Posts by Lisa Jackson7

Yeah... I bet he’s also staring down the barrel of his own country becoming a place where Americans end up as the minority.

frozenpuma69 said:I mean, obviously it hasn't been proven. I guess how would you even go about proving something like that? 🍿

And yeah, I wasn't just focusing on the Democratic Party; I was talking about all the parties in that vein, like the Alt-Right or various nationalist movements. Those groups are extremist in every sense of the word, not just when it comes to immigration policy.

Even if they are, who else is there? What’s the actual alternative? It feels like the mainstream parties won't even admit there's a massive problem to begin with.

If they actually had a solution—or even just a rough blueprint for the long term—why aren't they putting it out there?

Parallel societies within these countries with high immigration levels just keep growing...

Gregory Jackson said:I'm not totally sure what you mean there, because I was just chatting with Delvecci about his own dilemmas recently. Personally, I do rank questions into being more or less important, mostly just because, you know, we only have so much time in this life. There are endless paths out there, and some are definitely faster than others. According to Meher Baba, if a follower puts way too much emphasis on religious rituals instead of focusing on the actual essence, they're basically stuck on a slow commuter train that stops at every single little station along the way.

As for atheists, if that’s what you were asking—it doesn't really affect them, I guess? Since they aren't on the train and aren't traveling toward that specific destination. They spend their time on other stuff—though, I suppose it wouldn't be quite right to say they're wasting time, because they can be absolutely wonderful people who live by a strong moral code or their own version of faith. They might actually progress spiritually, without even realizing it, sometimes even faster than those formal followers who just go through the motions of rituals without any real substance. And maybe, in some future life, a former atheist will eventually hop onto one of those trains.

I didn't see any kind of dilemma from DeVinci—not based on anything he’s posted in this thread.

Never heard of Meher Baba before, but I get where he's coming from regarding all those rituals—though honestly, I think you just need to find a balance... especially in this sense.

Religion without Spirituality | Spirituality without Religion Quote : if The essence of spirituality is The search to know Our true selves , then know that its a Life Long process , and perhaps IT requires many births and rebirths ( only god completely knows The true mystery of Our Soul and its evolutionary process of merging with Truth -> Religion without Spirituality | Spirituality without Religion Quote

If the essence of spirituality is the search to know Our true selves, then know that its a Life Long process, and perhaps IT requires many births and rebirths (only God completely knows The true mystery of Our Soul and its evolutionary process of merging with Truth -> Religion without Spirituality | Spirituality without Religion Quote Cut the act—you don't need to play-act some super deep, "enlightened" persona just because you're chasing personal nirvana. That’s just straight-up narcissism. You can't force meditation any more than you can force yourself to reach actual spirituality—it just doesn't work like that. Honestly, all you really need is just to stay awake to life—and more importantly, to actually be aware of who you are.

So, what’s the move after this? Simple—it's time to serve.

And there it is—the absolute grip religion has on people. Organized religion in all forms and tradition does a very good job aspiring The faithful into that. It sets the stage—gives us the structure and the groundwork we need to actually exist in this world and get to work. It's about being able to serve others. That’s how you actually serve the Creator—by showing up for the people around you.

People call themselves "spiritual" while totally ignoring the person cleaning their house for pennies—just paying next to nothing for actual hard work—only to drop thousands on some fancy trip to visit a random tomb halfway across the world. Or they'll skip helping hungry kids or the homeless right on their own street just to book another flight to join some "spiritual group." Honestly, that's sol nonsense in The Eye of Beloved, who cries at the suffering of humanity and laughs at the joyful heart of humanity.

don't you think gladden The Heart of that extremely poor of The humanity was much more important Than going on sol called spiritual travel ( another escape route for selfish luxury

Honestly, this is one of the best takes I’ve read on this subject. Religion without spirituality is just performing dry, empty rituals—do this, do that, blah blah blah—but then again, spirituality on its own can easily turn into nothing more than an excuse for narcissism.

If you're asking if this affects atheists—it doesn't. They aren't even on the train, so they aren't exactly traveling toward the destination. I mean, it’s not quite right to say they’re "wasting time" because honestly, some of them can be incredible people who actually live by the morals their religions preach. They might end up progressing spiritually—sometimes even faster than those followers who just go through the motions of rituals without any actual substance. In some future life, an ex-atheist will eventually jump on one of the trains.

Look, it’s not about whether someone lacks a purpose—whether they're an atheist, a believer, some guy from Alaska, or just works at State Farm, etc.
That's not how I see it.

You don't have to be religious to jump in and help out a charity or a non-profit; an atheist can be perfectly moral and still grow spiritually... honestly, comparing people on that level is just pointless.

But we aren't just talking about one person's spiritual journey—we're talking about the community. Eventually, the morality of a secular society is going to run dry—kind of like a crew on a spaceship who decides to just live off their emergency reserves, thinking they won't ever need a new source... because they're too arrogant to think they'll actually need it.

Gregory Jackson said:So, I was thinking about that whole "chatter" thing—you know, all that endless theorizing about secondary details that wiredfalcon2 was bringing up earlier? It feels like we get so caught up in debating the tiny, unimportant bits of everything, which I guess is just what humans do, but it really distracts from actually living out our core faith, which should probably be the main event, right? Maybe we spend way too much energy on the noise instead of just focusing on the actual practice of what we believe.

I don't rank questions... for some orthodox followers (and honestly, even if they aren't), those things are still top-tier priorities... but what does anyone else care? Like, how does any of that actually change anyone else's life?

Gregory Jackson said:I mean, you could probably just ignore all that noise and just stick to the actual heart of it. Just love your neighbor and all that good stuff, and the rest won't be able to touch you, I guess. 🙂

But, man, it’s definitely way easier for churches and people in general to just chatter on about all those minor details than it is to actually live out the real essence of it.

The whole idea of splitting the sacred from the secular is really just a byproduct of how the West evolved over the last few centuries.

That distinction brought some good stuff along with the bad, so it isn't just "talking"—it's just that people experience the world differently now. That's all there is to it.

The whole idea behind Perennial Philosophy is that at the core of every major religion and tradition, there’s this shared mystical experience of the "ultimate reality." All the arguments, the different myths, all that stuff—it’s just surface-level noise.

So, what does Professor Jorge Ferrer actually have to say about these different ways we chase the Truth?

He basically argues that Perennial Philosophy often gets stuck in these outdated mental models—you know, those old-school 'mental representations.' It treats Divine reality like something sitting way out there somewhere, and our minds just snap a picture of it, like we're using a camera.

Instead, he’s pushing for more of a participatory form of knowing. Basically, our own consciousness and imagination are actually helping shape the reality we're experiencing.

It’s like... ‘one ocean, many bays.’..

What’s wrong with the Perennial Philosophy?

Nicole James said:Could you elaborate on that a bit? What exactly would constitute bringing religious practice into the public sphere?

Think religious symbols in public spaces—you know, like stuff in government buildings—or having religious education taught in our public schools, etc.

mistyscout2 said:It really makes you wonder if in reality believers and atheists can actually coexist and function well together? It gets tricky, especially when one side or the other starts trying to push their views onto everyone else's personal liberties. Honestly, both sides have tried to pull that kind of thing throughout history.

In theory, I don't see why they couldn't... but the real kicker is under what specific circumstances they’ve historically stepped on each other's toes, where that happened, and where it didn't.
You could pretty much apply that same logic to almost any other identity group out there.

casualwalker18 said:

So, it just doesn't add up... If I were in your shoes, having had an NDE—seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and all that—and if I was gullible enough to take it as proof of alien life or consciousness existing outside the body, I’d probably see it as one more reason to walk away from Christianity, not embrace it like you’re suggesting...

If I’d actually seen a tunnel, I’d know there was something there, but for me, clinical death was more like just flicking a light switch on and off... Christianity itself is fine, I guess, but the way the church handles things is just off. There's way too much politics mixed into faith these days; it feels like religion has turned into a political movement rather than something deeply personal... I don't know enough about theology to be an expert, but the whole forced-belief thing is just pretty lame...

Look, you can totally be a Christian and still feel like the Church, as an institution right now, has completely lost its way.
When someone says "too much politics in the church," they could mean a lot of things... but if it's because the church hierarchy and the government are essentially intertwined—even if not legally—then we've got a massive problem for the church, the country, society, and anyone actually trying to maintain their faith.

But let's be real: practicing faith enters the public sphere—it was never *just* a private matter.
We have to draw a line between the public square (civil society) and actual government institutions.

Amy Bennett said:I mean, that’s honestly a pretty hollow argument. The idea that objective morality just vanished from the face of the earth because Abrahamic religions showed up isn't really how this works—and I’m not sure you could find a single serious theist who would actually claim that. Nobody is out here arguing that religion itself is the fountainhead of morality. The actual point being made is simply that morality originates from Bog.

"My own personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want—but for me, my personal set of values and principles is my morality. It isn’t some trivial thing to me. Did you ever take a sociology class back in school? There's a standard definition that goes something like this: "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a collection of unwritten rules, folk customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." If you look closely at that general definition, you'll notice that Bog or religious faith aren't even mentioned.

If some predator who targets children claims he has his own little set of values and principles—his own version of "morality"—then we’re in trouble. Since that entire framework is completely arbitrary, there’s no way to objectively decide who’s right or wrong. In that logic, nobody is actually right, and nobody is wrong. So, help me understand how that kind of "morality" isn't totally meaningless? By any real definition, it’s hollow—it carries absolutely no actual weight.

I have one serious question—did you really not have any moral principles back when you were an atheist?

I am.

Regarding the boiling point—well... Everything. There’s plenty of room to argue—on both sides of the line between what's subjective and what's objective.

It’s just impossible. You can't actually determine who's right when it comes to moral questions—because, let's face it, nobody can be "right" without some objective standard to measure against. Without that, every debate feels totally hollow. It kind of falls into that whole "there's no accounting for taste" category. Actually, even moral reasoning itself starts to feel a bit pointless—since you don't really have a foundational basis to conclude that one thing is more morally correct than another. The most logical thing you can actually do is just go with your gut in the moment. It’s like how a five-year-old might be obsessed with chocolate ice cream, but by the time they're twenty, they realize chocolate isn't for them and vanilla is much better. There's no point in arguing with that person—they simply like what they like in that moment, and that's that.

I don’t really need some grand narrative about falling from grace, or heaven and hell, just to feel mentally stable or satisfied with my life. Honestly—if your existence feels like it isn't worth living without faith—then maybe it’s time to take a step back and actually reflect. You should probably focus on building some genuine, quality connections with people around you, or finding a hobby that actually brings you joy... I mean, those delusions about God being the sole source of meaning can't be entirely fooling you—not when there's still that underlying sense of unhappiness bubbling just beneath the surface.

Look, regarding the whole sickness issue—don't try to push that nonsense on me. Illness has absolutely nothing to do with morality. A living organism functions the way it does regardless of how we humans decide to label things as "right" or "wrong" from a moral standpoint. If you actually want to have a real conversation about what defines a disease, we’d need to move this discussion over to philosophy or the natural sciences.

There’s really no such thing as a living organism "functioning correctly"—not because I don't see the logic, but because that phrase assumes an organism and its individual parts actually have an inherent purpose. I feel like I’ve said this five hundred times already—but atheism just feels fundamentally at odds with how we experience ourselves and the world around us. You can honestly see that friction playing out right here in conversations like this one.

Every single one. The whole idea of a moral system—the way we decide what’s right or wrong—really just comes from us. It’s entirely a human creation, born from nothing but our own minds.

Not really. 🤷

Of course it was designed that way. You’ve never seen him, heard him, or even felt his presence—and you never will. All anyone has to go on is some heavily edited, overpriced book and a bunch of guys in halls claiming he exists, even though they've never actually laid eyes on him or experienced anything firsthand themselves.

So, are you actually saying you don't believe spiritual experiences can even happen?

Is it easier to put my faith in some overpriced book, or would an omnipotent being—if one actually existed—find it simple enough to just perform that tiny little miracle for me? Honestly, the question is rhetorical because the whole hypothetical setup is just wildly asymmetrical. I mean, if such a being could do anything, they could certainly handle that... whereas I can’t exactly damage my own brain enough to view a Bible as a reliable source for anything at all. If an all-powerful entity truly wanted us to know them and show respect, they’d probably start by making their existence undeniably obvious. Since that hasn't happened, I’ve reached my conclusion: it doesn't exist. And frankly, I can't imagine basing my one and only life on a book filled with questionable sources and content I'd rather avoid.

Anyone who is genuinely looking for Bog can find Him—it’s really that simple. But let’s be clear: Bog isn't obligated to cater to your specific demands just because you're too lazy to actually study the very things you’re so passionately criticizing. Honestly, I think you're the perfect example of what I mean here. You step into this ring and try to play judge and jury over the whole circus, making all these demands of Bog—acting like, "Look at me, I'm so enlightened and rational, I won't accept anything without proof"—all while you aren't even bothering to look for any evidence yourself. It's just that classic, spoiled New Atheist mindset.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around this—it’s just such a strange concept to process. I feel like I might be overthinking it, but there's something about the whole situation that feels... off? It’s hard to put into words, honestly. I’m probably just being overly cautious, but I can't quite shake the feeling that we aren't seeing the full picture here. Just food for thought, I guess. Amy Bennett says:
It isn't really about whether a disease exists, but rather how we choose to relate to it.

Actually, I think it’s even deeper than that. The whole concept of "illness" is fundamentally at odds with a naturalist worldview. They’re in direct conflict because the idea of a disease implies there’s some kind of intended purpose or function behind it. For instance—take the heart, for example—it has a specific job to do, and when it performs that role correctly, we call it "healthy." If it fails to do what it's supposed to do, we label it a "disease." But then again, maybe that's exactly what you meant when you mentioned our relationship to illness.

Yeah, I was trying to be brief, so I guess I ended up being vague...

I already wrote entire essays on Religion and I honestly don't have the energy to keep repeating myself. Should I really sit here and debate someone's anthropomorphic views of God (I almost lost it there)?

Anyway, it might make more sense to talk about this book instead...

copperhound12 said:A brilliant (and quite eye-opening) book: "What We Believe, We Who Don't Believe in God"

I don't feel any kind of hostility toward God. I'm a pantheist. ☕

If anyone's read it, let me know which ones... there are a few people sharing their stories at this link.
“WHAT WE BELIEVE, WE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD” – STATEMENTS FROM FAMOUS AMERICAN ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS

First impression? These aren't just mindless ramblings.
Even if these 7 or 8 didn't blow my mind with anything groundbreaking, they at least have a personal touch—which is pretty decent, especially considering a book on this topic even exists.

Nathan Doyle said:🤣 bluepuma9 and Nicole James pretty much covered it all. I mean, obviously... 😁

The thing is, morality doesn't actually come from God, it comes from people. Some folks are convinced it’s divine, but since God is just a human invention too, there's nothing supernatural about morality. It’s just this super natural thing for humans, something that inherently develops when we live together in a community—just a set of values and rules that lets us cooperate and live together somewhat peacefully. It's honestly pretty naive to claim religion is the source of morality when we know it existed thousands of years before any Abrahamic religions even showed up. Your religion is just a result of the morality that was already there being woven into it. It isn't the source.

"Personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want, but my personal set of values and principles for how I act is my morality. And it's definitely not insignificant to me. Did you ever take sociology in school? "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a collection of unwritten rules, folk customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." Notice how in the standard definition, God and faith aren't even mentioned.
Just one serious question: didn't you have moral principles back when you were an atheist?
And regarding being bold—you can debate everything—both the subjective and the objective.

I don't really need some grand saga about a fall from grace, hell, or heaven just to feel mentally stable or satisfied with my life. Honestly, if living without faith makes your life feel worthless, maybe you should just take a step back and ask yourself what's actually going on... like, try building a real connection with someone or finding a hobby that actually brings you joy... those delusions about God being the ultimate purpose probably aren't fooling anyone entirely, because deep down, that underlying unhappiness is still simmering...

And regarding the whole sickness thing—don't even try to pin that on me. Illness has absolutely nothing to do with morality. The way a living organism functions biologically is totally independent of how humans define right and wrong from a moral standpoint. If you want to debate the actual definition of disease, we should probably move this over to philosophy or the natural sciences...

Every moral system was created by humans, and only humans...

Of course it was intended. You've never seen Him, heard Him, or felt Him, and you never will. All you have is a heavily edited, expensive book and some guys in robes claiming He exists, even though they haven't seen or heard or felt anything either...

Is it easier for me to believe an expensive book, or would it be easier for an almighty being, if one actually existed, to just do that one little thing for me? It's a rhetorical question because the hypothetical situation is incredibly asymmetrical—He could do anything, while I physically can't damage my brain enough to accept the Bible as a credible source for anything. If an almighty being wanted us to know Him and respect Him, He would surely start by making His existence unmistakable. Since He hasn't, I conclude He doesn't exist, and I have zero intention of basing my one and only life on a book filled with questionable sources and repulsive content...

The evolution of altruism, empathy, and reciprocity in animals can lead to—and has led to—pre-moral feelings, but not actual morality.

Religion didn't just pop up in the human race alongside Abrahamic faiths; we can trace its roots back 50,000 to 60,000 years, all the way back to the first Neanderthal burials... sites where remains were laid to rest, sometimes even intentionally burned.

If religion and spirituality have such ancient roots, how can anyone be so sure which one is the cause and which is the effect?...

"My personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want, but my personal set of values and principles is my morality. And it matters to me personally. Did you ever take a sociology class? "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a set of unwritten rules, customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." Notice how the standard definition of morality doesn't mention God or faith at all.

I think that definition is incomplete.

One serious question: didn't you have moral principles when you were an atheist?

Since I used to be—if not an atheist, then pretty indifferent to religion—I'll answer as if it were directed at me...
I had moral principles, but I wasn't aware of their source, and they didn't carry nearly as much weight for me back then.

I don't need some story about a fall, hell, or heaven to stay mentally stable and happy.

This isn't the place to try and convince each other what's necessary and what isn't...

And that goes for your "recommendations" too...

If your life without faith isn't worth living, you'd better take a step back and ask yourself why. Build some decent relationships, find something that actually makes you happy... because those delusions about God being your "purpose" aren't fooling anyone—misery is still simmering underneath.

...which they’re totally missing because you’re acting like you can judge someone's "luck or misfortune" over the internet. Absurd.

Don't try to pin that crap on me regarding illness—seriously. Disease has absolutely zero to do with morality. A living organism functioning correctly has nothing to do with how humans perceive right or wrong from a moral standpoint. If you actually want to debate the precise definition of disease, let's move this over to philosophy or the hard sciences.

It’s not about whether sickness exists, it’s about how you react to it.

Every moral system was created by humans, and only humans.

That’s unprovable via naturalistic methodology, but it’s just as impossible to disprove... believers would say that during that whole process, man was being guided by the hand of God.

Of course it was designed. You’ve never seen Him, heard Him, or felt Him, and you never will. All you have is an overpriced, edited book and guys in robes claiming He exists—guys who also haven't seen, heard, or felt Him.

You can speak for yourself regarding what you see, hear, and feel... but don't speak for everyone else.

Is it easier for me to believe an expensive book, or would it be easier for an omnipotent being—if one existed—to perform that tiny little favor for me? It's a rhetorical question because that hypothetical scenario is infinitely asymmetrical—He could do anything, while I physically cannot damage my brain enough to take the Bible as a credible source for anything. If an omnipotent being wanted us to know Him and respect Him, He’d surely start by making His existence unmistakable. Since He hasn't, I conclude He doesn't exist, and I have no intention of basing my one and only life on a book with questionable sources and offensive content.

An omnipotent being obviously thinks it's better for you not to meet Him just yet... because you aren't ready.
Also, if God wanted people to be physical clones of vending machines or house pets instead of humans with free will, He would have made them that way. But He didn't...

You don't reach God through thinking—especially not by hunting for special effects (like, "make the stars form Your message and turn my hair green..." 🤣 )

...but through surrendering to Him.

Gerald Jackson48 said:Sure, in some kind of primitive way. We aren't talking about the modern scientific method that popped up later to shape everything we know today.

But honestly, that's beside the point. It’s not even a real debate when you consider that people have been looking at Bible stories as allegories for way longer than just the last 500 years.

Yeah, even St. Augustine warned his students about looking like total idiots in front of pagans by trying to defend the faith with absolute nonsense.

wiredfalcon2 said:Science was around long before the Bible ever existed.

Oh yeah? What kind of science—what actual methodology are we even talking about here?

wiredfalcon2 said:Just because you "had a run-in with some guy on a forum" or "lack the willpower" doesn't mean you actually went out there and proved anything. Your little claim that you've got "reason" and therefore know when something is a bible allegory doesn't answer a single real question. Like, why is something in the Bible an allegory? Why isn't something else? Why was something once seen as literal and now suddenly it's an allegory? Why would God even bother putting allegories in the Bible in the first place, and how does God feel about people who interpret those allegories differently? Of course you don't have answers to that. Honestly, how could you? There aren't any real answers to give because the Bible is just a deeply contradictory fairy tale, not proof that God exists. If anything, the proof is that God doesn't exist—at least not in any logically consistent way. So we're back to the original point: why do atheists care about God's judgment? It’s because you guys just refuse to look at the evidence before ignoring it. You skip the hard questions, pretend they don't exist, and then—suddenly—the stuff you can't escape from (the stuff actually written in the Bible) magically becomes an allegory. And when that doesn't work out, you hide behind this esoteric concept of "common sense" that doesn't even exist.

Look, let me show you how common sense actually works. Suppose you and I are living in a cabin in the woods, and at 2 AM, someone starts pounding on our door. Based on the sound, it sounds like an axe hitting wood. Is it common sense to let them into the house, or should we keep the door locked?

What counts as proof to you? Like, when is it sent, to whom, and what kind of evidence are we even talking about here?

Look, you don't have answers to those questions—and honestly, how could you? There aren't any real answers to find, because the Bible is just one big contradictory fairy tale, not proof that God exists.

He gave you an answer, but you clearly don't care... you've just shut your ears, your mind, and your soul.

Actually, the proof is that God doesn't exist—at least not in any logically consistent way. So we're back to the original question: why do atheists care about God's judgment of values? It's because you guys refuse to accept any evidence until you ignore it, skipping over questions or pretending they don't exist. Then, suddenly, when faced with stuff you can't run from (the actual text in the Bible), you arbitrarily hide behind allegories—and when that fails, you hide behind this fake "common sense" concept that doesn't even exist.

What kind of answer is that... besides, some atheists judge believers' values, and vice versa for that matter.
One side calls it evidence, the other side rejects it... ad infinitum.

So, if believers aren't responding to an "informative conversation"—at least not the way you think dialogue works—it’s no wonder.

Whether "common sense" is esoteric or not ("a bunch of biases picked up by age 18"), people use it. What's your alternative?

Hey, look—can I get a year-long ban? Please.

Best to everyone out there!

coastalorca19 said:Give a Nobel Prize to the Add to Ignore List function. 🙏 Since the mods won't deal with all the obnoxious, low-life comments, I'm just over it. I’m not usually one to report posts, but when people are allowed to troll, provoke, and insult everyone across basically every sub-forum—it makes me not even want to bother replying. I might pop into the Religion section a few times a year, but even then, it's just for a second. I know plenty of Reddit communities that went downhill for this exact reason. Honestly, the "ignore list" is a lifesaver, except for that one annoying issue where someone quotes the person you're trying to block.

That's pretty much my headspace too... sometimes I get pissed at myself for getting sucked into useless arguments, even if I do it less than I used to.
The thing is, an ignore list isn't a real fix—not when people can just quote the trolls anyway.

I'm not gonna sit here and say I love how Sam Alvarez4 writes, or anyone else's style for that matter, but what can you do? Like someone mentioned earlier, it's not like it's easy for the moderators either.

Nicholas Nguyen said:Guidelines?

Threads about terrorism or immigration have basically turned into places where they just slap a link to some current news story every once in a while.
Usually, the guy who posted it gets banned and the thread gets nuked.

If you dare comment on any of this stuff, you’re immediately labeled an Islamophobe, a racist, a fascist, or some extreme right-winger.

There—those are the "guidelines" to get you started.

Exactly—even trying to look at the actual causes behind terrorism isn't allowed and gets wiped out.
Look, we don't have to agree on the reasons, but this constant deleting of posts is what's actually worrying.

wearyowl29 said:"Anti" is really just a precursor, or maybe just another way of saying someone disagrees.

The antipod.

Too often, instead of actually building up community values, people just burn themselves out attacking some imaginary "antipod"—whether it's through endless verbal fights or things escalating physically.

Maybe it's not a huge deal right now, but in a different social climate? It could definitely become one.

wearyowl29 said:If someone’s entire emotional stability collapses just because they hold an atheist worldview—and they're actually asking to have their page deleted over it—then there is clearly something fundamentally broken in how they process reality.

Look, you can absolutely have your own opinions, but you should still show some respect for the host's traditions... it's basic manners when you're a guest in someone else's home.

Joseph Bailey41 said:I actually think there's a pretty simple rule we can follow: if a certain Facebook page starts "offending your feelings," just unfollow them and call it a day.

When I'm talking to real, living people face-to-face, I can usually gauge when a comment might sting someone, so I tend to just keep it to myself. It's much harder to read the room in a digital space, so I don't even bother trying. No one is obligated to read my posts—unless, of course, they have a specific hobby of feeling insulted. ☕

I'm with you on that—honestly, I don't see what the big deal is.

The real issue here is this whole "safe space" subculture—it’s a bubble. Once they step out into RL, it becomes painfully obvious that these people have zero clue how to handle any opinion that isn't just an outright insult to "the other side."

I’m talking about anti-theists (not just plain old atheists!) and religious fundamentalists—the whole anti-atheist crowd—when they start barking about religion. But honestly? It applies to any group claiming to be the "enlightened vanguard"—whether they’re those zealots who won't budge an inch on their dogma, or the crazies chaining themselves to trees to stop a construction crew.
Honestly, I feel like any worldview or ideology that just lives off being "anti-" something eventually hits a wall—it just turns hollow and completely useless over time.

Joseph Bailey41 said:The only way a believer can actually "defend" their faith—meaning their underlying philosophical stance—is through the way they live their life.

It’s all just part of the mechanism. Identifying your entire ego with some random ideology. What a joke. It’s a cluster of ideas, really. You start feeling like the ideology is actually you—part of your DNA—so when someone calls out your position, you take it as a personal hit. You snap back to defend yourself, but you're really just defending a bubble of thoughts that your ego decided to latch onto.

Why would an atheist's attitude and their critique of a massive set of ideas even bother someone who believes?
If faith is enough on its own, there’s really nothing left to defend.
Even a believer will feel bad for an atheist—not just because they're headed straight for Jesus's hell, but because they're missing out on all the good stuff that faith brings to a believer's life.

Why do believers lose their minds the second you poke fun at Jesus, God, the Bible, the Quran, Krishna, some guru, or Muhammad?

People really love tying their whole identity to an ideology—it’s all about the aesthetic and the ego, none of it actually being about what they believe.

We all have free will and the power to choose. Every "atheist" has the opportunity to learn about Christ and make a decision based on that knowledge. There is no such thing as a "hell," you're getting way too caught up in that concept.

It’s all just part of the mechanism. Identifying your entire ego with some random ideology. What a joke. It’s a cluster of ideas, really. You start feeling like the ideology is actually you—part of your DNA—so when someone calls out your position, you take it as a personal hit. You snap back to defend yourself, but you're really just defending a bubble of thoughts that your ego decided to latch onto.

Why would an atheist's attitude and their critique of a massive set of ideas even bother someone who believes?
If faith is enough on its own, there’s really nothing left to defend.
Even a believer will feel bad for an atheist—not just because they're headed straight for Jesus's hell, but because they're missing out on all the good stuff that faith brings to a believer's life.

Why do believers lose their minds the second you poke fun at Jesus, God, the Bible, the Quran, Krishna, some guru, or Muhammad?

People really love tying their whole identity to an ideology—it’s all about the aesthetic and the ego, none of it actually being about what they believe.
When someone insults your parents, don't you get angry?
☕
They aren't worth much, but I won't let anyone insult them. :saffron:

To be honest, I usually try to shut down any baseless insults, gossip, or bad-mouthing of others. Primarily because I don't think it's fair to talk down about someone who isn't there to defend themselves. Since God is defined as being omnipresent and all-powerful, He doesn't really need an advocate. ☕

They can't be "emotionally hurt." They just feel this sense of "righteous indignation" that helps them protect the achievements of civilization from anyone who follows a different deity. 😁

Actually, I think we're asking the wrong thing here. A much better question would be: "Why are atheists so obsessed with God and religion if, according to what they claim, He doesn't even exist?" It's funny, really—so many atheists these days spend a massive amount of time acting like they're the smartest people in the room. They tend to look down on anyone who believes, and then, get this, they expect everyone to treat their opinion as the absolute truth. Of course, a believer is going to get annoyed when someone acts like they're somehow superior or more enlightened than everyone else. In their eyes, being a believer makes you a primitive. Honestly, it usually just comes down to some deep-seated personal complexes.
It's because those topics just keep popping up everywhere. I honestly wish we could just have normal conversations without God and religion getting shoved into everything, but clearly, that's not happening.

It seems like everyone keeps asking me... 🕺
God doesn't need defending... but seriously, that’s not just a religious thing.

When you're visiting somewhere with different customs, you don't go around insulting the host's traditions—even if they seem weird to you. It's just basic decency and respect.
How easy that actually is to pull off? That's the real question, but... you gotta show some good faith.

Sure, public spaces today aren't as strictly divided as they used to be—and honestly, they shouldn't be—but still, it's not impossible to set some ground rules that everyone could live by.

wearyowl29 said:It’s just like those strict religious forums where they’ll ban you for even mentioning the word "cookies" in your very first post. They definitely lack that sense of community spirit.
Everyone gets what they want based on their own preferences.
Honestly, someone who is mentally stable isn't going to be crushed by a differing opinion. If they see something inappropriate, they can just react calmly without taking it personally or feeling wounded.

Honestly, I don't care about the whole "believer vs. non-believer" thing... what matters is whether this is a place meant for finding people who think exactly like you for some mutual support—which I get, regardless of who you are—or if it could eventually become a place where we actually talk to people with different views... people we don't see as a threat anymore... because we've finally moved past our own baggage.