NationStates Jolt Archive

Most scientists can tell you what observations would convince them of God's existence, but I have never met a religious person who could tell me what would disprove it. And what could possibly convince people to abandon their belief that the deity is good, loving, and just? :confused:

What kind of "proof" would a religious person require to stop believing? :hail:

I don't think there is such a proof.

From personal experience, it's more a re-evaluation of the axioms, premises, etc., of one's personal faith.

It's a brain disorder, or at least manifests in a very similar way. Religious visions can be induced using electrostimulation above the temples in most people. Perhaps a frontal lobotomy?

It's a brain disorder, or at least manifests in a very similar way.
I don't see how it is, necessarily.

How can holding a belief in a supernatural entity with x qualities be a brain disorder?

I don't see how it is, necessarily.

How can holding a belief in a supernatural entity with x qualities be a brain disorder?

If a non-religious person can have religiousity induced artificially by manipulating the brain using eletrical impulses, then it's a brain disorder.

If a non-religious person can have religiousity induced artificially by manipulating the brain using eletrical impulses, then it's a brain disorder.
For a start, religious visions do not equate to belief in a religion, as witnessed by the fact that nonbelievers can be induced to have said visions. You could claim that religious visions are now (more) suspect, as we can show that they can be induced, but these tests didn't manage to induce a deep and abiding faith in a deity.

Moreover, by applying electrical charge to different parts of the brain, we can induce itches, smells, etc. Your position would seem to imply these, too, are thus brain disorders.

It's not necessarily a brain disorder, but usually people stop having invisible friends well before they become adults...

It's not necessarily a brain disorder, but usually people stop having invisible friends well before they become adults...

So long as it is not indulged. When it is indulged and in most cases heavily sanctioned, it becomes acceptable as normal even if it is all in the mind.

What kind of "proof" would a religious person require to stop believing? :hail:

Find a page in their holy book that says their god doesn't exist. Or even better, let their god appear before them and tell them s/he doesn't exist. Oh wait...

You could claim that religious visions are now (more) suspect, as we can show that they can be induced, but these tests didn't manage to induce a deep and abiding faith in a deity.

though presumably that might be impacted by the fact that the subjects know they are being tested. curse you, reasonable human research ethical standards!

though presumably that might be impacted by the fact that the subjects know they are being tested.
True enough.

curse you, reasonable human research ethical standards!
That's why my research lab is in Pyongyang.

And what could possibly convince people to abandon their belief that the deity is good, loving, and just? :confused:
Good AND loving AND just AND omnipotent can be disproven... though most believers will reject ordinary logic, saying that it cannot be applied to deities because of the poor understanding humans can have of deities.


What kind of "proof" would a religious person require to stop believing? :hail:
No real "proof". I think they have to guess it all by themselves.

I don't know if it constitutes "proof," but I stopped believing when a friend of mine died in a plane crash. Nothing is really big enough to contain that kind of pain. That's when I realized there isn't a God.

(I sort of miss it now that my grandfather is dying. He's like a father to me; I'm really struggling with this.)

Also, I'm a scientist; I look around me and see everything in motion. If I had to name a God, that would be it.

Tragedies seem to work in a strange way. Sometimes they drive people away from religion and sometimes they bring them closer to it.

What kind of "proof" would a religious person require to stop believing? :hail:

Forcing them to actually read their holy book in a language they can understand effortlessly (so no old fashioned English and such) often does wonders as far as the "caring and loving" idea is concerned with Christianity.

Does not work as well with other religions though.

I think it might involve leaving them alone and not pretending to be more intelligent :confused:

maybe we should just leave people alone.

It's a brain disorder, or at least manifests in a very similar way. Religious visions can be induced using electrostimulation above the temples in most people. Perhaps a frontal lobotomy?

aww I thought you was going to get at religion being part of the human condition and I was gonna be all like "do chimps dream of poo sheep"

I think it might involve leaving them alone and not pretending to be more intelligent :confused:

maybe we should just leave people alone.



aww I thought you was going to get at religion being part of the human condition and I was gonna be all like "do chimps dream of poo sheep"

I would be more than willing to make a deal with religious people. Leaving them alone if they leave atheist alone. Unfortunately it doesn't works like that in the real world.

I mean, seriously. Have you ever seen an atheist going to your house to bring you the bad news?:eek:

I think it might involve leaving them alone and not pretending to be more intelligent :confused:

Why ? Do the believers do the same for us ?

Unfortunately it doesn't works like that in the real world.

yeah it does you just don't have a conversation with them because there really is no point in it

its like arguing with the sky

Why ? Do the believers do the same for us ?

yes?

yeah it does you just don't have a conversation with them because there really is no point in it

its like arguing with the sky



yes?

Well I guess you can tell people who are judge by sharia law (women stoned to death for example) to leave religious people alone and they would in return leave them alone. :rolleyes:

Well I guess you can tell people who are judge by sharia law (women stoned to death for example) to leave religious people alone and they would in return leave them alone. :rolleyes:

hurting people is against the law.

Most scientists can tell you what observations would convince them of God's existence, but I have never met a religious person who could tell me what would disprove it. And what could possibly convince people to abandon their belief that the deity is good, loving, and just? :confused:

What kind of "proof" would a religious person require to stop believing? :hail:

I would guess the opposite of the proof reqiured to make an atheist into a man of faith. Overwelming evidance for the non existance of God.

Nothing could convince me to be turn my back on Christ. There is just too much for me to turn away and say he isn't the Lord, or real.

hurting people is against the law.

CtoP...
Do you know what Sharia Law is?
You know that it is applied over civil laws in many countries?
You know it is applied even to people who don't believe in Islam?

:confused:

Nothing could convince me to be turn my back on Christ. There is just too much for me to turn away and say he isn't the Lord, or real.

*tempts with atheist cookies*

CtoP...
Do you know what Sharia Law is?
You know that it is applied over civil laws in many countries?
You know it is applied even to people who don't believe in Islam?

yes but thats in the uncivilized world where it gets you a nasty letter from the UN

other countries (for example Turkey) do not do this because it has nothing to do with Islam in the same way that Christianity isn't about hiding womens hair

Facts or the truth. Did it for me. Actually, in a way the Bible did it for me.

Nothing could convince me to be turn my back on Christ. There is just too much for me to turn away and say he isn't the Lord, or real.

Too much what? Bullshit? Brainwashing? Fear?

yes but thats in the uncivilized world where it gets you a nasty letter from the UN




the uncivilized world is still part of the world. An the civilized world is so because we don't let religious nuts go that far.:p

yes?

Ah. So the Pope is not a believer ?
Those Christians that are upset with Obama for implying atheists and non-christians are citizens too are not believers ?

Good to know :)

Seriously though, the very core values of most religions require believers to not behave in the way you describe.

the uncivilized world is still part of the world. An the civilized world is so because we don't let religious nuts go that far.:p

you make it sound like atheism is in anyway a powerful bloc beyond some teenagers throwing bricks at police :p

Good to know :)

meh people will be dicks thats life and its nothing to do with religion

To stop believing? Well you really can't. The person will have to come to that on their own.

Now you might be able to get them to walk away from organized religion.....

meh people will be dicks thats life and its nothing to do with religion

Believing you are part of "the chosen people" does tend to make people more arrogant and less inclined to listen to "the non-chosen".

In addition, believing that nonbelievers will suffer for all eternity may persuade the nicer believers to NOT let those non-believers alone - but instead knock on their door at 7 in the morning. Repeatedly.

Believing you are part of "the chosen people" does tend to make people more arrogant and less inclined to listen to "the non-chosen".

as does alcohol, music genre, love, Fearne Cotton, sports, scouts and Piracy

arrr evolutionary psychology be a cruel mistress

In addition, believing that nonbelievers will suffer for all eternity may persuade the nicer believers to NOT let those non-believers alone - but instead knock on their door at 7 in the morning. Repeatedly.

then put a no-soliciting sign up and call the cops for harassment

then put a no-soliciting sign up and call the cops for harassment

But.. but... I pity them as much as they pity me - so I would like them to see the error of their ways.
Surely caring for one another is a good thing ? ;)

Proof...
I don't think proof is needed to make a person feel discouraged and lose his/her faith. Life in general can do that.

Proof...
I don't think proof is needed to make a person feel discouraged and lose his/her faith. Life in general can do that.

I brought the question because many times religious people ask atheist what kind of proof would they require to start believing. And almost always atheist clearly state the required proof. So... I think it would be fair to ask the question the other way around.

Very much like that time a christian asked me what would I do if I died and meet god and found out that Christianity had been true all the time. And I answered asking him what would he do if he died and found that there was no god and no afterlif... oh well forget it. :p

I brought the question because many times religious people ask atheist what kind of proof would they require to start believing. And almost always atheist clearly state the required proof. So... I think it would be fair to ask the question the other way around.

Very much like that time a christian asked me what would I do if I died and meet god and found out that Christianity had been true all the time. And I answered asking him what would he do if he died and found that there was no god and no afterlif... oh well forget it. :p

Don't worry. I think I understand why you're asking this question. It is only fair, Christians ask the same thing but inversed.:wink:

Too much what? Bullshit? Brainwashing? Fear?

Too much historical proof of Christ. And since Christ is the best proof of God, being God in the flesh, that leads to there being proof of God.

I am not brainwashed, or have fear. I am very open minded in my faith, which is why I am constantly re-evaluating what I believe. Its not a constant changing of mind, but most of the time a redefining of what was previously believed. For example, I have not changed my mind about God creating everything, what I have changed my mind about is how he did it. I have moved away from a literal interpretation of Genesis creation accounts and began to see science in it. They don't conflict, and if there is a conflict it provides me with some excitement because i have to try and figure out how they can go together.

Too much historical proof of Christ.

Where did you hide that then ? Christians would pay good money for it...

Too much historical proof of Christ. And since Christ is the best proof of God, being God in the flesh, that leads to there being proof of God.

There isn't a lot of historical proof for Jesus, and even if there was, that does not prove anything beyond the fact he was a real man. It does not in the slightest prove, or even slightly indicate the existence of God.

Too much historical proof of Christ. And since Christ is the best proof of God, being God in the flesh, that leads to there being proof of God.

I am not brainwashed, or have fear. I am very open minded in my faith, which is why I am constantly re-evaluating what I believe. Its not a constant changing of mind, but most of the time a redefining of what was previously believed. For example, I have not changed my mind about God creating everything, what I have changed my mind about is how he did it. I have moved away from a literal interpretation of Genesis creation accounts and began to see science in it. They don't conflict, and if there is a conflict it provides me with some excitement because i have to try and figure out how they can go together.

check this....

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

only helping you to have interesting things to figure out, you know:D

CtoP...
Do you know what Sharia Law is?
You know that it is applied over civil laws in many countries?
You know it is applied even to people who don't believe in Islam?

:confused:

There really aren't that many countries that still practice Sharia law for real for real. Maybe backwater Syria...

There isn't an argument to be made against faith. Faith inherently defies argument. Why bother trying?

There really aren't that many countries that still practice Sharia law for real for real. Maybe backwater Syria...

There isn't an argument to be made against faith. Faith inherently defies argument. Why bother trying?

Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan...yeah, not that many.

Faith only defies argument if you let it. Any other proposition is subject to logical discourse. Religion isn't because it's "sacred". Why? Why can we have an argument over political philosophies or economic strategies, but not over the existence of God or the viability of Biblical morality? We CAN, but some choose not to out of some kind of browbeaten "respect" or "tolerance". I think it's more intolerant to demand your beliefs not be subject to any kind of analysis than it is to analyze them.

Too much historical proof of Christ. And since Christ is the best proof of God, being God in the flesh, that leads to there being proof of God.

This argument holds water worse than a colander. Someone who once lived called Jesus Christ is automatically the "best proof of God"? How? Because those who wrote about him did so decades or more after his death, and Jesus never wrote anything himself.

I am not brainwashed, or have fear. I am very open minded in my faith, which is why I am constantly re-evaluating what I believe. Its not a constant changing of mind, but most of the time a redefining of what was previously believed. For example, I have not changed my mind about God creating everything, what I have changed my mind about is how he did it. I have moved away from a literal interpretation of Genesis creation accounts and began to see science in it. They don't conflict, and if there is a conflict it provides me with some excitement because i have to try and figure out how they can go together.

I'll believe that when you read The God Delusion as assiduously as you read the Bible.

You have still posited a designer so complex as to need explanation Himself. In other words, the Maker needs a maker if He's that intelligent. God is not a logical end to irreducibility.

Of course Genesis and science are conflicted. You have fun figuring out how they go together because they simply can't. If chasing your tail is that much fun for you, that's fine, but it isn't science.

Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan...yeah, not that many.
You know what they say in Missouri?

Show me

We CAN, but some choose not to
Clearly, we don't choose not to. However, arguing against someone who believes something despite anything to the contrary, or despite lack of evidence, sounds silly to me. Perhaps its an activity you enjoy, in which case, please continue.

Don't worry about trying to convert people away from religion.

If they're engaged in actively harming you, just focus on stopping that behavior.

Otherwise, just leave them alone. You've really got nothing to gain.

I would be more than willing to make a deal with religious people. Leaving them alone if they leave atheist alone. Unfortunately it doesn't works like that in the real world.

I mean, seriously. Have you ever seen an atheist going to your house to bring you the absence of news?:eek:

Fixed. ;)

You know what they say in Missouri?

Show me

I sure do: "There is no wrong hole."



Seriously though, why did you feel the need to white-out the state's motto? That was weird.

check this....

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

only helping you to have interesting things to figure out, you know:D

Yes, I have read all those Jesus myth sites that have sprung up more quickly than a bad case of herpes. They are all based on outdated arguments that were actually disproved in the late 1800s by Christian apologists. Its funny how the intrawebs forgot to get the memo. ;)

I sure do: "There is no wrong hole."



Seriously though, why did you feel the need to white-out the state's motto? That was weird.

I'm a mysterious guy, Intangelon. Or should I say... Chris?
No reason.

You know what they say in Missouri?

Show me.

You know what else they say?

Look it up yourself, ya lazy bastard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia). :p

Yes, I have read all those Jesus myth sites that have sprung up more quickly than a bad case of herpes. They are all based on outdated arguments that were actually disproved in the late 1800s by Christian apologists. Its funny how the intrawebs forgot to get the memo. ;)

And yet you provided not even one example of these proofs. Why is that?

You know what else they say?

Look it up yourself, ya lazy bastard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia). :p

I know what they say they do, but I think a lot of theocratic governments in the ME practice a far more secular version of what they say they do. Its quite the balancing act between pleasing their rabid populus and not pissing off the rest of the world. And despite their bluster and brinksmanship, they do care about what we think.

My last post had a secret message for you, I suggest you take a look

And yet you provided not even one example of these proofs. Why is that?

Take advice from the post you made above. ;)

Take advice from the post you made above. ;)

That's a bit of a cop out, isn't it? Santiago has presented his evidence, you claim it's flawed, now back up your assertion or concede defeat.

That's a bit of a cop out, isn't it? Santiago has presented his evidence, you claim it's flawed, now back up your assertion or concede defeat.

I think this is funny. We're discussing something with no answer, yet you think there is a victory to be had?

The smartest man in the world could put forth a wonderful argument for anything, but that doesn't make him right.

I think this is funny. We're discussing something with no answer, yet you think there is a victory to be had?

"Victory" comes with convincing evidence.

Take advice from the post you made above. ;)

Sorry, "look it up yourself" doesn't give credence to your claims. If the only response to an objection to your argument is that I should do your homework for you, then I have no use for your argument, as it indicates that you don't have much of one to begin with.

"Victory" comes with convincing evidence.

There's no such thing as victory. We make our assertions and that's that. One side can be more convincing than the other, but that does not mean they are more right. Have you ever seen Thank You For Smoking?

I think this is funny. We're discussing something with no answer, yet you think there is a victory to be had?

Depends on the subject, some things have evidentiary support, others do not. If one wishes to claim that he believes jesus existed because of actual evidence of such, not mere faith, then such evidence should be demonstrable.

Zilam said... Too much historical proof of Christ

I provided a link questioning this historical proof. He said that the arguments against the historical proof of Christ were already dismissed since 1800 or something. He provided no source for this. That's all.

Depends on the subject, some things have evidentiary support, others do not. If one wishes to claim that he believes jesus existed because of actual evidence of such, not mere faith, then such evidence should be demonstrable.

The Bible has ample claims of Jesus' existence.

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html Here's a site with some claims towards Jesus' existence.

There's no such thing as victory. We make our assertions and that's that. One side can be more convincing than the other, but that does not mean they are more right. Have you ever seen Thank You For Smoking?

You're being pedantic. If something has a great body of mutually supporting evidence, verified by multiple sources, then it's probably safe to call it "true" to the best of our knowledge. Asserting something then backing it up with verifiable fact equates to a "victory" over accepting something without evidence, or with convincing contradictory evidence.

Zilam claims that he holds information, facts, that contradict the ones Santiago presented. If he is unable to produce these facts, then yes, Santiago can claim intellectual victory.

The Bible has ample claims of Jesus' existence.

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html Here's a site with some claims towards Jesus' existence.

claims yes, it has claims. However the evidentiary value of such claims is roughly equal to the post it note on my desk that says "christianity is false"

You're being pedantic. If something has a great body of mutually supporting evidence, verified by multiple sources, then it's probably safe to call it "true" to the best of our knowledge. Asserting something then backing it up with verifiable fact equates to a "victory" over accepting something without evidence, or with convincing contradictory evidence.

Zilam claims that he holds information, facts, that contradict the ones Santiago presented. If he is unable to produce these facts, then yes, Santiago can claim intellectual victory.

No, thanks. Not interested in claiming victory. I just want someone to answer my original question.

Tom Cruise and the pope telling them it's all a lie, there is no religion, and then a black hole opens up and eats them all up. In Switzerland.

No, thanks. Not interested in claiming victory. I just want someone to answer my original question.

I didn't mean to speak for you, I was merely addressing their point with reference to your post.

claims yes, it has claims. However the evidentiary value of such claims is roughly equal to the post it note on my desk that says "christianity is false"

What makes your website more valuable than mine? In the end we just have to accept that we'll never know. Until my time machine patent goes through, that is...

If something has a great body of mutually supporting evidence, verified by multiple sources, then it's probably safe to call it "true" to the best of our knowledge. Asserting something then backing it up with verifiable fact equates to a "victory" over accepting something without evidence, or with convincing contradictory evidence.
I think of victory as final. Whereas, in science, nothing is ever final. I don't think its being pedantic to ask for precise language.

Let me put it this way. You can "win" an argument, but to obtain "victory" in an argument means you are "right," whereas "winning" an argument simply means you argued better.

What makes your website more valuable than mine? In the end we just have to accept that we'll never know. Until my time machine patent goes through, that is...

Your website uses a single, biased source.

I think of victory as final. Whereas, in science, nothing is ever final. I don't think its being pedantic to ask for precise language.

Let me put it this way. You can "win" an argument, but to obtain "victory" in an argument means you are "right," whereas "winning" an argument simply means you argued better.

Your definition is flawed then, because if applied, it means nothing in science can ever be called "right". While this may be true in the most literal sense, with sufficient mutually supporting evidence, we can call something "right". I'm using de-facto definitions. Being pedantic about my language choices is just reinforcing my opinion that you have no strong argument to present.

Your website uses a single, biased source.

Several historians of the era were listed as sources towards a historical Jesus. Now I have no idea if the author made them up completely, or if he's a world-reknown historian. I don't really care either, because I was simply trying to help Zilam out.

Every website is going to be biased, obviously. Yours no more than mine, nor no less. Again, we'll never know shit about Jesus for sure.

Have you ever wondered why Christianity is the only faith that non believers attack?

Have you ever wondered why Christianity is the only faith that non believers attack?

Its the biggest, is why. I imagine non-believers in China attack Buddhism and non-believers in the Middle East attack Islam.

Actually, that last one maybe not so much...

Have you ever wondered why Christianity is the only faith that non believers attack?

Rubbish. If a Muslim or a Jew were to post here, I'd attack their arguments too.

Have you ever wondered why Christianity is the only faith that non believers attack?

. . . .

riiiiiiight.

Too much historical proof of Christ. And since Christ is the best proof of God, being God in the flesh, that leads to there being proof of God.

I am not brainwashed, or have fear. I am very open minded in my faith, which is why I am constantly re-evaluating what I believe. Its not a constant changing of mind, but most of the time a redefining of what was previously believed. For example, I have not changed my mind about God creating everything, what I have changed my mind about is how he did it. I have moved away from a literal interpretation of Genesis creation accounts and began to see science in it. They don't conflict, and if there is a conflict it provides me with some excitement because i have to try and figure out how they can go together.

So? I also believe Jesus existed. So do the muslims. So do the jews. So do the bahais, hindus, and buddhists. But at the same time, I know he was just an ordinary human. Keep in mind, however, that "Christianity is true because Jesus exists!" is as ridiculous an argument as "I like pasta because my house is made of bricks!"

Y'all might find this interesting. It's from a non-Christian source, which should keep it from being immediately dismissed out of hand.

"It is beyond my power to induce in you a belief in God. There are certain things which are self proved and certain which are not proved at all. The existence of God is like a geometrical axiom. It may be beyond our heart grasp. I shall not talk of an intellectual grasp. Intellectual attempts are more or less failures, as a rational explanation cannot give you the faith in a living God. For it is a thing beyond the grasp of reason. It transcends reason. There are numerous phenomena from which you can reason out the existence of God, but I shall not insult your intelligence by offering you a rational explanation of that type. I would have you brush aside all rational explanations and begin with a simple childlike faith in God. If I exist, God exists. With me it is a necessity of my being as it is with millions. They may not be able to talk about it, but from their life you can see that it is a part of their life. I am only asking you to restore the belief that has been undermined. In order to do so, you have to unlearn a lot of literature that dazzles your intelligenqe and throws you off your feet. Start with the faith which is also a token of humility and an admission that we know nothing, that we are less than atoms in this universe. We are less than atoms, I say, because the atom obeys the law of its being, whereas we in the insolence of our ignorance deny the law of nature. But I have no argument to address to those who have no faith."
-M.K. Gandhi

The more important question dear OP, is why would you want to? If you start playing the same game as the people who spend all their time forcing religious ideals down people's throats you are just as bad as they are.

Is deconvert a word? I think it would just be another conversion - only to atheism (or agnosticism).

Why ? Do the believers do the same for us ?

I do. I make no secret of my religion, nor do I hide my opinions on issues (as they become relevant), but I don't try and press my views on others. I feel that actions speak louder than words and so I should act emulating Christ.

I simply ask that I be treated the same way.

Seriously though, the very core values of most religions require believers to not behave in the way you describe.

I have yet to find a situation where my faith requires me to be an asshole.

Of course Genesis and science are conflicted. You have fun figuring out how they go together because they simply can't. If chasing your tail is that much fun for you, that's fine, but it isn't science.

I'm pretty sure they only conflict if you try and mistake Genesis for science. If you look at it as more metaphorical or allegorical, then it becomes less mutually exclusive.

Is deconvert a word? I think it would just be another conversion - only to atheism (or agnosticism).Wiki says so, but I don't trust Wiki. Hm.

Have you ever wondered why Christianity is the only faith that non believers attack?
It is not, trust me. However, the primary societies in which Atheism has been able to establish a foothold in the culture are in what is colliquly called the "West"; That is, Europe and the United States. As you might imagine, Christianity is the largest theistic religious group in these areas, so it's already a prime target. In addition, attacking Judaism is also done, but to a lesser degree due to it's small size, and Judaism and Islam are ignored more because Christianity already competes and attacks them due to religious competition, and most agnostics, atheists, and contratheists don't want to be likened to Christians or the religious right and their apparent renewed crusade against Islam, as again they are target number one for contratheism in the U.S. and Europe. Also, in my experience die-hard Christians tend to have persistent Messiah/Victim complexes, due to their identification with good old J.C., which doesn't help the process much. Not saying all do, or even a good minority, but many I've come across do.

Now, back to studying for History finals. ;)

I feel that actions speak louder than words and so I should act emulating Christ.

I simply ask that I be treated the same way.
Er, strung up, tortured, and executed? Sure buddy, I guess...

But seriously, I kid. :P

I don't think there is such a proof.

From personal experience, it's more a re-evaluation of the axioms, premises, etc., of one's personal faith.

^^^ This ^^^

People will never surrender something they believe in from outside pressure, it's something they will come to themselves, same as any ideology.

I think it might involve leaving them alone and not pretending to be more intelligent :confused:

maybe we should just leave people alone.


Yep. People are unlikely to agree with your view when you dance around in their face going "na na na nah na...I'm right your wrong". Which is exactly what atheists hate about some believers from some religions.

I would be more than willing to make a deal with religious people. Leaving them alone if they leave atheist alone. Unfortunately it doesn't works like that in the real world.


For some it doesn't and for some it does. I don't care that you don't believe my religion, and I'm certainly not going to loose any sleep over it and I'm certainly not going to go out in the cold to come over to your place and tell you how heavy your heart is. The problem is, it's only the loud, annoying religious people who are heard, in the same way it's only militant atheists are heard. Most of us, on both sides, are happy to live our own lives and let others live their own.

Well I guess you can tell people who are judge by sharia law (women stoned to death for example) to leave religious people alone and they would in return leave them alone. :rolleyes:

Since shria law is the legal code (or part of it) in certain countries, I'd say it's something for those people and their rulers to work out between themselves. Or maybe we should send in the troops to show those evil ragheads how we do it in the civilized west... That usually works out pretty well...

To stop believing? Well you really can't. The person will have to come to that on their own.

Now you might be able to get them to walk away from organized religion.....

Why? Provided there is nothing illegal happening then let people be. What if religious people tried to stop your membership at the health spa? Organised health clubs are a serious problem in society! We must stop this outrage...


Believing you are part of "the chosen people" does tend to make people more arrogant and less inclined to listen to "the non-chosen".


It does work that way, again for some religions, particularly with lonely believers. That's their business. I agree it is annoying when they knock on my door or grab me outside the station (it's not only atheists who get pissed at that...).

I brought the question because many times religious people ask atheist what kind of proof would they require to start believing. And almost always atheist clearly state the required proof. So... I think it would be fair to ask the question the other way around.


It would have to be an internal realisation for me, but it's quite unlikely my religion would change, more likely my view of it, which is flexible as my beliefs are very undogmatic and also deal very heavily in metaphor and allegory. Changing my particular take on it, sure... Show me some decent research by someone who didn't get their qualifications from North Somerset Polytechnic Evening School or doctoratesRus.com, and that's been published in a half respectable publication and I'll have a look.

I do actually read those people I respect as good researchers who have a different take on it to myself, and in the past that has altered how I approach my religion, though not my ultimate belief.

I know what they say they do, but I think a lot of theocratic governments in the ME practice a far more secular version of what they say they do. Its quite the balancing act between pleasing their rabid populous and not pissing off the rest of the world. And despite their bluster and brinksmanship, they do care about what we think.


Obviously. most governments rely on backing a religious view to keep the populous happy. You don't need to go to the mideast to see that. Try the west. We do the same to them.

The Bible has ample claims of Jesus' existence.

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html Here's a site with some claims towards Jesus' existence.

since the Bible is the text that is being questioned, using it as proof of it's own truth probably won't work....

Have you ever wondered why Christianity is the only faith that non believers attack?

Yes, but I'm not one to complain. Keeps the atheists off my back :wink:

Rubbish. If a Muslim or a Jew were to post here, I'd attack their arguments too.

Don't know much about Judaism, but I can be a stand in Muslim if you want. I was brought up Muslim.

I do. I make no secret of my religion, nor do I hide my opinions on issues (as they become relevant), but I don't try and press my views on others. I feel that actions speak louder than words and so I should act emulating Christ.

As a non Christian, I find that the best thing a Christian can do. It makes you lots of friends.

I simply ask that I be treated the same way.

Agreed.

I have yet to find a situation where my faith requires me to be an asshole.

IMHO, If you faith required you to enjoy screwing other people, you are clearly missing the point somewhere. Assholeness should always be optional :D

Too much historical proof of Christ. And since Christ is the best proof of God, being God in the flesh, that leads to there being proof of God.

I am not brainwashed, or have fear. I am very open minded in my faith, which is why I am constantly re-evaluating what I believe. Its not a constant changing of mind, but most of the time a redefining of what was previously believed. For example, I have not changed my mind about God creating everything, what I have changed my mind about is how he did it. I have moved away from a literal interpretation of Genesis creation accounts and began to see science in it. They don't conflict, and if there is a conflict it provides me with some excitement because i have to try and figure out how they can go together.

You know the really funny thing about this?
There is a hell of a lot more proof of Mohammed, and Buddha. So why doesn't that make you a Buddhist, or a Muslim?

Have you ever wondered why Christianity is the only faith that non believers attack?

No, mostly because that's not true.

Most scientists can tell you what observations would convince them of God's existence, but I have never met a religious person who could tell me what would disprove it. And what could possibly convince people to abandon their belief that the deity is good, loving, and just? :confused:

What kind of "proof" would a religious person require to stop believing? :hail:

sith lighting does the trick really well.

Y'all might find this interesting. It's from a non-Christian source, which should keep it from being immediately dismissed out of hand.

"It is beyond my power to induce in you a belief in God. There are certain things which are self proved and certain which are not proved at all. The existence of God is like a geometrical axiom. It may be beyond our heart grasp. I shall not talk of an intellectual grasp. Intellectual attempts are more or less failures, as a rational explanation cannot give you the faith in a living God. For it is a thing beyond the grasp of reason. It transcends reason. There are numerous phenomena from which you can reason out the existence of God, but I shall not insult your intelligence by offering you a rational explanation of that type. I would have you brush aside all rational explanations and begin with a simple childlike faith in God. If I exist, God exists. With me it is a necessity of my being as it is with millions. They may not be able to talk about it, but from their life you can see that it is a part of their life. I am only asking you to restore the belief that has been undermined. In order to do so, you have to unlearn a lot of literature that dazzles your intelligenqe and throws you off your feet. Start with the faith which is also a token of humility and an admission that we know nothing, that we are less than atoms in this universe. We are less than atoms, I say, because the atom obeys the law of its being, whereas we in the insolence of our ignorance deny the law of nature. But I have no argument to address to those who have no faith."
-M.K. Gandhi

*dismisses out of hand as the emotional nonsense that it it*

If I found myself to be suffering from dementia, then I would doubt my theism.

I would also doubt a lot of other things, as I would never be sure if I am hallucinating or not, but that's life.

No, mostly because that's not true.

Pretty much true of NSG, apart from teh eb1l m0sl1mz and teh eb1l j00z of course :rolleyes:

You dont see much dissing of Shinto around here.

Pretty much true of NSG, apart from teh eb1l m0sl1mz and teh eb1l j00z of course :rolleyes:

You dont see much dissing of Shinto around here.

NSG isn't the whole world.
And I'm sure if someone here were to show up and present Shinto as the absolute truth and only truth, he/she would drown in dissing soon enough.

Shinto is too ritualistic!

NSG isn't the whole world.
And I'm sure if someone here were to show up and present Shinto as the absolute truth and only truth, he/she would drown in dissing soon enough.

I took the original statement to refer to NSG rather than the world. but just to find out ;)

SHINTO IS THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE RELIGION

Shinto is too ritualistic!

Die, apostate, die!!! :p

Er, strung up, tortured, and executed? Sure buddy, I guess...

But seriously, I kid. :P

I did walk into that one. :tongue:

I took the original statement to refer to NSG rather than the world. but just to find out ;)

SHINTO IS THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE RELIGION



Die, apostate, die!!! :p

Damn it, I don't have the time to read up on Shinto now, I was hoping someone else here would have jumped up and done the work for me.

But anyway : It's religious nonsense, it's pointless, it's delusional and ridiculous! How can you seriously believe something so obviously bogus as Shinto? :p

Damn it, I don't have the time to read up on Shinto now, I was hoping someone else here would have jumped up and done the work for me.

But anyway : It's religious nonsense, it's pointless, it's delusional and ridiculous! How can you seriously believe something so obviously bogus as Shinto? :p

I started to look at Shinto but got distracted by something more shiny, and laughable, Pana Wave Laboratory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pana_Wave). Good name, silly beliefs.

I started to look at Shinto but got distracted by something more shiny, and laughable, Pana Wave Laboratory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pana_Wave). Good name, silly beliefs.

*roflmao

Oh, that's brilliant. You gotta love weird Japanese religions, for sheer entertainment value.

Another one I love, though not Japanese, is the Cargo Cult and John Frum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult)...

I started to look at Shinto but got distracted by something more shiny, and laughable, Pana Wave Laboratory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pana_Wave). Good name, silly beliefs.

Kinda ironic that they have a website (http://www.pana-wave.com/) ;)

Most scientists can tell you what observations would convince them of God's existence, but I have never met a religious person who could tell me what would disprove it. And what could possibly convince people to abandon their belief that the deity is good, loving, and just? :confused:

What kind of "proof" would a religious person require to stop believing? :hail:

Faith is belief without proof. In fact, the less proof there is, the stronger the faith is. Proving conclusively, beyond a shadow-of-a-doubt, that there is a just, kind, and loving god could probably be the only way you could make someone that steeped in faith drop their faith.

Kinda ironic that they have a website (http://www.pana-wave.com/) ;)

They didn't really think that through :D

*roflmao

Oh, that's brilliant. You gotta love weird Japanese religions, for sheer entertainment value.

Another one I love, though not Japanese, is the Cargo Cult and John Frum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult)...

Excellent. I also like Cao Dai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cao_Dai) which has Victor Hugo as a Saint.

I would have thought the ridiculousness of these religions might cause some believers to realise that their own religions aren't any different.

They didn't really think that through :D



Excellent. I also like Cao Dai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cao_Dai) which has Victor Hugo as a Saint.

I would have thought the ridiculousness of these religions might cause some believers to realise that their own religions aren't any different.

That's the odd thing about religious folks... other people's religions do seem silly to them. But their own is the ultimate, beautiful, shiny truth. Why? Well, because they say so, of course.

Most scientists can tell you what observations would convince them of God's existence, but I have never met a religious person who could tell me what would disprove it. And what could possibly convince people to abandon their belief that the deity is good, loving, and just? :confused:

What kind of "proof" would a religious person require to stop believing? :hail:

I dunno if any of what I'm about to say had already been written, so my apologies if it has. I do't have time to read the whole thread like I used to ;)

That question is sort of a non-sequitur and I'll explain why.

The short answer: God Himself would have to come down and tell me He doesn't exist. That's the non-sequitur.

The long answer: A person who believes because of man-derived evidence has no faith. Such a person could answer your question because if their religious belief is based on mortal proof, then mortal proof can lead them away just as easily.

It's different for a person whose religion is based upon faith. As their belief in God isn't based upon mortal proof, then there's no source of evidence other than divine that would lead them away, which is self-contradictory.

Take my case, for example. I believe in my heart that Heavenly Father called upon me to take the path I've taken in terms of becoming a member of His Church. Since that directive comes directly from God Himself, only God Himself can redirect me elsewhere. There's no set of physical, mortal evidence that outweighs that because mankind is capable of error.

The short answer: God Himself would have to come down and tell me He doesn't exist.

Meh, that's nothing... I dreamed the other day that Ra - Horakhti kicked in the door to my flat, and dragged me outside by the collar whilst I was being given singing lessons by Sarah Brightman. Didn't make me question my faith, and I still think Sarah Brightman is a damn good singer too :D

Meh, that's nothing... I dreamed the other day that Ra - Horakhti kicked in the door to my flat, and dragged me outside by the collar whilst I was being given singing lessons by Sarah Brightman. Didn't make me question my faith, and I still think Sarah Brightman is a damn good singer too :D

Clearly it's no more spicy potatoes for dinner for YOU before bed ;)

Clearly it's no more spicy potatoes for dinner for YOU before bed ;)

Oh don't.. I've just had lunch!

I do. I make no secret of my religion, nor do I hide my opinions on issues (as they become relevant), but I don't try and press my views on others. I feel that actions speak louder than words and so I should act emulating Christ.

You are rare, indeed. I don't bother with people like you. Your spiritual cousins, however, who insist on passing laws based on their beliefs which they sincerely wish were everyone's beliefs, well now they don't get away with it if I'm within earshot.

I'm pretty sure they only conflict if you try and mistake Genesis for science. If you look at it as more metaphorical or allegorical, then it becomes less mutually exclusive.

Okay, but where's the guide on which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which ones aren't? Lots of folks believe that Genesis is, in fact, a historical account. Others don't but use Leviticus to justify all kinds of hatred and division -- but only certain parts of Leviticus. So which is it?

Zilam said... Too much historical proof of Christ

I provided a link questioning this historical proof. He said that the arguments against the historical proof of Christ were already dismissed since 1800 or something. He provided no source for this. That's all.

Exactly this.

Have you ever wondered why Christianity is the only faith that non believers attack?

Not once. When I get a Muslim on my doorstep at too-early in the morning, shilling Qur'ans, or demanding fealty from political candidates in my country, you can bet I'll post about the difference between 72 virgins and 72 white raisins of crystal clarity (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jan/12/books.guardianreview5).

Spiritual awakening.

I think that it would have to be a personal choice, your going to be hard pressed to stop someone's beliefs no matter what your points and evidence...

They'll have to do it on their own, or nothing....

The opposite was found out the hard way all over Africa and India...

You are rare, indeed.

Aw, shucks

Your spiritual cousins, however, who insist on passing laws based on their beliefs which they sincerely wish were everyone's beliefs, well now they don't get away with it if I'm within earshot.

Yeah, I'm not much of a fan either. I daresay that I actually dislike them a great deal more than you do, primarily because they just scream out wasted potential to me.

They're like that cousin that never amounted to anything, even though you know they could have.

Okay, but where's the guide on which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which ones aren't? Lots of folks believe that Genesis is, in fact, a historical account. Others don't but use Leviticus to justify all kinds of hatred and division -- but only certain parts of Leviticus. So which is it?

Eh, I'm no scholar so I can't tell you which verses may or may not be highly context-sensitive (and there are many!) but as a general rule I look to see which verses aren't compatible with reality. If there's an issue, then I'm not understanding one of the two correctly.

Eh, I'm no scholar so I can't tell you which verses may or may not be highly context-sensitive (and there are many!) but as a general rule I look to see which verses aren't compatible with reality. If there's an issue, then I'm not understanding one of the two correctly.

Holy cow. You have a higher tolerance for cognitive dissonance than I do, my friend. I think feeding "Bible verses not compatible with reality" into a search engine might just make it asplode.

If you need proof for a belief, it's no longer a belief, you're looking for a fact.

It's a fact that people are religious, but there's no proof to anything they might belief.

Some kind of feeling of betrayal, I would think... like being abused by the clergy/religious family members...

I'm religious. Sure, I don't go to Church or let some Pope or king or whoever boss me around like those lousy Greeks (why can't those damn Greeks leave other languages alone with their roots and their prefixes and whatnot?). But I believe in the whole Christ-heaven stuff.

Everytime I have my doubts about Christianity, I begin doubting other stuff. What is reality? Is everything around me real or merely the results of electrical impulses in my brain? Am I real? Can I prove my very own existance? Can I prove any existance? Can anyone?

Then I begin thinking about quantum stuff and that damn cat the exists and nonexists at the same time for some reason. What's that all about? How stable and reliable is anything if the tiniest, most basic parts keep phasing in and out of existance like that cat? You don't know where it is, where it's going, or what it's doing at once. You can't. It's impossible. Or is it?

If you can find a way to get me to think about God's possible nonexistance without me getting sidetracked by my own possible nonexistance or your possible nonexistance, then we'll talk. And don't sound like one of those assholes that's TOO honest. Don't be like those people who walk up to kids and inform them that they won't be President or become an astronaut or survive their cancer. We all know the truth about those kids. It's just that the truth can hurt and do you really want to open wounds? Just seems like an asshole thing to do and I don't talk to assholes. Assholes are assholes.

What kind of "proof" would a religious person require to stop believing?

Death usually ends delusions.

What kind of "proof" would a religious person require to stop believing?

Death usually ends delusions.

Does it? Does it really? Is there really death? Are you real? Am I? What is real? With Set apparently left in charge of Quantum mechanics psysicy stuff and that cat, can you prove anything? If we are real, God might be real, as well as Anpu and them, because in the end, is anything really proveable?

Does it? Does it really? Is there really death? Are you real? Am I? What is real? With Set apparently left in charge of Quantum mechanics psysicy stuff and that cat, can you prove anything? If we are real, God might be real, as well as Anpu and them, because in the end, is anything really proveable?

My point was two-fold:
1) Either its the end or...
2) ..you no longer have to believe because you know.

My point was two-fold:
1) Either its the end or...
2) ..you no longer have to believe because you know.

But can you know? Will you know? Not just about death, but about anything?

But can you know? Will you know? Not just about death, but about anything?
Personally I think you don't know anything because you no longer exist after death - Hence, there are no delusions after death because there's no person to harbour those delusions.

Therefore, I'm not taking a personal viewpoint on existence of a wondrous after-death world which might or might not be compatible with a person's religious view.


From a metaphysical perspective, the after-life could very well be a simulacrum of the after-life a religion postulates but one which contains differences that make post-reality incompatible with person's pre-death beliefs, while the after-person is still deluded that he or she is in his or her personal heaven/hell/limbo according to his or her religious faith.

That is, instead of finding out that his or her religion is right or wrong - hence ending the delusions - the person might continue after-living in a state in which the person believes that his or her religion was correct while actually being deluded because a minute detail of the post-life is wholly incompatible with the religion or, perhaps, alternatively because the after-life is serviced individually by the persons faith and the after-person is incapable of realising this or seeing the whole picture.

So, ultimately - yes - there might exist an after-death state where the after-person is still deluded about the religious faith he or she harboured in life, believing it was still true (or false) despite the fact that it really isn't.


However, none of this has any relevance to real physical world...unless - until? - someone shows conclusive evidence pointing otherwise.

Am I real? Can I prove my very own existance?

There is one thing you can be absolutely sure of,
and that is that you exist.

Even if you were being fooled by someone/thing to think you existed,
you would still exist as the one being fooled.
The rest is solipsism.

Some kind of feeling of betrayal, I would think... like being abused by the clergy/religious family members...

Strictly speaking that only means that the clergy/familymembers were bad. Not that the religion is, unless those people were acting under orders from their deity of course.

I known several people who 'deconverted,' and there seem to be two major elements to the process.

The most straightforward way that a lot of people de-convert is when they find their own personal morality or rationality conflicts with their faith to a degree that is unsustainable. They hold up the religion they've been taught to believe, compare it to the world they see and the way they think the world SHOULD be, and find that they simply cannot accept the God-image they've been presented with.

The more subtle path is one based simply on necessity. A lot of people are religious because religion provides them with something they need. They can't stop believing as long as that need is only being fulfilled by religion. To be sure, some people still choose to believe even if they don't need to believe, but a remarkable number of people are religious simply because they've got no better choice.

Spiritual awakening.
That is more connected to a person finding God rather than losing faith?

That is more connected to a person finding God rather than losing faith?

Yes, in a way.
But I think what Smunkee is referring to is the process of looking at your religion, comparing it with your morality, and finding your religion lacking.
People then either go on to other religions, or leave it altogether.

That is more connected to a person finding God rather than losing faith?
Losing faith and deconverting are different things to me.
Yes, in a way.
But I think what Smunkee is referring to is the process of looking at your religion, comparing it with your morality, and finding your religion lacking.
People then either go on to other religions, or leave it altogether.
Exactly.

An exhorbitant amount of money. *nod*

An exhorbitant amount of money. *nod*

Yep. The more religious tend to be those that need that extra bit of hope to get through less-than-superb times. Get rid of the need and the desire takes a hit.

Yep. The more religious tend to be those that need that extra bit of hope to get through less-than-superb times. Get rid of the need and the desire takes a hit.

I disagree. There are those who both turn to their gods/god for aid in harsh time, and also those who euturn to thank them/him/her in good times. Money wouldn't (and hasn't, in the past) changed my faith, though it may embellish it... MOAR shiny things! :hail:

Yep. The more religious tend to be those that need that extra bit of hope to get through less-than-superb times. Get rid of the need and the desire takes a hit.

Exactly.

Exactly.

No I disagree. :p

No I disagree. :p

You dare?:eek:

You dare?:eek:

Uh-huh! I'm like that, daring, scared of nowt('cept spiders of course)rash, and beardy!

Uh-huh! I'm like that, daring, scared of nowt('cept spiders of course)rash, and beardy!

You do know I'm a kitteh-spider hybrid, right? I will trap you in my catnipped spider web.:fluffle:

I think a good start would be to take an intensive course in astronomy. This hopefully will help alter the perspective of egocentrism that most religious people have that they and their set of beliefs are central to the universe and that everything has to revolve around what happens to insignificant humans. I dont think it has a shot in hell of opening anyones eyes mind you but it might just plant that little seed of reality into their world.

I think a good start would be to take an intensive course in astronomy. This hopefully will help alter the perspective of egocentrism that most religious people have that they and their set of beliefs are central to the universe and that everything has to revolve around what happens to insignificant humans.

Heh this makes me laugh. Not because I disagree, but because of the inherent egocentricity in makeing such a statement.

This is your opinion is it?:D

You do know I'm a kitteh-spider hybrid, right? I will trap you in my catnipped spider web.:fluffle:

Ahhh but kittens are soft and cute and fluffy right, and they eat spiders, so I think it won't be long until a crisis of identity hits you and you will either eat yourself right up, or become fully kitty!:D

Shit when did I go over the 10,000 post mark? Damn I was gonna celebrate with beer and everything.

Heh this makes me laugh. Not because I disagree, but because of the inherent egocentricity in makeing such a statement.

This is your opinion is it?:D

What is egocentric about acknowledging that humans are dopey sheep that have consistently believed the most remarkably stupid things through its entire history?

I mean God has created humanity in his image? Oh my oh my can you get more self centered then that? Humans are SOOO awesome that God has to look exactly like us! Because of trillions and trillions and trillions of planets in the entire Vastness of existence we are the best thing in the Universe ever! Mind you thats much like holding a beauty pageant and picking the first person that walks on stage the winner without even seeing the other 10 billion contestants but hey why should that stop anyone from making judgements.

Ahhh but kittens are soft and cute and fluffy right, and they eat spiders, so I think it won't be long until a crisis of identity hits you and you will either eat yourself right up, or become fully kitty!:D

Judging by the neko mimi I sport... I may be turning kitty.
http://www.scirecordings.com/index/images/stories/song_icons/200x200/kittycat_220.jpg
And with my feline awesomeness, I will make a person deconvert!

What is egocentric about acknowledging that humans are dopey sheep that have consistently believed the most remarkably stupid things through its entire history?

Bwahahah! And there you go again. Ohh my, please stop it now.:D

You see no egocentricity in offering your opionon up as correct, in saying that a good start would be to take actions that your opinion tells you are the correct ones, that in your opinion what we need to do is.... and so on and so forth.

What then is it?

We are all like this every single one of us. We all live our lives how WE wish it, we conform to ideas and ideals that WE suppose are the correct ones, we work hard to enable our OWN lives to be decent, and we paly so that WE can enjoy ourselves.

What I find funny though is the way in which people tell me that only one part of society thinks this way and does these things, and yet just by declaring what in your opinion is the best way to stop it, you are guilty in indulging in the very kind of thought processes that you are quick to ridicule.

Priceless! Thanks for the giggle!:D

We are all like this every single one of us. We all live our lives how WE wish it, we conform to ideas and ideals that WE suppose are the correct ones, we work hard to enable our OWN lives to be decent, and we paly so that WE can enjoy ourselves.


Great tell that to the guy whos head got cut off because another moron native and the rest of society thinks a comet is God voicing his displeasure so its time for human sacrifices. The examples reach back to the beginning of recorded history. Humans are still dumb superstitious animals with pretty toys. We arnt where we really need to be yet on the evolutionary scale. As any environmentalist can tell you, we are still peeing in our own diaper.

Great tell that to the guy whos head got cut off because another moron native and the rest of society thinks a comet is God voicing his displeasure so its time for human sacrifices. The examples reach back to the beginning of recorded history. Humans are still dumb superstitious animals with pretty toys. We arnt where we really need to be yet on the evolutionary scale. As any environmentalist can tell you, we are still peeing in our own diaper.

Meh! Whatever. Heh nice to see though that instead of trying to rebut my words you just wanna keep giveing examples of how right I am.

Cheers.:D

Meh! Whatever. Heh nice to see though that instead of trying to rebut my words you just wanna keep giveing examples of how right I am.

Cheers.:D

This is a perfect example of the type of religious answers i get in return when i have opinions that i attempt to support with historical record.

This is a perfect example of the type of religious answers i get in return when i have opinions that i attempt to support with historical record.

Heh what religion, please do point out to me anywhere where I mention religion?