this thread, though does it?

I have no idea what kind of mindset you need to think you're actually 'embarrassing' or 'humiliating' anyone here. You're not. At best, you're being flamboyantly derisive. Now, insofar as the "we all were doing it" claim, yes, it was quite a regular occurrence. Fortunately, it's been getting better as of late (coinciding with Lemonzest becoming a regular poster).

It would be a struggle only if you didn't enjoy it so much.

I quoted your entire post. It's not my fault you post a false dichotomy and then parade it around like a proud child who just found dog poo.

Learning involves the ability to question your own actions, not misquoting and pretending you "won" an imaginary pissing contest. You have no reason to act hurt, the only one in this latest discourse who has been rude is you in your reply to shuffling.

I'm going to jump in and say yes to that. Religion may be one of the primary reasons why we've become a 'successful' species. I'm not going to post exhaustively on that, there's plenty of material out there about this theory. Start with the 'God Delusion' by Dawkins if you like.

However, like many other behavioural adaptations, that doesn't mean it'll be a long term success (the few thousand years that it may have helped us during are not even an eye blink in evolutionary timescales) and now that there are 7 billion of swarming all over the planet, I think religion is holding us back because it's based on, and contributes significantly to ignorance, and may even contribute to our downfall. Many many species have adapted in ways that then caused them to become extinct. We're no different and certainly not immune to that happening to us.

While we're arguing about whose imaginary friend is real, the next big rock that comes along could settle all the arguments....

I think you've answered your own questions here big boy.

I must say, why do these religious threads get derailed so quickly on tedious, repetitive tangents? Gives me the ****s.

OP Let us know how your church experience went.

Nor was I. That half hour is better spent talking to family, talking to friends, learning a foreign language, going to the gym, even sleeping, just to name a few. We could also be studying subjects that actually help us understand the world around us, like biology or physics, rather than subjects that pretend to, like religion.

I won't say that all of the lessons learned in church are worthwhile, but I'd appreciate my kids spending half an hour learning about the golden rule or the fruits of the spirit. Not all Biblical lessons are devoid of wisdom.

Also, whenever I teach sunday school to the high school kids at church (about half of whom are there against their will), I focus a lot of attention on developing their interpersonal relationships in ways that they don't really seem to be learning in high school. Things like developing respect for others and for themselves.

All religions (still extant) also contain their own versions of 'life lessons'. I suggested to the OP that he visit some of the other religions for a more all round view.

You might do that for your children too?

Good to know.

Right, but I wasn't replying to the OP. I was replying to the poster who said that all time spent on religion is a waste. So I gave him a counterexample from my own life experience. If I practiced a religion other than Christianity, I would've used that instead. Sorry if I disrespected any particular religions while defending religion as a whole.

And, yes, I would like my children to make their own informed decision on belief when they become old enough. But I will more than likely expose them predominantly towards Christianity, as it's part of my belief system that I should raise my children with that brainwashing.

I'd say there's a similar percentage of high school students who are forced to go to high school itself against their will, heh. Anyways, as a Sunday school teacher, it was always enjoyable balancing the "cool kids" (the ones who wouldn't have come if not for their parents) with the "superchristians" (the ones who had a tendency of condescending to the cool kids, seemingly in retaliation to the role reversal outside of church.)

Definitely no need to apologise to me on that score. I'm not from the school of 'I have an opinion therefore you should respect it'.

My response to the OP was simply to encourage him/her to broaden their religious experience. They might also go to a Humanist meeting.

The OP said "Something always comes from something", then perhaps "More comes from more" is also true in this particular context.

Ditto except that I won't be pushing my kids toward a particular system. I'd prefer them to be Atheists but to urge that on them would be doing the very thing that I dislike so much. I try to educate, not indoctrinate.


Sure, that same example crossed my mind, kids have to do lots of things that they don't want to do. As someone who vehemently opposes the urging of religious systems on vulnerable kids though (not just religious I might point out), it heartens me to know that as many as 50% don't like having to be there.

That explanation for my comment is as far as I'll go with that on this thread.

I read only the first few responses itt and was disgusted by the closed-mindedness. I'm a confirmed catholic, though I strongly resisted being confirmed and I haven't been to church in many years, except for Christmas/Easter to appease my parents.

The truth is, the Christian Church has a lot of good to say. It also teaches a lot of medieval bull****. It's up to you to determine which is which. You have to realize every priest, minister, preacher, rabbi, whatever has their doubts, and I would be surprised if the majority of them believe in the god of the scripture they teach. But I think they're all people who have devoted their life to spirituality of some sort, which is more than I can say about myself. I think there are certainly benefits of going to church even for people who don't believe in god as he is preached.

Well, mine was the very first response. If you think THAT'S close-minded, then you're in big trouble in this forum.

^^no, I misspoke and over-generalized "first few," I was talking more about the people who invoked child abuse and leprechauns. Sorry.

You must be kidding

Why must I be kidding?

They believe in the teachings. They do not believe in the factuality of adam and eve etc...the belief of the crucification of Jesus is more interesting than you think.

I wrote for a college newspaper and did a story surrounding (but not related to) an abuse scandal. And Im not gonna respond to anything about that ****.

What makes you think the majority of priests consider the bible to be horse ****?

would you still attempt church if no-noe else in your community did?

Good question, or would he attempt church if he lived in a Muslim community?

just giving a much anticipated update that I never actually went to Church after I posted this. I think I brushed it off because I didn't know where to go or where to start. Then proceeded to not think about God at all for over 5 years apparently. Tried Church again in mid 2017 and now practicing Christian.

It's amusing for me to read my initial post because I don't remember having these thoughts but I guess they were always there in some capacity.

Christ almighty, makes me cringe reading some of what I wrote, thanks for resurecting it... lol.

Why did you choose Christianity?

No problem, happy to be the one that allows us to see what we thought seven years ago!

I ruled out Polytheism due to their being multiple Gods and didn't make sense as there had to be a first God.

That left me with the Judeo-Christian religions and my family is not Jewish or Muslim culturally. I don't think that it's a good reason not to practice the those religions but objectively mentioning there may be some bias there as I didn't look as deeply into these.

What drove me to Christianity is that there are four gospels who are written by different people who all mention Jesus and his miracles. Also the coordination between the old testament and new testament is remarkable on so many levels. The Jewish religion just seems to deny all the claims of the new testament and seemed like a works based religion. Muslims have one point of failure where Mohammed was visited by an archangel Gabriel to write the Qu'ran. They also seem to suffer from the Arian heresy that reduce Jesus into a profit only and worship Mohammed was a warlord.

What rule of the universe means that multiple gods couldn't have always existed rather than just one?

I don't have an answer to the 'first cause' argument, but I think you're just deciding arbitrarily what that cause was.


I've seen writings by multiple people about Robin Hood and Ragnar Lothbrook, and I'm sure there are many more examples of writings by multiple authors all over the world about people who may or may not have actually existed but are famous now.

This seems like a very flimsy reason for choosing a belief about a universe creating all powerful deity, I would require much more, especially when your reasons for rejecting the other religions are also very weak, you don't imagine that you just disproved Islam do you?

You asked me why I chose Christianity and I answered the question and didn't intend to disprove anything.

That's what I call avoiding the points I raised.

Why does there have to be a first 'god' and not 'gods'?

Why would multiple people writing about something be proof of anything?