A Christian becomes a nonbeliever

[setarcos]

Not a very sound opinion since there is nothing to disprove of the belief that a creator exists.

And yet atheists use a lack of proof as proof of lack. Oh atheists might say they don't have a belief about god/gods but their books, speeches, phrases, and quotes belie the fact that they do. I think we've went through this before. Apparently I've failed to convince you.
Proofs are lacking. Atheists seem to not get that that fact is an inherent condition of the creative act. If you don't believe in order to understand as the saying goes there is no way to prove anything. That's why any considerations of reality by human beings can only result in theory. Facts may be proven to an extent but reality is ultimately an act of faith.
What we are left with is evidences. However whenever someone offers potential evidence an atheist will discount that evidence as coincidence, purely natural phenomena, or as yet unknown natural phenomena even though that evidence is more easily explained by an intelligently designed creation.
There is evidences from eyewitness testimony, statistical analysis, probability theory, apparent design in nature, and information theory and its application to an analysis of the information contained in the DNA molecule. Heck, the fact that we're here at all discussing religion and God/gods and even our most advanced scientific theories find it hard not to incorporate supernatural like concepts and phrases into their models of reality which is not so easily explained away by natural evolutionary processes is evidence to me personally that there is more than naturally meets the eye here. These are evidences not proofs yet atheists always seem to jump to "if you have no proof" you have nothing. I suppose its not their fault since there are many ignorant believers who don't represent belief in the best light. I chalk that up to the human condition of fallibility.
Anyways atheists simply disregard all eyewitness testimony since its known some people have been mistaken and people can be made to be deceived in controlled laboratory conditions, they disregard statistical analysis as an evolutionary aberration, they disregard probability as coincidence or mere synchronicity of natural origin, because we've figured out how DNA does what it does they disregard the improbabilities of the formation of the informational content contained within said molecules as a merely incredibly fortuitous evolutionary byproduct.
When they ask for a theory that predicts - intelligent design predicts all these things as to be expected - they disregard what's offered because its not a proof and they have alternate theories to consider.
Every time an atheist claims no evidence is presented they move the goal posts when evidence is presented.
Apparently atheists don't get that they've set the rules to automatically be biased against a purposeful creation.
Why would it be surprising that creation works and seems to work on its own without a creator if there were a creator? If there is a creator it shouldn't be surprising that its creation actually functions as designed should it? But here comes the arrogance of man to declare "look, we think we've figured out how nature works so that's evidence that no creator is needed." Lets just ignore the fact that the way nature works has been incredibly fine tuned and amazingly fortuitous for our own development and that's just the parts of reality that science can shed light on.
IF there is a creator God its evidence will be found first and foremost in the incredible parts of nature and the hearts of mankind not in its demonstrable workings. And then only if/when that God wills his proven existence not his theoretical possibility.

There are over 200 creator gods in human lore and there is no substantive evidence for any of them.

Well...lol. As I've said....

I'm curious, in your opinion what creator god has been proven that anyone can try to disprove?

Why do you ask for proof when not even science can offer you proofs of its own conjectures about reality?
Religious evidences....okay, proofs, no.
I'd say that if a God has said to be proven one might be able to disprove that proposition with a simple counterargument.
I believe in the possibility of a creator God based upon the evidences I mentioned. Whether or not it does exist or it is the Abrahamic God only time will tell I suppose. Until then I cannot betray my own feelings if I am to be true to the self.

What atheists do is challenge and critique religious claims,

Only by rigging the game. Like insisting they have no beliefs about the existence of God/Gods, moving the goal posts for evidences, or insisting that a working creation is evidential proof of an uncreated creation.

Like your example here you overstate your position and it was easy to spot as an error.

It was an opinion. And that opinion was based upon reason. That reason is based upon my experience with atheists and what they say in approaching these subjects.
I think this is going to go no where...again but I'll give it a go,

Atheists claim to have no beliefs concerning these matters.
You cannot challenge and critique a claim without having a belief from which to base your challenge and/or critique upon.
Let me give you an example of an actual logical error,
You've said there is nothing to disprove of the belief of a creator God.
So what is it your challenging or critiquing?

Think about this...how many theists come on here and their whole argument is "Its been proven that God exists." without offering anything further - ?
Lets presume most don't just stop at that statement and offer some sort of attempt at presenting evidence.
An atheist will naturally do what you said...critique and challenge that evidence. At what point do you consider that evidence proof? You would probably use some sort of probability curve since that's all you can do. That's all science can do since it pretty much considers -currently- that we live in a probability governed universe.

I believe religion begins in the heart - emotional center and ends there as well. A religious person may say, that's evidence enough for me based on his "feelings" and how they reasonably fit that evidence into their belief system -There are those that follow their feelings regardless of reasoning but lets discard them since scripture warns against doing that -
that doesn't make them wrong or right on its own. When evidence is reasonable, feelings carry the day supplemented by reason. In other words their feelings dictate the use of their reason.

I also believe atheism arises in the heart and can end there as well. The difference in my opinion is atheists will attempt to diminish the influence of their feelings in the equation by equating them with their reason.
So in the case of atheists, where evidence isn't acceptable proof, their feelings dictate the use of that evidence - though they may insist it doesn't - which usually is to err on the side of a non-existent God/gods.
Atheistic belief is formulated by how they use evidence. Evidence that can support intelligent design or support purely probabilistic natural processes.

In MY OPINION, atheists are hiding from the fact that they too have established beliefs on these matters and those beliefs are based on a lifetime of emotional influences and biases. Those that insistently claim to have no belief concerning God/gods and are subject to no feelings concerning those things are potentially lying to others or at the very least to themselves.

That being said, Hope you have or are having a wonderful day.

 

[F1fan]

No, it is not dependent upon the opinion of the one evaluating it. This is a key point. So when atheists say "that's not evidence" to the evidence I present, that is only their opinion but that does not mean the evidence is not valid, for what it is trying to prove

Then if it is evidence that can’t be agreed upon then : 1. Who is doing the evaluation and are they following the rules of evidence? 2. Is something questionable about the evidence, like sloppy blood collection at a crime scene.

If we have an interest in truth and that assessment comes from evidence then how a person approaches evidence is crucial. What you think evidence is for your beliefs is questionable to skilled thinkers. This not only renders your beliefs dubious but also indicates you aren’t a critical thinker.

Yes, you can show me some things. If you say you have a brand new red car, you can show me the car, and that is the 'evidence' that you have a car.
Sorry, but that kind of evidence dos not exist for religious truth, for OBVIOUS logical reasons.
If you thought about it you would understand why.

However, the LACK of demonstrable evidence does not mean a religion is not true.

Reasoning works towards an affirmative conclusion and requires conclusive evidence. No one assumes a conclusion is true before evidence is presented and it is exceptional. Religious claims fail this. We don’t assume religious claims are true by default.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No one assumes a conclusion is true before evidence is presented and it is exceptional. Religious claims fail this. We don’t assume religious claims are true by default.

They all fail ACCORDING TO YOU.
We all evaluate according to our experience, and we are all individuals..
..not automatons, with no distinction between them.

 

[Trailblazer]

They all fail ACCORDING TO YOU.
We all evaluate according to our experience, and we are all individuals..
..not automatons, with no distinction between them.

That is not to mention that according to religious believers the evidence that is presented is exceptional, and that is why we believe what we do.
So religious claims do not fail FOR US.

 

[F1fan]

And yet atheists use a lack of proof as proof of lack.

This is a typical religious gripe. Atheists tend to be skilled thinkers and the method means following the rules of logic and debate. In no case are ideas supposed to be treated as true, and then evidence searched for in support of it. Even in law defendants are presumed innocent and guilt is affirmed with evidence.

Oh atheists might say they don't have a belief about god/gods but their books, speeches, phrases, and quotes belie the fact that they do. I think we've went through this before. Apparently I've failed to convince you.

That's what happens when you lack evidence and a coherent argument.

Proofs are lacking. Atheists seem to not get that that fact is an inherent condition of the creative act. If you don't believe in order to understand as the saying goes there is no way to prove anything. That's why any considerations of reality by human beings can only result in theory. Facts may be proven to an extent but reality is ultimately an act of faith.

Attempting to muddle the discussion by smuggling in the word faith. That's also a common religious tactic.
if you need to use tricky language then you have awareness of lacking adequate and substantive evidence for your beliefs.

What we are left with is evidences. However whenever someone offers potential evidence an atheist will discount that evidence as coincidence, purely natural phenomena, or as yet unknown natural phenomena even though that evidence is more easily explained by an intelligently designed creation.

What is potential evidence? It certainly isn't actual evidence.

There is evidences from eyewitness testimony, statistical analysis, probability theory, apparent design in nature, and information theory and its application to an analysis of the information contained in the DNA molecule. Heck, the fact that we're here at all discussing religion and God/gods and even our most advanced scientific theories find it hard not to incorporate supernatural like concepts and phrases into their models of reality which is not so easily explained away by natural evolutionary processes is evidence to me personally that there is more than naturally meets the eye here. These are evidences not proofs yet atheists always seem to jump to "if you have no proof" you have nothing. I suppose its not their fault since there are many ignorant believers who don't represent belief in the best light. I chalk that up to the human condition of fallibility.

In the end you still need evidence. Theists don't have it.

Anyways atheists simply disregard all eyewitness testimony since its known some people have been mistaken and people can be made to be deceived in controlled laboratory conditions, they disregard statistical analysis as an evolutionary aberration, they disregard probability as coincidence or mere synchronicity of natural origin, because we've figured out how DNA does what it does they disregard the improbabilities of the formation of the informational content contained within said molecules as a merely incredibly fortuitous evolutionary byproduct.

None of this is factual. You are just making accusations and offer no evidence.

When they ask for a theory that predicts - intelligent design predicts all these things as to be expected - they disregard what's offered because its not a proof and they have alternate theories to consider.

Intelligent design is deliberate fraud. It isn't science.

Every time an atheist claims no evidence is presented they move the goal posts when evidence is presented.

Another unfounded accusation. This is projection of what some disingenuous believers do in religious debate as a means to confuse terms, like the word faith, which has numerous meanings. These debates are always a case of believers having to argue for their fantastic beliefs, and sometimes use tricks to get out of sticky situations.

Apparently atheists don't get that they've set the rules to automatically be biased against a purposeful creation.

Which atheists, and what rules? I've never heard of these as an atheist. Explain the bias, and use facts, not more unfounded accusations.

Why would it be surprising that creation works and seems to work on its own without a creator if there were a creator?

All you have to do is learn what science reports. That explains what we understand of how things are.

If there is a creator ...

Good for you acknowledging there are no creators known to exist.

...it shouldn't be surprising that its creation actually functions as designed should it?

Would you say children developing cancers and dying is a designed function? If so, what is this function, and why target children? If the creator is moral, explain the morality of torturing chldren before they die in pain.

But here comes the arrogance of man to declare "look, we think we've figured out how nature works so that's evidence that no creator is needed." Lets just ignore the fact that the way nature works has been incredibly fine tuned and amazingly fortuitous for our own development and that's just the parts of reality that science can shed light on.

Following facts and data is not arrogance.

Arrogance is religious people who think their religious assumptions are superior to what science can reveal about the universe. Religious believers don't have facts to offer, so the assumptions are irrelevant.

IF there is a creator God its evidence will be found first and foremost in the incredible parts of nature and the hearts of mankind not in its demonstrable workings. And then only if/when that God wills his proven existence not his theoretical possibility.

Well, find some facts, and make sure your search isn't tainted by your religious beliefs, as that would be bias.

 

[F1fan]

They all fail ACCORDING TO YOU.

Critical thinkers. You religious believers don't have evidence that can even convince other believers, why expect critical thinkers to be impressed?

We all evaluate according to our experience, and we are all individuals..
..not automatons, with no distinction between them.

I suggest religious believers are a sort of zombie, in that you defer many decisions to what your religion dictates, thus you don't have to think for yourself. You may act cruelly against your wife by forcing sex, but to you you are justified under your religion and don't have to feel anything for her fear and pain. We see a lot of religious people emotionally detached from the harm they cause others. Maybe they are naturally bad people, but religion certainly doesn't make them good. It makes them dangerous.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Critical thinkers. You religious believers don't have evidence that can even convince other believers, why expect critical thinkers to be impressed?

What you wrote in your response reminds me of I wrote yesterday in another thread.

Yes, that is correct. It is also worth noting that Christians do not agree on whether salvation is unconditional or not, although they are all reading the same Bible. The same is true for baptism, female pastors, the end times, whether human spirits immediately face God's judgment after death, whether Christians are immediately in the presence of Jesus after death, or if all souls (Christian or not) sleep in their graves until they're resurrected on an alleged Judgment Day. They even argue about whether Jesus' mother remained a virgin after giving birth to him or if she had other children after him. The irony is that they all believe that they are correct about their beliefs and everyone else (including other Christians) is wrong about theirs, but then they all have the audacity to claim that the Bible is the word of God and Christianity is the only true religion in the world. In my opinion, there's no reason to believe any of them.

Save your breath and stop preaching, because you are barking up the wrong tree. You are speaking your truth; Trailblazer and other Baháʼí speak their truth; Muslims speak their truth; Jews speak their truth; and Christians speak their truth, despite the fact that they contradict each other even though they read the same Bible. The irony is that all of these people will claim that their truth is the sole truth and that everyone who believes differently is wrong.

I suggest religious believers are a sort of zombie, in that you defer many decisions to what your religion dictates, thus you don't have to think for yourself. You may act cruelly against your wife by forcing sex, but to you you are justified under your religion and don't have to feel anything for her fear and pain. We see a lot of religious people emotionally detached from the harm they cause others. Maybe they are naturally bad people, but religion certainly doesn't make them good. It makes them dangerous.

Yes, many times that happens to religious believers.

 

[F1fan]

Why do you ask for proof when not even science can offer you proofs of its own conjectures about reality?

So you admit you have no evidence of a creator. That is irrelevant to anything else, you have no evidence, so why accuse atheists of being atheists?

I'd say that if a God has said to be proven one might be able to disprove that proposition with a simple counterargument.

Believers have no such evidence, not even close. So why bring it up?

I believe in the possibility of a creator God based upon the evidences I mentioned. Whether or not it does exist or it is the Abrahamic God only time will tell I suppose. Until then I cannot betray my own feelings if I am to be true to the self.

Who cares what you believe? If you are going to bring it up you had better bring some evidence that shows it is a rational thing to believe. You didn't.

Only by rigging the game. Like insisting they have no beliefs about the existence of God/Gods, moving the goal posts for evidences, or insisting that a working creation isvidential proof of an uncreated creation.

Yeah, believers have no evidence and are upset that their beliefs aren't accepted as true.

It was an opinion. And that opinion was based upon reason. That reason is based upon my experience with atheists and what they say in approaching these subjects.
I think this is going to go no where...again but I'll give it a go,

You aren't using reason. Reasoning requires facts, and you admit you have none. What you "experience" as a believer is better explained as fantasies you create by making religious assumptions. Muslims will have Muslim experiences, Christians will have Christian experiences.

Atheists claim to have no beliefs concerning these matters.

There are categories of atheists, but for the most part atheists are indifferent to religious concepts and claims.

You cannot challenge and critique a claim without having a belief from which to base your challenge and/or critique upon.

Wrong. If someone claims the earth is flat the response isn't a belief that the earth is round, the earth IS round and flat earthers lack evidence to dispute this fact. Why they believe a falsehood is more of a psychologoical issue, not about reason and debate. Religion has a protected status because it is so prevalent and has such a strong cultural influence, but it's much the same thing. Since Galileo observations and science has been whittling away the assumptions of traditional religions, and that continues to this day. These discussions reveal the resistence and discomfort believers have in a world where reason works better than faith.

Let me give you an example of an actual logical error,
You've said there is nothing to disprove of the belief of a creator God.
So what is it your challenging or critiquing?

You brought up that atheists try to disprove a creator, and this wording suggests that creators are likely to exist due to adequate evidence, and atheists try to disprove it. But creators raen't proven. There's nothing to disprove since creator gods are mere religious assumptions and claims, not evidenced to any significance.

Think about this...how many theists come on here and their whole argument is "Its been proven that God exists." without offering anything further - ?

Well you have covered the "without offering anything further" part. I notice thus far you have gripes and complaints against atheists, but offer no argument for why you are correct in your religious beliefs.

Lets presume most don't just stop at that statement and offer some sort of attempt at presenting evidence.
An atheist will naturally do what you said...critique and challenge that evidence. At what point do you consider that evidence proof? You would probably use some sort of probability curve since that's all you can do. That's all science can do since it pretty much considers -currently- that we live in a probability governed universe.

Well I'm not sure why you are questioning this. The legal system has a good standard for evidence, and that works for debate too. Theists can't win by this standard.

I believe religion begins in the heart - emotional center and ends there as well. A religious person may say, that's evidence enough for me based on his "feelings" and how they reasonably fit that evidence into their belief system -There are those that follow their feelings regardless of reasoning but lets discard them since scripture warns against doing that -
that doesn't make them wrong or right on its own. When evidence is reasonable, feelings carry the day supplemented by reason. In other words their feelings dictate the use of their reason.

Humans are capable of thinking for themselves, and learning to be mature adults. Religion does satisfy the primal urge to belong to a tribe, but with more options available to young people there is less interest in religion.

I also believe atheism arises in the heart and can end there as well. The difference in my opinion is atheists will attempt to diminish the influence of their feelings in the equation by equating them with their reason.

Why do you believe this? Explain, and use facts, not more belief.

So in the case of atheists, where evidence isn't acceptable proof, their feelings dictate the use of that evidence - though they may insist it doesn't - which usually is to err on the side of a non-existent God/gods.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, what evidence are you referring to?

Atheistic belief is formulated by how they use evidence. Evidence that can support intelligent design or support purely probabilistic natural processes.

What "atheistic belief"?

In MY OPINION, atheists are hiding from the fact that they too have established beliefs on these matters and those beliefs are based on a lifetime of emotional influences and biases.

You didn't fully explain what you think the biases are, or the influences that are supposedly negative and atheistic. Are you being vague deliberately?

Those that insistently claim to have no belief concerning God/gods and are subject to no feelings concerning those things are potentially lying to others or at the very least to themselves.

In what way? Do you think this applies to you and things you don't believe in, like Santa Claus?

 

[Trailblazer]

Proofs are lacking. Atheists seem to not get that that fact is an inherent condition of the creative act. If you don't believe in order to understand as the saying goes there is no way to prove anything. That's why any considerations of reality by human beings can only result in theory. Facts may be proven to an extent but reality is ultimately an act of faith.
What we are left with is evidences.

So you admit you have no evidence of a creator. That is irrelevant to anything else, you have no evidence, so why accuse atheists of being atheists?

No, @setarcos did not admit there is no evidence.
@setarcos said that proofs are lacking but we do have evidence.
He is saying exactly what I have been saying for years on this forum.

 

[F1fan]

No, @setarcos did not admit there is no evidence.
@setarcos said that proofs are lacking but we do have evidence.
He is saying exactly what I have been saying for years on this forum.

Lots of words, none of it explaining evidence for a creator.

 

[Trailblazer]

Lots of words, none of it explaining evidence for a creator.

That was not what this post was for.
I could explain the evidence but I see no reason to do that again since the evidence I present has already been rejected so many times.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it is not dependent upon the opinion of the one evaluating it. This is a key point. So when atheists say "that's not evidence" to the evidence I present, that is only their opinion but that does not mean the evidence is not valid, for what it is trying to prove.

True. The thing is, that's not all they say. They, well, *I* at least, will also explain why it's not valid evidence.
But conveniently you always ignore those parts.

Yes, you can show me some things.

Because valid evidence is demonstrable.

If you say you have a brand new red car, you can show me the car, and that is the 'evidence' that you have a car.
Sorry, but that kind of evidence dos not exist for religious truth, for OBVIOUS logical reasons.
If you thought about it you would understand why.

I understand why. Because you have nothing but hearsay. This is why you require faith.
Faith is what you need when you don't have demonstrable evidence.

However, the LACK of demonstrable evidence does not mean a religion is not true.

I never said it is. What it does mean, is that there's no evidence based rational reason to believe it is true.
And that's what this conversation is about: the lack of sufficient reasonable evidence, which is why you require "faith" instead.
And your insistence that you have valid evidence, while now you seem to be admitting that you don't.

It is either true or not, and evidence is not what MAKES any religion true. Verifiable evidence is only WHAT SOME PEOPLE WANT,

It's what rational, reasonable people want. What skeptical thinkers want. What people want who actually think it is important to be rationally justified in what they accept as true or not.

but we don't always get what we want, so we have to settle for another kind of evidence or forget about believing in the religion.

People who "settle" for bad evidence are people who want to believe. Correct.
Finally, we are getting somewhere. I don't "want" to believe. Instead, I want to be rationally justified in my beliefs.
Reality doesn't care what I "want" to be true. What I "want" to be true is irrelevant to what is actually true. It is irrelevant to being rationally justified in believing what is true.

I place very high value in rational justification for my beliefs.
That is my standard for belief.

It's likely also your standard for belief concerning most, if not all, subjects aside of your religion that you want to believe.

Sorry, as I just said, there is no such demonstrable data for religions.

As I have been saying all along.

Of course not, so the fact that you and other atheists don't "believe" the evidence I present has no bearing on whether it is evidence for what I am trying to prove.

It has. As you have just acknowledged in the rest of your post.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is not to mention that according to religious believers the evidence that is presented is exceptional, and that is why we believe what we do.

Thousands of mutually exclusive religion.
Even more denominations between them.

All of which claim to have "exceptional evidence". None of which agree with eachother.

You can't all be right.
But you can all be wrong.
And considering the common baseline of appeal to such "exceptional evidence", without any cross agreement, it seems incredibly likely that in fact you are all wrong.

You all suffer from the same reasoning error.

So religious claims do not fail FOR US.

Yes, as said: the religious claims never fail for the followers of that particular religion, yet fail for everyone else - including followers of other religions.

Conversely, claims of relativistic effects in GPS satellites, fail for nobody

I'll let you decide which is the better standard for reaching accurate answers to questions.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We see a lot of religious people emotionally detached from the harm they cause others..

What a pointless remark.
We see people in general, causing harm to others.

We only need to go back to the World wars, to see why Muslims might be feeling antagonised
by the West. It has more to do with sovereignty than religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What a pointless remark.
We see people in general, causing harm to others.

We only need to go back to the World wars, to see why Muslims might be feeling antagonised
by the West. It has more to do with sovereignty than religion.

"only"? That was almost a century ago.

Japan received 2 nukes on their heads.
Germany was bombed into smithereens.

Why aren't they feeling "antagonised"?

Perhaps the problem here is the victim complex?

Maybe muslims should be feeling more antagonised by the brutal mysoginistc dictators that rule their islamic theocracies with a medieval iron fist, instead of the west where they are free to live their lives as they see fit - like you in the UK. You of all people should know. Clearly you don't think life is so bad here in the west, or so much better back there in the theocratic hellholes. Why else would you not move there...

 

[muhammad_isa]

Clearly you don't think life is so bad here in the west, or so much better back there in the theocratic hellholes. Why else would you not move there...

You well know that people in many Muslim countries are so impoverished, that
they seek citizenship in the West.

..so suggesting that I would be better off living as an immigrant is ridiculous.

 

[F1fan]

That was not what this post was for.

It was for more nonsense that doesn't include evidence for any supernatural beings. @setarcos wrote a long post that was little more than accusations against atheists that presumed his form of theism is correct. As I explained that is pretty poor debating, but what else do believers have when they lack evidence for their beliefs and claims?

I could explain the evidence but I see no reason to do that again since the evidence I present has already been rejected so many times.

Thanks for not repeating your beliefs. Your evidence is weak and insufficient.

 

[F1fan]

Thousands of mutually exclusive religion.
Even more denominations between them.

All of which claim to have "exceptional evidence". None of which agree with eachother.

You can't all be right.
But you can all be wrong.
And considering the common baseline of appeal to such "exceptional evidence", without any cross agreement, it seems incredibly likely that in fact you are all wrong.

You all suffer from the same reasoning error.

It's more bluffing. She admits to having insufficient evidence for critical thinkers, and then given that fact she stamps an "exceptional" label on it as if that suddenly improves the weak evidence. To my mind that suggests as sort of reactionary fraud by believers.

What astounds me is why believe in a religion at all if it doesn't improve the self's thinking, balance, maturity, openness, compassion, wisdom, stability, etc.? When religious belief becomes little more than an empty shell for the ego then we see poor character traits emerge. The title of this thread is "A Christian become a nonbeliever" and I can see why good, mature, stable, and rational people will not be attracted to many popular religious ideologies. These can demand the person sacrifice virtues and self-reliance to a degree that believers are little more than compliant zombies. The arguments against religion are the believers themselves. I think the more in-tune and wise avoid the forums. Those who are comfortable in their faith don't need to argue for its validity to others.

 

[F1fan]

You well know that people in many Muslim countries are so impoverished, that
they seek citizenship in the West.

Impoverished due to their human rights violations and antagonism against democracy and freedom. Blame the Muslims running the theocracy.

..so suggesting that I would be better off living as an immigrant is ridiculous.

Middle Eastern immigrants come to England and can manage, but you don't have the chops to immigrate to a Muslim theocracy?

You accuse the West as being too violent, but do you think Muslim theocracies are less violent? You avoid these questions.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Middle Eastern immigrants come to England and can manage..

..just deflection from the issue, and making personal comments.
Where I live is irrelevant.