Religious people don't just educate. They preach. They threaten with hell. They try to change laws to support their religion. Many times they even break the law to push their religion onto people.

I simply show them things in their religious text they may not know about. I would like to show every religious person in the world every horrible thing their own books advocate. Since I don't have a long enough life to accomplish this goal I will die trying.

Once I show someone the parts they may not know about and they no longer are receptive to a conversation I leave it alone. Which is infact the idea of the verse you referenced. Therefore, the both statements simultaneously possible and in fact part of each other.

Not trying to force my beliefs. Just trying to educate. If after being informed of what it is the bible says their beliefs change. Great. If not, so be it.

I wasn't trying to twist it at all. All I did was post another line from the same page. I think you misunderstood my intention.

None, I was just pointing out the inconsistencies. If everyone used that line you referenced the would would be a much better place.

HAHAHAHA I'm gonna have to save these. Thanks.

I'm not trying to change them. I'm trying to educate them. Though people do tend to change with more education.
I know many people that were fundamentalist that have changed their minds and much more.
I don't care what they believe except when their beliefs affect more than just them. Like for instance schools not teaching evolution to teach creationism as science. It's been a major issues in many places.

Which is exactly why I point it out every chance I get. Until they see the contradiction they can't change. I can't enlighten everyone, but I'll die trying.

I don't focus on the bad, but I can't just overlook it when there are people that use the bible as a justification for all their actions.

Oh I got your point. My point however, was to point out that you can take anything from the bible. It's a big book of multiple choice that few people really read.

Right, that sounds like a great way to live life. But on the same page it talks about killing family members. Which doesn't sound like a great way to live life.

Whenever someone quotes a bible passage I like to read the passage as well as some before and after to get the full context of the quote. It's amazing to me how many time I see something like Matthew 10:21 "“Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death." On the same page as the loving Jesus quotes they intended.

Yes, that was the reference. Though it is by no means the only one I could point to.

Anything that exist can be proven to exist.

Observation is a huge part of science. Much like studying apes in the wild you don't have to interact or induce anything. Just watch and see what happens. In fact, you are doing science wrong if you are inducing the outcome.

No, I'm saying if prayer worked then it would do statistically better than chance. Which it has failed over and over.

Are you saying god is just a concept? If so, then it doesn't matter if I believe it or not as it was made up to begin with. Just like every other concept out there.

So you are telling me that I should believe a claim made by person that has a history of lying without evidence? That would be completely illogical. Someone's character does not make their claim true or false. However, it can help or hurt their credibility. Even if it's the best person in the world, god existing would be an extraordinary claim. Like Carl Sagan said. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

Science has answered that one. The Tyrannosaurus Rex wish is almost an exact genetic match with chickens.

The fact of reality came first. We are just stumbling through time trying to figure out what the hell is going on. Religion came about as a way to explain things. However, some people realised saying god did it doesn't give you an real understanding of what is going on. Since humans are curious creatures we look for the answers. Science is nothing the than the proven method to get valid answers.

If that is the case, then there should be evidence of it somewhere. Maybe it's only a matter of time before we find it. Maybe we never will. Until we find some, then I'm not going to accept a claim without it.

Not in any foreseeable future. I would put that up there as a possibility on the same level as god existing. Though enough lack of evidence is a kind of evidence itself. Though, it is impossible to prove a negative.

I'm rather sure you have that backwards because of the lack of evidence for god's existence.

Do you have any evidence to back that claim up?

But at least she would know he exist. When you love someone you tend to want them to know you exist.

That is exactly what I have been attempting to do most of my life. Recognize reality for what it is. If that includes god. Fine, but I need evidence to make me believe it. Just like I didn't believe two objects of different sizes would fall to the ground and hit at the same time in a vacuum until it was shown to me.

One of my many goals in life is to rid myself of all false beliefs. That simply means I need evidence to believe anything. Since I have found none for god, I don't believe in god. Much like, I didn't find any evidence for the tooth fairy, so I don't believe in the tooth fairy.

I can't tell you how many times I have been told that if I try god will reveal himself.


Unique - Possibly
Universally acceptable entity - Nope


Nope


I have no idea. I'm not the one that thinks he exist, nor am I the one that thinks he has/will reveal himself, nor am I the one that thinks he wants to have a relationship with me.


Going with that logic, it would be god's will I don't believe in him. If that is the case then he should tell his followers to stop trying to convert me.

My statement here was on based on the accounts of the gods I have read about in many religious text over the years and about the god character in these text. For example, the bible says god is the highest good then he kills almost everyone on the planet. That is a combination of an absurdity, an immoral behavior, and a contradiction of himself. I would think that a book that is even inspired by god would be free of these contradictions.


I'm looking for anything that could not be explained by someone just writing a story.


I agree that god is used as an scapegoat. Of course the existence of god doesn't depend on what people do. However, when the people that are telling me god exist are the same people that treat others terribly it hurts the credibility of their claims.


Science is the only thing that has been proven time and time again to produce an accurate picture of reality. This is because of the self correcting nature of science. It would also stand to reason that any god that answers prayers would be messerable. Prayer could be shown to work statistically better than chance. However, when these studies have been done. Prayer does no better than chance.


Most of the time that doesn't happen when they have been raised to question and examine everything.


If god exist and wants to have a relationship with you. Wouldn't it make sense for him to first establish the fact that he exist?

Neither of your analogies are the same as what Mr. Dillahunty said. The child's parents have already been proven to exist as far as the child is concerned. Same goes for the toxic relationships analogy.

A closer analogy is like being in school and the boy that has never had a girlfriend says he has a girlfriend, but you wouldn't know her because she goes to another school. Then provides no other credible evidence. While it could be true, is anyone likely to believe him?

I can only comment on my own point of view and how I got to being an atheist.

First off, I do not discount the possibility of god. However, I have not seen any reason to believe in one.

I have studied religious text most of my life and I find constrictions, immoral behavior, and many just plain absurdities from god in all that I have studied. Therefore, I cannot believe in it.

I have researched all the known historical evidence of how the religious text I have studied came into being and how the came into use. I have not found evidence for any divine intervention with this research. Therefore, I cannot believe in it.

I look at history and see all the horrible things that have been done in the name of god. I look at current events and see all the horrible things that are currently being done in the name of god. Therefore, I cannot believe in it.

I look at every "scientific proof" of god's existence and find it to be deeply flawed to the point I cannot justify calling it science.

I talk to religious people and see that most of their beliefs come from one of two things.
1 - It's how they was raised and taught from a very young age.
2 - Personal revelation.
I have also found it is mainly a combination of both. While I was raised to believe in god, it fell apart when I studied. As for the personal revelation I think Matt Dillahunty summed it up much better than I ever could.


Since all other evidence has fallen short, I go with option 1.

I like the idea of birth control without parental consent in the case of condoms, birth control pills, and even the morning after pill. Teen pregnancies are not good for anyone involved and no one is going to be able to prevent them from having sex if they want to. Plus, very few of the teens having sex want to tell their parents about it. However, it's my understanding implants basically require surgery. In this case I would like to see parental consent required.

I don't understand why people would freak out about someone even as young as 7 or 8 getting any type of hormonal birth control. The same hormones that prevent pregnancy is also used to treat many issues with menstrual cycles. Some girls start their cycles as early as 7 years old. Therefore, they could be getting treatments for some issue with their cycle at the same age.

Ah but it doesn't say the punishment is death. It said they are to be put to death. Therefore, it says they should be killed.


Anyway, the whole rambling conversation comes down to the fact that Kim Davis is refusing to do her job (breaking the law in the process) and still wants her paycheck. Booo Hooo

This conversation is becoming filled with more and more logical fallacies, it's starting to make me nauseous. So I leave you to whatever beliefs you have, thoughts you call reality, and happiness you may find.

I have read it, many, many times in fact. I do believe I may have read it a bit more closely than you have.

"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13


Sure, let's see what he said about the old laws....

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17

A couple only gets an annulment when one is requested. It's never imposed. Therefore, sex isn't a requirement of marriage.


Well, they feel as if they should marry the person they are in love with.


So you are saying acting on a feeling is wrong. Nice to know.


That is only after she tried to only issue licenses to htrosexral couples and got informed that discrimination is also illegal.


Could you marry someone if you are not attracted to them?


No one is forcing anyone to do anything. No one is saying people have to be silent. People can protest all they want.


You are not forced to be anything except a law abiding citizen.

The Bible, that's where the extremes came from. Maybe you should read it if you want to call yourself a christian.