Why religious forums ?

[SalixIncendium]

NO evidence of God's existence has ever been provided to any atheist. But, still they enjoy taking interest in religious talks.

Why is this a problem for you?

 

[Roguish]

Says the one who attacked my avatar (then politely suggested you were not attacking my avatar)

That's very unfair. Please copy and paste our entire private conversation about your avatar here, so that others can read it and decide for themselves if I attacked it.

In general it's terrible manners to reference private conversations in public threads.

 

[ChristineM]

That's very unfair. Please copy and paste our entire private conversation about your avatar here, so that others can read it and decide for themselves if I attacked it.

In general it's terrible manners to reference private conversations in public threads.

Have you read the forum guidelines regarding showing private messages? You want to post publicly feel free to do so, you have copies of exactly the same conversation.

You questioned my use of my avatar several times even after i gave you a full and friendly explanation you implied some other secret nefarious motive. I considered it aggressive.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Great question, but no, the answers aren't as pretty as the two you suggest.

No, it is a silly loaded question, and not an open one such that would could expect a ranger of replies reflecting the real reasons why many are here.

The truthful answer is that atheism is inherently "aggressive", so atheists look for a battle field where they may attack believers. Atheists cannot live without believers, for the attack on belief and believers is the assertive act that gives them their sense of existence. It is unavoidable therefore, that they come to places where believers congregate, such as a religious forum.

Your truth perhaps - having your own subset of such apparently. Atheism is mostly neutral - but perhaps some atheists are as aggressive as any of those with religious beliefs. Fair? You are having a laugh - atheists cannot exist without believers - what do you expect for every proposal in existence? Not to have such so that all are believers? You amaze me! My sense of existence depends on being alive - nothing more.

The converse is, of course, not true at all: believers can exist fine without atheists because they don't have the slightest need of atheists to define themselves. This isn't just a behavioral observation; it goes all the way down to the ontological difference between belief and atheism. Belief (in the religious sense) is a cognitive mode, while atheism is a thought construct. The mistake that atheists make is to assume that belief is a thought construct as well, and that therefore atheism can be pitched against belief, and possibly emerge victorious. But atheism cannot battle belief, in the same way that sound cannot drown out color. The two lie in different domains.

Nothing but meaningless words here. Atheism is purely a reaction to some proposals for which they find no evidence to believe such. You can't even recognise your own arrogance - and no surprise of course.

Of course atheists will not (and cannot) recognize their own aggressiveness. Since they are alienated from the cognitive mode that is belief, they live out of thought constructs only. In that unintuitive, overly mental world, artifical notions such as "civility", "reasonableness", and "scientificness" become the standards for "kindness". And thus the atheist obtains his excuse: "I am not aggressive at all, I have a right to be here (i.e. on the religious platform) because I am civil and reasonable."

Perhaps those who believe in the numerous religions might question their own arrogance first - since atheism is a reaction to such mainly - their positing a God or gods.

The more puzzling thing is this: Why do believers feel that must tolerate atheists among themselves? If someone who disliked tennis joined a tennis club and started holding forth about his dislike, he'd be removed from the club. No debates, no violence, no big scenes, just excluded. But strangely believers can't seem to find the courage to do this. Or as an alternative explanation, perhaps we should wonder if the ones who run these "religious forums" are themselves not believers?

Oh, the coup de grace - one can't even tolerate opposition. Says it all about some. (Not from Russia are you?)

 

[Roguish]

You want to post publicly feel free to do so, you have copies of exactly the same conversation.

Our private convo, alluded to by you, and posted here to exonerate myself:

Roguish: Why is your profile picture a skull?
ChristineM: It's important... I have done several posts about it, here is one
Roguish: Hmm... In that post you explain what the skull is, etc., but you don't really explain what it means to you, and why you would have it "represent" you visually on this forum.
ChristineM: Actually i do, i discovered it, a once in a lifetime find that is treasured by archaeologists and is on display at the worlds leading museum of pre-history. I don't think there are many avatars on here that personally mean so much to the member. Certainly more than a green blob in my opinion
Roguish: Yes, you explained that it means much to you because you found it. But my question is what does it mean to you? What does a skull mean? Anyway, I don't mean to be pushy about it. If you feel you've said what there is to say about the matter, that's okay. Thanks.
ChristineM: It means i am proud that i found it, no ulterior motive.​

(Underline added.)

* * *

So basically I asked, you answered, I inquired further, you answered again, then I ended by saying I didn't mean to be pushy about it.

As I said: it's terrible manners to reference private conversations in public threads. I've never encountered this on any other forum, ever, not even in the most antagonistic conversations.

 

[Roguish]

it is a silly loaded question

What would be the point of "unloaded" questions?

 

[Mock Turtle]

What would be the point of "unloaded" questions?

If you don't know the answer to that then it might explain where you are at.

 

[chinu]

Or to learn what makes theists tick?

If so, then wake up, because you learning this since 2016.
And your atheist friends might be worried for you, Perhaps they might be thinking that you will never return because you turned theist

 

[ChristineM]

Our private convo, alluded to by you, and posted here to exonerate myself:

Roguish: Why is your profile picture a skull?
ChristineM: It's important... I have done several posts about it, here is one
Roguish: Hmm... In that post you explain what the skull is, etc., but you don't really explain what it means to you, and why you would have it "represent" you visually on this forum.
ChristineM: Actually i do, i discovered it, a once in a lifetime find that is treasured by archaeologists and is on display at the worlds leading museum of pre-history. I don't think there are many avatars on here that personally mean so much to the member. Certainly more than a green blob in my opinion
Roguish: Yes, you explained that it means much to you because you found it. But my question is what does it mean to you? What does a skull mean? Anyway, I don't mean to be pushy about it. If you feel you've said what there is to say about the matter, that's okay. Thanks.
ChristineM: It means i am proud that i found it, no ulterior motive.​

(Underline added.)

* * *

So basically I asked, you answered, I inquired further, you answered again, then I ended by saying I didn't mean to be pushy about it.

As I said: it's terrible manners to reference private conversations in public threads. I've never encountered this on any other forum, ever, not even in the most antagonistic conversations.

To breakdown the chain of conversation from my point of view

You asked
I answered
There the conversation should have ended

You gave a dismissive hmm and asked again dismissing my reply
I answered again stating why it was important to be which was already explained in the link i provided

Again you queried my reply. Presumably because it did not gel with your expectations. After asking the same question twice, you again go onto dissing my reasons and, maybe because you realised you were being aggressive you stated you did not mean to be pushy while attempting to diminish what i had repeatedly said.
I gave one last, short answer.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There are many interesting NON-RELIGIOUS-FORUMS out there on internet. Atheists come on RF to:

• To teach theists ?
• Or, they have room for the existence of God somewhere in their heart ?

The only forums that are specific to religions (therefore this question would be more appropriate) would be the DIRS not "general" religious forums.

Religion doesn't refer to belief in god (so no need to be a theist), so the question isnt appropriate.

 

[chinu]

When the most important election on the planet is heavily influenced by whether or not you believe in a god (in particular the Christian one) it is important that non-believers understand religions and their followers.

Wake-up! because that's what these dirty politician want. Politicians are politicians, they are neither interested in theism or in atheism. They are simply interested in winning.

All they want is.. that non-believers may go and understand religions and their followers. On the other hand they boost believers to go and understand non-religious and their followers. So that they could easily win.

 

[Roguish]

If you don't know the answer to that then it might explain where you are at.

Where am I at?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Great question, but no, the answers aren't as pretty as the two you suggest. The truthful answer is that atheism is inherently "aggressive", so atheists look for a battle field where they may attack believers. Atheists cannot live without believers, for the attack on belief and believers is the assertive act that gives them their sense of existence. It is unavoidable therefore, that they come to places where believers congregate, such as a religious forum.

The converse is, of course, not true at all: believers can exist fine without atheists because they don't have the slightest need of atheists to define themselves. This isn't just a behavioral observation; it goes all the way down to the ontological difference between belief and atheism. Belief (in the religious sense) is a cognitive mode, while atheism is a thought construct. The mistake that atheists make is to assume that belief is a thought construct as well, and that therefore atheism can be pitched against belief, and possibly emerge victorious. But atheism cannot battle belief, in the same way that sound cannot drown out color. The two lie in different domains.

Of course atheists will not (and cannot) recognize their own aggressiveness. Since they are alienated from the cognitive mode that is belief, they live out of thought constructs only. In that unintuitive, overly mental world, artifical notions such as "civility", "reasonableness", and "scientificness" become the standards for "kindness". And thus the atheist obtains his excuse: "I am not aggressive at all, I have a right to be here (i.e. on the religious platform) because I am civil and reasonable."

The more puzzling thing is this: Why do believers feel that must tolerate atheists among themselves? If someone who disliked tennis joined a tennis club and started holding forth about his dislike, he'd be removed from the club. No debates, no violence, no big scenes, just excluded. But strangely believers can't seem to find the courage to do this. Or as an alternative explanation, perhaps we should wonder if the ones who run these "religious forums" are themselves not believers?

You mean just online atheists?? Just on forums? That's a small handful.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why religious forums ?
Why not.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Where am I at?

Well your Religion tag seems to indicate you have no need for anything else - other than converts perhaps.

 

[Yerda]

There are many interesting NON-RELIGIOUS-FORUMS out there on internet. Atheists come on RF to:

• To teach theists ?
• Or, they have room for the existence of God somewhere in their heart ?

If we don't call out a named logical fallacy twice a day we slowly boil in our own sense of superiority. This is how God made us.

 

[Roguish]

Well your Religion tag seems to indicate you have no need for anything else - other than converts perhaps.

That is correct. But what is your point? I mean, is it a criticism, or an observation, or is there some sort of question in it?

 

[chinu]

The only forums that are specific to religions (therefore this question would be more appropriate) would be the DIRS not "general" religious forums.

Who said you that one is NOT welcomed in DIRS to ask questions, or clear doubts ?

Religion doesn't refer to belief in god (so no need to be a theist), so the question isn't appropriate.

Than what refers to believe in God ? do you care to shed some light please

 

[chinu]

If we don't call out a named logical fallacy twice a day we slowly boil in our own sense of superiority. This is how God made us.

Don't worry, someday "He" will also teach you how to control that.

 

[chinu]

Why is this a problem for you?

No problem, but in fact welcome.

But, why NOT tell the purpose ?