A few questions from a Christian (Not offensive)

[Guest MalaInSe]

Okay, a simple test.  Could you type 'Jesus Christ' for me.  And answer my question about Calvin peeing on the fish? 

 

Look, I hate getting into this.  It's not going to go anywhere unless its an honest discussion of ideas.  Can we please keep it that way.

 

Now, as to the pink unicorns.  I don't think it appropriate to change the topic here.  I would love to debate this in a different manner.  If you email me at bmw890@yahoo.com I would be more than happy to engage in that sort of debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't believe that Jesus is the Christ. If it makes you feel better, I will type Jesus Christ in this sentence, though I don't believe it. However, in discussion, I will henceforth refer to Jesus by name, and not add the title. You are free to do so, if you wish.

 

I have no idea where the Calvin is or why. I won't speak for other people and I didn't post it. Perhaps the person that posted it could answer for it.

 

The pink unicorn discussion goes directly to your assertion that atheism requires a leap of faith and your assertion that one should make the decision of faith based on objective evidence. It is on topic. Please answer the question.

[Guest college_kid215]

Thanks everyone for the thoughful posts. I really didn't like where it was heading, but it seems to be okay now. I don't really mean to cause trouble at all.

 

Now, I agree with all of you that religion really perverts everything up. No doubt about it. In fact, I struggle to find an acceptable religion. As for my beliefs, I do believe Jesus is the Christ and God.

 

Okay, I hate to play the debate game on message boards instead of honest discussions in emails. MalaInSe email me for my answer. It's more constructive.

 

I don't believe that Jesus is the Christ.  If it makes you feel better, I will type Jesus Christ in this sentence, though I don't believe it.  However, in discussion, I will henceforth refer to Jesus by name, and not add the title.  You are free to do so, if you wish.

 

I have no idea where the Calvin is    or why.  I won't speak for other people and I didn't post it.  Perhaps the person that posted it could answer for it. 

 

The pink unicorn discussion goes directly to your assertion that atheism requires a leap of faith and your assertion that one should make the decision of faith based on objective evidence.  It is on topic.  Please answer the question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Vulgaris Prime]

Hello,

 

WARNING: You are about to be vivisected. Brace yourself.

 

I am new here. I am a junior at a liberal arts college. I am a Christian and just had a few honest questions for everyone, perhaps you could clarify some of your positions. I really don't want to start a harsh, mean debate. I am looking for an honest intellectual discussion.

 

I'll be the judge of that.

 

Let me just say also, that I tend to be more rational than other Christians. (I know you probably think that is a silly statement)

 

Not exactly. We have plenty of rational, head-on-shoulders Xtians here.

 

But I don't rely on feelings or subjectivity to prove my faith. Now, all theists have to eventually make a leap of faith. But I would also say that all atheists have to make this leap as well.

 

And the BS starts. There is no "leap of faith" involved in atheism. NOT ONE. There is no long-shot conclusion of "the evidence says X, therefore Z". There is only "evidence says god does not exist; experience says evidence is right".

 

A total committment to the belief or affirmation that there is absolutely no god is a jump too. I think the most honest people are most likely agnostics.

 

Thanks, but no thanks. There is no honesty involved in opinion. Honesty implies FACT. Fact != opinion. I learned that in grade school; why didn't you?

 

I realize that God may or may not exist. If he does exist, no amount of science can disprove him to not exist. Conversly, if he does not exist, no amount of faith can make him exist either.

 

That's a logical statement, but human beings aren't usually driven by logic. For some Shigeru-forsaken reason, people can be pretty damn stupid.

 

I have noticed a harsh hostility towards Christianity from some atheists. Hear me out before you critize. I realize that Christianity is responsible for MANY deaths, atrocities, and crimes have been in the name of Christianity, and there is no excuse for that. But let's not forget that crimes have occured under atheism as well, as in Stalin's Russia.

 

FATAL ERROR 07: Communism != atheism. What happened under Stalin was because of the flawed Communist system, NOT BECAUSE OF ATHEISM. Saying things like that will get you called Goldstein faster than you can even edit your post.

 

I realize that religion has hurt some of you, and for that I apologize. Now with all that being said, I hope that will provide accurate background for my questions.

 

Why do many of you write Xians? How can it be difficult to write a simple name.

 

Depends. Why do Harry Potter fans (like myself) abbreviate his name as HP, or use abbreviated forms of relationship descriptions (e.g., R/H for Ron/Hermione) Why do Sailor Moon fans (also like myself) refer to the show as SM, or just by the season in particular (S, R, Stars)? Why? Because it's easier, and less redundant. You try typing out long titles and words repeatedly and see how much YOU like it.

 

Especially since many of you believe he did not exist or was not who he said he was? (I don't think it is out of respect either, as I have heard some explanations say.) I can write Zeus, Mars, etc. without a problem.

 

ERROR: Non-sequitur. Lack of belief doesn't fuel the use of abbreviations. It's a matter of typing something so many times that a shorthand becomes a necessary thing to keep everyone from getting carpal tunnel.

 

Is there a hositilty toward a single religion or religion in general? I realize this is a leading question in that I am assuming there is hostility toward religion. But I do notice it. For example, having the cartoon character Calvin peeing on a Jesus fish, and other disrespectful jabs directed mainly at Christianity.

 

Tell it to the people who all say that atheists are "immoral GAWD-HATERS who don't believe in ethics or laws because they don't believe in GAAAWD and JEEEEZUS". You ain't gettin' sympathy from me.

 

I guess that's enough for now. If anyone wants to write me for a discussion of ideas, I'm at BMW890@yahoo.com. Thanks

 

Nick

 

Just as a sidenote, blatantly posting your e-mail address can leave it open to spammers. You should munge it in some way.

[Guest college_kid215]

Spammers? I was just trying to be honest. And it's not my school email anyway. Thanks for the tip. Anyway, how do you respond to this arguement. And it may be flawed! It may have a formal name or whatever. Just want you view. It relates to affirming atheism.

 

It says you can't affirm something in the absolute. For example, it's not possible for atheists to say there is no god or never was a god. In order to prove that, a person would have to be everywhere (to make sure god wasn't anywhere) all at once (to make sure god never existed) If someone was everywhere throughout time, he would be god.

 

Again, this agruement may have a formal name and an appropriate response. I am not using it to defend myself or accuse you. Just curious about it.

 

 

WARNING: You are about to be vivisected.  Brace yourself.

I'll be the judge of that.

Not exactly.  We have plenty of rational, head-on-shoulders Xtians here.

And the BS starts.  There is no "leap of faith" involved in atheism.  NOT ONE.  There is no long-shot conclusion of "the evidence says X, therefore Z".  There is only "evidence says god does not exist; experience says evidence is right".

Thanks, but no thanks.  There is no honesty involved in opinion.  Honesty implies FACT.  Fact != opinion.  I learned that in grade school; why didn't you?

That's a logical statement, but human beings aren't usually driven by logic.  For some Shigeru-forsaken reason, people can be pretty damn stupid.

FATAL ERROR 07: Communism != atheism. What happened under Stalin was because of the flawed Communist system, NOT BECAUSE OF ATHEISM.  Saying things like that will get you called Goldstein faster than you can even edit your post.

Depends.  Why do Harry Potter fans (like myself) abbreviate his name as HP, or use abbreviated forms of relationship descriptions (e.g., R/H for Ron/Hermione)  Why do Sailor Moon fans (also like myself) refer to the show as SM, or just by the season in particular (S, R, Stars)?  Why?  Because it's easier, and less redundant.  You try typing out long titles and words repeatedly and see how much YOU like it.

ERROR: Non-sequitur.  Lack of belief doesn't fuel the use of abbreviations.  It's a matter of typing something so many times that a shorthand becomes a necessary thing to keep everyone from getting carpal tunnel.

Tell it to the people who all say that atheists are "immoral GAWD-HATERS who don't believe in ethics or laws because they don't believe in GAAAWD and JEEEEZUS".  You ain't gettin' sympathy from me.

Just as a sidenote, blatantly posting your e-mail address can leave it open to spammers.  You should munge it in some way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Lizard]

Why do many of you write Xians? How can it be difficult to write a simple name. Especially since many of you believe he did not exist or was not who he said he was? (I don't think it is out of respect either, as I have heard some explanations say.) I can write Zeus, Mars, etc. without a problem.

 

Is there a hositilty toward a single religion or religion in general? I realize this is a leading question in that I am assuming there is hostility toward religion. But I do notice it. For example, having the cartoon character Calvin peeing on a Jesus fish, and other disrespectful jabs directed mainly at Christianity.

 

I write it because I simply don't like to write chri....I have a hard time even writing Chris, my friend's name.

 

Hostility towards xtianity? This is Ex-C, after all..its not exmuslims, or exbuddhists, etc..

 

Yes, I feel a hostility, after seeing what has become of many friends and loved ones, in the name of gawd..

 

If he's all powerful..why does he not take care of even his own?? I've seen a friend's life town apart for her belief in this shit, and her husband not believing. Why couldn't this "god" give to her husband this "faith" that she claims was given to her??

 

Not everyone here is atheist. Exchristian does not = atheist.

 

I don't know about Calvin peeing on the fish..Calvin peeing on Ford, that bothers me

[Guest college_kid215]

Also, for your post. I don't refer to atheists as immoral or whatever. Some theists are immoral. Atheists can be moral. And I don't call them gawd-haters or whatever. The abbreviation is fine. But given some of the other references to God/jesus/christianity on the site, I don't think its a form of abbreviation. I think it's a form of disrespect. WHICH IS OKAY considering this is an ex-christian site. But don't be afraid to admit it. I don't care either way.

 

Spammers?  I was just trying to be honest.  And it's not my school email anyway.  Thanks for the tip.  Anyway, how do you respond to this arguement.  And it may be flawed!  It may have a formal name or whatever.  Just want you view.  It relates to affirming atheism.

 

It says you can't affirm something in the absolute.  For example, it's not possible for atheists to say there is no god or never was a god.  In order to prove that, a person would have to be everywhere (to make sure god wasn't anywhere) all at once (to make sure god never existed) If someone was everywhere throughout time, he would be god. 

 

Again, this agruement may have a formal name and an appropriate response.  I am not using it to defend myself or accuse you.  Just curious about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Vixentrox]

By definition athesits are not god haters. Why hate what doesn't exist unless it's more an abstract hate? Like hating the idea of god or hating what his followers do.

[Alice]

I don't think anyone is 'afraid' to admit disrespect - when the intent is disrespect. I guess the abbreviations and the phrasing are representative of all kinds of different intent.

[Ouroboros]

Hello,

 

I am new here.  I am a junior at a liberal arts college.  I am a Christian and just had a few honest questions for everyone, perhaps you could clarify some of your positions.  I really don't want to start a harsh, mean debate.  I am looking for an honest intellectual discussion.

 

Let me just say also, that I tend to be more rational than other Christians.  (I know you probably think that is a silly statement)  But I don't rely on feelings or subjectivity to prove my faith.  Now, all theists have to eventually make a leap of faith.  But I would also say that all atheists have to make this leap as well.  A total committment to the belief or affirmation that there is absolutely no god is a jump too.  I think the most honest people are most likely agnostics.

 

Faith is subjective and emotional by definition, you can not escape that!

 

I realize that God may or may not exist.  If he does exist, no amount of science can disprove him to not exist.  Conversly, if he does not exist, no amount of faith can make him exist either.

 

So your faith is not based on facts but on a subjective decision after all.

 

I have noticed a harsh hostility towards Christianity from some atheists.  Hear me out before you critize.  I realize that Christianity is responsible for MANY deaths, atrocities, and crimes have been in the name of Christianity, and there is no excuse for that.  But let's not forget that crimes have occured under atheism as well, as in Stalin's Russia.  I realize that religion has hurt some of you, and for that I apologize.  Now with all that being said, I hope that will provide accurate background for my questions.

 

It’s because we get a very hostile and harsh attitude from some Christians, I admit, not everyone, but some. Like George W for instance, that calls non-believers (that’s us) being not patriots. That is very hash. And Ann Coulter says that the liberals and non-Christians are the enemies to the country. That is very HOSTILE to us! Duh!

 

Why do many of you write Xians?  How can it be difficult to write a simple name.  Especially since many of you believe he did not exist or was not who he said he was?  (I don't think it is out of respect either, as I have heard some explanations say.)  I can write Zeus, Mars, etc. without a problem.

 

Is there a hositilty toward a single religion or religion in general?  I realize this is a leading question in that I am assuming there is hostility toward religion.  But I do notice it.  For example, having the cartoon character Calvin peeing on a Jesus fish, and other disrespectful jabs directed mainly at Christianity. 

 

I guess that's enough for now.  If anyone wants to write me for a discussion of ideas, I'm at BMW890@yahoo.com.  Thanks

 

 

I know you don’t want to start an argument, but I do hurt a bit to hear that You Think We Should Follow Some Restrictions That You Have Set Up, While You Totally Ignore Any Wishes We Might Have!

 

I didn't know we needed your approval to use Xian or symbols that offend you.

There are Christian symbols and actions that offend me, so before you criticize, could you please ask us for approval for all your actions first?

 

Isn’t there a verse in the Bible about the stick in your brother’s eye, vs. the pole in your own?

 

What about the fish that eat the "Darwin" fish? That offends ME! Remove all of them before you start making commands!

 

Nick

 

Besides, isn't Nick an abbreviation of Nicholas?

And should we write "is not" instead of the contraction "isn't"?

Maybe we should go Orthodox here, and only write Jebus name in Greek or Latin?

Oh, I know, we’re not allowed to make fun of you, but You Are So Touchy And Sensitive!

[Guest MalaInSe]

Okay, I hate to play the debate game on message boards instead of honest discussions in emails. MalaInSe email me for my answer.  It's more constructive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I won't actually. You posted here and we responded. I have neither the time nor the inclination to carry on a private dialogue. Its a bit disingenuous to post your views in public on a debate board but then expect to correspond privately when others respond.

 

Respond here or not at all.

[Guest college_kid215]

lol...the point is, it is not for an abbreviation. That's all. And countless times, I have said, this is an ex-christian site, its okay if you do it! I don't care

 

I know you don’t want to start an argument, but I do hurt a bit to hear that You Think We Should Follow Some Restrictions That You Have Set Up, While You Totally Ignore Any Wishes We Might Have!

 

I didn't know we needed your approval to use Xian or symbols that offend you.

There are Christian symbols and actions that offend me, so before you criticize, could you please ask us for approval for all your actions first?

 

Isn’t there a verse in the Bible about the stick in your brother’s eye, vs. the pole in your own?

 

What about the fish that eat the "Darwin" fish? That offends ME! Remove all of them before you start making commands!

 

Besides, isn't Nick an abbreviation of Nicholas?

And should we write "is not" instead of the contraction "isn't"?

Maybe we should go Orthodox here, and only write Jebus name in Greek or Latin?

Oh, I know, we’re not allowed to make fun of you, but You Are So Touchy And Sensitive!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

...It relates to affirming atheism.

 

It says you can't affirm something in the absolute.  For example, it's not possible for atheists to say there is no god or never was a god.  In order to prove that, a person would have to be everywhere (to make sure god wasn't anywhere) all at once (to make sure god never existed) If someone was everywhere throughout time, he would be god. 

 

Welcome College Kid,

 

You may not be aware of it, but there are several "flavors" of atheism ranging from people who believe there can be no god(s), to those who don't believe in god(s) because they don't see the necessary evidence (but who are open to the idea that god(s) may exist.)

 

MalaInSe's attempt to get you to share your level of belief in pink unicorns is a way to help you see how many of us view the existence of god. You may believe that pink unicorns can't exist (then you'd be a strong a-unicornist.) You may think that there's a possibility that pink unicorns may exist somewhere, but you don't have any evidence to support that claim, so you don't believe in pink unicorns until their existence is proven otherwise. In that case you'd be a weak a-unicornist.

 

All flavors of atheist (and many non-christians who are agnostic or deist or of some other belief system) inhabit these forums.

 

Hopefully you can learn from us, and we can learn from you.

[Guest college_kid215]

Then I guess I won't answer your question. I post a question. You wanted to change the subject to something else. That's valid. But not in this message as it is only off topic and you only want to discount my beliefs. That's fine if you want to do that. But I would like to say on subject here. Thanks

 

I won't actually.  You posted here and we responded.  I have neither the time nor the inclination to carry on a private dialogue.  Its a bit disingenuous to post your views in public on a debate board but then expect to correspond privately when others respond.

 

Respond here or not at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest college_kid215]

Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.

 

 

Welcome College Kid,

 

You may not be aware of it, but there are several "flavors" of atheism ranging from people who believe there can be no god(s), to those who don't believe in god(s) because they don't see the necessary evidence (but who are open to the idea that god(s) may exist.)

 

MalaInSe's attempt to get you to share your level of belief in pink unicorns is a way to help you see how many of us view the existence of god.  You may believe that pink unicorns can't exist (then you'd be a strong a-unicornist.  You may think that there's a possibility that pink unicorns may exist somewhere, but you don't have any evidence to support that claim, so you don't believe in pink unicorns until their existence is proven otherwise.  In that case you'd be a weak a-unicornist.

 

All flavors of atheist (and many non-christians who are agnostic or deist or of some other belief system) inhabit these forums. 

 

Hopefully you can learn from us, and we can learn from you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[crazy-tiger]

Anyway, how do you respond to this arguement.  And it may be flawed!  It may have a formal name or whatever.  Just want you view.  It relates to affirming atheism.

 

It says you can't affirm something in the absolute.  For example, it's not possible for atheists to say there is no god or never was a god.  In order to prove that, a person would have to be everywhere (to make sure god wasn't anywhere) all at once (to make sure god never existed) If someone was everywhere throughout time, he would be god. 

 

Again, this agruement may have a formal name and an appropriate response.  I am not using it to defend myself or accuse you.  Just curious about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's an appropriate response...

 

Just as it's not possible for Atheists to say there is no god, it's not possible for a Theist to say there IS a god.

After all, in order to prove either claim "a person would have to be everywhere (to make sure god wasn't anywhere) all at once (to make sure god never existed) If someone was everywhere throughout time, he would be god."

 

That particular argument ruins the Theist's claim just as much as it ruins the Atheist's claim, yet most Theists don't even notice until it bites them on the arse.

 

Now, what Atheists CAN say is that they do not BELIEVE the Theistic claims that there is a god... Why? Because the Theist is trying to affirm something in the absolute, something that is impossible.

 

 

Meanwhile, any theist who persists in using that argument shows that they think it IS possible to affirm something in the absolute, which means they must believe any claim that god doesn't exist... since it is an absolute claim like the Theistic claim AND it had the same evidence to back it up.

[Ouroboros]

Also, for your post.  I don't refer to atheists as immoral or whatever.  Some theists are immoral.  Atheists can be moral.  And I don't call them gawd-haters or whatever.  The abbreviation is fine.  But given some of the other references to God/jesus/christianity on the site, I don't think its a form of abbreviation.  I think it's a form of disrespect.  WHICH IS OKAY considering this is an ex-christian site.  But don't be afraid to admit it.  I don't care either way.

 

Yes, you're right, we Should make a Blasphemy Law finally in this country.

 

Let's hang anyone that say anything disrespectful against YOUR God, but of course, only your god, not anyone elses, because you don't care about them, do you.

 

And Yes, I do it out of disrespect, of the simple reason, I feel free to do it.

 

May God burn you in hell for eternity, if you lie to me and say that you have NEVER made a joke about someone else. But of course, you never joke, because you have no humor.

[Guest college_kid215]

That's a very good answer! I hadn't thought of it that way. Thanks. And it makes sense.

 

Here's an appropriate response...

 

Just as it's not possible for Atheists to say there is no god, it's not possible for a Theist to say there IS a god.

After all, in order to prove either claim "a person would have to be everywhere (to make sure god wasn't anywhere) all at once (to make sure god never existed) If someone was everywhere throughout time, he would be god."

 

That particular argument ruins the Theist's claim just as much as it ruins the Atheist's claim, yet most Theists don't even notice until it bites them on the arse.

 

Now, what Atheists CAN say is that they do not BELIEVE the Theistic claims that there is a god... Why? Because the Theist is trying to affirm something in the absolute, something that is impossible.

Meanwhile, any theist who persists in using that argument shows that they think it IS possible to affirm something in the absolute, which means they must believe any claim that god doesn't exist... since it is an absolute claim like the Theistic claim AND it had the same evidence to back it up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Ro-bear]

Well, CK; mind if I call you CK? You've seen by now that some are atheists and some are not. Some are more hostile toward Christianity than others. You should always be prepared for hostility in an environment anathema to your worldview. Since you ask many of the same questions as your Christian predecessors, you may inherit some lingering resentment they earned when they showed up seeming earnest and left in a fit of invective.

 

Welcome to Ex-C. Hope you find your comfort zone. I'm patient enough to hang with the typical questions a Christian has for an atheist, if you're so inclined. Just give 'em in threes or fewer at a time so I can be lazy and others can respond.

[Guest college_kid215]

No that's fine, you are free to joke and make fun! THat's cool. I joke and make fun too. That's you're right. I just wanted you to say that the stuff was used as a joke and not abbreviation.

 

i think it's wrong to say that I have no humor either, or that theists have no humor. It's just as wrong for theists to say atheists are immoral. I don't like generalizations

 

 

Yes, you're right, we Should make a Blasphemy Law finally in this country.

 

Let's hang anyone that say anything disrespectful against YOUR God, but of course, only your god, not anyone elses, because you don't care about them, do you.

 

And Yes, I do it out of disrespect, of the simple reason, I feel free to do it.

 

May God burn you in hell for eternity, if you lie to me and say that you have NEVER made a joke about someone else. But of course, you never joke, because you have no humor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest college_kid215]

I agree. And some even write God's name in the tradition YHWH

 

Of course it's okay if we do it. :-)  However, for technical purposes his name is not Jesus but Yeshua, and God is not Jehovah, he's Yahweh or any other Hebrew, not greek name.  Technically speaking of course.  To many hard core Messianics, the use of "Jesus" is very offensive, especially coming from another "believer".  ;-)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Alice]

lol...the point is, it is not for an abbreviation.  That's all.  And countless times, I have said, this is an ex-christian site, its okay if you do it!  I don't care

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think you are in a position to say that 'it's not for an abbreviation' - in such a generalised way.

 

For some people - it IS an abbreviation - nothing more - nothing less. For others it may express the disrespect they are feeling.

 

And where this is the case ... you don't care - as you've pointed out countless times (although I think the number of times is quite countable) so ...

 

You seem to be saying 'own up - if it's not an abbreviation' - which is exactly what those who don't just use it as an abbreviation seem to do.

[Guest college_kid215]

Sure I don't mind being referred to by the say name as an underwear company. lol. Now, thanks for the message.

 

As a Christian, I apologize to anyone hear who had other christians offend them. I mean you no ill-will. Honestly.

 

Well, CK; mind if I call you CK? You've seen by now that some are atheists and some are not. Some are more hostile toward Christianity than others. You should always be prepared for hostility in an environment anathema to your worldview. Since you ask many of the same questions as your Christian predecessors, you may inherit some lingering resentment they earned when they showed up seeming earnest and left in a fit of invective.

 

Welcome to Ex-C. Hope you find your comfort zone. I'm patient enough to hang with the typical questions a Christian has for an atheist, if you're so inclined. Just give 'em in threes or fewer at a time so I can be lazy and others can respond. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest college_kid215]

Fair enough.

 

I don't think you are in a position to say that 'it's not for an abbreviation' - in such a generalised way.

 

For some people - it IS an abbreviation - nothing more - nothing less. For others it may express the disrespect they are feeling.

 

And where this is the case ... you don't care - as you've pointed out countless times (although I think the number of times is quite countable) so ...

 

You seem to be saying 'own up - if it's not an abbreviation' - which is exactly what those who don't just use it as an abbreviation seem to do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[crazy-tiger]

That's a very good answer!  I hadn't thought of it that way.  Thanks.  And it makes sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's truely amazing about my answer is I managed to stop myself from typing great quantities of curse words in response to seeing that same damn argument yet again.

 

I'll credit some of my restraint to the fact you were just asking about the argument, rather than trying to use it on us...

 

 

Meanwhile, because you are taking in what we have to say rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly, (we get an awful lot of that ) you have already earned more personal respect than most Christians we get here. (that is basically all of them, with the exceptions of Big Toe, SOIL, and TAP )

 

 

:edit: speaking of which... Hi TAP

[Ouroboros]

No that's fine, you are free to joke and make fun! THat's cool.  I joke and make fun too.  That's you're right.  I just wanted you to say that the stuff was used as a joke and not abbreviation. 

 

i think it's wrong to say that I have no humor either, or that theists have no humor.  It's just as wrong for theists to say atheists are immoral.  I don't like generalizations

 

You're exactly right, I don't like generalizations either. But we do get that a lot.

 

A Christian usually can't understand the concept of leaving Christianity, and I understand that, because I was Christian for 30 years, and a very devout and hard core, fundamentalist kind. I fasted, prayed in tongues and many other things.

 

In general, I'm not against religion at all. I believe some (a majority as a fact), need a religion to survive. But one day I lost My faith, and didn't need it anymore.

 

When I make jokes about Christianity, it's because now I can.

 

Today, my heart is free and at peace. It was such a relief to denounce my faith.

 

“My mind is my Bible, and my prayer is my thought.

Philosophy is my religion, and God is naught.”