“humble brother” on The question here now here is:

then don’t look to religion, because there’s no god to connect to

and certainly the god of the christian bible is not one worthy of worship

being a genocidal, insecure, jealous, vindictive and petty deity who’s new testament reboot of promising that being his own offspring to be the last sacrifice to save humanity from god’s punishment of them…seriously….

and all those emotions that you feel in your head about god

are chemical and electrical washes in your brain that happen in times of stress and creativity

but because you have no clue about the human body

you can’t connect the physical and emotional sensations to your physical reality

in large part, because religion can trigger those washes by engaging you emotionally and making a false connection in your mind

between those very good feelings and the religion

when those very good feelings of being comforted and loved
of love radiating through your body and a clarity of vision and purpose

are actually generated in your mind

and religion has co-opted them and sold you a pack of incoherent easy to grasp by not thinking too hard and selling you a ready made universe to plug into and be manipulated by those who know the right tones and vibes to trigger those feelings.

and the reason that athiests can’t talk to beleivers

is because we know those same feelings as creativity and inspiration

and they’ve got nothing to do with anything outside of yourself

they are down to how robust and complex a thinker that you are

and inside a religionverse, you are not a thinker, you’re someone else’s plaything

but you can’t see outside of the religion enough to understand


humble brother wrote:
This has to be:
“I don’t believe anything without evidence”
Then they post another message:
“I believe no gods exist”
That’s the very definition of irrational thinking.
Many of these funny atheists also say:
“Nonexistence of evidence is evidence of nonexistence”
Can you believe these yahoos? πŸ˜‰

The reason that these statements appear contradictory
is because you don’t understand what they actually mean

because you do not understand naturalism or the study of nature, which is science

Statement: “I don’t beleive things without evidence”

This does not mean that I have to personally evaluate or experience or understand – this is an incorrect literal interpretation – and only literally interpreting text means that you are not only missing the subtext, nuances and meaning, but you are not understanding what’s being communicated at all. Nothing is only what it appears to be.

In naturalism, belief is used to describe the moment that they accept the premise without further evaluation. Okay, proved as much as it can be, next steps and build to the next belief from there – and all the beliefs and proofs are peer reviewed, debated, evaluated and eventually, the bad beliefs are proven faulty and the good beliefs are rolled up into a Scientific Theory.

Because while it’s true – Evolution is just a theory – but that also means, religion is just an opinion – because there is no corroborating evidence to support any of the significant claims of any religion that involves deities doing anything.

That the stories told to explain the religion or the events they claim as being relevant to the religion – are no different from Sex in the City – that New York is a real place and some of the locations were real locations that even involved real people who are in the real life real locations – doesn’t mean that Carrie Bradshaw and her friends are real – or even realistic.

Forest Gump – with all it’s incorporated newsreel footage should have made people come to that understanding – a story about real things involving characters who are dubious – aren’t true stories – they are fables and parables, passion plays – they are a means of conveying truth without being truth.

And the problem of reading religious texts as literal isn’t the religious text – it’sΒ  reading any writing of any kind as literal.

People think of literacy as being able to read. That’s only stage one.

Being able to read just means you aren’t illiterate – it doesn’t make you a literary reader – because that’s about comprehension.

If you read only for the literal meaning of any writing, then you can read it but you have no understanding of it – because you are not a reader, you are just reading.

And you don’t have to be an expert, you just have to be familiar with literature and the forms of artistic expression – something that people who only beleive in one book can’t understand because they haven’t read enough other books to see the literary aspects of their bible – especially the King James version – the most poetic book ever written by a committee – but, this being the source, it’s only as good as a committee without the original authors could make it.

To a naturalist, to beleive something means accepting a premise that has been arrived at over time, and revealed through the collective and cooperative work of many people who have made logical and intuitive leaps arising from their robust and complex understanding of the work.

To beleive isn’t an acceptance without question, but to come to understand potential, probability, random chance and verified foundations that have withstood the test of human knowledge – which is why science changes over time – because it’s a process of incorporating new information and ideas.

Whereas, religion is handed down complete and unchanged – except for fits and starts where it had to change to remain in the world, instead of consigned to the mythology section of the book store.

“I beleive no gods exist”

That is a leap, not of faith, but a statement of credibility and logic.

It’s not an emotional beleive that is felt because belief in a god or gods is an emotional belief that is satisfying and makes you feel comforted and connected

There is no emotional content in the statement that no gods exist, it is a logical and intellectual position that means

many have claimed a god or gods, but none have proven or provided any evidence – thus, there are no premises, evidence, work that has been presented that is verifiable.

religion is not a theory, it’s a hypothesis – and not even a good guess based on wishful and magical thinking and without substance – it is pure emotion and emotion alone.

instead, people through the ages have tried to sort out how to make the world a better place and how to communicate those ideas – and not knowing or understanding the human body

opened themselves up to experiences – often drug related – and felt things and the way that their personal expereinced felt could only be interpreted through what they beleived about the world

so the washes of love and comfort where mis-interpreted as gifts from the gods and the person went out in the world and figured out how to make others feel the same way – and that feeling became the basis by which converts were made and some people who got into religion, saw the potential for wealth and power and that was the end of the goodness of religion.

“Nonexistence of evidence is evidence of nonexistence”

When there is no evidence, there is no trail to follow to discovery and understanding

because you say there’s a god and I say there’s an invisible pink unicorn who farts rainbows that cause all those same good feelings that you get from your god

so – it all comes down to your personal experience

I have as much proof for my rainbow farting invisible pink unicorn

as you do for your god

and in person, I can trigger in your brain all the same good feelings that you get from church

so prove that your god is real and my unicorn isn’t.

and you can’t, because all you can talk about is your experience of your religion and why it seems real to you

and I can talk about the human brain and explain all those feelings that you feel without reverting to goddidit

Changing the Conversation

On the topix forum, a poster called “humble brother” that I have been engaging off and on for a couple of years, so I know that he never changes his tune posted something a little new that I could see was maybe starting to gel or maybe he was just in thrall to his own ideas – but I decided to see if I could open up a new conversation that wasn’t the theist-atheist circular debate:

You just refuse to comprehend πŸ™‚ that’s so funny.
It is rational to not believe in something if there’s no evidence.
It is irrational to believe in something if there’s no evidence.
Isn’t this the whole basis for atheistic thinking???
Or is it rational to believe in something you don’t even understand if there’s no evidence???
Could you give a yes/no answer to the last question please.

My response was:

Same back to you and it’s not funny, it’s sad

it is rational to not accept claims lacking in evidence (atheism)

it is irrational to accept or beleive a claim lacking evidence (theism)

yes, as I have written it without word games, this is the basis and sum total of what atheism is

so, if you want to find out what we are in our world – naturalists – then we have to change the conversation from what we aren’t – theists – to what we are – naturalists

but you have demonstrated over and over that your theism has prevented you from gaining any capacity to navigate or understand the natural world and that leaves you with one discussion note

“beleive me”

and we say “no”

and then the conversation repeats, because you are not capable of having a meaningful discussion or exchange of views and experiences because nothing you are talking about resonates with us and nothing we say can resonates with you

and you just keep wanting to let your love light shine because you don’t understand that everyone feels that love light and there’s simply nothing divine about it

it’s all inside of you waiting to be expressed but the method that you are choosing to express it in is not shiny and loving to us – it’s black hearted cruel and evil

so we are literally not talking about the same religion

because your religion is not the christianity that’s out there in the world

your religion is the nice loving one in your head

and you can’t sell what’s in your head without understanding

how people have experienced Christianity

and when you assert that Christians are moral and loving

you beleive that because that’s your expereince

and you are mistakenly assuming that your experience is everyone else’s experience and that is simply not the case

but you won’t listen to the real harms that your religion has done to society and to individuals

instead you act as if the only true christian is you and why should you be tarred and feathered with the same brush as the lesser christians

but you are acting the same – telling us that you have all the answers

without any understanding of us as people or any understanding of our experiences and no understanding of the shared experience that Christianity has done to non-christians

you are not a messenger with a love message

you are a jack booted thug from a global organization that has a history of genociding inconvenient populations, murdering individuals who would have advanced our understanding of the universe because their ideas didn’t feed or support the religion of the day and holding back social progress and limiting our freedom to take liberties with whatever makes us happy – which is what America was meant to do.

Religion is off message because it’s not about people understanding the world and how to be in it

Religion says this is the way to be, so obey or suffer.

and when we don’t obey, we suffer in spades – as history demonstrates, over and over

so, we don’t need your abusive, authoritarian, control freak, domineering love that doesn’t bother to take into account any part of our person or experience in the world.

If you want religion to positively emotionally resonant with people, then you have to understand how it resonates with people in their experience and not dismiss their experience as not true christianity.

because the only true christianity seems to be in people’s heads and that’s a very different Christianity that the one we’ve all experienced in the world.

Any religion or philosophy can claim to be about whatever it likes – but in the marketplace of ideas – it’s all about the execution – what have you actually done in the world?

When you understand what religion has done in the world, then you’ll understand why there’s no sale, why religious numbers are shrinking, why people are drifting from one religion to another until finally they exhaust the options and just give up on the whole thing.

Those are the people that apologetics are aimed at – getting unchurched back into the fold.

Not people like me who are naturalists, who accept that the universe is natural and that through the study of nature – we will eventually learn more and more wonderous things about the unverse – and who knows what we can discover?

But, religion is a force of status quo, change resistant, and fear – fear driven acquisition while the acquisition is possible and without much thought for those who will come after because hey, god sorts out everything, right?

If anything, religion and politics – as soon as someone thinks they are are a divine mission or are a divinity themselves – how many more genocides of population groups do we need before we put a test of religion as a checkpoint on the road to office?

A test of a person to demonstrate that they are a socially capable person who, if religious, knows that their religion is a personal and private matter – with no place other than the most general of terms – that is, limited to being an inspiration for our best behaviour and consideration of our fellow humans – in public life.

We cannot manage the complexity of the world if we beleive that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that it’s ours to do with what we want because it’s just a dress rehearsal for the afterlife, where god has everything sorted out in a simple reduction of good people vs evil people.

Because life is just not that simple or reducible to black and white. There’s a lot of shades of grey and colours in the rainbow – there’s a lot of different people with different traditions and interactions and the plethora of all these people does demonstrate that as much as we have in common, there’s infinite diversity in infinite combinations – that’s the strength of us as a species – adaptation.

The only thing that conformity across a population benefits is viruses and parasites. Conformity does not serve humanity, because it’s our diversity that is our strength and our way forward, into the future.