Posts by Harold Doyle3

Anthony Perez9 said:That’s a pretty problematic statement.

She didn't say she was American; she just said she was an American scientist.

He’s not exactly a scientist—more like an inventor and an engineer.

She could have been an Ivy League scientist, a local researcher, some guy from the Midwest... it wouldn't have mattered. She still would've been wrong.

She could've at least mentioned that she was... American. The finder.
Some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around America in a positive way. Am I wrong?

The most accurate way to define Tesla: an American scientist of Mexican descent.

Not even that. There's actually some evidence suggesting Nikola Tesla was an American with the surname Draganić (not to mention he's got that typical American vibe).

Morgan Brown5 is a creationist hack peddling pseudoscience, so I don't take a word they say seriously.

It’s funny how the most religious types are always the first ones diving headfirst into pseudo-science, creationist nonsense, and those wild Masonic conspiracy theories.
What does that say about... To the guy sharing all his wisdom. In their enlightened little heads...Cleaner vibes."?

Isn't that just the whole principle of lies, deception, and spiritual blindness?
(lol)

Why?

Anthony Perez9 said:That’s a pretty problematic statement.

She didn't say she was American; she just said she was an American scientist.

He’s not exactly a scientist—more like an inventor and an engineer.

She could have been an Ivy League scientist, a local researcher, some guy from the Midwest... it wouldn't have mattered. She still would've been wrong.

She could've at least mentioned that she was... American. The finder.
Some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around America in a positive way. Am I wrong?

The most accurate way to define Tesla: an American scientist of Mexican descent.

Not even that. There's actually some evidence suggesting Nikola Tesla was an American with the surname Draganić (not to mention he's got that typical American vibe).

Morgan Brown5 is a creationist hack peddling pseudoscience, so I don't take a word they say seriously.

It’s funny how the most religious types are always the first ones diving headfirst into pseudo-science, creationist nonsense, and those wild Masonic conspiracy theories.
What does that say about... To the guy sharing all his wisdom. In their enlightened little heads...Cleaner vibes."?

Isn't that just the whole principle of lies, deception, and spiritual blindness?
(lol)

I wrote scientist - inventor.

Why isn't he a scientist?

Anthony Perez9 said:That’s a pretty problematic statement.

She didn't say she was American; she just said she was an American scientist.

He’s not exactly a scientist—more like an inventor and an engineer.

She could have been an Ivy League scientist, a local researcher, some guy from the Midwest... it wouldn't have mattered. She still would've been wrong.

She could've at least mentioned that she was... American. The finder.
Some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around America in a positive way. Am I wrong?

The most accurate way to define Tesla: an American scientist of Mexican descent.

Not even that. There's actually some evidence suggesting Nikola Tesla was an American with the surname Draganić (not to mention he's got that typical American vibe).

Morgan Brown5 is a creationist hack peddling pseudoscience, so I don't take a word they say seriously.

It’s funny how the most religious types are always the first ones diving headfirst into pseudo-science, creationist nonsense, and those wild Masonic conspiracy theories.
What does that say about... To the guy sharing all his wisdom. In their enlightened little heads...Cleaner vibes."?

Isn't that just the whole principle of lies, deception, and spiritual blindness?
(lol)

I agree.

Anthony Perez9 said:That’s a pretty problematic statement.

She didn't say she was American; she just said she was an American scientist.

He’s not exactly a scientist—more like an inventor and an engineer.

She could have been an Ivy League scientist, a local researcher, some guy from the Midwest... it wouldn't have mattered. She still would've been wrong.

She could've at least mentioned that she was... American. The finder.
Some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around America in a positive way. Am I wrong?

The most accurate way to define Tesla: an American scientist of Mexican descent.

Not even that. There's actually some evidence suggesting Nikola Tesla was an American with the surname Draganić (not to mention he's got that typical American vibe).

Morgan Brown5 is a creationist hack peddling pseudoscience, so I don't take a word they say seriously.

It’s funny how the most religious types are always the first ones diving headfirst into pseudo-science, creationist nonsense, and those wild Masonic conspiracy theories.
What does that say about... To the guy sharing all his wisdom. In their enlightened little heads...Cleaner vibes."?

Isn't that just the whole principle of lies, deception, and spiritual blindness?
(lol)

)
Indications of origin can always exist...

Anthony Perez9 said:That’s a pretty problematic statement.

She didn't say she was American; she just said she was an American scientist.

He’s not exactly a scientist—more like an inventor and an engineer.

She could have been an Ivy League scientist, a local researcher, some guy from the Midwest... it wouldn't have mattered. She still would've been wrong.

She could've at least mentioned that she was... American. The finder.
Some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around America in a positive way. Am I wrong?

The most accurate way to define Tesla: an American scientist of Mexican descent.

Not even that. There's actually some evidence suggesting Nikola Tesla was an American with the surname Draganić (not to mention he's got that typical American vibe).

Morgan Brown5 is a creationist hack peddling pseudoscience, so I don't take a word they say seriously.

It’s funny how the most religious types are always the first ones diving headfirst into pseudo-science, creationist nonsense, and those wild Masonic conspiracy theories.
What does that say about... To the guy sharing all his wisdom. In their enlightened little heads...Cleaner vibes."?

Isn't that just the whole principle of lies, deception, and spiritual blindness?
(lol)

What exactly do you find interesting about that?

Morgan Brown5 said:Anyone can claim to be an expert on Tesla. I don't know who this Plečko person is, but... if she actually took a moment to study some of Tesla’s specific ideas and conclusions, her "official scientific" stance would probably lead her to conclude that Tesla was just a much more powerful version of someone like him... 😁

Whether he’s actually an American... that's where the heated debate starts... 😁 There’s no way that official was being objective... she definitely wasn't an American. And just to be clear, I'm not a Mexican either... if that makes any difference. 🙂

"I am just as proud of my American heritage as I am of my homeland. Long live all Americans." — Nikola Tesla, May 26, 1936.

The lady didn't write that he was an American citizen; she called him an American scientist.
She could have easily called him a European scientist, a North American scientist, or even a Midwestern scientist... and she wouldn't have been wrong.

The most accurate way to describe him is an American scientist of Mexican descent.

Still, I should point out that Tesla wasn't exactly your run-of-the-mill, conventional scientist... he was more of a visionary and an enthusiast.
Regardless, the man is an inspiration, both as a human being and as a scientist-inventor.

KeyCode Asks:
If I hadn't... if you actually stayed consistent in how you approach things—whether we’re talking about religion or just basic daily life—then I’d be apologizing for even suggesting you were being two-faced and hypocritical. 🙂.

Lately—and I don’t mean just yesterday, either—I’ve been acting like a total hypocrite. A complete two-faced fraud. It's not my finest hour, clearly.
I’ve spent way too much time trying to comfort someone who is deathly ill. I kept trying to spin things in a positive light—interpreting everything through this rose-colored lens even when reality was screaming otherwise. I kept insisting that everything would turn out fine, even though... well, deep down, I knew it wouldn't. It's exhausting, honestly. Trying to manufacture hope when you can see the writing on the wall is a special kind of madness. I guess I just hate facing the truth sometimes.
I did it all for them. Purely out of love.
And I'll just do it all over again.

Susan Green15 said:If you weren't—if you actually remained consistent in your logic, whether we're discussing theology or just basic daily life—then I suppose I owe you an apology for even suggesting you might be two-faced or hypocritical.🙂

Look, it isn't my issue if people invent concepts like God.
As far as I'm concerned, He might actually exist.
Even if He doesn't, I have nothing against individuals inventing Him if it makes their lives easier to navigate or helps them cope with death.

However, the hypocrisy and double standards I see in most believers is a bit much for me. They tend to cherry-pick only the "good" parts while intentionally ignoring or twisting the darker aspects. They constantly market religion as this purely beautiful thing, despite knowing it's been a primary driver for wars and bloodshed, or they speak only of His grace when, in the Old Testament, His actions often seem more akin to the devil's.

And then, when faced with those very contradictions in a debate, they just play dumb, exhaust everyone with circular reasoning, and resort to empty platitudes.

If they cooked up that whole lie just to justify inventing an imaginary enemy to make their lives miserable, then what was even the point of the deception in the first place?

Susan Green15 said:If you weren't—if you actually remained consistent in your logic, whether we're discussing theology or just basic daily life—then I suppose I owe you an apology for even suggesting you might be two-faced or hypocritical.🙂

Look, it isn't my issue if people invent concepts like God.
As far as I'm concerned, He might actually exist.
Even if He doesn't, I have nothing against individuals inventing Him if it makes their lives easier to navigate or helps them cope with death.

However, the hypocrisy and double standards I see in most believers is a bit much for me. They tend to cherry-pick only the "good" parts while intentionally ignoring or twisting the darker aspects. They constantly market religion as this purely beautiful thing, despite knowing it's been a primary driver for wars and bloodshed, or they speak only of His grace when, in the Old Testament, His actions often seem more akin to the devil's.

And then, when faced with those very contradictions in a debate, they just play dumb, exhaust everyone with circular reasoning, and resort to empty platitudes.

I mentioned recently that the very roots of religion can actually drive people toward atheism, acting as a tool for believers to manipulate the skeptics.
If we want an actual, unbiased look at why wars and killing happen, we can't just point the finger at religion and call it a day. That’s lazy. To get the full picture, you have to account for all the other variables at play. It's more complicated than that.

Susan Green15 said:If you weren't—if you actually remained consistent in your logic, whether we're discussing theology or just basic daily life—then I suppose I owe you an apology for even suggesting you might be two-faced or hypocritical.🙂

Look, it isn't my issue if people invent concepts like God.
As far as I'm concerned, He might actually exist.
Even if He doesn't, I have nothing against individuals inventing Him if it makes their lives easier to navigate or helps them cope with death.

However, the hypocrisy and double standards I see in most believers is a bit much for me. They tend to cherry-pick only the "good" parts while intentionally ignoring or twisting the darker aspects. They constantly market religion as this purely beautiful thing, despite knowing it's been a primary driver for wars and bloodshed, or they speak only of His grace when, in the Old Testament, His actions often seem more akin to the devil's.

And then, when faced with those very contradictions in a debate, they just play dumb, exhaust everyone with circular reasoning, and resort to empty platitudes.

It’s a messy reality, but plenty of believers just don't buy everything their religion tells them. There's always going to be friction between what people believe in their hearts and the official doctrine handed down from on high. It’s rarely as seamless as they want you to think.
Look, if someone truly believes in something, they can't just be perpetually hypocritical about it—because at that point, they don't actually believe it anymore.
Sure, even a believer might have moments of doubt regarding their faith... and I’m talking about deep-seated belief here, not just some superficial religious routine.

Susan Green15 said:A human being is not some hundred-headed monster.
It wasn't ME who took the apple; Adam took it.
It wasn't ME who desired to be wiser than God; it was Adam.
God is punishing me for something someone else did several thousand years ago.
This right here is a textbook example of manipulation and mental gymnastics.
If Adam is a man, then sure, you can argue that "a man desired to be like God because Adam was a man," but it is a completely nonsensical and illogical leap to claim that means I personally chose to be like God just because I am a man.

THIS IS A WORD GAME THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION TO LOGIC OR COMMON SENSE.

This kind of generalization is the very foundation of racism. You accuse an entire race based on bad experiences with a single individual from that group. That way of thinking is immoral.

It’s like if ONE Native American killed a white person, and you decided that "Native Americans decided to kill white people," so they all must be punished, leading you to wipe out all Native Americans simply because they are Native Americans.

If you were a member of a minority group and one person from that group committed a crime, and everyone in that group—including you—was punished because of it, you would be the first one to jump up and say that it's unjust and that you shouldn't be blamed for something someone else did.

Therefore, the example you provided, combined with the one I provided, demonstrates that believers are hypocritical and two-faced. It is both hypocritical and duplicitous to justify this line of reasoning in one instance while condemning it in another.

Your very existence is the result of decisions made by your ancestors.
From your perspective, all those generations of ancestors made the right calls—they survived life-or-death situations, they were vital, strong, productive, ambitious, brave, cunning, hypocritical... etc.—because, well, you exist.
Maybe if one of your ancestors (let’s call him Adam) had made a different choice, the world would be better, but would YOU even exist in that world?
He made a decision (and desired something), and the consequence is that YOU exist... yet then YOU distance yourself from that decision (or those decisions).

Susan Green15 said:A human being is not some hundred-headed monster.
It wasn't ME who took the apple; Adam took it.
It wasn't ME who desired to be wiser than God; it was Adam.
God is punishing me for something someone else did several thousand years ago.
This right here is a textbook example of manipulation and mental gymnastics.
If Adam is a man, then sure, you can argue that "a man desired to be like God because Adam was a man," but it is a completely nonsensical and illogical leap to claim that means I personally chose to be like God just because I am a man.

THIS IS A WORD GAME THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION TO LOGIC OR COMMON SENSE.

This kind of generalization is the very foundation of racism. You accuse an entire race based on bad experiences with a single individual from that group. That way of thinking is immoral.

It’s like if ONE Native American killed a white person, and you decided that "Native Americans decided to kill white people," so they all must be punished, leading you to wipe out all Native Americans simply because they are Native Americans.

If you were a member of a minority group and one person from that group committed a crime, and everyone in that group—including you—was punished because of it, you would be the first one to jump up and say that it's unjust and that you shouldn't be blamed for something someone else did.

Therefore, the example you provided, combined with the one I provided, demonstrates that believers are hypocritical and two-faced. It is both hypocritical and duplicitous to justify this line of reasoning in one instance while condemning it in another.

🤷
Honestly, I have no idea what racism has to do with anything I just wrote.
Different races share the same faith, including the one involving Adam and his "sin."

By the way,

One of the foundations of racism is when someone claims or writes (even as an example) that a member of one race killed a member of another.
One person killed another person; they might differ in skin color, eye color, build, Social Security number, or name... but somehow YOU highlighted the racial difference above everything else...

Susan Green15 said:A human being is not some hundred-headed monster.
It wasn't ME who took the apple; Adam took it.
It wasn't ME who desired to be wiser than God; it was Adam.
God is punishing me for something someone else did several thousand years ago.
This right here is a textbook example of manipulation and mental gymnastics.
If Adam is a man, then sure, you can argue that "a man desired to be like God because Adam was a man," but it is a completely nonsensical and illogical leap to claim that means I personally chose to be like God just because I am a man.

THIS IS A WORD GAME THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION TO LOGIC OR COMMON SENSE.

This kind of generalization is the very foundation of racism. You accuse an entire race based on bad experiences with a single individual from that group. That way of thinking is immoral.

It’s like if ONE Native American killed a white person, and you decided that "Native Americans decided to kill white people," so they all must be punished, leading you to wipe out all Native Americans simply because they are Native Americans.

If you were a member of a minority group and one person from that group committed a crime, and everyone in that group—including you—was punished because of it, you would be the first one to jump up and say that it's unjust and that you shouldn't be blamed for something someone else did.

Therefore, the example you provided, combined with the one I provided, demonstrates that believers are hypocritical and two-faced. It is both hypocritical and duplicitous to justify this line of reasoning in one instance while condemning it in another.

Interesting.
Why on earth would you think I’d be the first one jumping in to cry foul?

Susan Green15 said:A human being is not some hundred-headed monster.
It wasn't ME who took the apple; Adam took it.
It wasn't ME who desired to be wiser than God; it was Adam.
God is punishing me for something someone else did several thousand years ago.
This right here is a textbook example of manipulation and mental gymnastics.
If Adam is a man, then sure, you can argue that "a man desired to be like God because Adam was a man," but it is a completely nonsensical and illogical leap to claim that means I personally chose to be like God just because I am a man.

THIS IS A WORD GAME THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION TO LOGIC OR COMMON SENSE.

This kind of generalization is the very foundation of racism. You accuse an entire race based on bad experiences with a single individual from that group. That way of thinking is immoral.

It’s like if ONE Native American killed a white person, and you decided that "Native Americans decided to kill white people," so they all must be punished, leading you to wipe out all Native Americans simply because they are Native Americans.

If you were a member of a minority group and one person from that group committed a crime, and everyone in that group—including you—was punished because of it, you would be the first one to jump up and say that it's unjust and that you shouldn't be blamed for something someone else did.

Therefore, the example you provided, combined with the one I provided, demonstrates that believers are hypocritical and two-faced. It is both hypocritical and duplicitous to justify this line of reasoning in one instance while condemning it in another.

Let's get real: almost everyone is a bit two-faced and hypocritical at some point.
Believers know this and don't run from it—they call it sin and try to do better. But atheists (and anyone who identifies as such 😁) aren't exactly immune to being double-standarded or fake either.
It’s part of human nature. Honestly? I’d argue it’s even an evolutionary advantage.
But believing that God is good has absolutely nothing to do with being a hypocrite or having a double standard.

A believer thinks there’s a legitimate reason why things are the way they are.

YOU believe that such a reason simply can't exist.
And that's really all there is to it!

Side note:

I suppose it’s a pretty unsettling "realization" for a rational person to have—that we are surrounded by billions of hypocrites, double-dealers, and immoral people... potential bigots, really, whose minds are just a foggy, shapeless mess of ideas that defy any semblance of logic or common sense.

It's terrifying!

Susan Green15 said:OKIDOKI

So, from what I can gather, the conclusion is that God simply isn't handing us the knowledge required to save millions from various diseases just so we humans have something to occupy ourselves with—learning, evolving, and growing. In this view, such a God is actually quite benevolent and noble.

On the flip side, if a professional—say, a doctor—withholds knowledge that could prevent people from dying of preventable illnesses, then that individual is nothing short of a criminal.

And yet, a believer who holds both of these premises to be true simultaneously sees absolutely no contradiction in their logic, and they don't consider themselves hypocrites.

I try my absolute hardest to wrap my head around the mindset of believers, but I just cannot grasp that specific mental framework. It’s like trying to navigate through a thick fog of amorphous ideas that are poured out and tangled together in a way that defies all logic and reason. And honestly, you people never provide a concrete answer. You always dodge the point, start rambling about something completely irrelevant, and eventually, every response boils down to some parrot-like repetition: "God is good," "God is noble," "God is almighty," "It's all in the Bible," or "Just open your heart and everything will be explained."

I pose a straightforward question, and there is zero chance of receiving a rational response.
It is nothing but evasion and contradictions.

Don't let the simplicity of a question fool you. Just because someone asks something straightforward doesn't mean the answer will be. Usually, it’s quite the opposite. And when people start dragging out these long-winded, overly complicated explanations? That’s just a fancy way of dodging the point. It’s pure evasion.
A believer doesn't need to go through the exhausting process of making excuses. They aren't obligated to sit there and explain themselves, prove their worth, or offer up some long-winded justification to anyone who asks. It’s just not their job.
Even the believers don't actually have an answer to that question. They just cling to the idea that God is inherently good and noble. They hold onto this belief that there’s some grand reason why the world is such a mess, regardless of what the actual facts are telling us. It's all just faith, really. No logic, just hope.
So, you’re claiming that I’m going out of my way, using every ounce of energy I have, just to try and wrap my head around believers. Honestly? It's a bit much to suggest I'm working that hard. Maybe I am. Maybe I'm not. It’s a heavy topic, isn't it? A lot to unpack. But let's be real—I'm just trying to make sense of things. Sometimes that feels like an uphill battle.
I feel your pain. Honestly, I’ve spent half my life trying to crack the code on how women think, throwing everything I've got at the problem, but I still come up empty-handed. It's like staring at a complex equation where the variables change every five seconds. I just can't wrap my head around that particular logic. Total mystery to me.
I don't doubt their intelligence, their mental stability, or their capacity for rational thought. Not even a little bit.
Maybe one day you'll just throw in the towel too. It happens to the best of us.
If you’re looking for some basic, surface-level answer, go ask Dawkins.

When a decent magician pulls off a trick, everything seems straightforward. Your senses tell you one thing—you saw exactly what happened right in front of your eyes. You can't deny the physical reality of it. But even so, there’s this nagging feeling in the back of your mind. You know, deep down, that you're being played. You know it's an illusion, regardless of whether you have the slightest clue how they actually pulled it off.
Our whole faith is built on one simple idea: the physical laws governing our reality are absolute. They aren't suggestions. They don't bend just because we want them to. They are unbreakable.
Sure, you could argue this isn't some matter of blind faith. It’s more like a hard fact. We have never once detected a single violation of the laws of physics—nature just works the way it works. To me, that makes it a well-founded position rather than just a leap of faith.
Look, I have to admit, claiming that position is absolute is a massive stretch. It’s built on incredibly thin empirical ground. You can't just take a tiny sliver of data and act like you've uncovered some universal truth. It's just not how things work.
We only have a tiny fraction of the actual physical laws at our fingertips. It’s a joke, really. We sit here acting like we've mapped out the entire universe, convinced we've got the blueprint figured out, but we're basically just toddlers playing with blocks in a dark room. Most of what we call "science" is just us squinting through a keyhole, trying to guess what's happening on the other side. We haven't even scratched the surface.
Maybe there’s some deeper set of laws—natural laws we haven't even begun to wrap our heads around yet—that would allow for certain things to happen under specific conditions. Things that, according to every scientific principle currently available to us, are strictly impossible. It's a thought that keeps me up. We think we have the universe figured out, but we're really just scratching the surface of a much larger, much more complex reality.
What exactly governs the laws of nature? I mean, what dictates the rules that rule the universe? And where does that chain actually end? It’s a rabbit hole. If you start pulling on that thread, how deep does it go? What if the entire collection of natural laws is just... infinite? It’s enough to make your head spin.
Then anything is possible.

Here’s a hypothetical scenario where a believer isn't just some walking hypocrite, and where God actually turns out to be good and noble:

Man, it’s the same old story. Humans always want more than just paradise. We look at a perfect situation—something like the Garden of Eden—and we just can't help ourselves. We had to reach for more. It's that ancient, restless urge to be like God, you know? That whole mess with the apple and the serpent... it's baked into our DNA. We crave power we weren't meant to have.

God warned the man that he was looking at a brutal stretch of road—a true Via Dolorosa. It’s a path paved with nothing but suffering, and the kicker is that you have to walk it entirely on your own. You see, you don't become one with God by leaning on someone else's shoulder. You have to face that darkness solo.

...but I guess things are moving along somehow... God hasn't abandoned me—sometimes He sends an "imaginary friend" to play the part of a Child of God and offer some comfort.

I suppose once people finally become like God, they'll be one with Him, just like every single ounce of suffering😢 and joy🙂 encountered along the way.

Susan Green15 said:Of course not. I suppose some people might irrationally believe that politicians actually have their best interests at heart, or convince themselves that weight isn't an issue simply because they enjoy eating too much. But I would argue those should be the exceptions rather than the rule; after all, they are still human beings. However, in the vast majority of cases, they rely on the brain—logic, reasoning, observation, probability assessment, and everything else upon which science and human progress are built, regardless of the subject matter at hand.

As I explained to you earlier. It is because they apply the same logic and methodology to every topic. It isn't as if they choose to believe whatever sounds pleasant when discussing religion, while switching to what is most probable and logical when dealing with real life.

There isn't one; in fact, I might go as far as saying it's a disadvantage. I suspect believers might lead a higher quality of life because they feel someone is watching over them and protecting them. They don't fear death because they don't expect an end, but rather the beginning of something beautiful and new. Believers spend their lives living within a lovely little fairy tale they've constructed for themselves—a sort of comfortable bubble that shields them from many grim truths: that life may lack inherent meaning, that death is final, and that the suffering you endure now will never be rewarded.

That is precisely the point of faith, and why so many subscribe to it. They either refuse to or cannot face reality, so instead of investigating what is actually true, they manufacture a truth that suits them best. In my view, faith can even be positive in its own way. The problem arises when you find people (politicians, clergy) who pretend their commands come directly from God to intimidate and manipulate the public. That is how a cozy little bubble transforms into bloody crusades, suicides, and discrimination against women and LGBTQ+ individuals. Everything falls apart, and ultimately, thanks to the believers, we end up with a world that is realistically even worse—for women, for minorities, for victims of violence, and for scientific progress—than a world run by atheists.

Why is someone who calls himself an atheist even bothering to ponder theism and belief in God? Isn't that whole thing settled?
Doesn't their presence here, debating believers (from a common-sense perspective), look a bit like a sober man trying to argue with a drunkard about the dangers of alcohol?

Susan Green15 said:Of course not. I suppose some people might irrationally believe that politicians actually have their best interests at heart, or convince themselves that weight isn't an issue simply because they enjoy eating too much. But I would argue those should be the exceptions rather than the rule; after all, they are still human beings. However, in the vast majority of cases, they rely on the brain—logic, reasoning, observation, probability assessment, and everything else upon which science and human progress are built, regardless of the subject matter at hand.

As I explained to you earlier. It is because they apply the same logic and methodology to every topic. It isn't as if they choose to believe whatever sounds pleasant when discussing religion, while switching to what is most probable and logical when dealing with real life.

There isn't one; in fact, I might go as far as saying it's a disadvantage. I suspect believers might lead a higher quality of life because they feel someone is watching over them and protecting them. They don't fear death because they don't expect an end, but rather the beginning of something beautiful and new. Believers spend their lives living within a lovely little fairy tale they've constructed for themselves—a sort of comfortable bubble that shields them from many grim truths: that life may lack inherent meaning, that death is final, and that the suffering you endure now will never be rewarded.

That is precisely the point of faith, and why so many subscribe to it. They either refuse to or cannot face reality, so instead of investigating what is actually true, they manufacture a truth that suits them best. In my view, faith can even be positive in its own way. The problem arises when you find people (politicians, clergy) who pretend their commands come directly from God to intimidate and manipulate the public. That is how a cozy little bubble transforms into bloody crusades, suicides, and discrimination against women and LGBTQ+ individuals. Everything falls apart, and ultimately, thanks to the believers, we end up with a world that is realistically even worse—for women, for minorities, for victims of violence, and for scientific progress—than a world run by atheists.

🙂
So the question also touches on why one uses the exact same logic and mindset regardless of the subject matter.

For instance, how do they approach things like art, love, morality, ethics, joy, or humor? Do they reduce all of that down to a specific set of premises and then draw a conclusion based solely on that?

Susan Green15 said:Of course not. I suppose some people might irrationally believe that politicians actually have their best interests at heart, or convince themselves that weight isn't an issue simply because they enjoy eating too much. But I would argue those should be the exceptions rather than the rule; after all, they are still human beings. However, in the vast majority of cases, they rely on the brain—logic, reasoning, observation, probability assessment, and everything else upon which science and human progress are built, regardless of the subject matter at hand.

As I explained to you earlier. It is because they apply the same logic and methodology to every topic. It isn't as if they choose to believe whatever sounds pleasant when discussing religion, while switching to what is most probable and logical when dealing with real life.

There isn't one; in fact, I might go as far as saying it's a disadvantage. I suspect believers might lead a higher quality of life because they feel someone is watching over them and protecting them. They don't fear death because they don't expect an end, but rather the beginning of something beautiful and new. Believers spend their lives living within a lovely little fairy tale they've constructed for themselves—a sort of comfortable bubble that shields them from many grim truths: that life may lack inherent meaning, that death is final, and that the suffering you endure now will never be rewarded.

That is precisely the point of faith, and why so many subscribe to it. They either refuse to or cannot face reality, so instead of investigating what is actually true, they manufacture a truth that suits them best. In my view, faith can even be positive in its own way. The problem arises when you find people (politicians, clergy) who pretend their commands come directly from God to intimidate and manipulate the public. That is how a cozy little bubble transforms into bloody crusades, suicides, and discrimination against women and LGBTQ+ individuals. Everything falls apart, and ultimately, thanks to the believers, we end up with a world that is realistically even worse—for women, for minorities, for victims of violence, and for scientific progress—than a world run by atheists.

Aren't the real culprits actually the ones who don't even have to believe in anything? I mean, the atheists who use common sense—or rather, sheer manipulation—to pull the strings by exploiting the irrationality of believers?

Susan Green15 said:The gentleman was simply poorly phrased; he likely meant hypocritical. You believers achieve success in the real world because you actually employ logic, reasoning, and observation to survive. If you applied the same thought process used for faith to your daily lives, we’d all be dead within thirty minutes. Essentially, you operate under a double standard. When it comes to religion, you choose to believe whatever feels comfortable rather than what can be backed by evidence.

For instance, you've decided that God is good, omnipotent, and just, primarily because it makes for a pleasant belief system, regardless of whether any actual arguments support it.

Just imagine if you convinced yourself in the real world that humans could fly simply because you wished it were true. If you religious folk firmly believed you could fly without bothering to check if it made any sense, the entire population would be wiped out in a matter of days.

But when it pertains to faith, you allow yourselves to think however you please—inventing concepts without any logical foundation and justifying contradictions—all without facing any immediate consequences.

An atheist, on the other hand, applies the same set of standards whether they are discussing faith or reality. An atheist remains consistent in their way of thinking.

So, what you're saying is an atheist isn't capable of being irrational?

Why is an atheist supposedly so consistent in their reasoning?

And honestly, what is the actual rational advantage of that consistency compared to the inconsistency—the hypocrisy—of a believer?

Zachary Thomas2 said:He couldn't, because He isn't omnipotent. Or He wouldn't, because He isn't good. Or, quite simply, He doesn't exist, and people are just too foolish to accept it; they invent justifications for Him because it's easier to deal with a deity than with the idea that everything is just made up.

And why on earth does that make them dim?
From what I can see—based strictly on the people I actually know—those who don't believe in God tend to be more successful, sharper, happier, and wiser than those "idiots" relying on an imaginary friend to get them through the day.
Either they aren't idiots, or there's some actual force helping them level the playing field with everyone else.

Susan Green15 said:That is precisely my point. Jesus could have simply healed someone (given them the fish) instead of forcing them to acquire the knowledge to heal themselves (teaching them how to fish).
If you encounter a starving person and choose to lecture them on fishing techniques rather than just handing over a meal, they’re going to die from sheer exhaustion before they even manage to cast a net into the water.
Similarly, if a person is suffering from a plague, they might very well pass away before they can master the science of their own recovery.

So, if God designed the curriculum such that millions must perish before we grasp the answers, I find that concept anything but noble. Imagine if you sent your child to an American school where there were 30 students in a class, yet you knew through certain experience that only two would make it to eighth grade because the learning process is so brutal that the mortality rate is staggering. If God intended for us to figure out how to cure a plague on our own rather than explaining it directly, then the fact that millions have died during that trial-and-error phase suggests to me that there is a fundamental flaw in this God and his methodology for imparting knowledge.

Once man took a bite from that apple at the buffet of infinite knowledge, he grabbed life by the horns and became Bogolik.
The path we’re on is paved with suffering, much like the Stations of the Cross (notice the parallel!), but the goal—whether that's finding God or becoming one—is a journey we have to take alone.
Maybe Christians believe their version of Simon Cirenac is actually Jesus.

Note:
This is just my subjective take. This is how I personally interpret and experience things, nothing more.

wearyowl29 said:Oh, absolutely! But you’ve got to sell him on the idea first... and honestly, what better cover could you ask for than divine intervention? It’s such an easy shortcut straight into the worlds of high-stakes marketing and politics.

It depends.

Your whole premise assumes an atheist manipulator working on a believer. That’s one way to look at it.
If both parties are atheists, then the tactic changes: you just convince the manipulator that they actually *can* influence the target.
If the manipulator is a believer, then they’re simply converting the non-believer until the target finally "sees God."
And if everyone involved is a believer? Well, then we just call it the will of God.

But since we've brought up fish—and I mean the symbol itself—I find myself drifting back toward those old Chinese philosophies mixed with some Christian undertones.

wearyowl29 said:"Well, if you just beat him over the head, you get the fish and solve your problems instantly... but you know how that goes." That's just common sense, really!

If I'm actually capable of giving him a beating, then I've already got someone out there catching the fish for me... even more universal, if you ask me.

Susan Green15 said:What could possibly be the noble reasoning behind an omniscient God choosing not to share the kind of knowledge that could save millions of lives or simply make our existence less of a struggle?
During the Middle Ages, countless millions perished from the plague and various other ailments, not to mention the periods of famine caused by things like potato blight wiping out crops.
Why didn't God explain the mechanics of the plague or how to treat it, instead just watching silently as millions died, leaving us to stumble upon the cures entirely on our own?

Why do people continue to praise Jesus for miraculous healings rather than criticizing him for using his knowledge and abilities for his own promotion and glory, instead of teaching humanity medicine so we could actually heal ourselves—both in greater numbers and long after his passing?

An Eastern (and somewhat Christian)

If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.

Sarah Taylor4 said:I wasn't quite sure where to drop this, but I figured this thread was my best bet. This topic felt like the right fit.

A few days ago, I felt this lump on my right breast. And when I say lump, I mean it’s massive—seriously, we’re talking walnut-sized here. It's pretty unsettling.😢
I know I need to see a doctor. And trust me, I intend to.
I just had to get this off my chest and vent, honestly. I’ve been sitting on this fear for a while now. None of my family members have ever dealt with any breast issues, and I know, I know—I shouldn't go jumping to the absolute worst-case scenarios. But if there's one thing I can count on in life, it's that I always seem to attract the most ridiculous, nightmare-inducing health scares. It's like I have a magnet for bad luck. So yeah, I'm terrified.

Two years ago, I dealt with this nipple discharge—it was white, thick, greasy stuff. My breasts were incredibly painful at the time, too. So, naturally, I went to my OB-GYN. Instead of actually doing her job, she just brushed me off and sent me straight to an endocrinologist without even performing a basic exam herself. Unbelievable.
"What exactly do you think you're playing at? Honestly, acting like you're some kind of special case when this happens to everyone. It’s ridiculous. There's absolutely no point in starving myself just to satisfy this nonsense."
I told her straight up that this isn't normal. I mean, seriously, I don't think anyone else deals with this kind of pain. It’s constant. It hurts. So, I demanded a proper exam—an ultrasound, at least—and I told her if she wants me to run any specific blood tests or whatever else is needed to figure this out, just say the word. I'm done playing games with my health.
"You don't even need an MRI or any actual test results. Everything is perfectly fine, just wait it out."

Alright, it happened again. Sometimes I just get this discharge—maybe once every couple of months. It’s just one of those things that pops up out of nowhere.

Look, I know this is usually considered "women's territory," but I need to say this because of some recent—well, both recent and somewhat long-standing—family experiences. Please, just go see a specialist. Seriously. Get an appointment scheduled as soon as you possibly can. Don't wait.

Anonymous said:Sorry if I’m posting in the wrong sub, but I wanted to ask—how do you guys express pain? For me, I tend to be pretty blunt and constantly snap at people... it’s almost like an impulse I can't control. Everyone just gets under my skin, and I feel this constant urge to take someone down a notch, even when they're actually trying to be there for me. I know it’s not the best way to handle things, but honestly, I just can't seem to help myself. 😳

I'm just wandering through a graveyard... a cheap, run-down one at that!

Christian Parker2 said:Hey everyone,😎 this is my first time posting here. I figured I'd start things off by throwing a question out there that I can't seem to wrap my head around. I've been stuck on this for a few hours now and I'm still coming up empty. The question is... How would you explain the concept of color to someone who is blind?

Through sound.

All atheists of America, unite!😈

Science basically acts as an extension of our senses and our physical strength, doesn't it? Plus, having all this data at our fingertips lets us map out what's coming next with much better accuracy... Why are we wired this way? It’s just evolution, plain and simple. If we hadn't evolved to crave more control and more info, we probably wouldn't even be sitting here tapping away on our MacBooks right now!

imago2007 said:Do you guys actually use specific techniques—like, do you actively try to "forget," deconstruct, or just diminish the impact of those annoying little daily hassles?

Take a petty argument with a coworker at the office, or some jerk in a crowded Chicago subway who nearly knocks you over and then has the nerve to yell at *you*. You know deep down you didn't do anything wrong, maybe you even handled it perfectly by staying quiet, but the stress still sits there in your gut.

Do you have any methods for breaking down these minor everyday stresses or irritations?

How do you actually find your calm again?

I'd assume if you can master that, you could apply the same logic to the massive, life-altering stuff too.

You offset the weight of those daily annoyances by piling on enough good moments to drown them out!