Originally Posted by ditchmyster

I thought I could write some long *** posts, but I'm obviously an amateur.

I'm really glad I'm not inside your head because it must be frightening.

I suppose with all that lot bouncing around in there it's no wonder you're looking for salvation.

Originally Posted by hodgy0_2

Yes, there was a time when non-believers we burnt at the stake, and beived to be insane

But humanity moves forward, into the light

Hopefully my 100% rejection of the sovereignty of a non existent supernatural being is a small contribution to that progress

Originally Posted by JTaylor

A small child ought to be fearful of their father's anger when they rebel. A good parent presents their child with boundaries and the child ought to be aware that there are consequences should those boundaries be breached. The perfect parent will surely have this in their toolbox. Love has many faces.

Originally Posted by hodgy0_2

do you think you need help in understanding, that it is not normal to want to instil fear in someone you love?

Originally Posted by hodgy0_2

sorry, it is a really really simple question

and the answer is a binary yes or no

Originally Posted by JTaylor

Unpack this for me and I and others will critique it. I'll start you off: should people fear poisonous snakes or tall elevations or busy roads?

Originally Posted by Uncle Creepy

See post 302.

Originally Posted by hodgy0_2

it is a very very simple question

obviously you want to widen and conflate is to fear of snakes, fire etc - in essence to muddy the water - but presumably you don't love those things in the same way you love a fellow human being

is it normal to want to instil fear into someone you love

Originally Posted by hodgy0_2

do you think you need help in understanding, that it is not normal to want to instil fear in someone you love?

Originally Posted by JTaylor

A small child ought to be fearful of their father's anger when they rebel. A good parent presents their child with boundaries and the child ought to be aware that there are consequences should those boundaries be breached. The perfect parent will surely have this in their toolbox. Love has many faces.

Originally Posted by JTaylor

No? So if a child was about to run out in front of a car, would you shout at them to STOP! Tears would inevitably follow, at which point one would no doubt give them a reassuring hug.

Originally Posted by hodgy0_2

"love has many faces and one of them is fear"

sorry I reject that 100%

so in essence you think fear is part and parcel of love

Originally Posted by hodgy0_2

sure, I understand, it is sad that you think fear has any place when loving someone

I suspect deep down that is it at the heart of your issue

Originally Posted by Uncle Creepy

Yes, I find this startling, too. Quite recently I discovered somebody to be a religious nut whom I initially believed to be highly intelligent. I was a little shocked at first, and then felt quite disappointed, because I did respect him and his views on most things. But now I just can't take him seriously. It's a shame.

Originally Posted by Uncle Creepy

Yes, I find this startling, too. Quite recently I discovered somebody to be a religious nut whom I initially believed to be highly intelligent. I was a little shocked at first, and then felt quite disappointed, because I did respect him and his views on most things. But now I just can't take him seriously. It's a shame.

Originally Posted by Uncle Creepy

No, it doesn't. And, yes, they are.


The psychiatric definition of delusional: "maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness."


Based on this definition, please explain to me how JTaylor is not delusional.

Originally Posted by jonc

There are and have been many notable scientists who are/were religious, does that make their views any less respected?

Originally Posted by Uncle Creepy

Oh, I didn't realise I was obliged to reply to your posts, Mark. I didn't respond for several reasons. First, I thought you made some good, rational, well-constructed points, most of which I didn't particularly feel the urge to contest. I accept that religion has been so ingrained in society for so long that it's impossible to know if humanity today would hold the same morality, or even be recognisable as it is now, had religion never existed. Next, you didn't ask me any direct questions. There was one question but I interpreted it as rhetorical. Finally, the thread moved on to a different sub-topic - specifically, Maz stated that Hitler was Catholic in response to your argument that the *****/WWII was not motivated by religion.


Regarding my "rigid views about people who hold religious beliefs", I firmly believe 'each to their own'; I've stated this twice already earlier on this thread. I would never broach the subject of religion or religious beliefs with anybody, even a friend, as what people want to believe privately is up to them. Unfortunately, however, few religious people do hold their views just to themselves. A considerable number of believers preach, try to convert, and try to force their views on to others, whether overtly or implicitly, which I do not appreciate.


JTaylor is an example of this type. He knows the vast majority of snet members do not share his views, yet he started this thread, and I've read numerous other posts he's made about Christianity/spirituality/his journey/conversion. I've taken particular umbrage to some of his posts on this thread - I can't believe he hasn't faced far more criticism and hostility from others - as, frankly, he's made some outrageous statements. Without going back, reading them all again (once was bad enough!) and quoting them verbatim, in essence he's argued: society would be better if everybody used Christianity as a moral compass, and without it the world is doomed; an evil child killer can be forgiven and go to heaven as long as she accepts God just before she dies; non-believers, however good and moral a life they have lived, will go to hell; good parenting involves instilling fear into one's children; and probably other things I've forgotten. Furthermore, many of his posts contain the general undertone that Christians are superior and better people than those who don't believe in God. And finally, when he's asked a straight-forward question to something provocative that he's posted, more often than not he quotes or references a passage from the Bible, which is a blatant avoidance technique, not to mention a bit weird.


So ultimately, I would argue the views of somebody who uses a 2000-year-old book to determine what their opinion is on a plethora of current moral and social issues show far greater rigidity than those of somebody who thinks for himself and exercises free judgement.

Originally Posted by john banks

I hadn't realised how recently you'd converted JT. Do you mind me asking how old you were at the time? What challenges have you had to your faith since?