Question about Christianity and Social Media

You were brought up atheist. (You have said so many times; it's no secret.)

You are an atheist. (You have said so many times; it's no secret.)

Did you arrive at that position by logic, or are you just following what you were brought up with?

Nope, Christian.
Watered down "Christmas Christian", were we only did the holidays, but that's most Americans.

When?

You have stated that your parents were atheists and, if I am not mistaken, that at least some of your grandparents were, too.

How does that count as "brought up Christian"?

Most US people were "brought up Christian" in that everything about American culture is ..., as Diacanu put it "watered down Christmas Christian".

Dad always was.
Ma got converted by Dawkins, and I nudged her in that direction.
When I was little, she dabbled in Mormonism, and stopped going when she realized how creepy they were.

My grandfather was atheist.
Was disappointed in Ma's Mormon phase.

Everyone else was Christmas-Christian, or rabbit's-foot Christian.

And that counts, or Christianity has to drastically lower its numbers.
All they really get to claim is the south.

So you "converted" your mother. You're as much a proselytizer as those hollerin' preachers going from car to car on the subway kneeling in the aisles and calling out people to "REPENT!"

Nope.
I aided in a journey she was already on.

That's okay, don't apologize though.

But you're still stumping for converts here. Good luck with that.

Nope.
I just dismantle the bad arguments.
It's a compulsion, like popping bubble wrap.
The sophistry has to go, just like those goddamned bubbles.

"Like" a compulsion? It is a compulsion with you. And you make the mistake so many atheists make of conflating religion with god. One of the most boring rationales on the planet is "Sooooo, you don't believe in religion. you're an atheist!"



Made any converts here yet?

Do you initiate these conversations?

I mean, ... I ask because people very often confront me about my beliefs or ..., rather, their assumption that I lack them. I never initiate a conversation regarding religion because I feel ... it's kinda like sex. It's personal. and unique to each individual. Although, sometimes, if some part of a discussion arises that I feel might be enhanced or my perspective might be better explained by some aspect of my belief, I'll bring it up.

But, the point of the question is, I find when someone initiates a conversation based on religion, it's usually to the end that they want me to see things their way.

Religion makes the God claim.
One can believe in a deistic God, but absent emotion, there's no compelling reason to use that hypothesis for first cause.
There was in the 18th century when Thomas Paine wrote his stuff, but then Darwin came along.

Not that I can remember in a long time.

I used to in 07-12 when I first got into Dawkins.
I've calmed down since then.
garamet can't get over it, and still thinks I'm that version of myself.
Whatever.
I can only keep telling the truth, whether she chooses to believe it or not.

We all grow and mature at different rates. I used to be militant feminist. But, now ... make a sexist comment and I'll just ... continue with the conversation as if nothing untoward was said.

But God doesn't make the religion claim is all I'm saying.

And don't characterize me as "not getting over it." Yes, you have calmed down somewhat. But you still feel a compulsion (your word, not mine) to shoehorn your belief system into every conversation about other people's religions. You should change your username to Oliver Wendell Jones.

When religion gets out of politics, I'll leave it be.
Notice I never go after Wicca?
Wiccans mind their own damned business.

If, as you said, were born in a "Christian" environment, you would be a Christian, then why are you not a Christian? Doesn't that invalidate you original statement?

My standard for proof of God isn't Async's.
He thinks you can talk a thing into existing.
I insist on CSI level proof.

Point taken.

There is a difference between being an atheist (even a militant atheist) and insisting laws not be based on a specific religion. So, in this, I suppose I would be like Diacanu is described as I don't let that shit slide, either.

Well, your version of it, anyway.

My understanding of that statement was not in the context of religion, just his views versus garamet's version of his views.

But, i could be way off.

All "truth" is subjective. Or in other words, what's true depends entirely on your frame of reference.

.... I'll give you that, but in this case only because it involves the perspectives of both people.

But, in reality ... truth is truth. and a lie will not become the truth despite someones perspective.

Exactly. The very notion that any finite species can have a complete understanding of an infinite universe is beyond laughable.

Gods are made in man's image, not the other way around.

To expound . . . Dickynoo thinks he's discerned the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything when in reality he's a flea on a speck of dust proclaiming that the speck is all that there is.

Which is why his "religion" is no different from anyone else's.

In that case, yes, I agree. But, as I said, I believe what you quoted was not about religion rather Diacanu's stance on religion. In that case, who he is now and how garamet perceives him - his truth is the truth

"Truth":

“A thousand years ago, everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, they knew the Earth was flat. Fifteen minutes ago, you knew we humans were alone on it. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.”

As I said, my understanding of Diacanu's statement was he was saying all he can do is continue to tell you the truth - that he has changed.

In that case, his truth is all that matters.