Locked-In Syndrome

Post Reply New Topic

What led me away from God was actually exactly the opposite. I felt guilty praying to God for things because I knew that I had way more in my life than most people could ever dream of having. It was obvious at the time that God would answer some prayers and not others, so I thought, "what makes me deserve to have my prayer answered?", what makes me so special?.....the answer was nothing. I would despise praying before a football game with the team because I thought that it was absolutely ridiculous, I mean after all, if God only answers some prayers, surely he would answer the prayer of a sick or starving child and not the prayer of a high school football team. A God who would help a football team or myself out when we had so much would be a strange God indeed. I began to look at all forms of prayer that were being done by those with so much, and decided that they were all wrong. I came to the conclusion that there are only some people in this world who have the "right" (as in their prayers should be answered, not that no one should pray) to pray. I was not one of these people, so I stopped praying.

So, after I stopped praying, there was no point to believe in God anymore. It just confused things without giving me the comfort of prayer. So I eventually began to replace that confusion with reason and the world became much clearer to me, and life started getting better as I was able to work on improving myself instead of working on figuring out how the world works. So, it was not entitlement of perfect health or life that led me away, it was the feeling that I had too much to ask for anything else.

I am not interested in trying to convert christians. And this thread here is not an attempt to convert any christians. Obviously the methods I use are quite ineffective at converting christians. If I wanted to convert christians, I would use different methods (I would use the same unethical manipulative methods that religious leaders use).

Are you implying that it is inappropriate for me to raise religious issues here? If so, I note that my message is posted within the forum area titled "Politics, Philosophy, and Religion". It specifically says Religion. Therefore my message here was posted in an appropriate place.

--------


I do not actually remember what messages you are referring to, but generally speaking, if I do not respond to a message directed at me, it is typically because I never read it, or never bothered to read it, or lost interest, or forgot about it, or something like that.

--------


I do NOT think churches should be burned.
I do NOT think religious people should be killed.
I do NOT think the christian bible should be burned (it should be preserved for historical purposes).
I do NOT think religious people should be denied a job because of their religion.

Firebombing rival churches is something that a religious person would do (religious people have done this sort of thing many times). Remember, I am NOT religious. Therefore I do NOT behave like a religious person, and do NOT seek the death of religious people.

--------


How about the current system and laws, but minus religion.

--------


Yes, "Ignorance is bliss", as they say


For the record, I am not an atheist. I am a most-likely-ist.

But you do have a problem with people's religious beliefs, which IMO is pathetic. If you don't believe in God, fine. Just don't shove your athiest beliefs down others throat.
For the record, you had better be right that God does not exist, otherwise a EMP bar-b-que afterlife would be quite deserving.

That is rich, coming from a religious person. Religious people are well known as the kings of shoving their beliefs down others throats, knocking on people's doors, trying to "save" them, going on Crusades, etc etc. In the past, it was literally, "Join us or we kill you". Fortunately, religious people do not have that kind of power anymore in civilized countries.

No one was forcing you to read this thread here. Reading it was your own choice. Take responsibility for your own actions. BTW, I am not an atheist. I am a most-likely-ist.

To everyone reading, notice how a religious person may have a tendency to accuse other people of his own flaws and behavior. This is a common tactic. That was a good example of it.

If you'd rather hear it from an atheist, I second what jaguars_fan said.

If who would rather hear what from an atheist ? I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your sentence seems to be incomprehensible.

My post makes sense to me, but I'll try to clarify it:

who = you
what = "Just don't shove your athiest beliefs down others throat."
atheist = me

I'm saying that jaguars_fan's viewpoint is shared by at least one atheist (me), therefore you cannot dismiss it as religious idiocy.

BTW, this would be more fun for all concerned if you tried to argue your point logically. I'm enjoying it anyway, but only in a perverse 'feeing the troll' sort of way.

Ah. Well, it cannot be said that I am shoving my atheist beliefs down anyones throats considering that I am not an atheist. You and jaguars_fan's seem to have missed that part. I do not have any atheist beliefs to shove down people's throats. Therefore it still does not make sense.

You might proceed to say that you do not want me shoving my beliefs down your throat, regardless of whether my beliefs are atheist or not -- whatever they are.
And then I would point out the perfectly valid point I already made and you have not disputed -- no-one is forcing you to read my messages. You are reading them by your own choice. Take responsibility for your own actions. Don't read my messages if you are uninterested in my opinions. It is as simple as that. Blaming me for your own decision to read my messages is laughable.

Last edited by emp on 07 Jul 2006, 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Substitute 'most-likely-ist' for 'atheist' then.

Freedom of religion being a basic human right, shoving any flavour of religious belief down people's throats is generally considered a bit rude.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a person expressing their opinion in an area dedicated to the same topic as that opinion, is somehow shoving belief down people's throats. That makes no sense!

Go on, have a look. We are currently in the "Politics, Philosophy, and Religion" area. I am merely doing what this area was created for: Discussing Politics, Philosophy, and Religion. Duh!

If you do not like reading people's opinions about religion, THEN DON'T READ THE RELIGION CATEGORY!! ! Sheesh. Talk about stating the obvious.

You use photos of terminally ill kids to make your point. Your posts come across as needlessly aggressive. You willfully misinterpret other people's opinions.

Keep going if you like, and I'll play along because I find it mildly entertaining. But let's not pretend it's anything other than trolling.

You see a thread title in the list. You see that the author is listed as "emp". By your own choice, by your own free will and without any coercion, you click on it and read it. YOU caused MY words to be transmitted to your computer by your own explicit action. I did not send them to you. I did not knock on your door or send you an email. YOU chose to retrieve my thread and read it. YOU chose to read my opinions.

Failure to take responsibility for your own actions is a sign of immaturity.

I take full responsibility for my actions - I'm reading and posting on this thread because I enjoy it, and because I have a troll-feeding compulsion. I'm not sure if it's an aspie trait, but reading nonsensical statements just makes me want to jump in and get involved.

Let's pretend you're not trolling, and you genuinely want to rationally discuss something. Do you feel that you're getting the sort of conversation you wanted? If not, what do you think the problem is?

I am not complaining. Are you complaining? You seem to be complaining, so perhaps your question is more appropriately asked of you than me.

Then let the fun continue!

How about this for starters: A couple of posts ago, you said that anyone who objects to your post is not taking responsibility for their actions. So are you saying that whoever starts a conversation is automatically above criticism? Does this apply to all conversations, or only online?

I did not say that.